Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

It's why I get such a kick out of the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo, trump's still President" thing you get from guys like Bandito.

Every single lib I know well.....all of them.... makes north of Six Figures, and all have advanced degrees. All own tons of stock, and all got tax cuts from TrumpyPants.

Doctors, lawyers, PolicyWonks, Academics. All doing great. TrumpGrift and record government spending that no one is paying for is filling their pockets. What they will do if Trump is reelected, is take an extra fancy vacation.

Yeah. I pity them.

[tech37]

Politics is now tightly bundled up with identity -- race, class, religion, culture. It was not that way even just a short time ago. IMO, this is due to 8 years of Obama/Holder and allowing a platform for the likes of Al Sharpton and others. How often was that dope at the WH during BHO's time in office? There were some racial incidents that were blown waaaay out of proportion and that helped create a toxic political environment. It's why we now have the likes of the "the squad" and their toxic fallout. Rightly or wrongly, the Rs definitely dug in over BHO's time, based at first on their rejection of the enactment of ObamaCare. Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.

Pretty depressing. And I don't think Trump's inevitable passing will change it. I optimistically disagree.

The partisan environment is entirely Obama's fault, eh? Followed by AOC, eh?

Are you trying to break into the Guinness Book of World Records for the "most ironic comment in the history of the internet"??

Funny you choose AOC, the most benign of the bunch, to make some point. Very typical a fan.

My attempt at a truncated chronology of causation is lost on you...

Yes, most of the current animus regarding race, class, religion, and culture that ggait mentioned, came about during Obama's time in office which then led to Trump being elected ...IMO of course

correction...4 years of Holder, not 8

yup, that Obama fellow was such an egregious race baiter...

But, yeah, I do think that his election was a huge shock to a whole lot of folks who see their country slipping away from them demographically...they're scared, they're resentful, and Trump gave it all a voice...beginning with the birther nonsense, the Mexican rapists, then the Muslim ban...and on and on...

backlash, MDlax, backlash... not saying it's right but it's pretty obvious. So what do you suppose led to the Trump election backlash?

Didn't my second paragraph answer that ???

no, no... "led to"...capiche?

No, I apparently don't.

His skin color was the issue for those folks. While many of us, including folks like me who didn't vote for him either time, thought it was a wonderful thing that our country had broken through and elected a black person to be POTUS, there were a whole lot of others who were totally shocked. When Obama was elected, although I was reeling from the financial meltdown like everyone else, I was very optimistic and proud that the US elected an AA POTUS. You weren't around on Laxpower so you wouldn't know that. My optimism didn't last long as the policies unfolded, including ObamaCare when I lost my health insurance, IMO, a personal affront. Skipping ahead, the skin color issue was politicized due to a few unfortunate racial incidents that IMO were blown out of proportion and misrepresented in the MSM, leading to Black Lives Matter and the war against police, a terrible result. This was long before the idea of Trump running ever existed.

Take off the blinders mdlax. The racial dissension didn't start with Trump, but it's one of the reasons Trump was elected.

[tech37]

Funny you choose AOC, the most benign of the bunch, to make some point. Very typical a fan

Right. That's what I did. Dude. I named the only one I know in "the Squad" that I can name without googling.

Same as every other American that's not tuned into FoxNation. None of us regular folk notice or care about some pointless freshman Congressmen in the minority party in the House. Foxnation? Obsessed. You obsessed with the Squad? Wow a fan, never thought of you as uniformed. But of course you won't hear about racist liberals on MSM

My attempt at a truncated chronology of causation is lost on you...

Riiiiiiight. This partisanship and hatefest didn't exist under Bush, and it was a huggy-lovefest when Bush decided to invade Iraq for no real reason.

It's a "coincidence" that you put partisanship on Obama, and don't even bother mentioning any forces that might have a little R by them. Umm, better go back and read Dude, I did mention the Rs and alluded to their obstructionism.

[old salt]

old salt wrote: You think this secret star chamber, with no due process or rights for the accused, is a PR winner?

Another guy/gal who hasn't a clue about the U.S. Constitution nor the impeachment procedures outlined therein. You must sniff Hannity, Whittaker, Ingraham, and the congressional "storm the door posse" in deep, very deep breaths. You, folks, are either inordinately stupid or can't read. What are you and your kindred spirits so afraid of?

