Trump's Russian Collusion

[seacoaster]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

Contractors do it all the time.

[seacoaster]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

Contractors do it all the time.

Spiro Agnew too. BFD, right?

[old salt]

Tulsi's issue is that quite a lot of her views, like many of yours Salty, line up with views propounded by Russia, Vlad.
An actual adversary of the USA.

What would those be?

With regard to Russia --
-- that we should not be more supportive of Ukraine than our EU NATO allies are & defer to our EU allies in the Minsk process.
-- that we should not deploy more military forces & combat power to NATO's E border than our EU allies are willing to deploy.
-- that we should cease the "act of war" rhetoric re. 2016 election meddling & not escalate provocative military encounters.
-- that we should enter negotiations on both conventional & nuclear arms limitations & demilitarization on both sides of NATO's E border.
-- that we should co-operate, coordinate & de-conflict counter terrorist operations, as we are (quietly) doing in Syria.
-- that we should moderate our bellicose Cold War legacy rhetoric & not get dragged into another Cold War.

[youthathletics]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

You didn’t answer the question and instead blamed it someone else.

Why is the left over complicating it, dragging it out, and not jamming it down the throat of the right making them look like fools for standing behind trump who has done something some clearly wrong?

[seacoaster]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

You didn’t answer the question and instead blamed it someone else.

Why is the left over complicating it, dragging it out, and not jamming it down the throat of the right making them look like fools for standing behind trump who has done something some clearly wrong?

Democrats in the House are not “over complicating it” or “dragging it out.” It’s not complicated. The phone call piece broke in, what? Mid-September? On October 31, we have substantial facts found, a procedure approved by a House majority, and a basic understanding of the factual and procedural continuum from authorization of the Ukraine aid to the call to the reports of career diplomatic staff and military advisors to NSC counsel. This is clear, and done with blazing speed. Maybe you and Kevin McCarthy have a little contra-agenda bias, no?

[Typical Lax Dad]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

You didn’t answer the question and instead blamed it someone else.

Why is the left over complicating it, dragging it out, and not jamming it down the throat of the right making them look like fools for standing behind trump who has done something some clearly wrong?

Democrats in the House are not “over complicating it” or “dragging it out.” It’s not complicated. The phone call piece broke in, what? Mid-September? On October 31, we have substantial facts found, a procedure approved by a House majority, and a basic understanding of the factual and procedural continuum from authorization of the Ukraine aid to the call to the reports of career diplomatic staff and military advisors to NSC counsel. This is clear, and done with blazing speed. Maybe you and Kevin McCarthy have a little contra-agenda bias, no?

“Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress, 293 days after it had been submitted to the Senate.”

What’s the rush?

[a fan]

Democrats in the House are not “over complicating it” or “dragging it out.” It’s not complicated. The phone call piece broke in, what? Mid-September? On October 31, we have substantial facts found, a procedure approved by a House majority, and a basic understanding of the factual and procedural continuum from authorization of the Ukraine aid to the call to the reports of career diplomatic staff and military advisors to NSC counsel. This is clear, and done with blazing speed. Maybe you and Kevin McCarthy have a little contra-agenda bias, no?

You left out the fact that both Trump and his lawyer admitted the principal offense on live TV....and FoxNation viewers are so around the bend that they don't believe what Trump himself told them he did. Not if that means admitting that Trump did something bad.

The mass psychosis that led to this state of affairs is enough to make your head spin.

[youthathletics]

"Too many people are trying to use logic, common sense, and chosen profession experience...none of that applies with politicians."

Sorry, YA: logic, common sense and experience from my life and profession is the only thing I have as a guide.

I don't think Democrats -- what you sometime call "the left" -- are having any trouble with identifying and explaining, for the simplest listener, how and why the President's actions are a violation of the public trust and are impeachable, indeed, exactly what the impeachment clauses were included to remedy. But then, as a fan suggests, they hit the hard reality of politics. Let me put it another way: almost every Republican in both Houses of Congress knows that Trump's conduct is wrong, impeachable and likely deserves removal from office. But they've allowed a party that once stood for something, including a basic belief in the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, to be emasculated by talk radio, blather television, and a completely amoral P-O-S. And they are taking the country they at least once pretended to revere down the tubes with them.

An elected official using public monies to euchre personal favors out of vulnerable people -- to say nothing of doing it to a foreign government in desperate need of the withheld money to influence an election -- is wrong. I don't care if it is a County Commissioner, a local police chief, a city alderman, a governor, or a Democrat or a Republican. And we are one really f*cked up Banana Republic if most folks don't agree.

You didn’t answer the question and instead blamed it someone else.

Why is the left over complicating it, dragging it out, and not jamming it down the throat of the right making them look like fools for standing behind trump who has done something some clearly wrong?

