Utopia Talk / Politics / official BS by delusional fraud POTUS#18

jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 18:58:24 TJ I will let you decide if you think Trump ranting on about the impeachment process in impromptu press conferences at Nato meetings is in line with your national security interests or not. Trump is clearly also doing something else wrong in ordering people not to subject themselves to Congressional subpeona. I think it fair for the House of Representatives to find they have enough evidence to impeach Trump on other counts beyond that one. A full investigation might matter to the Senate if we assume they want to factually prove that Trump used his office for personal benefit. The 2/3ds indicates a higher level of evidence than in the House where a simple majority is sufficient for impeachment (in criminal-civic cases it might symbolically denote the difference between beyond reasonable doubt and more likely than not)). We should ultimately remember that we are talking about a person's suitability for a job. The house wants to censure the person and send it on to see if he should be dismissed or not. Censure is one thing with lower evidence standards. Dismissal another - with higher standards. I think you know as well as I do that it is indeed more likely than not that Trump wanted the Ukranians to think aid was linked to doing what he wanted. You are seeking too much refuge in thinking that this has to be proven. That might be true for the Senate, but its not true for the House. The moral of the story is do not make it look like you are using the office for personal benefit.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:17:17 My response to TW for previous thread. I've stated what I agree with and don't. Sometimes there are more than two sides to every situation. I stand with the position of Turley. jergul: You don't need to read into my position or attempt a guess. My context has been consistent and transparently obvious. Suitability is a subjective matter so maybe a large portion of the 63 million voters that went with Trump in 2016 will agree with you in 2020
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:19:08 jergul: BTW, thanks for allowing me to decide on anything. :)
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 19:24:06 TJ Not really. You seem to be applying criminal principles to impeachment as outlined in the Constitution. The House thinks it has enough evidence to impeach, just as the Senate almost certainly thinks there is not enough evidence to convict. Both positions are entirely constitutional and the constitution regulates how these things are done. Perhaps a large portion of the 66 million that voted with Clinton in 2016 might be enough to win the electoral college this time. To mention another check and balance that does seem rather unreasonable from outside eyes, but did serve Trump well last election.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:28:39 I'm still laughing. What don't you understand when I said: The House can impeach him if they don't like his pet. Is this the third time that I've said the Majority in the House can impeach without exception?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 19:33:32 Not liking his pet is not a high crime and misdemenor. So the impeachment could be overturned by the USSC. And/or face a severe backlash from the voters come next election. I have said that a couple times too. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that nuisance impeachments occur.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:39:05 They don't need to prove a high crime and misdemeanor. I used the pet to show the extent of the Majority House power. Yes it would be foolish to attempt if they don't like his pet.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 19:41:09 TJ An impeachment on other grounds than high crimes misdemeanors is unconstitutional and can be struck down by the USSC.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 19:45:20 For a valid impeachment 1. The Article must be constitutional (a high crime or misdemeanor). 2. The majority of the House must vote in favour of that Article of Impeachment. The inferred standard of evidence: more probable than not. This follows from more than 50% needing to think the article is correct.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:48:44 jergul: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Who do you think convicts to remove the President?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 19:51:33 This is ultimate where your country can find peace if it likes. The house and senate use two different inferred standards of evidence (one is probable at above 50%, the other is beyond reasonable doubt at more than 2/3rds).
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:52:14 You last post is good for impeachment, but conviction and removal is done via a Senate Trial or automatic dismissal.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 19:52:43 You are not reading the commas correctly if you think that post is contrary to what I posted.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 19:55:53 I'm pretty sure I've been reading quit accurately in the entire process.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 20:02:00 quit=quite
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 20:13:23 2/3rd's would make it necessarily a bipartisan process. I don't disagree that the process between the House and Senate should be nearest equal as possible. Remember, two democrats voted against the impeachment inquiry. Politics is a bitch, eh?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 20:17:13 I just worry that you think the Senate can somehow vindicate Trump from House impeachment. Its sort of comparable to OJ Simpson. He was aquitted in a court where the standard of beyond reasonable doubt applied, but had to pay damages in the civic suit where the standard of balance of probability applied. Ultimately though an impeached Trump will be exactly as impeached as an impeached Clinton. Whatever that means.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 20:24:27 No need to worry. I've never argued such a position and wouldn't. How you came to such an understanding in our exchanges is incomprehensible in my mind. You are the only one who has mentioned that the Supreme Court could possibly overturn an impeachment.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 20:27:05 TJ Do you think it unreasonable when people think that it is more likely than not that Trump used the office for personal gain? Or that it is more likely than not obstruction when Trump orders people not to comply with Congressional subpeonas?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 20:27:47 Are you arguing that the USSC could not overturn an unconstitutional impeachment?
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 20:33:35 I've already addressed those questions. I consider myself to have an abundance of patience, but we all have our limits. I think it is perfectly normal for anyone to think and do anything they choose in respect to this discussion.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 20:35:10 I ultimately think all of this is getting needlessly divisive. Representatives do not actually need to be partisan to end up with what is likely to happen in the house and senate. Its enough that they follow their convictions. Trump gets a severe censure, but keeps his job. That actually sounds about right.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 20:37:02 It is debatable whether the Supreme Court would take up such a case. At the same time I won't say never. No I'm not making such an argument. You have though.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 07 20:44:36 I think it reasonable that the USSC might rule on something that seems unconstitutional. I am speaking of the Articles of impeachment having to meet the somewhat oblique wording of the Constitution. So no dogs allowed. Not even poodles (who some might consider treasonous) :) It cannot of course rule on the house voting the wrong way for as long as the articles meet the constitutional wording. Anyway, Trump looks like he has won the election, even if he loses. The democrats are going to the center it seems.
