Actually I do which is why you struggle so badly. You are completely predictable. Closed minded.
Trump wants Ukraine to investigate Biden
- Thread starter Bill4411
- Start date
Actually I do which is why you struggle so badly. You are completely predictable. Closed minded.
The difference is, I am a liberal, and I know it. I realize I'm left of most of the country. I don't delude myself into thinking that my opinions somehow represent the average American. They don't. I know they don't. When I have facts to defend my positions, I provide them. When I don't, I don't. One of the reasons I don't follow the liberals on everything is because sometimes I think the liberals don't have the facts. That's why I argued in favor of trophy hunting imports. I don't like trophy hunting, but the facts say it's good for African conservation efforts. So I set my opinions aside in the face of facts.
He doesn't. He thinks his ideology is representative of what average people think and know, and he assumes the facts back that up, without evidence.
Michael Schmidt on MSNBC right now: complaint is about more than Trump's conversations; it's about how it was handled improperly after the fact. I think he let slip more than he intended to there.
Anyone else here a fan of Preet Bharara? Always thought he gave a very sober analysis leading up to and after the release of the Mueller report. The back and forth he had with Robert Ray this evening was effective in drawing a clear contrast in regards to our most recent problems.
Please link where I have ever stated that my ideology is representative of what average people think.
The truth is quite the opposite. I know I am in the minority in today's divisive environment. When the righties and the lefties both hate on me, I know I am doing something right. My frustration, as I have stated here several times Mr. "I read your posts" is that no one currently in Washington speaks for me. I have to choose bits and pieces from both sides and that is too bad.
Happy with how I see things as I can see the hypocrisy in both sides as well as the reasonable aspects.
When I say FOX and MSNBC both pander to their base rather than provide Journalistic quality...you would trash me for the MSNBC comment and a righty would do the same for me for including FOX. I am good with that.
He froze the funds prior to the call. That right there should alert rational people to the fact that he was seeking a quid pro quo. Despite what a 5 page summary of a 30 min phone call attempts to deflect...
Congressman Jackie Speier was on Rachel Maddow show last night and although she could not discuss the specifics of what she heard in closed door sessions about the whistle blower report; she stated it was much worse than she ever would have imagined-take it for what it’s worth.
Apparently, Trump started this effort with Ukraine the day after the Mueller report was released. Rachel’s theory is Trump wants to clear Russia of election meddling and instead show that Ukraine conspired with Clinton to rig the 2016 election. Her theory is that once we revise the history the sanctions that have been imposed against Russia for election meddling will then be released as a result; proving that you can’t trust our intelligence community but you can Vladimir Putin.
Apparently, Trump started this effort with Ukraine the day after the Mueller report was released. Rachel’s theory is Trump wants to clear Russia of election meddling and instead show that Ukraine conspired with Clinton to rig the 2016 election. Her theory is that once we revise the history the sanctions that have been imposed against Russia for election meddling will then be released as a result; proving that you can’t trust our intelligence community but you can Vladimir Putin.
Paul Campos on the necessary mental state for Trumpbots:
Trump’s behavior is so beyond all possible defense that it requires his defenders to maintain the sort of mental state described by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism:
In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. … Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.
In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. … Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.
Pubs do not deal in facts anymore. They have abandoned any principals at all. Their core principals of which they trumpeted far and wide such as fiscal conservatives and religion were always a self righteous sham, but the buffoon has allowed them finally admit it, so what’s left...nothing really. Their phony god and country message is only exposed for what it has always been....greed and power, in that order.
The "transcript" absolutely is a smoking gun. When people conspire to do something illegal, they tend to be a bit elliptical about it, and Trump isn't even being particularly elliptical. Ukraine knew full well -- because Rudy Giuliani had repeatedly told them -- that an investigation of Biden was a precondition to the release of desperately needed military aid. When Zelensky notes Ukraine is close to receiving the aid, Trump responds that he wants a favor: Dig up dirt on Biden. This is as close to quid pro quo as you're going to find in any tape that sent mobsters to prison. In this context, the elliptical language suggests not ambiguity of intention, but consciousness of guilt. More fundamentally, there's an inherent quid pro quo anytime the President of the United States makes a demand of a vulnerable ally.
Moreover, quid pro quo is mostly an issue under criminal law. The issue here, however, is whether Trump has abused his office in an impeachable way, and not whether Trump has committed a specific crime. Conspiring with a foreign government to torpedo a political rival is an impeachable offense whether or not a crime is committed along the way.
Finally, there's more to this than just the "transcript" or the call. Trump and Giuliani have been pretty openly pressuring Ukraine for at least months to dig up dirt on Biden. This isn't just a phone call, it's a plot, a scheme. It's a mistake to look at the "transcript" as though through a straw.
