North Korea and US politics

[mack341]

I'll quote Moscow Mitch: "I will do everything I can so Obama will be a 1-term president." ......Geez mack, take your blinders off!

And no, the Ukrainians do not have to testify. It is plainly to establish whether Mr T tried to engage a foreign power to help with his political campaign. Whether the Ukrainians did or not, does not matter. Trying to rob a bank is a crime even if it fails.

FYI, impeachment in the House is a political process, not a criminal trial.

The trial will come in the Senate.

The Republicans had no issues which such a process when they impeached Clinton or investigated Hillary for that matter. You can watch some of the hearings from Clinton's impeachment and you will realize that it was in no way different.

The majority in the House is driving the process in the direction they want. It is how the framers of the constitution thought it would be, that is why you have a trial in the Senate where you will need a 2/3 majority.

If this is a kangaroo court, what was Hillary's countless Benghazi investigations or Clinton's impeachment in your view? BTW, just for FYI. The Republican majority cut the funding for embassies years before Benghazi happened and then tried to blame Hillary and Obama for not doing enough.

I never did watch those benghazi hearings, but however the way they were handled, she was runnng for the presidency not long afterwards. I won't say what I think about hillary's or obama's moral compass, let's just say it doesn't point in the direction of 'peace', despite the msm lauding them both as do-gooders.

Well the journalist, kimberley strassel, who is on the wsj editorial board, and comes across as an intelligent lady, went on national prime tv and clearly stated this process is different to the clinton one. I think she said she was there or covered it at the time, and went through the differences. unfortunately the interview is not on youtube but imbedded on twitter.

There was lots more investigating and witnesses called, not just ones the republicans wanted, which is what is happening here. I believe Schiff is determining who the witnesses will be, no one from the other
(republican) side get a say or opportunity to call someone to testify, On that basis how would the senate ever be comfortable delivering a guilty verdict, or do they do the whole investigation over again with new witnesses?

This is why it's a sham, and just about influencing the imminent presidential election, something they accuse trump of being underhand about, and they're effectively doing the same...trump wanted to damage biden as the theory goes, and in return schiff and co want to damage trump.

I'm not sure it's sensible to create further division in society this way, the bill clinton one damaged republicans for similar reasons, it looks petty and partisan. Schiff looked decidedly under stress on the bits I saw, I don't think he's really comfortable in the spotlight like this, one good question or poor answer and it could start to unravel...

 

[Harry_BKK]

I never did watch those benghazi hearings, but however the way they were handled, she was runnng for the presidency not long afterwards. I won't say what I think about hillary's or obama's moral compass, let's just say it doesn't point in the direction of 'peace', despite the msm lauding them both as do-gooders.

Well the journalist, kimberley strassel, who is on the wsj editorial board, and comes across as an intelligent lady, went on national prime tv and clearly stated this process is different to the clinton one. I think she said she was there or covered it at the time, and went through the differences. unfortunately the interview is not on youtube but imbedded on twitter.

There was lots more investigating and witnesses called, not just ones the republicans wanted, which is what is happening here. I believe Schiff is determining who the witnesses will be, no one from the other
(republican) side get a say or opportunity to call someone to testify, On that basis how would the senate ever be comfortable delivering a guilty verdict, or do they do the whole investigation over again with new witnesses?

This is why it's a sham, and just about influencing the imminent presidential election, something they accuse trump of being underhand about, and they're effectively doing the same...trump wanted to damage biden as the theory goes, and in return schiff and co want to damage trump.

I'm not sure it's sensible to create further division in society this way, the bill clinton one damaged republicans for similar reasons, it looks petty and partisan. Schiff looked decidedly under stress on the bits I saw, I don't think he's really comfortable in the spotlight like this, one good question or poor answer and it could start to unravel...

Clinton's was in such different that you had Starr doing his investigations before the hearings. But it was not majorly different from the rules the House majority is entitled to set up.

FYI, McCarthy said at the time of the Hillary Clinton hearings/investigations that the intent is/was to put her in a bad light for her campaign to become the next US president. Can't remember the exact words but that's what he said in essence.

The Republicans compiled a list of witnesses they want with most being not connected to the case at all. They wanted Hunter Biden, Chalupa etc. What do they have to do with Mr T calling for foreign help?

However, the Republicans did not call Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompano et al, you know people who could really shed light on the entire saga. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Again, the impeachment in the House is a political process for which the House majority sets the rules. The current rules follow those the Republicans set up in 2015 as well as those they used in Clinton's impeachment. Why are you so adamant that now it is a sham, just because it goes against a Republican president?

Republicans will be able to call anyone they want in the Senate trial.

 

[mack341]

Clinton's was in such different that you had Starr doing his investigations before the hearings. But it was in not majorly different from the rules the House majority is entitled to set up.

FYI, McCarthy said at the time of the Hillary Clinton hearings that the intent is/was to put her in a bad light for her campaign to become the next US president. Can't remember the exact words but that's what he said in essence.

The Republicans compiled a list of witnesses they want with most being not connected to the case at all. They wanted Hunter Biden, Chalupa etc. What do they have to do with Mr T calling for foreign help?

However, the Republicans did not call Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompano et al, you know people who could really shed light on the entire saga. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

Again, the impeachment in the House is a political process for which the House majority sets the rules. The current rules follow those the Republicans set up in 2015 as well as those they used in Clinton's impeachment. Why are you so adamant the now it is a sham, just because it goes against a Republican president?

