Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

afan -- you have a short, selective memory. Keywords = Trump stupid unethical.

No. My memory is just fine, thank you. I remember this exchange...although not the exact wording, as I'm not that good. But this exchange was about the request to the President of Ukraine to look into the Bidens and that's it.

In this new post you added something else. "If he was going to approve US aid to a corrupt s-hole country, he wanted something in return."

Today you acknowledged and added the quid pro quo----the giving of aid contingent on the announcement of an investigation------ for the first time.

Thank you for that clarification.

I'm sure I've used these words before, or very close.
"If he was going to approve US aid to a corrupt s-hole country, he wanted something in return."
I then referred to withholding aid from N Triangle countries.
I just don't have enough remaining battery life to search them out.

I've conceded a quid pro quo from the start, but it's not the only plausible reason, we can't know all the factors, & (imho) it's not impeachable anyway. It's possible to be motivated by more than just one factor.

[kramerica.inc]

Bolton has a manuscript.

So it’s official. We have now entered the Dem’s “Avenatti / Swetnick” phase of the impeachment. Throw anything, hoping it sticks.

[a fan]

Hey, if you're telling me you told me this before and I missed it.....ok. My bad, old salt.

What I'm telling you is that to my knowledge, this is the first time you've admitted to what Trump did, soup to nuts....and I just wanted to say thanks for the clarification, because all this time I thought you were crispy-crackers for not seeing what I was seeing.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in thinking that you've been denying what he did over many pages of postings from you. You APPEAR to bicker over evidence, and lately over things like Ukraine getting the aid in the end, and implying that this makes what he did ok.

So if you want to blame me for this misunderstanding? Ok. I'll take the blame. But maybe cut us some slack?

[CU88]

Yes. Decades. You clarified the military aid part. I didn't.

Been giving them money since the Soviet collapse.

Offshore bankers around the globe appreciate our generous support of the Ukrainian democracy project.

Well I don't know what to tell you. if this is such a big deal.....next time, cut off the aid BEFORE Biden announces he's running for President. Trump had all the way until April 25th to do that. He didn't. And you know full well that he didn't do that because he doesn't care about that money one way or another.

You couldn't find one single American outside of politics who gives two figs about the Ukrainians. No one cares that Trump withheld aid.

The problem, as you know, is WHY Trump withheld the aid. A man of your intelligence knows exactly why Trump withheld that aid. But you are more than welcome to continue to pretend that you don't get it.

The NPR tote bag lady cares deeply.

DoD didn't release the aid until June 18, after the interagency anticorruption certification.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releas ... o-ukraine/

I've told you why, before. If he was going to approve US aid to a corrupt s-hole country, he wanted something in return.
Especially a country which worked against his election in 2016. It was politics as usual. Stupid. Unethical.
Not worth the precedent & turmoil of impeachment a few months before an election, if ever.

So why single out Ukraine just last year? There are other countries much much more corrupt, and to which we give US taxpayer money hand over fist. Your hero o d invites them to the White House all the time!

Why didn't/doesn't o d stop aid to other countries much more corrupt?

You are willfully blind to the act by o d, because as long as it is against a Democrat you don't care.

[Trinity]

I skipped Dershowitz. Did he argue to lower the age of consent?

Meanwhile Bolton says he told AG Barr that he was concerned Trump was granting favors to dictators in Turkey and China.

"Bolton was regularly appalled by what he saw from the president, the people close to him said. He wondered at times if Trump was acting in America’s best interest or if he was inspired by nefarious reasons..." Washington Post

[tech37]

Hey, if you're telling me you told me this before and I missed it.....ok. My bad, old salt.

What I'm telling you is that to my knowledge, this is the first time you've admitted to what Trump did, soup to nuts....and I just wanted to say thanks for the clarification, because all this time I thought you were crispy-crackers for not seeing what I was seeing.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in thinking that you've been denying what he did over many pages of postings from you. You APPEAR to bicker over evidence, and lately over things like Ukraine getting the aid in the end, and implying that this makes what he did ok.

So if you want to blame me for this misunderstanding? Ok. I'll take the blame. But maybe cut us some slack?

