'GAME OVER,' Trump declares, as old Bolton, Schiff videos surface amid Senate impeachment trial

  
Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  3 weeks ago  •  134 comments

By:   Gregg Re

'GAME OVER,' Trump declares, as old Bolton, Schiff videos surface amid Senate impeachment trial
A string of newly resurfaced video clips of former national security adviser John Bolton spurred President Trump and his supporters Wednesday to highlight what they described as serious credibility questions -- raised by both Democrats and Republicans -- amid the Senate impeachment trial, as the president tweeted, "GAME OVER!"

Watch the clips. Especially Mr. Obama, the Senator, grill Bolton...............


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating "corruption" in Ukraine was a "high priority" for the Trump administration.
Bolton also called Trump's communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "warm and cordial," without mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton's forthcoming book that Trump explicitly told him he wanted to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. (Zelensky has said his communications with Trump involved no pressure for any investigation.)
Separately, Fox News has identified clips of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager, in which he says Bolton had a distinct "lack of credibility" and was prone to "conspiracy theories." This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify in the impeachment trial as an important and believable witness.
"This is someone who's likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories," Schiff told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018, when Trump named Bolton national security adviser.
"And I'll, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration," he said. "So, you add that kind of thinking to [former U.S. attorney] Joe diGenova and you have another big dose of unreality in the White House."

Schiff made similar arguments back in May 2005, saying in an interview with CNN's "Crossfire" that Bolton was "more focused on the next job than doing well at the last job" when he was up for nomination as ambassador to the United Nations under then-President George W. Bush.
"And particularly given the history, where we've had the politicizing of intelligence over WMD [weapons of mass destruction], why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is John Bolton's politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and other issues, why we would want someone with that lack of credibility, I can't understand," Schiff had said.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama, in 2005, echoed those arguments, calling Bolton "damaged goods" whose appointment as ambassador means "we will have less credibility and ironically be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed."
Obama separately had said that Bolton "bullies, marginalizes and undermines those who do not agree with him." Other prominent Democrats agreed with him at the time.
Bolton himself had admitted in the past that he would be more than willing to lie if he felt it was in the nation's best interest.
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.
But, speaking to CNN on Monday, Schiff took a different approach -- calling Bolton essential to the "search for truth."

"I think for the senators, and I'm just not talking about the four that have been so much the focus of attention, for every senator, Democrat and Republican, I don't know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you don't want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment," Schiff said on CNN's "New Day."

Seemingly responding to charges of hypocrisy, Schiff remarked on the Senate floor late Wednesday: "I'm no fan of John Bolton, but I like him a little more now than I used to."
Nevertheless, Democrats' sudden about-face has been drawing some light mockery from even left-of-center commentators.
"Democrats are currently begging Mitt Romney to agree with them that John Bolton should swoop to the impeachment trial and save the day, but remember: you're a despicable Trump-loving apologist if you said ahead of time that this entire thing would be a joke," mused journalist Michael Tracey.
Whether or not the Senate will vote to call Bolton as a witness -- or whether he will legally be able to testify -- remain open questions. Republicans have suggested that Schiff himself should testify over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel's contacts with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.
Any witness resolution would likely require four Republican defections in the Senate, because in the event of a 50-50 tie, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is highly likely to abstain rather than assert his debatable power to cast a tie-breaking vote. The witness question will be decided later this week, after the question-and-answer session of the trial wraps up.
Republicans, who have a 53-47 majority in the chamber, have suggested to Fox News that they would amend any witness resolution that subpoenas Bolton to also require the appearance of several additional witnesses favorable to the Trump administration -- likely killing support in the Senate for the whole witness package altogether.

In the meantime, concerns over Bolton potentially divulging classified information, as well as violating the legal principle of executive privilege, have emerged. On Wednesday, the White House revealed it had told Bolton not to publish his upcoming tell-all book about his time in the Trump administration until classified material is removed from the manuscript.

“Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” Ellen J. Knight, a National Security Council (NSC) aide, wrote in a letter to Bolton attorney Charles J. Cooper last week, which was obtained by Fox News.
Bolton’s book has disrupted Trump’s impeachment trial. The New York Times reported that Bolton's draft manuscript includes a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on military aid to Ukraine to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden -- a central part of the case against Trump.
The letter from the NSC was transmitted to Bolton’s attorney on Jan 23. The New York Times article about the manuscript came out on Sunday, Jan. 26 -- three days after the letter was transmitted. That indicates that the NSC had already made the determination that there was top secret information in Bolton’s manuscript before anything became public.
Earlier in the day, CNN reported that the letter amounted to a threat against Bolton. But sources told Fox News this was not a “threat,” saying the letter merely points out that there is top secret information contained in the manuscript that cannot be released to the public.

“Based on our preliminary review, the manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information,” Knight wrote to Bolton’s attorney.
The letter goes on to say that the NSC is happy to work with Bolton to get the information into a form that can be published.
“The manuscript remains under review in order for us to do our best to assist your client by identifying the classified information within the manuscript, while at the same time ensuring that publication does not harm the national security of the United States,” Knight wrote.
She added: “We will do our best to work with you to ensure your client’s ability to tell his story in a manner that protects U.S. national security.”

Bolton’s book is titled "The Room Where It Happened" and is scheduled for release sometime in March. Suspicions have been raised about where the leak to The New York Times originated. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said Wednesday he is “pretty confident” the leak did not come from NSC. Meanwhile, Bolton, his publisher and book agents have denied "coordination" with The Times.
It has been in what’s called "pre-publication review," which is standard practice for any former government officials who held security clearances and publicly write or speak about their official work.

Also on Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, released a statement about a Sep. 23, 2019, phone call with Bolton.
“On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me -- unprompted -- that the committee look into the recall of [Ukraine] Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in [Kiev]," Engel said.
Democrats have sought to connect the Trump administration’s ouster of Yovanovitch as ambassador to Ukraine to efforts to get the country to open certain investigations.
Even as criticism of Bolton heats up on the GOP side, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, has counseled his party against unloading on Bolton.
"It is my opinion, based on the law and facts, that additional testimony is unnecessary in this case," Graham said in a statement. “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office."
That was the argument advanced by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz in his primetime defense of the president during the impeachment trial on Monday.

