The problem wasnt that the CRA told them to make bad loans...

The law mandated a weird as quota system. If you had a bank in x demographic area you had to make y% of of your (pick your category) of loans to (pick your demographic group).

If you didnt make your racial quotas they sicced the FDIC and two or three other regulators after you.

A truly progressive implementation from the get go.

It didnt *cause* the issues if 2005-8 all by its lonesome, but it certainly had a heavy hand in it.

(09-30-2019 03:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The problem wasnt that the CRA told them to make bad loans...
The law mandated a weird as quota system. If you had a bank in x demographic area you had to make y% of of your (pick your category) of loans to (pick your demographic group).
If you didnt make your racial quotas they sicced the FDIC and two or three other regulators after you.
A truly progressive implementation from the get go.
It didnt *cause* the issues if 2005-8, but it certainly had a heavy hand in it.

And they couldn't hit the CRA quotas without making bad loans because there weren't enough good borrowers in those areas. But if they made bad loans themselves, they ran afoul of the Comptroller of the Currency and state regulators. So they got people like Countrywide to make the loans for them and sell them to them. Countrywide didn't care because they were selling 100% of the loan. Here's where my 25% would have made a difference. So Countrywide made the loan, sold it to the bank, then somebody in internal audit started looking around and realized what a bunch of crap they had just bought.

My insurance provision, by the way, was basically adopted by a bunch of renegade republican congress critters in 2008 as an alternative to the bailout. Here's how my idea would have worked. You can't make your loan payment, the property goes over to FHA (or could have used Freddie/Fannie for this), You can lease your house for a wage-adjusted rental for 5 years. At any time in the 5 years, if your financial situation improves, you can step back into your original loan. You stay out of massive foreclosures, which were really what caused the recession because they ate up everybody's equity. That and mark-to-market accounting really blew the problem up. The renegade republican proposal was going to suspend MTM also.

(09-27-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

No - I'm saying Trump shouldn't be directly involved in investigative matters that involve his political opponents.

If Biden truly did something wrong, we have non-partisan ways of handling investigations. If the Justice Department felt that whatever crime Trump and Giuliani are suggesting Biden committed was credible enough and serious enough to pursue, let them investigate and keep Trump out of it.

Are you saying you're fine with the president using his power and influence to push for investigations of anyone he is interested in pursuing, regardless of its influence on our national interest?

Wow... I love how even in your snarky response, you completely misrepresent the situation. So the son of a sitting Vice-President seeming to get paid millions because his father talked a foreign government into firing a prosecutor investigating him... is somehow NOT in our national interest? That's laughable. And it's not 'anyone'. You act like this is random... you know, like Obama did with the IRS. This is specific and targeted and while not demonstrably true, there certainly exists as much evidence of THIS as there was of 'collusion'. Biden bragged about doing it. His son profited significantly.

It should be obvious that the justice department has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Trump and the Ukrainian president were both elected on the idea of 'draining the swamp'. They spoke about it on the call. This was directly related to that.

The biggest reason you're against his involvement here is that you and 'your side' are desperate to find a smoking gun. That's all. There is nothing illegal, or at its core, immoral about one president asking another to investigate corruption between the two countries. Trump's 'involvement' seems to be 'look into this, will you'? Oh the horrors.

Especially in that you seem to be forgetting that what Biden is being accused of is functionally the same thing.... directly encouraging a foreign government to investigate/throw out a corrupt prosecutor.... with the ADDITION of getting a very large payment for his son in exchange.

The problem is the money.... the personal gain... not the request to investigate corruption.

(10-01-2019 07:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

No - I'm saying Trump shouldn't be directly involved in investigative matters that involve his political opponents.

If Biden truly did something wrong, we have non-partisan ways of handling investigations. If the Justice Department felt that whatever crime Trump and Giuliani are suggesting Biden committed was credible enough and serious enough to pursue, let them investigate and keep Trump out of it.

Are you saying you're fine with the president using his power and influence to push for investigations of anyone he is interested in pursuing, regardless of its influence on our national interest?

Wow... I love how even in your snarky response, you completely misrepresent the situation. So the son of a sitting Vice-President seeming to get paid millions because his father talked a foreign government into firing a prosecutor investigating him... is somehow NOT in our national interest? That's laughable. And it's not 'anyone'. You act like this is random... you know, like Obama did with the IRS. This is specific and targeted and while not demonstrably true, there certainly exists as much evidence of THIS as there was of 'collusion'. Biden bragged about doing it. His son profited significantly.