Republicans will be able to call anyone they want in the Senate trial.

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

 

[Harry_BKK]

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

When the House majority puts it up to an impeachment vote. Could be two weeks or two months. Nobody can really tell.

There is a strong ABT (anyone but t) sentiment, yet that is concentrated in the urban areas. The electoral college will still decide who wins. And at the moment, he can still win another term.

So yes, the Ds better field a good candidate that most Americans will like and can relate to. I don't see Warren or Sanders being able to do that beyond their base. Harris somehow dived into oblivion. So, Biden or Buttigieg. I know who I would vote for because IMO senile 70+ candidates should not be president of any country if you want to lead in our fast-changing world.

However, I can see Biden being the candidate as his appearance conveys calm waters after four years of hurricanes.

 

[Harry_BKK]

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

One more thing. Mr T went for this "part-exam" to Walter Reid hospital in a hurry on Saturday. They of course are not telling the truth.

IMO, he either had some problem which needed a visit to the hospital that could not be solved by the top-facility they have in the WH or Mr T is trying to build up a case to resign on "health grounds".

 

[Kroffe]

One more thing. Mr T went for this "part-exam" to Walter Reid hospital in a hurry on Saturday. They of course are not telling the truth.

IMO, he either had some problem which needed a visit to the hospital that could not be solved by the top-facility they have in the WH or Mr T is trying to build up a case to resign on "health grounds".

Ive been thinking along those lines aswell.
That he will resign due to "mental" or "physical" problems.

Thing is tho.. Im not sure his ego can allow that.
To publicly go out and say he is to weak physically or mentally.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Ive been thinking along those lines aswell.
That he will resign due to "mental" or "physical" problems.

Thing is tho.. Im not sure his ego can allow that.
To publicly go out and say he is to weak physically or mentally.

Yeah, but Mr T is also known to cave like a coward when push comes to shove.

E.g. the countless lawsuits he bragged about that he would win in heartbeat but then settled out of court.

I think it would be more along the line: "You all know I would go for a second term to keep fighting for you (and all the other nonsense he keeps lying about) but the doctors say no. Not my decision."

But he will keep that as a last-resort option after he sees how the thing goes in the Senate. It would be then also a perfect reason for the next president (Pence until at least Jan 2021) to fully pardon him on health grounds so he wouldn't have to face the dozen or so cases that are waiting for him when he leaves the WH.

He just moved the official residence of his entire family to Florida, out of the blue for no apparent reason.

Too many coincidences for this not to be a Plan B.

 

[Tilter]

We need to bring it back to its roots.
More talk about dear leader!



View attachment 117764

I hope this appearance changing is legal he looks super funny

 

[vorcirion]

When's it time tabled to end, and move to the senate?

Nothing material has changed, trump's trump and the democrats have got to decide who they want to face him, if he wins again how are they gonna cope for another 4 years...

With the russia collusion narrative that dragged on for 3 years and now this ukraine impeachment saga, the liberal msm objective has always been about stopping him from winning a 2nd term...they're going to feel a bit deflated and annoyed, after all this effort, if he does just that in a year's time.

I find your attitude just ridiculous. This impeachment process is about Trump, not about Biden. So why would Schiff allow completely irrelevant witnesses to appear? You can have a separate investigation to Burisma/Bidens if you really think there's something criminal there. If republicans have witnesses that can defend Trump...they can call them to appear. But the republicans only want to talk about Biden since they don't have the facts on their side. But no one is defending Trump.
You don't even listen to the witnesses. You don't care about the facts. You couldn't be more partisan even if you tried. It's pathethic imo. I hope fair-minded people listen to these witnesses and make up their own minds.

 

[mack341]

I find your attitude just ridiculous. This impeachment process is about Trump, not about Biden. So why would Schiff allow completely irrelevant witnesses to appear? You can have a separate investigation to Burisma/Bidens if you really think there's something criminal there. If republicans have witnesses that can defend Trump...they can call them to appear. But the republicans only want to talk about Biden since they don't have the facts on their side. But no one is defending Trump.
You don't even listen to the witnesses. You don't care about the facts. You couldn't be more partisan even if you tried. It's pathethic imo. I hope fair-minded people listen to these witnesses and make up their own minds.

Impeachment should be about when the crime is of a potential level that both sides could at the end want the president removed, like nixon.

If the republican's call completely irrelevant witnesses then the dems can expose this in their questioning of said witnesses, it would actually help them to show the republicans are trying to deflect and be evasive [if that is what they're doing]

democratic congressmen jeff van drew:

"We have to understand, impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair,"

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it," he argued.

At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges," Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News at the time.

Other Democrats share Van Drew's concern that the impeachment inquiry is distracting Congress from focusing on important issues affecting the country, he claimed, but it boils down to the final vote.

“Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake,” he said, calling the process “hopelessly partisan.”

-----------------

There's no way the republican senators are going to go in the opposite direction to the republican congressmen, as Harry iirc seemed to feel was still a possibility yet, what we're seeing now is the party line, there's just not enough there. Trump sought the ukrainians to announce an investigation was being opened into his geriatric opponent's son, isn't enough for both sides to want to sack the president, elected by millions of patriotic americans, and who is just about to run for a 2nd term.

 

[vorcirion]

Impeachment should be about when the crime is of a potential level that both sides could at the end want the president removed, like nixon.