By the way, we're understandably focused on Trump's efforts to torpedo Biden, but that wasn't the only thing Trump wanted from Ukraine. Trump also wanted Ukraine to investigate the fever swamp conspiracy theory that the FBI conspired with Crowdstrike to conceal evidence that it wasn't really the Rooskies who hacked the Democrats' servers. Trump thinks (erroneously) that evidence of this conspiracy can be found on "missing" Democratic servers that Trump thinks might be in Ukraine.
We shouldn't forget that, in addition to being deeply corrupt, Trump is also a kook.
Right wing media propagates these crack pot conspiracy theories. Trump actually believes them.
American intel has moved from NSA/CIA to be run by Breitbart and Daily Stormer.
Ben Rhodes pointed out last night that this is but one, count 'em one, phone call between Trump and a foreign leader. What other stunts might he be pulling, and with whom? It's been hinted that the whistleblower's complaint is more expansive than just the one call, but that remains to be seen.
It appears that Barr is saying he was never asked to contact Ukraine. So Trump says that the investigation needs launched because of corruption, yet the AG (and presumably no one at Justice) gets involved? Trump holds up the money because Merkel isn't paying enough, is there evidence that anyone at State went to Merkel? If not, are we saying that Rudy was the appropriate person to deal with these two issues? Or was he dealing with a different issue that it was best to leave State and Justice out of the loop on?
Rudy being thrust front and center on this is the most damming point to me. He does not work for the government of the US. If there are no indications Barr was involved, and if State or DoD were not involved, I think it looks awful bad for this Administration.
Wait what? We already know that the Hog was listening to the call, as did Pence, etc. They sure as hell knew what was going on.
IANAL... inexplicably refusing to deliver aid for weeks with the entire body politic demanding the aid be delivered and then that transcript... alone that has to be a qpq. You don't need verbal confirmation that the aid was witheld for the implied reason. The transcript os a smoking gun.
The Republican party as currently stands is the #1 threat to our national security.
From the NY Times:
A Justice Department official said that Mr. Barr had no knowledge of the call until the director of national intelligence and the intelligence community’s inspector general sent the department the whistle-blower’s criminal referral late last month, and that Mr. Trump has not spoken with the attorney general “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son.”
The Hog is Mike Pompeo. Surely, he listens to those calls...
Btw, i would not want to be Zelenskiy right now... hemmed in by Russia on one side and Trump on the other... if he plays close to Trump, and Trump loses, dems won't do him any favors. Terrible spot.
He is in a horrible spot. Part of what happens when Inspector Clouseau becomes President. That's probably unfair, Clouseau was bumbling but meant well.
What gets me is the sense of credulousness that this is a unique or surprising thing. E.g., some are guessing that the "failure" of Mueller to squash Trump emboldened him. Maybe so, but that sorta ignores that Trump has been violating norms and revealing a disregard for truth since no later than his inaugural address and the immediate Spicer stuff about the crowd size. It's been obvious for ages that he's deeply corrupt, yet there's endless hand-wringing and doubt about whether anyone has the goods on him. I appreciate that the process creates great hurdles, but everything on Trump seems to miss the forest for the trees. That doesn't mean the process is easy, but ignoring the forest is itself a failure to speak truthfully imo.
And while there absolutely are no guarantees, wouldn't the potential benefit of impeachment inquiry (whether it's now or 3 months ago) be to bring forward testimony to bring to life the reality of the Trump presidency? Maybe bringing out info that's not otherwise available? Maybe there are other whistle-blowers who will come forward who never would but for a clearer path for them? Just like this smoking gun is oddly a surprise for some, who's to say an investigation of his known corruption (which is meaningful) wouldn't shine a light on other "surprises"? Yes that poses risks and I appreciate folks in charge likely have polling data. But not acting has risk too. Watergate isn't necessarily a perfect comparator, but I understand the polling wasn't pro-impeachment at the outset.
It looks like we may have our first woman president sooner than 2020:
The notable difference with watergate is the composition of congress. If the dems controlled the Senate, impeachment would be an inevitability. The body politic was also not nearly as partisan at that time. Still existed the concept of country before party.
Btw, were the President be impeached and not convicted, could he later face criminal charges for the same offense?
He's been corrupt since the day he was born... if someone didn't know that till they listened to his inaugural then they are missing a few screws.
Sure. Double jeopardy would not apply. Impeachment and removal is not a criminal matter.
From everything i can find, it's not settled...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAQegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1rUbiAV7CepoxHzNPiULgC
My theory: Trump has acted exactly as you'd expect a corrupt unfit disloyal imbecile to act.
Trumpbots' theory: It's all a vast conspiracy.