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 21:02:32 "That actually sounds about right." We aren't in disagreement of the high possibility. Most likely we'll know the final outcome in a few weeks.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 22:17:28 so we're all in agreement that R's have shirked their responsibility by not demanding testimony & documents when there is clear evidence of wrong-doing, thus screwing over the American people & being complicit in the obstruction or at least we should be, as that's the right position... waiting a year to see if a nonsense legal strategy makes it through the courts is not the reasonable position & i'll re-post this in this new thread in case kargen missed it & wants to ignore this clear evidence of a quid pro quo http://www...b029-c26f8c086871-August10.png ...the "drug deal" Bolton wanted no part of ...or maybe Bolton is just another secret Dem who is upset Hillary lost (& he said it while still in the admin, so not some bitterness about firing/quiting)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 22:23:14 " North Korean state media are reporting that a "very important test took place at the Sohae Satellite launching Ground" on Saturday. According to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the test produced a "successful result" and was of "great significance" and that it will "change the strategic position of North Korea in the near the future." It was not immediately clear what was tested. " http://www...korea-test-intl-hnk/index.html they sound just like Trump... not even a joke (other than Trump being a joke) in fact Trump would probably be more vague & boastful
TJ Member	Sat Dec 07 23:07:28 TW: You may or may not find the following link beneficial if you choose reading. http://www...ng/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Dec 07 23:41:47 i realize the Senate is the 'trial'... are we being optimistic that R's in the Senate will finally demand witnesses w/ real knowledge? that would be nice, but i have seen no indication that will happen, only the opposite in any case, it's the House that 'indicts' & chooses what to indict on, thus it's up to them to include obstruction (there is NO chance the Supreme Court would rule 'yep, total immunity for anyone & anything Trump chooses, no cooperation ever required on anything')
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 00:02:59 a good twitter exchange: " Trump on Giuliani's latest visit to Ukraine: "He’s going to make a report, I think to the attorney general and to Congress. He says he has a lot of good information." " ~ Peter Baker reply: " The FBI has agents and legal attaches for this purpose. Treaties permit them to work with their authorized law enforcement counterparts to obtain evidence. No legitimate reason to send a private lawyer like Giuliani to Ukraine to investigate crime. " ~ Barb McQuade reply: " This is a point that former DOJ/FBI keep coming back to & cant be said enough: the Ukraine “corruption” investigation was obviously a sham because it didn’t go through DOJ, mutual assistance treaties & legal attaches Like every other foreign, criminal investigation. Ever. " ~ Mimi Roach " Right. Otherwise, you have to believe that Trump, who was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, wanted to have Ukraine in charge of a corruption matter involving a former VP, instead of having the FBI investigate. Which doesn't make any sense. And, that's Trump's "defense." " ~ Joyce Alene (those women law professors/fed prosecutors/US attorneys) w/ basically the same points i make :p this administration is a joke... w/ constant bullshit used to defend it
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 00:07:20 ...but we'll see if Giuliani really has turned up something by talking w/ his no credibility sources i'm sure it will 'shock the conscience' to Hannity (like he claims the upcoming IG report on the Russia investigation will) but for thinking people, i'm guessing not so much
patom Member	Sun Dec 08 05:58:01 In the meantime Trump has set his attention closer to home. It seems he is dissatisfied with the number of times people have to flush their toilets. This is of ultimate concern and also explains his great interest in how long Hillary Clinton spent in the bathroom during the debates.
TJ Member	Sun Dec 08 08:57:41 TW: "so we're all in agreement that R's have shirked their responsibility by not demanding testimony & documents when there is clear evidence of wrong-doing, thus screwing over the American people & being complicit in the obstruction" No, I do not agree. The House is rushing to judgement simply because of an unusually high degree of dislike and want what they believe will be a stain on his Presidency. It is my opinion that the House is abusing the power invested in them. The Democratic Party should stop thinking of what others should be doing and exert the effort in a productive way that actually matters to them. The Country has been through the laughter and then the tears last election and there is a good chance for a repeat. But..., wth, I'm probably not a thinking person. What has been done,so far, is the maintenance of polarization. jergul: "Anyway, Trump looks like he has won the election, even if he loses. The democrats are going to the center it seems." Shucky darn playing cards.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 11:56:45 "The House is rushing to judgement simply because of an unusually high degree of dislike" the premise is Trump is a power abusing unfit president trying to get foreign countries to interfere in the 2020 election there is ample evidence supporting it (even though kargen is blinded by his craziness) is it the D's most at fault for not waiting a year for Trump to push his 'absolute immunity' on everything argument through court (which, like i said, would probably just lead to a 2nd round of 'executive privilege' problems needing to go to courts) or is it the R's most at fault for not demanding witnesses testify? there are reasons that you can't wait, there aren't reasons to wait for an argument that will definitely fail to go thru courts... if the Trump admin wasn't total shit, they'd be making specific arguments on each witness & document that had a valid basis (although i doubt there are any, exec privilege (which isn't even being applied) should be done on a question by question basis at deposition)... again there is clear evidence of wrong-doing, this is proven not to be a hoax that might be fair to completely ignore also, you claimed you wanted the bad party to get what they deserve (let's assume that is Trump, as he's an awful person in every aspect of his character)... if this