Graham continued: “It is clear to me that there is ample evidence for the President to be concerned about conflicts of interest on behalf of Hunter Biden and that Vice President Joe Biden’s failure to take appropriate action was unacceptable. This combination, in my view, undercut America’s message on reforming corruption in Ukraine. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest the Bidens’ behavior was harmful to the United States. The House managers’ claim that the sole reason President Trump temporarily paused the aid was purely personal and political, not public, does not withstand scrutiny."

Nevertheless, Graham added, "I am concerned when John Bolton’s credibility is attacked, it makes it more likely some will feel the need to call him as a witness. In that event, it would be important for the President and his team to call witnesses on other issues."

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    3 weeks ago

Should be an interesting day to say the least. Be civil.................jrSmiley_20_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    3 weeks ago

Nevertheless, Graham added, "I am concerned when John Bolton’s credibility is attacked, it makes it more likely some will feel the need to call him as a witness. In that event, it would be important for the President and his team to call witnesses on other issues."

By all means. If the Dems want witnesses including Bolton, Trump's defense team will call all kinds of witnesses.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @2    3 weeks ago

Wally, please copy and paste even one sentence in the seeded article that would suggest Schiff should be called as a witness in the impeachment proceeding. 

I would like to see what you base your conclusions on. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago

Read the article.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

If I hadnt read the article I wouldnt have asked you the question. 

Wally, quote something from the seeded article that indicates Adam Schiff needs to be called as a witness at the impeachment trial. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Wally, quote something from the seeded article that indicates Adam Schiff needs to be called as a witness at the impeachment trial. 

HI JR!!   And a Trump Train morning to you.

I'll fill in for Wally so a bit and provide this DIRECTLY from the article you claim to have read;

Republicans have suggested that Schiff himself should testify  over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel's  contacts  with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.

So, you were asking for what from the article again?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

Here ya go:

Republicans have suggested that Schiff himself should testify over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel's contacts with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
Wally, quote something from the seeded article that indicates Adam Schiff needs to be called as a witness at the impeachment trial. 

Is that a trick question? How about the obvious need outside the article?

"Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, wrongly implied that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower before receiving the complaint. Schiff claimed, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide before filing a complaint.

A Democratic committee official told us Schiff “ could have been more clear” but was  “referring to the Committee officially interviewing the whistleblower, and himself personally.” It was clearly known, however, that the committee hadn’t officially interviewed the whistleblower at that time.

The   New York Times   broke the story   on Oct. 2 that Schiff knew about “ the outlines” of the whistleblower’s concerns before the  Aug. 12 complaint  was filed. The whistleblower had contacted an intelligence committee aide after passing along concerns to the CIA’s top lawyer and being “[c]oncerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding,” the  Times  reported. "

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Everything the whistleblower said in his report has been verified by subsequent information from others. It is nothing short of bizarre and disturbing for Trump defenders to be obsessing still about the whistleblower, who no longer has much relevancy. 

Then again, complaining about the whistleblower and Schiff is all the Trump defenders have. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
Everything the whistleblower said in his report has been verified by subsequent information from others

Not this time, John.  Here is why he needs to be called:

"Everything Trump's defenders feared about the whistleblower is true. According to a   report   from RealClear Investigations, the alleged whistleblower is 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella.

Ciaramella is a holdover from the Obama administration and a registered Democrat. He's been accused of leaking like crazy. He worked with Joe Biden, he's a vocal critic of President Trump, and he invited a DNC operative inside the White House to attend meetings. He also helped instigate the investigation into Russia collusion. So, of course, Democrats would believe his second-hand complaint about President Trump's phone conversation with Ukranian President Zelensky over the actual transcript  of the call itself. 
(Via RealClear Investigations) 

"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The report claims that federal records show Ciaramella attended a state luncheon with Joe Biden's office back in October 2016. You'll never guess who else was there? Former FBI Director James Comey and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper. You can't make this stuff up.  The report says it was strange for Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, to have been there. And it describes Ciaramella's invitation as "unusual," saying it "signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House." 

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor. On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/10/30/report-whistleblower-who-complained-about-trumps-call-to-ukrainian-president-n2555644
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.8  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
It is nothing short of bizarre and disturbing for Trump defenders to be obsessing still about the whistleblower, who no longer has much relevancy

So tell us JR, do you think Schiff had advance knowledge of and either he or his aides communicated with the whistleblower prior to his WB report coming forth? That seems to be a question that came up from the graveyard...........again

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

If the Republicans think Schiff did something wrong or unethical they can initiate a proceeding against him in the House, or the Senate, or whatever is the appropriate venue. 

The evidence against trump was not manufactured by Schiff, therefore questions about Schiff have nothing to do with whether or not Trump should be impeached. 

The Republicans have NO defense for what Trump did, so they bitch about Schiff. It is very obvious. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

Nothing in that conspiracy argument is relevant to the evidence of guilt against trump. 

It doesnt matter if the whistleblower was "antiTrump", or worked with Democrats previously. 

What matters is if his information is correct. And it is. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
Republicans have suggested that Schiff himself should testify  over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel's  contacts  with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.

The only problem with that is that it is not a sufficient reason to call Schiff as a witness in the impeachment.

If you want to put Schiff on trial charge him with something. This trial is about Trumps behavior. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
Nothing in that conspiracy argument is relevant

Ciaramella needs to testify about his involvement with Schiff/Schiff's staff. 


to the evidence of guilt against trump. 

Very shortly I'm be able to respond to every comment like that with "he was found not guilty!"

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
The only problem with that is that it is not a sufficient reason to call Schiff as a witness in the impeachment.

He is a fact witness, but fear not after tomorrow, nobody may be called and this frivolous "impeachment" fiasco may be over.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
The only problem with that is that it is not a sufficient reason to call Schiff as a witness in the impeachment.

So him using the whistleblower as a key player to get this started, then not being forthcoming about that contact is fine with you.  Got it.  

And then some have the audacity to cry foul when others push back against insanity like that.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.15  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

"The report claims"

So you are going by...hearsay.

Now why does that sound familiar...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.15    3 weeks ago

Let's clear it up then. Let's call Ciaramella.  Let him get a feel of what was done to Carter Page & Michael Flynn.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.16    3 weeks ago

Why?

