The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

House will have a formal vote on impeachment procedures on Thursday to stop a GOP talking point:


Dear Colleague on Next Steps in House's Ongoing Impeachment Inquiry | Speaker Nancy Pelosi

I hate that no matter what the GOP or Trump tells them to do they eventually cow tow and do it.

The rules they're playing by were put in place by the GOP majority and done during the Benghazi hearings and the Hillary server stuff but now that these investigations are being done quietly so that the information is kept private (like most investigations) but now that the GOP are up in arms the Dems give in. I just want the same rules for everyone.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

According to snopes, the idea that the photo was staged is "unproven" as I type this.

Was a Photo of Trump in the White House Situation Room Staged?

Basically the idea that the raid occurred at 3pm is fake news and Trump was done golfing by the time the raid actually occurred which was 5 or 6 pm eastern.

Cool. That is why I said if it is true. It seemed too idiotic even for him.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I hate that no matter what the GOP or Trump tells them to do they eventually cow tow and do it.

The rules they're playing by were put in place by the GOP majority and done during the Benghazi hearings and the Hillary server stuff but now that these investigations are being done quietly so that the information is kept private (like most investigations) but now that the GOP are up in arms the Dems give in. I just want the same rules for everyone.

I really thought it was mistake not to have a vote in the first place because I knew that would be the GOP talking point. Now, it is really too late. They are just going to bitch about not getting subpoena power, and not letting Trump's lawyers run a defense. Unless they give them that too, then they will complain there is not enough Republicans on the committees, and their chairs are uncomfortable. It is always going to be "not enough" and never about the actual case.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Cool. That is why I said if it is true. It seemed too idiotic even for him.

You hold him in higher esteem then I do. Remember this is a guy that had a himself on a fake Times cover.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

You hold him in higher esteem then I do. Remember this is a guy that had a himself on a fake Times cover.

Regardless of the timing, I think the photo was staged. There's nothing organic about that picture.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things this is pointless, but we're talking about the party that made nitpicking pointless things an art over the previous 8 years.

[PilotMan]

The only refrain I have for "not enough" is Merrick Garland.

[JPhillips]

You will never find a process that the GOP won't try to ratfuck. Do what you think is right and damn the consequences.

[JPhillips]

The smearing of LTC Vindman as some sort of Ukrainian agent is a new low for the GOP.

Can't wait to see how they go lower tomorrow!

[Lathum]

Opening statement from Vindman. It is ludicrous how guilty Trump is.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.ne...ementfinal.pdf

[Thomkal]

Looks like Ambassador Sondland has changed his tune about the quid pro quo in Ukraine after basically everyone that testified after him said he did indeed ask that.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Looks like Ambassador Sondland has changed his tune about the quid pro quo in Ukraine after basically everyone that testified after him said he did indeed ask that.

Not sure what the legalese is but if true, they should make an example of Sondland ... quickly so everyone else testifying later know the committee is serious.

Is it possible for Trump to pardon Sondland (and like)?

Intelligence panel Democrat: It appears Sondland committed perjury | TheHill

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the highest-ranking Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, is expected to tell lawmakers on Tuesday that he twice reported concerns about President Trump's tactics in dealing with Ukraine.

Vindman also wrote in his opening statement that during a meeting between U.S. and Ukraine officials, Sondland — who was present at the meeting — started to talk to Ukraine about “delivering specific investigations” into former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, and Biden's son in order to secure a meeting with Trump, adding that he told Sondland the statements were “inappropriate.”

But Sondland’s opening statement for his deposition said “nothing was ever raised to me about any concerns regarding our Ukrainian policy.”

Sondland, who has not publicly responded to Vindman’s testimony, appeared on Capitol Hill Monday to review his deposition transcript.

[Thomkal]

I agree Edward-Sondland only got his job because he was a large donor to Trump/GOP. Send a message to all the other Trump loyalists that they better decide what that loyalty is worth to them right now.



I think Trump can pardon them, but they can no longer plead the fifth if he does, so I'm not sure its a big win for them to get pardoned. And so far Trump has not pardoned anyone connected to Mueller/impeachment I think, so I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in him right now.

[JediKooter]

This truly is one of THE WORST administrations in the history of this country. After he is out of office, he deserves no statues, no libraries, no streets or schools named after him, zero, zip, nada.

