LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm**

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:48 pm So their argument is not to defend Trump, but to persecute Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe Biden...ultimately landing on Obama's desk.

GMAFB.

No, it's both. I guess you missed the defense debunking House witness testimonies, both Sat and today? And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment (Dersh to come)...that has nothing to do with Bidens.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:13 pm**

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:48 pm So their argument is not to defend Trump, but to persecute Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe Biden...ultimately landing on Obama's desk.

GMAFB.
No, it's both. I guess you missed the defense debunking House witness testimonies, both Sat and today? And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment (Dersh to come)...that has nothing to do with Bidens.

Who debunked witness testimony? The attorneys or new witnesses?

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:17 pm**

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:13 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:48 pm So their argument is not to defend Trump, but to persecute Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe Biden...ultimately landing on Obama's desk.

GMAFB.
No, it's both. I guess you missed the defense debunking House witness testimonies, both Sat and today? And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment (Dersh to come)...that has nothing to do with Bidens.
More dumb stuff. Using any public office for personal gain is not a policy difference or disagreement; it’s an abuse of the powers of the office. Not a single word about this Saturday or today. Kool-Aid a lot? You're lost.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:23 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:06 pm 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?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:06 pmRepublicans 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?

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:29 pm**

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm
seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:17 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:13 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:48 pm So their argument is not to defend Trump, but to persecute Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe Biden...ultimately landing on Obama's desk.

GMAFB.
No, it's both. I guess you missed the defense debunking House witness testimonies, both Sat and today? And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment (Dersh to come)...that has nothing to do with Bidens.
More dumb stuff. Using any public office for personal gain is not a policy difference or disagreement; it’s an abuse of the powers of the office. Not a single word about this Saturday or today. Kool-Aid a lot? You're lost.
"More dumb stuff"... excellent analysis counselor! "Abuse of powers of the office"...speculative, subjective, ambiguous, imprecise (need I go on?)...couldn't be more broadly presented...good luck with that counselor. When this is all said and done, we'll see who's lost.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:29 pm**

ToastDunk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:20 pm What I still haven't heard is, why did Trump release the aid to Ukraine while he was so concerned about corruption?

Purpura answered that quite well.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:30 pm**

Bolton can explain what happened.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm**

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:48 pm So their argument is not to defend Trump, but to persecute Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe Biden...ultimately landing on Obama's desk.

GMAFB.
No, it's both. I guess you missed the defense debunking House witness testimonies, both Sat and today? And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment (Dersh to come)...that has nothing to do with Bidens.

1). What is your disagreement with this impeachment process?

2) Do you want to see witnesses and documentary evidence?

3) Did Trump’s attorneys use government witnesses and introduce contemporaneous memos to debunk the “Dems” case?

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm**

Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm**

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:23 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:06 pm 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?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:06 pmRepublicans 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.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm**

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.

You don't know that Congressional pressure alone would not have been enough, or the personal testimonials of Pence & the 3 Amigos after they met with Zelensky.

Purpura laid it all out in a timeline, often using testimony & documents from the House proceedings.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:40 pm**

Speaking of Purpura, his performance this morning elicited this response from one White House advisor, "I was flabbergasted at how stupidly they have handled this.” -- according to Michael Isikoff.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:43 pm**

“- Ivanka Trump
- Jared Kushner
- Don Trump, Jr.
- Eric Trump

These are the most corrupt kids of any politician in America and run in Russian mafia circles. They’re part of the clear and present danger we face. Not the son of a former VP who was strong on Ukraine and Putin fears.”

Alexandra Chalupa

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:56 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.
You don't know that Congressional pressure alone would not have been enough, or the personal testimonials of Pence & the 3 Amigos after they met with Zelensky.

Purpura laid it all out in a timeline, often using testimony & documents from the House proceedings.

Why mention OS, it's just "more dumb stuff" according to the board counselor

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:59 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.
You don't know that Congressional pressure alone would not have been enough, or the personal testimonials of Pence & the 3 Amigos after they met with Zelensky.

Purpura laid it all out in a timeline, often using testimony & documents from the House proceedings.