The whistleblowers part in this is over. Long over actually. 

He was right. Trump asked a foreign government to investigate trumps political opponent. 

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.18  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.16    3 weeks ago

Why? Flynn did lie to the FBI and now wants to say he was trapped.

Page is an idiot that was talking to Russian spies.

But by all means, they had it so bad while doing illegal things.

Even with you having to keep mentioning this name, Roberts admonished people for trying to do so. Even withheld Rand's question as him trying to break the rules set forth.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.17    3 weeks ago
Why?

Because, as I have demonstrated there are questions of him orchestrating this scam with Adam Schiff. BTW Senator Rand Paul will take up that fight today. I don't know if you missed it yesterday but Paul submitted a question on the Whistleblower, which Chief Justice Roberts prevented. Paul reportedly pledged to revisit the issue today! 

Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress and Paul could name the whistleblower on the floor today!

You may also remember the technical claim that the WB is not really a WB? (The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel found that the complaint did not meet the legal definition of “urgent” because it treated the call between Trump and a head of state was if the president were an employee of the intelligence community.)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.18    3 weeks ago
Flynn did lie to the FBI and now wants to say he was trapped.

He was trapped. The FBI initially said he was telling the truth. He admitted to perjury as part of an unwritten deal to protect his son. Don't you know a dirty deal when you see one? Or is it ok because it hurts the President and the man who was going to rebuild the IC?

Page is an idiot that was talking to Russian spies.

Page was working for the CIA when talking to Russian spies!!! And an FBI lawyer hid that fact!!!


 Roberts admonished people for trying to do so.

I know, however there is no federal law against it.


Even withheld Rand's question as him trying to break the rules set forth.

Rand Paul vows to revisit that incident today! I hope he names Obama's bad boy!

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.21  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.19    3 weeks ago
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress and Paul could name the whistleblower on the floor today!

Only if he wishes to test Robert's resolve. I wonder what the punishment is for contempt of the Judge in this case?

You may also remember the technical claim that the WB is not really a WB?

Oh good grief.  Shades of Clinton arguing the definition of "is"?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @2.1.18    3 weeks ago
Why? Flynn did lie to the FBI and now wants to say he was trapped.

Even the FBI agents initially involved indicated they don't believe Flynn lied.

Page is an idiot that was talking to Russian spies.

He was a CIA paid informant.  There's that minor technicality you neglected to mention. 

But by all means, they had it so bad while doing illegal things.

Noting illegal about not remembering something and misstating it.  Just ask Hillary.  She couldn't remember shit.  I remember my first security and TS materials handling briefing and even when I got it.

And nothing illegal about working for or with the CIA.  Unless of course you're working against Americans on American soil.  That's the FBI's job.

Even with you having to keep mentioning this name, Roberts admonished people for trying to do so. Even withheld Rand's question as him trying to break the rules set forth.

Roberts is walking a tightrope.  If things go to court, he might very well be sitting on the bench when they do and he doesn't want to be in that position.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.21    3 weeks ago
Only if he wishes to test Robert's resolve. I wonder what the punishment is for contempt of the Judge in this case?

Actually, it raises a serious issue over the authority of the presiding officer vis-a-vis the Senate. If you recall Roberts had indicated that he was going to disallow questions on the whistleblowers, but he may have changed course via the threat of being overruled by the Senate. It should be interesting.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.21    3 weeks ago
Federal law does not guarantee anonymity of such whistleblowers in Congress and Paul could name the whistleblower on the floor today!
Only if he wishes to test Robert's resolve. I wonder what the punishment is for contempt of the Judge in this case?

That is actually an interesting conundrum.  

What I would prefer to question is exactly when and who changed the form and eliminated the requirement that any information contained HAD to be first hand knowledge.  The last "whiceltblower" briefing I had was conducted by an Obama appointed IG and he was adamant, and reiterated several times that any charge of misconduct, abuse etc., had to be "personal first hand knowledge" and the form being signed was a legal document and it was a felony to lie on it.

I'd like to see the entire chain of events including who initiated the request, minute meetings, and final decision and who made that decision.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.25  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.20    3 weeks ago

Where do you come up with this? So now he was working for the CIA?

Was he working for them while an adviser to trump's campaign?

No matter what you say, Flynn lied to the FBI just to protect trump then backtracked. Hell even Mueller said he cooperated and recommended no jail time but that wasn't good enough for him.

So you are going to cheer on Paul for defying a supreme court justice.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.24    3 weeks ago
What I would prefer to question is exactly when and who changed the form and eliminated the requirement that any information contained HAD to be first hand knowledge.

It's like touching the third rail, isn't it?  We aren't even supposed to think about such things, just accept the nature of the way Adam Schiff ,democrats and government officials behind the scenes have conducted themselves through all of this.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.25    3 weeks ago
So now he was working for the CIA?

You didn't know that?  It was in the Horowitz Report, (you know the one dems claim showed everything over at the FBI was just fine!)

Here, let me enlighten:

"The  FBI ’s four wiretap affidavits to a federal judge in 2016 and 2017 deliberately hid a part of  Trump  campaign volunteer  Carter Page ’s professional life that would have revealed his patriotic role as a  CIA  informant instead of the bureau’s nefarious depiction, the Justice Department inspector general’s report shows.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/11/kevin-clinesmith-fbi-attorney-hid-carter-page-cia-/

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.28  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.22    3 weeks ago

The whole thing seems sketchy to me with Page. Even if he was paid as an informant he was not an officer. He seems like a wackjob to me.

There is also different info on when he was paid by them, different timelines as to when he was. Was he working with them until 2013?

As far as Roberts, the republicans are putting him in this position. He stated he will not let the mans name be said, I don't think he would change his tune now.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.28    3 weeks ago
Even if he was paid as an informant he was not an officer.

That would explain his talking with Russians. The FBI deliberately hid that fact in getting FISA Warrants to spy on Page. They wanted to spy on Page to spy on the Trump Campaign. At some point everyone has to admit it.

He seems like a wackjob to me.

To me as well and that doesn't mean he has less rights than any other American citizen.


Was he working with them until 2013?

Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer intentionally altered an interagency email to exclude from the FISA warrant application that Page was a CIA source from 2008 to 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page


As far as Roberts, the republicans are putting him in this position.

So far, just one Republican - the Libertarian.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.30  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.27    3 weeks ago

Mueller stated he couldn't get much from Page. Left many things unanswered.

Page even stated he had worked with the FBI. I tend to think they would know that and wondered if he was a double agent.

Like I said before, the whole Page thing just seems sketchy.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.31  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.29    3 weeks ago

I just don't trust what he was actually doing. He lived in Moscow for years. Makes me wonder if him being paid by the CIA was a way for them to keep an eye on him.

Paul is not his father, which I considered a true Libertarian.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.32  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.30    3 weeks ago
Mueller stated he couldn't get much from Page.

The FISA warrants they obtained on Page allowed them to monitor all of his communications. It didn't matter that Page had left the trump Campaign the month before the warrant was issued - it was the past communications the rogue agents wanted! There was no way the FBI was going to get a warrant to spy on Trump - who was their target! No, they used Page as the door to get into the Trump campaign. They loaded up everything they had on Page, hoping to find something on Trump....anything. They finally got the screwing they deserved!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.33  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.31    3 weeks ago
I just don't trust what he was actually doing. He lived in Moscow for years.

Didn't Bernie Sanders spend his honeymoon there in 1988? In the case of Page there was at least a business reason for living in Moscow - he was the founder and managing partner of Global Energy Capital, an investment fund and consulting firm specializing in the Russian oil and gas business.


Paul is not his father, which I considered a true Libertarian.

Clearly, Rand Paul is a man of convictions

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.34  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.32    3 weeks ago

That makes no sense. The wiretap was for current communications. Saying they wanted past communication and as a way to get into the campaign, after he left the campaign, is grasping at straws.

trump himself was not targeted.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.35  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.34    3 weeks ago
The wiretap was for current communications.

The warrant gave them access to all e-mails past and present!

trump himself was not targeted.

He was ALWAYS the target

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.36  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.33    3 weeks ago

The largest oil company in Russia is state owned. So seems to me that would be dealing with the Russian government.

Paul a man of conviction?  Haha

He is partisan as hell, just like most of congress.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.37  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.35    3 weeks ago

Just because he said so?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.38  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.36    3 weeks ago
So seems to me that would be dealing with the Russian government.

You are intent on painting him as a Russian spy. Are you sure you want to stand by that?


Paul a man of conviction?  Haha

Like an arrow.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.39  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.37    3 weeks ago
Just because he said so?

Come on...They got caught. It's time to move on.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.40  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.38    3 weeks ago

And you seem to be intent on painting him as some patriotic person with only goodwill for country. I wouldn't stand by that.

The truth is neither one of us will know the exact details.

Paul has become nothing but a trump stooge. Funny that he is now a hero of the right just because he is a massive trump defender.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.41  Split Personality  replied to  Ender @2.1.28    3 weeks ago
The whole thing seems sketchy to me with Page. Even if he was paid as an informant he was not an officer. He seems like a wackjob to me. There is also different info on when he was paid by them, different timelines as to when he was. Was he working with them until 2013?

Hence, the FBI suspicions that he had switched sides or was a double agent prior to 2013,

a valid suspicion.

 
 
 
Cathar
2.1.42  Cathar  replied to  WallyW @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

You read and comprehend. What are you afraid of? tRump walks and looks like Mussolini and is about as competent as the Keystone Kops. Nothing is stopping the GOP in calling witnesses they have the votes. Go ahead and do so. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.43  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago
please copy and paste even one sentence in the seeded article that would suggest Schiff should be called as a witness in the impeachment proceeding. 

This one:

"This is someone who's likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories," Schiff told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018, when Trump named Bolton national security adviser.

The reason is that whenever someone testifies, their credibility is relevant. Here, we have the prosecutor himself - the one who is demanding that Bolton testify - saying less than two years ago that he thinks the witness is not a truth-teller. That legitimately gives the jury (the Senate) justification to disregard everything that witness has to say.

Now, I suppose you don’t have to have Schiff testify. We could just have everyone stipulate that he said those words and meant them as they are being interpreted, but if you want him to explain his words and possibly undo the damage they do to Bolton’s credibility, Schiff would need to testify.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.1.44  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
What matters is if his information is correct. And it is.

The information is correct the "CALL" transcript was released, no one has disputed it. There was nothing in the call that is a crime.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.45  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.40    3 weeks ago
Funny that he is now a hero of the right just because he is a massive trump defender.

That is projection. Your'e afraid the Whistleblower will get exposed as another Obama holdover trying to get Trump. He will be exposed despite what happens with this farce.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.46  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.41    3 weeks ago
Hence, the FBI suspicions

They didn't have suspicions..They wanted to take down Trump AND THEY GOT CAUGHT!

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.47  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.45    3 weeks ago
That is projection

It is what I observe. 

Now you sound just like Paul.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.48  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.47    3 weeks ago
It is what I observe. 

If you were observing with an open mind you would realize that Republicans haven't changed towards Paul, but it is his question of the mere chance of inappropriate behavior between Schiff and the individual he named which caused you to call him a "trump stooge."  That's called projection!


Now you sound just like Paul.

You just proved my point!

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.49  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.48    3 weeks ago

I didn't prove any point. You are saying exactly what Paul is saying. Almost verbatim.

Me calling him a trump stooge is my observation, no matter how you try to describe it.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.50  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.46    3 weeks ago
They wanted to take down Trump AND THEY GOT CAUGHT!

Sure they did, starting when, in 2008 or 2013?

2014, the year of the first FISA warrant against Mr.Page after the Russians tried to recruit him?

A full 18 months before Donald Trump announced his candidacy?

That's one hell of a conspiracy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.51  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.50    3 weeks ago
2014, the year of the first FISA warrant against Mr.Page after the Russians tried to recruit him?

I've heard press reports of that possibility in certain places (such as CNN & the New York Times). Nobody can say for sure. Can you?

Can you give us iron clad proof that there was a FISA warrant on Page in 2014?


Then there will come a question on the 90 day FISA renewals, but one thing at a time

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.52  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.51    2 weeks ago
Can you give us iron clad proof that there was a FISA warrant on Page in 2014?

