Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

US Elections 2020

Recommended Posts

just a bit more...  lets pretend this Bolton book gets Republican senators to extend the trial to call witnesses...  extending the time frame of the trial by who knows how long...

how will it change anything?

because unless Trump can be committed for alleged "thought crimes", the outcome is the same regardless?

in the interestingly timed leak of John Boltons book transcript too the NYT, there is an admission that Ukraine did not know of the hold on funds (until the polotico article in August.)

who actually benefits from an extended Trial?  Trump?  Joe Biden?  the news media? someone else?

does calling more witnesses change anything?  the Dem majority house didn't seem to bother, why would the Senate?

On 1/16/2020 at 8:44 AM, Splay said:

Why hasn't Trump gone after Lev Parnas on a twitter tirade? He almost has to in the name of consistency, yet he hasn't.

^from thread^

another image take similar to the one i posted above:

image.png.2bc954f038824e336c35ad5bdeee596a.png

Trump was never elected because he was a seasoned politician.   his unconventional approach is STILL appealing to many.  & it is very likely to get him reelected.

& if the Impeachment trail gets extended...   ;)  by all means, feel free too.

damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Catch 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

he did nothing...  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong!

I'm as anti-establishment as the next tinfoiler, but he very obviously did. It's clear as day, blatant as you like, nose-on-face scenario. He tried to pull one of his shady business tactics in a political position (something that if it was Clinton would've had Republicans baying for blood), there was some law from the 70s that he violated in doing so, and it bit him because his team wasn't as loyal to him as they were to the nation. This is all true. Regardless of whether he was using it for coercion (which he was), he ran afoul of an act put into place to fuck with Nixon and, it turns out, caught a later corrupt president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The POTUS is not the sole arbitrator of foreign policy. He takes the lead, sure, but Congress has various roles to play as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Doro said:

he very obviously did.

nothing obvious about it.  no proof at all in fact.

Ukraine has a long history of corruption, this isn't a new revelation.  wanting assurances that funds would not be misappropriated is legitimate reason enough, to temporarily hold money...  though the missiles (javelins) which provided defense had no such hold.

16 minutes ago, Doro said:

He tried to pull one of his shady business tactics

highlighting the US footing the bulk of the bill, whilst EU countries like Germany shirk financial responsibility...  who cares.

bull in a china shop move, but it highlighted perfectly one of his big contentions, that Trump is on record holding for the past 40 years of his public life...  long and well before his Presidency.  so Beltway Establishment is offended...   GOOD!

16 minutes ago, Doro said:

there was some law from the 70s that he violated in doing so,

oh?  which law is that?

 

 

5 minutes ago, FundinStrongarm said:

The POTUS is not the sole arbitrator of foreign policy. He takes the lead, sure, but Congress has various roles to play as well.

and they played it.  Trump released the funds before the deadline.

had he waited beyond that deadline, he would have circumvented Congress.  but that never happened.

he also has considerable veto powers as well, which he never used.  & the actual defense items, AKA the Javelin missiles were delivered without delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems John Bolton has written a book.  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html

 
 
?
 
2 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

 

 

 

and they played it.  Trump released the funds before the deadline.

had he waited beyond that deadline, he would have circumvented Congress.  but that never happened.

he also has considerable veto powers as well, which he never used.  & the actual defense items, AKA the Javelin missiles were delivered without delay.

You can't charge me with robbing a bank if I didn't get the money.  That is a really stupid defense.  It's why things like attempted robbery, attempted murder, and attempted bribery are illegal.  He released the aid because it blew up in his face.  I wonder how many Ukrainians lost their lives waiting for Trump to send the money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

nothing obvious about it.  no proof at all in fact.

Except all the proof that he delayed the funds. He literally did it, what more proof do you want?

1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

Ukraine has a long history of corruption, this isn't a new revelation.  wanting assurances that funds would not be misappropriated is legitimate reason enough, to temporarily hold money...  though the missiles (javelins) which provided defense had no such hold.