drags past election, how exactly do you see Trump getting punished? if he's not elected, no reason to continue impeachment... if he IS elected (DOOM), do you see it continuing that way either? plus all election long you'll have R's claiming the D's dragging out impeachment just for the election... as kargen already believes (even though it's ridiculous) but would then look that way plus all election Trump has no reason not to seek help from every foreign country he can since R's accepting he did nothing wrong... he already told Stephanopoulos he was fine with it in general ('it's not interference, it's information'), he was fine with it in 2016, he's fine w/ it w/ Ukraine & China Don Jr. was not charged as he didn't meet 2 elements of the crime (insufficient value to the info & sadly, he needed to know it was wrong to do)... so if this time they get decent info that they actually use in ads that would seem to satisfy the value element to me, but not sure you could prove Don Jr (or Sr) know it's wrong still... R's certainly don't want to admonish it & the Trumps only get their info from Fox News or worse
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 12:18:50 Ted Cruz suggesting the Ukrainian ambassador's op-ed supporting Hillary over Trump is i guess reason for Trump to hold up aid approved by congress... or someone else can explain how it's relevant http://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1203703049987997699 however Lyin Ted is right that any media saying 'ukraine not russia' should stop it, as it actually helps R's as people can see 'why not both'... instead media should note more Trump's Crowdstrike reference & what he's implying... Trump's Crowdstrike theory is it was not Russia who interfered (& hacking the DNC is the only interference Trump is aware of, or at least ever acknowledges) so he wants to clear Russia & blame someone else... w/ his mind packed w/ misinformation as demonstrated regularly anyway, if Ukraine election interference needed investigated it would've been done 2016, 2017, 2018, first half of 2019*... why is it only extremely important now that Trump needs a defense? (& why would you originate it in Ukraine w/ private citizen Giuliani as the only US involvement) CRAZY IDIOTIC defenses is all that come from the R's (* & there's reporting that it DID get investigated w/ no issues found by R-led Senate Intelligence Committee... Politico has one article about it "Senate panel look into Ukraine interference comes up short" if interested)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 12:23:01 also, Trump weighs in on foreign elections... & he's a lot more influential w/ much wider audience than a Ukrainian ambassador so more proof election-meddlin' Trump is unfit inadvertently provided by Lyin' Ted
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 13:01:23 here's capo Meadows denying that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden... http://www...9/12/08/sotu-meadows-biden.cnn then when confronted w/ hard proof, he switches to 'well he says to work w/ AG Barr' so it's all fine... (but Barr was never notified) also recall mentally-retarded capo Nunes (who heads the -INTEL- committee) said it was the mother of all conspiracy theories that Trump would ask Ukraine to do any investigations (& it didn't even seem to be him misspeaking... as he said 'because Trump dislikes Ukraine'... so what other meaning could he have been shooting for?) lying garbage
TJ Member	Sun Dec 08 13:34:03 I'm willing to wait for the Judiciary and the articles of impeachment they decide on, as well as the Senate trial, if and when the House impeaches, among other investigations pending listed below. What you believe is up to you and everyone else, but I prefer actual facts rather mind gymnastics. DOJ IG Horowitz Prosecutor John Durham AG Barr from what I can understand is looking into the Ukraine situation. I'll be doing some recording tomorrow encase the Judiciary and Horowitz report release conflict.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 13:39:42 yeah, corrupt AG Barr is traveling the world to dig up dirt on the FBI... i look forward to those findings too to see how awful he is "What you believe is up to you and everyone else" kind of unfortunate given a segment watches Fox & only Fox & believes it's straight news (even the opinion shows)... see all of kargen's misinfo, or Trump's... i assure you the IG Horowitz report will have 2 completely different story lines & the Hannity (Fox's top show) version will be garbage...
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 13:43:24 here's another article on the Ukraine meddling investigations that was -already completed- (as one would expect... as in it didn't need started up again in 2020 election season... and by Ukraine... who supposedly was being suspected of being too corrupt to send aid to...) http://www...raine-2016-election/index.html including talking to Chalupa... & even a Crowdstrike guy
TJ Member	Sun Dec 08 13:51:33 Doesn't matter who reports what since I can read for myself, besides that, Horowitz is to testify publicly in the Senate once the report is public.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 13:54:10 we can run an experiment... that report i believe is due out tomorrow CNN has reported it knocks down all of Trump's made-up bullshit allegations... that there was sufficient reason to do the investigation (not a hoax) although it may note that's a low bar, that no spies were planted, no corrupt acts by Comey, etc(long list of people Trump has baselessly accused), not an attempted coup the wrong-doing: -supposedly it notes a FBI lawyer added something improperly (possibly criminally chargeable) to an email regarding the nobody Carter Page FISA warrant (however i believe it still says the FISA warrant reasonable, despite that & all the Steele dossier chaffe the R's keep firing off) -maybe some sloppiness issues ========== Hannity claims the report will 'shock the conscience'... (i don't know what all he's said about it but presumably none of the parts about shooting down every claim of Trump) Hannity watchers can pad his claims out if they want ============ we'll see who is more accurate (yes, Hannity isn't one of Fox's very few news people, but most of their shows are equivalent opinion shows, he's the top-rated show, & Hannity's version will be what the typical Fox News watcher will come away with)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 14:10:34 "Doesn't matter who reports what since I can read for myself" for the record, i'm not concerned about you... i'm concerned about the kargens, obaminateds, HR types, millions of Fox News watchers & Trump followers they are being stuffed w/ misinformation
