Trump's Russian Collusion

[seacoaster]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Totally expected this response. Nicely done Captain America.

[a fan]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

Tech37, you said when someone wasn't sure what your view is----ask to clarify.

Well, here it is, someone asking you to clarify your view.

You going to answer the question?

[calourie]

For those not already in the know the dictionary definition of corrupt is:

HAVING OR SHOWING A WILLINGNESS TO ACT DISHONESTLY IN RETURN FOR MONEY OR PERSONAL GAIN.

The issue in the upcoming impeachment proceedings looks to be how much corruption the American body politic is willing to tolerate. Should be an interesting trial and outcome.

[old salt]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

[Typical Lax Dad]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

I see you are back on the job.

[old salt]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & limited access necessary.

I see you are back on the job.

Helping people who've never held a security clearance understand how the process works, ...& why.
Pay attention. You might learn something.

[seacoaster]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

I see you are back on the job.

Sorry, but I thought this call was "politicized" by the President's effort to use public, earmarked, bipartisan money as the extortionate fulcrum for getting dirt on a domestic political opponent? But you want to blame the folks who reported the call? Who overheard the call? Who gave factual testimony in respect to the background of the call? Who investigated the call once it was brought into public glare?

Let me help: "Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations, when the President asks other sovereigns for personal political favors before giving badly needed and well-publicized appropriated aid."

Is that what you were trying to say? C'mon, be an American.

[old salt]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & limited access necessary.

I see you are back on the job.

Sorry, but I thought this call was "politicized" by the President's effort to use public, earmarked, bipartisan money as the extortionate fulcrum for getting dirt on a domestic political opponent? But you want to blame the folks who reported the call? Who overheard the call? Who gave factual testimony in respect to the background of the call? Who investigated the call once it was brought into public glare?

Let me help: "Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations, when the President asks other sovereigns for personal political favors before giving badly needed and well-publicized appropriated aid."

Is that what you were trying to say? C'mon, be an American.

I'm explaining why the classification of the call & it's storage on the NICE server is not a crime. Simple as that.

[seacoaster]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & limited access necessary.

I see you are back on the job.

Sorry, but I thought this call was "politicized" by the President's effort to use public, earmarked, bipartisan money as the extortionate fulcrum for getting dirt on a domestic political opponent? But you want to blame the folks who reported the call? Who overheard the call? Who gave factual testimony in respect to the background of the call? Who investigated the call once it was brought into public glare?

Let me help: "Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations, when the President asks other sovereigns for personal political favors before giving badly needed and well-publicized appropriated aid."

Is that what you were trying to say? C'mon, be an American.

I'm explaining why the classification of the call & it's storage on the NICE server is not a crime. Simple as that.

Sure, with your usual little extra for folks who think the President did something wrong here.

[MDlaxfan76]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

[old salt]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

Do you think Trump specifically directed that this specific ph call receive special handling ?

I think it more likely that after the first 3 calls leaked, this process became SOP by WH staff for potentially sensitive Presidential calls with foreign leaders which would be attractive to leakers & potentially damaging if leaked.
Rational threat assessment. The threat = leaks of classified information.

I see it as a rational decision by WH staff to use the tools at hand to prevent leaking & unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
It worked, forcing the whistleblower route rather than the normal leak channel for the disclosure of classified info,

[Typical Lax Dad]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

Do you think Trump specifically directed that this specific ph call receive special handling ?

I think it more likely that after the first 3 calls leaked, this process became SOP by WH staff for potentially sensitive Presidential calls with foreign leaders which would be attractive to leakers & potentially damaging if leaked.
Rational threat assessment. The threat = leaks of classified information.

I see it as a rational decision by WH staff to use the tools at hand to prevent leaking & unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Just wondering what aspect of that call had National Security interest? The summary transcript was released.....what was the “national security” implication?

Whistle Blower believed it to be out of the ordinary and the IG agreed.

[old salt]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

Do you think Trump specifically directed that this specific ph call receive special handling ?

I think it more likely that after the first 3 calls leaked, this process became SOP by WH staff for potentially sensitive Presidential calls with foreign leaders which would be attractive to leakers & potentially damaging if leaked.
Rational threat assessment. The threat = leaks of classified information.

I see it as a rational decision by WH staff to use the tools at hand to prevent leaking & unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Just wondering what aspect of that call had National Security interest? The summary transcript was released.....what was the “national security” implication?

That was a conscious decision by the President to declassify the call, after the aid had been released & the details from the whistleblower complaint leaked.

At the time the classification action took place, the decision to release the military aid to Ukraine had not yet been made.
Do you think the confirmation & timing of forthcoming lethal military aid to Ukraine would be useful intel for Russia ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

Do you think Trump specifically directed that this specific ph call receive special handling ?

