John Adams Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 Twitter pastes could be a DRINK! but I'd get alcohol poisoning in 5 minutes. 1
Teddy KGB Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Crayola64 said: lol oh yea! No, it was one of the main reasons I stopped engaging with substance with you all. I realized you all arent reasonable, but are a bunch of weird conspiracy losers. Are you gonna make a point eventually ? And 3rd dunked on you bro. I haven’t seen him get that high in years ??? big time lawyer lmao Edited October 3, 2019 by Teddy KGB 3
Foxx Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 i could be wrong but i'm thinking this should apply to impeachment proceedings as well. https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1179526035664191488 1
KRC Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: i could be wrong but i'm thinking this should apply to impeachment proceedings as well. https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1179526035664191488 Rules are only for Republicans. 2
Warren Zevon Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 13 hours ago, DC Tom said: Trump does not exist in any sort of reality as normal people would define it. You can't trust anything he says. Indeed - that's enough for impeachment
SoCal Deek Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 10 hours ago, John Adams said: So you're saying the president can withhold funds. Yes....he can. The executive branch administration determines when funds are actually paid out. The same is true at every level of government.
Wacka Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) Heard last night that Schiff for brains is the "Jessie Smolette of the Congress" Edited October 3, 2019 by Wacka
John Adams Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 32 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Yes....he can. The executive branch administration determines when funds are actually paid out. The same is true at every level of government. I'm not needing this lesson, thanks. The point is that he CAN and DID withhold the funds, if you believe his own admission (DC Tom makes the point that Trump is hard to believe so there's that) and the reporting. I have yet to see anyone deny Trump withheld the funds except for posters here. And in the end, Trump solicited the "favor" of investigating his lead political rival.
B-Man Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 More information is coming out about the “whistleblower”–read, Democratic Party activist–who triggered impeachment mania, and it does not put the Democrats in a positive light. The New York Times reports that the “whistleblower” has long been working with Congressional Democrats: The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials. A “spokesman”? I assume that means a Schiff spokesman, although that isn’t clear. The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague. A striking admission! The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. So a great deal has been going on behind the scenes. The complaint was filed in August, so Schiff had known about it for a month and a half before it became public. This means that the leaders of the Democratic Party had lots of time to coordinate the rollout of the impeachment drama. Which, in turn, explains my observation that within hours after Nancy Pelosi announced the launching of an impeachment inquiry, I was getting emails from Democratic politicians with coordinated talking points, demanding that the president be impeached. Many have noted that the “whistleblower’s” complaint reads like a brief written by a lawyer. It turns out that his is exactly what happened. Democratic House staffers lined the “whistleblower” up with a lawyer–another Democratic Party loyalist who has worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and donated to Joe Biden–who drafted or helped to draft the complaint. The whole story stinks. Why are Schiff and the Democrats using the friendliest possible news outlet to make these facts public now? Because the “whistleblower” will testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican members of the committee will bring out the history of his or her contacts with Democratic officials and staffers. The story isn’t pretty, and the Democrats are using time-honored messaging techniques–getting ahead of the news, putting out their version preemptively, and using a friendly news organ to give it a positive spin. Still, the facts are bad, mostly because the “whistleblower” was wrong. The conversation that he or she described in the complaint never happened. Trump’s discussion with President Zelensky was, in my view, blameless. In any event, no sane person could consider it grounds for impeachment. The Democrats must be frustrated about this. That frustration came out in Schiff’s bizarre committee performance, where he pretended to be quoting from the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, but in fact made the entire thing up, along the lines of the “whistleblower’s” complaint. If only it were real, Schiff seemed to be saying! Schiff also, by the way, lied when he claimed that “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” No surprise there; the surprise would be if Schiff, for once, told the truth. More at the link: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/whither-impeachment.php .