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 15:46:43 " Another American is coming home. Xiyue Wang, who has been held on false charges in Iran for over three years, has been released and is on his way back to the United States. Mr. Wang will soon be reunited with his wife and son, who have missed him dearly. We will not rest until we bring every American detained in Iran and around the world back home to their loved ones. We thank the Swiss government for facilitating the return of Mr. Wang, and are pleased the Iranian government has been constructive in this matter. " ~ question-dodger Pompeo possibly minor issue... but that was a prisoner swap, Iran got back a scientist we were holding, doesn't seem like a super tricky trade to accomplish seems like worthy of noting it was a swap by Pompeo, yet i'm sure purposely not done just posting for reference in case team Trump continues playing this up as a huge win & ignoring the swap (... plus the guy we got back was born in China so probably is spying on the US :p)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 17:48:17 " “The Democrats haven’t come up with a smocking gun... " http://twi...ump/status/1203783393852493826 that's the 2nd time the moron has spelled smoking as 'smocking'... speaks/eats/spells/behaves like a child
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 18:48:16 " I got NATO countries to pay 530 Billion Dollars a year more, and the U.S. less, and came home to a Fake News Media that mocked me. Didn’t think that was possible! " ~ him ...sigh ...at least he spelled 'mocked' right
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 18:53:44 this appears to be where the MORON LIAR got his info... " Mr. Stoltenberg announced that in 2019 defence spending across European Allies and Canada increased in real terms by 4.6 %, making this the fifth consecutive year of growth. He also revealed that by the end of 2020, those Allies will have invested $130 billion more since 2016. Based on the latest estimates, the accumulated increase in defence spending by the end of 2024 will be $400 billion. " note: - "fifth consecutive year of growth" (as it was 2014 when they agreed to aim for 2% over 10 years) - Trump seems to get his 530 from adding the 130 to the 400... although it says 400 would be the accumulated increase thus includes the 130 - so Trump taking FULL credit for the entirety of the growth across 8 years (which originated from an agreement under Obama)... & using a wrong figure... and seemingly implying he accomplished this all at that meeting i hate this man
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 18:57:41 ...and we are part of that increase, as i noted before... we DID increase military spending, not lower it Trump planned to (or did) reduce funding to the NATO organization, but that has NOTHING to do w/ that (false) 530 Billion number (or the 2% guidelines)... which the total moron can't comprehend
TJ Member	Sun Dec 08 22:35:34 jergul large member Sat Dec 07 20:27:05 TJ Do you think it unreasonable when people think that it is more likely than not that Trump used the office for personal gain? --------------------------------------------= My response: I won't say it is unreasonable to think. Reasonableness is not a factual finding, which is necessary to file an impeachment article within the four criteria stated in the Constitution. It's not for the accused to prove his innocence, but the accusers responsibility to prove the accused of guilt, otherwise it would be a precedent setting tyrannical judgment. If articles go to the Senate it is likely a trial will follow. The Senate trial will be presided over by the Chief Justice to settle any disputes between coequal branches. The whistle blower best be prepared to face who is being accused among others who probably won't be agreeable. jergul large member Sat Dec 07 20:27:05 TJ Or that it is more likely than not obstruction when Trump orders people not to comply with Congressional subpeonas? -------------------------------------------- My response: It is not obstruction by the President or those who have refused as he requested. As I've said before he is the Chief Executive of the Branch. The subpoenas disputed by coequal branches of government must be ruled upon by the Supreme Court if contested. If the Court upholds a subpoena and the person refuses to appear he will be in contempt of the Court. It will be interesting to see the articles of impeachment the House presents. The Founders warned about impeaching a President without substantial bipartisanship. I foresee a similar Harry Reid decision boomeranging. Can you imagine the Republicans maintaining the Senate and taking back the house and the Democrats winning the Presidency. Katy bar the door.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 23:11:36 "It's not for the accused to prove his innocence, but the accusers responsibility to prove the accused of guilt" yet you aren't accusing him of obstructing by preventing all investigation until a year of court battles (on a nonsense argument)... so a corrupt individual gets to stay in office doing whatever he wants while it drags on who else gets that ability and if they call he whistleblowers, the Dems should ask after every R question 'and how did that shed any light on the issue of Trump's actions?' (and they were super pissed at witnesses w/o direct knowledge... yet gotta have whistleblower! cause maybe it's a hoax, even though it definitely provenly wasn't!)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Dec 08 23:27:19 there have been some Trump dicks (capo Gaetz & another congressman who i don't know) saying he thinks Mulvaney, etc would help Trump if they testified but Trump also has to consider the effects on the office of the presidency trying to claim that he's defying everything to protect the rights of future presidents even though bad for himself... yeah, that sounds like Trump <eyeroll>... also, what rights do they feel are necessary to protect? a -congressman- wants to protect the invented right of a president to declare total immunity & be able to blanket defy all subpoenas from congress? i really don't see him defending that made-up right if used by future presidents who are D's... such constant bullshit
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 12:05:58 mentally retarded capo Nunes encounters a reporter http://twitter.com/theintercept/status/1203744198937198592 (2nd half is more interesting / odd) instead of a 'no comment', he goes w/ total silence & intense focus as he gets photos of reporter & cameraman... perhaps uploaded to mob headquarters to get hits put out... or maybe a new lawsuit!
