[BigSteve]

So, this all begs the question: When are the Democrats going to produce a witness that actually has something relevant to add to all of this?

Because if Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch are any indication, the dipshit Schiff and his cronies are well on their way to a monumental fail...

[late]

So, this all begs the question: When are the Democrats going to produce a witness that actually has something relevant to add to all of this?

Because if Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch are any indication, the dipshit Schiff and his cronies are well on their way to a monumental fail...

"The former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on Friday bashed people who continue to defend Donald Trump with a lengthy Twitter thread.

Walter Shaub ― who last month said officials who defend Trump are waging a “war on democracy”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walter-s ... 47481788e9

Back in the real world. this is simply connecting the dots. People who actually understand what's going on, Watergate prosecutors, Prof of Constitutional Law, retired intel guys, knew this was coming a long time ago.

Of course, that's in the real world.

[BigSteve]

"The former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on Friday bashed people who continue to defend Donald Trump with a lengthy Twitter thread.

Walter Shaub ― who last month said officials who defend Trump are waging a “war on democracy”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walter-s ... 47481788e9

Back in the real world. this is simply connecting the dots. People who actually understand what's going on, Watergate prosecutors, Prof of Constitutional Law, retired intel guys, knew this was coming a long time ago.

Of course, that's in the real world.

That has exactly nothing to do with my post.

Nothing.

Nice fail...

[blackjack21]

No, I said she was a diplomat.

If she had knowledge that Trump committed an impeachable offense, testifying under oath that she didn't have any such knowledge would be perjury, not diplomacy. The reality is that she didn't have any such knowledge. The idea that we need to "read between the lines" to infer the binary opposite of what she testified to is ludicrous.

She avoided the politics as much as she could.

Ah, but impeachment is political. So is being an ambassador. So she was evasive then?

Yovanovitch's testimony hurt the case of impeachment. You won't here that from liberals, who think her testimony was compelling. To be sure, Yovanovitch helping or hurting the case of impeachment isn't a criteria, and she clearly needed to testify.

That's an interesting take. Why do you think she needed to testify? So far, everyone that has testified has never met Trump or communicated with Trump in any way. None of them were on the call. None of them have direct evidence of any criminal behavior by the president. Frankly, I don't see why she needed to testify in an impeachment hearing. If the Democrats wanted to hold a "let's bitch about the president" hearing in the foreign relations committee, at least the context would make sense. However, it makes little sense to keep calling witnesses who have never met the president; therefore, they have witnessed nothing with respect to impeachment.

She betrayed her angle as a US influence peddling foreign-government-in manipulator. Her role trying to promote 'democracy' and 'westernization' in Ukraine were stated. She basically publicly declared herself as an operative of the Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland State Department operation with relation to the coup in Ukraine.

She was part of the anti-Yanukovitch cabal, and participated in his ouster--in violation of the Geneva conventions no less. It was in the vacuum of that chaos that Putin took Crimea and supported separatists in the Donbas. In other words, Trump's criticism was spot on: Ukraine was in a much better situation before Obama's administration backed overthrowing Ukraine's democratically elected leader, principally because that leader sided with Russia over the EU. Watch Oliver Stone's interview and it becomes clear why: the US and EU were demanding that Ukraine procure natural gas at global spot prices, rather than the subsidized price offered by Russia. It would have destroyed Ukraine's economy.

And I'm a supporter of impeachment and removal.

On what basis? I fully understand people who do not intend to vote for Trump next November as a result of thinking he's an ass and having different political motivations. Impeachment, however, is about treason, bribery (generally by foreign governments), etc. It's about selling out the United States--which is ironically something Bill and Hillary Clinton clearly telegraphed they were happy to do with the Clinton Foundation and then had the audacity to claim that their political opponents were the ones doing that. It's not unlike human traffickers who call people opposed to illegal immigration "racist."