It should be obvious that the justice department has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Trump and the Ukrainian president were both elected on the idea of 'draining the swamp'. They spoke about it on the call. This was directly related to that.

The biggest reason you're against his involvement here is that you and 'your side' are desperate to find a smoking gun. That's all. There is nothing illegal, or at its core, immoral about one president asking another to investigate corruption between the two countries. Trump's 'involvement' seems to be 'look into this, will you'? Oh the horrors.

Especially in that you seem to be forgetting that what Biden is being accused of is functionally the same thing.... directly encouraging a foreign government to investigate/throw out a corrupt prosecutor.... with the ADDITION of getting a very large payment for his son in exchange.

The problem is the money.... the personal gain... not the request to investigate corruption.

Maybe read a bit more about the Ukrainian prosecutor and don't rely on news sources parroting the Trump line... The firing of the prosecutor made it more likely that Biden's son's company was investigated, as the fired prosecutor basically stopped looking into issues with the company prior to being pushed out at the behest of the Obama admin, via Biden.

From Rice grad and eastern-European expert Casey Michel:

Quote:Others have rightly pointed out that, in reality, Biden was not simply relaying the message pushed by the Obama administration, but that his position was supported by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, European allies, and even groups like the International Monetary Foundation (IMF). As Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state under Obama, recalled this week, “All of us working on Ukraine wanted this prosecutor gone, because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. So did the Europeans. So did the IMF. This didn't come from Joe Biden—he just delivered our message...”

That reprehensible behavior could be seen, most pertinently, in the way Shokin treated an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board Hunter Biden sat. Launched in 2014, the investigation focused specifically on the means and machinations of Burisma’s oligarchic owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Initially, the investigation appeared a sign of Ukraine’s new ways, of a willingness to target all and sundry, regardless of political connection.

But it quickly became apparent that Shokin had little interest in actually uprooting any corruption percolating within Burisma, or within Zlochevsky’s network. According to former members of Shokin’s staff—including one, Vitaliy Kasko, who reiterated a few months ago that Biden never pressured anyone to avoid looking into his son’s company—Shokin ignored offers of aid from foreign partners to track Zlochevsky’s international financial network. In particular, Shokin effectively ignored the U.K.’s move to freeze tens of millions of dollars allegedly attached to Zlochevsky, identified during a money-laundering investigation directly tied to the ousted Ukrainian regime...

The case was as clear as any to come out of post-2014 Ukraine. And then it collapsed. An arrest warrant for Zlochevsky lapsed. The funds were eventually unfrozen, and allowed to seep back into the offshore networks linked to Zlochevsky, unseen since. All because Shokin, and his office, thought it better to allow the previous regime’s kleptocratic methods to flood back in...

And when it came to ousting a prosecutor who refused to do his job, it didn’t matter if his son’s company—a company Hunter Biden should, obviously, never have joined—got caught in the cross-fire.

Biden, as the messenger for demanding a new, and more effective, prosecutor, succeeded. That success meant that Ukraine would be more likely to investigate his son’s company. And in that success, a conspiracy theory—that Biden was actually trying to protect his son, rather than push Ukraine to a more democratic path, no matter who got caught in the middle—was born.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-big...alls-apart

(10-01-2019 07:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow... I love how even in your snarky response, you completely misrepresent the situation. So the son of a sitting Vice-President seeming to get paid millions because his father talked a foreign government into firing a prosecutor investigating him... is somehow NOT in our national interest? That's laughable. And it's not 'anyone'. You act like this is random... you know, like Obama did with the IRS. This is specific and targeted and while not demonstrably true, there certainly exists as much evidence of THIS as there was of 'collusion'. Biden bragged about doing it. His son profited significantly.

It should be obvious that the justice department has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Trump and the Ukrainian president were both elected on the idea of 'draining the swamp'. They spoke about it on the call. This was directly related to that.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is in the country's best interest for our president to be pressuring foreign heads of state to look into the business dealings of a former vice-president's son and not any of the more pressing issues of today's world.

By the WH's own memo, Trump told Zelensky to contact his personal lawyer. If everything is on the up and up, why tell him to talk to Giuliani?

Fountains of Wayne Graham .' Wrote:  Let's say for the sake of argument that it is in the country's best interest for our president to be pressuring foreign heads of state to look into the business dealings of a former vice-president's son and not any of the more pressing issues of today's world.

