[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2019-September-25, 13:22, said:

Can't help but believe that Barr should be forced to recuse from any involvement

I think you underestimate his corrupt nature. He will only recuse if he thinks he might go to prison if he doesn't.

[rmnka447]

Give it a rest!!!

Impeachment may salve your unmitigated hate for Trump, but it is going nowhere. Nor should it.

In the meantime, all you superior minds (not that I think that) have been tearing the country apart with all your accusations. That you constantly use members of your own choir to bolster your feelings and prove them correct is laughable.

I'm thinking that those "people in Wal-Mart that you can smell" have figured it out and a day of reckoning will come next November at the ballot box.

Keep up what you're doing because the more you concentrate on impeachment, the more the public at large will get angry about you're not focusing on the problems of the country. How are you going to sell that impeachment was much more important than solving the country's problems to the electorate? You won't be able to, so you're left with only more hate mongering to make your case to the public. Good luck with that.

I have great faith that the broad electorate get it right every time in the end. They did the last time, but you couldn't accept it. BTW, I was fully expected Hillary would win and was wondering if the country could survive another 4 year extension of Obama like rule. It would have been the end of democracy. When Trump won, I couldn't help but think that when the country is at stake, the people do the right thing. They did in 1980, and also 2016. Trump comes with many flaws, but he's a lot of right things to get the country to a better place. It may not be the place you desire, but the alternative you push is worse.

[Winstonm]

 johnu, on 2019-September-25, 13:47, said:

The Manchurian President's government paid personal attorney is as crooked and untrustworthy as any of the other mafioso appointed to the executive branch since 2017.

William Barr’s been accused of a presidential cover-up before



You don't have to teach old dogs new tricks when they remember the old tricks. As we have seen from Barr's deliberate lies and misrepresentations in his written fantasy summary of Mueller's report, his unrelated to the facts TV appearance before Mueller appeared before Congress, or his repeated obstruction of justice in delaying House oversight, if you want a crooked lawyer, Barr's your man.

Barr’s Playbook: He Misled Congress When Omitting Parts of Justice Dep’t Memo in 1989

Even before he was AG the first time,

One of the greatest mistakes we have made as a country is to take a hands off approach to the previous administration once they are out of office. Cheney should have been held to account for orchestrating the Iraq war with fake data; Clinton should have been held accountable for perjury, after he left office; Barr, too, should have been held accountable.

[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2019-September-25, 17:34, said:

In the meantime, all you superior minds (not that I think that) have been tearing the country apart with all your accusations.

For *****'s sake, the issue isn't our "accusations".

The President of the United States is extorting foreign leaders in order to encourage them to interfere in the US elections...
The Director of National Intelligence threatened to resign because the Attorney General was attempting to block the required release of whistleblower reports....
In what world are these not impeachable offenses?

I don't expect that the Senate will vote to convict Trump. However, I'd be shocked if multiple Republican Senators don't cross the aisle.

[Winstonm]

Lawfare has a good article on why the impeachment should not focus on criminality.

Quote

There will be time to sort out the issues of legal criminality; impeachment doesn’t preclude that, and it may well turn out that Trump broke the law. But right now the focus should be on whether Trump satisfied his constitutional duties: to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We won’t need the criminal law to know if he’s failed.

[y66]

Larry Noble's abridged video summary of Trump's conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine.

[Winstonm]

Yahoo reports:

Quote

After viewing the whistleblower complaint relating to President Donald Trump, Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House intelligence committee, said the whistleblower has exposed “serious wrongdoing.” Schiff said the complaint was “well-written” and provides the committee information it can use to follow up with other witnesses and documents. “The idea that the Department of Justice would have intervened to prevent it from getting to Congress, throws the leadership from that department into further ill repute,” Schiff said in a statement to reporters.

[johnu]

Stay tuned for tomorrow's news. The whistleblower's complaint has been declassified and is supposed to be released Thursday morning. The acting DNI is also scheduled to testify before Congress tomorrow morning to answer questions about the attempted coverup by the Criminal in Chief and his government paid personal attorney Barr.

I am almost never surprised by the criminality of the Manchurian President. I also am never surprised that Barr will subvert the law because he has a long history of doing so, and you only had to watch his confirmation hearings to know that you can't trust him any more than the Grifter in Chief. How could Barr not recuse himself when he was directly named in the transcribed phone call? Answering my own question, because he's got no more respect for the law than his boss.

