Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Trump is justifying this by saying the Kurds didn't help us in Normandy . You literally couldn't make this shit up.

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/florida-businessmen-who-helped-giuliani-ukraine-arrested-campaign-finance-charges-n1064606?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR1mtwsUSgDNhXSatzNa3zaz8eD12h4jXsOffEMLgFoaJQMVMPFIMb_6cmM

[pilferk]

Just, you know, so we can put the "the whistleblower is a partisan hack/biased" bullshit to bed:

https://compassrosepllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019_1009_-Statement-Concerning-Bias.pdf

[pilferk]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/florida-businessmen-who-helped-giuliani-ukraine-arrested-campaign-finance-charges-n1064606?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR1mtwsUSgDNhXSatzNa3zaz8eD12h4jXsOffEMLgFoaJQMVMPFIMb_6cmM

Once again, Trump surrounds himself with the corrupt and the corruptable.

I'm SHOCKED to see another instance of campaign finance law violations, with foreign nationals contributing, associated with another of the President's close associates. SHOCKED!!!

And two who, apparently, helping Rudy to dig up dirt in the Ukraine?  Isn't that ALSO a foreign campaign contribution of a sort.  They are providing something of value (their time and labor) to benefit a presidential campaign.

[tim_m]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/florida-businessmen-who-helped-giuliani-ukraine-arrested-campaign-finance-charges-n1064606?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR1mtwsUSgDNhXSatzNa3zaz8eD12h4jXsOffEMLgFoaJQMVMPFIMb_6cmM

Once again, Trump surrounds himself with the corrupt and the corruptable.

I'm SHOCKED to see another instance of campaign finance law violations, with foreign nationals contributing, associated with another of the President's close associates. SHOCKED!!!

And two who, apparently, helping Rudy to dig up dirt in the Ukraine?  Isn't that ALSO a foreign campaign contribution of a sort.  They are providing something of value (their time and labor) to benefit a presidential campaign.

Now we have this. https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/thehill.com/policy/international/china/465283-trump-adviser-claims-china-gave-him-info-on-hunter-biden?amp

[tim_m]

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/11/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F10%2F11%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment%2Findex.html

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/465312-giuliani-planned-to-fly-to-vienna-a-day-after-arrested-associates

[tim_m]

https://www.axios.com/isis-detainees-northern-syria-turkey-kurdish-ec58db13-93c0-4c9c-8158-6d4b8dbb6e9c.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic


Raise your hand if you saw this coming.

[pilferk]

https://www.axios.com/isis-detainees-northern-syria-turkey-kurdish-ec58db13-93c0-4c9c-8158-6d4b8dbb6e9c.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic


Raise your hand if you saw this coming.

*raises hand*

[tim_m]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/bolton-instructed-former-russia-adviser-to-talk-to-nsc-lawyer-over-ukraine.amp

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....

Now Pelosi is saying she will not be holding a vote anytime soon.

She is totally going against precedent as impeachment investigations in the past (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton)  were all began after the full House voted to approve. 

Considering how this has all been handled so far, it really gives Republicans a reason to question the legitimacy of all if this.  It is much more of a political exercise.

[pilferk]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....

Now Pelosi is saying she will not be holding a vote anytime soon.

She is totally going against precedent as impeachment investigations in the past (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton)  were all began after the full House voted to approve. 

Considering how this has all been handled so far, it really gives Republicans a reason to question the legitimacy of all if this.  It is much more of a political exercise.

Like McConnell ignored precedent by changing the rules for approving Supreme Court Justices? Like Ryan ignored precedent by ignoring intelligence agency concerns in 2016? 

Every time the conservatives "ignore precedent" and change the rules, their voters say "there are consequences to elections" and "the majority makes the rules".

Well, then the majority makes the rules.  There is no mandated way for the House to open an inquiry.  And, in the case of Nixon, the inquiry began LONG before there was any vote in the house.  There is precedent for NOT voting right away, too.

I get it.  You have to really TRY to make things look illegitimate, because you can't actually defend his behavior.

They're doing exactly what the constitution allows them to do: Providing oversight of the executive branch in the manner they see fit, as strictly defined by the constitution.

[tim_m]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....

Now Pelosi is saying she will not be holding a vote anytime soon.

She is totally going against precedent as impeachment investigations in the past (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton)  were all began after the full House voted to approve. 

Considering how this has all been handled so far, it really gives Republicans a reason to question the legitimacy of all if this.  It is much more of a political exercise.

Like McConnell ignored precedent by changing the rules for approving Supreme Court Justices? Like Ryan ignored precedent by ignoring intelligence agency concerns in 2016? 

Every time the conservatives "ignore precedent" and change the rules, their voters say "there are consequences to elections" and "the majority makes the rules".

Well, then the majority makes the rules.  There is no mandated way for the House to open an inquiry.  And, in the case of Nixon, the inquiry began LONG before there was any vote in the house.  There is precedent for NOT voting right away, too.

I get it.  You have to really TRY to make things look illegitimate, because you can't actually defend his behavior.

They're doing exactly what the constitution allows them to do: Providing oversight of the executive branch in the manner they see fit, as strictly defined by the constitution.

