The Downfall of the Republican Party

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  pj  •  8 months ago  •  48 comments

The Downfall of the Republican Party
To see men and women who had a positive vision beaten down and broken by Trump is a poignant thing.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



On Friday, Republicans in the United States Senate—with the exception of Mitt Romney and Susan Collins—voted to prevent John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, from testifying in the impeachment trial of the president.

The reason they did so is undeniable: They did not want to hear from the most credible fact witness of all, one whose account would further implicate the president in his corrupt scheme—his “drug deal,” in Bolton’s words—to pressure the Ukrainian government to open an investigation to harm Trump’s main political opponent.

Republicans, from beginning to end, sought not to ensure that justice be done or truth be revealed. Instead, they sought to ensure that Trump not be removed from office under any circumstances, defending him at all costs. The job of Senate Republicans was to make their acquittal of the president as quick and painless for them as possible. In this particular case, facts and evidence—reality—were viewed as grave threats, which is why they had to be buried.

This is simply the latest act in an unfolding political drama, one in which the party of Lincoln and Reagan has now become, in every meaningful sense, the party of Trump.

I have written before about the massive moral and ethical defects of the president; there’s no need to rehearse them here. The point I want to make is a somewhat different one, which is that Trump’s takeover of the GOP has happened not because he is widely loved or admired by Republican lawmakers but because he is feared; not because most of the people in the Republican Senate Conference aspire to be like him, but because they are too timid to challenge him.

From a certain perspective, their timidity is understandable. They know that to publicly challenge Trump—to call out his ethical transgressions, cruelty, and indecency even as they support his policies—invites impassioned attacks from Trump supporters and, in some cases, a primary challenge. No one likes to be under attack, particularly by the base of one’s own party, and no one wants to lose a job.

Moreover, they will argue, they must defend the president in public so they can have influence in private. They have also convinced themselves that they are essential to the project of repairing the Republican Party post-Trump, and that this requires that they not be viewed as disloyal to Trump while he’s serving as president. “What good does it do to attack Trump?” they will ask. He won’t change his ways, and they will only weaken themselves in the process. (Many of them are happy to attack Trump in private conversations, citing, chapter and verse, things he has said or done that alarm them, showing that they both know better and are playing a cynical game.)

That, at least, is the story they tell themselves. Some of what they say is worth taking into account. But what they don’t tell themselves, probably because it would be too psychologically shattering, is that they have become fully complicit in a corrupt enterprise called the Trump presidency. (Romney is the rare exception.) They are defending actions they know are wrong and that, if they had been done by a Democratic president, they would be outraged by. More than that, they are validating Trump’s approach to politics—the hyper-aggression, the lawlessness, the mendacity, the shamelessness—and therefore guaranteeing imitators. It also happens that their influence on the president is far smaller than they tell themselves. They have made concession after concession after concession, justifying each one along the way. Then you look back at the road they’ve traveled, and it’s breathtaking. Donald Trump has changed them far more than they have changed Donald Trump.

In 1991, when Václav Havel received the Sonning Prize for contributions to European civilization, he spoke about those “who are starting to lose their battle with the temptations of power.” It is an insidious thing, Havel warned, to become captive to the perks of power. Politicians, he said, soon learn how easy it is to justify staying in power even as they give up bits of their soul in the process. It is easier than they think, he said, to get “morally tainted.”

“Politics is an area of human endeavor that places greater stress on moral sensitivity,” Havel concluded, “on the ability to reflect critically on oneself, on genuine responsibility, on taste and tact, on the capacity to empathize with others, on a sense of moderation, on humility. It is a job for modest people, for people who cannot be deceived.”

To see men and women who in other spheres of their lives are admirable, who got into politics because they believed it was a noble profession and had a positive vision for the Republican Party, beaten down and broken by Trump is a poignant thing. Their weakness and servility, their vassalage to such a fundamentally corrupt man, is dispiriting to those of us who not only lament the injury Trump is inflicting on the nation as a whole but who still care about the Republican Party and worry that conservatism is in the process of being subsumed into angry, ethnic populism.

