Utopia Talk / Politics / official BS by delusional fraud POTUS#17

tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 11:55:53 " We have phone logs and know some people talked to other people! What did they talk about? We don't know but they are all guilty of treason. " ~crazy person in last thread ...weird that a Trump supporter doesn't like reckless & baseless accusations of treason... (which weren't even made here) in addition to American Democrat's comments about what dirtbag Nunes was up to in relation to Trump's abuse of power behavior, it's relevant just in the Nunes lawsuit Nunes claims Parnas is an obvious fraud & huckster... so records of them talking on the phone is an interesting revelation (i have no calls to Parnas, do you? there's no reason for them to be talking other than Giuliani's Ukraine crusade) if Nunes wins his lawsuit (which he won't), Fox News should be sued for every time they report something Trump claimed... talk about an unreliable source... he can basically be presumed to be lying always (which sadly isn't exaggeration)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 12:04:04 and there are calls between Parnas <-> Giuliani & Giuliani <-> Nunes around those calls in case you are going to claim they were wrong #'s or maybe decide Nunes wanted some Fraud Guaranteed action... or however your crazy mind works
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 12:12:02 this video of world leaders appearing to laugh at Trump was circulating yesterday http://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/1202008162997538817 so of course lil boy Trump is taking his ball & going home
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 12:30:12 here's Nunes on Hannity... not really denying the calls but sorta implying a denial i guess which will be good enough for kargen http://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1202054386081361920 "it seems very unlikely i'd be taking calls from random people" i agree... he wasn't a random person Nunes manufactured 3+ fake scandals to try to disrupt the Russia probe, so completely believable he was working on more fake scandals from Ukraine
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 14:02:09 so Steve Chabot (R) at the hearing today is saying no matter what the witnesses today say, the Dems will vote to impeach & complaining that they are being prevented from hearing from fact witnesses like Hunter Biden & Adam Schiff he might be right on point A (although he failed to note R's will vote against it despite what the witnesses say so a STUPID point to state)... and the fact witnesses being prevented from testifying are Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pompeo, Bolton, etc NOT Hunter Biden or Schiff who would add NOTHING to the proceedings
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 14:10:18 now Gohmert complaining about not bringing fact witnesses & about using hearsay... ...& wanting witnesses to testify about Ukrainian interference Congress approved the money, no one called for more investigation of Ukraine, this is all IRRELEVANT so much disgraceful garbage in the Republican ranks...
kargen Member	Wed Dec 04 14:20:46 I never claimed the calls didn't happen. You invented that in your delusional state of mind. It would almost be more odd if two people close to President Trump never talked to each other. We know they talked. We don't know what they talked about. You are assuming the worst because to do otherwise would cause your brain to explode.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 15:48:02 Lev Parnas? you are now saying it makes perfect sense for Parnas & Nunes to be talking? and how many criminals do you want talking to the President? he has more criminals in his orbit than non-criminals
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 15:49:59 also my point was if there are phone records of Parnas & Nunes talking, it's not crazy for CNN to report what Parnas claims (& they asked Nunes for his side which he declined to give) that's just simple reporting
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 15:51:58 and the call records support the probability that Nunes is being a dirtbag on this issue, as has been his pattern
American Democrat Member	Wed Dec 04 16:21:22 "ou are assuming the worst because to do otherwise would cause your brain to explode. " And you are assuming nothing happened and should not be vetted... so....
kargen Member	Wed Dec 04 18:15:35 I'm not assuming anything. I am saying to this point they have no definitive proof and beyond that are not really interested in getting real proof. If they were they wouldn't be meeting behind closed doors and denying Republicans a chance to question some witnesses and present others for questioning. Today the hearing was all about how professors feel. The Democrats would offer up a hypothetical and then ask if that hypothetical was an impeachable offense. That is all that happened today. There was no evidence presented only statements about personal feelings. You don't impeach on feelings. The Republicans also offered up hypothetical situations to their one witness so really nothing of substance today from either side.
American Democrat Member	Wed Dec 04 18:33:40 "I'm not assuming anything. I am saying to this point they have no definitive proof and beyond that are not really interested in getting real proof" But you just in the last thread mocked the notion that this is a talking point and they want to vet, but you ridicule, this suggest otherwise that you assume nothing happened. "If they were they wouldn't be meeting behind closed doors and denying Republicans a chance to question some witnesses and present others for questioning. " You are echoing a false narrative. They had every opportunity to do so. Both democratic aides and republican aides staff attorneys had the same about of time evenly to ask the witness. And let's not ignore the following issues occurred; either they [the republicans] didn't take the opportunity or continued they attacked the "process" as they claim it is unprecedented. (Fun fact, no impeachment that has ever occurred as been the same, therefore no formal precedent exists.)