No, it could have been 2013 by some reports.  Remember?  The whole double agent thing?

Since FISAs  are supposed to be secret jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

can you give any one IRON CLAD proof of anything?

Didn't think so...

I believe they covered that in Conspiracy Theories 100 or 101...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.53  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.52    2 weeks ago
No, it could have been 2013 by some reports. 

We can speculate forever!


Since FISAs  are supposed to be secret 

Then we shouldn't be using unverified claims, should we?


can you give any one IRON CLAD proof of anything?

Yup, that the two FISA Warrants we know about were "NOT VALID" and therefore Carter Page's rights WERE violated and his reputation WAS ruined!

Oh and BTW, here is another link (FOR IRON CLAD PROOF):

theepochtimes.com/doj-determines-2-fisa-spy-warrants-on-trump-campaign-adviser-were-not-valid_3214221.html

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Not to piss on Trump's parade or anything ....

In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating "corruption" in Ukraine was a "high priority" for the Trump administration.
Bolton also called Trump's communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "warm and cordial," without mentioning any misconduct.

=========================

John Bolton Fired by Trump as National Security Adviser ...

Sep 10, 2019  · President Donald   Trump   said he   fired   his hawkish national security adviser, John   Bolton , after disagreeing “strongly” with many of his positions, ending a tumultuous tenure marked by multiple ..

=====================================================

In August Bolton was on the team in good standing and had his own foreign policy agenda he was trying to push on Trump. Why would he reveal at that time that Trump was committing an impeachable offense in Ukraine? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
4  Ronin2    3 weeks ago

Thank you Adam Schiff and the rest of the Democratic nut jobs that like smearing anyone associated with Trump!

Then there is Bolton himself.

“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.

The Defense doesn't need to do a damn thing but play those tapes and allow the Democrats', and Bolton's, own words to fry him as a credible witness. Karma is a real bitch.

If the Dems somehow manage to secure the vote for more witnesses then they deserved to get appropriately skewered. Schiff, the whistle blower, and anyone else including Joe and Hunter Biden should be called. Give the Democrats what they want, a real political mud slinging circus.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1  WallyW  replied to  Ronin2 @4    3 weeks ago

Give the Democrats what they want, a real political mud slinging circus.

After all, fair is fair!  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5  r.t..b...    3 weeks ago

Game over.

That simple sentence sums up this entire debacle. It is but a 'game'....being played by all parties in self-interest and self-preservation and as in any fixed game, the outcome is predetermined. It is done so at the expense of actually seeking the truth, as the time table required to do so fits neither parties agenda, to no one's benefit. Apathy will eventually be the result and once apathy sets in, it is the beginning of the end of this great experiment. Sad to see it come to this point, taking place in the hallowed halls of the Senate chamber no less.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @5    3 weeks ago

You always find a way, ultimately , to blame "both sides". Its not only you here, a few others do it too. 

Trump committed an impeachable offense, so the democrats in Congress did the ethical and dutiful thing by proceeding with impeachment.  Otherwise they would be telling the future that Trump's behavior and actions were acceptable.  This thing is not the fault of "both sides". 

The only way Trump can win is if , when the election comes, a majority accepts him as "normal".  He is anything but. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago
Trump committed an impeachable offense,

I agree, JR.

Had the House insisted on calling witnesses and gone through the inevitable court battles it would have cemented their argument. But they did not...for whatever partisan reason. Read partisan...as that is the bottom line these daze. 

The 'ifs' presented by the House, countered by the 'buts' from the GOP,  leave those of us yearning for incontrovertible evidence and ultimate truth with no alternative but to shake our heads at 'both sides'. But as always, just my opinion as a lonely soul 'stuck in the middle'.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Democrats have a partisan reason to do certain things. They have tried to arrange things in a way that they believe will help, or at least not hurt, their prospects in the election. 

But they had an an absolute duty to proceed with impeachment once the whistleblower information became public.

Trump is not fit for office. That blows away questions of partisanship, imo. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
Trump is not fit for office.

Again, we agree. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
Democrats have a partisan reason to do certain things. They have tried to arrange things in a way that they believe will help, or at least not hurt, their prospects in the election. 

First honest thing you have stated. Of course your statement didn't go far enough. The Democrats are using the impeachment for purely political reasons. First to damage Trump and the Republicans as much as possible before the upcoming elections. The strong economy scares the shit out of them. People don't vote against their wallets. Second to distract from their insane exploding clown car of presidential candidates- and their economy wrecking policies.

But they had an an absolute duty to proceed with impeachment once the whistleblower information became public.

They had a Constitutional duty to investigate it fully before proceeding with the impeachment. They violated that duty when they failed to go through the proper process to compel witness testimony. By not waiting for the courts to decide, and rushing to judgement using second and third hand witnesses; and not providing their full testimony- they screwed themselves.

They also failed to take into account the horrendous precedent they set for all future presidents that hold the WH. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress? Talk about two broad unclearly defined articles. They could be applied to anything. Of course the Democrats think that the all powerful D behind their names will save any of their future Presidents.

Trump is not fit for office. That blows away questions of partisanship, imo. 

Your opinions have been known long before Trump took office. We have elections for a reason. Too bad if you don't like the results of them. Removing a President from office based on partisan hurt feelings should never happen.

Why are you afraid of a fair and open election to decide if Trump stays in office? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

the fact that Trump got elected by uninformed people does not make him qualified to hold office. 

Dictators, thieves, and thugs get elected all over the world from time to time. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    3 weeks ago
the fact that Trump got elected by uninformed people does not make him qualified to hold office. 

Way to keep alienating voters. I am sure that will encourage them all to run out and vote against their beliefs and principles. 

Dictators, thieves, and thugs get elected all over the world from time to time. 

Again, this is what we have elections for- so there are no US dictators. As for thieves- that applies to all politicians; and they are not thugs- they just hire them.

Are you sure you are not on the Trump campaign payroll?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.4    3 weeks ago
Why are you afraid of a fair and open election to decide if Trump stays in office? 

Not directed to me, but let me give my opinion if I may...