What Republicans who have rallied behind Trump don’t fully grasp yet is the toxic effect he’s had on the younger generation, and on college-educated, suburban, and nonwhite voters. (Trump is wildly popular among blue-collar and rural voters, who are shrinking as a percentage of the voting population.) The damage done by Trump won’t be limited in its reach. He has imperiled the future of the party he leads. And those who think the GOP will simply snap back to the best of what it was pre-Trump—who think the worst elements of Trumpism will vanish once he leaves the White House—are kidding themselves.

Those who fell in line behind Trump have empowered him (and his many acolytes and media propagandists) to redefine much of conservatism and the principles that once informed the Republican Party. I don’t think that is what they intended, but that is what they have helped achieve.

Few things in life are permanent, most of all in the realm of politics. The fight for the future of the Republican Party, post-Trump, will be an intense one. Those of us who are conservatives and those on the center-right who believe the soul of GOP is still worth fighting for will not go gently into the good night.

But for now, Donald Trump has an iron grip on the Republican Party—and Republican lawmakers who privately lament what he has done have publicly enabled what he has done. That is something that must haunt at least a few of them, at least in their private moments, when they lay aside their rationalizations for just a moment and reflect on the role they have played in this horror show.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
PJ
1  seeder  PJ    8 months ago

We must crush the republican party and we can do it by having large masses of moderates and democrats relocate to red areas and out vote the low information crowd.

We need to re-introduce patriotism back to the country in rural areas.  Offer educations that has been tainted by republican talking points and false information.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ @1    8 months ago

If you can’t beat them, join them. 😃

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @1    8 months ago
We must crush the republican party and we can do it by having large masses of moderates and democrats relocate to red areas and out vote the low information crowd.

It may come to that. 

 
 
 
PJ
1.2.1  seeder  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    8 months ago

I think it's critical to move intelligent people into these red areas.  We already know the republicans are working with outside countries to try and steal elections.   One way to combat their corruption is by completely taking over as the majority in these areas.  Remote and low populated areas no longer are an impediment to businesses.  People are working remotely more and more so we can start moving out of the cities and into these red communities.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @1.2.1    8 months ago

I agree that it is a strategy that would probably work. 

The question is whether people will uproot their lives, in large enough numbers, to promote a political ideology or goal. 

 
 
 
PJ
1.2.3  seeder  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    8 months ago

Yes, that's one challenge but I think if people know it will destroy the republican party they will look at it as a plus.  Other ways to help would be to have move managers; moving budgets; and coaches to help employees pitch working remotely.  Most people don't want to move primarily because of work.  If we can get employers to buy in to remote working then I think that would remove a large concern.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  PJ @1    8 months ago

Order to "crush" the Republican party it would mean that Democratswouldhave to do more than act like toddler in the through of a temper tantrum and do something that will benefit the COUNTRY and not themselves.

We all know that wont happen.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3    8 months ago

Funny, the 'president' is only in this for himself and not the COUNTRY.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.3  Ozzwald  replied to    8 months ago
The evidence shows you are wrong

What evidence?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.3    8 months ago

Let's see

1.  Far better economy than when he started (to include the Stock Market)

2.  Lowest unemployment in decades

3.  No new wars started

4.  Better trade deals with Mexico and Canada.

5.  FAR better treatment and support for veterans.

......

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.4    8 months ago
1.  Far better economy than when he started (to include the Stock Market)

Thanks Obama.  Economy is slowing under Trump, grew faster under Obama.

2.  Lowest unemployment in decades

Thanks Obama.  Unemployment is shrinking slower under Trump than Obama.

3.  No new wars started

Give him time, he is still trying to get involved in an Iran war.

4.  Better trade deals with Mexico and Canada.

Only in his opinion.

