Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

Gym Jordan to the rescue:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/vi ... 3170501836

[ggait]

Schiff is trying to play god.

Nunes wants to call Nellie Ohr (Steele dossier), Hunter Biden and the anonymous WB.

That guy is such an indefatigable rat forker.

[seacoaster]

Schiff is trying to play god.

Nunes wants to call Nellie Ohr (Steele dossier), Hunter Biden and the anonymous WB.

That guy is such an indefatigable rat forker.

Why aren't Republicans in the House clamoring for the testimony of Giuliani, Pompeo, Kupperman, Bolton, Mulvaney and others who plainly have testimony sure to exculpate the President of these false charges of bribery and extortion in using the levers of public office? Why aren't they hectoring the Administration to disclose the documents that show that this was nothing more than diplomacy? I just don't get it.

[calourie]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/seeking-join ... 56907.html

Mulvaney lawyers up. News to me. It would be interesting to see what he has to say now.

[seacoaster]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/seeking-join ... 56907.html

Mulvaney lawyers up. News to me.

Scuttlebutt is that Bolton's and Kupperman's lawyers are unhappy that Mick is inviting himself to their party. We'll see when Cooper, Kupperman's lawyer, responds to the Motion to Intervene.

Sorry, forgot:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s last-minute effort to join a lawsuit that could determine whether senior administration officials testify in the impeachment inquiry was an unwelcome surprise to former top national security aides, highlighting internal divisions among President Trump’s advisers in the face of the probe.

Former national security adviser John Bolton’s advisers and allies were taken aback to learn late Friday that Mulvaney had gone to court seeking to join a separation-of-powers lawsuit filed against Trump and the House leadership, according to people familiar with their views, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry.

The suit was filed by Bolton’s former deputy, Charles Kupperman, who is asking a federal judge to determine whether a congressional subpoena takes precedence over a White House order not to comply with the inquiry. Bolton is willing to testify if the judge rules in favor of the House, The Washingon Post previously reported."

[calourie]

Apparently Mulvaney now thinks congress, or at least those congresspeople reticent about allowing unbridled corruption and dishonesty to go unchecked, won't "just get over it".

[Trinity]

Why don’t they just testify and clear POTUS? Sack up, Trumpers, raise your hand and take that oath. Tuscaloosa will love you for taking on Pencil Neck Schiff.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Why don’t they just testify and clear POTUS? Sack up, Trumpers, raise your hand and take that oath.

They are all afraid that Rachel Maddow will twist their words around.

[Trinity]

These are frightened men and Justice is coming. Gym Jordan still jumping center next week? #ThatsStrauss

[ggait]

Hard to tell exactly what game Bolton, Kupperman and Mulvaney are playing. Beyond the obvious, which is just stalling for now.

Since there's a dozen or more other current/former officials who have either (i) followed the WH and blown off the House subpoenas or (ii) blown off the WH and followed the House subpoenas. So it is completely easy to either testify or not testify.

My speculation is that Bolton is trying to pump up his future books sales. He's trying to avoid giving away his bombshells for free now. While also trying to convince people that he actually has bombshells and is willing to dish -- eventually. While also trying to avoid being a hero to the Democrats -- which would hurt his book sales and his future as a conservative pundit.

I think Mulvaney realizes he is now trapped by the testimony of others and his buying time to figure out his exit strategy.

[Trinity]

“The stark divide between the honorable, patriotic truth-tellers and then craven liars, cowards and bullies underscores that 2020 is not merely about policy and ideology. At stake is whether we want decent and honest public servant or rule by thugs.”
Jennifer Rubin, Conservative

Schiff should wear a referees shirt and blow a whistle whenever Gym Jordan is passing gas to distract us. #ThatsjustTrump

[old salt]

Quoting Lenin now, are we?

I am the Walrus ?

[a fan]

Trump era. You're not supposed to me literally, and the truth is just "meh, who cares?"

[old salt]

Obama inherited a stable Iraq, well on it's way to recovery.

No. No he didn't. He inherited an Iraq that needed a large US military presence to keep it stable.

Not even close to the same thing. I

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq & then his delay in coming to Iraq's rescue.
Exactly what I feared happened, happened.

Yes. And I cheered.

I strenuously objected when Trump announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Syria, both times.
Fortunately, he listened to his chain of command, relented, walked back his decision & the chain of command adapted.
I'm consistent in not pulling out for political reasons until there's a reasonable chance we won't have to return.

Yes. And I cheered. So how did it escape your attention that I'm just as consistent as you are, and could give a *hit as to Obama's or Trump's party affiliation. I cheered both Obama and Trump as they decided to get our people out of there. And yet you're giving me grief for partisanship....total and complete nonsense.

The force levels, stakes & consequences in those 2 cases were markedly different.
We're no longer on the offense in the ME. Our mission is defensive, to maintain stability.

Great. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You're so blinded by viewing everything through your (R) vs (D) prism that you ignore the obvious.
Trump IS withdrawing from the ME, compare our force levels from when he took office.