[Crantag]

That's an interesting take. Why do you think she needed to testify? So far, everyone that has testified has never met Trump or communicated with Trump in any way. None of them were on the call. None of them have direct evidence of any criminal behavior by the president. Frankly, I don't see why she needed to testify in an impeachment hearing. If the Democrats wanted to hold a "let's bitch about the president" hearing in the foreign relations committee, at least the context would make sense. However, it makes little sense to keep calling witnesses who have never met the president; therefore, they have witnessed nothing with respect to impeachment.

Because she was a figure involved in the situation in question, and her information was desired.

She was part of the anti-Yanukovitch cabal, and participated in his ouster--in violation of the Geneva conventions no less. It was in the vacuum of that chaos that Putin took Crimea and supported separatists in the Donbas. In other words, Trump's criticism was spot on: Ukraine was in a much better situation before Obama's administration backed overthrowing Ukraine's democratically elected leader, principally because that leader sided with Russia over the EU. Watch Oliver Stone's interview and it becomes clear why: the US and EU were demanding that Ukraine procure natural gas at global spot prices, rather than the subsidized price offered by Russia. It would have destroyed Ukraine's economy.

Yes, that's basically what I was saying, and you added a few details. (It's a little unusual for me to agree with you, but you're an okay guy and pretty well informed.)

On what basis? I fully understand people who do not intend to vote for Trump next November as a result of thinking he's an ass and having different political motivations. Impeachment, however, is about treason, bribery (generally by foreign governments), etc. It's about selling out the United States--which is ironically something Bill and Hillary Clinton clearly telegraphed they were happy to do with the Clinton Foundation and then had the audacity to claim that their political opponents were the ones doing that. It's not unlike human traffickers who call people opposed to illegal immigration "racist."

I don't know man, it's almost 2:30am in my timezone, but I've heard enough bullshit to think Trump is a dirty dealing piece of shit, who's totally unfit for the office.

Hillary might have been worse. I said it here many months ago, that the necessary result of 2016 might have been for Hillary to lose the election, and then for Trump to be removed from office. So I've been consistent.

[blackjack21]

I don't know man, it's almost 2:30am in my timezone, but I've heard enough bullshit to think Trump is a dirty dealing piece of shit, who's totally unfit for the office.

Well, I think the guy is an ass who was certainly not prepared for the job he was elected to do. I don't think there is too much disputing that point. However, I think his tough talk is mostly shtick.

The problem with the impeachment hearings is that they aren't identifying impeachable offenses, and the witnesses haven't witnessed anything. Here's a lawyer's take on it (maybe @Godstud will like him, since he's Canadian):

Here is another one that goes to great length to identify hearsay exceptions:

Hillary might have been worse. I said it here many months ago, that the necessary result of 2016 might have been for Hillary to lose the election, and then for Trump to be removed from office. So I've been consistent.

I'm not claiming you're inconsistent. I think opposing Trump politically is fine. I do find people who cannot accept why Trump was elected as a preference to Hillary Clinton tend to disagree with virtually everything Trump says or does and they often focus on things that have little or nothing to do with policy.

The whole thing is a mess, but I think there is a positive externality in showing that since George H.W. Bush, we really haven't had a dimes worth of difference in the State Department or CIA. So the deep state has come to think of themselves as "normal" and Trump as some sort of criminal interloper. The reality is that the American people have had enough of voting for people who they think are going to betray their vote the very next day--e.g., George H.W. Bush, "read my lips, no new taxes."

I find it sort of bewildering that the Democrats are utterly opposed to peace as it were given their stance against the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War after the fact. I find it even weirder that they claim that the US should keep troops in Syria with no authorization to use force--violating their own War Powers Act legislation. You may be very consistent, but the Democrats have been absolutely bewildering.

[late]

That has exactly nothing to do with my post.

Au contraire, your schtick is hear no evil, see no evil.

The rest of us are stuck seeing it, hearing it and smelling it.

There's enough here for a handful of impeachments.

[BigSteve]

Au contraire, your schtick is hear no evil, see no evil.

I asked a question and made an observation, and you completely fell short of addressing either.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself did, though. That makes me laugh...

[late]

I asked a question and made an observation, and you completely fell short of addressing either.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself did, though. That makes me laugh...