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 12:14:48 hey look, corrupt AG Barr is trying to color a report again... “The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken” note he says "in my view", as the report concluded the opposite just like Barr corruptly purposely definitely intentionally misled the public by implying the OLC opinion (on not indicting a prez) was not relevant to Mueller's conclusions (when it 100% definitely clearly easily provably was)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 12:36:20 a link to IG report http://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf i've read some of summary... investigation did start w/ Papadopolous (NOT Steele, AT ALL)... as real media reported, w/ team Trump/Fox fucking liars as usual investigation properly was started (team Trump fucking liars, including corrupt AG Barr) there are complaints about Page's issue i haven't gotten too yet but still says investigating him warranted (plus he was a total nobody in campaign, if Obama was corruptly trying to spy on the campaign to help Hillary or whatever other nonsense from the Hannity world, then you wouldn't go w/ Page)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 13:15:40 Republican counsel is arguing the Dems aren't threatening Trump officials enough to pressure them to testify... bizarro
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 15:29:55 Comey (on IG report) So it was all lies. No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America. FYI: I offered to go on Fox & Friends to answer all questions. I can’t change their viewers on Donald Trump but hoped to give them some actual facts about the FBI. They booked me for tomorrow at 8 am. They just cancelled. Must have read the report. (& he has an op-ed in WaPo) =========================== Trump (on IG report) "I apologize for my huge amount of made-up false smears against the FBI that have now been disproven. I'm a mentally ill child & resigning from office..." (oops, i committed treason)... here's a real Trump quote: "It is incredible... far worse than I ever would've thought possible. It's an embarrassment to our country, it's dishonest. It's everything that a lot of people thought it would be, except far worse." (it refutes EVERY made-up bullshit claim he has made) a total piece of shit liar
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 15:31:21 ...^ there should be quotes around the two Comey paragraphs... Fox has not invited me on :p
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 15:35:45 TJ, feel free to weigh in on if Comey or Trump is more accurate also how anyone can think Trump is fit for office or can find his behavior acceptable (^that's to anyone... i'd love an explanation)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 15:44:44 here's Trump saying it if you want to be be outraged (the proper reaction)... or if you need to feed the brain parasite that somehow causes hearing his words to make you find him acceptable http://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1204129659631394819 i doubt he was even briefed on it, certainly not required for any of the words he expelled
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 16:12:36 & Trump on Ukraine hearing today: "Yeah, I did, I watched a little bit. Very little. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace to our country. It's a hoax, and it should never, ever be allowed to happen again." hmm.... on the same day his Russia investigation made-up hoax theory fully discredited.... (& Ukraine even easier to prove not a hoax) why is this acceptable in a President... someone who should probably be held to higher standards than a drunken deranged hobo, but is not for some reason... it's just fine to R's
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 17:51:24 wow, total liar Collins (head of the 'Judiciary Committee') just brought up the IG report in the Ukraine hearing... claimed w/o the Carter Page investigation there would have been no Russia investigation... & i think concluded also by extension no Ukraine investigation (i got distracted by his total insanity & missed all his nonsense) the report didn't conclude investigating Page was improper (that i know of, just criticisms)... but more importantly, it was not even close to being a lynchpin of that investigation so the Republican heads of both Judiciary & Intel are both total garbage liars... fantastic also... everything capo Jim Jordan said was deliberately misleading (probably true of many, just particularly annoying with him)... these congresspeople are supposed to represent the public, being deliberately misleading may be the job of a lawyer, but as a congressperson it's disgusting, gov't needs dissolved & restarted... (w/ Trump & anyone thinking he's fit for office removed from the country) --------- i only watched some pieces of the hearing, but heard many good points (none by R's obviously :p) - contributions by foreign gov'ts supposedly a concern of Trump, but the OMB guy wasn't asked to look into it until September, months after the hold (which suspiciously is also when whistleblower came out)... & time was running out, if aid not released by end of September it got voided basically & congress would have to re-do it (which apparently happened on part of the aid) - corruption supposedly the other concern of Trump, but pointed out (as i have noted :p) the experts prepared info for him on corruption to discuss w/ Zelensky & he did NONE of it if anyone heard a good argument by R's, i'll be happy to shoot it down
Rugian Member	Mon Dec 09 17:53:27 "if anyone heard a good argument by R's, i'll be happy to shoot it down" "None of this warrants undoing a presidential election."
Rugian Member	Mon Dec 09 17:55:34 Also both your and the Democrats talking points are so ridiculously one-sided that no one could possibly rely on them to draw a complete and accurate picture of events.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 18:32:46 "None of this warrants undoing a presidential election" well it wouldn't undo the election, Pence becomes president (that's the other person on the ticket who the minority voted for) "...complete and accurate picture of events" do you have a specific example? ============================= here's part of trashbag Collins quote: "The bottom line: The [Horowitz] report shows the Page FISA should have never been obtained. If you don't have a Page FISA, you don't have a Russia investigation." sentence 1 is false, sentence 2 is ridiculously false & like i said, pretty sure he carried the nonsense even further
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 18:38:30 what's interesting about Collins claiming Page was integral to the investigation is perhaps he watched so much Fox News & their obsession w/ the Page FISA (& Steele dossier's use for it) that he actually believes that either of those things was the origin... (Trump/Fox certainly tried hard to paint it as origin) or he just knows the misled Fox News watchers think that, so he's trying to get away with it in any case everyone should now hate Collins & realize he too is unfit for office... i'm glad we all agree
Rugian Member	Mon Dec 09 18:49:01 "do you have a specific example?" From today? How about your deliberate downplaying of all the flaws the report highlighted in the FBI's conduct. Not one single word on those here. Incidentally, Politico (which is not exactly a pro-Trump org) noted that that was the exact tact the Democrats took in characterizing the report findings. Congratulations, you're a DNC propagandist. The report was hardly a slam dunk win for Trump, but it does nothing to eradicate the narrative of a top law enforcement agency taking the highly unusual step of investigating an opposition presidential candidate and doing so in a manner which resulted in some serious breaches of protocol. Trump is fully right to be mad over that.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 18:52:45 for anyone unaware & interested... investigation began w/ Papadopolous (as real media reported all along)... then after more info gathered, Manafort, Flynn & Page became subjects of interest order of importance in campaign would be - Manafort - Flynn - Papadopolous - Page (arguably Flynn above Manafort as w/ campaign longer... absolutely no one would not put Page at the bottom)