American Democrat Member	Wed Dec 04 18:36:17 I also should note that in regards to the close door meetings; in reference of precedents that republicans keep hailing, were conducted in the same fashion as Nixon and Clinton.
kargen Member	Wed Dec 04 18:47:50 "You are echoing a false narrative. They had every opportunity to do so." So how many witnesses on the Republicans list did they get to present? Don't try and use the excuse that witnesses on the list were not pertinent to the hearings. The Democrats brought forth a plethora of "witnesses" that really were in no way related to the case at all. What happened in the closed door sessions? I commented on democrats making assumptions. I didn't make any of my own. Democrats are assuming treason happened and word every question as if treason were a fact and not just opinion. They even pretend to know what both President Trump and the President of Ukraine was thinking while on the phone. Feelings are not reason to impeach and so far all the Democrats have presented are feelings and unsubstantiated suspicions.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Dec 04 19:11:22 "denying Republicans a chance to question some witnesses and present others for questioning" full Fox News mode when R after R complained about not getting fact witnesses, did ANY mention the real fact witnesses that Trump is preventing from testifying? "So how many witnesses on the Republicans list did they get to present?" Volker & Morrison were on their list now YOU name who they asked for (who was denied) who would be relevant to whether Trump was withholding aid to get his investigations TRUMP IS THE ONE DENYING OBVIOUS FACT WITNESSES stop being an idiot
American Democrat Member	Thu Dec 05 04:25:31 "So how many witnesses on the Republicans list did they get to present? Don't try and use the excuse that witnesses on the list were not pertinent to the hearings." Interesting enough that you just ignore the next line that addresses it; both staff attorney's for democratic and republicans aides had the same amount of time in their line of questioning to the witness[es] in the close door sessions. I speculate that those republicans, who were "unable" to attend purposely did not so they can push the narrative they weren't allowed, but yet their aides were still present. How interesting. If you try not to splice it up what I said, leaving out the meat and potatoes part, things would make much more sense and you can avoid still pushing that false narrative around. I know, details that doesn't fit really hampers it. "What happened in the closed door sessions? " Typically this information isn't released until procedurally everything else has been wrapped up; in other words, the transcripts currently has not been released of the close door sessions. "I commented on democrats making assumptions. I didn't make any of my own. Democrats are assuming treason happened and word every question as if treason were a fact and not just opinion. They even pretend to know what both President Trump and the President of Ukraine was thinking while on the phone." Uh huh. I see. So while you decided to pretend this is what the democrats were feeling about the phone logs of Nunes, it is unfair for conjecture that based upon the actions, the *non*-full disclosed transcript, timeline, and testimony from the inquiry, it is improbable to think there were some questionable actions on behalf of the president? Interesting. I'm sorry, maybe you can clear it up for me. Was there a general consensus that it was already concluded, by the democrats, that Nunes was doing something treasonous? Or maybe was it more of it should be vetting and investigated, because coincidentally it would be part of the focus of the probe. I have a feeling, its one of those false narratives pushed by some networks. But, I would like to point out that it took very little effort by you to clarify your opinion about your mocking comment, that has the appearance of no basis, other than YOUR own opinion. I'm not saying you're a hypocrite... And since you are caught up on the whole witnesses being involved. Maybe you can solve this one nagging mystery-why does the Trump Administration no allow the first-hand witnesses to testify after they were given so many opportunities to do so. Why is there a muzzle?
American Democrat Member	Thu Dec 05 04:27:49 Just to attach on something real quick. Trump was real quick to call the democrats treasonous for conducting the inquiry. So...
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 09:36:26 Ouch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSdf-_xmJg Biden ad.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 05 10:25:14 Well that's a curious strategy. Personally, I don't think "We should listen to Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron on who they'd rather see be President of the United States" is going to resonate with the average American voter....but that's just me.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 10:39:30 My take on it is that Macron and Trudeau quite enjoyed laughing at Trump. How did you conflate that with them telling the American people who they'd rather see be president of the United States? #Canadafrancemeddlinginelection If anything, you would think they would prefer another 4 years of laughter.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 10:50:42 If the closed door sessions were anything like the open testimony the Republicans didn't get to ask the questions they wanted. In the open sessions any time a Republican would ask a question Schiff didn't like he would interrupt and tell the witness not to answer. Republicans complained they were not allowed to pursue certain lines of questioning in closed sessions and the democrats didn't dispute that.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 05 11:01:11 Jergul, Quite frankly, nobody in America gives a fuck what the likes of Trudeau and Macron think of Trump. Roman citizens do not concern themselves with the opinion of barbarians. I'm glad Macron got a chance to laughter though. He needs all the humor he can get when he's staring down the barrel of 100% tariffs on champagne and cheese, with a general strike as cherry on top. RIP his fucking presidency.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 05 11:12:59 "Republicans complained they were not allowed to pursue certain lines of questioning in closed sessions and the democrats didn't dispute that. " yet you can't cite a single relevant question (or witness) prevented... them trying to out the whistleblower is just to add to their cloud of bullshit, that person is totally irrelevant the closed sessions had transcripts released, everything is available
patom Member	Thu Dec 05 11:13:55 It seemed that each time the Republicans asked questions that would out the whistle blower Schiff would properly shoot them down.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 05 11:15:38 " Tremendous things achieved for U.S. on my NATO trip. Proudly for our Country, no President has ever achieved so much in so little time. Without a U.S. increase, other countries have already increased by $130 Billion-with $400 Billion soon. Such a thing has never been done before! " ~ lying filth what were the tremendous things? "Without a U.S. increase" - the fucking moron was quite proud of increasing our military budget, thus there WAS an increase, but your TOTAL MORON prez doesn't understand NATO funding... which is a SIMPLE concept... Have A Problem With It