If the business dealings being being looked into proved to be legal and innocent, what's the problem? You guys act as though he said, "look into this stuff and find him guilty". He didn't say that, nor did he ask them to dig up dirt, nor did he ask them to make up dirt. Very hypocritical, after three years of saying about the Mueller investigation that if Trump was innocent he had nothing to worry about. If the Bidens had clean hands, they would have nothing to worry about, and the exoneration in an unbiased investigation would prove to be an arrow in the quiver of a possible Democratic nominee.

And it is rich that you talk about about the pressing issues of today's world. Trump is the one paying attention to those issues - the Democrats ignore everything but impeachment, and have ever since 11-8-16.

(10-01-2019 07:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

No - I'm saying Trump shouldn't be directly involved in investigative matters that involve his political opponents.

If Biden truly did something wrong, we have non-partisan ways of handling investigations. If the Justice Department felt that whatever crime Trump and Giuliani are suggesting Biden committed was credible enough and serious enough to pursue, let them investigate and keep Trump out of it.

Are you saying you're fine with the president using his power and influence to push for investigations of anyone he is interested in pursuing, regardless of its influence on our national interest?

Wow... I love how even in your snarky response, you completely misrepresent the situation. So the son of a sitting Vice-President seeming to get paid millions because his father talked a foreign government into firing a prosecutor investigating him... is somehow NOT in our national interest? That's laughable. And it's not 'anyone'. You act like this is random... you know, like Obama did with the IRS. This is specific and targeted and while not demonstrably true, there certainly exists as much evidence of THIS as there was of 'collusion'. Biden bragged about doing it. His son profited significantly.

It should be obvious that the justice department has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Trump and the Ukrainian president were both elected on the idea of 'draining the swamp'. They spoke about it on the call. This was directly related to that.

The biggest reason you're against his involvement here is that you and 'your side' are desperate to find a smoking gun. That's all. There is nothing illegal, or at its core, immoral about one president asking another to investigate corruption between the two countries. Trump's 'involvement' seems to be 'look into this, will you'? Oh the horrors.

Especially in that you seem to be forgetting that what Biden is being accused of is functionally the same thing.... directly encouraging a foreign government to investigate/throw out a corrupt prosecutor.... with the ADDITION of getting a very large payment for his son in exchange.

The problem is the money.... the personal gain... not the request to investigate corruption.

Hbone - my understanding is that the payments to Biden's son predated the request made by Biden (and others) to remove the prosecutor. I think you're also overlooking or conflating the weird conspiracy angle Trump was asking about.

I haven't seen anything credible that Biden was trying to get rid of the prosecutor to protect his son. To the contrary there's lots of evidence that many of our US allies were complaining about the prosecutor at the same time and those complaints all related to corruption allegations against the prosecutor whose name I can't spell.

The payments made to Biden's son are problematic/scummy in the same way the Clinton Foundation donations and the current use of the Trump Hotel by foreign diplomats all smell like pay to play, swampy. But not sure any of that is against the law. If Biden's son was enriching himself off of his name and Biden Sr. knew about it and tacitly approved, that may sink him in the Demo primary. Same way Clinton's Goldman Sach speeches turned off the Bernie bro's the last time around.

Anyway, as we all know, Trump and his G-man attorney are playing seven dimensional chess here to get Warren the nomination . . .

(10-01-2019 12:03 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 07:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 09:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 08:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The second biggest thing is that this confirms Trump cares nothing about maintaining the trust of the American people - if he did, he wouldn’t have come close to personally trying to convince a foreign power to investigate anything related to a political opponent.

by political opponent, you mean someone who may have engaged in quid-pro-quo for personal gain?

That's the problem with your position... same with the Russian emails... If Biden did nothing wrong, there is nothing to investigate. if there is, what is the difference, except party... and that Trump's inquiry doesn't exist without Biden's clear (under this assumption) crime.

Are you saying asking a foreign government to help us root out crimes that involved them is wrong?

No - I'm saying Trump shouldn't be directly involved in investigative matters that involve his political opponents.

If Biden truly did something wrong, we have non-partisan ways of handling investigations. If the Justice Department felt that whatever crime Trump and Giuliani are suggesting Biden committed was credible enough and serious enough to pursue, let them investigate and keep Trump out of it.

Are you saying you're fine with the president using his power and influence to push for investigations of anyone he is interested in pursuing, regardless of its influence on our national interest?

Wow... I love how even in your snarky response, you completely misrepresent the situation. So the son of a sitting Vice-President seeming to get paid millions because his father talked a foreign government into firing a prosecutor investigating him... is somehow NOT in our national interest? That's laughable. And it's not 'anyone'. You act like this is random... you know, like Obama did with the IRS. This is specific and targeted and while not demonstrably true, there certainly exists as much evidence of THIS as there was of 'collusion'. Biden bragged about doing it. His son profited significantly.