If the republican's call completely irrelevant witnesses then the dems can expose this in their questioning of said witnesses, it would actually help them to show the republicans are trying to deflect and be evasive [if that is what they're doing]

democratic congressmen jeff van drew:

"We have to understand, impeachment is something that's supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair,"

"This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don't like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election. This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it," he argued.

At the end of the day we’ll have the same president and same candidate and a failed impeachment process, and the only difference would be that the president will have been exonerated of charges," Van Drew said in a statement to Fox News at the time.

Other Democrats share Van Drew's concern that the impeachment inquiry is distracting Congress from focusing on important issues affecting the country, he claimed, but it boils down to the final vote.

“Without support from Senate Republicans, going down this path is a mistake,” he said, calling the process “hopelessly partisan.”

-----------------

There's no way the republican senators are going to go in the opposite direction to the republican congressmen, as Harry iirc seemed to feel was still a possibility yet, what we're seeing now is the party line, there's just not enough there. Trump sought the ukrainians to announce an investigation was being opened into his geriatric opponent's son, isn't enough for both sides to want to sack the president, elected by millions of patriotic americans, and who is just about to run for a 2nd term.

I don't think anything would be enough for the republicans to want to remove Trump. They are so scared of Trump's twitter account since it's enough to get them booted out of office. So what republicans do instead is defend Trump no matter what he does...whether it's criminal conduct or something completely against their own ideology. Republicans only care about staying in the power and they seem to go to any lengths to do that. I'm just happy that this impeachment process shows what exactly the republicans will defend and I hope it costs their careers and their senate majority.
Nunes didn't even bother asking questions from those witnesses. All he talked about was Biden and Burisma.

I'm actually curious how the senate trial will go. I'm pretty sure Romney will vote against Trump at least. His job is secure and he can do the right thing.

 

[mack341]

I don't think anything would be enough for the republicans to want to remove Trump. They are so scared of Trump's twitter account since it's enough to get them booted out of office. So what republicans do instead is defend Trump no matter what he does...whether it's criminal conduct or something completely against their own ideology. Republicans only care about staying in the power and they seem to go to any lengths to do that. I'm just happy that this impeachment process shows what exactly the republicans will defend and I hope it costs their careers and their senate majority.
Nunes didn't even bother asking questions from those witnesses. All he talked about was Biden and Burisma.

I'm actually curious how the senate trial will go. I'm pretty sure Romney will vote against Trump at least. His job is secure and he can do the right thing.

yeah the republicans aren't going to question in a way to get to the truth regarding the charge, the quid pro quo, because essentially the republican voting public wouldn't agree or understand why their president had to deposed because of that, it just doesn't reach that level where it had a negative impact on them, like embezzling govt money, receiving bribes for passing a law etc...

If the public view the charge as terrible and a very bad thing/trick for trump to have tried to do, then they have the ultimate power of impeachment at the ballot box. It may yet come about, but it's going to need a lot more gas to get the fire going than what so far has been revealed.

 

[sufferinsilence]

For anyone that still thinks the republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses to testify: both gentlemen that are testifying right now, Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison, were requested by the GOP.

 

[mack341]

For anyone that still thinks the republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses to testify: both gentlemen that are testifying right now, Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison, were requested by the GOP.

Did the GOP have to have schiff's permission for them to attend, or is it automatic, will the GOP be calling more witnesses if this is the case, that they no longer require schiff/democrats approval?

edit: There are apparently 8+witnesses the GOP want to question, so let's see if they are able to call these witnesses or whether schiff will deny them

 

[sufferinsilence]

Did the GOP have to have schiff's permission for them to attend, or is it automatic, will the GOP be calling more witnesses if this is the case, that they no longer require schiff/democrats approval?

edit: There are apparently 8+witnesses the GOP want to question, so let's see if they are able to call these witnesses or whether schiff will deny them

I don't know the procedure. My best assumption would be it goes to a vote amongst the ranking members of the committee?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Looks like even the most ardent supporters of Mr T are realizing that the call was not "perfect."

And Mr T not even capable of writing a name correctly. Plus, look at those rather messy hands and fingernails.

 

[sufferinsilence]

But Trump barely knows Sondland, who donated $1 million for his inauguration

 

[sufferinsilence]

Did the GOP have to have schiff's permission for them to attend, or is it automatic, will the GOP be calling more witnesses if this is the case, that they no longer require schiff/democrats approval?

edit: There are apparently 8+witnesses the GOP want to question, so let's see if they are able to call these witnesses or whether schiff will deny them

I wanted to come back to this: according to representative Nunes yesterday the GOP has given a list of people they wanted to question to chairman Schiff. It seems the chairman then decides who he accepts or denies.

Now, as we know you can't just believe whatever they say but that was said during the impeachment inquiries last night.

 

[Harry_BKK]

And the GOP members realizing it too. Tried to find the moment from yesterday as I watched it live but only found it included in this video. Go to 06:28 to see the faces, especially Nunes. This was after the Ds questioned Sonderland for 45 minutes.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I wanted to come back to this: according to representative Nunes yesterday the GOP has given a list of people they wanted to question to chairman Schiff. It seems the chairman then decides who he accepts or denies.

Now, as we know you can't just believe whatever they say but that was said during the impeachment inquiries last night.

It is the entire committee holding a vote. Two of the witnesses yesterday were from the GOP list. Others, like Hunter Biden or Chalupa were denied on a party-line vote.