[johnu]

Attention right fringe posters: Please stick to the following White House talking points when you make posts in this thread. Otherwise, I will have to report you to the Criminal in Chief's government paid personal attorney who will personally investigate you. Do not freelance from the "official" line or it may be necessary for the FBI (or at least Giuliani) to open a file on you.

Oops! White House Emails Democrats Its Trump-Ukraine Talking Points.

Quote

In what sounds like a scene straight out of “Veep,” the White House on Wednesday accidentally emailed all of its talking points on President Donald Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president to House and Senate Democrats ― and then followed up with a “recall” email hoping lawmakers would ignore what just happened.

The White House even sent those GOP talking points to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), her office confirmed ― a day after she announced a formal impeachment inquiry spurred by Trump’s Ukraine call.

[cherdano]

Strange - rmnka suddenly sounds really defensive and is completely ignoring the actual issue. Maybe he is waiting for the updated list of talking points? I don't want to mock him, it's really a tough situation as even the messages from headquarters at Fox News have been somewhat confusing, and other team players thst usually step in when headquarters are distracted, such as Washington examiner or National Review, are refusing to play along.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2019-September-25, 17:39, said:

One of the greatest mistakes we have made as a country is to take a hands off approach to the previous administration once they are out of office. Cheney should have been held to account for orchestrating the Iraq war with fake data; Clinton should have been held accountable for perjury, after he left office; Barr, too, should have been held accountable.

Does that mean that Obama is still culpable for abuse of power by weaponizing the government departments to go after political opposition?

Remember US Attorney John Durham is investigating the origins of the Trump collusion investigation. I'm just waiting to see what he finds and think he will be fair.

But enough government documents are becoming public that make it clear that the FBI was aware that the Steele dossier wasn't reliable. Yet the FBI presented it as credible to the FISA court, that's potentially perjury by some high ranking FBI officials. Was it an oversight or deliberate misleading of the court?

Even the Papadopolous incident which allegedly fueled concerns over collusion is unravelling. His "Russian contact" is proving to be someone very close to foreign friendly intelligence agencies.

If you understand that nothing militarily happened in the fight against ISIS in Iraq without White House approval, then you understand how that White House tried to micromanage everything. It would be easy to believe that such a domestic intelligence operation as the Trump collusion investigation would also have to have a go ahead from the White House.

I really hope that Durham finds the culpability ends with a few rogue FBI officials. But I'll wait to see what he finds before making any judgments. There are a lot of arms and legs to what happened that need to be investigated and made public.

Let's get everything out in the open in the light of day and let the chips fall where they may.

[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2019-September-26, 06:17, said:

Does that mean that Obama is still culpable for abuse of power by weaponizing the government departments to go after political opposition?

Remember US Attorney John Durham is investigating the origins of the Trump collusion investigation. I'm just waiting to see what he finds and think he will be fair.

But enough government documents are becoming public that make it clear that the FBI was aware that the Steele dossier wasn't reliable. Yet the FBI presented it as credible to the FISA court, that's potentially perjury by some high ranking FBI officials. Was it an oversight or deliberate misleading of the court?

Even the Papadopolous incident which allegedly fueled concerns over collusion is unravelling. His "Russian contact" is proving to be someone very close to foreign friendly intelligence agencies.

If you understand that nothing militarily happened in the fight against ISIS in Iraq without White House approval, then you understand how that White House tried to micromanage everything. It would be easy to believe that such a domestic intelligence operation as the Trump collusion investigation would also have to have a go ahead from the White House.

I really hope that Durham finds the culpability ends with a few rogue FBI officials. But I'll wait to see what he finds before making any judgments. There are a lot of arms and legs to what happened that need to be investigated and made public.

Let's get everything out in the open in the light of day and let the chips fall where they may.

What a load of unmitigated crap.

Just for a moment, can you drop the inane "what aboutism" and deal with the actual issue that is being discussed.

We have a transcript that unambiguously shows Trump engaging in impeachable acts.
We have live testimony from Trump and Giuliani that show the same
We have the DNI and the Inspector General saying that these complaints have merit
In a few hours, we're going to have the test of the Whistleblower complaint.