It should be obvious that the justice department has no jurisdiction in Ukraine. Trump and the Ukrainian president were both elected on the idea of 'draining the swamp'. They spoke about it on the call. This was directly related to that.

The biggest reason you're against his involvement here is that you and 'your side' are desperate to find a smoking gun. That's all. There is nothing illegal, or at its core, immoral about one president asking another to investigate corruption between the two countries. Trump's 'involvement' seems to be 'look into this, will you'? Oh the horrors.

Especially in that you seem to be forgetting that what Biden is being accused of is functionally the same thing.... directly encouraging a foreign government to investigate/throw out a corrupt prosecutor.... with the ADDITION of getting a very large payment for his son in exchange.

The problem is the money.... the personal gain... not the request to investigate corruption.

Hbone - my understanding is that the payments to Biden's son predated the request made by Biden (and others) to remove the prosecutor. I think you're also overlooking or conflating the weird conspiracy angle Trump was asking about.

I haven't seen anything credible that Biden was trying to get rid of the prosecutor to protect his son. To the contrary there's lots of evidence that many of our US allies were complaining about the prosecutor at the same time and those complaints all related to corruption allegations against the prosecutor whose name I can't spell.

The payments made to Biden's son are problematic/scummy in the same way the Clinton Foundation donations and the current use of the Trump Hotel by foreign diplomats all smell like pay to play, swampy. But not sure any of that is against the law. If Biden's son was enriching himself off of his name and Biden Sr. knew about it and tacitly approved, that may sink him in the Demo primary. Same way Clinton's Goldman Sach speeches turned off the Bernie bro's the last time around.

Anyway, as we all know, Trump and his G-man attorney are playing seven dimensional chess here to get Warren the nomination . . .

Personally, I don't want Biden sunk, if it means Warren is the flag bearer of the Socialist Army. As usual, the lesser evil gets my support. Biden is a much lesser evil than Warren. I shudder to think what would happen in a Warren administration.

I think the #1 rule for people discussing politics should be "don't be a hypocrite." So if you think it is ok for people you support to do it, make sure you are OK if people you don't support do it too. If you think it is not ok for someone you do not support to do something, make sure you also believe it would would not be ok for someone you do support to engage in the same practice.

You don't like Hunter Biden being on a foreign company's board? That's cool, just make sure you feel the same way about the Bush, Cheney, Trump, and Pence kids.

You don't like Ivanka Trump getting patent and hawking her wares? That's cool, just make sure you feel the same way if a Dem's kid did the same thing.

If you are OK with the coziness between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, that's cool. Just make sure you are A-OK if the Chinese are similarly close to the democratic campaign in 2020.

If you are not OK with the coziness between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2020, that's cool. Just make sure you would not support similar efforts to unseat Trump in 2020.

If you were deeply disturbed with Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton chatting on a tarmac, but are perfectly fine with William Barr running the whistle-blower complaint by the Trump administration, you might be a hypocrite. If you are deeply disturbed by Trump's philandering ways but didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton, you might be a hypocrite. If you think Bill Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath but are fine with Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, you might be a hypocrite. If you think Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to the Senate but try to excuse Bill Clinton, you might be a hypocrite.

Of course, the problem is that no one really wants to admit to hypocrisy. So they believe in a version of facts that allows them to not be hypocrites.

A sincere thank you to Big for the quality post.

(10-01-2019 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Fountains of Wayne Graham .' Wrote:  Let's say for the sake of argument that it is in the country's best interest for our president to be pressuring foreign heads of state to look into the business dealings of a former vice-president's son and not any of the more pressing issues of today's world.

If the business dealings being being looked into proved to be legal and innocent, what's the problem? You guys act as though he said, "look into this stuff and find him guilty". He didn't say that, nor did he ask them to dig up dirt, nor did he ask them to make up dirt. Very hypocritical, after three years of saying about the Mueller investigation that if Trump was innocent he had nothing to worry about. If the Bidens had clean hands, they would have nothing to worry about, and the exoneration in an unbiased investigation would prove to be an arrow in the quiver of a possible Democratic nominee.

And it is rich that you talk about about the pressing issues of today's world. Trump is the one paying attention to those issues - the Democrats ignore everything but impeachment, and have ever since 11-8-16.

