LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

HooDat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:18 am

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:11 pm But fellas, no amount of tap dancing will convince me that you gents wouldn't be here demanding Obama's head if Obama had been caught doing the same thing. You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

of course people would, and they did when he shipped a plane full of money to Iran in the middle of the night.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:33 am Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:33 am
Three, have you ever had a situation happen where you said something to someone but felt the person misinterpreted what you said? That happens to me constantly.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:20 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:33 am Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

Yes. Relevant in keeping himself out of jail for covering it up.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:33 am
Three, have you ever had a situation happen where you said something to someone but felt the person misinterpreted what you said? That happens to me constantly.

Of course. The problem here, for the 1,000th time, is that both Trump and his lawyer told you exactly what Trump did.

And you're standing here telling us there's room for interpretation.

So you're another guy who believes Trump so wholeheartedly, that you don't believe what Trump himself told you he did?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:25 am Quite the opposite; I don't believe anything Trump says! Which is a good defense for getting out of this issue.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:25 am Now, regarding what he does such as nominate judges to courts, sign tax laws into being, behave rudely at G87 Summits....

HooDat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:18 am

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:11 pm But fellas, no amount of tap dancing will convince me that you gents wouldn't be here demanding Obama's head if Obama had been caught doing the same thing. You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

of course people would, and they did when he shipped a plane full of money to Iran in the middle of the night.

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:38 pm But that's exactly what the Republicans in Congress will do, with the full support of right-leaning posters here (youth, o.s., P.B., c.s., et al), who are representative of the 40% of the US population that fully backs Trump. These folks all say that what Trump did is just fine.

this is a political reality that the pols have to deal with and it is one of their own making (see below)

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:36 am In Trump’s case, the problem is not a slimy phone call in a lifetime of slimy phone calls. The problem is a president who puts his personal interests ahead of U.S. national security. And who still finds nothing wrong with his “perfect” conversation. The corrupt act reveals a corrupt man, unable to make the most rudimentary judgments about the nation’s good.

two things here: 1) everything you describe was known to his supporters well in advance of their voting for him. There are lots of cynics out there who who have become numb to this kind of dump (sorry its not "whataboutism" - I am talking about why it has become to prevalent) - of course you spend 8 years as POTUS making $300k and come out worth $100's of millions, of course Epstein killed himself in prison, of course Chelsea's husband makes 8 figures at a PE shop...

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:36 am I am sinking into cynicism.

come on in, the water is FINE....

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:36 am There is, of course, another factor that might change. Republican senators could actually take the deliberative role of their institution seriously. They could recover a proper outrage at public corruption. They could recall why they entered public service in the first place and choose to pay the cost of conscience.

I still want to believe this is possible. But I’m not holding my breath."

I would not hold my breath at all. There are folks on both sides of the aisle waiting to see how this plays out. There are just as many dems as R's who would love nothing more than to see Trump get away with this - so that they can continue to do that same thing when their time comes. Just like every American is a millionaire in waiting, every Pol is a POTUS in waiting....

foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:17 am By Peggy Noonan
Oct. 31, 2019 6:37 pm ET

John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Mike Pence and Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Fla., April 18, 2018. PHOTO: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS
It is all so very grave, yet it feels only like a continuation of the past three years of fraught and crazy political conflict. But impeachment of the American president came much closer this week.

I believe retired Gen. John Kelly, President Trump’s former chief of staff, when he told the Washington Examiner that he had told Mr. Trump that if he did not change his ways he would get himself in terrible trouble. “I said, ‘Whatever you do don’t hire a yes-man, someone who won’t tell you the truth—don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.’ ”

He knew his man. Mr. Kelly was in the White House for 17 months, from July 31, 2017, to Jan. 2, 2019. I ask Trump supporters, or anyone with even a small knowledge of what a White House is, to consider how extraordinary it is for a chief of staff to say such a thing to the president. Can you imagine James Baker saying to Ronald Reagan, “Keep it up, buddy, and you’ll break the law and be thrown out”? You can’t because it does not compute, because it isn’t possible.

When Mr. Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, “But he’s got the generals around him.” His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, unled army.