5.  FAR better treatment and support for veterans.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.6  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.5    8 months ago

What a post devoid of reality.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.5    8 months ago
1.  Far better economy than when he started (to include the Stock Market)
Thanks Obama.  Economy is slowing under Trump, grew faster under Obama.

Fuck Obama.  Of course you neglect to mention that Obama had almost THREE TRILLION of stimulus money to play with.  Plus near zero percent interest rates for his time in office, in addition to the 85 billion a month the FED was pumping into the financial system to stabilize it.   So yeah, it's pretty easy to do decent when you're near the bottom and everyone is pushing your ass uphill.

2.  Lowest unemployment in decades
Thanks Obama.  Unemployment is shrinking slower under Trump than Obama.

Fuck Obama.  When the economy was trashed, it's easy to get it back when others are doing the heavy lifting.  See above to understand that.

But when you consider that Trump has essentially FULL EMPLOYMENT, with more jobs than people to fill them, he's doing great.  

3.  No new wars started
Give him time, he is still trying to get involved in an Iran war.

Per the prognosticators, we were already supposed to have been in WWIII due to Korea.

4.  Better trade deals with Mexico and Canada.
Only in his opinion.

And the opinions of governors of multiple state, oh AND THE UNIONS that supported the deal.

5.  FAR better treatment and support for veterans.

As opposed to the vets dying waiting for Obama to do something about the VA...  yeah.

I know reality really sucks for so many to accept, but the Trump Train has been great for America and will continue being great for the next 5+ years.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.3.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.5    8 months ago

You really expect me to accept proven leftist sites as your source?  Sorry not going to happen.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.8    8 months ago
You really expect me to accept proven leftist sites as your source?

Can't argue the facts huh?

Translation:  Any news site that says anything against Trump is a leftist site.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.7    8 months ago
Fuck Obama .  Of course you neglect to mention that Obama had almost THREE TRILLION of stimulus money to play with.

But but but...........

Obama also had both the House and Senate trying to block everything, Trump had both and still couldn't even accomplish even his main promise of building a wall.

Fuck Obama.  When the economy was trashed, it's easy to get it back when others are doing the heavy lifting.

Easy to recover from the bush recession?  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Don't forget the laws that were implemented to prevent it from happening again.  The laws that the Republican House and Senate promptly revoked.

Per the prognosticators, we were already supposed to have been in WWIII due to Korea.

Looks like Trump is even more incompetent that the "prognosticators" thought.

And the opinions of governors of multiple state, oh AND THE UNIONS that supported the deal.

Republican governors????

NAFTA 2.0?  6 key differences between NAFTA and the USMCA deal that replaces it

Nobody is saying it isn't better, but the differences are so small that an update would have fixed NAFTA quicker and easier.

As opposed to the vets dying waiting for Obama to do something about the VA...  yeah.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump takes credit for Obama’s gains for vets

Former VA secretary details dysfunction, chaos within the Trump administration

Trump’s Under-the-Radar Push to Dismantle Veterans Health Care

I know reality really sucks for so many to accept, but the Trump Train has been great for America and will continue being great for the next 5+ years.

And yet you are completely unable to document any of these claims of yours or provide links to back up your claims.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    8 months ago

tRump was also looting veteran pension funds as well as other veterans funds for the wall

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    8 months ago
Fuck Obama .  Of course you neglect to mention that Obama had almost THREE TRILLION of stimulus money to play with.

But but but...........

Obama also had both the House and Senate trying to block everything, Trump had both and still couldn't even accomplish even his main promise of building a wall.

Did he or did he NOT have almost three trillion dollars of stimulus money available?  Yes or no.

But maybe you forget those "shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready" (snicker, snicker)

Fuck Obama.  When the economy was trashed, it's easy to get it back when others are doing the heavy lifting.

Easy to recover from the bush recession? 

Don't forget the laws that were implemented to prevent it from happening again.  The laws that the Republican House and Senate promptly revoked.

Global recession.  Initiated by the housing meltdown.  But if as you claim it was the Bush recession, then the great economy we have now is in fact the TRUMP economy.