OOwl, I have no defense for dems who refuse to wield power.

I'll ask again. If everything is kosher, why does Trump direct Zelensky to talk to Giuliani, his personal lawyer?

(10-01-2019 12:18 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I think the #1 rule for people discussing politics should be "don't be a hypocrite." So if you think it is ok for people you support to do it, make sure you are OK if people you don't support do it too. If you think it is not ok for someone you do not support to do something, make sure you also believe it would would not be ok for someone you do support to engage in the same practice.

You don't like Hunter Biden being on a foreign company's board? That's cool, just make sure you feel the same way about the Bush, Cheney, Trump, and Pence kids.

You don't like Ivanka Trump getting patent and hawking her wares? That's cool, just make sure you feel the same way if a Dem's kid did the same thing.

If you are OK with the coziness between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, that's cool. Just make sure you are A-OK if the Chinese are similarly close to the democratic campaign in 2020.

If you are not OK with the coziness between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2020, that's cool. Just make sure you would not support similar efforts to unseat Trump in 2020.

If you were deeply disturbed with Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton chatting on a tarmac, but are perfectly fine with William Barr running the whistle-blower complaint by the Trump administration, you might be a hypocrite. If you are deeply disturbed by Trump's philandering ways but didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton, you might be a hypocrite. If you think Bill Clinton should have been impeached for lying under oath but are fine with Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, you might be a hypocrite. If you think Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to the Senate but try to excuse Bill Clinton, you might be a hypocrite.

Of course, the problem is that no one really wants to admit to hypocrisy. So they believe in a version of facts that allows them to not be hypocrites.

Generally agree, but just need one clarification: by coziness with the Russians, do you mean when he told the Russian president he could be more flexible after the election?

You seem to make several assumptions I do not agree with, such as Kavanaugh lying to the Senate. Has that been proven?

I do not care one bit about either Trump or Clinton's philandering ways, until they lie about it under oath. Until then it is their private business.

But yes, I do believe in one standard for all.

lol

(10-01-2019 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seem to make several assumptions I do not agree with, such as Kavanaugh lying to the Senate. Has that been proven?

Fair point. Has it been proven to the point that you would accept ... certainly not. If a full FBI background investigation had been run before the 2nd hearing, I think the public would have a lot better understanding. Unfortunately, it wasn't and we don't.

Based on public reporting from other people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and college, you can make the argument that he was just intentionally and grossly misleading when under oath, rather than lying. My personal opinion is that it was disqualifying on the front end, but maybe not impeachable on the backend. I was always surprised that so many Republicans and conservatives went to the mattresses for Kavanaugh. Plenty of other qualified conservative nominees without the baggage that could have sailed through like Gorsuch. I think Republicans and conservatives may have stuck with Kavanaugh just to make it a campaign issue for the democratic senators in red states.

But most of the "lies" boil down to he-said / she-said and he-said / he-said. So if you believe Kavanaugh, then you believe that he did not lie. If you believe many of his former classmates, doormates, etc., then you think he lied. Guess a jury of his peers could decide if that is enough to establish "proof".

EDIT - Of course, I don't want this to obscure my larger point. Don't be a hypocrite. When you are defending a politician's actions, swap out that politician's names for another politician that you hate to the core of your being. If you still feel justified in defending the hated politician, you have a sound argument.

(10-01-2019 02:07 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seem to make several assumptions I do not agree with, such as Kavanaugh lying to the Senate. Has that been proven?

Fair point. Has it been proven to the point that you would accept ... certainly not. If a full FBI background investigation had been run before the 2nd hearing, I think the public would have a lot better understanding. Unfortunately, it wasn't and we don't.

Based on public reporting from other people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and college, you can make the argument that he was just intentionally and grossly misleading when under oath, rather than lying. My personal opinion is that it was disqualifying on the front end, but maybe not impeachable on the backend. I was always surprised that so many Republicans and conservatives went to the mattresses for Kavanaugh. Plenty of other qualified conservative nominees without the baggage that could have sailed through like Gorsuch. I think Republicans and conservatives may have stuck with Kavanaugh just to make it a campaign issue for the democratic senators in red states.

But most of the "lies" boil down to he-said / she-said and he-said / he-said. So if you believe Kavanaugh, then you believe that he did not lie. If you believe many of his former classmates, doormates, etc., then you think he lied. Guess a jury of his peers could decide if that is enough to establish "proof".

I did believe Kavanaugh when he said he liked beer.

(10-01-2019 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 02:07 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seem to make several assumptions I do not agree with, such as Kavanaugh lying to the Senate. Has that been proven?