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 11:54:32 Ruggy The Roman analogy is particularly inept. Dignitas was important to them. "The cultivation of dignitas in ancient Rome was extremely personal. Men of all classes, most particularly noblemen of consular families, were highly protective and zealous of this asset. This is because every man who took on a higher political office during the Roman Republic considered dignitas as comprising much more than just his dignity. It referred to his "good name" (his past and present reputation, achievement, standing, and honor). Its importance within the hierarchical classes of Roman society meant many historical figures would kill, commit suicide (e.g. Mark Antony), or enter exile in order to preserve their dignitas"
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 12:15:10 "them trying to out the whistleblower is just to add to their cloud of bullshit, that person is totally irrelevant" funny that is where you decided to go. Schiff claimed to not know who the whistleblower was but denied questions that he would know to deny only if he actually did know who the whistleblower was. As example one witness said he shared information with two people outside the White House. He named one and said the other worked for national security. THe questioner asked what department and Schiff interrupted saying knowing the department might out the whistleblower. THe only way he could know that is because he knew who the witness was talking about and that person was the whistleblower. Or he just used it as an excuse because he didn't like the question and had no real reason to deny the question. And of course I can't provide an actual example from the closed sessions. Closed means we the people don't get to know what was asked and how it was answered. The Republicans said they were blocked from calling witnesses and asking certain lines of questions and Democrats didn't deny those complaints. A reasonable person would think the Republican complaints were justified. Who knows what you were/are thinking with how damaged you are right now.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 05 13:16:44 you are willfully ignorant & bathing in Fox News nonsense what the hell is your point about Schiff? who fucking cares if he did know who the wb is (not saying he does)? name a question either of them can answer that helps... there is NO WAY it was all a hoax, the call transcript is public, numerous texts by surrounding people is public, the transcript being hidden in secure server happened... we KNOW what the whistleblower said was going on, it's all confirmed, there is NO possibility of hoax "And of course I can't provide an actual example from the closed sessions." which closed session hasn't had the transcript released? start naming REAL things... a relevant question not answered, a relevant witness not called "Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business. We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify" ~ total lying idiot child moron asshole fraud criminal unfit shitbag Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi testifying... that'll be productive
kargen Member	Thu Dec 05 13:24:54 "who fucking cares if he did know who the wb is (not saying he does)?" Well since he has stated many times he didn't know who the whistleblower is it matters a bit if he does. What else is he lying about. Maybe overwhelming evidence he has been claiming to have for months now but has failed to produce? It doesn't matter if he knows or not. It matters that he lied about knowing. I did provide an example. What department does the 2nd individual work for? A relevant witness has not been called through the entire process so far. Just a bunch of people telling us how they feel about something they heard around the water cooler. A question was asked yesterday wanting anybody who had actual factual evidence to raise their hands. Nobody in the room raised a hand.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 05 13:34:49 how about you ignore every word Schiff has ever said or that he even existed... the impeachment articles won't be "Schiff says Trump did ____" "What department does the 2nd individual work for" how does this advance your knowledge of whether Trump behaved inappropriately? "A relevant witness has not been called through the entire process so far" they called every single possible relevant person... notice how you can't name one they didn't... Mulvaney would know everything (as he's Chief of Staff + heading the OMB as those are part time jobs now) and we know what he said 'yes, the aid withheld for the 'look back'... he was very careful w/ his words... so he's saying minimally the 2016 election investigations (which were already done, or total nonsense like the Crowdstrike part)... plus Mulvaney's 'get over it'... there NO WAY all those comments were slips of the tongue) "Just a bunch of people telling us how they feel about something they heard around the water cooler." also known as the people involved w/ dealing the Ukrainians... again, name ONE person who they didn't call that would have knowledge of RELEVANT issues you really have gone off the rails
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 05 15:22:37 Kellyanne Conway on Bidens/Schiff/Pelosi testifying... "If they have nothing to hide then they should be happy to testify" oddly she wasn't repeatedly punched in the head after that ridiculous level of hypocrisy
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 05 22:51:14 collection of tweets: Oct 3 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party Oct 16 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party Oct 17 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party! Oct 22 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you! Oct 29 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, a record. Thank you! Nov 3 my Republican Approval Rating is now 95%! Nov 5 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you! Nov 9 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you! Nov 27 95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you! Dec 5 Republican Approval Rating = 95%. Thank you! ============ (twitter search doesn't pick up when he retweets it, which he has at least once that i know of... so it's been more than those) issues: - never a citation of where that figure comes from, & never seen this poll located (feel free to try) - even if this was a poll (which it probably wasn't) it obviously isn't being redone every few days (& would be really easy to find if it was), so why does he keep repeating it & his "thank you"? my theories: his obvious mental illnesses... or his fraud behavior of trying to exert peer pressure on his idiot cult members feel free to come up w/ a mentally fit explanation if you can, i'd be happy to consider it... plus you should want to have one for your own sake if you support this lunatic fraud criminal child
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 12:18:14 from July 2016 (3.4 years ago) Trump asked about if he'd come to defense of countries not meeting the 2% & him waffling & complaining about them not paying (sounds familiar) " Hillary Clinton said: ‘We will protect our allies at all cost.’ Well how the hell can you get money if you’re gonna say that? Now we need money. We have massive, massive deficits.” " from July 2018 (1.4 years ago) " Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.? " " NATO countries must pay MORE, the United States must pay LESS. Very Unfair! " ~ the moron anyone recall Trump demanding we -lower- our defense budget? i don't... it's like he doesn't understand... a daily embarrassment to the nation but Europeans also laugh at him, so he's doing a good job!