When this started, guys like you were asking "Where's the convictions?"

6 down, prob a dozen more before all is said and done.

Ugly business.

[Hindsite]

Yovanovitch's testimony hurt the case of impeachment. You won't here that from liberals, who think her testimony was compelling. To be sure, Yovanovitch helping or hurting the case of impeachment isn't a criteria, and she clearly needed to testify. There might be some criticism worthy for the questioners, but maybe not, I don't really no.

How did it hurt the case for impeachment?

She betrayed her angle as a US influence peddling foreign-government-in manipulator. Her role trying to promote 'democracy' and 'westernization' in Ukraine were stated. She basically publicly declared herself as an operative of the Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland State Department operation with relation to the coup in Ukraine.

This actually plays well for Trump, in the minds of Trump supporters, general skeptics, and within the vein of Yovanovitch potentially being fired as a change of policy direction.

In the memorandum of the phone conversation of July 25, 2019, President Zelenskyy said that he had replaced their ambassador with a very competent and experience ambassador that would work hard to ensure our two nation are getting closer. This was before President Trump mentioned anything about our ambassador, who he referred to as the women that was bad news and the people she was dealing with in Ukraine were bad news.

President Zelenskyy, in reference to the woman ambassador, told President Trump that as he recalls her name was Ivanovich and he agreed 100% that she was a bad ambassador. He went on to say, "Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough."

So it appears to me that President Trump made a good decision by pulling Yovanovitch as our ambassador to Ukraine.

I find it sort of bewildering that the Democrats are utterly opposed to peace as it were given their stance against the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War after the fact. I find it even weirder that they claim that the US should keep troops in Syria with no authorization to use force--violating their own War Powers Act legislation. You may be very consistent, but the Democrats have been absolutely bewildering.

It is simple to understand, the Democrats hate Trump and anything he is for they are against. It is part of the Trump derangement syndrome.

[blackjack21]

It is simple to understand, the Democrats hate Trump and anything he is for they are against. It is part of the Trump derangement syndrome.

That really does seem to be the case with Democrats. I remember after the Gulf War the meme was, "Bush didn't finish the job." When the Iraq War came around, it was "He's trying to avenge the attempt on daddy's life." So they do take the enemy of my enemy is my friend to a ridiculous extreme.

However, in Republican circles the establishment is unpopular, and while Trump is popular he cannot help them. In Kentucky, Trump could not resuscitate Bevin, but down ballot he killed it. It looks like the same thing happened in Louisiana. Trump could not pull Rispone over the finish line, but SecState was a blowout.

Impeachment is helping Trump raise money. To me, the negative part of the witnesses against Trump is that he didn't fire them as soon as he got into office.

Trump is a really unique political phenomenon.

[Hindsite]

That really does seem to be the case with Democrats. I remember after the Gulf War the meme was, "Bush didn't finish the job." When the Iraq War came around, it was "He's trying to avenge the attempt on daddy's life." So they do take the enemy of my enemy is my friend to a ridiculous extreme.

However, in Republican circles the establishment is unpopular, and while Trump is popular he cannot help them. In Kentucky, Trump could not resuscitate Bevin, but down ballot he killed it. It looks like the same thing happened in Louisiana. Trump could not pull Rispone over the finish line, but SecState was a blowout.

It may be that the majority of the people just did not like those two candidates and it did not matter what anyone said on their behalf. It could also be a little Democrat voter cheating that has been known to happen in the past. I believe there is going to be a lot of Democrat voter cheating in the 2020 election to defeat Trump.

To me, the negative part of the witnesses against Trump is that he didn't fire them as soon as he got into office.

As you have seemed to indicate before, he was not prepared or knew enough at the time he came into office.

[BigSteve]

When this started, guys like you were asking "Where's the convictions?"

6 down, prob a dozen more before all is said and done.

Ugly business.

And yet Trump's still in office and the Senate won't grace the Democrat's ignorance-laden impeachment proceedings with a conviction.

I love my country...