In fact the president wasn’t so interested in the generals’ experience and expertise. In fact he found them boring but with nice outfits. One by one they left or were fired. This should disturb the president’s supporters more than it does. And they should have a better response than, “But they’re jerks.”

To impeachment itself. It received a powerful push forward when the House voted Thursday for a new, public phase in the inquiry. This means among other things that the Democrats think they have the goods. They wouldn’t go live unless they did.

They feel the great question is clear. That question is: Can we prove, through elicited testimony, that the president made clear to the leader of another nation, an ally in uncertain circumstances, that the U.S. would release congressionally authorized foreign aid only if the foreign leader publicly committed to launch an internal investigation that would benefit the president in his 2020 re-election effort?

The odd thing is I think most everyone paying attention knows the answer. It’s been pretty much established, from leaks, reports, statements and depositions. Can I say we all know it happened? I think the definitive question for the hearings will turn out not to be “Did he do it?” but “Do the American people believe this an impeachable offense?”

The president’s defenders have argued that in the transcripts of the phone call the White House released, he never clearly lays out a quid pro quo. I suppose it depends how you read it, but in a book I wrote long ago I noted that in government and journalism people don’t say “Do it my way or I’ll blow you up.” Their language and approach are more rounded. They imitate 1930s gangster movies in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom he’s demanding protection money, “Nice place you have here, shame if anything happened to it.”

In the past I’ve said the leaders of the inquiry will have to satisfy the American people that they’re trying to be fair, and not just partisan fools. So far that score is mixed. Republicans charge with some justice that it’s been secretive, the process loaded and marked by partisan creepiness. If I were Adam Schiff now I wouldn’t be fair, I’d be generous—providing all materials, information, dully inviting the Republicans in. That would be a deadly move—to show respect and rob Republicans of a talking point.

It should be communicated to the president’s supporters that they must at some point ask themselves this question: Is it acceptable that an American president muscle an ally in this way for personal political gain? If that is OK then it’s OK in the future when there’s a Democratic president, right? Would your esteem for Franklin D. Roosevelt be lessened if it came to light through old telephone transcripts found in a box in a basement in Georgetown that he told Winston Churchill in 1940, “We’ll lend you the ships and the aid if you announce your government is investigating that ruffian Wendell Willkie”? You’d still respect him and tell the heroic old stories, right?

Some of the evidence in the hearings will be colorful and stick in the mind. There will be phrases from testimony or questioning that encapsulate the scandal, such as “What did the president know and when did he know it?” and “There’s a cancer growing on the presidency.” That will have impact. If White House workers attempted to deep-six evidence of the president’s conversation, doesn’t that suggest consciousness of guilt?

There is John Bolton’s testimony, if he testifies. He’s not known as a shy man. He is a conservative who has made his career as a professional (worked for four presidents, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, head of the National Security Council), a foreign-affairs tough guy, a Fox News contributor. Some, perhaps many conservatives were heartened when he came aboard with the president in the spring of 2018.

He would know a great deal about the issues at hand. Did the president act in a way he disapproved of on Ukraine? Was there a side-game foreign policy? All that would be powerful. But what if he was asked to think aloud about what he saw of the way Mr. Trump operates, of what he learned about the president after he came to work for him, of what illusions, if any, might have been dispelled? To reflect (as the generals who used to work for the president reflect, off the record)? What if he is questioned imaginatively, even sympathetically, with a long view as to what history needs to be told?

If he did this under oath and answered as he thought right, honest and helpful, if he was asked the question, “After all you’ve seen, is it good for America that Donald Trump is president?” “Tell us about what you’ve observed about the nature and mind and character of Donald Trump.” “Share your thoughts as a respected professional who has worked with presidents and who knows what the presidency is.”

Public candor would take plenty of guts and could have reputational repercussions.

But it would not just be powerful, it could be explosive. History, at least, would appreciate it.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:53 am If we accept this behavior as the norm, as ho hum, as "inappropriate" but "not impeachable," we are well and truly screwed.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:31 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:53 am If we accept this behavior as the norm, as ho hum, as "inappropriate" but "not impeachable," we are well and truly screwed.

Millions of Americans have managed to convince themselves that the hall pass they're handing to Trump is temporary.