Fair point. Has it been proven to the point that you would accept ... certainly not. If a full FBI background investigation had been run before the 2nd hearing, I think the public would have a lot better understanding. Unfortunately, it wasn't and we don't.

Based on public reporting from other people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and college, you can make the argument that he was just intentionally and grossly misleading when under oath, rather than lying. My personal opinion is that it was disqualifying on the front end, but maybe not impeachable on the backend. I was always surprised that so many Republicans and conservatives went to the mattresses for Kavanaugh. Plenty of other qualified conservative nominees without the baggage that could have sailed through like Gorsuch. I think Republicans and conservatives may have stuck with Kavanaugh just to make it a campaign issue for the democratic senators in red states.

But most of the "lies" boil down to he-said / she-said and he-said / he-said. So if you believe Kavanaugh, then you believe that he did not lie. If you believe many of his former classmates, doormates, etc., then you think he lied. Guess a jury of his peers could decide if that is enough to establish "proof".

I did believe Kavanaugh when he said he liked beer.

I felt like he was speaking for me in that moment

(10-01-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe read a bit more about the Ukrainian prosecutor and don't rely on news sources parroting the Trump line... The firing of the prosecutor made it more likely that Biden's son's company was investigated, as the fired prosecutor basically stopped looking into issues with the company prior to being pushed out at the behest of the Obama admin, via Biden.

If you're going to be a jerk, maybe read what I write instead of assuming. More on this later

Quote:From Rice grad and eastern-European expert Casey Michel:

Quote: As Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state under Obama, recalled this week, “All of us working on Ukraine wanted this prosecutor gone, because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. So did the Europeans. So did the IMF. This didn't come from Joe Biden—he just delivered our message...”

So you're okay with politicians speaking to other foreign leaders about ousting corruption. You're okay when Obama did it... you're not when Trump does it. Got it. Pretty obvious that Obama, Biden, the IMF and all sorts of people 'working on Ukraine' (meaning pressuring them to do things they apparently don't want to do) were having this same conversation.

You're admitting precisely what I said. You said it's wrong for Trump to insert himself, but you were okay with it when Biden and Obama did it. To me it's a bit like going after the pimps or the john's rather than the prostitutes.

(10-01-2019 09:38 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Let's say for the sake of argument that it is in the country's best interest for our president to be pressuring foreign heads of state to look into the business dealings of a former vice-president's son and not any of the more pressing issues of today's world.

By the WH's own memo, Trump told Zelensky to contact his personal lawyer. If everything is on the up and up, why tell him to talk to Giuliani?

Once again, illegality by inference because the facts aren't there. Why would they do something NOT on the up and up on a recorded line and in their own memo's? Two can play that game and its stupid.

By the very conversation in question, two politicians who apparently shared some strategies about campaigning on ending political corruption... WHO WERE ELECTED AT LEAST IN PART FOR THAT VERY REASON... and YOU in your infinite wisdom think they should work on more important things. Color me unimpressed.

(10-01-2019 12:03 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Hbone - my understanding is that the payments to Biden's son predated the request made by Biden (and others) to remove the prosecutor. I think you're also overlooking or conflating the weird conspiracy angle Trump was asking about.

I haven't seen anything credible that Biden was trying to get rid of the prosecutor to protect his son. To the contrary there's lots of evidence that many of our US allies were complaining about the prosecutor at the same time and those complaints all related to corruption allegations against the prosecutor whose name I can't spell.

The payments made to Biden's son are problematic/scummy in the same way the Clinton Foundation donations and the current use of the Trump Hotel by foreign diplomats all smell like pay to play, swampy. But not sure any of that is against the law. If Biden's son was enriching himself off of his name and Biden Sr. knew about it and tacitly approved, that may sink him in the Demo primary. Same way Clinton's Goldman Sach speeches turned off the Bernie bro's the last time around.

Anyway, as we all know, Trump and his G-man attorney are playing seven dimensional chess here to get Warren the nomination . . .

You're acting as if I said Trump did nothing wrong. All I'm saying is that there is clearly as much 'here' as there was in 'collusion'.

I don't disagree that it is all swampy... I am merely disagreeing with the 'holier than thou' attitude by some. If Biden Jr did nothing wrong, then a request for another entity, completely removed from our politics to look into it should be even less of an issue than having 'the Trump FBI' (or whomever) do so. If Trump had asked the FBI to do it, are you saying there wouldn't similarly be calls that it was political?