Team Trump Admits Holding Back Billions For Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I agree Edward-Sondland only got his job because he was a large donor to Trump/GOP. Send a message to all the other Trump loyalists that they better decide what that loyalty is worth to them right now.



I think Trump can pardon them, but they can no longer plead the fifth if he does, so I'm not sure its a big win for them to get pardoned. And so far Trump has not pardoned anyone connected to Mueller/impeachment I think, so I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in him right now.

I'm no lawyer but...

So let's say Trumps pardons his loyalists and they refuse to testify anyway, what exact recourse do the Democrats have? Couldn't Trump just shield them from future consequences with more pardons all the while crying about witch hunts and how Trump is the true victim in all this?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm no lawyer but...

So let's say Trumps pardons his loyalists and they refuse to testify anyway, what exact recourse do the Democrats have? Couldn't Trump just shield them from future consequences with more pardons all the while crying about witch hunts and how Trump is the true victim in all this?

Yes, our constitution has quite a few faults.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes, our constitution has quite a few faults.

The Founding Fathers assumed 230 years ago that we wouldn't elect mobsters to run the government. Whoops.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm no lawyer but...

So let's say Trumps pardons his loyalists and they refuse to testify anyway, what exact recourse do the Democrats have? Couldn't Trump just shield them from future consequences with more pardons all the while crying about witch hunts and how Trump is the true victim in all this?

I'm no lawyer either so don't really have an answer for you.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm no lawyer but...

So let's say Trumps pardons his loyalists and they refuse to testify anyway, what exact recourse do the Democrats have? Couldn't Trump just shield them from future consequences with more pardons all the while crying about witch hunts and how Trump is the true victim in all this?

Then it would get rolled into obstruction charges related to the impeachment investigation. Then the GOP senate would say the Dems couldn't get enough evidence to remove.

It keeps going back to the founding fathers never imagining a corrupt executive branch and complicit senate. Or if they did they just decided we were all pretty much fucked anyway.

[Brian Swartz]

No matter what system you have, if there's enough corruption in it and tolerated by the people, things aren't going to end well. I think it's a cop-out to blame the Constitution here. It's certainly not perfect, but it does have a mechanism for removing those who abuse their office. If you like government of the people, then you have to blame the people when government doesn't do their job and the people don't do a darned thing about it when they have the power to do so. If Trump's impeachment was being demanded by large majorities of the electorate, he'd be removed.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No matter what system you have, if there's enough corruption in it and tolerated by the people, things aren't going to end well. I think it's a cop-out to blame the Constitution here. It's certainly not perfect, but it does have a mechanism for removing those who abuse their office. If you like government of the people, then you have to blame the people when government doesn't do their job and the people don't do a darned thing about it when they have the power to do so. If Trump's impeachment was being demanded by large majorities of the electorate, he'd be removed.

Ah but here is where we go down the rabbit hole.

What determines the opinion of the electorate? Mostly, it's media. And what does the media report on? What gets it ad clicks and viewership, to make more money. So what controls public opinion, in the end? Money.

Those who have money can manipulate the media message, and control the actions of the electorate. Ergo, the electorate is powerless.

Toss in an electoral system with a first past the post process, resulting in two dominant and diametrically opposed parties, and a pervasive media that is literally everywhere, and you have a situation where the electorate is unconsciously herded into the dialogues the people in power want them to be. The narrative we're fed is to fear the other side above all else. And a two dominant party system ensures that neither party is likely to ever have true control of Congress. So when the exec admin is corrupt, the party in power must choose to cave to their fear of the other side (and admit they are themselves wrong) in order to even recognize the mad man in the Oval Office, much less remove him.

In my experience, the electorate are sheep. This is not a challenge they are up for. And the wealthy puppet masters know it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No matter what system you have, if there's enough corruption in it and tolerated by the people, things aren't going to end well. I think it's a cop-out to blame the Constitution here. It's certainly not perfect, but it does have a mechanism for removing those who abuse their office. If you like government of the people, then you have to blame the people when government doesn't do their job and the people don't do a darned thing about it when they have the power to do so. If Trump's impeachment was being demanded by large majorities of the electorate, he'd be removed.

The constitution wasn't written to be a government of the people. They didn't trust the people to even vote. And we still have elements of government that don't want everyone to be able to vote.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Regardless of the timing, I think the photo was staged. There's nothing organic about that picture.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things this is pointless, but we're talking about the party that made nitpicking pointless things an art over the previous 8 years.