Democrats in the House are not “over complicating it” or “dragging it out.” It’s not complicated. The phone call piece broke in, what? Mid-September? On October 31, we have substantial facts found, a procedure approved by a House majority, and a basic understanding of the factual and procedural continuum from authorization of the Ukraine aid to the call to the reports of career diplomatic staff and military advisors to NSC counsel. This is clear, and done with blazing speed. Maybe you and Kevin McCarthy have a little contra-agenda bias, no?

Maybe it’s b/c I am not an attorney and simply do not see it as others may. If a prosecutor has the murder weapon, a videotape, and a confession.....wouldn’t that make it a slam dunk and the defense attorney would be bargaining for a lesser charge.

So by that standard I view what is going on as not much more than a game by the left.

[MDlaxfan76]

Tulsi's issue is that quite a lot of her views, like many of yours Salty, line up with views propounded by Russia, Vlad.
An actual adversary of the USA.

What would those be?

With regard to Russia --
-- that we should not be more supportive of Ukraine than our EU NATO allies are & defer to our EU allies in the Minsk process.
-- that we should not deploy more military forces & combat power to NATO's E border than our EU allies are willing to deploy.
-- that we should cease the "act of war" rhetoric re. 2016 election meddling & not escalate provocative military encounters.
-- that we should enter negotiations on both conventional & nuclear arms limitations & demilitarization on both sides of NATO's E border.
-- that we should co-operate, coordinate & de-conflict counter terrorist operations, as we are (quietly) doing in Syria.
-- that we should moderate our bellicose Cold War legacy rhetoric & not get dragged into another Cold War.

Yup, as I said, in alignment with where Vlad would want us.
Doesn't mean you and Tulsi aren't patriots, it's just an awkward reality that your views are aligned with what he wants from the US...and, of course, sanctions relief ala what Tulsi's op-ed included in the WSJ yesterday.

But this is the Impeachment thread; Tulsi discussion belongs elsewhere. The only impeachment relevance would be that, quite contrary to Ann Coulter's stupid tweet, Tulsi did vote in favor of the impeachment process House rules today. Coulter is such a nimwit.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tulsi ... ment-vote/

[ggait]

Maybe it’s b/c I am not an attorney and simply do not see it as others may. If a prosecutor has the murder weapon, a videotape, and a confession.....wouldn’t that make it a slam dunk and the defense attorney would be bargaining for a lesser charge.

Youth -- you literally could not be more wrong about how fast cases proceed.

Since this is a lax board, look at the timeline for the Yeardley Love case. Close to an open and shut case. Murder was 5/3/2010. Trial started 2/6/2012. So 21 months -- which is lightning fast.

Let's look at the Clinton timeline. Whitewater special prosecutor appointed January 1994. Ken Starr report delivered to Congress 9/9/98 -- 4.75 years later!! House impeaches on 12/19/98.

Trump's call was late July. WB report was filed 8/12. Word of the WB started to leak out in September. So the INVESTIGATION of the Uke affair has been going on for like four weeks?

GMAFB.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe it’s b/c I am not an attorney and simply do not see it as others may. If a prosecutor has the murder weapon, a videotape, and a confession.....wouldn’t that make it a slam dunk and the defense attorney would be bargaining for a lesser charge.

Youth -- you literally could not be more wrong about how fast cases proceed.

Since this is a lax board, look at the timeline for the Yeardley Love case. Close to an open and shut case. Murder was 5/3/2010. Trial started 2/6/2012. So 21 months -- which is lightning fast.

Let's look at the Clinton timeline. Whitewater special prosecutor appointed January 1994. Ken Starr report delivered to Congress 9/9/98 -- 4.75 years later!! House impeaches on 12/19/98.

Trump's call was late July. WB report was filed 8/12. Word of the WB started to leak out in September. So the INVESTIGATION of the Uke affair has been going on for like four weeks?

GMAFB.

Delusional

[RedFromMI]

Tim Morrison just confirmed the quid pro quo. That’s the big story here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... tory-here/

Also - big part of the request was a _public_ announcement that an investigation was starting. Author Greg Sargent points out that was just as important as it gets Fox/OAN/other RW media starting to insinuate the "corruption" attached to Biden (even if nothing there) to taint his potential candidacy.

Also, as pointed out by Asha Rangappa (lawyer, former FBI counterintelligence author, CNN legal commentator among others) -

THIS. And it's not only a quid pro quo, it's an attempt to use official channels to conduct *a propaganda operation* against the American public (which is illegal)

So you now have: (H/T to David Corn of Mother Jones)

Extortion, quid pro quo, illegal propaganda, soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign power. It’s adding up.

[youthathletics]

Maybe it’s b/c I am not an attorney and simply do not see it as others may. If a prosecutor has the murder weapon, a videotape, and a confession.....wouldn’t that make it a slam dunk and the defense attorney would be bargaining for a lesser charge.

Youth -- you literally could not be more wrong about how fast cases proceed.

GMAFB.

Wrong? Why in the heck do you think I asked what’s taking so long, especially since added the disclaimer I am not an attorney. Sheesh.

