The Impeachment Thread

#31,201
#31,201
zeppelin128 said:
I see AOC is giving Tulsi the business today on her "present" vote.
Click to expand...

Tulsi did what she had to do ... there was no other way to play it. She basically recused herself for conflict of interest, and that's a mark of honesty rarely found in dims these days. If she voted against Trump as her potential opponent in a presidential race, then she simply becomes guilty of doing what Trump was accused of doing ... using her position to undermine an opponent. If impeachment gets to the senate, the conflict of interest point will be interesting for Warren, Bernie, etc.

The funny thing is that you can legitimately take steps that harm an opposing candidate ... or at least you could before dems dropped an outboard motor in the pot. Now it just looks like abuse of power to stab an opponent in the back regardless of how right or wrong the action might be.
 
#31,202
#31,202
AM64 said:
Wow, go away for a few hours and this thread keeps exploding.

The dims really don't want all witnesses; they just want select witnesses ... the ones that represent their side of the argument. It's the way dims and bullies always work - our rules or we take the ball and go home. This has never been about getting to the bottom of things; it's simply been a get Trump movement from the beginning. It's like a murder trial without a corpse ... well, he was thinking about killing so and so - we're telling you that we know so, and we can prove it as long as we use our witnesses and keep the rather lively corpse out of the courtroom..
Click to expand...

As someone opined regarding the Trump-Russia fantasy; “We know that old boy didn’t actually steal any horses, but he’s obviously guilty of trying to avoid being hanged for it.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Orange_Vol1321, 37L1 and 3 others
#31,203
#31,203
AM64 said:
Tulsi did what she had to do ... there was no other way to play it. She basically recused herself for conflict of interest, and that's a mark of honesty rarely found in dims these days. If she voted against Trump as her potential opponent in a presidential race, then she simply becomes guilty of doing what Trump was accused of doing ... using her position to undermine an opponent. If impeachment gets to the senate, the conflict of interest point will be interesting for Warren, Bernie, etc.

The funny thing is that you can legitimately take steps that harm an opposing candidate ... or at least you could before dems dropped an outboard motor in the pot. Now it just looks like abuse of power to stab an opponent in the back regardless of how right or wrong the action might be.
Click to expand...
That is in no way indicative of "honesty". It's indicative of self preservation and ambition.
 
#31,204
#31,204
Velo Vol said:
Is math different in Ohio than it is in Kansas?
Click to expand...

Likely not, but I'd bet rural Kansans had more sense than to propose "new math". I'd also bet a lot of people NOT in publish or perish academic environments wouldn't diddle with how math has been done for decades ... "anti derivative" my ass.
 
#31,205
#31,205
One thing that is really curious is that McConnell will not allow a vote on funding to improve election security. That has broad, bipartisan support.

Why is he blocking it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
#31,207
#31,207
Septic said:
Every government agency tasked with investigating Russian interference verified it as fact. The media reported it because all of the government (except the WH) reported it.

Whether trump was involved is debatable, but that it occured (and is still occuring, isn't). Unfortunately, the conflation of the two is low hanging fruit for the lazy.
Click to expand...

Big deal - foreign interference has been going on for decades. Ever hear Radio Moscow back in the 60s or perhaps earlier. We had our own version called VOA (Voice of America). Countries have been attempting to influence elections ever since monarchies were pounded into the ground. Are you saying that people are more susceptible to "interference" today because they are dumber than we were 50 years ago? If that's the case, it's one of those rare times I think I could agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, NCFisher, McDad and 1 other person
#31,208
#31,208
NCFisher said:
As someone opined regarding the Trump-Russia fantasy; “We know that old boy didn’t actually steal any horses, but he’s obviously guilty of trying to avoid being hanged for it.”
Click to expand...
It seems the opposite is true with the current investigation.
"It seems he did steal the horses and refuses to provide an alibi."
 
#31,210
#31,210
hog88 said:
She offer Trump the opportunity to testify, nowhere in the link you posted did she offer him the opportunity to call any witnesses. Stop making **** up.
Click to expand...
His witnesses were under subpoena. He can still call anyone he wants.
 
#31,212
#31,212
NCFisher said:
Well, no, it isn't debatable at all. Are you proposing that FBI and our intelligence apparatus - with "six ways to Sunday to get back at you" - can't nail Trump if the evidence exists? The IG report: that every single FBI procedural, legal, and ethical abuse of power, exculpatory omission, 'mistake' and 'error' - just coincidentally went against Trump and team? That is some biblical, pre-ordained bad fooking luck, eh?

Talk about low-hanging laziness.

