╌>

Senate GOP Weighs New Impeachment Defense of Trump: Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Happened, But No ‘Corrupt Intent’

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  5 years ago  •  491 comments

Senate GOP Weighs New Impeachment Defense of Trump: Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Happened, But No ‘Corrupt Intent’
acknowledging that the White House did try to force a quid pro quo on Ukraine, but that it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment because Trump did so without “corrupt intent.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Senate Republicans are reportedly mulling a new impeachment defense — one that would break with the claims of its own defendant, President  Donald Trump —  by acknowledging that the White House did try to force a quid pro quo on Ukraine, but that it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment because Trump did so without “corrupt intent.”

According to a  Washington Post  report , Republican senators like  Ted Cruz  and  John Kennedy  discussed at a recent closed-door lunch consolidating around an argument that aligns very closely with the testimony of to Trump NSC official  Tim Morrison . On Thursday, Morrison corroborated pervious testimony of White House officials who linked the release of military aid to the launching investigations into Democrats by Ukraine, but he also claimed that he felt that the action wasn’t illegal.


“Inside the lunch, Sen.  Ted Cruz  (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is ‘corrupt intent,'” the  Post  reports.



“To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Louisiana Republican Sen. Kennedy, told the  Post . “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. … Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”


This latest possible turn in messaging from the president’s party highlights the difficult position the House Democrats’ impeachment hearings have put Republicans in. After Trump and other Congressional Republicans rallied around a “no quid pro quo” defense when the July 25 call summary was released, subsequent impeachment testimony by Trump White House officials has repeatedly undermined that claim.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    5 years ago

This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 years ago
This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing. 

Ah! I see now. It is the Hillary defense!

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
1.2  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 years ago

The genius didn't know what he was doing?  jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 years ago

Everything Trump has ever done in his life has been corrupt. His daddy taught him.

And then his daddy shipped him off to military school where he was a bully. 

He remains a bully. He is fat and ugly. He is stupid and ignorant.

If I had an incurable fatal disease I would ………………………………………...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 years ago
This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing.

Wow, an honest defense from the Republicans?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 years ago

Well, he is too stupid to know, but it is no excuse.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.2  Ozzwald  replied to    5 years ago

Wally, you do understand that Ukraine was never investigating Hunter Biden.....don't you???

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.5.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.2    5 years ago

Faux 'news' has stories all over the place about this investigation that never happened and the tRump trolls believe it like gospel.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.4  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.2    5 years ago
Wally, you do understand that Ukraine was never investigating Hunter Biden.....don't you???

Were they investigating Burisma Holdings Ltd, before "Vice President" Joe Biden did his proudly announced "Prid Quo Pro" ?

Seems...once the investigation was "Mob Like" discontinued.....Little "Sleepy Joe" got involved and sat on the "Board of Burisma Holdings Ltd." (He Admitted he knew nothing about what he was supposed to do). Nothing like getting rid of an investigation on a "Corrupt" company, so Little "Sleepy Joe" can make 10's of thousands a month....huh.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.5  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.4    5 years ago
Were they investigating Burisma Holdings Ltd, before "Vice President" Joe Biden did his proudly announced "Prid Quo Pro" ?

AND back before they ever hired Hunter Biden?  Yes.

Nothing like getting rid of an investigation on a "Corrupt" company, so Little "Sleepy Joe" can make 10's of thousands a month....huh.

History is your friend, if you'd bother looking it up. 

After getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired, the replacement reopened the Burisma investigation that the fired prosecutor refused to look into.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.6  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.5    5 years ago

Isn't it great that "Sleepy Joe" got rid of any investigation into Burisma Holdings Ltd, by using "Prid Quo Pro", and then his "Sleepy I don't know anything about Energy Son" was able to step in and be on the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd, so he can make 10's of thousands of dollars every month, for "Knowing Nothing" about the business ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.7  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.6    5 years ago
Isn't it great that "Sleepy Joe" got rid of any investigation into Burisma Holdings Ltd, by using "Prid Quo Pro"

You mean an investigation that wasn't being investigated?  I hope you have a good chiropractor, the amount of twisting you are doing is going to throw something out.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.8  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.7    5 years ago
You mean an investigation that wasn't being investigated?

So "Sleepy Smurf" was doing his "Prid Quo Pro" thingy over "Nothing" ?

 I hope you have a good chiropractor, the amount of twisting you are doing is going to throw something out.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.9  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.8    5 years ago
So "Sleepy Smurf" was doing his "Prid Quo Pro" thingy over "Nothing" ?

Why do you ignore everything that has been written about this???

Biden's Quid Pro Quo was BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION!  His actions were supported by multiple countries, not for personal reasons.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.10  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.9    5 years ago

If you've been paying attention at all these days ….. Anything "Quid Pro Quo".... is just BAD and worth getting rid of "THE" person !

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.11  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.10    5 years ago
If you've been paying attention at all these days ….. Anything "Quid Pro Quo".... is just BAD and worth getting rid of "THE" person !

Ahhh, another worthless opinion...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.5.12  CB  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.10    5 years ago

LInk please!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.13  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.11    5 years ago
Ahhh, another worthless opinion..

Great response ! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

Sooooo…."Quid Pro Quo" ISN'T really a Bad thing ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.14  It Is ME  replied to  CB @1.5.12    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.15  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.11    5 years ago
Ahhh, another worthless opinion...

In whose "Wonderful" mind ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.16  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.14    5 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.17  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.13    5 years ago
Sooooo…."Quid Pro Quo" ISN'T really a Bad thing ?

"Quid Pro Quo" is a THING a tool, nothing more.  How it is used is what determines if it is good or bad.  You know, like guns.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.18  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.17    5 years ago
How it is used is what determines if it is good or bad.

And whom is it that "Determines that ?

The  coup d'état folks ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.19  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.16    5 years ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.20  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.18    5 years ago
And whom is it that "Determines that ?

Dude, you can't be that ignorant of American legal processes, I can only assume you are just trying to distract and deflect from the facts of the matter.

The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.  Again, just like guns.

Can you shoot a gun at a target?  Yes, that is legal.

Can you shoot a gun at a random person?  No, that would be illegal.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.21  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.20    5 years ago
The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.

Recycled from comment 1.5.20  Ozzwald...…. "Dude, you can't be that ignorant."

The "Law" determines nothing on utilization. A person or persons do. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

So again.…" Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.22  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.21    5 years ago
The "Law" determines nothing on utilization. A person or persons do.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.23  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.22    5 years ago

Maybe expanding a bit more would help you in looking better ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

The "Law" lives, breaths and takes folks to court ? jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.24  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.23    5 years ago
The "Law" lives, breaths and takes folks to court ?

You just keep digging, maybe you'll find your way to a country that'll make sense to you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.25  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.24    5 years ago

1.5.20  Ozzwald   - The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.

Maybe this will help ?

Only YOU - can determine how to utilize a Law.

utilize - [ˈyo͞odlˌīz]

VERB
make practical and effective use of.

The "Law" can't do that by itself. jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.26  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.25    5 years ago
Only YOU - can determine how to utilize a Law.

So now you are claiming that laws are optional?  That it is YOUR choice whether they apply to you or not? 

giphy.gif

"But your honor, I know that I pointed a gun at that man, and took all his money, but I chose NOT TO UTILIZE that armed robbery law at that time!"

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.27  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.26    5 years ago
So now you are claiming that laws are optional? 

I did ?

Where ?

Using your silly little gun thingy argument:

Do Guns shoot people, or do people USE guns to shoot people.

Just like:

Do the "Laws" convict people, or do people USE the "Law" to convict people.

Sooooo ..… Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.28  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.27    5 years ago
Using your silly little gun thingy argument:

You say that, then bring out an argument that has nothing to do with what I said.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.29  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.28    5 years ago
has nothing to do with what I said.

It sure did ! jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.30  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.29    5 years ago
Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

<sigh> You just don't understand how American law works.<sigh>

Okay, in your twisted version of justice, currently no one is determining if Trump broke the law, DOJ does not allow indictments of a sitting President, so no court of law at this time.  When he is no longer President, that will be different, I believe he is up for various crimes in the state of New York.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.31  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.30    5 years ago
currently no one is determining if Trump broke the law

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

So Schiff and his committee are just giving us "Enjoyment" by putting on a simple "Circus" ?

