Shameless and corrupt

An election is the final judgement of voters. There is plenty of chicanery in an American election, but almost all of it is on behalf of Democrats. Now these same Democrats want to add a another tier to the process: the right to try to remove a President from office if the President is not also a Democrat while the Democrats have a majority in the House. Here is some more from Drudge which is now anti-Trump and as corrupt as the rest of the media. This is a Democrat perspective, the same kind of vermin who think socialism is the answer.

Trump Nears Defining Hour as Impeachment Goes Public...
Faces limits of his power...
Schiff on Hook to Make Case...
Offenses Include 'Bribery'...
Dem lead lawyer known for prosecuting mobsters, swindlers...
Republican senator: All comes down to motive...
President Considered Firing Intel Inspector General...
In private speech, Bolton says policy decisions guided by personal interest...
Napolitano emerges as top critic...
FACEBOOK Sued for Censoring Posts Naming Whistleblower...
Death Threats Increase...
State Dept faces biggest crisis since McCarthy hysteria...
Aides counseling Trump not to fire Mulvaney...
Senate trial to last 6 WEEKS?
Therapy dogs headed to Capitol Hill...
Cable news showdown...

And to look at things from the other side, this is Victor Davis Hanson on 10 reasons why this impeachment ‘inquiry’ is really a coup. I’ll give you the last one but you should read the other nine as well.

10) Precedent. The indiscriminate efforts to remove Trump over the past three years, when coupled with the latest impeachment gambit, have now set a precedent in which the out party can use impeachment as a tool to embarrass, threaten or seek to remove a sitting president and reverse an election. We are witnessing constitutional government dissipating before our eyes.

Eight years of Obama was all right, but eight seconds of Trump was not. Biden and Clinton corruption as obvious as the moon on a cloudless night while after three years of hunting high and low there has been nothing found that could even begin to tarnish Trump and suggest his intent from start to finish was anything other than to provide honest government, prosperity and even-handed justice. But forecasts on these things are hard to make since you never really know what any of those Republicans really think.

This entry was posted in American politics, Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Shameless and corrupt

  1. Colonel Crispin Berka

    PBS just started their live coverage of the first live hearings on YouTube.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXlbDEATZwM

    They just finished a summary of previous 4 days of events, quite good as a “catch-up” on the issue.

  2. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Dang, Nunes has totally trash-talked the Dems’ grubbiness and the whole proceeding.

  3. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Kent is grinning way too much during his intro. And what is with that bow-tie?

    Need more closeups of the assistant behind Mr Conaway.

  4. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Kent does a lot of broad picture-painting, makes a decent sounding case, but spends very little time on the single crucial question of why investigating the Bidens is bad for the USA. I think he made a decent argument that suspending the aid to Ukraine was bad no matter what was gained in exchange.

  5. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Taylor explains why Ukraine doing the investigations can end up being bad for Ukraine.
    The recurring theme is that the irregular foreign policy that originated in DT’s personal pet project is contrary to the deliberated strategic policy of the State department and Defence.
    USA aims for a rules-based international and domestic order and sovereign self determination as to why Russian encroachment and war should be resisted. Taylor gives a good argument that this is a national interest of USA, and that both suspension of aid and getting embroiled in partisan politics threatens this national interest in the case of Ukraine.

  6. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Ambassador Sondland, like so many others in Trump admin, had to dream up absurd rationalisations of Trump’s audaciously inappropriate thought processes in order to convince others (like Taylor) to go along with DT’s plans. Thus the absurdity that Ukraine owed anything at all to DT specifically as an excuse why he could be justified in imposing the quid pro quo deal on the military aid.

  7. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Kent says the Bidens acted in accordance with USA policy.
    ( Really? The benefits to Hunter seem just a little close to home. )

    Recess.

    Meh. Well I’m going to sleep now, and will have to catch up with the Republican’s cross-examination in the morning. Thanks for following the live commentary from Berka HQ.

  8. A presidential coup before the Dems have confiscated all the guns? Good luck with both.

  9. Zatara

    A Democrat leader whose name I didn’t catch said earlier that the Dems would have to come out like a ball of fire and win this thing within the first few hours of testimony today.

    If that’s true then this case is all over. The two lead witnesses for the Dems were completely useless to the cause. The left had to lead them through their testimony and even then they scored no points.

    Glad they brought in Jim Jordan for the match tho. That man can cut through the BS.

  10. The recurring theme is that the irregular foreign policy that originated in DT’s personal pet project is contrary to the deliberated strategic policy of the State department and Defence.

    Yeah, don’t let the guy who won an election dictate policy, we have to leave it up to the experts. They’re always playing with a full deck and don’t hold the public in contempt at all.

  11. Mother Lode

    Trump really has to go after the people who have engineered this farce – just as Mueller was.

    Perjurers, people who suborn perjury, people maliciously leaking falsehoods, people who have perpetrated crimes who have used the ridiculous parade to misdirect attention – the lot.

    So long as there is no consequence for doing this sort of thing they will keep doing it.

    The career politicians at the very top are the wiliest and would be hardest to get because it would look too political, but you can make damn sure they find it difficult to recruit people to do their dirty work, and if they do leave these agents in no doubt that they will be held accountable with no protection since the political sponsors will throw them under the bus in a heartbeat.

  12. Iampeter

    An election is the final judgement of voters.

    And an impeachment is a way for congress to undo this judgement if they deem it to be necessary.
    That’s the whole reason it was included.

    10 reasons why this impeachment ‘inquiry’ is really a coup.

    There are zero reasons an impeachment is “really a coup” because an impeachment is the opposite of a coup.
    Trying to conflate the two would be an example of that “chicanery” you were saying democrats engage in.

    This is a Democrat perspective, the same kind of vermin who think socialism is the answer.

    What you mean like Trump and his supporters?

