IGX

Know/not know are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Moving on, what Trump asked Zelensky to do was to work with the US Attorney General to look into whether Joe Biden had intervened in Ukrainian affairs to protect his son from a corruption investigation. He asked him to do so because Biden had been vocal about having blocked the investigation. None of that seems crazy to me.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:08 pm Know/not know are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Moving on, what Trump asked Zelensky to do was to work with the US Attorney General to look into whether Joe Biden had intervened in Ukrainian affairs to protect his son from a corruption investigation.

There's no evidence of any of that. Trump did not discover these facts after auditing classes at Quantico and gumshoeing. If there was any evidence of any of that, it would have come from the DOJ/FBI. It didn't. He also told Zelensky there was a server with Crowdstrike, which has been since shown to be Q-Anon levels of insane kooky talk.

He asked him to do so because Biden had been vocal about having blocked the investigation.

You think that's what Biden was saying, and that the then-GOP-controlled House and the entirety of US law enforcement just sat on it?

And if what you are saying is true, why wouldn't you want Trump's advisors' exonerating testimony and and their contemporaneous notes being entered into the record?

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:08 pm Know/not know are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Moving on, what Trump asked Zelensky to do was to work with the US Attorney General...

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:13 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:08 pm Know/not know are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Moving on, what Trump asked Zelensky to do was to work with the US Attorney General to look into whether Joe Biden had intervened in Ukrainian affairs to protect his son from a corruption investigation.

There's no evidence of any of that. Trump did not discover these facts after auditing classes at Quantico and gumshoeing. If there was any evidence of any of that, it would have come from the DOJ/FBI. It didn't. He also told Zelensky there was a server with Crowdstrike, which has been since shown to be Q-Anon levels of insane kooky talk.

He asked him to do so because Biden had been vocal about having blocked the investigation.

You think that's what Biden was saying, and that the then-GOP-controlled House and the entirety of US law enforcement just sat on it?

I assume, with good cause, that he learned about it on Twitter. And why on earth would I doubt the incompetence of the Republicans in the House? Have they ever shown evidence of anything else? No.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:15 pm And if what you are saying is true, why wouldn't you want Trump's advisors' exonerating testimony and and their contemporaneous notes being entered into the record?

You can't be exonerated where there is no wrongdoing, so from their point of view it is consistent.

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:25 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:15 pm And if what you are saying is true, why wouldn't you want Trump's advisors' exonerating testimony and and their contemporaneous notes being entered into the record?

You can't be exonerated where there is no wrongdoing, so from there point of view it is consistent.

GAO said withholding was a crime. The obstruction part is indisputable at this point. How do you think there was no wrongdoing?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:23 pm How do you think there was no wrongdoing?

Trump is FatCat’s OJ

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:23 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:25 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:15 pm And if what you are saying is true, why wouldn't you want Trump's advisors' exonerating testimony and and their contemporaneous notes being entered into the record?

You can't be exonerated where there is no wrongdoing, so from there point of view it is consistent.

GAO said withholding was a crime. The obstruction part is indisputable at this point. How do you think there was no wrongdoing?

The GAO said that it violated the Impoundment Control Act because funds approved by Congress were withheld "for a policy reason." That's not demonstrably true, for one, and more importantly the equally-federal Office of Management and Budget, which actually executed the pause, contends that the White House office used the, “apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President's priorities and with the law."

Since neither you nor I am an expert on this matter, I will say that it's open for debate and that there seems to be a difference of opinion even at the highest levels of the government. However, a procedural violation is not "wrongdoing" and the obstruction charge is ludicrous. If the House wanted to they could have challenged the administration's refusal in court, but did they? No. They withdrew their subpoenas and just carried on with the shit show, because they knew they weren't being led by evidence but by acrimony. They have been looking for a way to disenfranchise voters and impeach Trump for years, facts be damned.

the obstruction charge is ludicrous. If the House wanted to they could have challenged the administration's refusal in court, but did they? No.

Trump’s strategy with everything in life is to litigate the hell out of it, dragging things out and running out the clock. No different here. Everyone knows how the subpoenas would have been ruled. He would have lost. He knew it too.

I’d have been ok with waiting, except for the whole case is about Trump subverting the 2020 election through foreign intervention. So waiting for the 2020 election to adjudicate his efforts to subvert the election...

In theory the Senate would want to get to the truth, and would issue their own subpoenas. They absolutely can, it’s reinforce the separation of powers and the legislative exercising their constitutional authority.

Unfortunately, it’s just Repubs using the House non-subpoenas as an excuse. Polls show 72% of Americans want witnesses and docs, though. They see through the smokescreen. That’s going to be the real impact, in congressional elections. All of those votes to cover up for Trump...they will reap what they sow.

Do you honestly think that the country would be better off today if Hillary had been president?