Per the prognosticators, we were already supposed to have been in WWIII due to Korea.
Looks like Trump is even more incompetent that the "prognosticators" thought.

So, you're acknowledging that YOU WANT US IN A NUCLEAR WAR simply because Trump is President.  Ok...  THAT'S FUCKING INSANE.

And the opinions of governors of multiple state, oh AND THE UNIONS that supported the deal.

Republican governors????

NAFTA 2.0?  6 key differences between NAFTA and the USMCA deal that replaces it

Nobody is saying it isn't better, but the differences are so small that an update would have fixed NAFTA quicker and easier.

Governors of multiple states.  

Obviously, YOU'RE saying it isn't better.   You're still hanging your hat on NAFTA.  

As opposed to the vets dying waiting for Obama to do something about the VA...  yeah.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump takes credit for Obama’s gains for vets

Former VA secretary details dysfunction, chaos within the Trump administration

Trump’s Under-the-Radar Push to Dismantle Veterans Health Care

I know reality really sucks for so many to accept, but the Trump Train has been great for America and will continue being great for the next 5+ years.

Reality is what the right deals with.  Wishful thinking is what the left hopes for.  That and rumors, supposition, conjecture, innuendo, hyperbole and hearsay.

And yet you are completely unable to document any of these claims of yours or provide links to back up your claims.

Links for what?  Simply look at the stock market numbers.  Look at the unemployment numbers.  Look at the wage growth.  Maybe the tax rates being lowered are more to your liking.

Reality really suck for the left.  They have nothing to hang their hat on other than "I hate Trump."

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.14  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.12    8 months ago

Wow Tessy - and you know that's a damned lie.  Wanna show some links to support your statement???

His funding is coming from MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - where does that say the VA?

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/10/18/trumps-use-of-military-money-for-border-wall-survives-senate-test/

Trump’s use of military money for border wall survives Senate test

Oh, and in addition, the MILITARY has JUST approved more funding for wall construction.  No, not the VA.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/15/pentagon-backs-trumps-call-72b-more-military-funds-build-wall.html

Pentagon Backs Trump's Call for $7.2B More from Military Funds to Build Wall

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.15  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.14    8 months ago

Wonderful, perhaps you can help them build the wall across the Tohono O'odham reservation. They need volunteers for that project 1st.

As far as the monies for this or the VA...The VA has been underfunded for quite some time. But WTF they are just vet's that gave a lot of themselves for this country. 

But the wall takes priority.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.16  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.3.15    8 months ago

Not talking about the reservation - speaking directly to the misinformation posted about the appropriated funding.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.17  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.16    8 months ago
Not talking about the reservation - speaking directly to the misinformation posted about the appropriated funding.

Why not, it's part and parcel of the whole wall ''thingy''....

As for the funding it's seems that since the VA has been underfunded for years that money could/should be used to help the vets. 

Seems the wall is more important than the vets. SAD!!!!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MUVA @1.3.6    8 months ago

Always incredibly laughable when most progressive leftist liberals ask for evidence on something, and when it is provided, it is always scorned, laughed at, said to be wrong, or all of the above and/or just flat out ignored when it does not exactly match their own worldview and political ideology. There is no middle ground. It has to be all their way or the highway...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.3.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.9    8 months ago

Present facts and we'll discuss them.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.3.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.12    8 months ago

Nowhere near as much as his predecessor.  

Care to try again?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3.21  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @1.3.17    8 months ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-budget-2020/

You'll also note that the VA got an 8% increase in their budget.

Department of Veterans Affairs

2019 BUDGET

$90.2B

2020 PROPOSAL

$97.0B

CHANGE

+$6.8B

The White House is proposing a 7.5 percent boost to the Department of Veterans Affairs, to $97 billion. This includes an increase of close to 10 percent for medical care for veterans, much of it to implement a law Congress passed last year to consolidate private-care programs outside VA and make private doctors easier for veterans to access.