Got a cite for that? Because NYTimes disagrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/worl ... ments.html

We. Can't. Leave. If we could, we'd have zero troops in Syria. Zero in Afghanistan. Zero in Kuwait. Zero in Saudi Arabia. And we sure as *hit wouldn't need Prestwick as a stopping point. If you want to tell me the 600 or so troops in Syria "don't count", I've got 600 American families who would strenuously disagree with your assessment. We're in the same countries we were in when Trump took office. Scoreboard.

...more importantly, compare their missions. We're no longer in a large scale war vs IS.

Right. Now drones do it. How many sorties since Trump took office?

...& we don't have tanks in Syria (another dumb talking point).

Oh I agree it's a dumb talking point. The problem is, it's YOUR talking point, or have you forgotten that it was YOUR citation that told me and the forum about the Syria Mechanized Forces??

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... s-to-syria

We're not just supporting the Kurds for humanitarian reasons.
They're our force multiplier in the ongoing battle to keep IS ineffective.

The rest of our forces are there to help defend our Arab allies (& themselves), deter Iran, & keep the sea lanes open/oil flowing.
Just like our larger force levels maintained in EU & W Pac, except the Arabs are bearing more of the costs of our presence.

Great. You seem to want to discuss what our troops are doing. That's great.

All I'm saying---and I have no clue why you are even attempting to disagree----is that we are STILL THERE. That's it. I make no other claim, other than to say "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

When I tell you that that the overall American Strategy under Trump and Obama are the same, you claim partisanship. This makes ZERO sense.

Further, when I discuss strategy, you want to shift the conversation to tactics.....troops numbers, what they are there for, yada, yada. That's all fascinating stuff, and I like hearing about it....but it doesn't refute my point. Our strategy is the same, and hasn't changed in 20 years.

But the nomenclature is “impressive”

The willfull obtuseness is mind numbing, not being able to distinguish between a massive offensive operation -- like invading Iraq, toppling a regime, occupation & nation building, requiring > 100k troops for years, as opposed to Trump's winding down operation of finishing off IS in their last redoubts with 700 troops.

You now freak out when we rotate a fighter squadron into Saudi Arabia for a limited deployment, to cover an aircraft carrier gap, as -- OMG, Trump's increasing our troops in the ME. Conveniently forgetting the number of aircraft & troops it took to patrol the N & S no fly zones over Iraq from '91 until '03

I'm not a NYT subscriber. Quote an excerpt of what you're citing.
Except for possibly the brief interlude between when Obama pulled us out of Iraq, then had to send us back in,
our current force levels on the ground in the ME are near the lowest they've been at any point between '91 & "11.
The numbers are small enough that they vary substantially when ships or aircraft squadrons rotate in & out for their regular recurring deployments.

...& again, I never confirmed that we were sending tanks into Syria. As I predicted, the mechanized force turned out to be very small.
9 tracked infantry fighting vehicles & 300 infantry troops that were already in Kuwait.

Your definition of pulling out of the ME is no US forces in the region.
Mine is that we keep a limited number of forces in the region, on allied bases & at sea, as a forward presence, serving as a deterrent to contain Iran & keep IS underground.

You fail to distinguish between when our forces are in combat & at risk, as opposed to being a forward presence, maintaing stability & keeping critical sea lanes open, working with allies to do all of that.

You should be grateful that we are accomplishing so much, with so few forces at risk, taking fewer casualties than we suffer in "peacetime" training & readiness ops.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Obama inherited a stable Iraq, well on it's way to recovery.

No. No he didn't. He inherited an Iraq that needed a large US military presence to keep it stable.

Not even close to the same thing. I

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq & then his delay in coming to Iraq's rescue.
Exactly what I feared happened, happened.

Yes. And I cheered.

I strenuously objected when Trump announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Syria, both times.
Fortunately, he listened to his chain of command, relented, walked back his decision & the chain of command adapted.
I'm consistent in not pulling out for political reasons until there's a reasonable chance we won't have to return.

Yes. And I cheered. So how did it escape your attention that I'm just as consistent as you are, and could give a *hit as to Obama's or Trump's party affiliation. I cheered both Obama and Trump as they decided to get our people out of there. And yet you're giving me grief for partisanship....total and complete nonsense.

The force levels, stakes & consequences in those 2 cases were markedly different.
We're no longer on the offense in the ME. Our mission is defensive, to maintain stability.

Great. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You're so blinded by viewing everything through your (R) vs (D) prism that you ignore the obvious.
Trump IS withdrawing from the ME, compare our force levels from when he took office.

Got a cite for that? Because NYTimes disagrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/worl ... ments.html

We. Can't. Leave. If we could, we'd have zero troops in Syria. Zero in Afghanistan. Zero in Kuwait. Zero in Saudi Arabia. And we sure as *hit wouldn't need Prestwick as a stopping point. If you want to tell me the 600 or so troops in Syria "don't count", I've got 600 American families who would strenuously disagree with your assessment. We're in the same countries we were in when Trump took office. Scoreboard.