I have to assume FC is just shitposting at this post.This issue isn't whether we'd have been better off with HRC. The point is that we have grossly improper and probably criminal acts committed on a near daily basis by a federal employee, in this case the President. Obstruction of justice, bribery, abuse of power, revealing classified information, suborning perjury, contempt of congress, threatening political opponents, incitement to violence . . . at what point are people going to stop defending him? And spewing bullshit on his behalf?

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:22 am

the obstruction charge is ludicrous. If the House wanted to they could have challenged the administration's refusal in court, but did they? No.

Trump’s strategy with everything in life is to litigate the hell out of it, dragging things out and running out the clock. No different here. Everyone knows how the subpoenas would have been ruled. He would have lost. He knew it too.

Like it or not, Trump's been on a 50 year winning streak: even his losses (business bankruptcies) haven't hurt him (like a personal bankruptcy would, or a business bankruptcy which makes it impossible for him to continue in his business). He's used multiple strategies for decades and most likely understands that the gamesmanship and negotiation are big parts of his legal strategy.

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:22 am I’d have been ok with waiting, except for the whole case is about Trump subverting the 2020 election through foreign intervention. So waiting for the 2020 election to adjudicate his efforts to subvert the election...

Silly. When was the last time an impeachment didn't have election consequences? Also, when Clinton was impeached, his popularity actually rose. There's no clear precedent for what will happen-- especially comparing Bubba (a relatively conventional politician) and Trump (a very unconventional one).

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:22 am Unfortunately, it’s just Repubs using the House non-subpoenas as an excuse. Polls show 72% of Americans want witnesses and docs, though. They see through the smokescreen.

You're assuming that they really care (no evidence of that), that they are properly distributed (i.e. not concentrated in solidly blue districts), and that this is one of the most important issues for them. Another factor is Speaker Pelosi's enduring unpopularity (hint-- it's consistently lower than Trump's).

Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:23 am

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:22 am

the obstruction charge is ludicrous. If the House wanted to they could have challenged the administration's refusal in court, but did they? No.

Trump’s strategy with everything in life is to litigate the hell out of it, dragging things out and running out the clock. No different here. Everyone knows how the subpoenas would have been ruled. He would have lost. He knew it too.

Like it or not, Trump's been on a 50 year winning streak

That’s an absurd statement. His track record is of destroyed businesses, many judgments against him to the tune of millions, and being propped up by laundering money.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:48 am

Turdacious wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:23 am

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:22 am

the obstruction charge is ludicrous. If the House wanted to they could have challenged the administration's refusal in court, but did they? No.

Trump’s strategy with everything in life is to litigate the hell out of it, dragging things out and running out the clock. No different here. Everyone knows how the subpoenas would have been ruled. He would have lost. He knew it too.

Like it or not, Trump's been on a 50 year winning streak

That’s an absurd statement. His track record is of destroyed businesses, many judgments against him to the tune of millions, and being propped up by laundering money.

What's absurd is leaving out the second part of the sentence.

Being propped up by laundered money? So have lots of developers in the luxury market.
Many judgments against him to the tune of millions? Bill Gates has the same issue-- is he a failure?
Destroyed businesses? That's more complicated-- developers like him have failed projects all the time (especially when the market turns). Few come back and have the kind of success he's had. And they were business bankruptcies, not personal ones. Like it or not, the businesses were structured so the loss didn't hurt him personally.

He's like an orange Tom Brady. Main point-- someone with his record of success, especially when done in the public eye, doesn't do it by accident.

He’s a crafty, cunning piece of work, for sure. Zero doubt in my mind the world’s best con artist in history ever. That the exact moral opposite of a right wing Christian in every possible way can win their eternal worship is probably his greatest accomplishment. I offer him many clappies.

Of course everything Trump touches dies.

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:56 pm He’s a crafty, cunning piece of work, for sure. Zero doubt in my mind the world’s best con artist in history ever. That the exact moral opposite of a right wing Christian in every possible way can win their eternal worship is probably his greatest accomplishment. I offer him many clappies.

Of course everything Trump touches dies.

Nafod's going full Rose McGowan. Never go full Rose McGowan.

You lost me

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:58 am I have to assume FC is just shitposting at this post.This issue isn't whether we'd have been better off with HRC. The point is that we have grossly improper and probably criminal acts committed on a near daily basis by a federal employee, in this case the President. Obstruction of justice, bribery, abuse of power, revealing classified information, suborning perjury, contempt of congress, threatening political opponents, incitement to violence . . . at what point are people going to stop defending him? And spewing bullshit on his behalf?

I differ with you there, friend. If we're not talking about what's best for America, what are we discussing?

Well then, we should be asking if we'd be better off with Pence.

Why, Trump isn't going anywhere. He's likely to be a two term pres-o-dent.

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:11 pmYou lost me

You're a bit hysterical.

DONT HATE ON MY PERFECT POST

nafod wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:31 pm DONT HATE ON MY PERFECT POST

No malarkey, brah.