Trying to save yourself with ZERO ?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.32  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.31    5 years ago
So Schiff and his committee are just giving us "Enjoyment" by putting on a simple "Circus" ?

Okay, so in your mind, House committees are now courts of law??  Impeachment is a political action, not a judicial one.

You do understand the difference, don't you???

source.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.33  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.32    5 years ago
Okay, so in your mind, House committees are now courts of law??

Can they get the President of the United States (Commander and chief of this country) Impeached and out of office ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.34  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.33    5 years ago
Can they get the President of the United States (Commander and chief of this country) Impeached and out of office ?

Moving the goalpost???  You keep saying...

Again I'll ask …….  "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

Now that you have been shown the fallacy of your claim, you are trying to backtrack and change the claim that you have been repeating over and over?  

1keawu.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.35  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.34    5 years ago
Moving the goalpost??? 

Question remains the same:

 "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.5.36  cjcold  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.10    5 years ago

Yep. Time for Trump to be in prison.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.37  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.35    5 years ago
Question remains the same:  "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ?

And the answer remains the same.  There is no criminal trial, so no one is determining if Trump has broken the law.....yet.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
1.5.38  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.37    5 years ago
And the answer remains the same.  There is no criminal trial, so no one is determining if Trump has broken the law.....yet.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Were you in the "Matrix".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.5.39  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.38    5 years ago

Were you in the "Matrix".

Were you in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4  MrFrost    5 years ago

1) The call was perfect and beautiful.

2) The call was perfect and beautiful and Biden may have been brought up in the conversation.

3) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden.

4) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden but there was no quid pro quo.

5) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there may have bee a quid pro quo but it's not an impeachable crime.

What next?

6) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there was a quid pro quo and it's a crime but only on the 7th Thursday of each month when standing on one foot.

7) My impeachment was best, biggest and most beautiful in the history of the entire universe because, I think, I know more about impeachment than anyone.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @4    5 years ago
1) The call was perfect and beautiful.

2) The call was perfect and beautiful and Biden may have been brought up in the conversation.

3) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden.

4) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden but there was no quid pro quo.

5) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there may have bee a quid pro quo but it's not an impeachable crime.

What next?

6) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there was a quid pro quo and it's a crime but only on the 7th Thursday of each month when standing on one foot.

7) My impeachment was best, biggest and most beautiful in the history of the entire universe because, I think, I know more about impeachment than anyone.  

8) But Obama....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    5 years ago

9) But  Clinton . . . . 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    5 years ago
9) But  Clinton . . . . 

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif    jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    5 years ago

But James Madison....

But Lincoln....

As long as we are blaming, lets do it. ;)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.4    5 years ago
Let's talk about Biden. 

Deflection!  With cleavage........

giphy.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.5    5 years ago

Linda Carter was hot as hell.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.6    5 years ago

Linda Carter was hot as hell.

Off topic, but OHHHHH YEAHHHHHH!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.8  CB  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.6    5 years ago

Let me guess, my friend MrFrost. In a word: BOOBIES!!! (Smile.)

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2.10  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.7    5 years ago

She is still beautiful.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.9    5 years ago
You see Trump didn't hire some goon to make shit up, the Biden story is true and he did it all on his own.

Which Biden story?  The real one, or the made up tin foil hat loony bin right wingbat story?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.12  MrFrost  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.9    5 years ago
the Biden story is true

No, it really isn't. There is literally no proof of any wrongdoing AT ALL. Just another conspiracy theory thrown out there by trump. No different than him claiming windmills cause cancer. 

Biden was acting as a representative of the USA with international support in getting the prosecutor fired because said prosecutor refused to prosecute cases of corruption. Trump, on the other hand was acting in his own best interests to get help with his campaign. Nothing that would benefit the country. Now you can ignore all the other things that are wrong here but the fact that trump would use aid from another country for help winning a US election is likely one of the most unpatriotic things a president could do. Trump is always screaming about how patriotic he, American first, etc...but wants help from the Ukraine to win an election? 

Trump is a traitorous bottom feeding POS that could not care less about the USA, he is in this for himself. But Biden is the bad guy? You have got to be fucking kidding me. 

Oh yea, Hunter worked for a private company and was paid handsomely for it. If making money in a foreign country is illegal, all of trump's kids belong in prison. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.10    5 years ago

She is still beautiful.

Saw a picture of her about a year ago, yea, she still looks damn good. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.15  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.14    5 years ago

Your unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo are proof of nothing. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.15    5 years ago
Your unsubstantiated allegations

Unsubstantiated? Two allegations were listed. Both have been publicly substantiated for some time.

1. Joe admitting he with held a billion dollars of the tax payers money for Ukrainian until he fired the prosecutor
and this:
2. his son goes on Television and admits he wouldn't have gotten the jobs that he did if his last name wasn't Biden

HUNTER BIDEN ADMITS: ONLY GOT THESE POSITIONS BECAUSE MY DAD WAS VP

ABC News followed up: “If your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of Burisma?”  “I don’t know, I don’t know, probably not,” Biden admitted.

Two allegations. Substantiated. And now prepare for the spin, deflect, and deny in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . 

***

On a related note, just thought I'd acknowledge this creepy line from Hunter. Even better, there's a woman interviewing him:

“What I don’t have to do is sit here and open my kimono as to how it relates to how much money I make … or didn’t, but it’s all been reported.”

Open my kimono? Eewww. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.16    5 years ago
Both have been publicly substantiated for some time.

Biden wasn't talking about 1 Billion in 'tax payers money'. 

Biden was in Ukraine to solidify the US offer by the State Dept. of 1 Billion in LOAN GUARANTEES, which don't cost the US taxpayer a fucking dime unless and until Ukraine would default on those loans [which they did NOT]. We do the same for many countries we support, including Israel. 

The statement about Hunter Biden was undeniably innuendo. 

Next. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.18  CB  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.14    5 years ago

Actually, you deliberately misinterpreted Hunter Biden. What Biden said (paraphrased), 'I am sure I have gotten a lot of things because my last name is Biden.' The implication being that it is a given that one name, ;power, influence, and association, carries 'heft' and opens all kinds of doors in this world.

It's like asking a poor person, would they rather digs for roots and turnips as a living or get born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Which is better?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.17    5 years ago
And now prepare for the spin

And here we are:

Biden wasn't talking about 1 Billion in 'tax payers money'.

What do you think supports a loan guarantee? The Tooth Fairy? Good intentions?

which don't cost the US taxpayer a fucking dime unless and until Ukraine would default on those loans

Ahh! So we are talking about tax payer money. Thank you very much.

The statement about Hunter Biden was undeniably innuendo.

Undeniably even? It's clear you don't know what that means.

No, he actually said what Goose said he said. I'm not surprised you will deny the truth over and over and over and over and over again. Exactly as I predicted.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.19    5 years ago
Ahh! So we are talking about tax payer money. Thank you very much.

Gee Tacos!, over my years here earth, I had a co-signer on my first apartment lease [under 18] and co-signed many a loan [loan guarantee] for family and friends. Neither scenario cost one dime to either party.

In FACT, the whole concept of loan guarantees is that the co-signer is vouching for the other party and that they will NOT have to step in and cover the loan. It's not like the US put 1 billion aside for Ukraine, just in case. So just stop.

Undeniably even? It's clear you don't know what that means. No, he actually said what Goose said he said.

Innuendo. It's clear that you are desperate to try to deny that goose's comment did in fact make an allusion to something nefarious about Hunter Biden without citing an iota of evidence. 

I'm not surprised you will deny the truth over and over and over and over and over again. Exactly as I predicted.

I'm not surprised that you continue to make obtuse arguments. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.20    5 years ago
the whole concept of loan guarantees is that the co-signer is vouching for the other party

Not really. You make it sound like it's some kind of character review. Like someone is saying you're a good person. That's not what's happening. A loan guarantee means someone else is risking their money. When our government makes a loan guarantee, they aren't saying "Ukraine is good people." They are saying that the American taxpayers are committing their money.

Ultimately, it will be the American taxpayer who will be financially responsible. Ukraine can save us from that by making its payments, but if they fail - and they very well could - it's the American taxpayer on the hook. We have no control over whether or not Ukraine will make it's payments. That's up to them.