Rugian Member	Mon Dec 09 18:54:46 As to the broader point, this whole "scandal" is just an excuse to try and remove a newly-elected president from office because you dont like it. It's the equivalent of a malevolent DA who goes through every law on the books just to find something - anything - he can charge his victim with. None of this is in good faith, and none of this suffices to explain why Trump should be impeached, much less removed.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 18:59:03 "deliberate downplaying" i have noted the FISA criticims at least twice "Trump is fully right to be mad over that. " jesus christ... NO... Trump supporters should be lvid at all the TOTAL BULLSHIT allegations he's made about the FBI the entire time that there is no support for instead you're going to say, 'meh' & ignore ALL his lies, and just say Trump should be mad at poor Carter Page's unfair treatment? Page can be mad... Trump? No. and you sure are getting a lot of mileage out of that total nobody whose 'meetings' with Trump meant he attended rallies (Page the one calling them meetings)... the whole Steel dossier/FISA nonsense Fox/Nunes/etc ran with was entirely about Page he was just a name added to a list of advisors to release to the public to pretend Trump had a serious campaign
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 18:59:53 lvid = livid
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 19:07:24 (& pretty sure report STILL said Page FISA warranted even w/ the criticisms) no coup, NONE of the people Trump has accused of being treasonous/coup-plotters found to have acted corruptly, not a hoax, met the standards (how often is Fox mentioning ^that?) Trump = unfit lying garbage proven yet again... not like he ever provided a basis for his claims anyway, just like on everything ridiculously unfit
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 19:17:43 ...also, from memory, Pages FISA didn't even go into effect until after he left the campaign and got renewed 3 times... doesn't sound like an effort to spy on Trump to me feel free to correct me, I'm sure nobody Carter Page is the only thing Fox will talk about and will do so extensively, (just like before when citing Steel dossier role in Pages FISA thus proving Hillary started the hoax or whatever nonsense) and will help Trump continue to falsely smear the FBI and damage faith in our institutions (despite absolutely no political/corrupt behavior found) America first.. yeah, right
TJ Member	Mon Dec 09 19:42:51 TW: "TJ, feel free to weigh in on if Comey or Trump is more accurate. I don't know what Trump was privy to prior the report being released to the public. I don't know if it actually exceeded his expectations. As for Comey. His leadership is and has been in question for a long period of time by both parties at different times. Trump's is no different since before and after he was sworn into office to present. What I learned today from the inquiry was repetitive with no change within the two political parties. We as a Country are cemented on the opposite of parallel tracks and exactly why the Founders believed no impeachment should take place without substantial bipartisanship, a reiteration. Seems apparent that Trump will remain in office and rightfully so, because of the last sentence previous paragraph. The Horowitz report: Preliminary to future reports in the pipeline. Haven't had an opportunity to read and think it obvious that both sides reporting will most likely be from partisan perspectives. The consequences are set no matter what they may end up being if all things remain the same. The Democrats have laid a heavy wager on the roulette wheel in Vegas.
jergul large member	Mon Dec 09 20:27:10 TJ "Founders believed no impeachment should take place without substantial bipartisanship, a reiteration" What an odd thing to say. The founding fathers were not fond of party politics at all. I think they envisioned congress as an actual congress of individual representatives who would discuss and agree on laws for the betterment of the nation. 50%+1 is certainly how they envisioned Impeachment should work.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 21:04:01 "I don't know what Trump was privy to prior the report" he repeatedly said the whole thing was a corrupt hoax/coup out to get him, with criminal accusations of about a dozen people including treason so to Rugian or anyone: Trump has convinced his supporters the FBI is politically biased and was out to get him, please cite what in this report establishes that And if you can't, please cite why it was ok for Trump to do that (plus, perhaps more disgustly, why it's ok that he will continue to do so & Fox will continue to help)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 21:16:40 even the "bad/sick Obama wiretapped my phones" was part of all Trumps lies... and a dickhead R in last hearing brought up the idea Obama should've been the one impeached for spying on Trump campaign (but oops, that was all lies) plus a dickhead R said today Mueller concluded no obstruction such filth
TJ Member	Mon Dec 09 21:22:17 Exactly... They were eerily aware and feared how impeachment could play out. A major concern was partisanship broken down by fractions. They took great care in deciding what body would be best for the process, the Court or the Congress. They have been proven to be correct about their concern. Impeachment history.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 23:17:47 should there be any expectation of honesty & decency by the parties? (there are repeated provable lies & deceptions by team R... & i'm sure Trump people think Schiff is the devil) and for my sanity could you acknowledge Trump saying the Horowitz report was "far worse than I ever would've thought possible" is total fucking lying bullshit (if you're hung up on not being sure if Trump actually believes what he has said, then just assume Trump believes the things he has said... 100s if not 1000s of times...) if you can't, you're sliding into kargen territory also saying it was wrong for him to falsely & aggressively smear the FBI's reputation (especially given he's the president) would be nice and from what he can see from Rugian, Trump people will continue to believe the FBI was corruptly out to get him, or even have their negative views grow
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Dec 09 23:19:03 *and from what *we* can see from Rugian... (i need to start proof-reading before posting :p)
TJ Member	Mon Dec 09 23:42:55 No need to try and persuade me into a partisan position at this early date. I'm not sliding into anyone's hands unless it is the hands of my wife. Lots of material data presently to cover and a lot more to hit the public eye yet to be presented. So far I disagree with the impeachment of Trump for reasons I've already stated. Railroad tracks are straight down party lines.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 00:14:26 you've already said Dems are wrong for not waiting how can you not say Trump is not wrong for saying the report is "far worse than I ever would've thought possible"? (given all his outrageous claims) what is this weird power he has to seem normal to people
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 00:37:39 i'm not a huge Eric Swalwell fan, but pretty good arguments made by him here (way better than any R arguments which were always garbage... in my completely unbiased opinion): http://twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/1204164336681463808 i'd toss in that not only no change in aid by other countries, but also that 'study' was requested in September (months after hold placed, & w/ time running out... & almost certainly after knowledge of whistleblower... as i've noted) plus i'm sure if you quizzed Trump on aid by other countries, he'd still be as clueless as ever
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 01:33:46 retarded capo Nunes & capo Jordan on Hannity http://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1204225580184399872 i bet that was an informative segment
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 02:04:52 "This was a government trying to overthrow a president by falsifying documents and by lying and by ruining the lives of many, many people" ~ the current piece of shit press secretary asked for her assessment of the IG report http://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1204208407013515265 please direct me to that part of the report disgusting, disgraceful, shameful... & it will continue... & get worse... we haven't even gotten to how our election is rigged, and w/ massive fraud voting