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 12:29:48 ^ last line a reference to "Trump gets things right re Europe" thread article :p
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 12:49:28 " For the second time this week, a deadly shooting unfolded at a US Navy base Friday when a gunman killed at least three people and injured several others at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida. The suspected shooter, who was also killed, was a member of the Saudi Arabian military training at the station " a tricky spot for the idiot child... he loves hating on muslims, but also loves defending Saudis as they spend lots of money at his properties
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 13:32:48 well, Trump super quick on the Saudi defense (less than an hour after noting he had heard about the shooting): " King Salman of Saudi Arabia just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack that took place in Pensacola, Florida.... ....The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people. " can't let his cult get any negative views of the Saudis
Paramount Member	Fri Dec 06 13:52:41 I thought this was funny so I’ll leave a link here. LOL http://twitter.com/kenidrarwoods_/status/1202940629543727105
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Dec 06 13:53:56 So a person from very very muslim country gets into the US, murders american soldiers and this is the reaction from Trump? Lol
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Dec 06 13:55:17 The big mystery is why Donald's much touted travel ban failed to stop this guy from coming to US
Paramount Member	Fri Dec 06 13:57:18 ” The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter, and that this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.” Rofl Does Trump even believe this himself?
Paramount Member	Fri Dec 06 14:48:11 So, the US is training Saudis to fly airplanes in Pensacola? And then the ISIS terrorist attacked the US and killed Americans. Who invited the terrorist to America? Lol. And why is Trump defending the Islamic State?
Paramount Member	Fri Dec 06 14:52:38 Shouldn’t Trump defend America and the victims families amd friends?
Paramount Member	Fri Dec 06 14:57:30 ”this person in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people.” ~ Trump Yeah, the Saudis have quit the Allahu Akbar thing and has started to chant God Bless America instead :o)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 16:35:02 the Republicans on the Judiciary committee (which includes Trump capos Jim Jordan & Matt Gaetz, plus other garbage such as Doug Collins, Louie Gohmert & John Ratcliffe) has released their list of witnesses that they want... which is after them all complaining about not hearing fact witnesses or people w/ firsthand knowledge... & guess who: —Schiff —Whistleblower —Whistleblower’s contacts —the guy who spoke with Vindman (from kargen's super important unanswered question who is probably the whistleblower... & if not, what difference does it possibly make...) —Devon Archer (of Burisma) —Hunter Biden (the Andrew Giuliani of Bidens) —Nellie Ohr (of Fusion GPS... Steele dossier nonsense) —Alexandra Chalupa (who was investigating criminal Manafort BEFORE he ever joined the Trump campaign so OBVIOUSLY it wasn't a hitjob on Trump... plus Manafort IS a criminal...) http://gal...c295f81cd0/12_6_19_Letter_.pdf that's their complete list not a -single- person who will have any relevant information to add in regards to Trump's actions & motives just still trying hard to imply there was serious Ukraine interference in the 2016 election... which is weird because if needing to investigate 2016 election interference was important to holding up the aid, why did the aid ever get released (or ever approved to begin with)? same for Biden the obvious answer is none of it was a concern until they needed a defense for Trump (*plus it -already- was investigated*)... & aid was released because they learned about the whistleblower, so the already uneasy people convinced the idiot moron fraud criminal child to give it up (although Giuliani is back over in Ukraine trying hard to continue it... & why not, R's are completely defending it all...)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 16:47:19 and to highlight the idiocy more... the ONLY reason to have Schiff, the whistleblower, & the wb's contacts is if you believe it was all a hoax as the idiot fraud criminal child everliar™ keeps claiming however... we KNOW it is NOT a hoax multiple people testified under oath about their concerns w/ multiple having expressing their concerns to higher ups... (of course kargen decided they were all lying as not wined & dined enough)... but that nutball hasn't explained why many other notable R's found it problematic like Condi Rice or even R's own witness at the recent hearing on the constitution ("his call was anything but perfect") or all the Rs dodging the question when asked if it they approved... so the idea it's a hoax is -proven- nonsense, Schiff & whistleblower people add NOTHING if the crazy people would like to explain how that witness list sheds light on the issues at hand, please do so
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 18:16:37 unsurprisingly, Trump is still routinely using his personal (unsecured) cell phone... unfit
kargen Member	Fri Dec 06 20:56:34 "multiple people testified under oath about their concerns" yeah, they told us about their feelings and pretended they could read minds like you pretend. I never said they were lying. I am sure they had concerns. They have invented concerns even before the inauguration. Not saying it is a hoax. I am saying there is no reason to impeach based on the few facts we actually have. But we wanted Hillary isn't a viable reason to impeach.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 21:11:07 they had their feelings based on everything they were being told (and not being told when asking for clarity) plus from what Giuliani was saying and doing (who Trump directly told them to work with) you claimed they worked with lawyers to skirt the edge of perjury plus were butt hurt over not being wined and dined... your obvious implication was they were trying to mislead if you want more direct line to Trump then demand Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo testify... they aren't even claiming executive privilege, they could testify and use that on a question by question basis and I mention hoax as that's the ONlY reason to call those people (I'm criticizing the total garbage Rs not just you).. plus you seem to buy that Schiff is important