Not to beat this dead horse, but I think it is simply an issue of verbiage. "Staged" is probably the wrong word, because these people most likely were in the room when the raid was watched. "Posed" is what the picture is. The Obama/Bin Laden picture was a candid shot. This one was very obviously a posed shot.

[Flasch186]

Fwiw I believe Edward wanted an ear witness to impeach

Welp here you go... I wonder how many like him will continue to choose to defend the president versus defending our country and democracy.

And of course the gop turns on a Patriot in Vinson to continue their deep dive on trading the country for the color red.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Fwiw I believe Edward wanted an ear witness to impeach

Welp here you go...

Yup, definitely a good witness, he was in the room (and not the heard from X who heard from Y). Some articles that Sondland may somehow retract/restate to become more aligned with Taylor (and assume with Vindman).

[Flasch186]

So then when he changes his story after being caught in the lie, I hope the defenders of chairman Trump will equally malign the lying and hypocrisy of him.

Lying and hypocrisy shouldn't be afforded any room at all.

I've heard a lot of people early on saying that they're scared of pence versus Trump... I'll take a person who believes what he says even if I disagree with it and perhaps will have a hard time lying, versus a person who will simply lie about everything all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

... I wonder how many like him will continue to choose to defend the president versus defending our country and democracy.

Its not surprising that you and many others on this board (in my opinion) misunderstood my point. I was not defending the President, I was defending the process as I believe more supporting testimony was needed vs just one person (Taylor who heard from X) and a whistle blower (who heard from another X who possibly heard from Y) for quid pro quo against Biden & Son.

Many of you see this as Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump, very binary. I consider myself "independent" who supports some of Trump's policies and not on others. In the Obama thread, I believe you will find the same ... that I supported some of Obama's policies and was critical of others.

In my mind, on a 1-10 range where 1 = ultra liberal Democrats and 10 = Trump true believers, the vast majority of this board is in the 1-3 range, a couple in the 10 range. I consider myself in the 6-7 range.

I am more conservative in Economic and Foreign and more liberal in Social. I don't vote straight party. I voted for Hillary in 2016. At this time, I am definitely leaning to voting non-Trump.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I've heard a lot of people early on saying that they're scared of pence versus Trump... I'll take a person who believes what he says even if I disagree with it and perhaps will have a hard time lying, versus a person who will simply lie about everything all the time.

I'm with you here. I'd take Pence over Trump any day. I view Pence as a "traditional" Republican who follows the old "rules". I'm ready to return to the old ways in the next 4 years (e.g. hence my preference for Biden as the nominee).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm with you here. I'd take Pence over Trump any day. I view Pence as a "traditional" Republican who follows the old "rules". I'm ready to return to the old ways in the next 4 years (e.g. hence my preference for Biden as the nominee).

I think Pence would be better than trump at this point (oh how far have we fallen), as much is it pains me to say that. Having Biden get the nomination though, I fear, is going to be Hillary v2.0 and after having almost 4 years of an absolute train wreck, we need something...someone that can swing things back to a more progressive government, not back to somewhere a bit right of center. Time has run out for a more centrist government, especially when it comes to the Earth's climate, income inequality and medical care. We've let it go for so long, that at this point, the band aid has to just be ripped off.

Regardless of all that and anything I said, if Biden wins the Democratic nomination, I will be voting for him.

[miked]

Meanwhile, your "traditional" republicans have exploded the debt that Obama spent 8 years trying to fix.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think Pence would be better than trump at this point (oh how far have we fallen) ...

BTW it be great (& hilarious) if Pence was truly "anonymous" and the resistance from within.

[JPhillips]

Apparently, LTC Vindman testified that two passages were left off the released rough call transcript.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Apparently, LTC Vindman testified that two passages were left off the released rough call transcript.

I'm sure they were completely inconsequential.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm sure they were completely inconsequential.

Totally agree. The type of stuff that you’d want to put in a highly classified server immediately after a “perfect call”

[cartman]

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the term 'quid pro quo' was in the passages they left out.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the term 'quid pro quo' was in the passages they left out.

That would make it the greatest phone call in the history of American politics, finally surpassing LBJ's bunghole.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh My God.