No one should be afraid of a fair and open election as that is the bedrock of our form of governance. But should an incumbent exert his influence as the current office holder (on a foreign government no less) in an effort to denigrate a potential candidate (regardless of party), does that not destroy the integrity of the fair and open election hypothesis?

I simply cannot understand the disconnect when it is argued 'let's wait for the election', when that same election has been compromised. The calendar and political expediency should never take precedence over ensuring the importance of a 'fair' and open election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.6    3 weeks ago
Way to keep alienating voters. I am sure that will encourage them all to run out and vote against their beliefs and principles.

Anyone who would vote for Trump is not listening to someone like me anyway. 

People who stay home might be another story. 

We , as a country have to stop denying reality.  Trump is not fit for office. 

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.9  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    3 weeks ago
the fact that Trump got elected by uninformed people does not make him qualified to hold office. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.10  katrix  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

I don't understand why so many people who, presumably, support the idea of a small government somehow have no problem with Trump claiming unlimited power. It's a concept which should scare everyone - not only because Trump is totally unfit to wield such power, but also for future presidencies. Hell, Sanders is reportedly already drafting executive orders that he plans to implement if he's elected. 

It got worse under Bush, and then again under Obama - and nobody seemed to give a crap as long as it was their guy who was doing it. But it will bite us all in the ass.  

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.11  katrix  replied to  WallyW @5.1.9    3 weeks ago
removed for context

Coming from someone who constantly claims to be uninformed about every single thing posted in here, that's hilarious.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    3 weeks ago

I've had Fox on this mourning, as i'm working round house today.

It is FCKN DISTURBING how these Basturds SPIN.

They, in my humble opine, are the main reason Ignorance now Rules our once great country.

.

Trump supporters and defenders, open your damn eyes.

How ANYONE, cannot see how they are being LIED to, by Trumpp, then by the GOP, who have lost ALL Credibility to me, should have a mental gullibility  test, and get their esophagus measured, cause how ANY could swallow this much ship, as it is just beyond what i care to phatom.

Lying unpatriotic Clowns 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    3 weeks ago
have no problem with Trump claiming unlimited power. It's a concept which should scare everyone

Indeed. Imagine a president without the obvious shortcomings of the current office holder...perhaps an articulate, coalition building, charismatic politician...but still with his or her own nefarious agenda, that precedent now says we can skirt the prescribed checks and balances. Scary only begins to describe the consequences. The only good thing I can ascribe to trump is that even in his megalomania, his incompetence at every turn has kept him in check. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.12    3 weeks ago
I've had Fox on this mourning

I think you mean morning. Mourning is the act of sorrowing.


It is FCKN DISTURBING how these Basturds SPIN.

That's ok, in another hour you can listen to the dems repeat their spin over and over and over again!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.15  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.13    3 weeks ago
Imagine a president without the obvious shortcomings of the current office holder...perhaps an articulate, coalition building, charismatic politician...but still with his or her own nefarious agenda,

We tried that experiment. Luckily the nefarious agenda never got completed. Evidently the silver tongue wasn't enough for a LOT of people. But, it did give us Trump so............

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.15    3 weeks ago
Evidently the silver tongue wasn't enough for a LOT of people.

They rejoiced when the radical in chief proclaimed that he would use executive action to get around the legislative branch of government. All except one I notice....She did say "It got worse under Bush, and then again under Obama - and nobody seemed to give a crap as long as it was their guy who was doing it."  Give that gal credit for honesty.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.15    3 weeks ago
Evidently the silver tongue wasn't enough for a LOT of people. But, it did give us Trump so............

.........sensing a trend here that absolutely no one should want to see continue. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.17    3 weeks ago

What are you seeing?  Wasn't it you who said  "Imagine a president without the obvious shortcomings of the current office holder...perhaps an articulate, coalition building, charismatic politician...but still with his or her own nefarious agenda, that precedent now says we can skirt the prescribed checks and balances. Scary only begins to describe the consequences." ?

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.19  Ender  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    3 weeks ago

What gets me is the idea that a president is immune from most everything. Why people want to claim a top executive is somehow above the law...

I understand a need for some privacy and privilege yet it seems we are getting to a point where we the people don't have a right to know a lot of things.

And then leakers be damned.

It seems they keep setting precedent for future office holders.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.1.20  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @5.1.19    3 weeks ago
we are getting to a point where we the people don't have a right to know a lot of things.

What do you mean getting? There is a lot of crap we don't know about the inner workings of D.C. for our "own good". Just now, because Trump, they are being exposed almost in real time. Seems leakers run rampant with this President's term(s).

 
 
 
Ender
5.1.21  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.20    3 weeks ago

I mean getting as it has been getting worse.

trump is intent on exposing himself.

Leakers are nothing new and seem to be the only way we get a glimpse of what is going on.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.22  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.18    3 weeks ago
What are you seeing?

The Senate hearings investigating an incompetent President for abusing his power of office for one. His predecessor did not commit anything close to the same infraction, regardless of partisan bent, or similar charges would have been levied.

I am certainly witnessing the dumbing down of the entire process from all the players involved; from the actors at center stage, to the would be prosecutors and jurors, to the journalists covering it all, and to the never-ending but never new commentary ascribing blame or defending behaviors.   Not our finest hour.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.22    3 weeks ago
The Senate hearings investigating an incompetent President for abusing his power of office for one.

"Incompetent" would be a purely partisan assessment. The US Senate is disposing of two sham Articles of impeachment which are no more than cliches written up by desperate Trump haters who know they can't defeat him in 2020.

I see the distinguished Bret Baier and the immaculate Martha MacCallum have arrived, so it's time for me to watch the final day of questions. I'll be watching to see if Sen Paul makes good on his vow.

Be back later

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.24  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.8    3 weeks ago

I was thinking the same thing.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1.25  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.22    3 weeks ago
The Senate hearings investigating an incompetent President for abusing his power of office for one.

So you and the left are the final judge on incompetent? Will the right be in charge of deciding a Democratic president is incompetent. I know many considered Jimmy Carter incompetent. Should he have been removed from office?

His predecessor did not commit anything close to the same infraction, regardless of partisan bent, or similar charges would have been levied.