The fact that loan guarantees often work out just fine does not mean that Biden wasn't making promises with our money.

without citing an iota of evidence

Do you know what "iota" means? Do you know what "evidence" means? Do you remember when you were supplied with evidence supporting his comments? Because - as expected, and as per frickin' usual - you have ignored that evidence. It's amazing the pain of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause aneurysms in you.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.21    5 years ago
The fact that loan guarantees often work out just fine does not mean that Biden wasn't making promises with our money.

Why are you trying to pretend that Biden was acting unilaterally? How effective do you think that US loan guarantees would be if the IMF and the World Bank continued to refuse Ukraine loans to begin with? At the time, the EU was unwilling, for the most part, to invest in Ukraine because of the stalled Anti-corruption reforms. All of that is HISTORICAL FACT that can't be divorced from Biden's actions as VP at the time. Actions he took BTFW, for the benefit of BOTH Ukraine and the US. 

 Do you remember when you were supplied with evidence supporting his comments?

Which are evidence of NOTHING. 

Because - as expected, and as per frickin' usual - you have ignored that evidence.

I ignored the evidence of NOTHING. 

It's amazing the pain of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause aneurysms in you.

You obviously lack the understanding of the concept of cognitive dissonance. Go read this:

Hope it helps.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.22    5 years ago
Why are you trying to pretend that Biden was acting unilaterally?

, he asked, changing the subject and hoping no one would notice.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    5 years ago

It's the Clinton defense. Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal.  Once the Democrats  lowered the standards for Presidential conduct to make Presidential perjury acceptable  it's human nature that the lower standard  becomes the new normal. Republicans aren't going to hold Trump to a higher standard than Democrats did Clinton.  Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.

Get lost in the weeds all you want, but this is how its going to play out.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    5 years ago
Republicans aren't going to hold Trump to a higher standard than Democrats did Clinton.  Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.

When was Hillary President again? Oh, that's right, she's never been President and she certainly paid a price for the "wrong" things conservatives think she did with her server. So how is not impeaching a President who does wrong things in any way similar? How is anyone trying to hold Trump to a higher standard? He has no standards, and his fellow Republicans certainly aren't trying to hold him to even the standard most would hold for their 5 year old children. I guess some have so little moral fortitude that they allow their opponents to determine their own personal moral standards, "if Clinton committed a crime and got away with it, then by God our guy is going to do ten times as many crimes! Mwahahahaha!".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1    5 years ago
When was Hillary President again?

Uh, never. Which is why he probably used the word "HE".

Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal.  Once the Democrats  lowered the standards for Presidential conduct to make Presidential perjury acce
 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    5 years ago
Which is why he probably used the word "HE".

Bill Clinton was impeached. What he said was comparing it to "wrong, but not impeachable/removable" "just like it did for Democrats". So if we are comparing to Bill Clinton then impeachment is fitting, just like Republicans impeached him over lying about a blow job.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    5 years ago
Bill Clinton was impeached. What he said was comparing it to "wrong, but not impeachable/removable" "just like it did for Democrats". So if we are comparing to Bill Clinton then impeachment is fitting, just like Republicans impeached him over lying about a blow job.

Which is probably why he added that word "and" between impeachable and removable.

It's the Clinton defense. Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal.

And:

Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.
 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
5.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1    5 years ago

If impeachment involved a dem, the repubs would be all in favor for it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
5.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    5 years ago

A blow job by a POTUS was wrong, but Trump can butt f the entire country and his R lackeys are fine with it.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
6  PJ    5 years ago

What I struggle with and find so difficult is how so many have put their party before the country.  It's difficult to justify these ridiculous excuses that only weaken the country.  More and more patriots are refusing to work for the country while those who already have taken oaths are leaving service in key Agencies and Departments because the GOP and Trump's base have allowed them to be attacked and lives ruined all for the sake of protecting Donald Trump.  I am just so damn sad over this whole situation.  I never imagined so many would not care about right and wrong.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @6    5 years ago
so many have put their party before the country

While I agree that sometimes that happens, the Ukraine event is not an example of that. The country is just fine as a result of that incident. Or it would be, if the Democratic Party weren't scandalizing the event. Except for the awkwardness of impeachment drama, our relationship with Ukraine is just fine.

And as you ponder that, consider also this: It's putting party before country to seek the impeachment of a president who hasn't even taken office yet. It's also putting party before country to talk about impeachment with every act the president takes or word he speaks.

While some states will impeach a civil servant for being bad at his job or being a jerk, the founders considered and rejected that idea for the president. The standard remains high crimes and misdemeanors. That hasn't happened. So, there's plenty of "party before country" to go around.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5    5 years ago
Except for the awkwardness of impeachment drama, our relationship with Ukraine is just fine.

So you disagree with Mr. Morrison, Trump's NSC aid. Why? 

It's putting party before country to seek the impeachment of a president who hasn't even taken office yet.

When did that happen? Link? 

It's also putting party before country to talk about impeachment with every act the president takes or word he speaks.

Didn't happen is not happening now. 

The standard remains high crimes and misdemeanors. That hasn't happened. So, there's plenty of "party before country" to go around.

Abuse of power is a high crime. PERIOD, full stop. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.5.1    5 years ago
So you disagree with Mr. Morrison, Trump's NSC aid. Why? 

Believe what you like. The only Morrison I think about is Jim Morrison. I'm not agreeing with anybody. My opinion is my own. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks when reaching my own conclusion. I suggest you try it some time. 

When did that happen? Link?

Donald Trump was sworn in on 1/20/17 at 12 noon, Eastern Standard Time. Everything below was published before that or within the day. In some cases, it was months before. (and this list is the tip of a very large iceberg)

PETITION: IMPEACH DONALD J. TRUMP  - site up since 11/9/2016

IMPEACH TRUMP NOW - site up since 1/20/2017

Left Action: Impeach Donald Trump - site up since 1/5/2017

Senate Dems seek divestment blind trust for Trump's assets - 12/15/2016

Five Democratic senators on Thursday unveiled a bill they plan to release next month that would require Donald Trump to divest assets that risk a conflict of interest and place the proceeds in a blind trust as well as require his appointees to step aside from official decisions that could benefit him. The legislation previewed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also would symbolically deem any Trump violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules "a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution," according to a summary released by its sponsors.

DEMOCRATS ARE PAVING THE WAY TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP - 12/15/2016

Dems stage mock corruption hearing on Trump’s business ties - 12/14/2016

Rep. Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said there is “tremendous interest” among lawmakers to learn more about that arcane provision that could put Trump into legal cross hairs and even open the door to impeachment hearings.

Remove President Donald Trump (Impeachment) - 12/20/2016

The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun - 1/20/2017

What would actually happen if Donald Trump was impeached? - 11/10/2016

How to Impeach a U.S. President (Say, Donald Trump), Explained - 1/20/2017

#impeachdonaldtrump hashtag on Twitter - since 4/13/2016

Can Donald Trump Be Impeached? The Answer Depends Upon His Popularity Among The Public And Lawmakers - 11/8/2016

How Donald Trump Could Be Impeached - 11/9/2016

University of Utah finds legal case to impeach Donald Trump - 9/22/2016

Can A President (Trump) Be Prosecuted Based Upon Allegations Of Past Misconduct? - 11/9/2016

Not to mention all the attempts to get electors to ignore their states' votes and deny Trump the election, or all the talk of using the 25th Amendment, something that also started before he was sworn in.

Abuse of power is a high crime.

Your personal dislike of his constitutional use of power does not make it abuse. The president has broad discretion in matters of international diplomacy. You would have to get pretty extreme to have a clear case of abuse of power.

Basically, he can negotiate just about anything he likes. It would become a problem if he somehow usurped the powers or rights of the Senate, states, or citizens, or if he was engaging in some kind of treason or bribery. Nothing like that has happened.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.5  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.2    5 years ago
Well, here ya go:

It would behoove you to recognize that 'seeking the impeachment' of Trump and 'asserting that Trump 'has engaged in impeachable conduct' are TWO different things. 

FAIL

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
6.5.6  lady in black  replied to  Dulay @6.5.5    5 years ago

They have to twist, bend, turn around, double over, do the Exorcist head twist to defend Crooked donnie

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.5.5    5 years ago
'seeking the impeachment' of Trump and 'asserting that Trump 'has engaged in impeachable conduct' are TWO different things.