Not without passing it back with good reason to Congress to sign off on, and even then they can turn it down and make him pay up anyway.

1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

highlighting the US footing the bulk of the bill, whilst EU countries like Germany shirk financial responsibility...  who cares.

Exactly. Who cares? Still can't be done illegally.

1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

bull in a china shop move, but it highlighted perfectly one of his big contentions, that Trump is on record holding for the past 40 years of his public life...  long and well before his Presidency.  so Beltway Establishment is offended...   GOOD!

Except that wasn't why he did it, and you know it. Trying to claim Trump was just shining a light on poor widdle Amewica's payouts to other countries just doesn't cut it when it was very obviously about getting dirt on Biden, as multiple witnesses have testified, a Trump staffer admitted, and Bolton has now squealed on. Have you got proof that counters it?

1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

oh?  which law is that?

The Impoundment Control Act or something along those lines. I can't remember exactly now, it was part of a dive I was in the middle of when I was looking all this up. There were a few amendments on it as far as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

John Boltons book is just like Comeys book before, or this guy:

I find this a strange comparison.

If I understand the articles so far written about Bolton and his book, the WH had rough drafts in Dec 2019 to be reviewed for security purposes. That means Trump knew of the content and is the likely reason why the Senate leadership chose the path for the Impeachment trial. Are you claiming a Never Trumper leaked this to the media?

I can't see any notable parallels between Bolton and Comey.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-wrong-on-european-aid-to-ukraine/

President Donald Trump wrongly said that “Europe and other nations” were “not” contributing to Ukraine, specifically calling for Germany and France to “put up money.” In fact, the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

...Ukraine has a long history of corruption...

...wanting assurances that funds would not be misappropriated is legitimate reason enough to temporarily hold money...

....highlighting the US footing the bulk of the bill, whilst EU countries like Germany shirk financial responsibility...

...which law is that?

...Trump released the funds before the deadline.

 

...neither call made my Trump mentioned corruption.  The July call, however, specifically mentioned Biden.

...an no reassurances were given.  The only reason the money was released was because the White House got word that the whistle-blower filed an official complaint with the IG.  The money was released days later.

...more deflection.  Might as well bring up HC's emails.  Speaking of which...https://www.salon.com/2020/01/10/investigation-into-hillary-clinton-pushed-by-trump-comes-up-empty-after-two-years-report/

...speaking of laws being broken...https://www.wsj.com/articles/hold-on-ukraine-aid-violated-law-nonpartisan-watchdog-finds-11579187146

...um, what deadline?  https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-claim-ukraine-got-aid-before-schedule/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

You can't charge me with robbing a bank if I didn't get the money.  That is a really stupid defense.

good thing that isn't the defense.

i get you think it is, but that isn't the least bit surprising.

 

19 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

It's why things like attempted robbery, attempted murder, and attempted bribery are illegal.

no shit.  still not what happened here.

 

19 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

He released the aid because it blew up in his face.

and yet still before the deadline.  so much for blowing up in face...  which would be the case if the deadline had passed, which it did not.

 

19 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

I wonder how many Ukrainians lost their lives waiting for Trump to send the money. 

i guess those javelin missiles that got delivered on time were next to useless.  ?

but for the record, that would be ZERO Ukrainian lives lost...  hyperbole deflated.


10 minutes ago, Doro said:

Except all the proof that he delayed the funds. He literally did it, what more proof do you want?

as is his right as President.  & he did not circumvent congress as the deadline was still met.

 

10 minutes ago, Doro said:

Not without passing it back with good reason to Congress to sign off on, and even then they can turn it down and make him pay up anyway.

correct, he did not veto.  again, don't care.

10 minutes ago, Doro said:

The Impoundment Control Act or something along those lines. I can't remember exactly now, it was part of a dive I was in the middle of when I was looking all this up. There were a few amendments on it as far as I recall.

i can wait till you find it again.