SoCal Deek Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 Just now, John Adams said: I'm not needing this lesson, thanks. The point is that he CAN and DID withhold the funds, if you believe his own admission (DC Tom makes the point that Trump is hard to believe so there's that) and the reporting. I have yet to see anyone deny Trump withheld the funds except for posters here. And in the end, Trump solicited the "favor" of investigating his lead political rival. I guess. The President touched on a few important topics in that short phone call. I’d put it to you that withholding of funds (which he doesn’t even mention) was tied to the issue of wanting Europe (Germany) to pay their fair share before the US puts more chips on the table. And the favor was only that the Ukrainian President not stonewall the US Attorney General while the Justice Department examines corruption connected to his country. Seems totally reasonable to me. I’ve made many similar calls to the heads of companies in hopes they’ll relay the message of cooperation to their staffs. As I read the transcript he’s not asking for a personal favor. He’s asking for a national favor.
KRC Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: More information is coming out about the “whistleblower”–read, Democratic Party activist–who triggered impeachment mania, and it does not put the Democrats in a positive light. The New York Times reports that the “whistleblower” has long been working with Congressional Democrats: The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials. A “spokesman”? I assume that means a Schiff spokesman, although that isn’t clear. The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague. A striking admission! The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. So a great deal has been going on behind the scenes. The complaint was filed in August, so Schiff had known about it for a month and a half before it became public. This means that the leaders of the Democratic Party had lots of time to coordinate the rollout of the impeachment drama. Which, in turn, explains my observation that within hours after Nancy Pelosi announced the launching of an impeachment inquiry, I was getting emails from Democratic politicians with coordinated talking points, demanding that the president be impeached. Many have noted that the “whistleblower’s” complaint reads like a brief written by a lawyer. It turns out that his is exactly what happened. Democratic House staffers lined the “whistleblower” up with a lawyer–another Democratic Party loyalist who has worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and donated to Joe Biden–who drafted or helped to draft the complaint. The whole story stinks. Why are Schiff and the Democrats using the friendliest possible news outlet to make these facts public now? Because the “whistleblower” will testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican members of the committee will bring out the history of his or her contacts with Democratic officials and staffers. The story isn’t pretty, and the Democrats are using time-honored messaging techniques–getting ahead of the news, putting out their version preemptively, and using a friendly news organ to give it a positive spin. Still, the facts are bad, mostly because the “whistleblower” was wrong. The conversation that he or she described in the complaint never happened. Trump’s discussion with President Zelensky was, in my view, blameless. In any event, no sane person could consider it grounds for impeachment. The Democrats must be frustrated about this. That frustration came out in Schiff’s bizarre committee performance, where he pretended to be quoting from the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, but in fact made the entire thing up, along the lines of the “whistleblower’s” complaint. If only it were real, Schiff seemed to be saying! Schiff also, by the way, lied when he claimed that “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” No surprise there; the surprise would be if Schiff, for once, told the truth. More at the link: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/whither-impeachment.php . So, they told the whistleblower to get a lawyer, but are telling the people they want to depose that you should not get a personal lawyer and should not talk to the State Department lawyers. Interesting... 3 2
Rob's House Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I guess. The President touched on a few important topics in that short phone call. I’d put it to you that withholding of funds (which he doesn’t even mention) was tied to the issue of wanting Europe (Germany) to pay their fair share before the US puts more chips on the table. And the favor was only that the Ukrainian President not stonewall the US Attorney General while the Justice Department examines corruption connected to his country. Seems totally reasonable to me. I’ve made many similar calls to the heads of companies in hopes they’ll relay the message of cooperation to their staffs. As I read the transcript he’s not asking for a personal favor. He’s asking for a national favor. You're missing an important detail. There is a little known, but often used canon of textual construction that holds that any allegation leveled against President Trump is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the accusing party. Also, the allegation creates a presumption of guilt that stands unless and until and after such allegations are proven false beyond a reasonable and/or unreasonable doubt. downloadfile-4.bin Edited October 3, 2019 by Rob's House
John Adams Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I guess. The President touched on a few important topics in that short phone call. I’d put it to you that withholding of funds (which he doesn’t even mention) was tied to the issue of wanting Europe (Germany) to pay their fair share before the US puts more chips on the table. MAybe. But it was withheld. And whether Zelensky knew about that or just noted that he hadn't received the funding, the funding was part of the leverage introduced in literally the first subsntative thing Trump said. It set the whole tone for the "asks." "Hi fellow reality star. We give you sh**-tons of aid. Now can you do me a couple favors?" How many times do you think he's postured like this in construction deals? 20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: And the favor was only that the Ukrainian President not stonewall the US Attorney General while the Justice Department examines corruption connected to his country. Seems totally reasonable to me. I’ve made many similar calls to the heads of companies in hopes they’ll relay the message of cooperation to their staffs. As I read the transcript he’s not asking for a personal favor. He’s asking for a national favor. He asked about Biden, by name. Our reads are slightly different, but we agree on the facts. As far as I can tell, the only confirmed evidence of note so far is the call, and circumstantially the withholding of the funds. The identify of the whistleblower, hearsay evidence, Schiff-as-douche, Hunter-Burisma...is a lot of noise but the call is about the only thing not to lose sight of. It's the only thing making any fire towards impeachment and it's not enough.
