LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:55 pm My admittedly disinterested observation is people hear what they want to hear, and I think you and others are hearing things here that are not there. Here is the whole transcript:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics ... index.html

You can easily get that Trump is a gangster, or simply a guy relating gossip and wants to know if it's true.

He's not "a guy who is gossiping", he is the leader of an entire branch of government for the most powerful country on Earth.

And he's telling another President to investigate a political rival using the full power of the American government. It's right there. And every time I hear someone like you try and explain this away, you leave Biden's name out of it.

Understand that if Trump said "I need you to investigate charges of Americans participating in corruption in your country", that's not only perfectly legal...that's part of Trump's job. And I would be 100% behind him.

But that's not what he said. He named Biden.....and whats more, he did it AFTER Biden announced his candidacy in April.

That's criminal. This is the kind of thing Nixon did.

Your opinion is your opinion, but remember that you and millions of your fellow Americans said this is ok.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:55 pm Btw, Obama used the IRS to target Tea Party groups among a few other matters. They are all bad actors here.

He did no such thing. If he did, and was caught on the phone directing the IRS to do that? Guess what? He would have been impeached.

The IRS did that on their own. You weren't around at the time, but I was LIVID about that. Throw them in jail, would be my preferred punishment for that kind of political corruption.

But still: "they all do it" isn't an adult response.

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:21 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:13 pm Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

They don't understand. This "quid pro quo" charge resonates with much of the public as little as the Mueller obstruction of justice charge does.

Hundreds of legal talking heads & politicians, dancing on the head of a pin.

So why not taking it away from "the media" and go in front of Congress and tell the facts/truth on CSPAN?

I agree. Vote to start the impeachment proceedings. Get the evidence out there. Both sides make their case. Vote to send it to the Senate or not.
The sooner the better.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:06 pmBut what about Obama's tan suit?

Last night on Colbert Susan Rice said she had to twice — TWICE — point out to Obama that he was not wearing a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day (he went back upstairs to get a green one). Oh, the horror.

Obama should have been impeached for: (1) wearing a tan suit; (2) putting his feet on the desk in the Oval Office; (3) failing to wear a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day; and (4) sneaking smokes in the White House.

You forgot about using a bidder clip on the proposed budget.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:27 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:06 pmBut what about Obama's tan suit?

Last night on Colbert Susan Rice said she had to twice — TWICE — point out to Obama that he was not wearing a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day (he went back upstairs to get a green one). Oh, the horror.

Obama should have been impeached for: (1) wearing a tan suit; (2) putting his feet on the desk in the Oval Office; (3) failing to wear a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day; and (4) sneaking smokes in the White House.

You forgot about using a bidder clip on the proposed budget.

Playing with a football in the Oval? High crimes. Trump can't throw, so we're not gonna get him for that.

Yet the IRS is content to allow Trump to claim "under audit" status.

Polling:

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

"A majority of Americans say they endorse the decision by House Democrats to begin an impeachment inquiry of President Trump, and nearly half of all adults also say the House should take the additional step of recommending that the president be removed from office, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll released Tuesday.

The findings indicate that public opinion has shifted quickly against Trump and in favor of impeachment proceedings in recent weeks as information has been released about his efforts to pressure Ukrainian government officials to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a potential 2020 campaign rival, and Biden’s son Hunter.

Previous Post-Schar School or Post-ABC News polls taken at different points throughout this year found majorities of Americans opposing the start of an impeachment proceeding, with 37 percent to 41 percent saying they favored such a step. The recent revelations appear to have prompted many Americans to rethink their positions."

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:26 pm

CU88 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:21 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:13 pm Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

They don't understand. This "quid pro quo" charge resonates with much of the public as little as the Mueller obstruction of justice charge does.

Hundreds of legal talking heads & politicians, dancing on the head of a pin.

So why not taking it away from "the media" and go in front of Congress and tell the facts/truth on CSPAN?

I agree. Vote to start the impeachment proceedings. Get the evidence out there. Both sides make their case. Vote to send it to the Senate or not.
The sooner the better.

This may also present cover for the left if RBG passes away.....

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:28 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:27 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:06 pmBut what about Obama's tan suit?

Last night on Colbert Susan Rice said she had to twice — TWICE — point out to Obama that he was not wearing a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day (he went back upstairs to get a green one). Oh, the horror.

Obama should have been impeached for: (1) wearing a tan suit; (2) putting his feet on the desk in the Oval Office; (3) failing to wear a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day; and (4) sneaking smokes in the White House.

You forgot about using a bidder clip on the proposed budget.

Playing with a football in the Oval? High crimes. Trump can't throw, so we're not gonna get him for that.

Latest developing story - Trump administration is asking US Judge considering House request for grand jury materials to rule that back when Nixon was considered for impeachment the court approval of handing over those materials was decided wrongly, and so cannot be turned over now...

Maybe I missed this earlier, but WSJ and NBC reporting that (surprise!) Sondland talked to Trump during the five hour gap in the WhatsApp stream with Amb. Taylor.

Shame that Sondland wasn't allowed to testify today so he could clear up all these misunderstandings and exonerate Trump.

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:44 pm Maybe I missed this earlier, but WSJ and NBC reporting that (surprise!) Sondland talked to Trump during the five hour gap in the WhatsApp stream with Amb. Taylor.

Shame that Sondland wasn't allowed to testify today so he could clear up all these misunderstandings and exonerate Trump.