 

[sufferinsilence]

And the GOP members realizing it too. Tried to find the moment from yesterday as I watched it live but only found it included in this one. Go to 06:28 to see the faces. This was after the Ds questioned Sonderland for 45 minutes.

You can see counsel for the minority Steve Castor looking at Nunes saying: "wtf can we do with this?"

 

[sufferinsilence]

It is the entire committee holding a vote. Two of the witnesses yesterday were from the GOP list. Others, like Hunter Biden or Chalupa were denied on a party-line vote.

So my assumption was closer to the truth then

 

[Harry_BKK]

You can see counsel for the minority Steve Castor looking at Nunes saying: "wtf can we do with this?"

Exactly. It is such a moment where you realize you are in "big doodoo"

 

[Harry_BKK]

So my assumption was closer to the truth then

It is of course partisan since the majority party has more seats on the committee. However, Nunes had no issue declining requests from Democrats during the two years he was the Chairman of the committee. Classic case of "what goes around, comes around".

 

[Harry_BKK]

You just can't make this stuff up.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vorcirion]

There's a pretty good summary of the hearings:


Now GOP senators can show that they are aiding and abetting Trump's criminal actions. Then Trump can start blackmailing other countries to get something for himself in exchange whatever assistance they would get from the US. Maybe Trump wants something from South Korea or from any southern american countries.

US is starting to look more like Russia all the time. One leader who does all kinds of corrupt acts and the congress that is too scared to do anything about it.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Any Mr T supporters should listen to his call-in at Fox&Friends. I wonder at what point they will shed the blinders and start thinking this man has completely lost his marbles?

This is the US president who has access to the nuclear codes.

Simply hilarious! One lie after the other

 

[mack341]

Harry I could only manage the first 10 mins, you listened to the whole 50 mins? He was doing alright until the subject of crowdstrike came up, that seemed to throw him.

It could be his age, a certain proportion of people over 65 can't grasp technology, as soon as it enters the conversation it flummoxes them and they lose their way, as they're not confident about the subject at all, and if you're president today in this fast moving modern world, and don't understand computers and technology you've got a problem.

Also trump must feel everyone in the media, even fox, are potentially out to embarrass him and catch him out, when you're being interviewed by three people at the same time that's also not easy.

If you remember that interview with george stephanopoulos he did say, and the media focused on it heavily, that he would listen to info on opponents from foreign sources [dirt basically ] I can't remember if he said he'd seek it though.

The permanent govt did try and eliminate him from being president, through the spying and counter intelligence operation, which in civic/fairness/democracy terms is a greater crime against the US people than the ukraine quid pro quo, however that boils down.

I heard a point on laura ingraham last night, which I thought was good, that in his parody Adam Schiff was careful to say 'I want you to make up dirt on my opponent' which would reach the impeachable threshold as opposed to 'I want you to investigate any corruption involving my opponent' which probably doesn't, and in any case the ukraine shouldn't have needed any prodding to investigate corruption involving foreign individuals or their own.

When I think of the CIA whistleblower and this impeachment attempt, [bearing in mind schiff is head of the congress intel committee so very much on the inside] it reminds me of what chuck schumer said ""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,"

Edit: I've figured out why you now refer to jim jordan as Gym jordan

 

[Harry_BKK]

Harry I could only manage the first 10 mins, you listened to the whole 50 mins? He was doing alright until the subject of crowdstrike came up, that seemed to throw him.

It could be his age, a certain proportion of people over 65 can't grasp technology, as soon as it enters the conversation it flummoxes them and they lose their way, as they're not confident about the subject at all, and if you're president today in this fast moving modern world, and don't understand computers and technology you've got a problem.

Also trump must feel everyone in the media, even fox, are potentially out to embarrass him and catch him out, when you're being interviewed by three people at the same time that's also not easy.

If you remember that interview with george stephanopoulos he did say, and the media focused on it heavily, that he would listen to info on opponents from foreign sources [dirt basically ] I can't remember if he said he'd seek it though.

The permanent govt did try and eliminate him from being president, through the spying and counter intelligence operation, which in civic/fairness/democracy terms is a greater crime against the US people than the ukraine quid pro quo, however that boils down.

I heard a point on laura ingraham last night, which I thought was good, that in his parody Adam Schiff was careful to say 'I want you to make up dirt on my opponent' which would reach the impeachable threshold as opposed to 'I want you to investigate any corruption involving my opponent' which probably doesn't, and in any case the ukraine shouldn't have needed any prodding to investigate corruption involving foreign individuals or their own.

When I think of the CIA whistleblower and this impeachment attempt, [bearing in mind schiff is head of the congress intel committee so very much on the inside] it reminds me of what chuck schumer said ""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,"

Edit: I've figured out why you now refer to jim jordan as Gym jordan

Sorry mate, but your entire post is trying very hard to make excuses for Mr T.

He was the one calling into the show. I didn't have to.

I would guess that someone told him at some point that the DNC server is not a single big chunk but a cloud-based server spread over 140 locations. So, he most probably knows but he just likes to keep banging points into the brains of people. And his supporters are absorbing everything as the truth without even doing the most basic research themselves.

He seems quite comfortable with his phones, so nope, not buying the argument about technology.

Nobody tried to eliminate him mack.....geez, so now you are falling for that conspiracy too? Well, the Horowitz report will come out on 9th Dec, I am strongly guessing that could be the end of your wet conspiracy dreams.

