Here’s another BBC news story!
Nothing here or in your and Dave’s generic attacks on Democrats need call what I stated into question.
I do agree Ambassador Taylor will need to swear to the published statement when he is cross examined by the GOP dominated Senate, and I applaud you for recognizing that when investigation enters this public testimony phase, you’ll be better able to form an opinion about how I characterized his words.
What a big game it all is. Now next time a leftie gets in office, I suppose the rino’s will spend 4 years trying to overthrow that president; or at least tie him/her up in endless and meaningless legislation and investigation and innuendo, and of course not cooperate at all with him.
The precedent the Left is setting - especially if they manage to take down the people’s elected president - is alarming. The Left has set the tone for future presidents, all in the name of power. Not substantive issues, power.
Where are we the people? Some clowns at the top deciding our fate? No term limits? Divided by the Left into factions and sub-factions of warring citizens. Why not take the moral high ground? Has Schiff et al thought about that revolutionary idea?
All my comments focused on the substance, and what the truth of the charges may turn out to be.
There was no appeal for power, and I agree that there should not be.
Kelley’s interesting take that he is the one to blame for recent developments!
Though I doubt that even Kelley’s ego could stop Trump from molding the team that Trump wanted.
I disagree since we don’t know the full context of what he said only selected verbiage that Adam Schiff chooses to leak for his own personal political gain.
The fact is that we don’t know much of anything if you value accuracy.
There is no substance unless everything is released and cross examination is allowed otherwise it’s a kangaroo court.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with a generic ‘attack’ if there are facts to back it up. Which there are.
And the Schiff circus is just a circus - how can you possibly contend otherwise?
Now this is interesting, BBC news just in!
Excellent news, and another kudo to Trump. Though Julian Castro, for one, did not give the Prez credit - that’s not what lefties do.
But the world is a little safer for now.
It’s been amazing observing, from north of the border, all the Democrat hypocrisy over Trump’s efforts to withdraw US troops from needless engagements in the Middle East. I would have thought that Dems would support his efforts to protect US troops from being engaged in senseless wars. How wrong I was.
I’ll be watching to see their reaction to this latest development. I doubt Trump will receive any plaudits from the Dems, blinded as they are with rage, envy and their own ineptitude.
While Republicans on the committee have done cross examination, I already agreed with you that any final evaluation requires full release and public testimony.
You again imply that if Taylor’s reported written statement IS publicly confirmed, then what I referenced is crucial and about the substance here, and not just leftist *talk’ that Dave insists is all there can be. That’s all I contended.
This may be relevant here on the developing clues as to what actually happened:
V.P. Pence, asked 4x (by Margaret Brennan) if he’d Known of a Trump directed full quid pro quo plan with Ukraine, as described under oath by many U.S. officials there, refused to answer “No.”
This uncomfortable truth seems to confirm that congressional testimony (see Face the Nation Oct. 27).
But only the Senate is authorized to deem if such arrangements are impeachable and unconstitutional (as violating the emoluments clauses; though I’d guess they won’t, but dividing along partisan lines, will leave it to voters to evaluate).
How could I imply anything since we don’t know what Taylor said in total & even what may be confirmed & the source of Taylor’s info? Did he get his info second or third hand, is it just his opinion?
Even if there was a quid pro quo , if it was re the 2016 election or the origins of the Mueller probe I don’t see it as impeachable my friend. The fact that Biden is a candidate for 2020 which also included 20 other people doesn’t make him immune from investigation. It seems to me Trump had a stupid phone call whereas the Biden’s were actually selling influence for hard cash. The two actions are not remotely comparable but you have no issue with Biden? No problem if he is elected President, is there?
Your beliefs enables that even if this case is strong, disputing the substance of whether there was a quid pro quo is irrelevant, for we’ll assert it’s o.k. anyway. Though Trump insisted 100x there was no quid pro quo, I think the growing indications that many of our appointees in Ukraine will testify that it was widely known explains why as above, V.P. Pence avoids the danger of perjury by refusing to say that he too wasn’t in on this extensive plan (as well as Trump’s public request for other nations with trade at stake to help with damaging his political rival).
As I also explain above, whether you or I see this as impeachable doesn’t matter. The Constitution leaves the Senate huge digression on determining what they see as impeachable or as a violation of the emoluments clauses. And as I say, ultimately I expect it will be up to the voters’ evaluation of Trump’s conduct.
I didn’t say it’s OK, I said it’s not impeachable. I don’t think you appreciate the ripple effect an impeachment over this can have. The heart of America are free elections and overturning an election over something like this, which may have been intent rather then any significant actual action is very short sighted as it sets a dangerous precedent. I don’t like the whole atmosphere of politics, it’s going in a dangerous direction and becoming like a blood sport.
I knew you define it as “not impeachable.” That’s why I said the Constitution calls only the Senate to decide if it violates the emoluments clauses that seem to emphasize the founder’s deep concerns about inviting foreign powers to influence our election (I personally think that’s a far more significant concern than conservatives impeaching a president for lying about heinous infidelity in his marriage).
It’s worthy of evaluation and was the Founders provision for balance of powers. But, as I said, I don’t think you have to worry about “overturning the election.” A GOP dominated Senate will not produce 60 votes to impeach a politician whose base can destroy them. Only the election will decide if Trump’s approach is what we still want. And I think that would be healthiest for our nation.
B.S. This is a kangaroo court and elite pronouncements of ‘balance of powers’ and ‘substance’, said with gravitas, is simply B.S. Dems have been after Trump before he did anything - and now want to snow us with high talk of huge matters, led by clowns in office. We have seen their true colors, so why not leave off talking as if they are serious? They just want the man out, damn the country.
They may ‘win’. But woe to this country if you dems win in this manner.
Hillary bought a false bunch of dirt from the Russians - a ‘dossier’ - and you’re (generic ‘you’) still a dem?
A fake Collusion witchhunt went on for 3 yrs - corrupt in every manner - and you’re still a dem?
Kavanaugh was subject to dirty and slimy lying politics - and you’re still a dem?
Antifa, BLM, stifling free speech on campuses - you’re still a dem?
Why? I think you must be better than that
Biden obviously used coercion - you’re still a dem?
Hillary wiped 33K emails illegally - you’re still a dem?
Comey and the doj gave Hillary a free pass - you’re still a dem?
Obama and Lois Lerner weaponized the IRS - still?
Obama - well, anyone a dem after that man’s wreckage will probably always be a dem.
Cops’ hands being tied while Antifa beats up an old couple - in a dem city, dem mayor.
“Hands up, don’t shoot” - a lie, publicized and made use of by - dems.
Tea party - demonized as racist - no evidence - dems.
Hell I could go on for two pages and maybe I will later. The dems are now no more than a dirty political party sullied even further by crimes, hatred, envy.
But after these and many other obvious scams and lies, any protestation against an ambiguous phone call by the duly elected President - is hollow and frankly insulting to intelligent people.
And this has nothing to do with 2007.
Perhaps we need an “official” song, to see inside this “Kangaroo court”?
Quora: How did the term “kangaroo court” originate?
The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.
1 Like
Congratulations to the USA for ridding the world of another monster. Your service men deserve all the kudos they are getting. So does your President. It makes me feel all the more thankful to have such a neighbor.