    Biden and Clinton corruption as obvious as the moon on a cloudless night

    Then why didn’t the Trump DoJ do anything?
    Why did Trump investigate Trump instead of Clinton? Must be Clintons fault…

    there has been nothing found that could even begin to tarnish Trump and suggest his intent from start to finish was anything other than to provide honest government, prosperity and even-handed justice

    I’m pretty sure even Alex Jones would have enough self awareness not to write something like that…

  13. Mother Lode

    It is sad about Drudge, though.

    He used to be a Never Trumper but it has flared up into full TDS.

    He used to aggregate stories from far and wide, often to expose what the MSM for fake news, now he seems to gravitate toward MSM sites.

    My suspicion is that he is joining with the mainstream. He has certain capital as the outsider who exposes progressive lies, and he is squandering that to have progressives say “It even says that on Drudge, that whacko fascist far-right site” and thus protects MSM lies. Or will until the capital is exhausted.

    I will never understand suicidal allure of cocktail parties.

    I never go to Drudge any more.

  14. miltonf

    Stopped going to Drudge long time ago- just seemed to be links to existing stories. Boring. But he’s certainly turned out to be an uber tool.

  15. miltonf

    Just hope Trump and his guys and gals are tough enough to withstand the evil party. Calling the dems filth is an insult to filth.

  16. Zatara

    And an impeachment is a way for congress to undo this judgement if they deem it to be necessary. That’s the whole reason it was included.

    Not even close.

    “Impeachment in the United States is the process by which a legislature (usually in the form of the lower house) brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representatives. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which officials have been impeached and subsequently convicted for crimes committed prior to taking office. The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. That trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Analogous to a trial before a judge and jury, these proceedings are (where the legislature is bicameral) conducted by the upper house of the legislature, which at the federal level is the Senate.

    Not “Oh, we think the voters made a mistake”.

  17. Iampeter

    Impeachment in the United States is the process by which a legislature (usually in the form of the lower house) brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed,

    That’s not correct. Impeachment is purely political and doesn’t require nor does it deal with any real “charges” of crime. Those would happen separate to and after any impeachment. Nor are any crimes necessary for impeachment in any way.
    Where did you quote this nonsense from?

    Not “Oh, we think the voters made a mistake”.

    That’s exactly what it is.

  18. FelixKruell

    Biden and Clinton corruption as obvious as the moon on a cloudless night while after three years of hunting high and low there has been nothing found that could even begin to tarnish Trump and suggest his intent from start to finish was anything other than to provide honest government, prosperity and even-handed justice.

    Sorry just choked on my wheeties there for a moment.

    Nothing found??? To even suggest he might have a different motive? One like personal enrichment, or vengeance against his personal enemies? Do you even read his tweets? Let alone follow all the court cases on foot, or that he or his surrogates have lost?

    Epic level of denial…

  19. Tom

    Epic level of denial…

    Leftism is a mental illness.

  20. So what is Trump guilty of that Mueller could not prove?

    If Mueller could not prove it, why is he a witness?

  21. JC

    Kruell

    What’s been found?

    ———————

    It looks really ugly for the D’rats. Someone is claiming he will be releasing documents leaked from the Ukraine that implicates Kerry and Biden families glomming money.

    This is going to be wild.

  22. Trump is innocent.

    Free Julian Assange.

    Free Roger Stone.

    Epstein didn’t kill himself.

  23. JC

    And Brennan had Seth Rich killed. I’m convinced of this one (almost).

  24. Zatara

    That’s not correct. Impeachment is purely political and doesn’t require nor does it deal with any real “charges” of crime.

    In Iampeter world perhaps. It tends to be way off in left field after all.

    Meanwhile, back on earth, the US Constitution disagrees.

    Article II, Section 4.
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

  25. JC

    Lol The D’rat star witness (Kent] reckons Hunter Biden is likely to be a crook and Joe Biden’s role should be investigated.

    This is really going well for the D’rats. Excellent first day.

    Biden is done I think.

  26. yarpos

    You have a strange view of Drudge. In the end they are a news aggregation site, not a journalistic / commentariate site. Your percieved bias may be your own.

  27. Tel

    Kent says the Bidens acted in accordance with USA policy.
    ( Really? The benefits to Hunter seem just a little close to home. )

    He means they were all doing it.

    Joseph Cofer Black (former CIA official and Romney 2012 adviser) got a job at Burisma in the Ukraine.

    Paul Pelosi, Jr was working at a bunch of companies with resource connections … generally companies that disappear before too long (Natural Blue Resources, Viscoil, NRGLab) see https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/10/nancy-pelosi-may-have-her-own-ukraine-problem/

    Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz (step-son of John Kerry) and Devon Archer run “Rosemont Capital” which in turn operates a join venture “Bohai Harvest RST” in China getting remarkably generous support from the state owned Bank of China.

    Igor Pasternak (came to America from Ukraine, continues to have small arms business connections with Ukraine) turns out to be a major donor to Adam Schiff. The Pentagon’s Rapid Reaction Technology Office happens to be providing funding for a rigid airship called “The Pelican” made by Worldwide Aeros Corp … leading around to Pasternak again.

    The Atlantic Council gets funding from Burisma Group to run “educational” tours of key congressional staff into the Ukraine, and a recent “study trip” included Thomas Eager who just happens to work for Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee.

  28. C.L.

    Why does Schiff always look like he’s just seen a ghost?

  29. Zatara

    Why does Schiff always look like he’s just seen a ghost?

    More like someone suddenly shoved a carrot up his arse… sometime he wasn’t expecting one that is.

  30. FelixKruell

    JC:

    What’s been found?

    On enrichment? The fact he didn’t properly distance himself from his businesses, so benefits every time someone seeking to curry favour with the president stays at one of his properties. That and the constant efforts to hold government functions at his properties, where he again personally benefits. Hence the various emolument clause cases making their way through the courts.

    On personal vengeance? He has called for pretty much every one of his political opponents to be investigated and jailed. He has maligned and attacked every public servant or judge that displeases him, even if he himself appointed them not so long ago. And he has, at the very least tried, to use his position and the powers that come with it to pursue that vengeance.