They think "the next guy" will play straight pool...... And they base this idea of theirs on -----absolutely nothing.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:31 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 11:53 am If we accept this behavior as the norm, as ho hum, as "inappropriate" but "not impeachable," we are well and truly screwed.

Millions of Americans have managed to convince themselves that the hall pass they're handing to Trump is temporary.

They think "the next guy" will play straight pool...... And they base this idea of theirs on -----absolutely nothing.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:11 pm Noonan has been largely tough on Dems, certainly tough on hyper-progressivism, but she's my kind of honest Republican.
Terrific writer as well.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:11 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:42 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:28 pm I’m sorry, I suppose I can not articulate my point well enough or you all are just playing coy. ggait seems to get what I am talking about but the 4-week window is just the latest episode.

Clearly this has been going on since he got in office. And only now that the Mueller investigation has essentially cleared him did the left ramp up things. We can recall they were clamoring impeachment earlier and Pelosi had to settle them all down. Which means, she only jumped in on this Ukraine call, which is where I insert the slam dunk QPQ the left claims is the smoking gun, the silver bullet.

I suppose what ggait is suggesting is that they are now going back to the prior 2 plus years of ‘Trump arguable impeachment offenses’ to dredge a deep path of guilty. As if they were willing to look the other way.....maybe?

When Trump was elected, the Resistance formed & sent out their call to arms, The Deep State leaking continued. I predicted (on LP) that if the (D)'s won the House in '18, Trump would be impeached -- even if was just for parking tickets. The Deep State IC insurrection won't abate until Trump's out of office & the Establishment is back in control.

This is absolutely THE view of TrumpFans. And it makes perfect sense....

.....until you realize that what's missing from this explanation is that it completely, and intentionally, makes no mention of what our President actually did.

So, sure, if you ignore what Trump actually did...it, shockingly, makes it sound like they're insane to try and impeach him. Or worse, it sounds like a tinfoil hat plot.

But fellas, no amount of tap dancing will convince me that you gents wouldn't be here demanding Obama's head if Obama had been caught doing the same thing. You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:38 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:11 pm You CAN'T let a President do what Trump did. Full stop.

But that's exactly what the Republicans in Congress will do, with the full support of right-leaning posters here (youth, o.s., P.B., c.s., et al), who are representative of the 40% of the US population that fully backs Trump. These folks all say that what Trump did is just fine.

Which means: democracy in the former United States of America is kaput. Stick a fork in it. We had a decent run, nearly a quarter millenium, but now it's over.

All hail Emperor Donald, first of his name!

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:24 pm We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.
You're presuming it's all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory & nothing to see there.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:06 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:24 pm We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.
You're presuming it's all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory & nothing to see there.

No. I'm presuming a tin foil hat conspiracy until proven otherwise. That's the way you're supposed to do it.

And if you'll recall, I gave Trump that exact same benefit......they had to prove collusion to me. I STARTED with the assumption that there was no collusion by Trump. I was right. He only TRIED to collude. Which is not the same thing, but awfully close.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:11 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:17 am By Peggy Noonan
Oct. 31, 2019 6:37 pm ET

John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Mike Pence and Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Fla., April 18, 2018. PHOTO: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS
It is all so very grave, yet it feels only like a continuation of the past three years of fraught and crazy political conflict. But impeachment of the American president came much closer this week.

I believe retired Gen. John Kelly, President Trump’s former chief of staff, when he told the Washington Examiner that he had told Mr. Trump that if he did not change his ways he would get himself in terrible trouble. “I said, ‘Whatever you do don’t hire a yes-man, someone who won’t tell you the truth—don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.’ ”

He knew his man. Mr. Kelly was in the White House for 17 months, from July 31, 2017, to Jan. 2, 2019. I ask Trump supporters, or anyone with even a small knowledge of what a White House is, to consider how extraordinary it is for a chief of staff to say such a thing to the president. Can you imagine James Baker saying to Ronald Reagan, “Keep it up, buddy, and you’ll break the law and be thrown out”? You can’t because it does not compute, because it isn’t possible.

When Mr. Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, “But he’s got the generals around him.” His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, unled army.