Mr T only wanted Ukraine to announce investigations. Carrying them out was not the plan, simply announcing them would have given him another "Lock her(him) up" slogan. Simple as that Mack. He could have gone the official way via his DOJ and nobody would have said anything. But he is paranoid of losing in 2020 so he's grasping at anything he can.

The entire sequence was neatly planned and working well until Zelensky won the election. Lutsenko would have still been prosecutor and would have announced investigations into Burisma but Zelensky kicked him out.

They got rid of the ambassador in the first step. Even his son was smearing her. He doesn't have a clue what she was or wasn't doing.

So Zelensky came in, the ambassador out and here come the 3 amigos with the clear orders from Mr T that Zelensky must announce the investigations. Remember, the military aid was approved by Congress and the DOD had confirmed that Ukraine was making progress on combatting corruption. Mr T illegally put a hold on it without informing Congress.

Over the weeks from May to July, it became clear that Zelensky was desperate of a WH visit to have a public display that the US is backing him. This gave Mr T the second pressure point.

Again, remember he said that the July call was congratulatory for winning the election. And suddenly he releases a second memorandum for a call in May where he congratulated Zelensky. Hence, that point was again a lie.

Mack, this is not even half of the entire saga but it shows that this was all planned with corrupt intent. Plain and simple.

And please stop looking for excuses for Mr T. He's a "grown" man who knows exactly what he is doing and why.

 

[mack341]

So the entire saga, half of which we know, was planned with corrupt intent, but if as you say trump knows exactly what he is doing, why would he try to get a quid pro quo set up in a phone call which is being listened into by countless govt/state dept etc... officials, who he can't assume will all be trumpers? He only needs one to leak it to the press and his plan is done for.

If ukraine had announced investigations, say july 2019, into biden, surely people/journalists would require/request progress reports as time went by?

After a year of stonewalling, and biden not being interviewed or contacted, wouldn't people twig on?

Given that trump had made statements about working together with russia, reducing tensions - a new détente, during the 2016 campaign, and hillary was pushing the opposite view, the ukrainians would obviously favour clinton, did they try to help the democrats in any way, interfere in the US elections openly or secretly?

Comey, brennan, mccabe have all made clear their antipathy towards trump, how can you be so certain they didn't abuse their positions of power to try to subvert that election and get the result they craved, their pal hillary clinton as the president?

I don't expect horowitz, barr etc.. to reveal what really happened as they're basically insiders as well, it's the police investigating the police. I expect a few lower level people to be scapegoated, just as in the epstein case we have recently seen. That's how the real world works.

 

[vorcirion]

So the entire saga, half of which we know, was planned with corrupt intent, but if as you say trump knows exactly what he is doing, why would he try to get a quid pro quo set up in a phone call which is being listened into by countless govt/state dept etc... officials, who he can't assume will all be trumpers? He only needs one to leak it to the press and his plan is done for.

Simple answer...because Trump is stupid. He and Giuliani are openly confessing all kinds of crimes. Those retards belong to same jail cell.

Given that trump had made statements about working together with russia, reducing tensions - a new détente, during the 2016 campaign, and hillary was pushing the opposite view, the ukrainians would obviously favour clinton, did they try to help the democrats in any way, interfere in the US elections openly or secretly?

Why would they? It's better for them not to interfere in any way. They need support from both parties or there's 50-50 chance they would get totally screwed.

Comey, brennan, mccabe have all made clear their antipathy towards trump, how can you be so certain they didn't abuse their positions of power to try to subvert that election and get the result they craved, their pal hillary clinton as the president?

Comey helped Trump win by announcing more investigations of Clinton's e-mails 11 days before the election. FBI never talked about the investigation of Trump's campaign+Russia's collusion. So yeah...Clinton's pal...sure!

 

[mack341]

Simple answer...because Trump is stupid. He and Giuliani are openly confessing all kinds of crimes. Those retards belong to same jail cell.



Why would they? It's better for them not to interfere in any way. They need support from both parties or there's 50-50 chance they would get totally screwed.



Comey helped Trump win by announcing more investigations of Clinton's e-mails 11 days before the election. FBI never talked about the investigation of Trump's campaign+Russia's collusion. So yeah...Clinton's pal...sure!

That is true re comey but maybe at that stage he knew trump was likely to win anyway, so by doing that announcement he was currying favour and hoping to stay in his job after trump was elected, as it made him look like he was neutral or even pro-trump, which we know now he most definitely wasn't.

Haven't heard much if anything from giuliani for a few weeks, someone must've told him to stop going on fox and talking about it, he may be the one who carries the can for trump if need be.

I didn't mean the whole ukraine govt policy was let's interfere, but some may have tried. If hillary lost their involvement/help could be covered up by the fbi/cia and trump would never cotton on. Or just brushed away as rogue elements. The senate and congress want to help the ukraine stand up to russia, nothing trump can do to change that cross party policy, unless he wants to fight all his senators over it and lose their support.

Everybody, the govt depts and the media, in unison would blame russia, [for the 2016 interference and dnc server hack] so it's killing two birds with one stone, demonise putin and russia while covering up the real counterintelligence operation to damage trump [ by alleging trump's co-ordination and links to russian interference]...the 2nd term is clearly the objective, the 1st term was probably lost the day hillary, on camera, condemned millions of voters and fellow citizens as deplorable.

Donald bigs up barr but he hasn't helped him that much as far as I can tell, talks a good game but little evidence of bringing anyone to book.