kargen Member	Fri Dec 06 21:23:33 "if you want more direct line to Trump then demand Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo testify" I'm all for that. even have President trump testify but republicans should get to present their list of witnesses uncontested and have those people testify. "and I mention hoax as that's the ONlY reason to call those people" Nah there is another reason. Find out the path this information traveled and find who talked to who when. Chain of custody is a thing and we should know the when where and why of the claims being made. That is just good investigating.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 22:00:36 "I'm all for that" yet, no concern or caring that it's not going to happen... which is clear obstruction and yeah chain of custody would be great if ANYONE was relying on the whistleblower as evidence which they aren't... all of it has been confirmed by more direct witnesses also, let's look at (i guess) what is the Trump defense (even though no one testifying to it): supposedly he was concerned about general corruption &/or other countries not paying more on general corruption: he asked Zelensky nothing about it (even though he was supposed to according to the false call readout) & he's not asking our people in Ukraine about their views, so who did he ask & how did he get his supposed concerns allayed? (as if he ever expresses concerns about corruption...) why is this a more believable story exactly? on countries not paying more... well we know he has wrong info on that issue saying they pay nothing, & he will maintain his false info forever as he can't ever obtain new info... plus the OMB guy did testify that they finally got that reason... in September: “I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine,” Sandy said. “We had received requests on additional information on what other countries were contributing to Ukraine,” he added later. early September is when the whistleblower came out... July 25 is when Trump had his call, the aid put on hold even earlier... so why is it not until September that people finally learn about this 'other countries' concern & asked to gather info? Trump was only ever asking about the investigations, Giuliani was only ever asking about the investigations, the Ukrainians were under the impression the White House visit was contingent on it proven in texts, & the everyone seemed to get the impression the aid was too as no one could get another answer... start spotting the obvious, rather than assuming the witnesses were misleading based on nothing (even though Trump declared every single one a 'never trumper', he hasn't provided any evidence of that), & stop suggesting that their opinions are meaningless... they are the ones who SHOULD have known what was going on & they testified to the impressions they got if employees of a restaurant all suspect the clearly amoral owner is using rat meat, and the owner's personal friend is collecting rats, & the owner has a call mentioning the benefits of rats, but the managers refuse to comment, do you then conclude nothing's going on?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Dec 06 22:14:16 Trump expressed frustration about water efficiency, says sinks & showers don’t have enough pressure and people have to flush toilets multiple times. He says he has directed the EPA to look at opening up water standards. It’s called rain, he says, referring to states with lots of water. some of the specific quotes here: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELIcJmqWsAEXE8D?format=jpg (not included there, but he does say "opening up water standards" in the full clip, which is probably out there somewhere) a complete dimwit deciding water standards... plus, of course, his word excretion includes his lie that his orange look is from new light bulbs rather than the cheap paste he puts on his face
kargen Member	Fri Dec 06 22:41:30 If it is obstruction then the Democrats are also guilty of obstruction for not allowing witnesses to testify.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 01:38:50 can you admit the R list is total garbage showing no interest in learning about the issues at hand? and no it isn't obstruction as the R's aren't in control... the D's are in majority so have final say over who is subpoenaed (& they have denied NO ONE of substance) in the Senate the R's will be able to call all the nonsense witnesses they want
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 01:41:53 another 'there's a tweet for everything' example from our fucking moron prez: http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/524960640117780480
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 01:56:02 R's would be crazy not to agree it's obstruction... otherwise every President can just choose to ignore all subpoenas for all docs & all witnesses in the future clearly not what was intended they aren't fighting on executive privilege they're fighting on complete immunity... the judge said Don McGahn had to testify but could still invoke exec privilege as appropriate so this concept of full immunity is ridiculous... (but quite fitting to be claimed by the Trump dictatorship)
kargen Member	Sat Dec 07 02:28:27 "can you admit the R list is total garbage showing no interest in learning about the issues at hand?" Sure I will admit they have an ulterior motive. They want to find out about any misdeeds by Democrats in this investigation misdeeds by Democrats in Ukraine and misdeeds by Democrats leading to the 2016 election. I'm not saying there were misdeeds by Democrats I am saying the Republicans think there were and want to pursue that. Now will you admit the Democrats are doing the same thing? essentially they have no proof of wrong doing and are on a fishing expedition looking for anything the president might have done that is an impeachable offense. If the Democrats can fish the Republicans should be able to fish. " otherwise every President can just choose to ignore all subpoenas for all docs & all witnesses in the future" That is what the courts are for. President Nixon refused to cooperate and provide documents. Democrats went to court and the court said President Nixon had to comply. Question here is why are the Democrats reluctant to take this to court? " and no it isn't obstruction as the R's aren't in control." Obstruction is obstruction. If the Democrats are trying to suppress facts that is obstruction of justice. It sucks that they get to dismiss their obstruction as procedure. It will some time in the future bite them in the ass. We are setting it up so that if the house is controlled by the party opposite the president an impeachment will always automatically happen. Democrats are already saying if this impeachment fails to produce an indictment they will start another. I used to think this was about 2020. Now I know it is about Democrats being butt hurt about Hillary not winning. They fucked Bernie to make sure she got the primary nod then President Trump whomped her. Democrats can't handle that and they are terrified that something similar is going to happen in 2020. So I guess it is part butt hurt and part fear for 2020. It certainly isn't about justice nor the truth.