dubs Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 The second the President said “Crowstrike”, the Democrats initiated their failsafe plan. Unfortunately for them this working as well as most of their other plans. 1 1
B-Man Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIALIZES: The Whistleblower Executive. The impeachment process is barely underway and already some constitutional norms are being trampled without a note of media notice or political concern. To wit, can a whistleblower inside the intelligence bureaucracy override a President’s right to executive privilege merely with an accusation? That seems to be the default view among Democrats and the press as they luxuriate in news about Donald Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders. First it was the call with Ukraine’s President. Then on Monday the leak was what Mr. Trump told Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Now Democrats want to see the transcripts of other phone calls with other leaders. “This is a coverup,” declared Nancy Pelosi last week, but if that’s true it is the most incompetent coverup in presidential history. Mr. Trump can’t seem to have any conversation that doesn’t leak, in part or whole, or that can’t be demanded by Congress as if everyone in the executive branch works for the House Speaker. Mr. Trump has released the Ukraine transcript and the whistleblower complaint, and he’s still accused of a coverup. Last week’s inquisition of acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff captures the prevailing disdain for the separation of powers when Mr. Trump is the political target. Mr. Maguire, who has an impeccable reputation, had received the whistleblower complaint as part of his duties. He then acted responsibly by seeking legal advice about whether the document was subject to executive privilege. . . . According to the Justice Department’s analysis of the whistleblower’s complaint, there was no “crime or fraud.” But Mr. Schiff treats the whistleblower’s complaint as enough to override any claim of a President’s right to have confidential communications with foreign leaders. The implication is that any time anyone in the bureaucracy issues a complaint against a President, Congress has the power to demand it be delivered and made public. That is already happening with the stories about Mr. Morrison. This means that no foreign leader can have the expectation that anything he tells Mr. Trump, or the next President, will be confidential. . . . Once again we see the irony that in the rush to impeach Mr. Trump for his real or imagined violations of political norms, his opponents have no problem violating norms themselves. Norms are for the little people.
Tiberius Posted October 3, 2019 Author Posted October 3, 2019 Omg, Rudy was meeting with the imprisoned Paul Manafort about Ukraine?!? Wow 30 minutes ago, dubs said: The second the President said “Crowstrike”, the Democrats initiated their failsafe plan. Unfortunately for them this working as well as most of their other plans. Lol, no
B-Man Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 Whistlegate Reveals Some Very Chatty Minders of State Secrets. “Unlike most whistleblowers, the CIA analyst was not a witness to events. Instead, he functioned as a kind of investigative reporter who worked sources to develop the information detailed in the complaint. While some have praised the informer for unearthing questionable behavior by the president, some experts in national security law say that the whistleblower and his sources may have violated regulations aimed at preserving state secrets. . . . How have officials with clearances become so casual in sharing classified information? Widespread disdain for President Trump within the federal bureaucracy, particularly within the intelligence agencies, may be a factor. But apparently something else was happening as well, namely a long-standing failure to rein in the rumor mill. It seems that security clearances are rarely revoked for over-sharing with colleagues.” .
B-Man Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 Isn't the Democrats' central claim that Trump threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless it dug up dirt on Biden? But if Ukraine didn't even know the aid had been delayed at the time of the call, which has been established, how do you have a quid pro quo? 1
Recommended Posts