I may be in the minority but I believe the model followed by Trey Gowdy during the Benghazi hearings is a good one. As far as I can see, Mr. Gowdy's process is being followed by the folks running the impeachment hearings.

I am amazed by the number of people like you who've attacked and hate a man, Mr.Taylor, who's served my country with honor. Hand-picked by Republicans to become the ambassador to Ukraine, Russia Hawk, Military Officer, a diplomat in both Republican and Democrat administrations.

SAD.

Russia Hawk...you forget Salty's predilections.

Where did I attack Taylor, or Walker for that matter ?

US Constitution ? I'm aware that impeachment is political, not judicial.
I was referring to public opinion.
Clinton was stone cold guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
How'd public opinion rule ?

[a fan]

Umm, better go back and read Dude, I did mention the Rs and alluded to their obstruction

I did. I'll re-quote, so I don't get hit with strawman claims yet again....

IMO, this is due to 8 years of Obama/Holder and allowing a platform for the likes of Al Sharpton and others. How often was that dope at the WH during BHO's time in office? There were some racial incidents that were blown waaaay out of proportion and that helped create a toxic political environment. It's why we now have the likes of the "the squad" and their toxic fallout. Rightly or wrongly, the Rs definitely dug in over BHO's time, based at first on their rejection of the enactment of ObamaCare. Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.

Bolded your "criticism" of the Republicans.

Wow. The Republicans "definitely dug in their heels".

Yikes! Tone that flaming hot criticism down, cowboy! That's harsh stuff you're doling out!

[tech37]

Umm, better go back and read Dude, I did mention the Rs and alluded to their obstructionism

I did. I'll re-quote, so I don't get hit with strawman claims yet again....

IMO, this is due to 8 years of Obama/Holder and allowing a platform for the likes of Al Sharpton and others. How often was that dope at the WH during BHO's time in office? There were some racial incidents that were blown waaaay out of proportion and that helped create a toxic political environment. It's why we now have the likes of the "the squad" and their toxic fallout. Rightly or wrongly, the Rs definitely dug in over BHO's time, based at first on their rejection of the enactment of ObamaCare. Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.

Bolded your "criticism" of the Republicans.

Wow. The Republicans "definitely dug in their heels".

Yikes! Tone that flaming hot criticism down, cowboy! That's harsh stuff you're doling out!

There it is a fan, conveniently and disingenuously leaving out the next sentence which continues the thought criticizing the Rs. You're a disingenuous piece of work.

[a fan]

Dude. You're insane. Not only does your next sentence make no mention of Republicans, there isn't a word that could be deemed criticism of Republicans.

But sure, I'll play along, here ya go, the last sentence:


Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.


No use of the word Republican. It ain't there. Neither is anything resembling criticism of Republicans.

[tech37]

Dude. You're insane. Not only does your next sentence make no mention of Republicans, there isn't a word that could be deemed criticism of Republicans.

But sure, I'll play along, here ya go, the last sentence:


Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.


No use of the word Republican. It ain't there. Neither is anything resembling criticism of Republicans.

VORTEX!

[njbill]

Trump is probably going to say he can’t be guilty of bribery because he was using American taxpayer dollars and not his own money to pay Zelensky to get dirt on the Bidens (“dirt” defined broadly to include a public statement saying Ukraine was investigating the Bidens).

[a fan]

Dude. You're insane. Not only does your next sentence make no mention of Republicans, there isn't a word that could be deemed criticism of Republicans.

But sure, I'll play along, here ya go, the last sentence:


Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.


No use of the word Republican. It ain't there. Neither is anything resembling criticism of Republicans.

VORTEX!

Stop trying to gaslight me. No one is this stupid.

You said i intentionally left out some revelatory sentence where you criticize Republicans.

I cut and paste the pointless sentence you wrote that I 'intentionally left out".....and shocker, not one word about Republicans.

Exasperated, you scream "look over there! A squirrel!"

Or is your next game to tell me that a direct quote of yours is a "strawman".

Come on, dude. No one is this stupid.

[wahoomurf]

old salt wrote: You think this secret star chamber, with no due process or rights for the accused, is a PR winner?

