Impeachment

Seattle Husker said:
Hillary certainly used non-governmental sources (i.e. Fusion GPS). At this point, the Australian diplomat reached out to the FBI to report Papadopolous. Do you see a difference between soliciting a Foreign government interference and them coming to us with information? Shifting "Foreign governments" to "Foreign sources" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Read this article which shows foreign GOVERNMENTS were involved in spying on the Trump campaign.

“Halper introduced Papadopoulos to his purported assistant, Azra Turk. Turk was actually a government investigator, and that British authorities okayed the operation against Papadopoulos, The New York Times reported.”

Report: AG Barr Is Ramping Up His Probe Of CIA, FBI Activities In 2016
 
Seattle Husker said:
What did he do for his son? Facts (and links preferably) please.

BTW, I think Hunter Biden profiting off his fathers role is abhorrent, no different than the Trump children. If you want to suggest legislation to prevent the children from profiting off their parents roles in government I might be able to support that depending on the specifics.
Click to expand...

If you think it's abhorrent then you should have no issue with the current admin looking into the possible corruption involved. From any and all angles.... Right?
 
You guys are all haggling back and forth on this, and the bottom line is that you like Trump, you'll assume the best of him (meaning read every ambiguity in the transcript in his favor and assume Giuliani's involvement was no big deal) and the worst of the whistleblower (meaning you'll dismiss his complaint as unverified hearsay by a political hack) and Joe Biden (that he intervened in Ukraine to protect his sleazy-*** kid).

If you don't like Trump, you'll do the reverse. You'll infer that everything in the transcript meant something worse than the literal terms of it, or you'll adopt an extremely high standard to which no one would ever hold a politician that he liked - basically that Trump shouldn't be allowed to even mention Biden to a foreign government. You'll assume that the whistleblower was a perfectly honest, well-meaning patriot with no political agenda at all. You'll assume that Biden was a totally honest guy and that he did nothing shady. His kid just happened to get a very high-paying job with a Ukrainian energy company and that his dad had nothing to do with it and didn't even know about. After all, sometimes a company just really, really needs a guy with no experience and who got shitcanned from the Navy for cocaine use, so they had to pay him $50K per month. That just the going rate for guys like that.

Here's where I am. I don't friggin' know. The transcript can be read lots of different ways - a little like the comment to James Comey about Michael Flynn. I don't see it as dispositive either way. Here's the problem for Trump. First, the transcript isn't verbatim, so if you're trying to read a lot of nuance into it in either direction, you're pulling things out of your ***. That means we can't convict or exonerate him based on it. Other extrinsic information is necessary to know what was actually happening, and yes, it's reasonable to want to discover that information.

Second, though I can accept that Biden should be looked into and don't think Trump just mentioning it or even casually saying to look into it is automatically impeachable, the actual task of looking into it is the job of the Justice Department with perhaps the involvement of the State Department if Ukrainian authorities are part of the investigation. There's no reason for Rudy Giuliani or anyone associated with the Trump campaign or Trump personally to be involved, and that sparks more suspicion for me than anything Trump said. Does that make his involvement per se inappropriate? No, but it is suspicious and definitely invites scrutiny.

As for Biden, of course his son's involvement with Ukraine stinks. Does that mean there was criminal activity? No, but it smells terribly. He didn't get hired for his experience in the Ukrainian energy industry. He got hired because his dad was Vice President of the United States. Did Biden intervene to make that happen? Very good chance that he did either directly or indirectly. Is that illegal? Nope. Ever wonder why politicians and their families always seem to get rich even though their salaries from the public aren't that high? Well, **** like this is why. It happens all the time. It makes Biden dirty, but it doesn't make him a crook.

Does that mean Biden is clean as the wind-driven snow? No. We don't have proof one way or the other, but it looks bad like Giuliani's involvement with Ukraine looks bad. Biden was VP, so he has a plausible defense, but he also had a conflict of interest, because of his kid. so he should have stayed out of it. Obama could have put the squeeze on Ukraine himself. John Kerry certainly could have done it as Secretary of State. Instead, Biden jumped into it. Was his kid on his mind when he was threatening to pull the $1B? Who the hell knows? Is it crazy to assume that he was? Not at all.
 
Mr. Deez said:
You guys are all haggling back and forth on this, and the bottom line is that you like Trump, you'll assume the best of him (meaning read every ambiguity in the transcript in his favor and assume Giuliani's involvement was no big deal) and the worst of the whistleblower (meaning you'll dismiss his complaint as unverified hearsay by a political hack) and Joe Biden (that he intervened in Ukraine to protect his sleazy-*** kid).