9 minutes ago, Splay said:

Are you claiming a Never Trumper leaked this to the media?

no, that isn't my claim.

just the timing of book release, whilst story is hot certainly can drive sales.  that and it may impact the length of the Senate trail.

9 minutes ago, Splay said:

can't see any notable parallels between Bolton and Comey.

both fired by Trump, both releasing books revealing their impressions of the events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

both fired by Trump, both releasing books revealing their impressions of the events.

Were they both fired by Trump? I don't think Bolton would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the hilarious part about this, the Democrats actually think they accomplished something (other than pissing off the American voterbase) by impeaching Trump.

Impeachment without conviction (and/or removal) is meaningless.  If Trump cannot be convicted of the charges (because they're all bullshit), then it means that the House completely failed to make a cogent case... which means they basically wasted 40 days of time in the House that could have been spent doing something productive.... to appease the Twitter voterbase which is so laughably small that it's going to cost them in the 2020 election.  Trump is going to be reelected, this forum is going to go insane, and it will all be so wonderful to watch.

At this point, if the Senate really wants to call additional witnesses, I'm all in for calling witnesses as it traps Sanders and Warren in the Senate, and lets the Republicans help guide the 2020 Democratic nomination process... all because the Democrats thought they achieved something by starting an impeachment proceeding.  And if that means waiting for the courts to properly subpoena Bolton and dragging Hunter Biden into the Senate, then so be it.

Also, now that the Democrats have shown us that impeachment can be used as a vote of no confidence (which is not what it was intended to be used for, but it's the precedence that this impeachment proceeding has set), I fully expect each and every President from this point forward to be impeached when the House majority is a different party than the President.

Just now, Splay said:

Were they both fired by Trump? I don't think Bolton would agree.

How many people admit they were fired instead of claiming they left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

as is his right as President.  & he did not circumvent congress as the deadline was still met.

It's not, though. The GAO found very clearly that what he did violated the law.

37 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

correct, he did not veto.  again, don't care.

You should, considering this is where you're falling down.

37 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

i can wait till you find it again.

I'm not going to do the leg work for you. I've given you enough to look for, you can find it yourself if you're actually serious about looking into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Papi said:

...neither call made my Trump mentioned corruption.

correct.  the Ukranians were not aware of the money delay until after the politico article.  the Javalin Missiles were also delivered on time.

the delayed funds and assurances were tasked to periphery diplomats, of which there is some mention in the limited texts released from Democrats.  we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in that regard.

44 minutes ago, Papi said:

The July call, however, specifically mentioned Biden. 

yes, as a request.  not a condition.

impressions of others to the contrary, there is no substantive proof beyond hearsay that this was anything more than a request.  no condition, no quid pro quo.

and the Biden request is directly tied to misappropriated funds. AKA Burisma.  it is within the Presidents purview to look into corruption and misuse of funds.

44 minutes ago, Papi said:

...an no reassurances were given.

not on the call no.  the Ukrainians at that time where not aware of funds pending, (that awareness started post politico's article.)

44 minutes ago, Papi said:

...speaking of laws being broken...

...um, what deadline?

...

Quote

said the State Department obligated the $141.5 million for Ukraine before Sept. 30.

was September 30th the deadline, or wasn't it?


16 minutes ago, Splay said:

Were they both fired by Trump?

did Bolton resign?  i guess he will... in his own words...  tell all in his book.  ;)

44 minutes ago, Splay said:

the European Union and European financial institutions have contributed more than $16.4 billion in grants and loans to Ukraine since 2014.

and how much has the US given in that time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why there isn't any evidence that exonerates Trump.  Shit loads of evidence that shows he's guilty.  It's almost as if he ACTUALLY DID IT!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doro said:

It's not, though. The GAO found very clearly that what he did violated the law.

which law did it violate.  it still isn't clear and...

i am still waiting on that law.

the deadline was September 30 & aid was released prior too. no violation, no quid pro quo.