 

[vorcirion]

That is true re comey but maybe at that stage he knew trump was likely to win anyway, so by doing that announcement he was currying favour and hoping to stay in his job after trump was elected, as it made him look like he was neutral or even pro-trump, which we know now he most definitely wasn't.

Haven't heard much if anything from giuliani for a few weeks, someone must've told him to stop going on fox and talking about it, he may be the one who carries the can for trump if need be.

I didn't mean the whole ukraine govt policy was let's interfere, but some may have tried. If hillary lost their involvement/help could be covered up by the fbi/cia and trump would never cotton on. Or just brushed away as rogue elements. The senate and congress want to help the ukraine stand up to russia, nothing trump can do to change that cross party policy, unless he wants to fight all his senators over it and lose their support.

Everybody, the govt depts and the media, in unison would blame russia, [for the 2016 interference and dnc server hack] so it's killing two birds with one stone, demonise putin and russia while covering up the real counterintelligence operation to damage trump [ by alleging trump's co-ordination and links to russian interference]...the 2nd term is clearly the objective, the 1st term was probably lost the day hillary, on camera, condemned millions of voters and fellow citizens as deplorable.

Donald bigs up barr but he hasn't helped him that much as far as I can tell, talks a good game but little evidence of bringing anyone to book.

Barr isn't supposed to be there to help Trump. He's supposed to be US's lawyer and be impartial. The way Barr handled Mueller case was already way out of the line.
And maybe Barr can't do much since there's no evidence that Ukraine did anything to interfere as every single person has testified already. Only Russia interfered and they keep doing it and Trump/Barr/GOP does nothing to stop it. GOP is actually helping Russia by using Russia's intelligence agency's talking points. During the impeachment hearings Nunes was basically Russia's agent.
I don't know why you keep thinking otherwise. All evidence, all witnesses (including GOP's witnesses) say it was Russia and Ukraine did nothing. Or are you one of those flat earthers who just keep denying the evidence no matter what? You have 0 evidence to support your case. Other side has all the evidence. All you have are silly conspiracy theories that are spread by Russia's intelligence agency, Nunes, Giuliani, Fox and Trump.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Rudy's been tweeting lately, no worries @mack341

 

[mack341]

Barr isn't supposed to be there to help Trump. He's supposed to be US's lawyer and be impartial. The way Barr handled Mueller case was already way out of the line.
And maybe Barr can't do much since there's no evidence that Ukraine did anything to interfere as every single person has testified already. Only Russia interfered and they keep doing it and Trump/Barr/GOP does nothing to stop it. GOP is actually helping Russia by using Russia's intelligence agency's talking points. During the impeachment hearings Nunes was basically Russia's agent.
I don't know why you keep thinking otherwise. All evidence, all witnesses (including GOP's witnesses) say it was Russia and Ukraine did nothing. Or are you one of those flat earthers who just keep denying the evidence no matter what? You have 0 evidence to support your case. Other side has all the evidence. All you have are silly conspiracy theories that are spread by Russia's intelligence agency, Nunes, Giuliani, Fox and Trump.

I have motive on my side, not motive for me, but the issue of motive and also the issue of capability, plus the dnc server was not analysed in line of best practice, i.e. by the fbi in-house experts, instead it was analysed by a third party of the dnc's choosing, which just happens to be owned by an ex russian who may not like putin that much.

So to frame putin's russia as the culprit behind the server hack has appeal, and apparently the russians left obvious footprints back to them, which is the last thing they'd do.

When the govt and all of the media outlets (including the uk ones) have the exact same view, co-ordinated in unison, with no doubts expressed at all, I think I'm entitled to a little bit of scepticism, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck, and this looked and sounded like propaganda to me.

And it achieved it's aims, damaged russia and putin, and damaged trump, that's what you call a successful operation.

I don't mean barr should illegally help trump, but as his AG, he could expose the counter intelligence operation against trump and bring the culprits to book, it's plainly an abuse of state power to start spying on one of the two main candidates running for the top job, and using misinformation to entrap members of his campaign team.

AG barr could've also said 'I'll investigate burisma/biden/ukraine' and do it on the record as Harry suggested, trump's had to create his own informal investigation process using giuliani, that's what I meant by help. He could be checking this schiff out, seeing if he has any links to people he shouldn't. I think he's just bluffing trump along, he's also done zilch to explain epstein's death when distinguished pathologists have stated the pattern of broken neck bones = strangulation not death by hanging. Also the total lack of working cameras on one of the most important prisoners they had?

 

[mack341]

Rudy's been tweeting lately, no worries @mack341

I need to check those out, I enjoyed rudy's take on things even if it was a bit inconsistent and scatter brained...

Nancy was recently asked why the dems weren't going to pursue giuliani to testify, but she said they didn't want to waste time, which hardly says much for the dems intention of wanting to get to the bottom of things and finding out the truth, rather more they can't wait to get the impeachment verdict passed by congress to try to damage trump 2020, it's all been about partisan political games.

Schiff is a bad actor too, putting on the pious act

 

[vorcirion]

I have motive on my side, not motive for me, but the issue of motive and also the issue of capability, plus the dnc server was not analysed in line of best practice, i.e. by the fbi in-house experts, instead it was analysed by a third party of the dnc's choosing, which just happens to be owned by an ex russian who may not like putin that much.