Not different in any way that matters to our discussion. The whole point of the latter is the former (otherwise there is no reason for it) and the former is impossible without the latter.

If this is really how you plan to squirm out of asking for a link, that's pretty pathetic. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.8  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.3    5 years ago

Abuse of power is not necessarily a crime, therefore no code is applicable. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.4    5 years ago
I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks when reaching my own conclusion. 

What do you base your conclusion on that 'our relationship with Ukraine is just fine"? 

I suggest you try it some time.

No thanks. I prefer basing my conclusion on facts garnered from research. 

Not to mention all the attempts to get electors to ignore their states' votes and deny Trump the election, or all the talk of using the 25th Amendment, something that also started before he was sworn in.

What a sad load of crap. Seriously, I can't believe you wasted your time posting all of those ridiculous links. Petitions, bills on divestment, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. 

Your personal dislike of his constitutional use of power does not make it abuse. The president has broad discretion in matters of international diplomacy. You would have to get pretty extreme to have a clear case of abuse of power.

Yet Trump managed to get that extreme and he had conspirators acting on his behalf. 


Basically, he can negotiate just about anything he likes. It would become a problem if he somehow usurped the powers or rights of the Senate, states, or citizens, or if he was engaging in some kind of treason or bribery. Nothing like that has happened.

Again, abuse of power is a high crime. Saying 'nu uh' doesn't negate that fact. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.7    5 years ago
Not different in any way that matters to our discussion.

Bullshit Tacos!. Have you forgotten that you predicated your statement with a comment with: 

Or it would be, if the Democratic Party weren't scandalizing the event. 

So when your next statement is about putting party before country, it's not a fucking stretch to expect that you would provide links to the Democratic Party 'seeking' Trump's Impeachment before he took office.

NONE of your links even infer that. It was an utter waste of you time to post and mine to review. Stop boring me. 

The whole point of the latter is the former (otherwise there is no reason for it) and the former is impossible without the latter.

Yet you have no point. 

If this is really how you plan to squirm out of asking for a link, that's pretty pathetic. 

Yes, I know that you and your fellow travelers are averse to being called out to support the BS you post. Judging from your failed response, it's easy to see why. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.5.14  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.11    5 years ago

That was quite the confession.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.5.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @6.5.13    5 years ago

As much as secular progressives hate it and call it a negative variation of nationalism they would call it as you suggest.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.16  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.11    5 years ago
So then it does NOT fall into the "high crimes and misdemeanors" as required by the Constitution.  Thanks for the admission.

The sooner you and your fellow travelers LEARN what the founders meant by 'high crimes and misdemeanors', the less silly y'all will look. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.17  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.12    5 years ago

Those of us that speak the English language more fluently, acknowledge that 'seek' and 'talk' are two different verbs. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.18  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @6.5.13    5 years ago

I don't address strawmen FW. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5.20  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.5.10    5 years ago
the Democratic Party 'seeking' Trump's Impeachment before he took office. NONE of your links even infer that

Yeah they do. In fact, three of them detail how actual Democratic members of Congress were engaged in setting up Trump for impeachment in December 2016. Some were actually engaging in mock impeachment hearings and others were crafting Trump-specific legislation specifically and explicitly intended to create grounds for impeachment. It's a shame you aren't open-minded or honest enough to admit that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5.21  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.5.9    5 years ago
Saying 'nu uh'

That's all you got out of that. I was using big words. I apologize.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
6.5.25  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.20    5 years ago
three of them detail how actual Democratic members of Congress were engaged in setting up Trump for impeachment in December 2016. Some were actually engaging in mock impeachment hearings and others were crafting Trump-specific legislation specifically and explicitly intended to create grounds for impeachment

I'd like to see your link to that.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.27  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.24    5 years ago
We're always polite and address you. 

Do you think that pretending to speak for other than yourself makes you cool? 

What's your problem? 

I thought that my comment to FW about strawmen was clear. What's your problem? 

You don't like reading what you write or have problems believing you posted such baldredash to begin with.

Really? What lead you to the ridiculous conclusion that I post comments that I don't 'like reading' XD? 

Oh and where did I say a fucking thing about patriotism XD? Post a link to my comment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.28  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.23    5 years ago
Your only ability with the English language is making vain attempts at contorting and twisting what others said to conform to your own twisted version of what was actually written. 

You're the one trying to contort and twist the English language to make the claim that 'seek' and 'talk' mean the same thing. 

I don't think your failed attempt was vain, I think it's ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.29  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.20    5 years ago

Actually, I'm not gaslighted so I don't believe every fucking bullshit article making unsubstantiated claims.

Swill the pabulum if you wish.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.30  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @6.5.19    5 years ago
I haven’t found anything that you do address

Did you miss it when I addressed your lack of punctuation? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.31  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.21    5 years ago
That's all you got out of that. I was using big words. I apologize.

No, that's all you chose to address. Why? 

Where is your answer to the question I asked you:

What do you base your conclusion on that 'our relationship with Ukraine is just fine"? 

Answer? 

Oh and BTFW, shove the supercilious bullshit. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.5.32  JBB  replied to  Dulay @6.5.30    5 years ago

FW may not be swilling just pablum...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.5.33  JBB  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @6.5.13    5 years ago

No, abuse of power is abuse of power...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.34  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.22    5 years ago
Well then tell us all what they meant considering your ability to speak with the dead. 

Is your posit that you do not know that the founders WROTE shit? 

There's these documents called the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of the Confederation and Perpetual Union. 

Hell, there's even this thingy called the Constitution, perhaps you've heard of it. There are also 10 Amendments to that Constitution, 85 Federalist papers supporting it and too many collections of the founders correspondence to cite. 

There are also the minutes of the Continental Congress', the Constitutional Convention and the 1st Congress which debated the Bill of Rights. 

But ya XD, instead of studying any of those sources, I held a séance. /s

Now, I have cited DOZENS of sources, ALL available online, for you to pursue the knowledge that you pretend to desire. I'll even suggest a starting point for you. Go READ Federalist 65 and LEARN what Hamilton said about Impeachment. 

When I was 8 years old, my mother got tired of my asking for information so she got me a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica and told me to look it up for myself. I have taken that practice into adulthood and I research subjects on the internet so I can converse cogently on issues. You could give that a try rather demanding that others lead you to knowledge by the hand and making snarky comments. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5.35  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.5.29    5 years ago
I don't believe every fucking bullshit article making unsubstantiated claims

Amazing. You asked for a link and got 15 of them. You have not addressed the content of a single one and you dismiss them all as we see above. What's more, you continue to make statements that are clearly contradicted in those links. If you want to talk about bullshit, look no farther than the nearest mirror. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5.36  CB  replied to  Dulay @6.5.34    5 years ago

Now that's the "T." (Smile.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5.37  CB  replied to  XDm9mm @6.5.2    5 years ago

Nice dodge, and it fits what is happening in the impeachment hearings, how? How? No red-herrings dropping on the trail.

Just RIGHT HERE- RIGHT NOW tell me HOW. Thank you. (Smile.)

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.38  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.35    5 years ago
Amazing. You asked for a link and got 15 of them.

Again, NONE of which say that the Democratic Party was seeking Trump's Impeachment before he took office. 

You have not addressed the content of a single one and you dismiss them all as we see above.

Dismissing them IS addressing the content of every single one of them. 

What's more, you continue to make statements that are clearly contradicted in those links.

They may contradict my comment, they do NOT refute them with facts. 

If you want to talk about bullshit, look no farther than the nearest mirror.

There you go again Tacos!. You can't make an argument so you devolve to personal comments. I must say, you've managed to last longer than usual but I had no doubt you'd jump into the gutter.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.5.39  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @6.5.38    5 years ago
Again, NONE of which say that the Democratic Party was seeking Trump's Impeachment before he took office.

This unwillingness to face the truth right in front of you is truly impressive. Both items below were reported in December of 2016 - more than a month before Trump took office.

Democratic legislators literally wrote a new law, expecting Trump would break it, so they could impeach him.

The legislation previewed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also would symbolically deem any Trump violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules "a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution," according to a summary released by its sponsors.