  31. JC

    The enrichment issue is not part of the impeachment articles.
    Vengeance is not part of the impeachment charges.
    Attacking civil servants isn’t either.

    You’re an idiot, kruell. You should be impeached out of here.

  32. Zatara

    If the Dems had anything to charge Trump with they wouldn’t STILL be struggling to find anything that might possibly stick to impeach him with.

    There is a reason they haven’t drawn up Articles of Impeachment yet, this is still a fishing expedition in search of an actual crime to investigate.

  33. Mother Lode

    You have a strange view of Drudge. In the end they are a news aggregation site, not a journalistic / commentariate site. Your percieved bias may be your own.

    He choice of news to aggregate is where bias can come in.

  34. Kneel

    “That’s not correct. Impeachment is purely political and doesn’t require nor does it deal with any real “charges” of crime. Those would happen separate to and after any impeachment. Nor are any crimes necessary for impeachment in any way.


    Correct – impeachment is meant to protect citizens from those who would/have technically not committed a crime (or maybe they have, but that’s a separate issue) from holding public office – if they can’t be indicted, they can still be impeached. For a president, impeachment must come before indictment.

    Not “Oh, we think the voters made a mistake”.

    That’s exactly what it is.
    No, it’s not.
    See above.
    It is NOT a “voters mistake” to elect an official that has hidden dubious if not illegal activities – such may not have been public knowledge until AFTER the election. Impeachment is a way to “de-elect” an office holder who is a morally bankrupt main-chancer interested only in enriching themselves at the expense of the public.
    You know, like HillBillary, Biden et al – all IamPeter’s best mates and fellow travelers.

    Interestingly, Democrats have attempted to impeach 5 of the last 6 Republican presidents. Frankly, if they had issues with the swamp-rat main chancers that prior to DT was the norm for Republican (and Dimocrat) candidates, they have zero chance against Trump.

    Personally, I think the only ones the Dimocrats will have believe them are more Dimocrats – the independents can see well enough the stinking load of crap they are trying to pull off. Hell, even some Dimocrat voters see it, and the Republicans, well…

    Trump may well be a loud, arrogant and unpredictable lump, but as far as I can see, he hasn’t done half the crap the previous presidents have done and got away with, and the voters can see that well enough themselves.

  35. Tom

    Why does Schiff always look like he’s just seen a ghost?

    CL, if you can get Foxtel, you must’nt miss Tom Shillue’s hilarious weekly send-ups of Schiff on the Greg Gutfeld Show (Fox News Channel — Foxtel channel 606 down here) at 2pm AEDT on Sunday. He has that shrivelled little head and the beady eyes down to a T. Sample.

  36. Iampeter

    It is NOT a “voters mistake” to elect an official that has hidden dubious if not illegal activities

    Sure, there are other reasons to impeach other than reversing a voters mistake.
    But reversing a voters mistake is also one of them. That’s what all this talk about coups and “will of the voters” are missing.

    Trump may well be a loud, arrogant and unpredictable lump, but as far as I can see, he hasn’t done half the crap the previous presidents have done and got away with

    Well, then I’m not sure what you’re looking at. The corruption of other Presidents is at least done with some effort to cover it up. That indicates at least some shame and respect for their supporters.
    Trump doesn’t give a crap and neither do his cultists. He is brazenly corrupt in a pretty unprecedented manner. Just look at the highly scripted notes that Trump released of his phone call with Ukraine. His team actually thought that was a good idea to release…
    His supporters seriously think they exonerate him. It’s pretty bad.

  37. Confused Old Misfit

    Just look at the highly scripted notes that Trump released of his phone call with Ukraine.

    And your proof that these notes were “scripted” is…?
    For this to be likely you are implying the cooperation of the Ukrainian President and approximately another dozen people party to the call as memorializers.
    I suppose they’ve all been bullied or bought into submission.

  38. Mother Lode

    OmPoida is deteriorating.

    He used to argue in the 2-dimensional way of a person who has no experience. It was like arguing purely on paper, without perspective, without weight, without colour. Everything came back to definitions and rules by which defined concepts could be connected.

    For example, his insisting that any time individuals cooperated, or believed in the value of voluntary cooperation established by the individuals, they became collectivists. That was really painful.

    Now he is telling us he knows that the transcript was scripted. (“It must be. The word ‘script’ is in ‘transcript’!”) and therefore a falsehood – without any real evidence of either.

    This is Monty level.

  39. Tel

    On enrichment? The fact he didn’t properly distance himself from his businesses, so benefits every time someone seeking to curry favour with the president stays at one of his properties.

    That’s the best you can come up with?

    Some foreign nobody might pay a few hundred bucks to stay at a Trump hotel and after costs and tax and everything else that would add perhaps 50c to Trump’s entire nett worth? You know I heard that the hotel managers post coded messages on Twitter … so Trump knows who stays where, and how much they use the minibar.

  40. Tel

    So Erdogan, nice of you to stay at my hotel … not that I’m in the business anymore you understand I like to keep an eye on things. Tell you head of security to give back the towels by the way.

  41. Kneel

    “Well, then I’m not sure what you’re looking at.

    Just have a look WITHOUT any prejudice.
    FFS, Biden BRIBED the Ukraine by threatening to withhold funding – $1B. And bragged about it ON CAMERA! Trump said the didn’t think that was right and encouraged them to restart the investigation that the bribe was meant to stop. Remember, it was supposed to be about corruption – why is an investigation into Trump with no evidence other than 3rd or 4th hand “he said, she said” junk ok, but an investigation into Biden not OK? According to the Dims: Biden good, Trump bad. You really think ordinary voters don’t notice what’s going on? You really think the hard-left lurch of the Dims will garner them more votes? You really think Trump is racist? etc etc. Get your hand off it and actually think – a novel idea for you, I know, but hope springs eternal.

