The Impeachment Thread

[NCFisher]

GOP-led committee probed possible Ukraine interference in 2016 election and found nothing worth pursuing, sources say - CNNPolitics
The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee looked into allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence to support the claims, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Did Ukraine interfere in the 2016 election? Three questions.

Independent experts say that is unequivocally a conspiracy theory. According to Mr. Trump’s own former national security adviser Thomas Bossert, it has been “totally debunked.” Extensive evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence has shown that Russia was the key actor in social media meddling and the hacking of Democratic servers in the 2016 campaign.

You are a great spokesman for the far right.

I can't help what a "Republican-led" committee did or did not find. I'm pointing out the fact that the July 2017 meeting was a year AFTER Trump had begun forming his view on Ukraine.

Let's be clear and not bundle separate elements of concern. There's the inescapable matter of Ukraine officials absolutely interfering; we know this because they were convicted in Ukrainian court last Dec. According to Zelensky, it may be that matter and other people involved, is not entirely closed.

There's the Crowdstrike server element which likely is chasing a golden goose; it's inconceivable someone would not have destroyed the data by now. A Ukrainian, Russian national owns or has majority stake in the company, hence the allusion of the server being in Ukraine. Aside from that conjecture, the entire episode of the FBI not examining those servers is cause for raise eyebrows. "Well, they gave a backup copy to the FBI which is even better!" - nonsense. An administrator can specify what does and does not go into the backup. That the FBI did not insist with subpoena on examining the actual servers is inexcusable. But that was the state of Comey's FBI in general.

Further, Shokin has sworn affadavit to the effect that he was expressly fired because he would not forgo the Burisma investigation, and there are Ukrainians who both back and deny his testimony.

So, there is no one thing re: Ukraine interference, but rather multiple elements. Anyone saying it has been debunked is either talking about one thing but not the others, or parroting that 'expert'. To date, I'm aware of no one with U.S. criminal powers to compel having investigated Ukraine concerns, and certainly no one who isn't a target of the current DOJ investigations. John Durham is now doing that. I'll be satisfied with the resulting DOJ finding; how about you?

Is Politico a "far-right" spokesman? I'll leave this here, again: Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire and wait for 'experts' to pretend it doesn't exist, again.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I would have bet money that "lol" would have been your only reply to that. It's what you always post, when you don't have an answer, but still want to get the last word in.

I actually had a big reply typed, but then realized that I actually feel sorry for you that you believe some of the crap that you believe. it's a pity laugh.

 

[NCFisher]

My argument was simple its not a transcript. Quadruple down on your foolishness as far as I care, fact remains.

It's just like 'collusion', Mick, the term everyone used for conspiracy. We all have an understanding of what's being said.
Your objection is duly noted but everyone has referred to "the transcript" or "the rough transcript"; it's not a Fox thing or right-wing phenomenon.

Resume windmill fight.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[Mick]

It's just like 'collusion', Mick, the term everyone used for conspiracy. We all have an understanding of what's being said.
Your objection is duly noted but everyone has referred to "the transcript" or "the rough transcript"; it's not a Fox thing or right-wing phenomenon.

Resume windmill fight.

You're the one that got all bent out of shape by my response to mcdad saying he hadn't seen the "transcript" before. My comment was "you still haven't". I was correct then and I'm still correct. I'm glad I can get you all worked up by refuting your own intentional misleading statements. Keep up the good fight, because Trumps balls aren't going to lick themselves.

 

[NCFisher]

I skimmed it when it was first posted here.

Based on the definition of the central authority in Article II and the prescribed form of the request in Article IV, I didn’t see it as providing any excuse for Trump.

I don’t think anybody is saying Trump “made up” that treaty, but, unless I’ve overlooked something, the argument that the treaty exonerates him is made up.

I realize that was just part of your argument. Didn’t mean to single it out but it’s an element of the story that gets brought up less infrequently.

There's no doubt Trump is entirely within his powers to bring the 2016 election concerns up; Ukrainians have been convicted of meddling in it, whether his basis for doing so is completely accurate, partially, or not at all (assuming he's unaware of it). And unless we're to say that running for office exempts one from scrutiny - which we know NOT to be the case of candidate Trump - then a president can certainly voice that concern. Prominent concerns of potential impropriety have shadowed the Bidens for years; no one has really looked into it.

I don't think it provides an excuse because he doesn't require one, and seemed to understand the AG would be the point man should such investigation occur. He acknowledges the AG's necessity by mentioning Barr three times, strange behavior for a man alleged to be pursuing self-interest.

"making it up" is a satirical comment reflecting the ludicrous state of virtually every talking head's breathless exclamations while unaware of or ignoring the treaty. Then, OTOH, seizing on Mulvaney's comments as incriminating when, in fact, presidents do qpq over aid, in the national interest, ALL the time. He said nothing wrong. It's an Orwellian era.

I think Giuliani has been terrible for Trump, is the flashpoint for the 'Crowdstrike server' and Burisma fascination, and for Sondland assuming a Zelensky meeting/aid were predicated on publicly announcing investigations. And Sondland appears the flashpoint for most all the foreign service bureaucrats' mirroring assumptions and alarm.