Another guy/gal who hasn't a clue about the U.S. Constitution nor the impeachment procedures outlined therein. You must sniff Hannity, Whittaker, Ingraham, and the congressional "storm the door posse" in deep, very deep breaths. You, folks, are either inordinately stupid or can't read. What are you and your kindred spirits so afraid of?

I may be in the minority but I believe the model followed by Trey Gowdy during the Benghazi hearings is a good one. As far as I can see, Mr. Gowdy's process is being followed by the folks running the impeachment hearings.

I am amazed by the number of people like you who've attacked and hate a man, Mr.Taylor, who's served my country with honor. Hand-picked by Republicans to become the ambassador to Ukraine, Russia Hawk, Military Officer, a diplomat in both Republican and Democrat administrations.

SAD.

Russia Hawk...you forget Salty's predilections.

Where did I attack Taylor or Walker for that matter?
US Constitution? I'm aware that impeachment is political, not judicial.
I was referring to public opinion.
Clinton was stone-cold guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
How'd public opinion rule ?

MDL: I have no idea what this OS person's predilections are. Nor do I givva. My own are congruent with Mr. Taylor's. I'm damn sure OS and I have zilch in common. Ma Chacun...

OS: If you are aware of the U.S. Constitution, how can you liken the impeachment proceedings to a STAR CHAMBER? Do you believe the hearings should be judicial as the Star Chambers were? Who would be the equivalent of the Lord High Chancellor? Certainly not Schiff.And the privy council? The men and women on the committee are not royalty. Just duly elected American congresspersons.

Historically Star Chambers varied slightly. Wolsey's were allegedly different than Cramner's and Henry VIII's which may have been different than Charles I's or Cromwell's and so on. But those SCs were both POLITICAL and JUDICIAL Alpha and Omega in one fell swoop. Efficient, n'est pas?

Not at all sure if your Star Chamber allusion would resonate with the public...those folks that form public opinions. Personal opinions do not give the public the fiat to RULE.

If Clinton was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged, why didn't the U.S.Senate convict him?

Net, net "it ain't the crime....it's the cover-up". Precisely what's going on in my country.

[old salt]

old salt wrote: You think this secret star chamber, with no due process or rights for the accused, is a PR winner?

Another guy/gal who hasn't a clue about the U.S. Constitution nor the impeachment procedures outlined therein. You must sniff Hannity, Whittaker, Ingraham, and the congressional "storm the door posse" in deep, very deep breaths. You, folks, are either inordinately stupid or can't read. What are you and your kindred spirits so afraid of?

I may be in the minority but I believe the model followed by Trey Gowdy during the Benghazi hearings is a good one. As far as I can see, Mr. Gowdy's process is being followed by the folks running the impeachment hearings.

I am amazed by the number of people like you who've attacked and hate a man, Mr.Taylor, who's served my country with honor. Hand-picked by Republicans to become the ambassador to Ukraine, Russia Hawk, Military Officer, a diplomat in both Republican and Democrat administrations.

SAD.

Russia Hawk...you forget Salty's predilections.

Where did I attack Taylor or Walker for that matter?
US Constitution? I'm aware that impeachment is political, not judicial.
I was referring to public opinion.
Clinton was stone-cold guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
How'd public opinion rule ?

MDL: I have no idea what this OS person's predilections are. Nor do I givva. My own are congruent with Mr. Taylor's. I'm damn sure OS and I have zilch in common. Ma Chacun...

OS: If you are aware of the U.S. Constitution, how can you liken the impeachment proceedings to a STAR CHAMBER? Do you believe the hearings should be judicial as the Star Chambers were? Who would be the equivalent of the Lord High Chancellor? Certainly not Schiff.And the privy council? The men and women on the committee are not royalty. Just duly elected American congresspersons.

Historically Star Chambers varied slightly. Wolsey's were allegedly different than Cramner's and Henry VIII's which may have been different than Charles I's or Cromwell's and so on. But those SCs were both POLITICAL and JUDICIAL Alpha and Omega in one fell swoop. Efficient, n'est pas?

Not at all sure if your Star Chamber allusion would resonate with the public...those folks that form public opinions. Personal opinions do not give the public the fiat to RULE.

If Clinton was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged, why didn't the U.S.Senate convict him?

Net, net "it ain't the crime....it's the cover-up". Precisely what's going on in my country.

