The Never-President Trump

[Surfer 1,547]

22 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

But, in your opinion Surfer, do you think Joe Biden used the Office of Vice-President to benefit his family, viz. Hunter Biden?

I don’t know is the honest answer. I do know these two things though. Joe Biden in not a wealthy man, not when he entered Congress and not now. And the message he brought to Ukraine was assigned to him by the President and approved by Congress and the European Union. So all the evidence suggests Joe Biden is not corrupt. 

To the matter at hand. The President is accused of abusing the powers of his office to bribe a foreign county to publicly state that they would open an official investigation “into the Biden’s” for his personal political gain. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Surfer

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

44 minutes ago, Surfer said:

I don’t know is the honest answer. I do know these two things though. Joe Biden in not a wealthy man, not when he entered Congress and not now. And the message he brought to Ukraine was assigned to him by the President and approved by Congress and the European Union. So all the evidence suggests Joe Biden is not corrupt. 

To the matter at hand. The President is accused of abusing the powers of his office to bribe a foreign county to publicly state that they would open an official investigation “into the Biden’s” for his personal political gain. 

Well it's either 'personal' or 'political'. It couldn't be both unless he was the head of an absolute monarchy, which although you might think so, he isn't. 

And from the evidence that so far has been presented, there doesn't seem that any bribing has taken place Of course, it's fair game to bring political pressure on a person in order to get a result - that's the meat and drink of politics, but there is simply no personal game in this for Trump (unlike the financial gain made by Hunter Biden) and I really can't see this impeachment process surviving for much longer.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

And from the evidence that so far has been presented, there doesn't seem that any bribing has taken place Of course, it's fair game to bring political pressure on a person in order to get a result - that's the meat and drink of politics, but there is simply no personal game in this for Trump (unlike the financial gain made by Hunter Biden) and I really can't see this impeachment process surviving for much longer.

But it isn't what you think that matters. It is down to the constitution. And there was Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky that brought the Presidency into disrepute but this is just like Nixon and Watergate. To use Trump's own words although I doubt he knows what they mean, Quid Pro Quo.

"I gotta say, they are a wonderful band and I love their music, especially Rollover lay down Caroline. Such a beautiful tune".

[Herman 9,765]

55 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Well it's either 'personal' or 'political'. It couldn't be both unless he was the head of an absolute monarchy, which although you might think so, he isn't. 

And from the evidence that so far has been presented, there doesn't seem that any bribing has taken place Of course, it's fair game to bring political pressure on a person in order to get a result - that's the meat and drink of politics, but there is simply no personal game in this for Trump (unlike the financial gain made by Hunter Biden) and I really can't see this impeachment process surviving for much longer.

Desperate really.

It looks like he used the fact that the Ukraine was in a state of war, where assistance against a very strong foe was needed. When you know your ally is in need of aid, threaten to withhold aid unless they do you a favour, then it looks like a bribe or very close to.

[Surfer 1,547]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

Well it's either 'personal' or 'political'. It couldn't be both unless he was the head of an absolute monarchy, which although you might think so, he isn't. 

And from the evidence that so far has been presented, there doesn't seem that any bribing has taken place Of course, it's fair game to bring political pressure on a person in order to get a result - that's the meat and drink of politics, but there is simply no personal game in this for Trump (unlike the financial gain made by Hunter Biden) and I really can't see this impeachment process surviving for much longer.

Are you thick or just deliberately playing the idiot?  What do you think extorting a foreign power by withholding desperately needed military aid in return for them publicly announcing they would investigate the President's leading political rival to his re-election in 2020 is? His "personal" gain is if he is still President in 2020-23 he can avoid being prosecuted, and the statute of limitations will have run out, for some of the alleged financial crimes that he may have committed. 

And setting aside the personal gain, if you are genuinely of the belief that it's O.K to get a foreign government to help you "for political advantage" I have news for you - the US Constitution which all Congressmen and the President swear to uphold says that it isn't, to the contrary it is grounds for impeachment.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Surfer

[Surfer 1,547]

Meanwhile; a quote from a very pro-Trump source Fox News. 