You mean he wasn't spending the day manscaping?

wahoomurf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:29 pm Yet the IRS is content to allow Trump to claim "under audit" status.

I actually think Trump is not 'under audit', or if he is, he's like every other earner in his bracket who is under some state of permanent audit where someone from the IRS fact checks each line every year. He just uses that bs excuse to not release his returns.

Wahoomurf raises the one issue which, if I hated Trump (I don't), I would use as means to disqualify; I firmly believe that if you hold any elected office in America, you should be required to lay out your tax returns for the world to see (with some allowable blacklining such as SSN# etc...). I do not abide by not knowing if a POTUS owes money to anyone, bank individual foreign or domestic. We need to know those facts. Straight up.

He is clearly hiding something. I think you will see them soon.

(I'd like to see a law passed that mandates the release of tax returns for any person who seeks any elected office in America)

+1000

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:24 pm
He's not "a guy who is gossiping", he is the leader of an entire branch of government for the most powerful country on Earth.

And he's telling another President to investigate a political rival using the full power of the American government. It's right there. And every time I hear someone like you try and explain this away, you leave Biden's name out of it.

I'm just doing the lawyer thing. Do I believe your version? I could. I'd buy it. I also know that any lawyer worth more than a dime could prove your version is incorrect.

Trump is a slippery guy (one of many reasons people dislike him); clearly he has played with fire all his life. Somehow, mirabele dictu!, he has escaped (another reason many people dislike him).

Maybe something will eventually befall the guy. I just don't think this it. And every time he escapes charges, such as 'Russia', Stormy, and now this, 'Ukraine', you only embolden him and make his supporters more passionate.

Like I said, I'd focus on the ballot box and positive change. Biden is a very positive guy, he has so much going for him, but the Party is drumming him out as we speak. I just do not understand it.

As president, Trump should currently be under audit , since the IRS policy is to audit the return of every sitting prez and veep.

In 1973, Congress asked the IRS for Nixon's returns which would have been audited or under audit. Nixon's IRS furnished the returns to Congress the same day the request was made.

Same day.

And currently, there's supposedly an IRS WB claiming that there was some kind of political interference with the audit of Trump or Pence.

But let's talk about Obama's IRS and also his tan suit. Sheesh.

PS -- Peter Brown -- you keep talking about being a lawyer? Are you really?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:24 pm
He's not "a guy who is gossiping", he is the leader of an entire branch of government for the most powerful country on Earth.

And he's telling another President to investigate a political rival using the full power of the American government. It's right there. And every time I hear someone like you try and explain this away, you leave Biden's name out of it.

I'm just doing the lawyer thing. Do I believe your version? I could. I'd buy it. I also know that any lawyer worth more than a dime could prove your version is incorrect.

Trump is a slippery guy (one of many reasons people dislike him); clearly he has played with fire all his life. Somehow, mirabele dictu!, he has escaped (another reason many people dislike him).

Maybe something will eventually befall the guy. I just don't think this it. And every time he escapes charges, such as 'Russia', Stormy, and now this, 'Ukraine', you only embolden him and make his supporters more passionate.

Like I said, I'd focus on the ballot box and positive change. Biden is a very positive guy, he has so much going for him, but the Party is drumming him out as we speak. I just do not understand it.

What

Stormy

Charge did he escape?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:00 pm I'm just doing the lawyer thing.

And that's fine.

I'm just doing the "citizen thing". You are giving the green light to all future politicians/Presidents to use the power of their office to use the government to go after political enemies.

One thing I've learned, is that Politicians notice when citizens tell them that "this corrupt act is ok by us".

Caveat emptor. Can't say later that you weren't warned.

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:04 pm
PS -- Peter Brown -- you keep talking about being a lawyer? Are you really?

No, I am not a lawyer! But I pay enough of them to qualify as a junior level paralegal. Figure of speech. I'm a business owner and operator, with fixed locations in 12 states. All regulated by various agencies.

My view on Trump is I share some of your concerns; I just don't think he's the end-of-days POTUS that some here do. Politics make people passionate, which can be good and bad. I have never really been there and likely never will. I liked Clinton, Obama, and now Biden. I disliked W. But I don't hate Trump. And I mentioned to a fan that I like Rand Paul. My passions on politics are civil rights, using our military sparingly, and open space preservation; I just don't too worked up about any POTUS. So, that makes me a unicorn in some ways. But a happy unicorn who loves lacrosse and Loyola. Did I mention we are going to win D1 this year??!?

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:15 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:00 pm I'm just doing the lawyer thing.

And that's fine.

I'm just doing the "citizen thing". You are giving the green light to all future politicians/Presidents to use the power of their office to use the government to go after political enemies.

One thing I've learned, is that Politicians notice when citizens tell them that "this corrupt act is ok by us".

Caveat emptor. Can't say later that you weren't warned.

I get it. I understand the concern. I just think corruption, to whatever degree, has unfortunately been done by most if not all, perhaps not as openly, using back channels and 3rd parties unlike this guy, nor certainly in as charged an atmosphere as today. None of it is okay; zero. I'm just not sure how to change the system, which really is what is needed. Until then, I decide at the ballot box. And if it's E Warren that holds the flag by the D's in 2020, count me out. I trust you understand.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:22 pm . I'm just not sure how to change the system, which really is what is needed.

Partisans need to hold the people they voted for accountable. That's the only way.

So Dems should have, for example, lost their minds and demanded firings for the IRS scandal you mentioned.

Oh, and as a Syracuse fan? Thanks for lending us that Scanlon kid.