If, at some point, Trump does not tweet out the defense that you cannot impeach a President over a phone call because LBJ said bunghole and no one impeached him, then I will be very disappointed in him.

(Followed up by a serious conservative commentator on Fox explaining that LBJ was ordering those pants for his own personal benefit and not the benefit of the country, so Trump really isn't doing anything different than Presidents have done throughout history)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Oh My God.

If, at some point, Trump does not tweet out the defense that you cannot impeach a President over a phone call because LBJ said bunghole and no one impeached him, then I will be very disappointed in him.

(Followed up by a serious conservative commentator on Fox explaining that LBJ was ordering those pants for his own personal benefit and not the benefit of the country, so Trump really isn't doing anything different than Presidents have done throughout history)

[JPhillips]

LBJ was worried about his nuts, but Trump puts your nuts first.

[Thomkal]

Bolton has been invited to give a deposition on Nov 7

[Thomkal]

Trump tweeted a photo of a Medal of Honor recipient-the edited him out and replaced him with the dog that helped get the ISIS leader,

[JPhillips]

Damn.

At a private fundraiser last night, Trump talked about meeting Steve Scalise’s wife after he was shot: she “cried her eyes out when I met her at the hospital that fateful day … I mean not many wives would react that way to tragedy, I know mine wouldn't.”

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Damn.

finally telling the truth

[JediKooter]

Yup! Melania would be like Dobby from Harry Potter after getting a sock probably.

[Thomkal]

On the edge of the impeachment vote, Trump tries to buy Republican Senators loyalty with money:


Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash - POLITICO

[JPhillips]

Dear Trump and Trump Defenders,

I'm afraid you don't understand the term, Witch Hunt.

Pelosi, Schiff, et al are not the witches. They are the hunters.

Thank you.

[JediKooter]

Looks like the vote passed. Rs got their vote, zero to bitch about, though without a doubt, they will try and spin something to make it about everything else except for the crimes committed by the president*.

[Edward64]

Another interesting day(s) coming.

Assume Bolton was in the room also and would love to hear his point of view. And that whitehouse attorney that moved the transcript into the secured server after Vindman brought his concerns up.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/polit...use/index.html

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Donald Trump's National Security Council, is expected to provide one of the most revelatory testimonies to date in the House Democrat led impeachment inquiry on Thursday, one day after it became clear he will soon be leaving his job, according to a source familiar with the situation and a senior administration official.

On the eve of his testimony, Morrison told his colleagues of his plans to leave the administration, a decision that was his and has been "planned for some time" given that he was an ally of former national security adviser John Bolton, who was fired by Trump in September, the source familiar said.
Morrison appeared before investigators Thursday, and he is expected to corroborate key elements of a top US diplomat's account that Trump pressed for Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, using military aid the country sought to fight back against Russian aggression as leverage, sources told CNN. There is not evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
:
Morrison will also become the second White House official to testify who was on the July 25 phone call when Trump pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate the Bidens, according to a rough transcript of the conversation released by the White House and witness testimony of officials familiar with the situation. It was one of Morrison's deputies, Alexander Vindman, who was the first official on the call to testify on Tuesday, telling lawmakers he raised concerns about the call to White House lawyers.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Looks like the vote passed. Rs got their vote, zero to bitch about, though without a doubt, they will try and spin something to make it about everything else except for the crimes committed by the president*.

Yup. Had to turn off their response, because it is just so eye-rolling. "No one has ever been treated this unfairly. This is not due process..." etc. etc. etc.


They have said multiple times that the president did nothing wrong, though. Maybe they will openly say it is fine that the president uses foreign relations for his own gain.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Yup. Had to turn off their response, because it is just so eye-rolling. "No one has ever been treated this unfairly. This is not due process..." etc. etc. etc.


They have said multiple times that the president did nothing wrong, though. Maybe they will openly say it is fine that the president uses foreign relations for his own gain.

Oh man their statements prior to the vote were super cringy. All I can say is, if a democratic president does ANYTHING that they said was perfectly fine, they have zero credibility or legs to stand on.

[albionmoonlight]

Here's the crazy thing I saw someone point out. We've gotten almost no leaks from the closed-door testimony. And the GOP has members on all these committees and have heard all of this testimony. AND THEY HAVE NOT FELT IT IN THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST TO LEAK ANY OF IT.

How damning must the testimony be?