If you don't like Trump, you'll do the reverse. You'll infer that everything in the transcript meant something worse than the literal terms of it, or you'll adopt an extremely high standard to which no one would ever hold a politician that he liked - basically that Trump shouldn't be allowed to even mention Biden to a foreign government. You'll assume that the whistleblower was a perfectly honest, well-meaning patriot with no political agenda at all. You'll assume that Biden was a totally honest guy and that he did nothing shady. His kid just happened to get a very high-paying job with a Ukrainian energy company and that his dad had nothing to do with it and didn't even know about. After all, sometimes a company just really, really needs a guy with no experience and who got shitcanned from the Navy for cocaine use, so they had to pay him $50K per month. That just the going rate for guys like that.

Here's where I am. I don't friggin' know. The transcript can be read lots of different ways - a little like the comment to James Comey about Michael Flynn. I don't see it as dispositive either way. Here's the problem for Trump. First, the transcript isn't verbatim, so if you're trying to read a lot of nuance into it in either direction, you're pulling things out of your ***. That means we can't convict or exonerate him based on it. Other extrinsic information is necessary to know what was actually happening, and yes, it's reasonable to want to discover that information.

Second, though I can accept that Biden should be looked into and don't think Trump just mentioning it or even casually saying to look into it is automatically impeachable, the actual task of looking into it is the job of the Justice Department with perhaps the involvement of the State Department if Ukrainian authorities are part of the investigation. There's no reason for Rudy Giuliani or anyone associated with the Trump campaign or Trump personally to be involved, and that sparks more suspicion for me than anything Trump said. Does that make his involvement per se inappropriate? No, but it is suspicious and definitely invites scrutiny.

As for Biden, of course his son's involvement with Ukraine stinks. Does that mean there was criminal activity? No, but it smells terribly. He didn't get hired for his experience in the Ukrainian energy industry. He got hired because his dad was Vice President of the United States. Did Biden intervene to make that happen? Very good chance that he did either directly or indirectly. Is that illegal? Nope. Ever wonder why politicians and their families always seem to get rich even though their salaries from the public aren't that high? Well, **** like this is why. It happens all the time. It makes Biden dirty, but it doesn't make him a crook.

Does that mean Biden is clean as the wind-driven snow? No. We don't have proof one way or the other, but it looks bad like Giuliani's involvement with Ukraine looks bad. Biden was VP, so he has a plausible defense, but he also had a conflict of interest, because of his kid. so he should have stayed out of it. Obama could have put the squeeze on Ukraine himself. John Kerry certainly could have done it as Secretary of State. Instead, Biden jumped into it. Was his kid on his mind when he was threatening to pull the $1B? Who the hell knows? Is it crazy to assume that he was? Not at all.
Click to expand...

Great summation and I agree with most of it. However, I think it is lacking comment that I would enjoy your perspective of further.

Under Obama, I believe Chicago politics infiltrated the federal government. We witnessed the IRS become an attack weapon against conservatives and the Tea Party. It now seems the justice department also became a way to further democrat ways.

I never liked Trump and still do not. I do like his economic policies towards business, but dislike his disregard of the national debt. I will vote for him in the next election barring some new revelation.

Most of all, I like that he has destroyed the establishment RNC. I also think he is contributing to the destruction of the DNC who he is currently battling in this impeachment process.

What are your views on the Justice Department - specifically the FBI in this process?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Why do you always take the extremes of the party to stereotype the entirety of the party? Notice that only the latest incident convinced the Dem leadership to promote impeachment. Prior to this Pelosi had been advocating winning in 2020 which is what elections are all about.

If the shoe were on the other foot, would you expect the Republicans to look the othe way as a Dem POTUS engages a foreign government to push for investigations of Republican presidential candidates?
Click to expand...

I guess I don't see Mr. O'Rourke as an extremist when it comes to his power within the party. I live in Austin and maybe I'm hearing too many echo's. He is a saint around here. He almost defeated Cruz which was a big surprise to me. The virtue signaling phenomenon makes people like him viable candidates with real power and influence. It doesn't matter how extreme his positions actually are. It's more the likelihood that he can win with them.

I don't know why Nancy changed her mind. We don't know what is happening behind the scenes. I'm reminded of a scene in All The Presidents Men where Deep Throat (I think it was him) says the Nixon team aren't all that smart. Do we assume that Nancy is that shrewd and is making a wise decision or has she been worn down by the constant zealotry of AOC, Omar etc?

As I said before, I don't like the idea of a Presidential candidate asking another government for help to win an election. It doesn't sound good. But what if Biden had influenced the probe in the Ukraine. Is Trump supposed to remain silent? What did he know when it was discussed? I suppose your next question is would I ask the same question had Hillary made that phone call about one of Trump's kids.
 
As a recap, here is what Trump said about Biden and the son during the phone call:

"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

Bold above is mine. How is Trump asking Zelensky to "dig up dirt", another false and presumptuous characterization of the above sentence, by asking for Zelensky to see what he can find out in conjunction with, yes presumably on my part, Barr through his ongoing investigation? It is the right thing to do to let Zelensky know that Barr will be investigating. It is the proper protocol vs. Barr or his underlings reaching out without having been told first by the President.