Stop trying to distract with ridiculous non sequiturs

[rmnka447]

 cherdano, on 2019-September-26, 02:21, said:

Strange - rmnka suddenly sounds really defensive and is completely ignoring the actual issue. Maybe he is waiting for the updated list of talking points? I don't want to mock him, it's really a tough situation as even the messages from headquarters at Fox News have been somewhat confusing, and other team players thst usually step in when headquarters are distracted, such as Washington examiner or National Review, are refusing to play along.

Speaking of talking points, how is it that virtually every MSM outlet seems to be using the exact same language in describing Trump's action as the Dems spokespersons? Seems like they get their talking points straight from the Dems. Maybe, they're just lemmings and following the leader. Or maybe it's a case of monkey see, monkey do.

BTW, a new poll out asked conservatives, independents, and liberals about impeachment. Right now, 58% of independents are against impeachment. That should be a BIG worry for the next election unless progressives can convince the independents that impeachment is indeed completely justified and necessary. Right now, all the impeachment claims are just preaching to the choir, If impeachment is seen as frivolous by independents, Dems will pay a severe price in the next election. Remember that the Dem majority was obtained by Dems in normally red districts who promised to work with the President and won close races. Those seats could easily flip back if the independents can't be convinced.

Maybe you ought to go back and review Nancy Pelosi's and Jerry Nadler's statements about impeachment in 1998. Spending oodles of time parsing words to get to impeachment isn't going to do it. Let sanity rule and give it a rest.

[hrothgar]

 rmnka447, on 2019-September-26, 06:42, said:

BTW, a new poll out asked conservatives, independents, and liberals about impeachment. Right now, 58% of independents are against impeachment. That should be a BIG worry for the next election unless progressives can convince the independents that impeachment is indeed completely justified and necessary. Right now, all the impeachment claims are just preaching to the choir, If impeachment is seen as frivolous by independents, Dems will pay a severe price in the next election. Remember that the Dem majority was obtained by Dems in normally red districts who promised to work with the President and won close races. Those seats could easily flip back if the independents can't be convinced.

What poll?
Who conducted it?
When was the polling period?

Given that the transcript was only released yesterday I have to wonder whether your claims are anything other than drug induced fever dreams...

[cherdano]

Good news, the talking points have arrived!!!

[rmnka447]

 hrothgar, on 2019-September-26, 06:31, said:

What a load of unmitigated crap.

Just for a moment, can you drop the inane "what aboutism" and deal with the actual issue that is being discussed.

We have a transcript that unambiguously shows Trump engaging in impeachable acts.
We have live testimony from Trump and Giuliani that show the same
We have the DNI and the Inspector General saying that these complaints have merit
In a few hours, we're going to have the test of the Whistleblower complaint.

Stop trying to distract with ridiculous non sequiturs

"What aboutism" is rampart here in your various conversations. I see it every day. I guess you can't see the forest for the trees.

You sound like Captain Quigg of the USS Caine.

Go ahead and try to sell impeachment based on the above to the public. I don't think many people who don't insanely hate the President will buy that's enough to remove a President. Remember we already have given an impeachment pass to a President who lied to a grand jury and was disbarred.

BTW, your "unambiguous" claim isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Don't try to pass it off as a fact. The public has gotten wise to that.

[rmnka447]

 hrothgar, on 2019-September-26, 06:44, said:

What poll?
Who conducted it?
When was the polling period?

Given that the transcript was only released yesterday I have to wonder whether your claims are anything other than drug induced fever dreams...

The only drug induced dreams I can detect are from most of the progressive participants on this forum.

https://www.usatoday...ved/2438970001/

[hrothgar]

Whistleblower complaint is now live
https://t.co/TCR0lE5cF9?amp=1

[rmnka447]

 rmnka447, on 2019-September-26, 06:57, said:

The only drug induced dreams I can detect are from most of the progressive participants on this forum.

https://www.usatoday...ved/2438970001/

Also, checkout question 37 of the latest Quinnipiac poll, that's the source of 58% independents against impeachment.

[Winstonm]

The complaint is remarkable.

I wonder what the talking points will be to try to explain moving the transcript of this call to a computer used for super-sensitive information - and that other Trump transcripts had been moved into the same stand-alone computer, as well.

The fact that Barr is mentioned prominently in the complaint also might help explain how and why the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel intervened to suppress the complaint.