 

[luthervol]

I can't help what a "Republican-led" committee did or did not find. I'm pointing out the fact that the July 2017 meeting was a year AFTER Trump had begun forming his view on Ukraine.

LOL....You mean after Manafort and Bannon gave him his view?
Trump has been groomed and manipulated by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian influences from the start.
Mueller documents show Manafort pushed Ukraine conspiracy theory
During the 2016 election, Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort pushed the idea that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee servers, Manafort’s deputy told investigators during the special counsel’s Russia investigation.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

LOL....You mean after Manafort and Bannon gave him his view?
Trump has been groomed and manipulated by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian influences from the start.
Mueller documents show Manafort pushed Ukraine conspiracy theory
During the 2016 election, Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort pushed the idea that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee servers, Manafort’s deputy told investigators during the special counsel’s Russia investigation.

Neither one hacked the servers.

 

[NCFisher]

You're the one that got all bent out of shape by my response to mcdad saying he hadn't seen the "transcript" before. My comment was "you still haven't". I was correct then and I'm still correct. I'm glad I can get you all worked up by refuting your own intentional misleading statements. Keep up the good fight, because Trumps balls aren't going to lick themselves.

The only time Trump's balls occur to me, Mick, is when people like you come out of the closet to solicit the topic.

This isn't about Trump, Mick. It's about you not being able to accept an election because your "world's smartest woman" and "most qualifiedest candidate ever!" lost to probably the worst Repub candidate in history. It's about Mick not giving a shite about rule of law so long as the object of his dislike/hate is removed, by any means necessary. About treacherous people in government who think like Mick, and Mick 'journalists'.

Trump is incidental, but probably the most significant president for a moment in time we seen in a while. He kicks you right back in the nuts, even getting in the first nut kick at times, and you folks mouth agape and eyes wide, can't believe you're on the nut-kick receiving end for a change.

I want the DOJ investigations to run their course, and traitors hanged on the gate. I want Trump re-elected to insure the probes and indictments are protected, and Barr be ready to appoint Durham as special counsel if Trump isn't elected. And leftist media who acted as praetorian guard to be figuratively locked in their tower and torched. I want him to continue negotiating better trade deals and not using our military as loosely as both parties have been. I even want you to continue having more job opportunities and provide for your own leftist family, Mick.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

The only time Trump's balls occur to me, Mick, is when people like you come out of the closet to solicit the topic.

This isn't about Trump, Mick. It's about you not being able to accept an election because your "world's smartest woman" and "most qualifiedest candidate ever!" lost to probably the worst Repub candidate in history. It's about Mick not giving a shite about rule of law so long as the object of his dislike/hate is removed, by any means necessary. About treacherous people in government who think like Mick, and Mick 'journalists'.

Trump is incidental, but probably the most significant president for a moment in time we seen in a while. He kicks you right back in the nuts, even getting in the first nut kick at times, and you folks mouth agape and eyes wide, can't believe you're on the nut-kick receiving end for a change.

I want the DOJ investigations to run their course, and traitors hanged on the gate. I want Trump re-elected to insure the probes and indictments are protected, and Barr be ready to appoint Durham as special counsel if Trump isn't elected. And leftist media who acted as praetorian guard to be figuratively locked in their tower and torched. I want him to continue negotiating better trade deals and not using our military as loosely as both parties have been. I even want you to continue having more job opportunities and provide for your own leftist family, Mick.

***** Post of the Year #5 from NCFisher.........keep'em coming........the TRUTH is what you're bringing.

 

[NCFisher]

LOL....You mean after Manafort and Bannon gave him his view?
Trump has been groomed and manipulated by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian influences from the start.
Mueller documents show Manafort pushed Ukraine conspiracy theory
During the 2016 election, Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort pushed the idea that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee servers, Manafort’s deputy told investigators during the special counsel’s Russia investigation.

For your implication to stick, we have to assume that Manafort and Bannon also gave Obama/Biden their view, correct?
The *fact* is, that the U.S. has been aware of and considering Ukraine corruption in the context of U.S. aid for some time; Trump didn't invent it. I replied to your contention (via linked article) that Putin told Trump what to think a year LATER, and half a year AFTER the Politico article.

You are aware that Trump has come to accept that Russian interfered in the election AND the DNC hack as early as Jan 11th 2017, correct? https://nypost.com/2017/01/11/trump-acknowledges-russia-was-behind-dnc-hack/

That he has levied sanctions on Russia/Russians numerous times and ejected officials? That we've been attacking their power grid for some time over the meddling? US ramping up digital attacks on Russia's power grid: report

Your side has been wrong about everything since mid-2016. Now, you can bide your time while DOJ investigates links between 2016, Ukraine, and other countries. And relive every moment the Obama administration did nothing about the cyberattacks because he didn't want to piss off Russia.

 

[Velo Vol]

Trump is either a moron for thinking there is any comparison or believes his worshipers are morons.
I guess it could be both but it certainly can not be neither.

Both.