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 02:41:41 TJ Impeachment history shows that that those subject to it generally correct their ways and either comply with concerns at the start of the impeachment process in the house, or resign. The case history is quite good as impeachment includes more offices that that of the president. A president refusing to engange in the process is unheard of.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue Dec 10 09:18:59 09 December 2019 Horowitz's Futile Attempt to Polish the FBI Turd by Larry C Johnson There is an old saying in the Navy, to wit, "You can't polish a turd." This poetic, vulgar phrase helped old sailors teach new sailors that you can't transform something inherently bad into something good and pleasant. DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigation of the FBI's handling of the Carter Page FISA application is a case study in turd polishing. No matter how much you rub it and massage it, the end product is a putrid, disgusting thing. The media mob, unwilling to actually read the report, seized on the following Horowitz conclusions as proof that this was all about nothing: we concluded that the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open the individual investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort in August 2016 was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold established by the Department and the FBI. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page. But these are not the major conclusions of the Horowitz report. The Inspector General's review of the FBI actions in their wide ranging effort to secure a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page is damning. The FBI lied, obfuscated and hid exculpatory evidence. Attorney General Barr weighed in to reinforce the fundamental findings of the Inspector General: The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process. William Barr knows criminal activity and is not shy about calling out those responsible. The most surprising development of the day was the statement released by Prosecutor John Durham, who is investigating the how this investigation of Trump actually was initiated. The Washington Post reported on Sunday the following nonsense: Barr’s handpicked prosecutor tells inspector general he can’t back right-wing theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup Durham did not let that lie stand. He also issued a statement today on the heels of Attorney General Barr's statement: “I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened,” To reiterate--the Horowitz report, in general, presents one damning case after another of FBI misconduct and lying. But he did not take a serious look at the actual predication of the investigation. (Predication simply means the legal basis for starting the investigation). If you take time to read the Horowitz report you will see for yourself that he accepts the bogus claim as fact that "Russia"meddled in our election. That phrase has become an article of faith, but Russian intelligence activities surrounding the 2016 election did not--I REPEAT--did not help Donald Trump win a surprising victory in November 2016. I suspect most of you do not have the patience or time to wade through the turgid prose of Horowitz. So let me share a couple of the most damning conclusions: The Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform Department officials of significant information that was available to the team at the time that the FISA applications were drafted and filed. Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications. (p. V) However, as we describe later, as the FBI obtained additional information raising significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting, the FBI failed to reassess the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications, and did not fully advise NSD or 01 officials. We also found that the FBI did not aggressively seek to obtain certain potentially important information from Steele. . . . Agents also did not question Steele about his role in a September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article entitled, "U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump advisor and Kremlin," that described efforts by U.S. intelligence to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. (p. VI) the Department decision makers who supported and approved the application were not given all relevant information. (p. VII) In support of the fourth element in the FISA application-i.e. Carter Page's alleged coordination with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities-the application relied entirely on the following information from Steele Reports 80, 94, 95, and 102: We found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications. . . . the Woods Procedures require only that the agent verify, with supporting documentation, that the application accurately reflects what the CHS told the FBI. the representations about Steele's prior reporting were overstated and had not been approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures. Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. In fact, Horowitz does not praise FBI leaders, particularly Comey and McCabe, for doing a damn fine job. To the contrary. They are roundly and universally condemned for failing to follow FBI policies and procedures. The Horowitz take down of the failures of the FBI should alarm any American committed to protecting civil liberties. Here's the relevant section of the summary: Relevant Information Inaccurately Stated, Omitted, or Undocumented in the First Application 1.Omitted information the FBI had obtained from the CIA detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the CIA from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application; 2.Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent, as required by the Woods Procedures; 3.Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source, namely that ( 1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment". 4.Asserted that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS, his client; this premise was incorrect and contradicted by documentation in the Woods File- Steele had told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State Department; 5.Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails; 6.Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in Report 95 that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign; and 7.Included Page's consensually monitored statements to an FBI CHS in October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate Clinton. We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command's management and supervision of the FISA process. FBI Headquarters established a chain of command for Crossfire Hurricane that included close supervision by senior CD managers, who then briefed FBI leadership throughout the investigation. It is amazing the Jim Comey, the disgraced former FBI Director, was tweeting today like he won the Super Bowl. He seems to think he was exonerated. He was not. This report condemns his conduct. The flaws and lies in the Carter Page FISA application were not minor slip ups by low level clerks. The Chain of Command allowed this disgrace to go forward. That is on Jim Comey. No matter how much scrubbing and polishing you want to do on Jim Comey, you can't remove this brown stain of stink. http://tur...-by-larry-c-johnson-.html#more
TJ Member	Tue Dec 10 09:37:56 jergul Three completed Presidential impeachments since the founding. All remained in office because of partisanship. Nixon wasn't impeached. Johnson> Tenure of Office Act, 9 of the 11 articles were attached to the Act. The Supreme Court rendered the Act unconstitutional. I've previously mentioned in the thread. Elected after Lincoln assassination. Clinton> Would you like to explain any significant behavioral change. As far as we know there were no further oral office episodes. Trump> kind of early, eh? I won't respond to the goal post being moved.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 10:48:51 Re Nixon. Yah, resigning is one way of avoiding impeachment. Trump is facing similar Articles of Impeachment (2 of 3 so far). The house did not request USSC involvement when Nixon ignored subpeonas either. Re Johnson. To my understanding, the reason he was impeached had more to do with him stonewalling southern reconstruction. But was charged on something more clearly covered by the impeachment part of your constitution. Re Clinton. He did respond to Congress' concerns. The impeachment process is used more often than people think. A federal judge was removed as late as in 2010 by the powers the Constitution has given Congress. Its hardly moving goal posts to point out there is actually a pretty decent history of Congress' use of impeachment.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 10:55:41 http://edi...s-impeachment-trump/index.html The draft impeachment text in full.
