Relative to the other issues, the pet dogs seem about as important as what the democrats had for lunch.
Printable View
Relative to the other issues, the pet dogs seem about as important as what the democrats had for lunch.
The canine comfort companions seem about as important as which apparatchik passed a note in study hall about who said what to who, and then set the media to vaporing away about bombshells and walls closing in. Let’s hear some of the good stuff they’ve been leaking about from the double secret hearings under the cone of silence. Otherwise isn’t it just so much political theater?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I suspect the Republicans, most of but not all of whom seem to think making a coherent defense is unnecessary, will retaliate by holding lengthy Senate hearings when various Democratic candidates would prefer to be campaigning. This whole thing doesn’t strike me as a pivotal moment in history.
Regardless of the so called pre-determined outcome that a Senate vote may hold, I think the public needs to know the facts that are being presented. Otherwise the president or his minions will continue obfuscate the information, intimidate witnesses, and do the same thing again with different circumstances. I don't think the impeachment process is so important as a legal proceeding, but what ever is being presented needs to be a consideration in the next election. It would be interesting if Giuliani or Perry or Pompao or who ever was involved in the secret side channels were allowed to testify. Like other instances like Donald's taxes one has to wonder what he is hiding.
I guess my snarky answer was more on the money then.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I think that's the point, removing the President from office through impeachment is not the goal, it's influencing the public ahead of the next election. I can't decide whether or not it hurts or enhances his chances at re-election but I'm pretty certain its setting a dangerous precedent for future office holders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Indeed. Lets get Mulvaney and Pompeo and Gates to testify. Obviously that isn't going to happen if trump can at all help it because it would lay waste to the smear campaign defense that republicans are currently using to defend the indefensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
If setting as precedent the idea that a president can withhold duly appropriated aid to an ally based on his desire to influence his upcoming reelection is not a pivotal moment in history I don't know what is.
Absolutely. Just imagine what an actual intelligent president would be able to do to influence his or her reelection chances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Suspending aid previously authorized by Congress is hardly unprecedented. Obama suspended aid to Egypt ( for real, not hinted at) and nobody proclaimed a constitutional crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Nor was it considered particularly troublesome for the Obama administration to fund an anti-Netanyahu campaign in 2015. Using government funding to influence elections seems to have a long and illustrious history. It's our approval that seems to be conditional, and in this case it seems to be conditioned on the prospect of removing a duly elected President from office after other efforts failed to gain traction.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
And maybe they already have. Watching the hearing today and Adam Schiff refuses to allow the ranking member to yield his time to her for questioning, making the 5th time so far she, as a duly elected member of Congress, has been forbidden to speak. I'm not sure if they're afraid of her effectiveness or maybe they're annoyed because she may have said "OK Boomer" to the committee chairman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I've found watching the hearings to be very informative. I've always thought the city, Kiev, was pronounced Key-ev but now know that it's properly pronounced Keeve. I hope I'm not the only one who didn't know that.
If you can’t see the difference between why obama suspended that aid and why trump suspended the ukraine aid then future conversation on this topic is pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Because attributed motives trump actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I didn’t know that either. So I embarrassed myself every time I ordered Chicken Kiev the same way I did so over Peking Duck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
After a little research, I believe you're probably safe on the Chicken Kiev since the difference between pronunciations is based on either a Russian or Ukranian dialect. The Peking Duck is probably the bigger issue in that Beijing is the current politically correct way to pronounce the European Colonial word Peking, although I have no idea what effect it may have on the taste of a duck.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Do you actually believe that trump’s actions regarding ukraine were motivated for different reasons than what everyone, including mick mulvaney, has said?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
What I believe is that attempting to punish the motivation rather than the act is where the rule of law dissolves into mob mentality. Every recent president has used aid to leverage recipients. ThatÂ’s partly what itÂ’s there for. Every recent president has dispensed funds consistent with agendas of their own without regard to congressional intent. Some have even boasted about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I think what we are seeing now is more emotional catharsis than forensic process. More frantic style than substance. From the beginning, TrumpÂ’s election under rules aimed at mitigating a tyrannical majority has been a source of cognitive dissonance and emotional pain for many who need to believe in their intellectual and moral superiority. Three years of secreting angry political pheromones has primed them for something, anything to make their world make sense again.
Russian conspiracy theories failed. The field of candidates for next year has yielded no clear champion to slay the beast. That great mass of rage has to go somewhere, so it focused on one nasty if fairly common piece of diplomatic sausage-making for an outlet. With virtually no hope of succeeding in the constitutional purpose of the process, all the sound and fury amounts to little more than primal scream therapy.
So a president using the power of his office for direct personal gain is ok?
You will never change the mind of the Forever Trumpers.