It still amazes me anyone is even trying! There's been so much leaking out since the closed door testimony the other day.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....

Now Pelosi is saying she will not be holding a vote anytime soon.

She is totally going against precedent as impeachment investigations in the past (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton)  were all began after the full House voted to approve. 

Considering how this has all been handled so far, it really gives Republicans a reason to question the legitimacy of all if this.  It is much more of a political exercise.

Like McConnell ignored precedent by changing the rules for approving Supreme Court Justices? Like Ryan ignored precedent by ignoring intelligence agency concerns in 2016? 

Every time the conservatives "ignore precedent" and change the rules, their voters say "there are consequences to elections" and "the majority makes the rules".

Well, then the majority makes the rules.  There is no mandated way for the House to open an inquiry.  And, in the case of Nixon, the inquiry began LONG before there was any vote in the house.  There is precedent for NOT voting right away, too.

I get it.  You have to really TRY to make things look illegitimate, because you can't actually defend his behavior.

They're doing exactly what the constitution allows them to do: Providing oversight of the executive branch in the manner they see fit, as strictly defined by the constitution.

I wouldn't call what Schiff is doing as " oversight" His mind is made up &  he is trying to figure out a way to get there.

And McConnell was following the precedent Harry Reid set.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....

Now Pelosi is saying she will not be holding a vote anytime soon.

She is totally going against precedent as impeachment investigations in the past (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton)  were all began after the full House voted to approve. 

Considering how this has all been handled so far, it really gives Republicans a reason to question the legitimacy of all if this.  It is much more of a political exercise.

Like McConnell ignored precedent by changing the rules for approving Supreme Court Justices? Like Ryan ignored precedent by ignoring intelligence agency concerns in 2016? 

Every time the conservatives "ignore precedent" and change the rules, their voters say "there are consequences to elections" and "the majority makes the rules".

Well, then the majority makes the rules.  There is no mandated way for the House to open an inquiry.  And, in the case of Nixon, the inquiry began LONG before there was any vote in the house.  There is precedent for NOT voting right away, too.

I get it.  You have to really TRY to make things look illegitimate, because you can't actually defend his behavior.

They're doing exactly what the constitution allows them to do: Providing oversight of the executive branch in the manner they see fit, as strictly defined by the constitution.

It still amazes me anyone is even trying! There's been so much leaking out since the closed door testimony the other day.

Why is it even closed door? You cant impeach a President with closed door testimony !

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Every once in awhile we get bipartisanship in Washington. Even if it is for the wrong reasons. Ron Paul put the whole Syria thing in perspective. This is a good read, he is pretty spot on here  - https://www.fitsnews.com/2019/10/14/ron-paul-washington-is-wrong-about-the-kurds/

Ron Paul: Washington Is Wrong About The Kurds

“Another bipartisan ploy to keep the ‘forever war’ gravy train rolling …”


by RON PAUL || When President Trump Tweeted last week that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars,” adding that the US would be withdrawing from Syria, Washington went into a panic. Suddenly Republicans, Democrats, the media, the think tanks, and the war industry all discovered and quickly became experts on “the Kurds,” who we were told were an “ally” being sent to their slaughter by an ignorant President Trump.

But it was all just another bipartisan ploy to keep the “forever war” gravy train rolling through the Beltway.

Interventionists will do anything to prevent US troops from ever coming home, and their favorite tactic is promoting “mission creep.” As President Trump tweeted, we were told in 2014 by President Obama that the US military would go into Syria for just 30 days to save the Yazidi minority that they claimed were threatened. Then that mission crept into “we must fight ISIS” and so the US military continued to illegally occupy and bomb Syria for five more years.

Even though it was the Syrian army with its Russian and Iranian allies that did the bulk of the fighting against al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, President Trump took credit and called for the troops to come home. But when the military comes home, the military-industrial-Congressional-media complex loses its cash cow, so a new rationale had to be invented.

The latest “mission creep” was that we had to stay in Syria to save our “allies” the Kurds. All of a sudden our military presence in Syria was not about fighting terrorism but rather about putting US troops between our NATO ally Turkey and our proxy fighting force, the Kurds. Do they really want us to believe that it is “pro-American” for our troops to fight and die refereeing a long-standing dispute between the Turks and Kurds?

It was a colossally dumb idea to train and arm the Kurds in Syria in the first place, but after spending billions backing what turned out to be al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria to overthrow the Assad government, Washington found that the Kurds were the only willing boots remaining on the ground. While their interest in fighting ISIS was limited, they were happy to use Washington’s muscle in pursuit of their long-term goal of carving out a part of Syria (and eventually Turkey) for themselves.

We can never leave because there will be a slaughter, Washington claimed (and the media faithfully repeated). But once again, the politicians, the mainstream media, and the Beltway “experts” have been proven wrong. They never understand that sending US troops into another country without the proper authority is not a stabilizing factor, but a de-stabilizing factor. I have argued that were the US to leave Syria (and the rest of the Middle East) the countries of the region would find a way to solve their own problems.

Now that the US is pulling back from northern Syria, that is just what is happening.