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 09:30:42 It seems as though some don't understand the importance of coequal(having the same standing before the law)branches of government. The only time it would be obstruction of justice is when the Supreme Court orders subpoenas be upheld and still refused against judgement. Elections have consequences. Fit it into the 2/3rd's rule. The Dem's should have taken time to go through the courts if they wanted particular documents and witnesses.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 11:17:34 TJ The only time it is obstruction of justice is when Congress impeaches on that basis. The wording of your Constitution is very clear on who has the sole power of impeachment.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 11:22:29 Sure the Constitution is very clear on the sole power of impeachment. The Senate is the sole power of removal. I've not made any attempt to say otherwise.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 11:44:53 "The only time it would be obstruction of justice is when the Supreme Court orders..." That was a pretty strong indication that you thought otherwise. Clinton was incidentally impeached for obstruction of justice for the following reasons: Article II charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[28] encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 11:47:14 jergul: Are you attempting to say that if, the Senate chooses to acquit, that would be obstruction? If so, I'll be laughing.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 11:47:50 " essentially they have no proof of wrong doing " except Trump's call transcript, the admissions of Giuliani & Mulvaney, & everyone (willing to testify) who would know why aid was being held up (in a functional/non-criminal admin) believing it was improper have you noticed you were completely wrong on aid not being held up and you were completely wrong on Dems dragging this out consider maybe you are completely wrong on other things... ---------- "That is what the courts are for" so if you have a totally unfit president, you have to wait months & months if he/she decides to stonewall? good plan (this goes to TJ's claim too) it's not like they even have a good argument (they aren't arguing executive privilege) ----------- "Obstruction is obstruction" no... obstruction is ignoring all subpoenas issued by congress (& most of Vol 2 in Mueller) ----------- "Now I know it is about Democrats being butt hurt about Hillary not winning" sigh... just die, you are hopeless ================== a summary of most of the characters (from the Kyiv Post) http://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELGVa6NXUAARFjd?format=jpg and Giuliani is back over there talking to the no credibility people to get more totally credible info... he will be the hero!
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 11:48:27 I made very clear that I was talking about honoring subpoenas.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 11:53:13 McGahn was subpoenaed in April... the Judge ruled in November... & i believe it's appealed w/ next court event coming in January... who knows when it would get to the Supreme Court Nonsense. And again this is all on a made-up concept of 'absolute immunity'... so even more ridiculous...
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 11:54:46 "I made very clear that I was talking about honoring subpoenas." you said it wasn't obstruction until the Supreme Court orders it & they defy... i'm saying forcing Congress to wait ~a year on totally bullshit legal arguments is nonsense
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 11:56:45 TW: It isn't my plan. It is according to the Constitution.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 11:58:09 TJ Did Clinton lie under oath or obstruct justice? He was impeached for both and convicted of neither. By your logic he did neither.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 12:02:22 jergul: Them's the breaks, eh? Elections have consequences. Removal from office to be successful must be bipartisan.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 12:04:16 then Trump's above cartoon is accurate: (Sat Dec 07 01:41:53 post) "I keep thinking we should include something in the Constitution in case the people elect a fucking moron." & for an obvious unfit fraud & continuous liar
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 12:06:02 Impeachment is generally just a very harsh reprimand. Far worse than a censor. It carries its own stigma. Do we mention Andrew Johnson in any other context? Or even William Clinton?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 12:14:34 "Removal from office to be successful must be bipartisan. " except Republicans are just accepting the total lies & made-up bullshit from Trump... or helping invent their own, plus have a corrupt TV network keeping all their voters misinformed what good arguments have R's made? no 1st-hand hearing from Trump? well whose fault is that... (plus there is some, his call transcript implies what his sole interests were, plus telling people to work w/ Giuliani & we know his sole interests... & the final Sondland call was after whistleblower so isn't proof of anything) other than that Rs attack Schiff, & want whistleblower, and talk about things that have already been investigated (Chalupa/Black Ledger) that are also irrelevant... plus ignore Trump's Crowdstrike idiocy completely what witness do they want called that would shed light? none at all, all of them clearly just to find one suspicious answer & blow it out of proportion to suggest things are all a scam or that Ukraine was out to get Trump like how they asked one witness 'does Hunter Biden speak Ukrainian?' & he said he didn't know anything about Hunter Biden, so the R then asked 'what experience does Hunter Biden have in the gas industry' (or something, don't recall all the questions) but it was several w/ the guy always saying he didn't know anything about Hunter... did that add value? obviously not... but to R's... ha! Hunter probably didn't speak Ukrainian, or probably doesnt yadda yadda (all probably's as he didn't establish anything, was all speculation... plus all totally irrelevant)