Meanwhile, other Democratic lawmakers were trying to figure out how they could apply an old provision of law to Trump's activities so they could impeach him.

there is “tremendous interest” among lawmakers to learn more about that arcane provision that could put Trump into legal cross hairs and even open the door to impeachment hearings.
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
6.5.40  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5.39    5 years ago

Oh so your great 'truth' is that the Democrats PROPOSED a bill that SYMBOLICALLY sought to label any 'violation of federal conflict-of-interest rules "a high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution'.

Wow, that nails it I guess. /s

 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5.42  CB  replied to  It Is ME @6.5.41    5 years ago

So what, 'talking point central'? red-herring-fallacy.jpg?fit=850%2C562&ss

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.5.43  It Is ME  replied to  CB @6.5.42    5 years ago
So what

So what.....What ?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6.5.44  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @6.5    5 years ago
It's putting party before country to seek the impeachment of a president who hasn't even taken office yet

 What do you mean that Trump hasn't taken office yet?  Then who is that orange lump with bad hair who claims he IS the President?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.5.45  CB  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.5.44    5 years ago

Hi Paula! It is Me is trading in non-negotiables . What anybody might say about impeachment in their private time or even in their professional field has no bearing on the impeachment inquiry/hearings going on now. Certain democrats (Green, Waters, Steyer) wanted that "orange lump" brought up on charges for being the-jerk-original.jpg since his early campaign days and inauguration - mainly, due to his continuous and repeating of lies and barely legal histronics around emoluments, nepotism, racists remarks, and other you know the deal.

Since he can't defend "The Jerk" in the hear and now; good old "It is Me" along with donalders go back into the past to look for something to bring forward. It is a red-herring and he would love to entangle somebody in its net for days on end if he can.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
6.5.46  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @6.5.45    5 years ago

Oh ok.  The statement just didn't make sense.  It might have to me if he had been as clear as you have been.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.6  CB  replied to  PJ @6    5 years ago

It is demoralizing a new generation who will disavow interest in politics. We are faced with countrymen who want to tear down the existing order and return to an era of horrendous double-speak and "forked-tongueness." President Donald Trump being the ringleader.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    5 years ago
Trump did so without “corrupt intent.”

I've been saying that from Day 1. This is not to say that the president didn't take advantage of his unique position, nor that his actions were politically motivated. I see a "gray area" type issue where no clear resolution exists. 

Any candidate - incumbent or not - will seek information about his opponent's history in office or in other offices. So there really isn't anything unusual about the current president seeking information about the former Vice President and his actions on the job. If that information can only be had by talking to the leader of another country, he is in a unique position to pursue it. That's life. It's good to be the incumbent.

If an actual crime had been committed, and the president were trying to cover it up - like with Watergate - that would be a problem. But that didn't happen here. If the president were trying to manufacture false information and present it as true, that could also be a problem, although politicians misrepresent their opponents pretty much as a matter of course.

It's a shame that Republican politicians (not that this applies only to Republicans) can't think for themselves. Instead they get caught up in the tide of political and media hysteria. Thus, they react defensively over something ordinary. They make excuses for something that doesn't require an excuse.

As they fish around desperately for an excuse that will stick, their credibility is damaged, but they forget that their political opponents (including the media) aren't interested in showing any respect to any position they take or any defense they make. This happens when you don't have your own sense of what's right and you just let media trends tell you what's right.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago
This is not to say that the president didn't take advantage of his unique position, nor that his actions were politically motivated.

Trump taking advantage of his unique position is the definition of abuse of power. 

I see a "gray area" type issue where no clear resolution exists. 

An Impeachment inquiry will point to a clear resolution. 

Any candidate - incumbent or not - will seek information about his opponent's history in office or in other offices. So there really isn't anything unusual about the current president seeking information about the former Vice President and his actions on the job. If that information can only be had by talking to the leader of another country, he is in a unique position to pursue it. That's life. It's good to be the incumbent.

Wow that is an utterly obtuse comment. It looks like you will excuse any and every action by Trump. 

If an actual crime had been committed, and the president were trying to cover it up - like with Watergate - that would be a problem.

For Trump sycophants, I doubt it.

But that didn't happen here.

You've already admitted there was an abuse of power, not a 'crime' but eminently impeachable. 

If the president were trying to manufacture false information and present it as true, that could also be a problem, although politicians misrepresent their opponents pretty much as a matter of course.

Like Ukraine interfered with the US's 2016 election, NOT Russia? Like Biden bragged about forcing the firing of Ukraine's GP to stop the prosecution of his son? Like THAT manufactured false information?

Seriously, you and your fellow travelers could not care less that Trump fabricates allegations against his opponents and present them as true. In fact, you encourage it and cheer it. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1    5 years ago
Wow that is an utterly obtuse comment.

Wow that is an utterly obtuse comment. The rest is the usual lies, attacks, and generalizations. Unsurprising.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @7.1.2    5 years ago
You should  understand by now that those of you that use this tactic we’re onto you 

The only tactic I use is posting facts. 

this idea of you accusing your opponents of doing things that I already being done in a political room has become wait to fucking obvious

I can't decipher that blather.  

BTFW, could you use some punctuation once in a while? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.3    5 years ago
The only tactic I use is posting facts. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.5    5 years ago

Yet instead of refuting anything that I have posted, you post emojis. 

Well done. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @7.1.4    5 years ago
Yeah we also know that you’re going to deny it you are not fooling anybody don’t even know why you guys think you’re can pull that shit off anymore

You know nothing about me. 

Who is this 'we' that you pretend to speak for FW? Do you think that pretending that you speak for other than yourself  makes you cool? 

BTFW, I guess my request for punctuation will go unanswered. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.8  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    5 years ago

How "manufactured" and false is Guilani's running around in Ukraine attempting to get another nation's leader to LIE in a public declaration that his nation is investigating (a 'shell' investigation) a Biden? And during campaign season?

What do you reckon the president of our country, Donald Trump could have gained from such a put up job by another country, Tacos!?

NOTE: It is too bad that we can not get a deposition under oath from Ukrainian President Zelinksky about what he was PRESSURED TO LIE ABOUT and to the people of two countries no doubt. Trump did not give a damn that he was twisting this new leader and new politician into a 'pretzel.' Another clear example of Trump rabidly attempting to ruin another career and reputation solely for his purposes and aggrandizement!

And you DARE to imply that doing this is okay in our name?!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    5 years ago
Wow that is an utterly obtuse comment. 

Your 'I'm rubber you're glue' argument is noted. 

The rest is the usual lies, attacks, and generalizations. Unsurprising.

Really Tacos!? I said: 

Trump taking advantage of his unique position is the definition of abuse of power. 
You've already admitted there was an abuse of power, not a 'crime' but eminently impeachable. 

Those aren't lies, attacks or generalizations. They are simple FACTS.

On a personal note, you really need to try to refrain from incesently replying to my comments merely to make personal comments. I let you get away with it for the most part because I prefer that other members see just how low you go in your interactions. It's not a good look Tacos! and you could do MUCH better. 

 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.9    5 years ago

I don't know whether to jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif , jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif , or jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif . Oh wait! They're all the same. Is it rude to jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif  at jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif ? Probably, but it's impossible to resist.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.10    5 years ago

Sadly, that my be the most cogent comment you've made to me in a long time and all it does is prove my last point. 

But by all means, prove that those statements are lies, or attacks, or generalizations.

You can support your claim that they are right? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.11    5 years ago
But by all means, prove that those statements are lies, or attacks, or generalizations.

You pick a few statements out of the whole comment, but not all of them, and those are the ones you choose to put at issue, ignoring the others. Interesting.

straw-man.png

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
7.1.13  KDMichigan  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    5 years ago

256

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.14  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    5 years ago

Well, it is a comment board and not a large classroom. Oh, look "Teach" never shows up!!! You would not tell the truth about Donald Trump even though the man is the epitome of a loser president. For all the disrespect Republicans showered down on President Obama, they could never bring themselves to state he was a compulsively rabid liar so inept enough to get himself drawn up on impeachment charges—not even within the accumulation of eight years.