In fact the president wasn’t so interested in the generals’ experience and expertise. In fact he found them boring but with nice outfits. One by one they left or were fired. This should disturb the president’s supporters more than it does. And they should have a better response than, “But they’re jerks.”

To impeachment itself. It received a powerful push forward when the House voted Thursday for a new, public phase in the inquiry. This means among other things that the Democrats think they have the goods. They wouldn’t go live unless they did.

They feel the great question is clear. That question is: Can we prove, through elicited testimony, that the president made clear to the leader of another nation, an ally in uncertain circumstances, that the U.S. would release congressionally authorized foreign aid only if the foreign leader publicly committed to launch an internal investigation that would benefit the president in his 2020 re-election effort?

The odd thing is I think most everyone paying attention knows the answer. It’s been pretty much established, from leaks, reports, statements and depositions. Can I say we all know it happened? I think the definitive question for the hearings will turn out not to be “Did he do it?” but “Do the American people believe this an impeachable offense?”

The president’s defenders have argued that in the transcripts of the phone call the White House released, he never clearly lays out a quid pro quo. I suppose it depends how you read it, but in a book I wrote long ago I noted that in government and journalism people don’t say “Do it my way or I’ll blow you up.” Their language and approach are more rounded. They imitate 1930s gangster movies in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom he’s demanding protection money, “Nice place you have here, shame if anything happened to it.”

In the past I’ve said the leaders of the inquiry will have to satisfy the American people that they’re trying to be fair, and not just partisan fools. So far that score is mixed. Republicans charge with some justice that it’s been secretive, the process loaded and marked by partisan creepiness. If I were Adam Schiff now I wouldn’t be fair, I’d be generous—providing all materials, information, dully inviting the Republicans in. That would be a deadly move—to show respect and rob Republicans of a talking point.

It should be communicated to the president’s supporters that they must at some point ask themselves this question: Is it acceptable that an American president muscle an ally in this way for personal political gain? If that is OK then it’s OK in the future when there’s a Democratic president, right? Would your esteem for Franklin D. Roosevelt be lessened if it came to light through old telephone transcripts found in a box in a basement in Georgetown that he told Winston Churchill in 1940, “We’ll lend you the ships and the aid if you announce your government is investigating that ruffian Wendell Willkie”? You’d still respect him and tell the heroic old stories, right?

Some of the evidence in the hearings will be colorful and stick in the mind. There will be phrases from testimony or questioning that encapsulate the scandal, such as “What did the president know and when did he know it?” and “There’s a cancer growing on the presidency.” That will have impact. If White House workers attempted to deep-six evidence of the president’s conversation, doesn’t that suggest consciousness of guilt?

There is John Bolton’s testimony, if he testifies. He’s not known as a shy man. He is a conservative who has made his career as a professional (worked for four presidents, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, head of the National Security Council), a foreign-affairs tough guy, a Fox News contributor. Some, perhaps many conservatives were heartened when he came aboard with the president in the spring of 2018.

He would know a great deal about the issues at hand. Did the president act in a way he disapproved of on Ukraine? Was there a side-game foreign policy? All that would be powerful. But what if he was asked to think aloud about what he saw of the way Mr. Trump operates, of what he learned about the president after he came to work for him, of what illusions, if any, might have been dispelled? To reflect (as the generals who used to work for the president reflect, off the record)? What if he is questioned imaginatively, even sympathetically, with a long view as to what history needs to be told?

If he did this under oath and answered as he thought right, honest and helpful, if he was asked the question, “After all you’ve seen, is it good for America that Donald Trump is president?” “Tell us about what you’ve observed about the nature and mind and character of Donald Trump.” “Share your thoughts as a respected professional who has worked with presidents and who knows what the presidency is.”

Public candor would take plenty of guts and could have reputational repercussions.

But it would not just be powerful, it could be explosive. History, at least, would appreciate it.

Noonan has been largely tough on Dems, certainly tough on hyper-progressivism, but she's my kind of honest Republican.
Terrific writer as well.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:09 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:11 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:17 am By Peggy Noonan
Oct. 31, 2019 6:37 pm ET

John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, Mike Pence and Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Fla., April 18, 2018. PHOTO: KEVIN LAMARQUE/REUTERS
It is all so very grave, yet it feels only like a continuation of the past three years of fraught and crazy political conflict. But impeachment of the American president came much closer this week.