Why does it take four weeks to vote on impeachment in the house for something you all and the entire left claim is so clearly blatantly impeachable? What else needs to take place?

[a fan]

Why does it take four weeks to vote on impeachment in the house for something you all and the entire left claim is so clearly blatantly impeachable?

Every poster here knows that if Pelosi had moved to vote on impeachment proceedings in week one...


....you'd be here asking us "what's the rush?" But not before FoxNation "coincidentally" made the same complaint.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Maybe it’s b/c I am not an attorney and simply do not see it as others may. If a prosecutor has the murder weapon, a videotape, and a confession.....wouldn’t that make it a slam dunk and the defense attorney would be bargaining for a lesser charge.

Youth -- you literally could not be more wrong about how fast cases proceed.

GMAFB.

Wrong? Why in the heck do you think I asked what’s taking so long, especially since added the disclaimer I am not an attorney. Sheesh.

Why does it take four weeks to vote on impeachment in the house for something you all and the entire left claim is so clearly blatantly impeachable? What else needs to take place?

it doesn't take 4 weeks..... if you are really interested: https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20882860/ ... ncy-pelosi

[ggait]

Why does it take four weeks to vote on impeachment in the house for something you all and the entire left claim is so clearly blatantly impeachable? What else needs to take place?

Investigations usually take years. This investigation has been going on for just a few weeks.

What else might you need?

How about testimony from all the folks that have been subpoenaed but (per WH instruction) have refused to testify?

How about getting some documents? Even though some folks have voluntarily come forward to testify, none of them have been allowed to produce their documents. Not one single page has been produced. All the docs are still concealed inside the administration.

How about getting John Bolton's testimony? The court case for him and Kupperman won't be argued until December 10 and a decision won't come out until New Years.

As any lawyer or prosecutor will tell you, you never want to stop investigating too soon. You want to have the best evidence possible because it is actually quite tough to prove any case convincingly.

[old salt]

Tulsi's issue is that quite a lot of her views, like many of yours Salty, line up with views propounded by Russia, Vlad.
An actual adversary of the USA.

What would those be?

With regard to Russia --
-- that we should not be more supportive of Ukraine than our EU NATO allies are & defer to our EU allies in the Minsk process.
-- that we should not deploy more military forces & combat power to NATO's E border than our EU allies are willing to deploy.
-- that we should cease the "act of war" rhetoric re. 2016 election meddling & not escalate provocative military encounters.
-- that we should enter negotiations on both conventional & nuclear arms limitations & demilitarization on both sides of NATO's E border.
-- that we should co-operate, coordinate & de-conflict counter terrorist operations, as we are (quietly) doing in Syria.
-- that we should moderate our bellicose Cold War legacy rhetoric & not get dragged into another Cold War.

Yup, as I said, in alignment with where Vlad would want us.
Doesn't mean you and Tulsi aren't patriots, it's just an awkward reality that your views are aligned with what he wants from the US...and, of course, sanctions relief ala what Tulsi's op-ed included in the WSJ yesterday.

But this is the Impeachment thread; Tulsi discussion belongs elsewhere. The only impeachment relevance would be that, quite contrary to Ann Coulter's stupid tweet, Tulsi did vote in favor of the impeachment process House rules today. Coulter is such a nimwit.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tulsi ... ment-vote/

I could reply that I smelled the Bear's bad breath when he really was a threat, so I find it hard to take seriously all this new wave of political sore loser sour grapes bellicosity. But if I said that, you'd call me arrogant & gg would sue me for posting in the wrong thread, so I'll go cower in my fallout shelter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Why does it take four weeks to vote on impeachment in the house for something you all and the entire left claim is so clearly blatantly impeachable? What else needs to take place?

Investigations usually take years. This investigation has been going on for just a few weeks.

What else might you need?

How about testimony from all the folks that have been subpoenaed but (per WH instruction) have refused to testify?

How about getting some documents? Even though some folks have voluntarily come forward to testify, none of them have been allowed to produce their documents. Not one single page has been produced. All the docs are still concealed inside the administration.

How about getting John Bolton's testimony? The court case for him and Kupperman won't be argued until December 10 and a decision won't come out until New Years.

As any lawyer or prosecutor will tell you, you never want to stop investigating too soon. You want to have the best evidence possible because it is actually quite tough to prove any case convincingly.

It happens on TV inside 60 minutes?

[ggait]

Also - big part of the request was a public announcement that an investigation was starting.

This, imo, was the most damaging part of Taylor's testimony:

“According to Mr. Morrison… President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself.”

Today, Morrison confirmed this by flyspecking Taylor, saying that his understanding was that the announcement could have come from another Uke official beside Zelensky.

The deliverable was primarily the announcement; the investigation, not so much. The announcement would give Trump a bat to beat Biden with during the campaign. Regardless of whether the investigation ever happened or whether (after concluding years later) the investigation found anything. Just like "But her emails."

The focus on the public announcement rather than an actual investigation really shows what was going on.