Donald Trump may be going insane by now. I don't wish it for him. Still it could not happen to a nicer jerk. Then, we can get him the care he needs or simply let his children take him home, so Trump's twitter-verse can fold in on itself. There will be withdrawal symptoms from this for the twitter-verse—or maybe not!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    5 years ago
You pick a few statements out of the whole comment, but not all of them, and those are the ones you choose to put at issue, ignoring the others. Interesting.

Yet you don't address even those. Interesting.

Nor did you cogently address anything else from my 'whole comment', so your 'point', whatever the fuck you're pretending that is, is moot. 

Oh and BTFW, you seem to be having an issue with the concept of a strawman. I didn't post one. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.1.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @7.1.14    5 years ago

OMG, can you even fathom the extent of the tantrum he will throw if not reelected?  The energy of it alone could supply NY alone.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.17  CB  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.1.16    5 years ago

"Hell has no fury" like a Trump casted out of the limelight. Right. Well, thank god he will be on the sidelines. Although, there will have to be precautions put in place to stop him from giving away state secrets as "indulgences" when he is not lucid.

Have you observed that chiefest among Trump's personal issues is the man apparently does not have commonsense.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
7.1.18  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.1.16    5 years ago
OMG, can you even fathom the extent of the tantrum he will throw if not reelected? 

True. Yet, it could not compare with the amount of energy produced by the world in general in praise of his losing the election. 

The greatest thing our planet as a whole could see if Trump being kicked out of the WH by the majority of the American people. Even many of those who voted for him the first time have seen his true colors and/or have been screwed by Trump, and they will not vote for him again. Even if it means voting for a Dem.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.1.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  CB @7.1.17    5 years ago

He may become the first paid martyr in history.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.1.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    5 years ago

 The rest is the usual lies, attacks, and generalizations. 

It's okay, we forgive you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago
Thus, they react defensively over something ordinary. They make excuses for something that doesn't require an excuse.

Complete nonsense.  The right has become almost entirely a position of bamboozling, disinformation, and muddying up the water. There is nothing 'ordinary' about a president of the United States demanding that a foreign government investigate the president's political rival. 

The constant bamboozling is why we must consider ourselves at a form of war. We cannot come to compromise with most Trump supporters. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2    5 years ago
Complete nonsense.

Complete nonsense.

There is nothing 'ordinary' about a president of the United States demanding that a foreign government investigate the president's political rival

That could be because that political rival is not ordinary. He's a former Vice President who abused his position and power as VP and now he wants even more power as president. If this seems like an impossible situation, just imagine if Dick Cheney were running for president and a Democrat like Obama were running for reelection. I very much doubt you'd insist that Cheney's activities as VP not be investigated.

We cannot come to compromise with most Trump supporters.

Are you offering a compromise?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.2    5 years ago
If this seems like an impossible situation, just imagine if Dick Cheney were running for president and a Democrat like Obama were running for reelection. I very much doubt you'd insist that Cheney's activities as VP not be investigated.

If Biden was guilty of something, or even REASONABLY suspected, the U.S. Senate would be investigating him right now. And the DOJ too. 

Your idea that someone must be investigated, because a fricking conspiracy nut and serial liar like Trump decides he has the power to order it , is bizarre. 

There is no compromise with people who spread Trump's conspiracy theories and lies. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.2.5  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Release The Kraken @7.2.1    5 years ago
 The more you talk, the more the media talks, the more support he gets.

they don't get it. and probably never will.    those that do get it are dug in so deep they can't get out now even if they tried.

(grabs bowl of popcorn to watch this comedy unfold.)

512

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7.2.7  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.6    5 years ago

dems should hold secret hearings in a basement and then hold more hearings that only allow them to question witnesses without names - that will work... LOL

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
7.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Release The Kraken @7.2.1    5 years ago
It's almost like you are running his campaign for him. The more you talk, the more the media talks, the more support he gets.

WOW! Who knew that our John's comments were so powerful? 

Hail the all powerful JR! 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.2.9  JBB  replied to  Release The Kraken @7.2.1    5 years ago

Except that our, the USA's, Intelligence services could not exactly just ignore it when dozens of shady Trump campaign apparatchiks made hundreds of highly questionable definitely unethical and probably illegal contacts with well known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services and then lied our their fat asses about it. Could they? There is zero none no zip evidence that Obama "ordered" shit on this regard or that he even needed to. If you have any proof he did so then you should provide it or else quit spreading such lameass lies, blatant misinformation and rank Russian propaganda...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.10  CB  replied to  Release The Kraken @7.2.1    5 years ago
Now Democrats are obsessed with nominating a complete fruitball moonbat to take the donald on and well they know they can't win

Anybody can do what Donald "do what I say not what I do" Trump has done. My friend, what you will come face to face with sooner than later is how the heaven you can support a real character who would turn on you the way fast, if not faster, than he turns on a military vet: Without even a second thought.

How anyone can assent that John McCain was anything but a superb and 'model' soldier under the conditions of war-time is beyond me. Donald Trump did that! And, he continues to do 'it' today.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.11  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.2    5 years ago

The question is, are laws of the U.S. meant to be obeyed by the 'little people' of this country (such as you and me) or by everybody. Is Donald Trump above reproach in your eyes. What can Donald Trump do that would be a clear 'breaking of trust' with you? And, do suspend all nonsense if/when you reply. This is an attempt at advancing this discussion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.2.12  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.2.11    5 years ago

You can't make blanket statements and assume they apply for all people in all situations just because it gets you to a point where impeachment is justified.

The question is, are laws of the U.S. meant to be obeyed by the 'little people' of this country (such as you and me) or by everybody.

Not all laws apply to everybody. The president has responsibility and authority that you and I do not. If I kill some guy in Syria or Iraq, it's murder. If the president orders it, it's part of the very legal and justified war on terror. Where it might not be ok for you or I to discuss a topic with a foreign official, it's part of the job for the president.

Beyond that, your other questions are too open-ended and vague. I could just as easily and pointlessly reverse it and ask things like: Is there anything Trump could do that would make you support him or not wish to impeach him? Is there any scenario in which you could trust him? We'd be engaging in open-ended fantasy. That way leads to straw men arguments. Better to just deal with the actual facts in front of us.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.13  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.12    5 years ago
Where it might not be ok for you or I to discuss a topic with a foreign official, it's part of the job for the president.

Q. Is there a law, any law, against candidates in U.S. campaigns receiving aid (anything of value) from foreign countries?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.14  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.12    5 years ago
Is Donald Trump above reproach in your eyes. What can Donald Trump do that would be a clear 'breaking of trust' with you?

This question is anything but vague. If you do not answer the question, it implies you being disingenuous.

Is there anything Trump could do that would make you support him or not wish to impeach him?
  1. Stop the obsessive lying. It is not "truthful hyperbole,"  these are not "white lies," these are lies of expediency and personal gain and as such are unbecoming of the President of the United States. Who by the way, should strive to be the epitome of integrity (even when falling short).
  2. Get off Twitter and social media where he attempts use of access to the presidential 'bully pulpit' 24/7. Unheard of and unbecoming of a leader of a democracy to 'ride herd' over the hearts and minds of a free-thinking and honest-seeking people.
  3. Live in the real world of facts and figures which the large part of the citizenry lives. Stop making fhit up and going on long flights of fancy with other people honest treatment of issues and matters they have been supplied basic home-training in. Be decent. Dignified. Reasonable.
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.2.15  CB  replied to  XDm9mm @7.2.6    5 years ago

Just reading you two 'going on' is popcorn worthy. All that is missing is a Kellyanne Conway 'rep' (alternative reality world) and we would have a full-house! Oh, let's invite Mr. Conway too!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.3  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago
So there really isn't anything unusual about the current president seeking information about the former Vice President and his actions on the job. If that information can only be had by talking to the leader of another country, he is in a unique position to pursue it. That's life. It's good to be the incumbent.

Riddle me this: Is this anything like, "White collar crime"? If Donald Trump did not want to be a president who learns what is what about the law, if Donald Trump did not want to abide behind the guardrails surrounding the field, if Donald Trump did not wish to lead with respect for the job, then Donald Trump should have stayed his tired old ass out of politics. The rules he violated are ESTABLISHED—not customized for Donald Trump to fall down on the job on. 