    The corruption of other Presidents is at least done with some effort to cover it up. That indicates at least some shame and respect for their supporters.
    Trump doesn’t give a crap and neither do his cultists. “

    Some would suggest the former are just slimebags, while the latter is doing what he said he would, regardless of whether his opponents approve or not, and then letting everyone know what is going on. No coverup, just facts. Sure, there may be stuff not noted, but so what? Investigative journalists managed to uncover Watergate, Lewinsky etc etc. Other than fluff that doesn’t withstand a real investigation, what have they found on Trump after 3 years of trying? Bugger all! But they won’t stop, oh no.

    “Sure, there are other reasons to impeach other than reversing a voters mistake.
    But reversing a voters mistake is also one of them”

    In your dreams. The only “mistake” voters can make is marking the wrong candidate – voting for a Dem instead of a Rep (or visa versa). When the majority of the electoral college votes for one party, that is not a mistake, it’s a deliberate choice. You are within your rights to think it’s wrong, but that is NOT a reason to impeach.
    The whole “get Trump” is simply because he’s a swamp drainer – and the rest of them are up to their arses in alligators and planning on digging a ditch from the local river to keep the water rising, while many middle and lower class Americans are struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table. Everyone prior to Trump only cared about the national numbers and Wall St. You think black Americans haven’t noticed that Trump set up special economic zones that have lower taxation etc in the places where more investment is needed for these people? When at least some, if not most, are in areas where blacks are the majority and the “main street” economy was crap? Really?

    I suspect Trump will be exonerated, Biden will be dropped faster than a parcel in a game of “pass the parcel” in Syria, and Trump will get an even bigger vote in 2020. The media will be all head-explody about it and demand – DEMAND I say! – he “begone”.

  42. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Frank, I was (mostly) repeating the arguments as given, not endorsing them.

    It might surprise you to know that Trump isn’t clearly on safe ground here. The President implicitly has the power to conduct diplomacy directly (i.e. foreign policy) by virtue of the explicit power to appoint and remove Ambassadors. But the President does not have the power to act against the will of Congress according to Justice Jackson’s interpretation:

    When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his powers are at their lowest ebb.

    It was the will of Congress that military aid be given to Ukraine because Congress approved it.
    Holding up the aid was stupid and short-sighted and “crazy” but that does not make it illegal. Being against the will of Congress may do it. Just shows again that Trump is an egomaniac who was never going to suddenly become a “team player” of the sort that a POTUS has to be to interoperate with the bureaucracy’s established long term strategies and protocols. And while that disruption should not be illegal it is likely nearly half the country would accept it as an excuse for impeachment. Speaking of…

  43. FelixKruell

    JC:

    The enrichment issue is not part of the impeachment articles.
    Vengeance is not part of the impeachment charges.
    Attacking civil servants isn’t either.

    You’re an idiot, kruell. You should be impeached out of here.

    It helps if you read the quote of Steve’s I was responding to….rather than just typing away, spittle flying here there and everywhere.

  44. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Zatara #3211425

    Article II, Section 4.
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Thanks Zatara, so the Dems’ options are what? Treason because the actual delay in funding, plus the internal proposal to withhold it completely, was against the national security of the USA (or against Congress)? How many other administrations have proposed options internally that would have been bad for the USA but were never actioned – and nobody thought to impeach the president for merely proposing them? How many people are going to believe that one aid payment amongst many preceding and anticipated payments, and potentially conditional on a “favour” which was already being organised by Ukraine and could have been done on CNN in less than a month, was going to seriously jeopardise the national security of the USA? The Ukraine maybe, but not the USA. I don’t think the American people will believe it.
    Especially when Presidents (of both countries) come and go and any entanglement in USA domestic politics by the Ukraine President could be swept under the rug when either person leaves office. Obama started a “reset” with Russia after their freaking MH17 shootdown, so surely a bit of partisan grandstanding by Ukraine is not a diplomatically fatal move by comparison.

    It is certainly not bribery because Pres Zelensky was not offered any personal enrichment that we know.

    The funniest part is that testimony (so far on the first day) has said at the conclusion of the phone call asking for the “favour” the Ukrainians did not yet even know about Trump’s idea to withhold the military aid! I don’t recall anyone explaining how Trump expected to get his quid pro quo without dangling the quid. It would stand to reason that someone versed in The Art Of The Deal would try to get what he wanted as “a favour” first and would only escalate to more pressure and enticements if asking for a favour didn’t work.

    But that is also the thing I haven’t heard explained, which is why Trump (supposedly) did not actually stipulate the aid condition to the Ukrainians after the “investigations” public statement was not forthcoming from them. It would be unlike Trump to change his mind about something like that. So did one of Trump’s WH staff or some quick-thinking public servant (once again) strongly advise Trump to save the USA from himself and not go ahead with something unwise, or did they decide to disobey the POTUS?

    Wait, I’ve got it. He’s committed the misdemeanour of being orange and bad. It’s a clear cut case.

  45. FelixKruell

    Tel:

    That’s the best you can come up with?

    No, it’s just the simplest example of the two issues I raised in response to Steve’s quote. The Ukrainian example is another good one.

    And 50 cents or $5m – it’s unethical, and probably a breach of the emoluments clause.

  46. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Ah, just got to Castro’s questions. So the alleged reason the WH released the aid and called off the favour is because they got wind of a whistleblower about to… do what whistleblowers do with regards to the “investigations” request. And still no testimony that the military aid was ever dangled.
    So we are down to how bad the investigations request was, or how bad the WH thought they might be interpreted by the public. Is this really a plan where Zelensky is going to tell the world he is going to investigate the Bidens, and nobody in the Trump WH is going to say that they asked for such investigations to happen? Wouldn’t most governments investigate potentially corrupt dealings of foreign investors, shareholders, and directors anyway? Isn’t it the sort of thing Trump would love to brag about, so it was going to be revealed anyway? Why did WH change their mind?
    What exactly is the worst part here, that the investigations were going to happen, or that the President had asked for them as a favour?

  47. Iampeter

    And your proof that these notes were “scripted” is…?