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 12:20:30 The Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887. In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional even though it had been repealed almost 40 years before. The ruling came in the Myers v. U.S. case that dealt with the ability of Congress to limit the removal powers of the President with regard to postmasters.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 12:20:47 and add to no 1st-hand knowledge... where do people think all these people down the line got their impression from? what is the origin if not Trump? we know Trump was the one who personally held up the aid... we know Trump has no moral fiber... we know they wanted a public announcement as what was most important... we know Trump loves public announcements that favor him, it would've been direct from TV to his twitter (plus he's asked his own people to give public announcements for his benefit)... we know the lower people were all unable to get a clear reason when they asked their superiors... why? all of them should've known (or minimally been able to get an answer) instead they had to assume based on the limited stuff they heard (which was from Trump - his only interests being the investigations) and from Giuliani, or vague info from superiors R's are ignoring everything... see kargen saying there's nothing demonstrated, that the Dems wanting Mulvaney, etc is identical to the R's wanting Schiff the country is broken, w/ an idiot moron fraud child still smashing on it w/ a hammmer
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 12:36:37 " Fake News @CNN is reporting that I am “still using personal cell phone for calls despite repeated security warnings.” This is totally false information and reporting. I haven’t had a personal cell phone for years. Only use government approved and issued phones. Retract! " ~ idiot confirming the story that he's regularly using a cell phone... plus also letting us know that he doesn't know it is a security risk (as he's a moron)... plus Giuliani (who is one person he calls on the cell phone) is his cybersecurity advisor... unfit
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 12:43:28 ...plus since it's Trump, it's probably a lie he probably does have his own phone(s) as he's paranoid everyone's out to get him + likes keeping all his shit secret as he's a fraud & a criminal (we know he hates people taking notes (wtf??) & does no texts/emails... although perhaps that's more as the moron doesn't know how) wouldn't surprise me if that locked phone Giuliani took to the Apple Store was Trump's
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 13:09:48 another reason not to force Congress to wait a year or so to investigate a wholly unfit president abusing his power (aside from being crazy) is then the witnesses will whip out the 'i don't recalls' which will become more believable
Rugian Member	Sat Dec 07 13:14:31 "idiot confirming the story that he's regularly using a cell phone" Are you fucking psychotic?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 14:34:30 care to elaborate? i'm talking about official calls and his 'denial' of using a cell phone is that he uses a cell phone
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 14:41:30 back to Trump's definite obstruction while TJ is arguing a legal point, which may be accurate... this is not a court of law, Trump isn't facing prison... yet... unfortunately R's -should- be annoyed at this made-up 'absolute immunity' on all things concept rather than happily accepting it and when the Supreme Court finally tells McGahn "absolute immunity isn't a thing, go fucking testify" then what? what if he goes and starts claiming executive privilege on everything, then that has to go to back to the courts for another year? (or not just McGahn... think of all the sleazeballs that orbit Trump) Trump is obstructing... everyone should conclude so
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 14:48:06 I'm not arguing a legal point. I'm stating the Constitutional process.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 15:01:48 TJ The Constitutional process does not require Supreme Court to validate Congressional subpoenas. Impeachment simply requires that a majority of the house of representatives vote that obstruction of justice has occurred. The procedure you are suggesting may be correct for criminal proceedings that can follow once Trump leaves office if Clinton is anything to go by. But that would be for a criminal trial.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 15:06:58 The reason I am engaging here is that I think principles are being conflated. Trump will almost certainly be given the most severe reprimand possible from the house of representatives. It carries a heavy stigma that will forever define the 45th presidency. The Senate can convict and remove Trump from power, or not convict and not remove from power. But it cannot overturn the impeachment and vindicate Trump. The house reprimand is permanent and irreversable.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 15:12:20 I should have reiterated what I've previously stated concerning coequal branches. The legal argument is for the Supreme Court to determine. I'm not hung up on impeachment or removal from office. jergul: You are questioning me about something I haven't disputed.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 15:22:44 In case that wasn't clear enough. 'The Constitutional process does not require Supreme Court to validate Congressional subpoenas." Certainly it does not, but if disputed, it requires them to validate them being upheld.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 15:27:14 then they should have a speedy process of validating, especially when it's a total nonsense argument ================== Trump on twitter is claiming that since he mentioned AG Barr being involved on the phone call that it proves he was doing it for the country & not himself non-crazy people might want to note he NEVER talked to Barr about the investigations (call in July, whistleblower September, continuous pressure by Giuliani throughout, nothing said to Barr) and there are Yermak (Ukraine's link to our people) texts showing they were fully aware of the demand for a public announcement of investigations in exchange for minimally the WH meeting, so it's not like Trump just didn't get around to talking to Barr & really did want some joint venture Trump wanted the headlines, that's it 'see, Biden is corrupt!' 'see, it's the Dems & Ukraine who interfered!' he wouldn't need the investigations to find anything or even happen (and while in the vicinity of the topic... the fact that Trump STILL has -completely- wrong info on Crowdstrike should concern everyone... everyone... plus how he chooses to ignore the intel community conclusions based on nothing... those total bits of insanity were barely noticed like so much of Trump's OBVIOUS unfitness)