So to frame putin's russia as the culprit behind the server hack has obvious appeal, and apparently the russians left obvious footprints back to them, which is the last thing they'd do.

When the govt and all of the media outlets (including the uk ones) have the exact same view, co-ordinated in unison, with no doubts expressed at all, I think I'm entitled to a little bit of scepticism, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck, and this looked and sounded like propaganda to me.

And it achieved it's aims, damaged russia and putin, and damaged trump, that's what you call a successful operation.

I don't mean barr should illegally help trump, but as his AG, he could expose the counter intelligence operation against trump and bring the culprits to book, it's plainly an abuse of state power to start spying on one of the two main candidates running for the top job, and using misinformation to entrap members of his campaign team.

AG barr could've also said 'I'll investigate burisma/biden/ukraine' and do it on the record as Harry suggested, trump's had to create his own informal investigation process using giuliani, that's what I meant by help. He could be checking this schiff out, seeing if he has any links to people he shouldn't. I think he's just bluffing trump along, he's also done zilch to explain epstein's death when distinguished pathologists have stated the pattern of broken neck bones = strangulation not death by hanging. Also the lack of working cameras on one of the most important prisoners they had?

You should make a phone call to Russian embassy. You'd be a fine candidate for their services. You know you're sounding like Giuliani.

 

[mack341]

You should make a phone call to Russian embassy. You'd be a fine candidate for their services. You know you're sounding like Giuliani.

yeah I'm already on the russian paybook, but they're paying me in kopeks and rubles, it's not enough to finance a session on rhino let alone bonanza! I need to request a rise with all this recent overtime re ukraine

Edit: to any spy agencies reading, this is a joke please, I don't want to be placed in solitary confinement with roger stone...

...though thinking on it, I probably do deserve at least a complimentary round of golf or stay at one of trump's towers

 

[Harry_BKK]

I have motive on my side, not motive for me, but the issue of motive and also the issue of capability, plus the dnc server was not analysed in line of best practice, i.e. by the fbi in-house experts, instead it was analysed by a third party of the dnc's choosing, which just happens to be owned by an ex russian who may not like putin that much.

So to frame putin's russia as the culprit behind the server hack has appeal, and apparently the russians left obvious footprints back to them, which is the last thing they'd do.

When the govt and all of the media outlets (including the uk ones) have the exact same view, co-ordinated in unison, with no doubts expressed at all, I think I'm entitled to a little bit of scepticism, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck, and this looked and sounded like propaganda to me.

And it achieved it's aims, damaged russia and putin, and damaged trump, that's what you call a successful operation.

I don't mean barr should illegally help trump, but as his AG, he could expose the counter intelligence operation against trump and bring the culprits to book, it's plainly an abuse of state power to start spying on one of the two main candidates running for the top job, and using misinformation to entrap members of his campaign team.

AG barr could've also said 'I'll investigate burisma/biden/ukraine' and do it on the record as Harry suggested, trump's had to create his own informal investigation process using giuliani, that's what I meant by help. He could be checking this schiff out, seeing if he has any links to people he shouldn't. I think he's just bluffing trump along, he's also done zilch to explain epstein's death when distinguished pathologists have stated the pattern of broken neck bones = strangulation not death by hanging. Also the total lack of working cameras on one of the most important prisoners they had?

Crowdstrike was and still is used by the US government and agencies like the FBI for exactly such jobs because they are the experts!

Geez mack, I don't know what to say.

You look really desperate trying to argue in favour of Mr T. Really funny that you think all and everyone is corrupt just to damage Mr T, yet think the guy who has been found guilty multiple times of exactly corrupt behaviour (T University and T Charity are just the latest two) is absolutely innocent in your view.

I suggest you google Barr's latest speech at the Federalist Society. That should tell you clearly who he is defending. I can tell you now, it is not the US.

Here, I did the googling for you:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Harry_BKK]

So the entire saga, half of which we know, was planned with corrupt intent, but if as you say trump knows exactly what he is doing, why would he try to get a quid pro quo set up in a phone call which is being listened into by countless govt/state dept etc... officials, who he can't assume will all be trumpers? He only needs one to leak it to the press and his plan is done for.

If ukraine had announced investigations, say july 2019, into biden, surely people/journalists would require/request progress reports as time went by?

After a year of stonewalling, and biden not being interviewed or contacted, wouldn't people twig on?

Given that trump had made statements about working together with russia, reducing tensions - a new détente, during the 2016 campaign, and hillary was pushing the opposite view, the ukrainians would obviously favour clinton, did they try to help the democrats in any way, interfere in the US elections openly or secretly?

Comey, brennan, mccabe have all made clear their antipathy towards trump, how can you be so certain they didn't abuse their positions of power to try to subvert that election and get the result they craved, their pal hillary clinton as the president?

I don't expect horowitz, barr etc.. to reveal what really happened as they're basically insiders as well, it's the police investigating the police. I expect a few lower level people to be scapegoated, just as in the epstein case we have recently seen. That's how the real world works.

Very simple: “Then, I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

No, Biden wouldn't even get the nomination and all polls have shown that he would have the best chance to beat Mr T in the election. Nobody wouldn't care afterwards whether the Ukrainians found something or not.

So Mr T leaving all possible treaties with Russia that kept the arms race in check for the last decades is "reducing tensions" in your view?

Comey et al - there are clear rule books as well as a sophisticated checks systems that any abuse of a position would have been found out long ago. The Republicans looked into it for years and what exactly have they found?