Everyone, for the most part, agrees that Barr is above board and beyond reproach. Until now. Now, he is acting as Trump's attorney, not the AG getting to the bottom of that happened.

Whatever you can do with the Attorney General, sure as hell, and even if you do think that Trump is literally stupid, cannot possibly mean hey go dig up dirt and make up stuff or else, knowing all the different people, including Pompeo, listening in, would immediately say hey you just asked Zelensky to help you win 2020. I mean, it is preposterous.

But, just like Schiff making up dialog last week at the hearing, the media and Dems continue to make up dialog when saying he asked, pressured, whatever, Zelensky into finding and digging up dirt on Biden. It just simply is not what was said.
 
Does any antiTrump person think Biden did nothing wrong?
It seems all the TDS people have is to say Trump is trying to take out a political opponent.
How do they ignore what Biden actually did and the result of his actions which benefitted him and Hunter much more than yet one more negative about Biden's campaign.
 
Horn6721 said:
Does any antiTrump person think Biden did nothing wrong?
It seems all the TDS people have is to say Trump is trying to take out a political opponent.
How do they ignore what Biden actually did and the result of his actions which benefitted him and Hunter much more than yet one more negative about Biden's campaign.
Click to expand...
See my post above. No reasonable thinker could take what Trump actually said and think it was pressuring Zelensky to "dig up dirt" or try to take out Biden.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Hillary certainly used non-governmental sources (i.e. Fusion GPS). At this point, the Australian diplomat reached out to the FBI to report Papadopolous. Do you see a difference between soliciting a Foreign government interference and them coming to us with information? Shifting "Foreign governments" to "Foreign sources" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
Click to expand...
 
Horn6721 said:
Mc
But this will be twisted somehow to be Trump's fault
Click to expand...
It just occurred to me that the dems are trying to convict Trump of what they are already guilty of: conspiring with other nations to get dirt on an opponent (Trump), particularly the CIA-led effort to spy on the trump campaign via Misfud and Halper. They need something to counter the bad news that is going to hit in the next few months.
 
I've not seen the question asked much: Why have they released a partial transcript? We're supposed to trust this administration that they've not edited out significant details? Pompeo didn't know about the call. Turns out he was on the call. WTF? This is smelly and we all know it. Barr and Pompeo are sketch.
 
OUBubba said:
I've not seen the question asked much: Why have they released a partial transcript? We're supposed to trust this administration that they've not edited out significant details? Pompeo didn't know about the call. Turns out he was on the call. WTF? This is smelly and we all know it. Barr and Pompeo are sketch.
Click to expand...

Does a full transcript even exist, and do they make full transcripts of these calls? I'm honestly not sure.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm not privy enough to the FBI's activities in this to give an informed answer. Is there a particular angle that you have in mind?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I just think there is much more to the story than just like or dislike of Trump.
 
I'm more concerned about how so much of Trump's correspondence with foreign leaders keeps getting leaked to the public instead of a bunch of silly conspiracy theories. It's a damn shame that we have more people interested in getting Trump than letting him do his job.
 
Has anyone ever held Hillary accountable for her deflect and redirect responses to virtually every question she fields? That's what they do. We can't cherry pick which politician's deflection is suspicious.
 
bystander said:
Has anyone ever held Hillary accountable for her deflect and redirect responses to virtually every question she fields? That's what they do. We can't cherry pick which politician's deflection is suspicious.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And, of course, like branding Trump a racist, which is never challenged by the media, saying Pompeo's answer was "evasive", is an opinion, period.
 
?
Evasive?
He said he had just been given the whistleblower report. He had not see the report.
Then he said, " I think I saw a statement from the Ukrainian foreign minister yesterday, said there was no pressure applied in the course of the conversation."
Since the whistleblower's alleged complaint was that Trump caledl for a quid pro quo, Trump had already said there as none so the logical thing to do was to point out what the Ukrainian Pres said.
That is not evasive
Unless you want it to be.
 
"So, you just gave me a report about a I.C. whistle-blower complaint, none of which I've seen."

Pompeo told the reporter he'd not seen the complaint. If true, then that answer is not evasive. It is a standard answer WHEN YOU'VE NOT SEEN THE DOCUMENT AND YOU DON'T WANT TO STIPULATE THE REPORTER IS CHARACTERIZING IT ACCURATELY.

He then launched into the Ukraine relationship and took a shot at Obama. Probably not necessary but that's the speech that is always given by a politician when asked a question. They always end up on a high-note. ALWAYS. It's like a boxer ending a round with a flurry so the judges have that fresh in their minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-MICHIGAN *
Sat, Sep 7 • 11:00 AM on FOX
GAME DAY NOTES

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top