Wow. Just - wow. You truly believe that it is fine for a president to collude with a foreign government to further his chances for re-election? You're ok with that? that motive has no place in any investigative process? You're happy to turn a blind eye to the large amount of factual evidence (unmanufactured by faux-news or white supremacists, etc...) that Russia did indeed interfere in our election process, and is likely to do so again? You're pleased to have a commander in chief who sucks up to tyrants and praises them and their governments? The hypocrisy of many of today's right-leaning "Patriots" and "Christians" is, frankly, stomach-turning.
you dont read much around here, eh? LDahl is a prime representation of a Never Trumper. I think his words have great value for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
But to answer jp’s question, NO, the Prez may not use my resources for personal gain. I am the one who owns all of those goodies called “foreign aid” not him.
On some other thread a while back I had commented that after we get that s***stain out of the oval office democrats will need to codify into law many of the things that were just considered political norms before. I didn't think we would need to include making it illegal for the president to extort a foreign ally to obtain political gain, but here we are.
What does LDAHL have to do with my comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Which is what makes his statement all the more shocking. I get it that the forever trumpers of the world will keep moving the goalposts of what is deserving of impeachment/removal as the facts come out and make goalpost movement necessary. But I had hoped rational republicans would actually care that a president should act with at least a vague sense of integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Specifically then, who are you referring to in your Forever Trumper comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
And there you go, wanting to “codify “integrity with laws. good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I think many never Trumpers are happy with much of Trump's actions. And they also know that an impeachment that actually held the Prez accountable would damage Repubs across the board. So they toe the line, defending and deflecting for Trump, but in the background they have a low level disdain for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Then why do we punish those who are armed when contemplating doing dastardly acts.... such as school shootings where they have not yet shot anyone? Just an example of punishing for motivation. The president admitted on tv in front of the world that he is guilty of such.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
No. But it is a common enough practice that I don’t see it rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I think that there is a strong sense in which almost everything a president does is with an eye to personal gain. Did Obama push DACA out of kind regard for illegal immigrants or because it would play well with Hispanic voters? Did Trump push for a corruption investigation to resume because he thought Biden might become an electoral threat or because combating corruption was an ongoing policy? While I grant you Trump’s case is especially brazen, I think prosecuting motivations and character is more appropriate through an election process than a legal one.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Can’t I have as little use for Trump abusing his office for political gain as I do House Democrats abusing theirs for political gain?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
LOLOL. You had me believing you were serious until this sentence. Thanks for the best belly laugh I've had in days.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
As did Joe Biden. I think when we become so selective in our outrage we ultimately erode respect for the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
But on the off chance that the rest of your post was serious, if you don't see a difference between doing something positive to court voters and attempting to extort a foreign country into opening a sham investigation then I stick by my belief that republicans lack a moral compass.
I find it incredible how people are now living in very different factual universes.
Get a room, bae.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
You're using that wrong, troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
I dont see when would be school shooters have been “punished “ for thought crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Bad actors with access to guns might be hauled into law enforcement offices to talk to police, they might be hauled into school guidance counselor’s offices to talk to school personnel, they might be flagged for their parents to know their thoughts. I don’t consider that “punishment. “
Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?
Thanks for your input, bae. It is always appreciated!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
One thing I don't get, beyond even Trump, is the effort to out the whistle blower. It was brought up several times in the impeachment hearings. After Donald himself implied he/she was guilty of treason, punishable by death, and another time something along the lines that in other times he/she/them would be executed. First of all, all that he/she/they have said has been collaborated, secondly it would seem illegal under whistle blower protection, but most importantly I can only imagine the danger it would pose to the whistle blower and family(s).
I can almost see a stronger case for witness intimidation and obstruction of justice over abuse of power. His tweet in the middle of the last testimony was downright shameful if not illegal.
The whistle blower has done his/her job. It's not up to him/her to provide backup to the investigators. There's plenty of corroborating evidence without exposing him/her to the real dangers (death penalty, Trump, really?) inherent in being outed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I think the request to interview the whistleblower comes from the desire to see how much involvement Mr Schiff's office had in identifying and encouraging a person willing to initiate an official inquiry based upon things they heard from a friend who heard from a friend, for the continuing purpose of invalidating an election.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
All they needed was someone willing to say they heard something through the grapevine and then they could manipulate public opinion through a willing press and a large percentage of the population willing to believe gossip as proof. Public opinion is not enough to secure a victory in the impeachment process but it will be invaluable in the next election. That is the point. The question is will it succeed?
Edited to add: I see the Washington Post has gotten ahead of this question by publishing a whistleblower timeline detailing his/her thought processes, motivations, conversations with friends and steps taken to complete the process of blowing the whistle. It occurs to me that if the whistleblower has provided interviews to the press, he/she should also be available for questioning under oath.
Unfortunately, the story I linked is behind a paywall and I could only read another sources highlights.