Oh so cute.... now Horowitz and Barr are part of the system too? Poor Mr T all by himself fighting for the greater good (yeah, for is own good only)?

 

[mack341]

I've got that barr video on as I read posts, talk about complicated and confusing! legislative power, oversight, executive branch, constitutional norms... nobody outside the law profession can understand this, no-way

.....He admires a muscular executive....he's deep stater!

Actually he's not too bad once he gets going, Ternur would probably enjoy this speech for the legal issues/discussion

 

[mack341]

Very simple: “Then, I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

No, Biden wouldn't even get the nomination and all polls have shown that he would have the best chance to beat Mr T in the election. Nobody wouldn't care afterwards whether the Ukrainians found something or not.

So Mr T leaving all possible treaties with Russia that kept the arms race in check for the last decades is "reducing tensions" in your view?

Comey et al - there are clear rule books as well as a sophisticated checks systems that any abuse of a position would have been found out long ago. The Republicans looked into it for years and what exactly have they found?

Oh so cute.... now Horowitz and Barr are part of the system too? Poor Mr T all by himself fighting for the greater good (yeah, for is own good only)?

Yes that is true regarding the tearing up the arms treaties which have worked well for peace, I disagreed with this, but I must say [to my memory] he got less stick for this than that call with zelensky, which shows the madness and russia phobia of the media and dems. [when in the olden days it was always the dems pushing for detente with russia iirc]

And yes biden probably did have the best chance of attracting a broad base of voters, is this then Harry, an admission or your prediction that Trump will win the 2020? Or has Biden still got a chance?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Yes that is true regarding the tearing up the arms treaties which have worked well for peace, I disagreed with this, but I must say [to my memory] he got less stick for this than that call with zelensky, which shows the madness and russia phobia of the media and dems. [when in the olden days it was always the dems pushing for detente with russia iirc]

And yes biden probably did have the best chance of attracting a broad base of voters, is this then Harry, an admission or your prediction that Trump will win the 2020? Or has Biden still got a chance?

I said it just a few pages ago, due to the Electoral College system, he still has a chance.

A president has the powers to terminate treaties, foreign policy is constitutionally in his power. Hence, while people disagreed, he did not violate the constitution, which he did with the Zelensky nonsense.

Do you see the difference?

 

[mack341]

I suppose if Barr represents the real republican party and view on things, trump though president is basically an outsider compared to him, but he delivered to the republican party millions of dispossessed voters who would've probably been previously uninspired to vote republican. Thus winning key states.

For the republicans to win after trump they need to democrats to stay far left, so that they pick up the middle.

Edit: just reading about barr's history in govt, very interesting, his ties to bush snr. Bill is definitely a deep stater, so you always have the one party state regardless of president. He's probably keeping trump under his reins and advice.

 

[mack341]

I said it just a few pages ago, due to the Electoral College system, he still has a chance.

A president has the powers to terminate treaties, foreign policy is constitutionally in his power. Hence, while people disagreed, he did not violate the constitution, which he did with the Zelensky nonsense.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, but you don't just criticise a political opponent based on the constitution, the reason why he wasn't criticised that much for tearing up the treaty is because the military complex agreed with it, and they have a big say in the media and democrat party policies and views.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I suppose if Barr represents the real republican party and view on things, trump though president is basically an outsider compared to him, but he delivered to the republican party millions of disposessed voters who would've probably been previously uninspired to vote republican. Thus winning key states.

For the republicans to win after trump they need to democrats to stay far left, so that they pick up the middle.

Edit: just reading about barr's history in govt, very interesting, his ties to bush snr. Bill is definitely a deep stater, so you always have the one party state regardless of president. He's probably keeping trump under his reins and advice.

BTW, the NYT reported on the first leaks from the Horowitz report:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Looks indeed just like everyone predicted except Mr T and his sycophants. Some mistakes but nothing at all that rises to a nefarious act of being out "to get Mr T".

In the Fox interview, Mr T boldly said the report to be of "historic" proportions.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Alot of republicans defend Trump because of the money he brings in. Look at the 360 Lindsey Graham made, from being a "never"-Trumper and saying Joe Biden is one of the most decent guys in politics to basically being so far up Trump's ass he's seeing daylight.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Yes, but you don't just criticise a political opponent based on the constitution, the reason why he wasn't criticised that much for tearing up the treaty is because the military complex agreed with it, and they have a big say in the media and democrat party policies and views.

The military complex doesn't care what weapons they make as long as they can make them. E.g. the missile treaty was actually good for the industry as they had to produce longer range missiles which are more costly.

 

[mack341]

BTW, the NYT reported on the first leaks from the Horowitz report:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Looks indeed just like everyone predicted except Mr T and his sycophants. Some mistakes but nothing at all that rises to a nefarious act of being out "to get Mr T".

In the Fox interview, Mr T boldly said the report to be of "historic" proportions.

I knew it wouldn't be scathing, I wish I could've placed a bet at the bookies on it
we get it all the time in the uk, no one is held to account...but 'lessons will be learned'

 

[Harry_BKK]

I knew it wouldn't be scathing, I wish I could've placed a bet at the bookies on it
we get it all the time in the uk, no one is held to account...but 'lessons will be learned'

No mack. It is because there are firm rules and guidance policies in place to prevent grave misconduct and if it happens that it is detected and investigated.

Why would Horowitz not point out if there was grave misconduct?