Geez you guys...get a room

Let's not overdo the nicities

[youthathletics]

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

[Trinity]

Seen in DC.

[foreverlax]

I skipped Dershowitz. Did he argue to lower the age of consent?

Meanwhile Bolton says he told AG Barr that he was concerned Trump was granting favors to dictators in Turkey and China.

"Bolton was regularly appalled by what he saw from the president, the people close to him said. He wondered at times if Trump was acting in America’s best interest or if he was inspired by nefarious reasons..." Washington Post

Alan's view

"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense," Dershowitz said. "That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit.'"

[Peter Brown]

Each Dem candidate has a major weakness(es). The absolute only way they win is through impeachment.

So you think Dems would have an easier time running against President Pence?

Republicans learned their lessons;' Dems rarely act in good faith on legislation any longer; the end game is always the same, more government.

When was the last year a Republican President signed off on spending cuts, and a downsizing of government?

Get back to me.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... overnment/

I'm back to you...Any response?

Shifting spending from one department to another, and adding $3+ Trillion in new spending doesn't come EVEN CLOSE to shrinking the size of government.

But it works on Republican voters, I'll give you that. Try that game at your company, and see how it works.

Cut spending on pilots by $1 million, while increasing spending on your flight attendants by $3 million. Then go ask your boss if spending is up or down.


Another neat trick that works great on Republican voters is to cut military personnel overseas, and then blow ten times as much on "consultants" that do the same job for ten times the money. Then you get to go back to your voters and say "see, we cut Federal staffing". Google "Blackwater", and enjoy the "military spending cuts".

Let's keep this simple:

Federal spending, fiscal 2020 $4.746 Trillion.

Know what spending was for Obama's last fiscal year? $3.2 Trillion.

You really think that Trump is cutting government? Be honest.
-------

To cut to the chase, the last Republican President to sign off on lower Federal spending from one year to the next was Eisenhower in 1953. The last Democrat was Obama.

Someone here needs a course in Aristotle, and nuance.

"The more you know, the more you realize you don't know". The only thing I know is aviation, and even then, I'm reminded daily how little I know, even about that! I don't pretend to understand the federal government's fiscal house; I can guess it's messy (being as charitable as possible).

The point is this: nothing as complicated as US federal spending or the federal debt is so easily reduced to an online post with cherry-picked stats. That common sense observation seemingly doesn't cause much hesitation among some of us to flex our brains and adamantly claim victory on a topic! (chiefly here at FanLax, Democrats and their fellow TDS travelers do this)

If the economy was being so threatened (as a fan's post suggests) by such reckless spending and gargantuan debt with no way out, I suspect we'd all be wearing sandwich boards begging for alms. Interestingly, wealth among Americans of all stripes has never been higher. Why would that be? How can that be? I know it drives TDS sufferers crazy. Socialist economies over the centuries have eventually cratered when running out of OPM, falling victim to (at first) rapid inflation, followed by brutal crackdowns of civil rights. Are we a socialist system, as a fan claims daily here? Or are we a different stripe, a more rigorous and (so far) free system where the collective wisdom of millions of people making millions of daily decisions help inch our country along to prosperity and happiness, all because of the dreaded capitalism word? a fan says we are socialism inc. Do you agree?

Here we are, at 3.5% unemployment, rising wages, peace around the world....some here think the sky is falling because of this or that statistic. I know if we are a socialist country, we'd be screwed! I am told we have socialism, yet all I do is pay fees and tax for such socialism every day. Where are the freebies!!

Very little in life is so black and white...but alas we meet daily to rehash what we don't know.

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

[Peter Brown]

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

TDS precludes the infected from ever hearing facts that don't help their cause...

[foreverlax]

https://www.businessinsider.com/nationa ... on-2019-11

The pace at which Trump has added to the national debt isn't as surprising as it might initially seem. A different picture emerges when you look under the hood.

From the article -

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama's debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

So BHO started out with 2 outs and 2 strikes, while Trump started out on 2nd base.