In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

[CU77]

Hey OS, what do you think of the Rs barging into the House SCIF with their cell phones blazing???

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-blazing/

Here's what I think: Lock them up!

[seacoaster]

They'll do anything to help Il Duce:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... nce-eoyang

Including breaking the law themselves:

https://twitter.com/nedprice

[Trinity]

Rudy tweeted last night that everything he did in Ukraine was in the criminal defense of his client Donald Trump. Lev and Igor suggest they may claim Executive Privilege as part of Trump’s legal defense team. Can’t wait to hear from Pompeo.

[youthathletics]

what do you think of the Rs barging into the House SCIF with their cell phones blazing???

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-blazing/

Here's what I think: Lock them up!

Scalises' point of view: https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status ... 19080?s=20

[seacoaster]

Looks like Steve gets owned in the first tweet down, and by everyone who understands what is happening and why it is happening the way it is. Cue: Trey Gowdy, Chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Can Republicans in Congress talk about the merits of the President's use of the office with the President of Ukraine? Yeah, not so much. Party over country; party over Constitution; party over rule of law.

Little pieces of the GOP's explanatory edifice just...keep falling away:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic ... ne-abroad/

"The Trump administration has sought repeatedly to cut foreign aid programs tasked with combating corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere overseas, White House budget documents show, despite recent claims from President Trump and his administration that they have been singularly concerned with fighting corruption in Ukraine.

Those claims have come as the president and his administration sought to explain away a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump pressured his counterpart to open investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and into a debunked conspiracy theory involving a hacked Democratic National Committee computer server.

“I don’t care about politics, but I do care about corruption. And this whole thing is about corruption,” Trump told reporters earlier this month when discussing the Ukraine issue. “This whole thing — this whole thing is about corruption.”

....

The administration’s professed interest in fighting corruption in Ukraine has not been reflected in its annual budget requests to Congress.

For example, the administration sought to cut a program called International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement. Among the goals of the program, as described in White House budget documents, is “helping U.S. partners address threats to U.S. interests by building resilience and promoting reform in the justice and law enforcement sectors through support to new institutions and specialized offices, such as Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.”

The program directs specific sums of money to individual countries. In 2019, $30 million was directed to Ukraine, after Congress rejected an administration request to cut the sum to $13 million. In its 2020 budget request, released in March, the administration again sought to cut the program’s spending on Ukraine to $13 million. Congress seems likely to once again reject the proposed cut, although lawmakers have yet to agree on any spending bills for the 2020 budget year that began Oct. 1.

In another example, the administration sought to streamline a number of overseas democracy assistance and foreign aid accounts under one larger umbrella called the Economic Support and Development Fund. The White House believed that consolidation would cut those programs by more than $2 billion. This fund, too, is aimed at fighting corruption in countries around the world, among other goals, according to White House budget documents. Spending in Ukraine for the accounts in question was $250 million in 2018; the White House has asked for $145 million in 2020 under the new iteration of the program.

Democrats have alleged the White House’s recent comments on combating corruption aren’t consistent with the administration’s track record.

“Numbers don’t lie,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “It’s even more clear now that President Trump is not the anti-corruption crusader he claims to be. The House impeachment inquiry must continue unimpeded so all the facts can come out.”

[jhu72]

Dude. You're insane. Not only does your next sentence make no mention of Republicans, there isn't a word that could be deemed criticism of Republicans.

But sure, I'll play along, here ya go, the last sentence:


Any decorum was down hill from there (including a sh*tload of other issues), all leading to the current hatefest.


No use of the word Republican. It ain't there. Neither is anything resembling criticism of Republicans.

VORTEX!

Stop trying to gaslight me. No one is this stupid.

You said i intentionally left out some revelatory sentence where you criticize Republicans.

I cut and paste the pointless sentence you wrote that I 'intentionally left out".....and shocker, not one word about Republicans.

Exasperated, you scream "look over there! A squirrel!"

Or is your next game to tell me that a direct quote of yours is a "strawman".

Come on, dude. No one is this stupid.

I am no longer so sure of this.

[Trinity]

Public hearings in mid-November. Finally the House GOP will be happy.

[Peter Brown]

In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials are back in vogue.

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that is needed?