Other new spending would continue the agency’s massive modernization of its electronic health records, add mental-health services for suicide prevention and expand medical services to female veterans.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.22  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @1.3.21    8 months ago

I'm aware of the proposed increase in the VA budget. As I stated above they have been underfunded for years. 

So why not take the monies that the DOD is giving up for the wall to the vets? 

As you're aware I have an ongoing fight with the VA for services due to severe injuries to a family member. When it comes to them being underfunded and in some cases just fucked up I do have a world of experience with it. 

As for using outside the VA doctors let me give you an example of what happened. 

My son was diagnosed with a very bad gall bladder by the VA. He was told that it would be appx 3 months before they could take it out at a VA facility. Three weeks later he had a severe attack and was rushed to Emergency where the gall bladder was taken out. The bill was huge and I tried to get the VA to pay part of it, no dice. Out of pocket exceeded $20,000 after fighting with the hospital so I paid it for him. He is 100% disabled from a war wound and there is no way that he could pay that bill.

So there you go. 

 

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.23  Kavika   replied to  Kavika @1.3.22    8 months ago

Part of my response was dropped. I contacted the DAV and got an attorney. They were able to get the VA to absorb part of the bill. I paid the remaining $20,000.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.24  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.13    8 months ago
Did he or did he NOT have almost three trillion dollars of stimulus money available?  Yes or no.

Obama or Bush?  Yes he had stimulus money, but money by itself it not worth anything, just look at what Bush 2 did with his money to fight the recession.

But maybe you forget those "shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready"

And maybe you forget that the money that was supposed to go to "shovel ready jobs" actually was taken by some Republican governors and used to balance their budgets.  You are also ignoring the FACT that the stimulus pulled us up out of the recession.

But if as you claim it was the Bush recession, then the great economy we have now is in fact the TRUMP economy.

According to the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession in the U.S. began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 .  Who was POTUS December 2007?

Global recession.  Initiated by the housing meltdown

You're not big on history, are you?

Major causes of the initial subprime mortgage crisis and following recession include: International trade imbalances and lax lending standards contributing to high levels of developed country household debt and real-estate bubbles that have since burst; U.S. government housing policies; and limited regulation of non-depository financial institutions. Once the recession began, various responses were attempted with different degrees of success. These included fiscal policies of governments; monetary policies of central banks; measures designed to help indebted consumers refinance their mortgage debt; and inconsistent approaches used by nations to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses.

So, you're acknowledging that YOU WANT US IN A NUCLEAR WAR simply because Trump is President.

1 of the sure signs that you are losing an argument is when you have to resort to lying.

Governors of multiple states.

That's what I said.  Republican governor s .  You have to watch closely,with the English language 1 small letter can changes things from singular to multiples.

Obviously, YOU'RE saying it isn't better.   You're still hanging your hat on NAFTA.  

And another lie.  You must be getting more desperate.

Reality is what the right deals with.

President Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days

And this doesn't even include his lie filled State of the Union Address.

Links for what?

Every and any claim you make.  You never provide any evidence to back up your outlandish claims.

 
 
 
evilgenius
1.3.25  evilgenius  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.13    8 months ago
Did he or did he NOT have almost three trillion dollars of stimulus money available?  Yes or no. But maybe you forget those "shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready" (snicker, snicker)

Did you forget he gave that almost three trillion dollars of stimulus to state governors for those maybe /maybe not shovel ready jobs?

Several states like MN's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty put most of it in the General Fund instead of actually using it for projects. It's pretty odd that Pawlenty kept having budget short-falls (and raiding the public school fund) as Governor when the two Dems afterward had major surpluses... hmmmm... 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.26  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @1.3.25    8 months ago

Those republicans!  Looting and pillaging and raping the treasury as fast as their thieving fingers allow 

Makes me think of a lawyer joke

It was so cold the other day that the lawyers kept their hands in their own pockets

Those republicans!  Always have their hands in everyone else's pockets!