    Is what’s written in the footer of the document itself:

    CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty” Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

    There’s also some suggestion the actual transcript was moved to a secured server normally reserved for highly classified material when staff raised their concerns about the call. Whether true or not, no actual transcript has been released, just this summary of the call which confirms the whistle-blowers accusations, which is why it’s not clear why they thought they should release this. Except for the usual Trump-and-his-supporters-don’t-care reasoning given how brazen he is.

    Key quote:

    Those White House officials were “directed by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored” and load it onto a separate, super-secure system used to store classified information of an especially sensitive nature.

    I suppose they’ve all been bullied or bought into submission.

    Yep it’s pretty bad. I suggest reading that full article “It’s Not Just Trump” that I’ve linked to get some idea.

  48. JC

    It helps if you read the quote of Steve’s I was responding to….rather than just typing away, spittle flying here there and everywhere.

    Nope it doesn’t.

  49. Iampeter

    He used to argue in the 2-dimensional way of a person who has no experience. It was like arguing purely on paper, without perspective, without weight, without colour.

    Pointing out that you can’t string two thoughts together without contradicting yourselves and you really have no business engaging in these kinds of discussions is not to “argue in 2-dimension.”
    Experienced people wouldn’t trip over themselves at the starting line in every.single.discussion.about.anything.

    For example, his insisting that any time individuals cooperated, or believed in the value of voluntary cooperation established by the individuals, they became collectivists. That was really painful.

    I have never insisted that. This is another example of where “experienced” people would not be confused by what was actually being said. In fact this sounds like a lot of what the leftists here at the Cat say as they make caricatures of true right wing positions sound like.

    Now he is telling us he knows that the transcript was scripted. (“It must be. The word ‘script’ is in ‘transcript’!”) and therefore a falsehood – without any real evidence of either.

    It’s a “script” or a “summary” and is not an actual, literal transcript of the phone call because that’s what the released document states. To date no actual transcript has been released, just this summary/script/notes/whatever you want to call it.

  50. JC

    Re the emoluments clause.

    Trump has claimed his investments are no longer managed by him. They are managed by the family.
    This is pretty similar to a blind trust other presidents have set up.
    If we believed what the Bobbsey twins are arguing here (kruell and imploder), then many other presidents would likely have been in breach any time they acted and impacted on one of their investments.
    The accusation he’s in breach is a crock.

  51. JC

    I have never insisted that.

    Countless times. In fact it’s one of the two things this mental asylum resident ever says.

  52. Iampeter

    Countless times. In fact it’s one of the two things this mental asylum resident ever says.

    Then you’d easily be able to provide a link.
    But how much do you want to bet that all you’ll do is just prove what I said, in that you have no idea what you’re saying?

  53. JC

    Every time you’ve accused christians of being collectivists, you fuckwit. You have shown you don’t even come close to understanding the difference between collectivism and free association. Moron.

  54. Iampeter

    Every time you’ve accused christians of being collectivists, you fuckwit. You have shown you don’t even come close to understanding the difference between collectivism and free association. Moron.

    How is me pointing out that Christianity is collectivist an example of, “insisting that any time individuals cooperated, or believed in the value of voluntary cooperation established by the individuals, they became collectivists.”
    You don’t know what collectivism means. Just like I said, you have no reason to be in these conversations other than to embarrass yourself and then get angry and then lash out.

    Also, I’m sure Arky will be here any moment to call for you to be moderated as you’ve spent yet another thread hurling insults and now you’re derailing the thread too.

    Any moment now…

  55. Zatara

    Being against the will of Congress may do it.

    If being against the will of Congress was an issue then every President who ever vetoed a piece of legislature would be eligible for impeachment.

    However, Military Assistance funds are contained in the Defense Authorization bill. They are discretionary spending, as compared to mandatory spending. The President can re-budget those funds as he sees fit, or not spend them at all.

    There are also limitations on Military Assistance funds, criteria which must be met by the country being funded. Standards of things like civil rights records, corruption, etc. must be satisfied before the funds are dispersed. In this case both the State Dept and the Department of Defense has to sign off that the criteria are met.

    It is therefor not at all unusual for the US to tell country X to clean up their act if they want foreign aid. In fact it is the norm that the aid comes with strings attached.

    As to Trump asking Ukraine to investigate possible corrupt or criminal acts, there is a treaty which calls specifically for that. The Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

    Both Hillary and Biden should recognize it. Biden helped pass it in the Senate and Billy Clinton signed it into law.

  56. Dr Fred Lenin

    Impeachment is a way for the fine upstanding corrupt career politicans to teach the ignorant disobedient voters that voting against the aparat has dire consequences for those defying the orders of the ruling class ,,you will never win . The corruption of the left and career politicians is of no consequence . The fit up of the President is considered lawfull if he is not part of the establishment . If I were Trump I would nail the clintons to the floor,they are even more corrupt that yhe Russians , it shouldnt be too hard to nail them . When they are carted off to hard time jail start picking off the others ,career politics is so corrupt they would all be guilty of some criminal offence. Of course I would do the decromats first and let the republicans stew till I got around to them ,I would be fair only jailing the criminal ones which would only be 99.99999999 per cent .
    , ,

  57. JC

    It has been pointed out before .. many times , under your definition, an antique car club is collectivist. You have no understanding what it means you bigoted lunatic.

  58. Mother Lode

    It’s a “script” or a “summary” and is not an actual, literal transcript of the phone call

    See? This is the sort of thing I mean. Not being a literal transcript need mean no more than malapropisms, stammers, pauses, coughs, and such are not included. Everybody else understands this, but his clunking brain tells him “Not literal, therefore cannot be trusted.” The entire practice of transcripts is a record of what precisely was said as a primary source.

    He would have been a great kid getting the plastic spaceman in a box of corn flakes. His mum pleased he has got a unexpected little toy, but our Poida is furious. “It is supposed to be a box of corn flakes. This isn’t a corn flake. How do we know what these other things are. I could be eating bits of dead skin!”