First Trump was a puppet of the Russians, now Trump is apparently making a puppet out of Ukraine - After Biden and Obama pressured the same country over what is almost entirely an internal affair.... a corrupt prosecutor who has no jurisdiction beyond their borders. As I understand it, the IMF wanted him removed because of payola, where much of their assistance was being funneled to corporations who did things like... make big payments to people like Biden Jr.


No problem here with the investigations. No problem here with asking another country if our people were involved with theirs in some corruption. No defense of Trump NOR Biden here.... also no guilt by inference. Inference causes you to ask questions, not draw conclusions.

(10-01-2019 03:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe read a bit more about the Ukrainian prosecutor and don't rely on news sources parroting the Trump line... The firing of the prosecutor made it more likely that Biden's son's company was investigated, as the fired prosecutor basically stopped looking into issues with the company prior to being pushed out at the behest of the Obama admin, via Biden.

If you're going to be a jerk, maybe read what I write instead of assuming. More on this later

Quote:From Rice grad and eastern-European expert Casey Michel:

Quote: As Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state under Obama, recalled this week, “All of us working on Ukraine wanted this prosecutor gone, because he was NOT prosecuting corruption. So did the Europeans. So did the IMF. This didn't come from Joe Biden—he just delivered our message...”

So you're okay with politicians speaking to other foreign leaders about ousting corruption. You're okay when Obama did it... you're not when Trump does it. Got it. Pretty obvious that Obama, Biden, the IMF and all sorts of people 'working on Ukraine' (meaning pressuring them to do things they apparently don't want to do)

You're admitting precisely what I said. You said it's wrong for Trump to insert himself, but you were okay with it when Biden and Obama did it.

(10-01-2019 09:38 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Let's say for the sake of argument that it is in the country's best interest for our president to be pressuring foreign heads of state to look into the business dealings of a former vice-president's son and not any of the more pressing issues of today's world.

By the WH's own memo, Trump told Zelensky to contact his personal lawyer. If everything is on the up and up, why tell him to talk to Giuliani?

Once again, illegality by inference because the facts aren't there. Why would they do something NOT on the up and up on a recorded line and in their own memo's? Two can play that game and its stupid.

By the very conversation in question, two politicians who apparently shared some strategies about campaigning on ending political corruption... WHO WERE ELECTED AT LEAST IN PART FOR THAT VERY REASON... and YOU in your infinite wisdom think they should work on more important things. Color me unimpressed.

(10-01-2019 12:03 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Hbone - my understanding is that the payments to Biden's son predated the request made by Biden (and others) to remove the prosecutor. I think you're also overlooking or conflating the weird conspiracy angle Trump was asking about.

I haven't seen anything credible that Biden was trying to get rid of the prosecutor to protect his son. To the contrary there's lots of evidence that many of our US allies were complaining about the prosecutor at the same time and those complaints all related to corruption allegations against the prosecutor whose name I can't spell.

The payments made to Biden's son are problematic/scummy in the same way the Clinton Foundation donations and the current use of the Trump Hotel by foreign diplomats all smell like pay to play, swampy. But not sure any of that is against the law. If Biden's son was enriching himself off of his name and Biden Sr. knew about it and tacitly approved, that may sink him in the Demo primary. Same way Clinton's Goldman Sach speeches turned off the Bernie bro's the last time around.

Anyway, as we all know, Trump and his G-man attorney are playing seven dimensional chess here to get Warren the nomination . . .

You're acting as if I said Trump did nothing wrong. All I'm saying is that there is clearly as much 'here' as there was in 'collusion'.

I don't disagree that it is all swampy... I am merely disagreeing with the 'holier than thou' attitude by some. If Biden Jr did nothing wrong, then a request for another entity, completely removed from our politics to look into it should be even less of an issue than having 'the Trump FBI' (or whomever) do so. If Trump had asked the FBI to do it, are you saying there wouldn't similarly be calls that it was political?

First Trump was a puppet of the Russians, now Trump is apparently making a puppet out of Ukraine - After Biden and Obama pressured the same country over what is almost entirely an internal affair.... a corrupt prosecutor who has no jurisdiction beyond their borders. As I understand it, the IMF wanted him removed because of payola, where much of their assistance was being funneled to corporations who did things like... make big payments to people like Biden Jr.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that the issue isn't Trump pushing for a country to investigate corruption. It's that Trump inserted himself into a situation involving his main political opponent.

When you have a sensitive subject, you need to act sensitively.