“William Taylor was an impressive witness and was very damaging to the president.” ~Chris Wallace, Fox News

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

I think he's simply a 'dead man walking'.  The game the Democrats are playing surely is to time the moment of his eventual downfall to maximize their position at the 2020 Presidential elections. I think it's now too late for the Republicans to defenestrate him themselves. The swamp sure does need draining!  

[Surfer 1,547]

Meanwhile ....

 

(Republican Congressman) Matt Gaetz via Tweet:

When (Ambassador) Taylor says “our” policy he means the policy supported by Permanent Washington - not necessarily the elected President. 

 

(Democrat Congressman) Ruben Gallego in response via Tweet:

You literally voted in the Armed Services Committee to arm the Ukrainians. I was there a few seats down from you. This “policy” was voted on by the House, Senate and signed by President Trump.

[Surfer 1,547]

Meanwhile ....

White House President Secretary Stephanie Grisham via Twitter 

Rep Turner rightly points out that the first 2 “star” witnesses in this impeachment sham have never even spoken to @POTUS. Think about that: in a Presidential impeachment hearing, the dems witnesses have never even spoken w President Trump. This country deserves so much better.

 

Journalist Chris Hayes in response : 

There are lots of people who *have* spoken to Trump that could testify: Mulvaney, Bolton, but the White House has ordered them not to.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Trumps tone changing from "Fake News, the guys a liar" to "I don't recollect saying that"

Mmmm

[Surfer 1,547]

Humm indeed. OK, so now that the day's testimony is over some other items that dropped ...

Meanwhile : this is the second case involving accessing the President's tax returns - 

" In the case involving Congress's effort to get 8 years of Trump's taxes from Mazar's, the DC Circuit, sitting en banc (all of its active judges) has just affirmed that Congress may get them. They will stay their decision so Trump can ask SCOTUS (the Supreme Court) to review" 

And the Roger Stone trial is wrapping up - clues there the President may have been "economical with the truth" shall we say in his written answers to Robert Mueller's team about the Wikileaks / Russia e-mail hacking. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/roger-stone-trial-rick-gates-testimony/index.html

[Surfer 1,547]

I also posted a version of this in the Brexit Party thread as it goes to a common thread - truth.

This link relates to Roger Stone, and hence Donal trump, and indirectly to Farage and Brexit, but the point of posting it here is it debates the value of truth? Stone's attorney is basically saying that lying is not a crime, truth does not matter, the prosecution attorney is saying - give us. break - truth is at the core of democracy.

The Jury will consider the case starting today. So who is right about how far society should go to protect the value of truth?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/roger-stone-trial-closing-statement-truth-matters-movie/

[Surfer 1,547]

Meanwhile ... one of the most consequential pieces of information in yesterday's testimony was the following; this is a potential rebuttal to the accusation of " yes that may all be true, but did you hear the President say that?" - all while the WH is of course preventing any of those who could have direct knowledge of the President's intentions from testifying. This also puts Trump political appointee Ambassador Sondland on the spot as he's denied any knowledge of such a call. But then again he's already changed his prior testimony once....

 

JUST IN: A source familiar with the matter tells @NBCNews that the (US Ambassador to Ukraine) Taylor staffer who overheard Sondland's call with Trump is David Holmes, who was just added to the calendar to testify in closed session Friday

 

[Surfer 1,547]

Meanwhile ... so what exactly are they trying to hide, or cover up? Why do they need of have the plausible deniability of verbal answers not have written records that a Freedom of Information request could reveal?

As is the case in most inspector general probes, witnesses are being invited to review draft sections of the report and offer comments and corrections, the people said. But — unlike most cases — they are being told those comments must be conveyed only verbally, the people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-watchdog-wont-let-witnesses-give-written-feedback-on-report-about-fbis-russia-probe-sparking-fears-of-inaccuracy/2019/11/14/1236d0aa-070d-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

[Surfer 1,547]

11 hours ago, Surfer said:

Meanwhile ... one of the most consequential pieces of information in yesterday's testimony was the following; this is a potential rebuttal to the accusation of " yes that may all be true, but did you hear the President say that?" - all while the WH is of course preventing any of those who could have direct knowledge of the President's intentions from testifying. This also puts Trump political appointee Ambassador Sondland on the spot as he's denied any knowledge of such a call. But then again he's already changed his prior testimony once....