    It’s a “script” or a “summary” – these are actually quite different ideas. He is trying to make it look like your accepting it as a summary means accepting it as ‘script’. And even then the transcript is not supposed to just be a summary. It is the thing that can be summarised.

    Sinking to Monty level.

    Next thing you know he will be stealing Monty’s rakes.

  59. Mother Lode

    Being against the will of Congress may do it.

    The Americans very deliberately separated out the powers of the Legislature and the Executive (and the Judiciary).

    It was so they could be checks on each other. If Congress and the President disagree it does not mean the President must obey Congress.

  60. Iampeter

    Everybody else understands this, but his clunking brain tells him “Not literal, therefore cannot be trusted.” The entire practice of transcripts is a record of what precisely was said as a primary source.

    No one believes that when they say it is not a verbatim record they mean coughs, pauses and stammers.

    And as we saw from the whistle-blower report, the actual transcript is on a secure server that it is not meant to be stored on:

    Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

    In other words, you’re trying to accuse me of doing the very thing you’re trying to do.

  61. Rob MW

    The idendifiedunidentifiedghost whistleblower is obviously Vald Putin with a twist, he has first hand knowledge of the phone call because he was listening in under the very noses of the very excited & busy bureaucrats making impeachment policy.

    Hey look! Carpe Donktum found the whistleblower (right there at the impeachment hearing)

  62. Mother Lode

    In other words, you’re trying to accuse me of doing the very thing you’re trying to do.

    Must be because I am a collectivist.

  63. Iampeter

    Must be because I am a collectivist.

    Not because you’re a collectivist but because you are dishonest.

  64. Mother Lode

    Not because you’re a collectivist but because you are dishonest.

    Is that in a transcript?

  65. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Trump has claimed his investments are no longer managed by him. They are managed by the family.
    This is pretty similar to a blind trust other presidents have set up.

    Yeah it’s just like a blind trust, but without the blind bit.

    The fact the name Trump is on most of their investments makes it even more obvious.

  66. Iampeter

    Is that in a transcript?

    No, it’s in your posts in this thread.

  67. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Zatara,

    I don’t know what counts as a “veto” here, whether it is just the president’s verbal or written say-so, or whether there’s an official form he has to fill out and sign with some due process. I think the end result is that no veto actually happened. So your analogy with other veto powers may not actually eliminate the possibility of him disobeying Congress there. If what you say about the discretionary spending is true then OK he’s within rights to cancel the payment.

    It’s totally legal and OK for:
    The President to politically attack his political rivals.
    The President to cancel a military aid discretionary spending proposal.
    The Ukraine to investigate corruption in Ukrainian companies with foreign directors.
    The Justice Department or State Department to investigate a USA citizen for foreign corrupt dealings.

    The question is whether it is legal for the President to combine all these activities together by using his public office to threaten cancellation of military aid discretionary spending to push Ukraine to politically attack his own domestic campaign rivals for their suspected foreign corrupt dealings.

    Well let’s get one thing out of the way, it’s not the Hatch Act because that exempts “an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President”, and the EOP includes the White House Office, the National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget. So that means the President, and Volker, and probably Giuliani are all exempt. So they can engage in partisan activity as long as it isn’t illegal by any other rule. There might be an issue with anyone from the rest of the public service doing this investigation of the Bidens because of the Hatch Act, and here are echoes of Obama’s FISA investigation of Trump campaign. It doesn’t matter that Trump was not a political rival to Obama, it could still be interpreted as partisan activity – but Obama-era DOJ has gotten away with it so far.
    In this case Trump & Co tried to outsource the dirt-digging investigation to people who definitely are not bound by the Hatch Act – the Ukrainian law enforcement.

    But is it illegal for any other reason?
    Krishnamoorthi makes a good point about commanders not waiting around to get a personal benefit before they order an attack. I think this, combined with Taylor’s illustration of the importance of the military aid, is enough to show Trump’s plan of leverage over foreigners for partisan dirt digging as being wrong. But just being wrong is not enough to get a court conviction and so not enough to serve as basis for impeachment. It can’t just be considered to be wrong, it has to be illegal by the laws on the books. So where is that law exactly?

    The likely effect of the President’s actions is that he would personally benefit from his public office via a foreign government. Edward Foley at Ohio State Uni argues sometimes it is okay, so the Democrats have to show that Trump’s request was not done in good faith in service of the national interest.
    It can be argued it is in the national interest for electors to know a favoured candidate has been using public office to help enrich his family. The fact that Trump does this for his own family every day of the week with impunity does not affect the morality of investigating whether Biden has been doing the same. OTOH the delay of foreign aid works against him since it was counter-strategic. Still seems like DJT is on shaky ground.

  68. Tel

    But the President does not have the power to act against the will of Congress according to Justice Jackson’s interpretation:

    Obama managed to sign a Treaty with Iran which Congress refused to back. How do you figure that one?

    Obama paid top-up money to the insurance companies so that Obamacare wouldn’t be underfunded and that totally bypassed Congress, and was declared illegal by a court. Impeachable?

    Obama outright refused to enforce immigration law, and after the DACA legislation failed to pass Congress on multiple occasions (DREAM Act rejected 2009, 2010, 2011) it simply got implemented by direct executive action. Sounds like “power to act against the will of Congress” to me.

  69. Tel

    It’s a little known fact that Ronald Reagan was in breach of the emoluments clause when a foreign dignitary said, “Hey I saw your movie the other day!”

  70. Tel

    President Obama was in breach of the emoluments clause when he saw some Russians reading his book.

  71. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Tel, that’s great whataboutism but would help if you could keep to the subject du jour. How do we know they weren’t all cases of Obama getting away with things that were illegal?

    The best explanation I know of is the one given by Zatara in which by design the Executive is neither always superior to, nor always inferior to, the legislative branch. Jackson’s assessment of “lowest ebb” apparently results in nothing when the Congress doesn’t have any other crime they can charge him with. It might mean the President’s power is ordinarily greater than Congress’s but it reduces to be equal to theirs when he opposes them.
    Or…I could just admit I don’t know much about the USA’s balance of powers. Nahhh, that would be too easy.