7 minutes ago, Doro said:

You should, considering this is where you're falling down.

actually no sword to fall on, standing quite strong in fact.  Trump is an unconventional President who offends Beltway Establishment sensibilities.  that is not a crime.  & even if the Senate trail gets extended to include more witnesses, there is still no crime.

 

9 minutes ago, Doro said:

I'm not going to do the leg work for you. I've given you enough to look for, you can find it yourself if you're actually serious about looking into it.

i thought you said you already did the leg work?  is there a law or isn't there?

i am going with no, unless you care to provide the link to what you claimed...  this is your claim, not mine.


9 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

I wonder why there isn't any evidence that exonerates Trump.  Shit loads of evidence that shows he's guilty.  It's almost as if he ACTUALLY DID IT!.

if i say you raped me...  is it your burden to prove me wrong?

Trump is as guilty of bribery, as you are of raping me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

I wonder why there isn't any evidence that exonerates Trump.  Shit loads of evidence that shows he's guilty.  It's almost as if he ACTUALLY DID IT!.

Yeah, you think the Republicans would be offering some of that up. I've been watching some of this nonsense, and it genuinely got to the point where they were going "never mind Trump, what about Biden?!" without providing a single bit of evidence. Now that the evidence provided against Trump has forced them to admit what he did, they're genuinely not even bothering to prove their position, instead just pointing everywhere else as a distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doro said:

Yeah, you think the Republicans would be offering some of that up.

its called the transcript of the call.  it has been linked to previously in this thread...  by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

which law did it violate.  it still isn't clear and...

i am still waiting on that law.

I gave you enough to find it already. Impoundment Control Act from the 70s, and the recent GAO decision on Trump will lead the way. Look it up.

Quote

the deadline was September 30 & aid was released prior too. no violation, no quid pro quo.

After the quid pro quo was revealed, so they rushed to release it in an attempt to save themselves. The damage was already done by that point, though.

Quote

actually no sword to fall on, standing quite strong in fact.  Trump is an unconventional President who offends Beltway Establishment sensibilities.  that is not a crime.  & even if the Senate trail gets extended to include more witnesses, there is still no crime.

I didn't say anything about a sword. I'm saying you're falling down on the fundamental part of why Trump was impeached. It's nothing to do with being unconventional, or against the establishment, or any of that bollocks, hence, you're not able to get beyond this point.

Quote

i thought you said you already did the leg work?  is there a law or isn't there?

Yeah, I did, and I told you already. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Quote

i am going with no, unless you care to provide the link to what you claimed...  this is your claim, not mine.

Here you go: https://www.google.com/

4 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

its called the transcript of the call.  it has been linked to previously in this thread...  by me.

Which showed Trump looking for a quid pro quo, and wasn't even a transcript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

i thought you said you already did the leg work?  is there a law or isn't there?

i am going with no, unless you care to provide the link to what you claimed...  this is your claim, not mine.

Since you are too lazy to do it

 

Hours before the Senate embarked on President Trump’s impeachment trial, a nonpartisan federal watchdog agency unexpectedly weighed in on an issue at the heart of the case: the president’s decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine.

The agency, the Government Accountability Office, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld nearly $400 million this past summer for “a policy reason,” even though the funds had been allocated by Congress.

The decision to freeze the aid was directed by the president himself, and during the House impeachment inquiry, administration officials testified that they had raised concerns about its legality to no avail.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the accountability office wrote in an opinion released Thursday. “The withholding was not a programmatic delay.”

The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so.

The accountability office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. It conducts audits of federal spending, issues legal decisions on questions about federal contracts and budget matters and examines if federal agencies are complying with other legal requirements imposed on them by Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

And the hilarious part about this, the Democrats actually think they accomplished something (other than pissing off the American voterbase) by impeaching Trump.