 

JUST IN: A source familiar with the matter tells @NBCNews that the (US Ambassador to Ukraine) Taylor staffer who overheard Sondland's call with Trump is David Holmes, who was just added to the calendar to testify in closed session Friday

 

Update - a second staffer has come forward to say that he too overheard this conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump, a call the President "has no recollection of"  - as someone commented - " and why on a personal cell phone" ?

" Sondland could easily have asked the embassy staff for use of the embassy’s secure phone to call back to D.C. Why didn’t he? ... (deleted for brevity) ... Or did Sondland not want the embassy to have a record of that call to that number? " 

Sondland's public testimony next Wednesday will be very interesting. It's already clear the Republicans just do not care however .... 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Trumps tweets threateningly while the ex Ambassador is giving testimony. Why doesn't he just sit there staring at her?

 

[Herman 9,765]

This witch hunt is finding and convicting a lot of witches.🤣

[Herman 9,765]

I agree with this statement.

 

[Jools 584]

The circus continues  🤡🌎  

 

[Surfer 1,547]

It’s been a few days since I posted on this thread but I’ll catch up with a summary soon, including the fall out from the Roger Stone conviction. Today we have the first witnesses who had direct knowledge of some of the calls made by President Trump and by Ambassador Sondland. The latter has already changed his testimony once and now special envoy Volker looks like he may have to too......

As for Nunes, he not worth anything; first he was on President Trump’s transition team, he was also the one who announced the FBI was investigating the President illegally, and who rushed to the White House to “tell them” and hold a press conference. We then found out the “evidence” came from the White House itself. In short he’s a liar, as his hometown Modesto Bee has recently stated. When you lose your local newspaper that has endorsed you since forever you know that it’s the truth and not more “fake news” as he claims. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Surfer

[Surfer 1,547]

So the Republicans have got their conspiracy talking point - Lt Col Vindman was offered the position of Ukraine Defence Minister - verbally, in English, in front of two other State adept witnesses, that he then reported to his chain of command. An offer that he “did not take as serious” and he declined immediately as “I am an American” 

So we know exactly where the attacks will go... the Lt Col and family have already been moved to an Army base for their security, not that the Republicans care about that. 

[Jools 584]

Surfer -- When the Democrats have impeached Trumpski, will we find out what the latter is guilty of?  🙃

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

A lot of the Trump supporters on here share lots in common with the orange moron; namely being that they’re insecure man babies 👶🏻 😁

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Surfer -- When the Democrats have impeached Trumpski, will we find out what the latter is guilty of?  

Breathing

[Jools 584]

2 minutes ago, Hoola Han Solo said:

A lot of the Trump supporters on here share lots in common with the orange moron; namely being that they’re insecure man babies 👶🏻😁

If we wanted your opinion we'd give it to you 🙃

 

🤡👞

[Herman 9,765]

Here Jools, why is the "business genius"TM  bailing out US farmers??

[Jools 584]

14 minutes ago, Herman said:

Here Jools, why is the "business genius"TM  bailing out US farmers?? 

Because of the China–US trade war, but a deal is still in the offing as we speak:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/live/2019/nov/19/asian-shares-mixed-amid-doubts-on-us-china-trade-deal-pound-business-live

Wall Street hits new record highs 🙃

[Surfer 1,547]

39 minutes ago, Jools said:

Wall Street hits new record highs 🙃

That is the nature of stock markets - if they increase in value by 3% every year, i.e. simply increase in line with inflation, by definition they would be setting new highs every year, and probably several times within that year. US manufacturing meanwhile is in recession. 

[Surfer 1,547]

2 hours ago, Jools said:

Surfer -- When the Democrats have impeached Trumpski, will we find out what the latter is guilty of?  🙃

You know this morning's line of "the Democrats changed the charge from Quid-Pro-Quo to Bribery and Extortion" must be one of the most stupid defenses brought up to date. I'd be happy to explain it to you if you like. (hint the first is Latin, the other two are English) 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

U.S. stocks slipped back from record highs on Wednesday on disappointing earnings results and doubts about a U.S. - China trade deal