    Regarding your joke about Reagan, that doesn’t work because your fictional Reagan didn’t instruct the dignitary to write bad reviews about all the other movies at the cinema so that people would only pay to see the Gipper.

  72. Mother Lode

    No, it’s in your posts in this thread.

    You would probably be amazed at how indifferent I am to your sneering.

    The whole of it is something I look at with clinical detachment. It is just the strange behaviours you sometimes see in nature, like the mating dances between birds or the semaphore signalling of insects – all absorbing to the bird and the bug, but for humans merely something to be noted down, classified and forgotten.

    So, there ya go.

  73. JC

    Yeah it’s just like a blind trust, but without the blind bit.

    The fact the name Trump is on most of their investments makes it even more obvious.

    Excellent response, bobbsey 1, you moron.

  74. Iampeter

    Mother Lode, who do you think you’re fooling with that post?
    I’ll let you keep doubling down and projecting your own behavior onto me, as is the standard at the Cat once you’ve been thoroughly proved wrong on multiple levels.

  75. Iampeter

    Obama managed to sign a Treaty with Iran which Congress refused to back. How do you figure that one?

    Obama didn’t sign any treaty with Iran and I’m pretty sure the Senate approves treaties, not Congress.
    If you’re referring to the Iran Nuclear Deal, that was more of a “political commitment” or some such nonsense, that doesn’t require any approval because it doesn’t bind America to anything. In any case both the Senate and Congress approved it for all that it matters.

    Obama paid top-up money to the insurance companies so that Obamacare wouldn’t be underfunded and that totally bypassed Congress, and was declared illegal by a court. Impeachable?

    Yes. Lot’s of Republicans called for impeachment of Obama over all sorts of things and never did anything of course. All talk.
    But suddenly they don’t think there’s anything to see re Trumps actions. Just more hypocrisy from conservatives.

    Obama outright refused to enforce immigration law, and after the DACA legislation failed to pass Congress on multiple occasions (DREAM Act rejected 2009, 2010, 2011) it simply got implemented by direct executive action. Sounds like “power to act against the will of Congress” to me.

    Presidents can absolutely do this, it’s just ill-advised since the next President can just undo it by executive action too. Passing something without Congress means it can be undone without Congress.

    It’s a little known fact that Ronald Reagan was in breach of the emoluments clause when a foreign dignitary said, “Hey I saw your movie the other day!”

    But whether or not Trump is in breach of the emoluments clause is separate to whether Trump should be impeached or not.

  76. Tel

    The fact the name Trump is on most of their investments makes it even more obvious.

    Oh that right, I forgot that Obama took his name off his books when he became President.

    Reagan took his name off his movies too … weird seeing that white box “Redacted” scrolling up at the end.

  77. JC

    Imploder, you sneering idiot, the US most certainly was a signatory to a treaty with Iran.

    Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎, romanized: barnāmeye jāme’e moshtarak (برجام, BARJAM)),[4][5] known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany)[a] together with the European Union.

  78. Tel

    Imploder, you sneering idiot, the US most certainly was a signatory to a treaty with Iran.

    No quite right … Barack Obama is a signatory, signed by him personally, not signed by the US President who never had authority to do so.

  79. Iampeter

    Imploder, you sneering idiot, the US most certainly was a signatory to a treaty with Iran.

    The JCPOA is NOT a treaty. So it didn’t need any approval but everyone approved it anyway.
    It’s a farce wherein Iran got money in exchange for literally nothing. Only Trump’s daliances with his North Korean boyfriend are as bad as what Obama pulled with the Iran deal and everyone let him get away with it.

    This is also why Trump breaking this deal is as empty as him leaving the largely symbolic Paris Accord. But conservatives are celebrating these useless gestures as if the tide is turning or something. Absolutely no idea what’s going on.

  80. FelixKruell

    Tel:

    Oh that right, I forgot that Obama took his name off his books when he became President.

    And that has what to do with Trumps situation?

  81. Iampeter

    Yeah.

    Whatever.

    Thanks for demonstrating “experienced debating.”

    You sure showed me.

  82. Mother Lode

    Ha!

    You need me to respond. It is what trolls feed on.

    Whatever.

  83. Mother Lode

    Sorry, I ought to have included a single point:

    The merit of what I have said, and what you have said, does not rely on you.

    Cats and Kittehs can decide for themselves.

    Now, whatever.

  84. Iampeter hysterically drooling in anger that we’re not falling for his fake Hi Alanist “charm” and Felix avoiding questions.

    Like, what happened to the Mueller indictments?

    Isn’t Mueller a witness?

    What a shit show.

  85. Snoopy

    Via Gateway Pundit

    Michael Coudrey

    @MichaelCoudrey
    · 11h
    Replying to @MichaelCoudrey
    BURISMA HOLDINGS LIMITED, during a period from November 18th 2014 to November 16th 2015 transacted 45 money transfers through MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC in the sum of $3.5M dollars.

    The recipient of the money transfer is Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC.

    Michael Coudrey

    @MichaelCoudrey
    Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC is owned and operated by Devon Archer, the Kerry Family including John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr and Hunter Biden.

    All of whom are also listed as partners in the Rosemont Seneca Fund and other affiliated Rosemont Seneca companies.

  86. Iampeter

    Sorry, I ought to have included a single point:

    The merit of what I have said, and what you have said, does not rely on you.
    Cats and Kittehs can decide for themselves.

    Now, whatever.

    There are no merits to what you’ve said. You’ve just beclowned yourself all thread.
    And no one cares what Cats think. Slimy dishonest idiots like you and raving nut jobs like Frank, JC and others have driven off most intelligent commentators here, assuming there ever were any to begin with. It’s you lot that are “for humans merely something to be noted down, classified and forgotten.”