I believe retired Gen. John Kelly, President Trump’s former chief of staff, when he told the Washington Examiner that he had told Mr. Trump that if he did not change his ways he would get himself in terrible trouble. “I said, ‘Whatever you do don’t hire a yes-man, someone who won’t tell you the truth—don’t do that. Because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.’ ”

He knew his man. Mr. Kelly was in the White House for 17 months, from July 31, 2017, to Jan. 2, 2019. I ask Trump supporters, or anyone with even a small knowledge of what a White House is, to consider how extraordinary it is for a chief of staff to say such a thing to the president. Can you imagine James Baker saying to Ronald Reagan, “Keep it up, buddy, and you’ll break the law and be thrown out”? You can’t because it does not compute, because it isn’t possible.

When Mr. Trump first came in I would press his supporters on putting all of American military power into the hands of a person with no direct political or foreign-affairs experience or training. They’d say, confidently, “But he’s got the generals around him.” His gut would blend with their expertise. But though they went to work for him with optimism and confidence in their ability to warn him off destructive actions or impulses—though they were personally supportive, gave him credit for a kind of political genius, and intended to be part of something of which they could be proud—they found they could not. This president defeats all his friends. That’s why he’s surrounded now, in his White House and the agencies, by the defeated—a second-string, ragtag, unled army.

In fact the president wasn’t so interested in the generals’ experience and expertise. In fact he found them boring but with nice outfits. One by one they left or were fired. This should disturb the president’s supporters more than it does. And they should have a better response than, “But they’re jerks.”

To impeachment itself. It received a powerful push forward when the House voted Thursday for a new, public phase in the inquiry. This means among other things that the Democrats think they have the goods. They wouldn’t go live unless they did.

They feel the great question is clear. That question is: Can we prove, through elicited testimony, that the president made clear to the leader of another nation, an ally in uncertain circumstances, that the U.S. would release congressionally authorized foreign aid only if the foreign leader publicly committed to launch an internal investigation that would benefit the president in his 2020 re-election effort?

The odd thing is I think most everyone paying attention knows the answer. It’s been pretty much established, from leaks, reports, statements and depositions. Can I say we all know it happened? I think the definitive question for the hearings will turn out not to be “Did he do it?” but “Do the American people believe this an impeachable offense?”

The president’s defenders have argued that in the transcripts of the phone call the White House released, he never clearly lays out a quid pro quo. I suppose it depends how you read it, but in a book I wrote long ago I noted that in government and journalism people don’t say “Do it my way or I’ll blow you up.” Their language and approach are more rounded. They imitate 1930s gangster movies in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom he’s demanding protection money, “Nice place you have here, shame if anything happened to it.”

In the past I’ve said the leaders of the inquiry will have to satisfy the American people that they’re trying to be fair, and not just partisan fools. So far that score is mixed. Republicans charge with some justice that it’s been secretive, the process loaded and marked by partisan creepiness. If I were Adam Schiff now I wouldn’t be fair, I’d be generous—providing all materials, information, dully inviting the Republicans in. That would be a deadly move—to show respect and rob Republicans of a talking point.

It should be communicated to the president’s supporters that they must at some point ask themselves this question: Is it acceptable that an American president muscle an ally in this way for personal political gain? If that is OK then it’s OK in the future when there’s a Democratic president, right? Would your esteem for Franklin D. Roosevelt be lessened if it came to light through old telephone transcripts found in a box in a basement in Georgetown that he told Winston Churchill in 1940, “We’ll lend you the ships and the aid if you announce your government is investigating that ruffian Wendell Willkie”? You’d still respect him and tell the heroic old stories, right?

Some of the evidence in the hearings will be colorful and stick in the mind. There will be phrases from testimony or questioning that encapsulate the scandal, such as “What did the president know and when did he know it?” and “There’s a cancer growing on the presidency.” That will have impact. If White House workers attempted to deep-six evidence of the president’s conversation, doesn’t that suggest consciousness of guilt?

There is John Bolton’s testimony, if he testifies. He’s not known as a shy man. He is a conservative who has made his career as a professional (worked for four presidents, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, head of the National Security Council), a foreign-affairs tough guy, a Fox News contributor. Some, perhaps many conservatives were heartened when he came aboard with the president in the spring of 2018.