On Sunday the Kurds and the Syrian government signed an agreement, brokered by the Russians, to put aside their differences and join together to defend against Turkey’s incursion into Syrian territory.

Now “our Kurdish allies” are fighting alongside the army of Syrian President Assad – who we are still told by US officials “must go.” Washington doesn’t understand that our intervention only makes matters worse. The best way to help the Kurds and everyone else in the region is to just come home.

[tim_m]

Rep Lee Zeldin schools the media on the Volker testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI-U1NwrqLU

As we have seen a few times, the Republican "hot take" on testimony (or reports) isn't always super trustworthy.

I agree: Release the transcript.  But the text messages we have make me doubt, highly, the Repubs "take" is the truth.

I've no doubt there's material in there they can try to spin to their advantage....

Now Pelosi is saying she will not be holding a vote anytime soon.

She is totally going against precedent as impeachment investigations in the past (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton)  were all began after the full House voted to approve. 

Considering how this has all been handled so far, it really gives Republicans a reason to question the legitimacy of all if this.  It is much more of a political exercise.

Like McConnell ignored precedent by changing the rules for approving Supreme Court Justices? Like Ryan ignored precedent by ignoring intelligence agency concerns in 2016? 

Every time the conservatives "ignore precedent" and change the rules, their voters say "there are consequences to elections" and "the majority makes the rules".

Well, then the majority makes the rules.  There is no mandated way for the House to open an inquiry.  And, in the case of Nixon, the inquiry began LONG before there was any vote in the house.  There is precedent for NOT voting right away, too.

I get it.  You have to really TRY to make things look illegitimate, because you can't actually defend his behavior.

They're doing exactly what the constitution allows them to do: Providing oversight of the executive branch in the manner they see fit, as strictly defined by the constitution.

It still amazes me anyone is even trying! There's been so much leaking out since the closed door testimony the other day.

Why is it even closed door? You cant impeach a President with closed door testimony !

To protect the witnesses perhaps? We are investigating the president. Let me guess you eye just fine when the Republicans did the same during Benghazi.

[tim_m]

Elijah Cummings has passed.

[pilferk]

I wouldn't call what Schiff is doing as " oversight" His mind is made up &  he is trying to figure out a way to get there.

Then you don't understand the process, and you don't understand his role in it.

Or you are choosing to ignore what you know, because you're rather find issues with the process, because, again, you can't defend Trumps ACTUAL actions.

Schiff is providing oversight in the same manner Gingrich did.  And the same manner Ryan did. And in a manner consistent with the constitution.

It's not a complete nut gobbling of your guy...which must be VERY tough for you given the way Congress handled Trump his first 2 years.  But this is how the process works. And how it's supposed to work.

The House members don't get to vote in the trial. They are not the jury. So whether Schiff is "objective" in your mind is irrelevant, anyway The House only puts together the charges, and then helps litigate them in the Senate.  In that respect, the House basically acts as the prosecution in this.

And that IGNORES the fact that we aren't even there yet.  We are in the investigation phase.  He's fine.  He's just not going to conduct the investigation the way YOU (or Trump) wants him to.  Sucks to be you.  Remember: The majority makes the rules!

And McConnell was following the precedent Harry Reid set.

First of all....that's whataboutism.  It doesn't address the fact that conservatives are 100% OK with changing precedent when it suits/benefits THEM, but when it doesn't.....it's HORRIBLE!!!  It's hypocrisy, and you know it.

Second, are you lying? Or do you not understand the changes McConnell made?  Show me where Harry Reid changed the rules so you no longer needed 60 votes to close debate on SC justices?

You can't.

Say what you want about the partisanship of Harry Reid...he left most of the Senate Cornerstones untouched.  He THREATENED to change them (aka the nuclear option), but he didn't ACTUALLY change them.

McConnell did. 

You can't have it both ways.

Of course, we all know the REAL reason you (and Trump) want a vote.  The votes in the House are there to impeach.  But, what you want...and what the president wants....is to be able to say it's a completely democrat led WITCH HUNT. 

So, vote or no vote, it's just another way to damn them if they do and damn them if they don't.  Trump, and his supporters, will bitch either way.

[pilferk]

Why is it even closed door? You cant impeach a President with closed door testimony !

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You absolutely CAN impeach a President with closed door testimony during the investigation.

And when they're discussion national security issues, and specific state department dealings with other countries, that's exactly how you should conduct them.  In addition, when you have a president how will (and has) used intimidation, bullying, and outright obstruction to stop testimony....you sort of have to do things this way, too.

You will get your open testimony....IN THE SENATE.  If/When articles are drafted and approved by the house.

Again, I get it.  You are DESPERATELY searching for some part of the process to object to, because you can't defend (or wrap your head around) the president's actual actions.

I asked the question once before:  Is it OK for an elected official (or one seeking to be elected) to reach out to a foreign leader and ask for dirt on one of your political opponents.

If you say no....then all your objections are really just noise to try to shield the president from paying a price for his actions.

If you say yes....fair enough.  Then the president is fine, and Biden and Warren have some phone calls to make.  And you'll be totally OK with them doing it!