You can stop doing what you admonish others for; collating. Such as collating the existence of Russian meddling with Trump or anyone associated with the campaign. Even thought "media reported it and government reported it" until they no longer could because it didn't happen. And because their agenda and bias did not allow them them to take a breath anytime in the three years prior to spring of 2019 and the release of the Let's Put Mueller's Name on This Report, the left never considered that the meme was a complete fabrication. Or simply didn't care that it was.

Yeah, we'll not be taking scolding from you today.
Click to expand...
I suspect every time the FBI makes a mistake, from an investigation stand point, it’s in their favor. Same with all police investigations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, hjeagle1vol, RockyTop85 and 3 others
#31,213
#31,213
lawgator1 said:
One thing that is really curious is that McConnell will not allow a vote on funding to improve election security. That has broad, bipartisan support.

Why is he blocking it?
Click to expand...

What else has been attached to it, and how much does it cost; did it involve the creation of some new three or four letter agency? You can bet no legislation up for consideration is about just one topic and isn't laden with pork or poison pills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and NCFisher
#31,215
#31,215
lawgator1 said:
One thing that is really curious is that McConnell will not allow a vote on funding to improve election security. That has broad, bipartisan support.

Why is he blocking it?
Click to expand...

Because he obviously wants Russia to elect the president. And hates babies and old people.

Or, insanity aside, Democrat proposals demand a DC-centrist, top-down approach to the issue (and cybersecurity), that is problematic chiefly because states must remain autonomous in their elections. They also should not be dictated to as to security vendors and requiring social media companies to give government a laundry list of who purchases ads.

It's a continuation of the "Moscow-Mitch" theme which proposed that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama could not (guffaw!...chortle!) do anything about 2016 election interference because McConnell wouldn't allow it. Really.

There is a valid balance of powers debate here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#31,217
#31,217
AM64 said:
What else has been attached to it, and how much does it cost; did it involve the creation of some new three or four letter agency? You can bet no legislation up for consideration is about just one topic and isn't laden with pork or poison pills.
Click to expand...

I need to update my comment. Moscow Mitch did allow $250 million in funding, but blocked bipartisan calls for more.

McConnell, Decried As 'Moscow Mitch,' Approves Election Security Money

One thing that I do not understand that he did block was the requirement that each electronic vote be tied to a paper ballot, as well.

Proposals include a mandate that every ballot in the United States have a paper backup; requiring campaigns to report contacts with foreign officials; automatic sanctions for nations that interfere in elections; and more.
Click to expand...

I would think everybody supports that provision, and probably the others as well. They should, anyway.
 
#31,221
#31,221
luthervol said:
It seems the opposite is true with the current investigation.
"It seems he did steal the horses and refuses to provide an alibi."
Click to expand...

Well, no. The star witness was Sondland who eventually had to admit that he voicing nothing but his impression and that indeed the president told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine, specifically no quid-pro-quo. Further, we see the president discussing investigations in to 2016 Ukrainian interference and potential Biden corruption (in Ukraine) as a favor to *us*, the "our country that's been through a lot".

That alone should have rationally dispelled the notion. But he further defers to have U.S. AG Barr discuss the matter with him. Now, we have a reciprocal agreement with Ukraine for corruption investigations. Further, if I were demanding you do something to benefit me electorally, I damn sure wouldn't involve the Attorney General! This is Trump-Russia 2.0. Every "witness" was either a bureaucrat who didn't like Trump shaking their tree - a tree that he owns, BTW - or an academic trying to make a legal case of it. All of them giving us nothing more than THEIR opinions.

Tell me, how is the Obama administration publicly acknowledging they threatened to withhold congressionally-approved aid not a problem, but Trump NEVER doing that is a huge problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, 37L1 and AM64
#31,222
#31,222
AM64 said:
Big deal - foreign interference has been going on for decades. Ever hear Radio Moscow back in the 60s or perhaps earlier. We had our own version called VOA (Voice of America). Countries have been attempting to influence elections ever since monarchies were pounded into the ground. Are you saying that people are more susceptible to "interference" today because they are dumber than we were 50 years ago? If that's the case, it's one of those rare times I think I could agree with you.
Click to expand...

We actually take Gov't leaders out to influence foreign elections to our liking. It's why the CIA exists. Call them black ops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, AM64, NCFisher and 1 other person
#31,223
#31,223
volfanhill said:
I suspect every time the FBI makes a mistake, from an investigation stand point, it’s in their favor. Same with all police investigations.
Click to expand...

Not with multiple and separate, hand-picked groups within the FBI and DOJ, you don't. And you damned sure don't when your path is determining whether a presidential candidate and president-elect is conspiring with foreign adversaries. You don't with multiple FISA applications, and you don't falsify the information to get them.

This is a whole different level of coincidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and 37L1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top