That’s my conclusion from seeing the available evidence on both sides of the issue. Am I biased in favor of the House position? Yes. But my assessment of everything I have seen is that the most critical bit of evidence is the whistleblower complaint, in particular, when the White House learned about it, when Congress was advised, and when the House announced it was launching an investigation. Trump knew he had been caught and knew the complaint would soon be public. So he released the aid essentially immediately in order to try to minimize the damage. Was the congressional pressure a factor? Probably, but I don’t think it was the most important factor.

As it turns out, Trump folded two days early. Had he simply waited, he would’ve gotten the announcement he wanted (on Fareed Zakaria’s show that Sunday).

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:07 pm**

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.
You don't know that Congressional pressure alone would not have been enough, or the personal testimonials of Pence & the 3 Amigos after they met with Zelensky.

Purpura laid it all out in a timeline, often using testimony & documents from the House proceedings.

What timeline was Purpura talking about? This one seems to nail it:

Sept.9, 2019: Atkinson sends a letter to the House Intelligence Committee alerting its members to the existence of the whistleblower complaint. Three House committees announce an investigation into Giuliani/Ukraine.

Sept. 10, 2019: Schiff writes to Maguire demanding a copy of the complaint and related documents.

Sept. 11, 2019: The White House releases military aid.

All just a co-inky-dink?

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:15 pm**

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:59 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.
You don't know that Congressional pressure alone would not have been enough, or the personal testimonials of Pence & the 3 Amigos after they met with Zelensky.

Purpura laid it all out in a timeline, often using testimony & documents from the House proceedings.
That’s my conclusion from seeing the available evidence on both sides of the issue. Am I biased in favor of the House position? Yes. But my assessment of everything I have seen is that the most critical bit of evidence is the whistleblower complaint, in particular, when the White House learned about it, when Congress was advised, and when the House announced it was launching an investigation. Trump knew he had been caught and knew the complaint would soon be public. So he released the aid essentially immediately in order to try to minimize the damage. Was the congressional pressure a factor? Probably, but I don’t think it was the most important factor.

As it turns out, Trump folded two days early. Had he simply waited, he would’ve gotten the announcement he wanted (on Fareed Zakaria’s show that Sunday). To clarify, the taping of that show was scheduled for Friday, September 13. The show was to air on Sunday, September 15.

Edit to add last two sentences.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:15 pm**

tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment

Yes. I heard that defense.

They're arguing that the two articles of impeachment used on Nixon (abuse of power and obstruction of justice) were Constitutionally invalid.

And apparently you found this argument persuasive.

This is where we have arrived. Nixon should not have been impeached. That's where corruption is in government in 2019.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:17 pm**

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:07 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:38 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:32 pm Well, Purpura did give a response, but it wasn’t very persuasive. The truth is Trump released the aid because the whistleblower complaint was becoming public and because of Congressional pressure.
You don't know that Congressional pressure alone would not have been enough, or the personal testimonials of Pence & the 3 Amigos after they met with Zelensky.

Purpura laid it all out in a timeline, often using testimony & documents from the House proceedings.
What timeline was Purpura talking about? This one seems to nail it:

Sept.9, 2019: Atkinson sends a letter to the House Intelligence Committee alerting its members to the existence of the whistleblower complaint. Three House committees announce an investigation into Giuliani/Ukraine.

Sept. 10, 2019: Schiff writes to Maguire demanding a copy of the complaint and related documents.

Sept. 11, 2019: The White House releases military aid.

All just a co-inky-dink?

Here is Purpura's presentation from today:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6126958894001#sp=show-clips

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:20 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:15 pm
tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:11 pm And how about the defense's interpretation of what the Constitution states regarding impeachment
Yes. I heard that defense.

They're arguing that the two articles of impeachment used on Nixon (abuse of power and obstruction of justice) were Constitutionally invalid.

And apparently you found this argument persuasive.

This is where we have arrived. Nixon should not have been impeached. That's where corruption is in government in 2019.

Once again you're off base...I was simply pointing out to foreverlax that there was more to the Trump defense than anything Biden

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Trump's Russian Collusion

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk

Re: The IMPEACHMENT of President Asterisk