He would know a great deal about the issues at hand. Did the president act in a way he disapproved of on Ukraine? Was there a side-game foreign policy? All that would be powerful. But what if he was asked to think aloud about what he saw of the way Mr. Trump operates, of what he learned about the president after he came to work for him, of what illusions, if any, might have been dispelled? To reflect (as the generals who used to work for the president reflect, off the record)? What if he is questioned imaginatively, even sympathetically, with a long view as to what history needs to be told?

If he did this under oath and answered as he thought right, honest and helpful, if he was asked the question, “After all you’ve seen, is it good for America that Donald Trump is president?” “Tell us about what you’ve observed about the nature and mind and character of Donald Trump.” “Share your thoughts as a respected professional who has worked with presidents and who knows what the presidency is.”

Public candor would take plenty of guts and could have reputational repercussions.

But it would not just be powerful, it could be explosive. History, at least, would appreciate it.

Noonan has been largely tough on Dems, certainly tough on hyper-progressivism, but she's my kind of honest Republican.
Terrific writer as well.

Same here. I like her writing. Obviously don't agree with her in all things, but I don't dismiss her as just another mindless talking point parrot. She is in the Will class, or Will as he once was.

tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:53 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:06 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:24 pm We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.
You're presuming it's all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory & nothing to see there.

No. I'm presuming a tin foil hat conspiracy until proven otherwise. That's the way you're supposed to do it.

And if you'll recall, I gave Trump that exact same benefit......they had to prove collusion to me. I STARTED with the assumption that there was no collusion by Trump. I was right. He only TRIED to collude. Which is not the same thing, but awfully close.

wow a fan, how soon we forget...some of us took/take the position that the tower meeting with the so-called Russian spy happened out of ignorance, and you went batshIt at the time ridiculing that POV... been soul searching since then? Seems you'll spin anything just to say, I'm right!

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:24 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:53 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:06 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:24 pm We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.
You're presuming it's all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory & nothing to see there.

No. I'm presuming a tin foil hat conspiracy until proven otherwise. That's the way you're supposed to do it.

And if you'll recall, I gave Trump that exact same benefit......they had to prove collusion to me. I STARTED with the assumption that there was no collusion by Trump. I was right. He only TRIED to collude. Which is not the same thing, but awfully close.

wow a fan, how soon we forget...some of us took/take the position that the tower meeting with the so-called Russian spy happened out of ignorance, and you went batshIt at the time ridiculing that POV... been soul searching since then? Seems you'll spin anything just to say, I'm right!

What does one have to do with the other?

The idea that a bunch of grown men with some pretty nice diplomas from some pretty fine schools don't know that taking that meeting is wrong on its face is a laughable----laughable---- position. "Whoops, I met with a Russian spy, and I'm campaigning for the highest office in the world, and gee whiz, how could I know that's wrong"??? Please. Sell it somewhere else.

That's an entirely different discussion from a. proving that Trump colluded with Russians, or b. proving that OS's "Deep State" broke laws to "sabotage" Trump's Presidency. Neither a nor b have been proven.

Especially on point B, since---and I can't believe I have to point this out again----these dastardly Deep State actors were about to clear Trump of any collusion when Capt. Dumbass thought it would be brilliant to fire Comey.

Oooooooh. What a conspiracy. "We're going to investigate Trump, find nothing wrong, and clear his name". Wow. What a conspiracy I tells ya!

tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:53 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:06 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:24 pm We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.
You're presuming it's all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory & nothing to see there.

No. I'm presuming a tin foil hat conspiracy until proven otherwise. That's the way you're supposed to do it.

And if you'll recall, I gave Trump that exact same benefit......they had to prove collusion to me. I STARTED with the assumption that there was no collusion by Trump. I was right. He only TRIED to collude. Which is not the same thing, but awfully close.

wow a fan, how soon we forget...some of us took/take the position that the tower meeting with the so-called Russian spy happened out of ignorance, and you went batshIt at the time ridiculing that POV... been soul searching since then? Seems you'll spin anything just to say, I'm right!