Rugian Member	Tue Dec 10 11:11:33 Federal judges arent elected, they're appointed. Johnson and Clinton's impeachments were both nakedly partisan affairs. Johnson is a bit of a bad example since he inherited the office, but history has more or less vindicated him of the specific violation he was accused of. Clinton not only got off but he ended up getting a popularity boost as a result. Democrats have been trying to use any excuse they can to impeach the President. People see this and understand it. If you hated Trump before impeachment, you want to see him impeached, and if you didnt you dont. This sad sham of an inquiry changes nothing.
TJ Member	Tue Dec 10 11:19:32 "Re Nixon. Yah, resigning is one way of avoiding impeachment. Trump is facing similar Articles of Impeachment (2 of 3 so far)." No doubt... You seem to be missing the point I've been making. It is my opinion that the inquiry should have relied on the intermediary of coequal branch disputes. What we have today could possibly have been prevented providing the best opportunity of removal. The House has screwed themselves. People may not like it, but that is the process.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 11:34:12 @swordtail article "But these are not the major conclusions of the Horowitz report." those were the -extremely- important & major conclusions given what Trump/Fox have made his followers believe the FBI -didn't- attempt to overthrow a president nor act politically corruptly w/ a hoax investigation at all... yeah, that's important ------------ "he accepts the bogus claim as fact that "Russia" meddled in our election" so that article written by a Russian? (or Trump?... if he could write like a normal person) ------------ ...then a bunch of complaints on the Carter Page FISA ... yes, these need looked at & addressed, but these are not the major takeaways from the report for the public -disproving- that the FBI was a team of corrupt treasonous individuals out to take down the president w/ a hoax is a MUCH more significant story... that most Fox News viewers won't even hear top-rated show is Trump-friend Hannity having as guest 2 of Trump's staunchest supporters: retarded capo Nunes (who is fine saying provably false things, like Trump) and capo Jorden (who has the decency to just be deliberately misleading, like Barr) & the current piece of shit press secretary (she really needs to shorten her title) on Tucker just ignoring the conclusions & stating the opposite (& oddly matches the standard Trump claim exactly as if report never happened)... "This was a government trying to overthrow a president by falsifying documents and by lying and by ruining the lives of many, many people"... all because of issues w/ the nobody Carter Page FISA? name anything that showed they acted in anti-Trump fashion... the Carter Page FISA was expected to lead to taking down Trump? i don't think so... list the many many innocent people w/ lives ruined the country is doomed... Fox News is to blame
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 11:38:41 "Democrats have been trying to use any excuse they can to impeach the President. People see this and understand it. " so he's inoculated from impeachment by being continually unfit and inoculated from testimony against him by his associates since all his associates are lying pieces of garbage who can be easily discredited being a total piece of shit really pays off
Rugian Member	Tue Dec 10 11:43:53 Tw, Democrats literally entered the House this year by announcing that they would, quote, "impeach the motherfucker," long before they had any specific offense lined up. This is just them acting on that. History will vindicate Trump.
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Dec 10 11:45:33 "Democrats literally entered the House this year by announcing that they would, quote, "impeach the motherfucker," long before they had any specific offense lined up." is that frowned upon now? http://www...openly-discussing-impeachment/
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 11:50:11 TJ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress You may very well see this play out still. The individuals not complying with subpeonas can see it move towards grand juries, with the attendant media circus for when the president refuses. The optics of that would be horrible. And perhaps just in time for the election.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 10 11:51:09 Ruggy History has yet to vindicate any president facing impeachment.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 11:53:57 so no possibility the clearly amoral unfit buffoon would ever abuse his power? (or clearly obstruct w/ a blanket ignoring of all subpoenas for docs & witnesses) do you genuinely feel that Trump was asking Zelensky to investigate Biden & 2016 meddling out of genuine concerns for America & not to help himself? and that it's totally fine that he completely ignores all conclusions by America's intel community & instead believes totally false info from... (god knows where he heard it)... about Crowdstrike, etc.? and that he didn't minimally leverage the White House visit ... there's basically proof of that part in the texts (+ cancelling Pence's appearance) ----- regarding articles of impeachment... i wish they fleshed out the 'Ukraine not Russia interference' bit... R's are doing a good job of totally ignoring what Trump said (Crowdstrike), while digging up nonsense to try to cover for it (like suggesting a Ukrainian writing an op-ed about Trump's Ukraine views is election meddling...) ...and R's also ignoring that if they had these strong concerns, why didn't they demand investigation long before learning what Trump asked Zelensky (probably because the investigation already DID happen in the Senate, or they know it's nonsense)
TJ Member	Tue Dec 10 11:59:38 jergul: Generally and usually-does not mean never.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Dec 10 12:00:55 ...and by "basically proof" i mean there -is- proof they were being asking to announce the 2 investigations to get (minimally) the WH visit... it's not provably from Trump, it theoretically could be Giuliani... but given on the phone call, the ONLY thing Trump is interested in are those same 2 investigations (& given Giuliani is Trump's agent) it -strongly- suggests Trump is the source & that's just a part of the evidence
	show deleted posts