[Atlantis]

To me, the negative part of the witnesses against Trump is that he didn't fire them as soon as he got into office.

He did fire most experienced diplomats. That's what's biting him in the ass. He has surrounded himself with yes-men, who don't dare to criticize him for fear of being fired. He is behaving like every other dictator.

US foreign policy is being reduced to serving Trump's personal interests. When dealing with Ukraine, he "doesn't give a shit about Ukraine," all he cares about are "big things" like promoting his personal interests and digging dirt on the democrats.

The result are totally inept and inexperienced people like Sondland, who paid a million to get an ambassador's job. Come Wednesday, he'll have to chose between going to prison or driving the last nail into the coffin of Trump's presidency. By telling Trump that [Zelensky] "loves your ass" after the fateful phone call, he demonstrates just how intimate he is with the president and his dirt digging agenda.

And yet Trump's still in office and the Senate won't grace the Democrat's ignorance-laden impeachment proceedings with a conviction.

I love my country...

You love a bunch of cowards. If Trump had to face a court of law, he would have been convicted a long time ago because the evidence is so overwhelming. In any normal country, the president would have resigned a long time ago so as not to tarnish the presidency and the country.

The republicans are so scared of the bully that they don't dare to say a thing. The whole world has seen that Trump is a coward who sucks up to Kim, Erdogan, and every other self-styled despot, yet the republicans are even greater cowards. A country of weaklings and cowards.

[BigSteve]

When this started, guys like you were asking "Where's the convictions?"

6 down, prob a dozen more before all is said and done.

Ugly business.

My comment was with regards to the first three witnesses the Democrats called in the impeachment hearings. They didn't shed a lot of light on anything, hence my comment.

As for who's been convicted, I see a trend where liberals such as yourself want to blame Trump for things other people do of their own volition.

Blame, however, lies with the person who acted illegally...

[late]

My comment was with regards to the first three witnesses the Democrats called in the impeachment hearings. They didn't shed a lot of light on anything, hence my comment.

As for who's been convicted, I see a trend where liberals such as yourself want to blame Trump for things other people do of their own volition.

Blame, however, lies with the person who acted illegally...

For once, you are correct, as amazing as that is.

When Trump made public, part of his phone call with the Ukrainian PM, that was an admission of guilt.

That was what started the impeachment process. Everything after that is just running the bases, dotting all the Is and crossing all the Ts.

"Other people"? You mean like Giuliani pressuring Ukraine to concoct a fake investigation. You cant take Trump out of the rest of this any more than you can take Trump out of the phone call that started impeachment.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the kings horses and all the kings men

Couldn't put Humpty back together again.

What was it that Mulvaney said? Oh yes, get over it.

[blackjack21]

It may be that the majority of the people just did not like those two candidates and it did not matter what anyone said on their behalf.

That's more or less the case. Otherwise, it would be up and down the ballot, and clearly it isn't.

As you have seemed to indicate before, he was not prepared or knew enough at the time he came into office.

This is why I say he's more bark than bite. Most professional pols would know to do this. Trump, I think, really thought he could get along with the Democrats. When he says "there are a lot of bad people" in Washington, I think he's speaking from the heart.

He did fire most experienced diplomats. That's what's biting him in the ass. He has surrounded himself with yes-men, who don't dare to criticize him for fear of being fired. He is behaving like every other dictator.

That's two different schools of thought in play. An ambassador is, in fact, the president's personal representative to another country. That he hadn't even met the holdovers shows that much of the State Department system is broken, and it has been for a long time. The DoD has had more influence on foreign policy. Yet, Trump has done something quite interesting there too: he hasn't filled the vacancy of Secretary Mattis by a new appointment. Ironically, even the Senate doesn't seem to have put up a slate of candidates to push on the president. There is a lot of animosity toward the deep state right now.

Generally, the Deputy Chief of Mission is the experienced diplomat.

When Trump made public, part of his phone call with the Ukrainian PM, that was an admission of guilt.

It's not an admission of guilt. It's the voluntary offering of evidence.

That was what started the impeachment process.