So going to war in Libya; reinserting troops into Iraq; and inserting them into Syria all w/o Congressional approval isn't abuse of power? How about DACA? After Obama stated repeatedly he couldn't get it done with an EO/EA he went ahead and did it anyways. Extra judicial drone killings in countries we weren't at war with across the ME; including of two US citizens w/o trial. How about using EP to protect Holder and Holder's wife from testify on Fast and Furious in from of Congress; after Obama stated repeatedly Holder had never talked to him about the program. None of those are even close to Trump's abuse of power?  Then how about allowing the FBI to spy on a political opponent? Think Obama wasn't informed?

Your definition of abuse of power is sorely lacking.

Obama was investigated; but never impeached. Why is that? Because the Republicans realized that if they lowered the standards for impeachment it would be used against future presidents.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.26  Kathleen  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

Voters are big on the economy. People usually vote according to how it directly effects them and their family. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.27  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.26    3 weeks ago

And people usually give the President way too much blame or credit for the economy. Sure, they directly impact it in some cases (Trump's tariffs are an example), but usually not as much - and not as quickly - as people think.

Not surprising. From what I've seen, even economists don't really understand economics.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.28  r.t..b...  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.25    3 weeks ago
Your definition of abuse of power is sorely lacking.

My definition means nothing, as does your obfuscation in eliciting past administrations...with all due respect. 

What should concern us all is the process of checks and balances as defined in our Constitution has been corrupted by purely partisan agendas in the effort to maintain transitory control of the House, Senate, and/or Presidency.

It will determine the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and will define the trump legacy...do we subvert fact-finding in subordination to maintaining control, election integrity be damned? No winners in this scenario.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.29  bugsy  replied to  katrix @5.1.10    3 weeks ago
Trump claiming unlimited power

When did he do that?

 
 
 
lady in black
6  lady in black    3 weeks ago

[delete]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  lady in black @6    3 weeks ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @6    3 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @6    3 weeks ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.4  Ronin2  replied to  lady in black @6    3 weeks ago

Deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.4.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ronin2 @6.4    3 weeks ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Ender
7  Ender    3 weeks ago

So if Bolton is this serial liar then why not let him testify still?

If found to be lying in congress, he could go to jail.

But that is not the point trying to be made here is it.

 
 
 
Cathar
8  Cathar    3 weeks ago

The GOP under tRump is not a functioning political party but a cult. They spend their days collecting a paycheck in Congrees while ballooning the deficit. Amazing the Tea Party types and the Club for Growth is dead silent on the ballooning of deficits. I would bet that if this a Democrat they would be screaming bloody hell about the unrestrained debt and deficit.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Cathar @8    3 weeks ago
I would bet that if this a Democrat they would be screaming bloody hell about the unrestrained debt and deficit.

Indirectly it is the Dems. You are aware that the House appropriates funding right? And who has the majority hold on the purse strings? Yep. Dems

 
 
 
DRHunk
8.1.1  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1    3 weeks ago

hmmm, who held the majority in both house and senate when Obama was spending like a drunk sailor? I don't hear anyone ever blame or give credit to the House in regards to spending it is always the President. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  DRHunk @8.1.1    3 weeks ago

Deficit in billions by year..................

2011
$1,300 - Conservatives take House

2012
$1,087

2013
$679

2014
$485

2015
$438

2016
$585

2017
$665

2018
$779

2019
$1,092

2020
$1,101

Dark blue bold...............GOP majority. See a trend here since 2018 election where the House flipped back?

 
 
 
DRHunk
8.1.3  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.2    3 weeks ago

12-14 was nice, then it all went to hell again.  I don't keep up with these things but do you have the same info for Bush?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1.4  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  DRHunk @8.1.3    3 weeks ago

2001
($128)

2002
$158

2003
$378

2004

$413

2005
$318

2006
$248

2007 - Dems take over House and Senate
$161

2008
$459

2009
$1,413

2010
$1,294

 
 
 
DRHunk
8.1.5  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.4    3 weeks ago

Interesting data, Im looking at it and don't see it being a Dem or Rep thing.  You can put historical events on the dates and see a increase that correlates to the event with a steady decline after that event was dealt with.  2008 housing crisis and economic melt down, Iraq/Afghan war.

 I am more concerned with what we don't see....What event occurred in 2016-2017 that has almost doubled the deficit since Trump has been in office.  It is the presidents budget that gets sent to the house and that drives the true spending is it not.. Sure it is finalized in the House but the Senate also has to approve it.

"The House of Representatives and the Senate create budget resolutions. Each chamber of Congress analyzes the President's budget proposal and drafts a budget resolution setting overall spending levels"

So what is in Trumps budget that is creating this massive increase in the deficit?

I think it is the tax cuts...the terrible terrible tax cuts, but that's just my opinion. Happened under Bush also...negative $128B deficit to 378B in red by 2003, that $500B flip.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2  MUVA  replied to  Cathar @8    3 weeks ago

No conservatives know the cause of the deficit and debt but can’t get the democrats to cut one dime.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @8.2    3 weeks ago
No conservatives know the cause of the deficit and debt

Apparently true for decades, lol...

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  MUVA @8.2    3 weeks ago

Neither side gives a shit about spending when they are in charge of the White House.

The Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives- they just want lower taxes; and not spend as much as Democrats. 

The Democrats aren't fiscally conservative either- they want to raise taxes as much as possible; and then increase spending far beyond what their tax increases will cover.

Neither party cares about the deficit or the debt. It is just used as a tool to blast whoever holds the White House.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.2    3 weeks ago

I’m talking about the people not the politicians I think democrat and republican citizens know there needs to be cuts in military and spending in general.We now have 65 % of retiree’s living of SS only it isn’t going to be pretty in a few years.

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  MUVA @8.2.3    3 weeks ago

Missed the people not politicians part.

know there needs to be cuts in military and spending in general.

Agreed. But getting the public to agree where those cuts will be; and especially what military engagements to withdraw from is a different matter. Look at the backlash Trump received when he tried to pull troops out of Syria. Never mind they are there illegally; and Syria has requested they leave several times. Assad will never be removed from power with Russia, China, and Iran backing him. ISIS/ISIL is not our problem in Syria anymore. What purpose are our troops serving except as potential targets for multiple factions operating within the country?

We now have 65 % of retiree’s living of SS only it isn’t going to be pretty in a few years.