 
 
 
evilgenius
1.3.27  evilgenius  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.26    8 months ago
Those republicans!  Always have their hands in everyone else's pockets!

Don't be too quick there. I can easily replace republicans with democrats and say, "Democrats have never found a tax they didn't like." It's just a different pocket, Tessylo.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.28  Ozzwald  replied to  evilgenius @1.3.27    8 months ago

Don't be too quick there. I can easily replace republicans with democrats and say, "Democrats have never found a tax they didn't like." It's just a different pocket, Tessylo.

You could say that, but it wouldn't be true.  Democrats aren't afraid to raise taxes IF NEEDED, but Republicans always like to claim how they will drop taxes.  That is a Republicans only campaign promise because they have nothing else. 

I keep asking these right wingers on NewsTalker, to list any or all Republican policies or bills designed to directly help the working class.  You know what their response was?  Lincoln freed the slaves.  They never came up with anything Republicans have done, less than 50 years ago, only for the working class.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.29  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.28    8 months ago

When you pay a lot in taxes that is enough.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.31  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.30    7 months ago

I paid about 70,00 in income this past year and I do manual labor for a living.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.32  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @1.3.31    7 months ago
I paid about 70,00 in income this past year and I do manual labor for a living.

Well good for you.  Does not address the FACT I posted however.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2  Nerm_L    8 months ago

Ambassador Gordon Sondland's testimony wasn't hearsay evidence.  Sondland was a principle witness that spoke directly with President Trump.  Gordon Sondland was the loop; not a bystander.  Gordon Sondland was more deeply involved than John Bolton.  Sondland was the smoking gun if there was one.

If the Senate was to serve as both investigative body and deliberative body, then why was the House even involved?  The Democratic argument was that the House isn't needed to impeach a President since the Senate must investigate and deliberate.  The Constitution establishes the House as the investigative body for impeachment so that the Senate can serve as an impartial deliberative body.  That's why the House has Constitutional authority to subpoena witnesses and documents.   The House not exercising its Constitutional authority was their choice, not the Senate's choice.

The entrenched executive bureaucracy used House Democrats as a political weapon against Donald Trump.  Don't ignore that the justification for impeachment was volunteered by the executive bureaucracy.  The bureaucracy lost.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    8 months ago
Ambassador Gordon Sondland's testimony wasn't hearsay evidence.

Sondland testified that Trump personally told him that he (Trump) didnt want a quid pro quo from Zelensky.  

Problem, is that was on Sep 9th, AFTER Trump had been briefed that a whistleblower had gained wind of Trump's scheme and was reporting it to Congress. 

In other words, Trump's words to Sondland are instantly recognizable as self serving and in fact themselves a continuation of the plot. The exchange makes Trump look more guilty, not less. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3    8 months ago
Sondland testified that Trump personally told him that he (Trump) didnt want a quid pro quo from Zelensky.  

Problem, is that was on Sep 9th, AFTER Trump had been briefed that a whistleblower had gained wind of Trump's scheme and was reporting it to Congress. 

In other words, Trump's words to Sondland are instantly recognizable as self serving and in fact themselves a continuation of the plot. The exchange makes Trump look more guilty, not less. 

How does that change Gordon Sondland's role?  Sondland was a principle participant.  Democrats have been bleating for more witnesses, yet discounted evidence provided by Gordon Sondland.

Democrat's handling of Sondland really does suggest that the impeachment was pursued for entirely political reasons.  Fortunately for Democrats, as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, politics is not a crime.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    8 months ago
Fortunately for Democrats, as Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, politics is not a crime.

What part do Ukrainians rightfully play in US politics and US elections?  If Pete Buttigieg gets the nomination, can he go to Saudi Arabia and say "I will give you a better deal across the board than Trump does. I need a favor though. Give me information about Trump and Kushner being on the take throughout the region. "

That would be "politics" according to your definition, no?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    8 months ago
What part do Ukrainians rightfully play in US politics and US elections?  If Pete Buttigieg gets the nomination, can he go to Saudi Arabia and say "I will give you a better deal across the board than Trump does. I need a favor though. Give me information about Trump and Kushner being on the take throughout the region. " That would be "politics" according to your definition, no?