I think it more likely that after the first 3 calls leaked, this process became SOP by WH staff for potentially sensitive Presidential calls with foreign leaders which would be attractive to leakers & potentially damaging if leaked.
Rational threat assessment. The threat = leaks of classified information.

I see it as a rational decision by WH staff to use the tools at hand to prevent leaking & unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Just wondering what aspect of that call had National Security interest? The summary transcript was released.....what was the “national security” implication?

That was a conscious decision by the President to declassify the call, after the aid had been released & the details from the whistleblower complaint leaked.

At the time the classification action took place, the decision to release the military aid to Ukraine had not yet been made.
Do you think the confirmation & timing of forthcoming lethal military aid to Ukraine would be useful intel for Russia ?

You think withholding aid to Ukraine would be useful to Russia. Was this the US of A’s first aid package to Ukraine and it was going to catch Russia by surprise? GTFOOH

[old salt]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

Do you think Trump specifically directed that this specific ph call receive special handling ?

I think it more likely that after the first 3 calls leaked, this process became SOP by WH staff for potentially sensitive Presidential calls with foreign leaders which would be attractive to leakers & potentially damaging if leaked.
Rational threat assessment. The threat = leaks of classified information.

I see it as a rational decision by WH staff to use the tools at hand to prevent leaking & unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Just wondering what aspect of that call had National Security interest? The summary transcript was released.....what was the “national security” implication?

That was a conscious decision by the President to declassify the call, after the aid had been released & the details from the whistleblower complaint leaked.

At the time the classification action took place, the decision to release the military aid to Ukraine had not yet been made.
Do you think the confirmation & timing of forthcoming lethal military aid to Ukraine would be useful intel for Russia ?

You think withholding aid to Ukraine would be useful to Russia. Was this the US of A’s first aid package to Ukraine and it was going to catch Russia by surprise? GTFOOH

You think the eta of .50 cal sniper rifles & the prospects for more Javelins might be useful tactical intel to the Russians ?
Stop wasting our time with your trolling.

[Typical Lax Dad]

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Classified info which, by nature, is more vulnerable to unauthorized disclosure, requires higher classification & limited access.

Calls between the President & other national leaders can impact national security & relations between nations,
...as the politicization of this call is doing.

This was not the first such call classified at this level, using this mechanism.
The leaks of 3 such calls during the early months of the Trump Presidency made such classification & ;imited access necessary.

Again, for national security, not prevention of disclosure that would be personally embarrassing, much less to cover-up an illegal act. To do such would be improper, at a minimum. Indeed, it would actually be a crime, abuse of power and obstruction of justice if done to cover-up a crime.

The President does have the authority to classify or de-classify as he sees fit, albeit to do so for his personal interests, especially to cover-up a crime he has committed, would be a definite abuse of his power and obstruction of justice.

There's a valid argument to be made (which you are making) that preventing disclosure of what a foreign leader has said is important to 'national security'.

But not if the intent is to cover-up a crime committed by our President. Proving that intent may be more of a challenge, and whether that was the President or one or more of his subordinates will be an issue as well; but the de facto aspect of the act indeed 'covering up' an illegal act will be easier to demonstrate.

Do you think Trump specifically directed that this specific ph call receive special handling ?

I think it more likely that after the first 3 calls leaked, this process became SOP by WH staff for potentially sensitive Presidential calls with foreign leaders which would be attractive to leakers & potentially damaging if leaked.
Rational threat assessment. The threat = leaks of classified information.

I see it as a rational decision by WH staff to use the tools at hand to prevent leaking & unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Just wondering what aspect of that call had National Security interest? The summary transcript was released.....what was the “national security” implication?

That was a conscious decision by the President to declassify the call, after the aid had been released & the details from the whistleblower complaint leaked.

At the time the classification action took place, the decision to release the military aid to Ukraine had not yet been made.
Do you think the confirmation & timing of forthcoming lethal military aid to Ukraine would be useful intel for Russia ?

You think withholding aid to Ukraine would be useful to Russia. Was this the US of A’s first aid package to Ukraine and it was going to catch Russia by surprise? GTFOOH

You think the eta of .50 cal sniper rifles & the prospects for more Javelins might be useful tactical intel to the Russians ?
Stop wasting our time with your trolling.

Stop. It’s sad.

[wahoomurf]

Not At All

[Allison]

Election in 1 year .. let America decide !!

[tech37]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

Tech37, you said when someone wasn't sure what your view is----ask to clarify.

Well, here it is, someone asking you to clarify your view.

You going to answer the question?

You expect me to seriously reply to seacoaster (such a gentleman) after that post? And, I've already stated my opinion regarding the Ukrainian impeachment railroad.

seacoaster is as partisan as dislaxxic but masked by his magniloquent style (like that seacoaster?) of writing and legalese. Such BS

euchre on coaster...

[tech37]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?