 

[luthervol]

For your implication to stick, we have to assume that Manafort and Bannon also gave Obama/Biden their view, correct?

No, that's not correct at all.

The big difference is Trump has been advised by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian forces with an agenda and world view that differs from the US's official position.

Trump loves and admires Putin. Why that is true is debatable. No one should ever forget Trump standing on the world stage and taking Putin's word over that of US intelligence.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No, that's not correct at all.

The big difference is Trump has been advised by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian forces with an agenda and world view that differs from the US's official position.

Trump loves and admires Putin. Why that is true is debatable. No one should ever forget Trump standing on the world stage and taking Putin's word over that of US intelligence.

 

[Orangeburst]

No, that's not correct at all.

The big difference is Trump has been advised by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian forces with an agenda and world view that differs from the US's official position.

The Presidents position is the official US foreign policy position.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

The United States now has two Presidents impeached for embarrassing Hillary Clinton.

 

[luthervol]

The Presidents position is the official US foreign policy position.

Debatable.
If he has a public stance that is recommended and supported by the official foreign policy community, and a different private stance; which is the official US foreign policy position?

 

[Orangeburst]

Debatable.
If he has a public stance that is recommended and supported by the official foreign policy community, and a different private stance; which is the official US foreign policy position?

Does not matter. He is leader of the Executive branch. What do you think all this pushback from the Repubs about the Syria withdrawal was all about?

 

[Orangeburst]

Debatable.
If he has a public stance that is recommended and supported by the official foreign policy community, and a different private stance; which is the official US foreign policy position?

And I will further state that your belief in the bureaucracy setting policy over an elected executive is disturbing. They are advisors.

 

[volfanhill]

Best thing I saw on the internet today. Something for everyone.

 

[NCFisher]

No, that's not correct at all.

The big difference is Trump has been advised by pro-Russian / anti-Ukrainian forces with an agenda and world view that differs from the US's official position.

Trump loves and admires Putin. Why that is true is debatable. No one should ever forget Trump standing on the world stage and taking Putin's word over that of US intelligence.

The president, and president alone, *is* foreign policy. It is logically impossible for HIS policy to differ from "the US's official position", and reckless and untrue to imply he has relied in part or whole with pro-Russian agents, and not his cabinet secretaries. That you believe such things is unflattering.

But you do succinctly encapsulate the entire problem: career bureaucrats who under cross-examination mealey-mouth "serve at the president's pleasure", but actually think they have the right to set policy, run government, and protect their staked-out territories, a Wilsonian relic, now the Resistance! brigade. They should be fired in disgrace for gross insubordination, at the least.

Please with the over the top rhetoric; no one since Reagan has taken a stick to Russia as Trump has. That simply isn't debatable.

 

[NCFisher]

Debatable.
If he has a public stance that is recommended and supported by the official foreign policy community, and a different private stance; which is the official US foreign policy position?

No, it isn't; foreign policy is constitutionally vested to the president alone. There is no constitutional policy or public stance "supported by the official policy community" that doesn't devolve from the president. If the "policy community" bureaucrats do not like the policy, they are obliged to leave. They do not get to publicly or covertly run their own policy. They serve entirely and sum total at the pleasure of the president.
Presidential policy IS official U.S. foreign policy.

 

[AM64]

There is also an abuse of power associated with leveraging military aid to country at war, against their President's willingness to announce an investigation into a political opponent.

...and in the best interest of the facts: The Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, concluded that the origins of the Russia probe were legitimate and that there was no evidence that a political bias played a role in the origins of the investigation.

Or perhaps it was simply investigation of obvious political bribery, and the target happened to be someone in the other party.

As to the other part, how do you "leverage" another country like Ukraine without the threat of economic consequences? Tell me again why we are hemorrhaging foreign aid all over the globe when we have a massive national debt? Could congress be profligate in its spending because politicians are being bribed to make aid packages happen? Remember we do have lifetime members of congress (Clueless Joe was one as a matter of fact), but to the best of my knowledge none of them has had 500 or so birthdays, so where's the congressional wealth coming from?

 

[AM64]

I suppose the House could pass another article next week but, contrary to what has been said here, passing these articles took some degree of political bravery from some of the democrats, which is why they passed it before doing this.

They could always say it’s still ongoing but I mean are the claims this week that he hasn’t been impeached really that convincing once there’s been a vote that we’ve all seen?

We rarely agree - at least in total on things, but I always appreciate your posts. There is reason in them.

Now on the political bravery, I somewhat agree with you. There are a few who live in districts unlikely to be amused by current dim tactics, so it's risky for them. However, for most, their impeachment was pandering to the blood thirsty crowd ... like a professional wrestler to the audience. The one who deserves credit is Tulsi because once again as a presidential candidate herself to abstain was the only honorable course when you consider the charges against Trump.

The last part is really interesting. Now we can have debate over whether the bell was rung, unrung, or if there was a misfire and no sound came out. Gotta love the nonsensical political world.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

It's been over three years since President Trump was elected, can anyone name anything that the Democrats have done to help hard working, blue collar Americans?

Any Democrats want to attempt answering this??