So, there aren't any expectations when the United States gives public money to another country?  What does the United States get in return for foreign aid?

What was the United States going to get from COP21 or the Trans Pacific Partnership?  A legacy?

Quid pro quos aren't an aberration in politics; they are business as usual.  The executive and legislative branches use public money to buy favors all the time.  Our intelligence agencies are in the business of digging up dirt that can be used as political leverage.  The American taxpayer is being used as a cash cow that pays for quid pro quos of all kinds.

We know what Ukraine got from the United States.  But what does the United States receive from Ukraine?  A chance to fight another war?  Why is Ukraine so important to the national security of the United States?

Foreign affairs is nothing but political leverage and political favors.  Don't play the naive card to serve political expediency; foreign influence peddlers will think the United States is a country of suckers.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4  Ronin2    8 months ago

So tell us, was it the downfall of the Democratic Party when they supported Bill Clinton during an impeachment when they knew he was guilty and should be removed from office?

If the Republican Party is "Falling", then the Democrats are already the fallen; and proved it with this impeachment.

1) No open investigation. Closed door testimony only that was selectively leaked by Democrats.

2) Refusing to let House Republicans call any witnesses that could refute claims against Trump.

3) No first hand witnesses. The Democrats in the House couldn't be bothered to do their damn jobs and try to compel witnesses to testify by using the courts, as Republicans had done with Clinton and Obama.. Instead they based their articles of impeachment off of witnesses with second and third hand information only; and used officials unwilling to testify as one of the articles of impeachment against Trump.

4) Relying on selective leaks from supposedly unbiased officials from the NSC. Funny how excerpts from Bolton's book that were damaging to Trump were leaked by the government to the NY Times as the Senate was conducting it's trial. Of course the Democrats weren't surprised in the least by this; and never once questioned the validity or authenticity of the material being leaked. Using a source in Bolton they would never had believed under any other circumstances.

5) Calling for Trump's impeachment right after he won the election. Democrats TDDDDS started as soon as Trump was announced the winner. They started talking impeachment and have never stooped. They have broken every precedent to get rid of Trump relying on feelings, conjecture, and hearsay in the place of real evidence.

The Republicans are "Falling" they have already announce they will impeach Joe Biden should he be elected; but it is the Democrats that have already hit rock bottom, and that are showing them the way.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @4    8 months ago
So tell us, was it the downfall of the Democratic Party when they supported Bill Clinton during an impeachment when they knew he was guilty and should be removed from office?

Did the Democrats in the Senate call new witnesses to review the case against Clinton?  Yes.

Did the Democrats review new evidence in regards to the trial?  Yes.

1) No open investigation. Closed door testimony only that was selectively leaked by Democrats.

Following the new rules that the Republicans created.  How do you know it wasn't the Republicans leaking the info, hmmmmm?

2) Refusing to let House Republicans call any witnesses that could refute claims against Trump.

Another lie.  Republicans were able to call any witnesses involved, or with knowledge of the Trump Ukraine bribery.

3) No first hand witnesses.

Trump's refusal to allow them to testify, without invoking executive privilege is the primary reason he got charged with Obstruction of Congress.

4) Relying on selective leaks from supposedly unbiased officials from the NSC.

Again, Trump's refusal to hand over any requested documentation...Obstruction of Congress.

5) Calling for Trump's impeachment right after he won the election.

I keep hearing this from the right wing nuts, but none have been able to supply any evidence of this.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    8 months ago
So tell us, was it the downfall of the Democratic Party when they supported Bill Clinton during an impeachment when they knew he was guilty and should be removed from office?
Did the Democrats in the Senate call new witnesses to review the case against Clinton?  Yes. Did the Democrats review new evidence in regards to the trial?  Yes.