    As I often say here because it’s so accurate, your total ignorance is only matched by your total lack of self awareness.

  87. JC

    Obviously this round of meds aren’t working for imploder.

    Plodes, you have two basic sneering points of argument.

    1. Conservatives are awful

    2. Everyone is a collectivist including the Qantas frequent flier members.

    Shut and apologise you clown.

  88. Iampeter

    Plodes, you have two basic sneering points of argument.

    No, I have many arguments and positions which are correct. Just from this thread alone:
    1. Pointing out the transcript of Trump’s Ukraine phone call is not a real transcript
    2. Pointing out that Mother Lode is engaging in the very same, dishonest word games that he is accusing me of engaging in
    3. All of Tel’s as usual irrelevant and incorrect points.
    4. Pointing out to you that JCPOA is NOT a treaty
    and so on.

    You’re issue is that you don’t know what you’re talking about and your child-like narrative and talking points don’t work.
    So all you can do is get triggered.
    It’s not like it’s just me, look at your responses to Felix.

    It’s you who needs to shutup and apologize but that would require that self awareness that I mentioned you spergs don’t have.

    Anyway, I’m done with this thread as it’s now been thoroughly derailed by the usual clowns who have being demonstrated wrong on every point as usual and are now just trying to save face by huffing and puffing and embarrassing yourselves to no end.

    There’s only so much cringe comedy one can take.

  89. Mark A

    Iampeter
    #3212193, posted on November 15, 2019 at 6:59 am

    I don’t think you have two points of arguments, you only have one.
    I’m smart and everyone else is stupid.

  90. JC

    No, I have many arguments and positions which are correct. Just from this thread alone

    Nope, just the two I mentioned with the sneering. That’s it. You clown.

  91. JC

    Plodes

    You’re also a terrible example of a concern troll.

  92. Whatever, evasion and concern trolling.

    Very weak sauce.

    Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC is owned and operated by Devon Archer, the Kerry Family including John Kerry Senior, John Kerry Junior, Heinz Jr and Hunter Biden.

    All of whom are also listed as partners in the Rosemont Seneca Fund and other affiliated Rosemont Seneca companies.

    No no, it’s a complete disaster for Trump who must be put on trial for something, what we don’t know exactly.

  93. Zatara

    Getting back to impeachment, an interesting aspect of this one is that six current 2020 Democrat Presidential candidates are members of the US Senate. The same Senators who will serve on the jury if the Trump impeachment actually comes to trial.

    My first observation is that the primaries start in Feb 2020, just how many of those Senators are going to want to be sitting in the trial while their non-Senate opponents (Buttboy, Biden, etc.) are out on the campaign trail?

    Second, the Dem position right now is that Trump is wrong because he used his position to bring attention to his political opponents crimes. So what do you call it when six Dems Senators have a vote on impeaching their opposition candidate?

    Shouldn’t they recuse themselves from the trial and vote?

    Yeah, I know. It was a rhetorical question but seriously, if they don’t want to further out themselves as total hypocrites that’s what justice/fairness would call for.

  94. mh

    Former President Clinton (D) on Thursday advised President Trump to leave fighting impeachment to his staff and focus on his agenda.

    “My message would be, look, you got hired to do a job,” Clinton said during a phone interview with CNN. “You don’t get the days back you blow off. Every day is an opportunity to make something good happen.

    “And I would say, ‘I’ve got lawyers and staff people handling this impeachment inquiry, and they should just have at it,'” he continued. “Meanwhile, I’m going to work for the American people. That’s what I would do.

  95. cohenite

    And no one cares what Cats think. Slimy dishonest idiots like you and raving nut jobs like Frank, JC and others have driven off most intelligent commentators here, assuming there ever were any to begin with.

    Great, I didn’t get a guernsey. Hey pedro, the fuckwit, include me next time.

    Trump is great.

  96. The BigBlueCat

    The NYP front page just goes to show that the impeachment hearing is a circus with Shifty Shiff the ringleader.

    Yesterday’s “star witnesses” could really only talk about what they were told by someone who heard something, and had no smoking gun in terms of first-hand, first-person testimony of any real worth. When asked outright if they could point to an impeachable act, there were crickets. The spin from CNN, ABC, MSNBC et al has been gob-smacking … did they watch the same hearing?? But it does highlight how lock-step the MSM has been with the DNC – no dissenting voices are heard; they are all anti-Trump.

    This will not end well for the Democrats, as they surely must know that Biden will be investigated (and found wanting), the Senate will reject impeachment, and the Dems will be left with a number of pathetic candidates who couldn’t win a game of marbles let alone a presidential contest.

    Pelosi had spent most of the last 3 years saying that any impeachment process needs bipartisan support, but her party has rebelled against her, and now she’s along for the ride. A leader that cannot lead is doomed to failure. Her job is to legislate, and she’s not even doing that.

    If the US electors choose a Democrat over Trump for POTUS in 2020, then how dumb must they be?

  97. The BigBlueCat

    Zatara
    #3212318, posted on November 15, 2019 at 10:00 am
    Getting back to impeachment, an interesting aspect of this one is that six current 2020 Democrat Presidential candidates are members of the US Senate. The same Senators who will serve on the jury if the Trump impeachment actually comes to trial.

    My first observation is that the primaries start in Feb 2020, just how many of those Senators are going to want to be sitting in the trial while their non-Senate opponents (Buttboy, Biden, etc.) are out on the campaign trail?

    Second, the Dem position right now is that Trump is wrong because he used his position to bring attention to his political opponents crimes. So what do you call it when six Dems Senators have a vote on impeaching their opposition candidate?

    Shouldn’t they recuse themselves from the trial and vote?

    Yeah, I know. It was a rhetorical question but seriously, if they don’t want to further out themselves as total hypocrites that’s what justice/fairness would call for.

    Not just a rhetorical question, but one that will need to be asked and answered should the impeachment enquiry ever reach the senate. Especially if it’s Biden and it is found that he did give and receive influence from Ukrainian sources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.