They have been talking about impeachment since 2016, right after the election. Mark Zaid's tweets are indicative that they had already put together an impeachment by whistleblower angle, which is what got executed in this instance. Once impeachment blows up, they will undoubtedly try something else.

You mean like Giuliani pressuring Ukraine to concoct a fake investigation.

Sure you can. The Law of Principal and Agent applies. First, you have to establish that Giuliani plead Ukraine to instantiate a "fake" investigation. There is already reasonable cause to investigate the Bidens. So it would be nearly impossible to do that outside multiple first person testimony or Giuliani's own writing. Second, you would have to establish that the president directed Giuliani to establish a "fake" investigation. I think Trump believes that Biden is guilty, so I don't think he had any reason to think a "fake" investigation would be necessary. John Solomon's own digging has already revealed substantially more information.

Oh yes, get over it.

Yes. That's good advice for you.

[late]

1) That's two different schools of thought in play. An ambassador is, in fact, the president's personal representative to another country.

2) That he hadn't even met the holdovers shows that much of the State Department system is broken

3) The DoD has had more influence on foreign policy.

4)Yet, Trump has done something quite interesting there too: he hasn't filled the vacancy of Secretary Mattis by a new appointment. Ironically, even the Senate doesn't seem to have put up a slate of candidates to push on the president. There is a lot of animosity toward the deep state right now.

5) It's not an admission of guilt. It's the voluntary offering of evidence.


6) They have been talking about impeachment since 2016, right after the election.


7)Sure you can.

1) An ambassador is there to represent the country, and carry out the policies of the current administration. Your use of the word personal is simply wrong. The president may appoint him, but he swears his oath to the country.

2) The State Dept wasn't broken until Trump broke it.

3) Any real administration works with the complex interplay of differing agencies and their agendas. Calling it complex is an understatement.

I will give you this much, the rise of empire has reduced the influence of State, and clearly increased the influence of Defense. But that ought to come with about a dozen caveats. That is very true in Iraq, not so much in Belgium. Regardless, a real foreign policy has to balance a lot of competing interests, not just those two.

4) The senate can't nominate. The dirty little secret is that Trump has largely stopped using confirmation. That is for a couple reasons. Few people that could get confirmed want to work for him. But, more importantly, he likes having them be beholden only to him. Even there, he doesn't use the government much. He acts on his impulses, and on what's good for him.

5) "I'd like you to do me a favor, though."

6) "They"?? There is one person in Congress that started talking about impeachment early on. It took over a year from that point before Pelosi came on board. Frankly, they should have started an investigation concerning the emoulements clause shortly after he was sworn in. If you didn't see this coming before he was sworn in, you weren't paying attention.

7) Trump already admitted it. We have plenty of corroboration now, with more coming. Fareed Zakaria interviewed a couple Ukrainians today, to get their perspective.

Oh well..

[BigSteve]

2) The State Dept wasn't broken until Trump broke it.

We had a Secretary of State who believed it was perfectly okay to have an unsecured server in her home to handle classified information.

The State Department's broken, but Trump didn't break it...

[late]

We had a Secretary of State who believed it was perfectly okay to have an unsecured server in her home to handle classified information.

The State Department's broken, but Trump didn't break it...

In terms of maintaining operational security, Trump is thousands of times worse. The FBI found no evidence her server was hacked, but we know anybody that wants to listen to Trumps unsecured phone does. That conversation between Trump and Sondland in a restaurant? Both phones were insecure, and that's in Ukraine which Russia has bugged out the yin yang.

And that doesn't include Trumps other lapses, like making sure no record is made for some of his discussions with Putin. That famous meeting with Russians in the Oval Office? We found out about that from the Russians. Russian media wasn't supposed to be there at all. And he said he thought he had obstructed justice by firing Comey. That guy is a bad news buffet.



After we dump the chump, it will take over a generation to rebuild the expertise Trump threw away. This was one of the first things Trump did, and one of the things Putin wanted the most. When Trump did that, I knew he had Putin's hand up his ass.