Impeachment without conviction (and/or removal) is meaningless.  If Trump cannot be convicted of the charges (because they're all bullshit), then it means that the House completely failed to make a cogent case... which means they basically wasted 40 days of time in the House that could have been spent doing something productive.... to appease the Twitter voterbase which is so laughably small that it's going to cost them in the 2020 election.  Trump is going to be reelected, this forum is going to go insane, and it will all be so wonderful to watch.

At this point, if the Senate really wants to call additional witnesses, I'm all in for calling witnesses as it traps Sanders and Warren in the Senate, and lets the Republicans help guide the 2020 Democratic nomination process... all because the Democrats thought they achieved something by starting an impeachment proceeding.  And if that means waiting for the courts to properly subpoena Bolton and dragging Hunter Biden into the Senate, then so be it.

Also, now that the Democrats have shown us that impeachment can be used as a vote of no confidence (which is not what it was intended to be used for, but it's the precedence that this impeachment proceeding has set), I fully expect each and every President from this point forward to be impeached when the House majority is a different party than the President.

How many people admit they were fired instead of claiming they left?

You're trying to cover all the bases in this post. It's like hedging bets against yourself.

Now, please do try to keep up.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/romney-collins-say-bolton-claims-strengthen-case-for-witnesses-in-impeachment-trial/ar-BBZnnxp?li=BBnb7Kz

Who are Senators going to believe?

Trump who makes a living of twisting, contorting and lies at every opportunity about the truth?

Bolton who has spent most of his life defending a country and never been accused of lies?

 

I know that's a tough one for a Trumpeteer but do try and be honest with yourself at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Doro said:

I gave you enough to find it already. Impoundment Control Act from the 70s, and the recent GAO decision on Trump will lead the way. Look it up.

so no links then, got it.  just hot air, claimed and expelled by you.

52 minutes ago, Doro said:

so they rushed to release it in an attempt to save themselves.

they met the deadline, yes.

as far as being rushed, more hyperbole.

the deadline was always accounted for, which is why it was met.  no rushing required.

52 minutes ago, Doro said:

I'm saying you're falling down on the fundamental part of why Trump was impeached. It's nothing to do with being unconventional, or against the establishment, or any of that bollocks, hence, you're not able to get beyond this point.

because i do not need to get beyond it.  that is your requirement, not mine.  Trumps Impeachment is a sham.  he will be acquitted and it will forever be a sham.

52 minutes ago, Doro said:

i am not proving your claim.  either you do, or you are nothing more than hot air, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

52 minutes ago, Doro said:

Which showed Trump looking for a quid pro quo, and wasn't even a transcript. 

no it didn't.  Trump made a request.  nothing more.


45 minutes ago, Splay said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/30/ukraine-united-states-military-aid-013792

Article from Sept. 2019 says about 1.5 billion in military aid since 2014. I'm sure other sources from the US landed in Ukraine. Trump's statement still remains incorrect. 

THIS SITE!  has it at just over 2 Billion in that period.  Ukraine gets a lot of money, regardless.


43 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Since you are too lazy to do it 

the funds were released before the deadline.  the rest is just posturing. 

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf  is not actually settled and as it states in the filling:

Quote

 

we will renew our request for specific information from State and OMB regarding the potential impoundment of FMF funds in order to determine whether the Administration’s actions amount to a withholding subject to the ICA, and if so, whether that withholding was proper. We will continue to pursue this matter.

 

again had the funds been held beyond the deadline... they weren't...  it would be clear cut.  but it is just splitting hairs to posture at the moment.  Trump is still legally in the clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "he met the deadline" bullshit..funds have to be allocated and spent (obligated) by the end of the fiscal year--which is 30 September. As it is ever fucking year.  Not all the funds were obligated and Congress had to give an extension.  So no, he did not meet "the deadline". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does impeachment necessitate a crime, I am sure that has never been fully tested and there are many who argue that no crime needs to take place for impeachment. 

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust". Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself". According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

so no links then, got it.  just hot air, claimed and expelled by you.

Okay, I didn't even bother with the rest because it's obvious you're just being an ignorant dick.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...