...more importantly, compare their missions. We're no longer in a large scale war vs IS.

Right. Now drones do it. How many sorties since Trump took office?

...& we don't have tanks in Syria (another dumb talking point).

Oh I agree it's a dumb talking point. The problem is, it's YOUR talking point, or have you forgotten that it was YOUR citation that told me and the forum about the Syria Mechanized Forces??

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... s-to-syria

We're not just supporting the Kurds for humanitarian reasons.
They're our force multiplier in the ongoing battle to keep IS ineffective.

The rest of our forces are there to help defend our Arab allies (& themselves), deter Iran, & keep the sea lanes open/oil flowing.
Just like our larger force levels maintained in EU & W Pac, except the Arabs are bearing more of the costs of our presence.

Great. You seem to want to discuss what our troops are doing. That's great.

All I'm saying---and I have no clue why you are even attempting to disagree----is that we are STILL THERE. That's it. I make no other claim, other than to say "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

When I tell you that that the overall American Strategy under Trump and Obama are the same, you claim partisanship. This makes ZERO sense.

Further, when I discuss strategy, you want to shift the conversation to tactics.....troops numbers, what they are there for, yada, yada. That's all fascinating stuff, and I like hearing about it....but it doesn't refute my point. Our strategy is the same, and hasn't changed in 20 years.

But the nomenclature is “impressive”

The willfull obtuseness is mind numbing, not being able to distinguish between a massive offensive operation -- like invading Iraq, toppling a regime, occupation & nation building, requiring > 100k troops for years, as opposed to Trump's winding down operation of finishing off IS in their last redoubts with 700 troops.

You now freak out when we rotate a fighter squadron into Saudi Arabia for a limited deployment, to cover an aircraft carrier gap, as -- OMG, Trump's increasing our troops in the ME. Conveniently forgetting the number of aircraft & troops it took to patrol the N & S no fly zones over Iraq from '91 until '03

I'm not a NYT subscriber. Quote an excerpt of what you're citing.
Except for possibly the brief interlude between when Obama pulled us out of Iraq, then had to send us back in,
our current force levels on the ground in the ME are near the lowest they've been at any point between '91 & "11.
The numbers are small enough that they vary substantially when ships or aircraft squadrons rotate in & out for their regular recurring deployments.

...& again, I never confirmed that we were sending tanks into Syria. As I predicted, the mechanized force turned out to be very small.
9 tracked infantry fighting vehicles & 300 infantry troops that were already in Kuwait.

Your definition of pulling out of the ME is no US forces in the region.
Mine is that we keep a limited number of forces in the region, on allied bases & at sea, as a forward presence, serving as a deterrent to contain Iran & keep IS underground.

You fail to distinguish between when our forces are in combat & at risk, as opposed to being a forward presence, maintaing stability & keeping critical sea lanes open, working with allies to do all of that.

You should be grateful that we are accomplishing so much, with so few forces at risk, taking fewer casualties than we suffer in "peacetime" training & readiness ops.

Dithering.

[old salt]

Dithering.

If trying to help this limited audience of elitists better understand the great works our service people are doing on our behalf, is dithering, then so be it.

Happy Veteran's Day. Enjoy the parade. Be sure to boo our Commander in Chief.

[calourie]

Dithering.

If trying to help this limited audience of elitists better understand the great works our service people are doing on our behalf, is dithering, then so be it.

Happy Veteran's Day. Enjoy the parade. Be sure to boo our Commander in Chief.

And I would hope you will be booing our Commander in Chief when he sits with Putin at Putin's parade.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Dithering.

If trying to help this limited audience of elitists better understand the great works our service people are doing on our behalf, is dithering, then so be it.

Happy Veteran's Day. Enjoy the parade. Be sure to boo our Commander in Chief.

I'll give him the finger

[LandM]

aFan, I never read the critiques of Obama - I do not have the same history out here as you do. Objectively many people out here lambaste the guy over and over and all the conspiracy theories to date have come up empty and I will admit that it was great to see Avenatti's fall from grace - lots people look pretty silly over that and the last three years of one after another - at some point you all are gonna wind up running out of points - there is an election - I know redundant

What is actually entertaining for someone like myself is that folks actually post that Trump is doing Putin's bidding and will sit next to him as they overthrow the world - not gonna happen - hopefully all the smart people do the research - at some point the American voter needs to be looking in the mirror.

TLD - yesterday watched the Browns and Bills game - Jerry picks up a forward pass and runs into end zone. A Browns fan proceeds to on national TV flip him off - do you realize what an arse the guy looked like? Today is a sad for me and many others - I hope that your flipping off comment was in jest - if not you would look like the Browns fan, an arse.

[Trinity]

“emerging Republican approach portrays Giuliani as working in his own interests, not Trump’s; Sondland was a braggart who exaggerated his relationship w/Trump and freelanced; few witnesses directly heard the president call for a quid pro quo” John Harwood

Oh yeah, and hide the evidence. Real men don’t answer subpoenas.