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Marc Goldwein, the policy chief for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Business Insider that there had been a substantial shift in Washington's approach to federal spending in the past several years. Under Obama, Republicans championed fiscal responsibility and called to reduce the deficit — now they've largely tossed it aside.

Agreed. Hypocrite Rs finally prove that they are not fiscally conservative.

[youthathletics]

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Does the above 'bold underline' apply to a nation that has so many socialist programs and benefits as many here speak of? Maybe, just maybe, b/c we have so many socialist programs, one could easily argue that it is BECAUSE we have so many socialists programs (not a bad thing), that we do our best to balance the tipping point and it shows in our ledger.

[foreverlax]

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

So this comes from a Breitbart article...With un-named sources.

Breitbart reported that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the NSC, is in charge of reviewing publications such as the book manuscript submitted to the NSC on Dec. 30 by former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The report cited a source close to the administration. The NSC had no immediate comment.

Another BB article

The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.

[youthathletics]

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

So this comes from a Breitbart article...With un-named sources.

Breitbart reported that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the NSC, is in charge of reviewing publications such as the book manuscript submitted to the NSC on Dec. 30 by former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The report cited a source close to the administration. The NSC had no immediate comment.

Another BB article

The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.

COULD HAVE seems to be enough to impeach a POTUS. All is fair in love and politics.

[foreverlax]

Conventional economic thinking maintains that deficits will decrease when the economy is healthy as the government pulls back on spending and draws more tax money as a result of lower unemployment.

Correct. So why is the opposite happening?

Does the above 'bold underline' apply to a nation that has so many socialist programs and benefits as many here speak of? Maybe, just maybe, b/c we have so many socialist programs, one could easily argue that it is BECAUSE we have so many socialists programs (not a bad thing), that we do our best to balance the tipping point and it shows in our ledger.

I hate answering a question with a question, but what is an example of a socialist program?

How would you differentiate a "socialist program" from a "handout"?

[foreverlax]

Regardless of where you see the political positioning of Bolton, it is clear now from many press reports that his manuscript made it to the White House for security review about four weeks ago, and that it is exceedingly likely that the White House Counsel office (Cippilone) has read it.

If the manuscript did not contain what it is purported to have in it, I suspect the WH would actually be claiming it said no such thing, which is NOT what they are claiming. They are claiming the President did not say what the manuscript says he did.

So for those GOP senators in some danger in their districts for reelection, that puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they do not support calling Bolton (and then maybe would have to concede to a larger list of witnesses), their actions will be rightly seen as supporting a sham impeachment defense (just basically ignore rather than investigate further). If they do, they earn the wrath of Trump/Trumpists/current GOP base and make it harder to vote for acquittal in the impeachment trial, as it is quite likely that witnesses will just make the case against Trump even stronger.

It was reviewed at NSC by Vindman's twin brother...

NSC aide handling book approvals is twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman: Report

So this comes from a Breitbart article...With un-named sources.

Breitbart reported that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the NSC, is in charge of reviewing publications such as the book manuscript submitted to the NSC on Dec. 30 by former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The report cited a source close to the administration. The NSC had no immediate comment.

Another BB article

The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.

COULD HAVE seems to be enough to impeach a POTUS. All is fair in love and politics.

Except Trump actually asked a foreign government(s) to investigate a political opponent....so far, the only thing H Biden is guilty of (in this regard) is terribly bad judgement by taking a job that has huge potential for COI for VP Biden.

[ToastDunk]

Some of you will need to get past the fact this comes from Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Once you do, listen. And then we can discuss. I think he’s making a very solid argument against Trump’s defense.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 7659717524

[RedFromMI]

Some of you will need to get past the fact this comes from Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Once you do, listen. And then we can discuss. I think he’s making a very solid argument against Trump’s defense.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 7659717524

Great points - url has the basic point, along with the idea that when Hunter Biden was actually appointed to the Burisma board the Rs controlled both the House and Senate. No investigations then, and no concerns expressed.

[foreverlax]

Some of you will need to get past the fact this comes from Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Once you do, listen. And then we can discuss. I think he’s making a very solid argument against Trump’s defense.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 7659717524

+1