You are making excuses, for a man who would step all over you (leaving footprints) to get what he wants. That is, you are being USED by someone who really, in my opinion, is not worthy of your time. But that 's just me and my opinion. (I don't really know you or what you are about.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.4  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago
If an actual crime had been committed, and the president were trying to cover it up

No ifs. The ASK was delivered once and repeatedly. The cover-up is the ASK 'hidden' on a government server designed for 'secure' documents well beyond its status. BUSTED!

Stop it. You are weakly attempting to defend the indefensible. Stop it America, don't grovel for Donald Trump; he wouldn't do it for you. Don't believe me - go look at those he has littered the grounds of the White House with. Their careers and reputations are in tattered. Trump's is too - he just does not know it yet.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago
It's a shame that Republican politicians (not that this applies only to Republicans) can't think for themselves. Instead they get caught up in the tide of political and media hysteria. Thus, they react defensively over something ordinary. They make excuses for something that doesn't require an excuse.

A political offense has been committed by this president. There is not defense for this. It's hidden on a secure server; why? What motivates a president's 'men' to hide something that needs no security in the securest of locations?

Tacos! Facts are going to get you bogged down and evaporate any remaining credibility you have if you keep this passionate display up; Trump is unworthy. He turns on everybody. He is the nation's 'biggest User.'

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.5.1  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.5    5 years ago
It's hidden on a secure server

At least Trump's people know what that is. If we were talking about President Clinton, it would be on her home PC.

What motivates a president's 'men' to hide something that needs no security in the securest of locations?

Ask them. You want me to speculate on what is in the minds of people I don't know. This is what you do, but you only do it with a negative perspective. You would never consider an innocent possibility. That's not factual analysis. It's merely your own bias at work.

any remaining credibility you have

Let's not pretend you have any respect for my credibility. Such pretense damages your credibility.

if you keep this passionate display up

I think you're a lot more passionate about this than I am. You see an emergency. I see no big deal. I think the shrinks call that projection.

Trump is unworthy

I don't like him either, but as president, he is constitutionally as worthy as anyone of a serious and sober approach to talk of impeachment. What we have seen for the last three years in the premature calls for impeachment, attempts to manipulate the Electoral College, and 25th Amendment plotting cannot name claim to be serious or sober.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.2  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.1    5 years ago
At least Trump's people know what that is. If we were talking about President Clinton, it would be on her home PC.

But, we are NOT talking about (President) Clinton are we? What we can ask is why Trump can't properly clean up what he calls the Washington swamp as long as he is in it. Yeah, Trump is proving to be quite a load dropped on Washington, D.C.!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.3  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.1    5 years ago
You want me to speculate on what is in the minds of people I don't know. This is what you do, but you only do it with a negative perspective. You would never consider an innocent possibility. That's not factual analysis. It's merely your own bias at work.

It does not need the enhanced security feature. Stop dodging! What I do is listen to the data and respond accordingly. Actually, it is you who is showing something akin to adjustment and appeasing a madman President.

Donald Trump does not give a damn about you. He is manipulating anybody foolish enough to allow him their power. And he would manipulate everybody else were they enthralled by him. Fortunately for us, we are not!

It is all win with him - even when it is manifest error.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.4  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.1    5 years ago
I don't like him either, but as president, he is constitutionally as worthy as anyone of a serious and sober approach to talk of impeachment. What we have seen for the last three years in the premature calls for impeachment, attempts to manipulate the Electoral College, and 25th Amendment plotting cannot name claim to be serious or sober

Please. Maybe you are right and I can't take you seriously. You support a man who has lied from the word, "go," and even before or at the official start of his running for the 2020 campaign cycle, it is clear Trump was dispatching people and official government agents left and right to execute numerous cloak and dagger acts.

I think you're a lot more passionate about this than I am. You see an emergency. I see no big deal. I think the shrinks call that projection.

CB spits.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.5.5  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.5.4    5 years ago
You support a man

No, I support the Constitution.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.6  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.5    5 years ago

You support a Trump-styled constitution with its phony emoluments clause. And, if any part of your Trump constitution is false, then all of it is suspect:

President Trump - Phony Emoluments Clause

Today, on a 'cut' airing on Jay Sekulow Live I listened to Donald Trump 'rip' about his role in appointing one-hundred judges who will treat the constitution like it is written. I am willing to bet this mindnumbing jerk does not remember not a month ago he called the document, "Phony" because it called out something he decidely wants to do. T

Tacos! It is very clear to me - you can not support President Donald Trump and the Constitution. Doing so is making you appear double-minded.

Republicans are cogs in this A Donald Does Washington, D.C. PRODUCTION. Starring: Donald Trump as himself.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.5.7  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.5.6    5 years ago
You support a Trump-styled constitution

There's no such thing.

Doing so is making you appear double-minded.

You clearly will believe what you want about other people and nothing anyone does or says will change that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.5.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.7    5 years ago
You clearly will believe what you want about tRump and nothing anyone does or says will change that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.9  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.7    5 years ago

I see you avoided the "phony emoluments clause" statement like a plague. (Expected and fulfilled.)

This is too much BS. You want to pretend to have a discussion and push a stupid unrealistic set of agendas. The hell you say! Take that smoke elsewhere, because we're done with your loser president! Win or lose this upcoming election we're done with Trump and his donalders BS!

It quite disturbing to me that with all the good that can be done for the people in this country if we can ever get on one accord, what we consistently manage to do look for hot, musty, piles of stupid 'states of existence' in our political sphere to latch onto for dear life. 

Voluntarily or involuntarily we have all become "profit" for those miscreants in the political realm who will exploit the hell out of us!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.5.10  It Is ME  replied to  CB @7.5.9    5 years ago
emoluments clause

Does that really work on politicians ?

How do those folks go into congress, with "Not Much", and come out all "comfy and cozy" for retirement anyway.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.11  CB  replied to  It Is ME @7.5.10    5 years ago

Take that red herring elsewhere, please.

th?id=OIP.hZVc0G0TslP4_QuaYxYlhgAAAA&w=1

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.5.12  It Is ME  replied to  CB @7.5.11    5 years ago
Take that red herring elsewhere, please.

So "Things" only apply to "Certain Folks", but not ALL ?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.13  CB  replied to  It Is ME @7.5.12    5 years ago

Stop stalling, please.

th?id=OIP.PH1WCsJLEmqhhYG44n6XfgHaIz&w=1

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.5.14  It Is ME  replied to  CB @7.5.13    5 years ago
Stop stalling

I'm running fine. I was just tuned up. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

emolument

noun
  emol·​u·​ment | \ i-ˈmäl-yə-mənt 

    
Definition of emolument
1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.5.15  It Is ME  replied to  CB @7.5.11    5 years ago

Oh look ..….. Squirrel ! 

96

Not to be confused with Herring.

96

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.16  CB  replied to  It Is ME @7.5.14    5 years ago

Get serious. Get on with it. Get away for vacation.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.5.17  It Is ME  replied to  CB @7.5.16    5 years ago
Get serious. Get on with it. Get away for vacation.

" Two out of three ain't bad" …..Meatloaf ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.5.18  CB  replied to  It Is ME @7.5.17    5 years ago

@ 6.3.153 . Get serious. Get on with it.

Incidentally, when you get back up there check your "Trump-math" will ya! I won't patronize you by doing it for you!  Just count your months!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.5.19  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @7.5.5    5 years ago

That's more than Trump does.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.5.20  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.5.19    5 years ago
That's more than Trump does.

Many politicians complain about the Constitution when they bump into the cold reality that it was intended to limit their power.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @7    5 years ago

Intent or no intent, illegal is illegal.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for this "stable genius".  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.6.1  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.6    5 years ago

Interesting. That's about what Jim Comey said about Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats and the media seem to have no concern about her not being punished.

Anyway, I think you're misreading what I was trying to say about Trump. I'm not saying Trump broke a law and was ignorant of it, therefore it's all good. In fact, I'm not yet satisfied that he broke a law at all.

The president has wide discretion and broad authority in matters of international diplomacy, including the authority to delay (within reason) aid payments or to condition their delivery on specific behavior by the recipient. I wouldn't say it happens a lot, but almost every president in recent generations has done it at least once or twice - including Obama. The reasons vary, of course.