Some would claim that personal responsibility factors into that. That SS was meant to be a safety net only; to insure people had at least a little income in their retirement years. With people living much longer SS hasn't kept up with demand.  Not sure how to overcome that. Maybe teaching better advanced planning when people are young?

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.4    3 weeks ago

You didn’t miss it I failed to mention citizens I have no faith in any politician and agree with you.

 
 
 
katrix
8.2.6  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @8.2.4    3 weeks ago

We need financial education in every grade. No matter what you do when you grow up, you need to know how to manage your finances.

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @8.2.6    3 weeks ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

83954357_880320445734016_588773698980072

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @9    3 weeks ago

Good list.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @9.1    3 weeks ago

Who are you and what did you do to MUVA?

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
9.1.2  Larry Hampton  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

My guess,,,,the first part was the only part read.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Larry Hampton @9.1.2    3 weeks ago

Your guess sucks.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
9.1.4  Larry Hampton  replied to  MUVA @9.1.3    3 weeks ago

So you are for raising the deficit, tax breaks for millionaires,  and starting wars?

Good on you MUVA, at least your consistent.

 
 
 
Ronin2
9.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @9    3 weeks ago

Stupid list. The only part it got right was the golfing.

Stripping environmental protections. You mean rolling back Obama's EA's and EO's. If the Democrats are that concerned start a bill in the House to make those protections into law. Oh wait, that would mean negotiating with Republicans in the Senate, and Trump, to get a bill that would be passed. Nevermind.

Raising the deficit. The House controls the power of the purse. Better get on the Democrats.

Getting tax breaks for everyone. Only in leftist land a tax break across the board only for millionaires.

Fucking porn stars. Have proof that he has had sex with any since his term started?

Destroying social programs- what part of EO's and EA's are not laws did the left miss?

Starting Wars- sorry? What wars has Trump started. He tried to end our involvement with the one is Syria and everyone had such a cow that Trump backed down and we are still there. The left has been predicting war with North Korea and Iran, so far nothing- how long do we have to wait?

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
9.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2    3 weeks ago

You really think facts matter/s

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.3  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2    3 weeks ago
Oh wait, that would mean negotiating with Republicans in the Senate, and Trump, to get a bill that would be passed

McConnell has made it clear he will not even submit any House bills for votes, even those with bipartisan support. Kind of hard to do much with a total obstructionist in charge of the Senate. Why is it that everyone who makes it to Speaker turns into an absolute asshole? I guess it's the power trip.

But with all the political divisions and partisan crap, both parties have been relying too much on EA's and EO's from Bush onward. They figure it's easier to go around than to try to actually work together.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
9.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @9.2.3    3 weeks ago
They figure it's easier to go around than to try to actually work together.

The era of compromise is long gone.

It has come to the point that even the hint of being labeled a moderate or a centrist is a political death sentence. If you don't play to the lunatic fringe from either side of the spectrum, you have no place in your party as currently constructed. If ever the time was ripe for a viable third party to emerge, to speak to that place where the majority of voters actually reside, it is now.

Kudos to the leader with the gumption to buck the trend, shuck the shackles of the status quo, and say fuck no to the failed polity that has brought us to this point. She or he has my support just for stating the obvious, if for no other reason.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
9.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @9.2.3    3 weeks ago

McConnell is doing the exact same thing that Reid did to the Republican House.

Just like with the Republican bills for the Democratic Senate, there are many poison pills in the Democrat ones that Republicans will never agree to. The House and Senate cannot get big items like the budget done on a timely basis. How are they going to work out minute details in a law?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @9.2.4    3 weeks ago

A third party in 2020 will put Trump in the White House for 4 more years. There isnt a third party candidate on earth that can draw from his base. 

Like everyone else, moderates need to suck it up and support the Democrat so we can put an end to this travesty. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
9.2.7  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.6    3 weeks ago
A third party in 2020

Way too late for this cycle, JR, so don't fret about a third party candidate (unless Bloomberg tries as an independent).

I would hope that in the aftermath of 2020, which will be surely be the most disgusting and bitter campaign ever and guaranteed to be contested should the incumbent lose, we could see the error of our ways and perhaps chart a new course.  

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.8  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2.5    3 weeks ago
McConnell is doing the exact same thing that Reid did to the Republican House.

That's why I made the comment about all Speakers being assholes.

The House and Senate cannot get big items like the budget done on a timely basis. How are they going to work out minute details in a law?

Unfortunately, I don't think they are. And instead of trying to resolve the issue, each President just keeps grabbing more and more power so they can say they got something done (even though the next President can use his own EOs to overturn those things). The people in Congress care more about being re-elected than actually doing their jobs, and as r.t.b. pointed out, both parties just keep pandering to their lunatic fringes. It's all party over country with these politicians.

Hell, I just read that Sanders is already drafting a bunch of EOs he plans to implement if he gets elected.

 
 
 
MUVA
9.2.9  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.6    3 weeks ago

Support communism to save the country.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @9.2.7    3 weeks ago

A third party candidate doesnt need money or a convention or anything other than name recognition to potentially draw enough votes away from the Democrat to give the election to Trump.  In fact I fully expect that someone will try it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @9.2.9    3 weeks ago

So you will have to destroy the country with Trump in order to save it. 

rofl. 

 
 
 
MUVA
9.2.12  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.11    3 weeks ago

No I will support the anti communist candidates Trump Pence 2020 get you some of that.

 
 
 
Split Personality
10  Split Personality    3 weeks ago
In a day-after tweet, Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz, the defense attorney and former college professor, complained about the portrayal of his testimony Wednesday night that a president, if he believes his re-election is in the “national interest,” is essentially immune from impeachment for actions in support of that idea.

That argument left even some of Trump's top allies backing away.

“They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything,” the retired professor said Thursday. “I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.”

I was a lifetime Alan Specter( R ) supporter until he switched parties and debated Admiral Joe Sestak (D).

It was painfully obvious from the debate and Specters day after comments denying what he said that the octogenarian

had reached his limit.

Dershowitz has reached his limit also.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Donald J. Trump fan 1
CB
The Magic Eight Ball
KatPen
JohnRussell
Dulay
loki12


48 visitors