First, as the right is always told.  Clinton is not President.

Second, the Senate, during the trial heard from the House Impeachment Managers (Democrats all) not fewer than sixty (that's 60) times that they had all sufficient and overwhelming evidence to convict President Trump.  If they were making that claim, and then demanding yet more witnesses testify, someone is lying.  And since it was the Democrats that were making the claim and demand, can you finally admit that the Democrats were in fact lying to the American people in addition to the Senators in the Senate Chamber?

1) No open investigation. Closed door testimony only that was selectively leaked by Democrats.
Following the new rules that the Republicans created.  How do you know it wasn't the Republicans leaking the info, hmmmmm?

It wasn't the Republicans that were coming out of the SCIF proclaiming the evidence they were seeing and hearing.

2) Refusing to let House Republicans call any witnesses that could refute claims against Trump.
Another lie.  Republicans were able to call any witnesses involved, or with knowledge of the Trump Ukraine bribery.

There was no Trump Ukraine bribery.  Regardless of how you try to spin it, there was no there there.  Similar to all the other attempts at proving something was there that wasn't.  Russia, conspiracy, collusion, Mueller, et.al. has proved nothing but Democrat vitriolic hatred of Donald Trump.

3) No first hand witnesses.
Trump's refusal to allow them to testify, without invoking executive privilege is the primary reason he got charged with Obstruction of Congress.

There are legal remedies to get witnesses.  The Democrats however, could not wait for that as it would interfere with their time table, and likely see President Trump reelected before any resolution.

4) Relying on selective leaks from supposedly unbiased officials from the NSC.
Again, Trump's refusal to hand over any requested documentation...Obstruction of Congress.

Again, there are legal remedies to accomplish what the lawless Democrats desired, but that would not fit their timetable.

5) Calling for Trump's impeachment right after he won the election.
I keep hearing this from the right wing nuts, but none have been able to supply any evidence of this.

Actually, the 'calls' for impeachment were happening 1- before he even won election as a threat to impeach if he won, and then immediately after he won and had not yet taken the oath of office.

Oh, and here's your fucking evidence for the bullshit the Democrats have been perpetrating since he took office:

H.Res.438 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (07/12/2017)

115th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. RES. 438
Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Source:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/438/text

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.1    8 months ago
First, as the right is always told.  Clinton is not President.

Then read the DAMN QUESTION!!!  He was specifically asking about the Clinton impeachment.

the Senate, during the trial heard from the House Impeachment Managers (Democrats all) not fewer than sixty (that's 60) times that they had all sufficient and overwhelming evidence to convict President Trump.

ALL witnesses and ALL evidence pointed to what Trump did.  The defense offered NO EVIDENCE and NO WITNESSES to counter that.

It wasn't the Republicans that were coming out of the SCIF proclaiming the evidence they were seeing and hearing.

AGAIN, read the DAMN QUESTION!!!  He was talking leaks not interviews.

There was no Trump Ukraine bribery.  Regardless of how you try to spin it, there was no there there. 

I agree, I consider it extortion, but bribery is what was stated.  Trump's defense never even denied his actions, their total defense consisted of , he did it but he shouldn't be punished for it.

There are legal remedies to get witnesses.

Not within the time frame they were limited to.

Again, there are legal remedies to accomplish what the lawless Democrats desired, but that would not fit their timetable.

Again, not within the time frame they were limited to.

Actually, the 'calls' for impeachment were happening 1- before he even won election as a threat to impeach if he won, and then immediately after he won and had not yet taken the oath of office.

Still waiting on you to provide evidence.

H.Res.438 — 115th Congress (2017-2018) Shown Here: Introduced In House (07/12/2017)

So in your mind, 1 Democratic Rep, submitting 1 resolution, that was not taken up by any other House Rep, as evidence to a vast Democratic conspiracy?

But at least you provide evidence on a claim for the first time.  Did it hurt?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Kavika


61 visitors