The fact that such a negotiation might also enhance his prospects for reelection is where the gray area is. Virtually anything the president decides to do - especially in his first term - will be done with an eye toward reelection. So, is it fair to say he should be removed if he does something that is motivated by that goal? It seems to me we could impeach every president if that were the standard.

But he can also truthfully say that he is investigating the official behavior of a former Vice President and possible corruption or abuse of power. Even if you think such an investigation is not warranted, that is what he is doing. That is something he has a legitimate duty to investigate and the American people have a right to know about. This is even more urgent because that former Vice President now wants to be president. If it turns out that Biden abused his position as VP, voters have a right to know that. Removing the president from office on those grounds seems unwarranted.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.2  CB  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.6    5 years ago

Especially, for an impolite, rude, crude, talking presidential ass! He has been given all the breaks he needs. He apologizes or self-corrects not one iota. Throw the book at that jerk!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
7.6.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.1    5 years ago

Hey, if she did something against the law, I say bust her.  But yall can't keep on using the  butttt....Hilary as justification.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.6.4  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.6.2    5 years ago
He apologizes or self-corrects not one iota.

Who does? (unless they're a Democrat running (scared) for office in 2020)

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.6.5  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.6.3    5 years ago
But yall can't keep on using the  butttt....Hilary as justification.

I'm not. I just saw a double standard is all.

Hey, if she did something against the law, I say bust her.

I'm actually not in favor of that. I have my problems with Hillary, but her server issue is not one of them. I think she made an honest mistake that didn't really impact anything and I think Congress investigating her 6 or 8 times was silly and pathetic political gamesmanship.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.6.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.6.3    5 years ago
Hey, if she did something against the law, I say bust her. 

I say the same about Trump.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.7  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.1    5 years ago

s

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.8  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.1    5 years ago
Interesting. That's about what Jim Comey said about Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats and the media seem to have no concern about her not being punished.

You're mistaken. The media and the Democrats had plenty to say on the airways about what James Comey said and did, followed up by a lack of inaction. In other words, if Director Comey was not going to file charges against Hillary Clinton for her 'mis-steps' (not misdemeanor or felony), then why did he insert himself into one of the most contentious political 'races' of 2016? This droned on for as many days as it mattered in late October - early November 24.

Now then, here are a few important differences which matter ICO Hillary Clinton and has not applied to Donald Trump:

  1. Hillary Clinton's 'activities" were adjudicated in-house and the authorities authorized to charge her (the Attorney General) did not charge her.
  2. (Subset.) Hillary Clinton came face to face with those with the power to charge or not. Mrs. Clinton had her day in court.
  3. Hillary Clinton made errors in judgement, but none which rose to the level of prosecutable.

  1. Donald Trump 'case' has not yet been adjudicated in Congress and the authorities there have him on a litany of charges and to be determined charges.
  2. Donald Trump has not come had his day in Congress.
  3. Donald Trump has not made errors in judgement. His activities for which he being sought out for a possible impeachment, he has never forsworn, never indicated a change of heart for executing those spoken of actions; and, has shown a willingness to block and tamper with witnesses and governmental supporting documents.

The FBI policies, and law must be applied equally, that does not imply either of the two processes need be applied the same.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.9  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.4    5 years ago

Well, it clear your 'walls' and 'force fields' are in good working order!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.10  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.5    5 years ago

Let's cut through the BS. Donald Trump has been an evil ASS ever since he came down his escalator in his hotel. He has told more people to kiss his rump, the equivalent of "Eat me,"  and shined democrats on as he threw out legitimate career people just because they would not - could not dance to his 'tune,' and he has placed 'hard-case' maybe 'brutal' as time will reveal conservative justices in courts all over this country. All without taking account of liberal's needs, desires, or interests. All done just for starters with that f hit-eating, cartoonish

dartfpu-d05ebab5-baec-47e4-a766-5356bdac grin of his. No insult to Fred Flintstone intended!

Those who want friends should show themselves friendly. Those who want to be a snake; can expect people to respond with fear and loathing . If Donald Trump needs to get EVERYTHING he deserves from the House and Senate! Throw his lying, cheating, fake leadership styling, figurative carcass out in the bushes.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.6.11  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.6.8    5 years ago
Hillary Clinton made errors in judgement, but none which rose to the level of prosecutable.

You seem as willing to accept that judgment as the media and Democrats are. That’s fine, but will you be as accepting when the Senate decides that Trump’s actions do not warrant his removal?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7.6.12  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.6.10    5 years ago
Those who want friends should show themselves friendly.

As I think I indicated, that’s not entirely his fault. He has, on several occasions, invited Democratic leaders to the White House to work with him. They have a history of either refusing his invitations or walking out of meetings.

I also remember Obama making a big show out of taking the keys away from Republicans and telling them they were going to ride in the back from then on. That’s not too friendly. Small wonder, then, that the opposition developed such a hostile attitude toward him.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.13  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.11    5 years ago

I will have no choice but to accept it. Just so you know, I was not in favor of Bill Clinton not being found guilty of lying to Congress. I thought then and think now Bill Clinton was guilty - it is what it is however. I will disagree with the Senate planned and stated course of action, if it fails the merits of impeachment. However, as I stated to you above.

3. Donald Trump has not made errors in judgement. His activities for which he being sought out for a possible impeachment, he has never forsworn, never indicated a change of heart for executing those spoken of actions; and, has shown a willingness to block and tamper with witnesses and governmental supporting documents.

Degrees matter. Contexts matter. You would like to pretend you are not aware equality and equity, does not equal exactness in matters such as this. I won't let you do that. I will keep correcting 'the record' accordingly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.6.14  CB  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.12    5 years ago

Apparently, we live in two separate quadrants of America. If President Trump thinks for any portion of a second that democratic members of congress are supposed to come into his white house and surrender to his policies, requests, and demands bar none - then, of course, he is a madman, not in touch with the real world.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8  Dulay    5 years ago
Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”

In Trump's mind, he is NEVER culpable for ANYTHING. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dulay @8    5 years ago

He isn’t guilty of anything the Dems bring up to hide their guilt over what they did to America in the 2016 election and since then.  

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1    5 years ago

Yes, we know NOTHING is ever Crooked donnie's fault. He's a fucking saint, as pure as the driven snow

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
8.1.2  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1    5 years ago

Save your proclamations for the pabulum swillers. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.1.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  lady in black @8.1.1    5 years ago

Compared to progressives he is indeed just that.  

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.1.4  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson51 @8.1.3    5 years ago

No he is not...he is scum and it's sad that people don't see it

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8.2  CB  replied to  Dulay @8    5 years ago

And that makes Trump tragic. Why do we have an unfit president in popular demand by the Republican Party? Congressional republicans have gone mad.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
9  PJ    5 years ago

It's depressing me that facts and reality don't seem to matter any more and conspiracy theories have taken root as truth.

It used to be that patriotism was one thing that would bring the country together but the seeds of hate have been sown and carefully cultivated by this Administration and it's disciples.

The country has moved into a dark age where racism is cheered, truth is no longer revered, and the law of the land doesn’t matter. We've started attacking those who have pledged an oath to the Constitution and therefor the country rather than pledging it to one man. We have allowed power to be taken from two branches of our government and transferred to the executive branch. These actions will set a terrible precedence for generations to come.

America will need to fail to survive and we're watching that play out in real time. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10  JBB    5 years ago

No, it is not...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB    5 years ago

REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION HAS COME TO NT!

We have Republican Senator Graham who flat out states, he will not be 'reading the transcripts' after Trump admonished people to 'read the transcripts.' Now we have Republican "Gooseisgone," who won't be reading a federalist document on Impeachment because as is being stated, "no need" to.

Friend Dulay! All players are on the field. The game is afoot. Liberals and democrats simply have not been allowed to put points on the board, even when we score. Republicans have been in and continue to be in full-fledged denial of democratic 'wins.'

Republicans choose to disrespect the rule of law.

They choose to disrespect our players on the field.

And, will steal from us our right to have facts matter.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
13  Paula Bartholomew    5 years ago

If a guy swipes trail mix from the bin at the supermarket, he might not think his intent was to be a thief, but he was.

 
 

Who is online

George
CB
Jeremy Retired in NC
Greg Jones
evilone
Sean Treacy
Hallux
Right Down the Center
MrFrost
JBB


JohnRussell


78 visitors