Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

I've been resisting saying this, tech, as I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty darn cowardly not to just answer the question clearly.

And, if you'd actually answer 'no', I'd like to understand why.

Cowardly?...you're such a joke at times

So, answer the question, tech.

or else...

MD will compose a War and Peace response that will make all of our eyes glaze over. That is the danger here 37. You really want to go down that road? Just for the record... i don't even know what the hell the question is. I could back track and find out. I'm just not in the mood right now.

I was laughing at your initial riposte...and then I read you saying you didn't even know what the question was.

Good lord, even if we bold it and put in great big print, in the same post...you guys can't read??

[MDlaxfan76]

Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

Nope. That's your opinion on whether or not you think what Trump did was impeachable.

That's not what Mdlax asked you about.

That's the gist of the argument. Impeach or not...

Nope, read the darn question in big bold print.
Answer it.

[MDlaxfan76]

This might make you feel better :

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 438667001/

The NSC regional director, he said, was responsible for producing the call memo, which became a formal classified document.

We're talking past each other. I have no doubt that someone in authority classified the calls.

That doesn't mean that those documents were classified according to the CFR's in question. For example, did the NSC regional director examine the document to ensure it followed the CFR's? Is the NSC regional director a lawyer? Did the NSC director even read the transcripts?

We're discussing the law here. I found it telling that the lawyers brought up that EO surrounding the limitations of of classification before questioning. Why would he do that?

You should be asking yourself these questions, imho.

The individual calls do not need to be reviewed, other than to determine how high the classification level needs to be, since ALL summaries of Presidential ph cons with foreign leaders are classified. It's categorical. The NSC Director originated the document.

Sheesh, the moving into the server is what's unusual...again, can you not read?
We said that it may or not have had an upgrade in classification, but it was treated as if it had...we also said that could have been all innocent as driven snow, SOP for 100% of calls, but then again it might not..and if not, it could be criminal.

We don't have a conclusion as yet, just an open question.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would. Good, you're right, let's leave it right there.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify. Opportunity? seacoaster already made a snarky comment regarding my POV on impeachment, at least a week or so ago, so why he asked again I haven't a clue.

so, yes or no? do a search if it's so important to you

I've been resisting saying this, tech, as I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's pretty darn cowardly not to just answer the question clearly.

And, if you'd actually answer 'no', I'd like to understand why.

Cowardly?...you're such a joke at times

So, answer the question, tech.

or else...

Or else, "cowardly" fits.

[youthathletics]

“It is imperative the whistleblower is subpoenaed and asked under oath about Hunter Biden and corruption.”

Why?

According to Rand: https://twitter.com/alx/status/1191520978486153216?s=21

[Typical Lax Dad]

Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

Nope. That's your opinion on whether or not you think what Trump did was impeachable.

That's not what Mdlax asked you about.

At the end of the day a Fan it does not matter what Trump said in a phone call is impeachable. When the house impeaches him they hand the hot potato off to the senate that will take all of one hour to throw it out. Trump goes into the election proclaiming he has been vindicated. Adam Schiff is stuck with his dingus in his hand with his DNA blown back into his face. The Democrats are screwing the pooch here in a big way. They do not as of today have a candidate that can beat Trump. The one person, IMO that could beat Trump going away is Tulsi. She ain't liberal enough for the foaming at the mouth FLP hordes that want Trumps head on a platter so badly they are doing everything in their power to get him re-elected. I always thought the Dems were smarter than this. I guess I was wrong. Blind hatred is sending them down the wrong road.

May as well amend the constitution so that it impeachment only applies when the ruling party controls both the house and the senate. Otherwise, it’s pointless.

[jhu72]

I was laughing at your initial riposte...and then I read you saying you didn't even know what the question was.

Good lord, even if we bold it and put in great big print, in the same post...you guys can't read??

You're just coming to this realization? Sorry - I had to laugh.

[MDlaxfan76]

I was laughing at your initial riposte...and then I read you saying you didn't even know what the question was.

Good lord, even if we bold it and put in great big print, in the same post...you guys can't read??

You're just coming to this realization? Sorry - I had to laugh.

Painful, ain't it.

[seacoaster]

“It is imperative the whistleblower is subpoenaed and asked under oath about Hunter Biden and corruption.”

Why?

According to Rand: https://twitter.com/alx/status/1191520978486153216?s=21

I'm not sure what I was supposed to find in your "answer" to my question, except another weird series of instagram statements from a strange right wing guy. Here is the question for you:

Why does the WB need to be subpoenaed at all? Every single fact she or he detailed has now been corroborated by people present at the time of each given event and more. Or is the point simply to undermine the whistleblower protections by outing this person?

And the Hunter Biden piece? Please explain. Is the WB supposed to be a Biden friend?

[MDlaxfan76]

Intimidation, pure and simple.

Same with the whole notion of the "FISA investigations"...intimidate the patriots who are not sufficiently "loyal" to the man at the top.

The effort to unmask the whistleblower, who by law is to be anonymous, is especially disgusting.

Welcome to fascism, folks.