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 15:31:03 That is up to the House of Representatives to decide. It having the sole power to determine if obstruction of justice in regards to impeachment has occurred.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 15:34:25 That is what I meant by conflating stuff TJ. Only the house of representatives gets to decide if a president ordering people not to submit to impeachment hearings subpeonas is infact grounds for impeachment for obstruction.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 15:36:12 here's Trump saying Giuliani has turned up a lot of good information in Ukraine & will make a report to the AG & Congress http://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1203422084455641089 presumably this will be more substantial than the alleged Obama birth investigators he sent to Hawaii who supposedly found stuff that will make your head spin (which he's still sitting on to build suspense i guess)
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 15:41:09 Now, I'm laughing. Trump is the head of the Executive branch of coequal government. If you want to go there, the house can legally impeach if they don't like the pet he owns. The washing machine hasn't stopped as of yet.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 16:08:19 TJ That would actually be an impeachment the Supreme Court could overturn. Owning the wrong pet would unlikely qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor. Here is how it stands 1. The House issued subpeonas for an impeachment hearing. 2. The president ordered people not to submit to the subpeonas for the impeachment hearing. 3. The house will likely vote that order to be obstruction. The SC has no role to play if you discount criminal proceedings (Contempt of Congress) against those that did not submit to a subpeona. I suppose you could always argue your position in the SC and see if the SC thinks a SC ruling is needed to vote on a count of impeachment.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 16:20:06 The other check and balance against nuisance impeachments is of course the people themselves. You are never more than 2 years away from a midterm or presidential cycle. The people will punish abuse of impeachment at the polls. This is why Trump has not been impeached earlier (over say Stormy Daniels or the Mueller report). I buy Pelosi's narrative. This is not something she wanted to do. Your system does have convincing checks and balances. Impeachment is one of them.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 16:54:51 "I buy Pelosi's narrative. This is not something she wanted to do." Then she shouldn't have done it as the majority leader in the House. I venture to say she'll come out of this mess with a stigma on her long congressional record. Nancy appears to be exceptionally nervous. It is my feeling that the Democrats have misjudged a grievous process by rushing. They should have listened to Jonathan Turley. He was the true professional of the four and had voted for both Obama and Clinton. Clearly a Democrat.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 17:34:17 Lets just say the impeachment was not done on a whim and that the House of Representatives believes it has grounds to impeach with the evidence it already has. I really don't think it is in your national security interests to draw the process along longer than necessary. Turley is a bit guilty of ad-hoc argumentation depending on who is holding the presidential office.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 17:52:16 Turley wasn't defending Trump. He clearly thought that Trump had done something wrong and that time was necessary to factually prove that he had or hadn't. Thoughts aren't good enough and Truley agrees with that position. Being retired provides me with many advantages. One is to have had the opportunity of watching every moment of this impeachment process. I disagree with you on the national interest of being better or worse. I want whomever is wrong to get burned in a legitimate process. There is a long road ahead rather than making assumptions of finality.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 18:07:26 do you consider blanket ignoring of all subpoenas remotely legitimate? how is waiting a year or more logical or reasonable ...maybe if Trump had to step down while the process played out if would be fair assume he's guilty, he gets to wield his unfit corruption for another whole year (any new abuses he can just stonewall too)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 18:12:34 (step down if insisting on defying subpoenas & taking his nonsense immunity arguments to the courts... not anytime an impeachment inquiry raised if cooperating)
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 18:31:42 I agree with the Constitution. If you don't I suggest you work toward an amendment to your liking. When it gets to the Senate trial hopefully the process provides due process for all concerned. At that point we'll experience what he is willing to block from the Senate unless the Senate doesn't outright dismiss with an acquittal. We'll see if the process begins anew if that should become the case.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 18:39:00 to TJ, as you've seen a lot, would you agree that minimally the demand of public announcement of investigations to get the White House visit (quid pro quo) was proven? as shown in this text (Yermak being the Ukrainian liason between Zelensky & our people) http://www...b029-c26f8c086871-August10.png (& not the only evidence) he only mentions Burisma there... but iirc the Ukrainian side desperately didn't want to specify Biden as didn't want to be seen as interfering, but Giuliani was insisting on mentioning Biden... but regardless if they finally settled on 'Burisma' or 'Biden', the only possible reason it was important to Trump for even Burisma to get publicly mentioned IS Biden (surely no one can argue otherwise) this alone is abuse of power... and enough reason R's should be demanding testimony of the Mulvaney, etc group
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 18:55:35 ^and that deal is what Bolton was calling a 'drug deal' ample evidence of wrong-doing on just those bits
	show deleted posts