[Trinity]

Pompeo is gonna regret this. When he was CIA he knew the truth. Now, his truth is flexible.

[youthathletics]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

[seacoaster]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

Nice. Out the whistleblower, and assassinate the character and service of a witness. Is there any bottom to these folks? What. About. The. Facts?

Or does membership in the Club require repetition that it was "a perfect call"? C'mon man.

[youthathletics]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

Nice. Out the whistleblower, and assassinate the character and service of a witness. Is there any bottom to these folks? What. About. The. Facts?

Or does membership in the Club require repetition that it was "a perfect call"? C'mon man.

The article is capturing the character via another service member who was higher ranking at the time. And your reply is "Is there any bottom". Sheesh....you immediately discredited the higher ranking service member....outta partisanship or just hate of Trump?

[seacoaster]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

Nice. Out the whistleblower, and assassinate the character and service of a witness. Is there any bottom to these folks? What. About. The. Facts?

Or does membership in the Club require repetition that it was "a perfect call"? C'mon man.

The article is capturing the character via another service member who was higher ranking at the time. And your reply is "Is there any bottom". Sheesh....you immediately discredited the higher ranking service member....outta partisanship or just hate of Trump?

Read the article. It describes a guy joking around with other soldiers, and trying to find common ground with adversaries. LtC Hickman takes these conversations he appears to have overheard and transforms Vindman into a traitor. C'mon man, it's just gross and doesn't deserve your attention, You're better than this.

[Typical Lax Dad]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

Nice. Out the whistleblower, and assassinate the character and service of a witness. Is there any bottom to these folks? What. About. The. Facts?

Or does membership in the Club require repetition that it was "a perfect call"? C'mon man.

The article is capturing the character via another service member who was higher ranking at the time. And your reply is "Is there any bottom". Sheesh....you immediately discredited the higher ranking service member....outta partisanship or just hate of Trump?

Read the article. It describes a guy joking around with other soldiers, and trying to find common ground with adversaries. LtC Hickman takes these conversations he appears to have overheard and transforms Vindman into a traitor. C'mon man, it's just gross and doesn't deserve your attention, You're better than this.

I took a quick look at that article. Jesus.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-greatness/?amp

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... ?_amp=true

[tech37]

Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

Nope. That's your opinion on whether or not you think what Trump did was impeachable.

That's not what Mdlax asked you about.

You Trump haters have convinced yourselves that he broke specific laws during the phone call and good for you if that makes you feel better. What I've been saying since the beginning is good luck convincing enough people that what he said is befitting high crimes and misdemeanors and/or to impeach him based on what we've seen/heard so far. I for one am giving the POTUS the benefit of the doubt, that there was no quid pro quo based on the context of the conversation and for the assumed intention the comments were made. I've also said that objective voters will be completely turned off by the heavy-handed and non-transparent methods the Ds have chosen to use during this mess. IMO, this impeachment sham will come back to bite the Ds in their collective a$$es and lessens their already paltry chance of winning the election in 2020.

[jhu72]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

… and exactly what is the political affiliation of this fellow? Swift boat much?

[jhu72]

More on the story of Vindman from his superior: https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/04/reti ... d-america/

Nice. Out the whistleblower, and assassinate the character and service of a witness. Is there any bottom to these folks? What. About. The. Facts?

Or does membership in the Club require repetition that it was "a perfect call"? C'mon man.

The article is capturing the character via another service member who was higher ranking at the time. And your reply is "Is there any bottom". Sheesh....you immediately discredited the higher ranking service member....outta partisanship or just hate of Trump?

Read the article. It describes a guy joking around with other soldiers, and trying to find common ground with adversaries. LtC Hickman takes these conversations he appears to have overheard and transforms Vindman into a traitor. C'mon man, it's just gross and doesn't deserve your attention, You're better than this.

I took a quick look at that article. Jesus.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-greatness/?amp

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... ?_amp=true

Really.

[foreverlax]

Keep digging a fan, you'll find it. Here's a clue..."context and intent"...remember that conversation? No, of course not.

Nope. That's your opinion on whether or not you think what Trump did was impeachable.

That's not what Mdlax asked you about.

You Trump haters have convinced yourselves that he broke specific laws during the phone call and good for you if that makes you feel better. What I've been saying since the beginning is good luck convincing enough people that what he said is befitting high crimes and misdemeanors and/or to impeach him based on what we've seen/heard so far. I for one am giving the POTUS the benefit of the doubt, that there was no quid pro quo based on the context of the conversation and for the assumed intention the comments were made. I've also said that objective voters will be completely turned off by the heavy-handed and non-transparent methods the Ds have chosen to use during this mess. IMO, this impeachment sham will come back to bite the Ds in their collective a$$es and lessens their already paltry chance of winning the election in 2020.

You raise some excellent points...this is the question that must be considered first.

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

The answer to this question has to be a resounding "no".

The answer to "did Trump break any laws during the phone call" is VERY important...but not the only question that needs to be answered.

What happened before and after that call?

"Impeachment" has nothing to do with breaking a law...a high crime and misdemeanor may not be illegal.