Trump getting a pass on using his position to request the investigation of a political opponent means that there is no issue with him using his power to ask anyone else to investigate any of his opponents. All he has to say is "I think something is wrong" and boom, off to another investigation and abuse of power.

The line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is perfect for this situation.

I am glad that in your last sentence you recognize that the ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor that the Obama administration meant that it was more likely that Hunter's company would be investigated for real. Which means that Joe was almost certainly not trying to cover up for his son, as is being alleged and at the center of Trump's request.

(10-01-2019 02:07 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You seem to make several assumptions I do not agree with, such as Kavanaugh lying to the Senate. Has that been proven?

Fair point. Has it been proven to the point that you would accept ... certainly not. If a full FBI background investigation had been run before the 2nd hearing, I think the public would have a lot better understanding. Unfortunately, it wasn't and we don't.

Based on public reporting from other people who knew Kavanaugh in high school and college, you can make the argument that he was just intentionally and grossly misleading when under oath, rather than lying. My personal opinion is that it was disqualifying on the front end, but maybe not impeachable on the backend. I was always surprised that so many Republicans and conservatives went to the mattresses for Kavanaugh. Plenty of other qualified conservative nominees without the baggage that could have sailed through like Gorsuch. I think Republicans and conservatives may have stuck with Kavanaugh just to make it a campaign issue for the democratic senators in red states.

But most of the "lies" boil down to he-said / she-said and he-said / he-said. So if you believe Kavanaugh, then you believe that he did not lie. If you believe many of his former classmates, doormates, etc., then you think he lied. Guess a jury of his peers could decide if that is enough to establish "proof".

EDIT - Of course, I don't want this to obscure my larger point. Don't be a hypocrite. When you are defending a politician's actions, swap out that politician's names for another politician that you hate to the core of your being. If you still feel justified in defending the hated politician, you have a sound argument.

Re: Your edit. I swap out often to see if things hold up either way. Right/left, black/white, all those things.

Even the lady's friends did not support her claim - unless you count her friends in the Senate. Meanwhile, we had 30 years of no complaints on Kavanaugh. I don't think Ford was lying - I think she is confused and may have an embedded delusion. She was inconsistent and vague. But you are the lawyer - did you see evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt?

Lord help me if I ever have to defend all the things I did as a Rice student. I would be in prison for ten lifetimes. And yes, beer played an important part. But the 50 years since then have been much different. I would rather be judged on my actions as an adult than my actions as a kid.

I have had a chance to discuss things with old girlfriends and former running buddies - and wouldn't you know it, their memories are different from mine. I don't think any of us is a hypocrite. They just remember things differently, and how remembered them that way so long that now they think they are truth.

(10-01-2019 03:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 09:38 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Let's say for the sake of argument that it is in the country's best interest for our president to be pressuring foreign heads of state to look into the business dealings of a former vice-president's son and not any of the more pressing issues of today's world.

By the WH's own memo, Trump told Zelensky to contact his personal lawyer. If everything is on the up and up, why tell him to talk to Giuliani?

Once again, illegality by inference because the facts aren't there. Why would they do something NOT on the up and up on a recorded line and in their own memo's? Two can play that game and its stupid.

By the very conversation in question, two politicians who apparently shared some strategies about campaigning on ending political corruption... WHO WERE ELECTED AT LEAST IN PART FOR THAT VERY REASON... and YOU in your infinite wisdom think they should work on more important things. Color me unimpressed.

IANAL. I just don't understand why Trump would direct a foreign leader to deal with his personal lawyer when conducting super normal POTUS business.

Do you truly believe Trump is interested in fighting the political corruption of anyone besides those he perceives as his enemies? If I thought he was operating in good faith, I might not suggest they work on more important things.

Please don't be mad.

(10-01-2019 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even the lady's friends did not support her claim - unless you count her friends in the Senate. Meanwhile, we had 30 years of no complaints on Kavanaugh. I don't think Ford was lying - I think she is confused and may have an embedded delusion. She was inconsistent and vague. But you are the lawyer - did you see evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt?

Lord help me if I ever have to defend all the things I did as a Rice student. I would be in prison for ten lifetimes. And yes, beer played an important part. But the 50 years since then have been much different. I would rather be judged on my actions as an adult than my actions as a kid.

I was talking less about Christine Blasey Ford's allegations about Kavanaugh in high school and more about: (1) Deborah Ramirez's allegation that Kavanaugh drunkenly thrust his bare genitals at her during a party at Yale; and (2) Kavanaugh's obviously misleading testimony about how hard he partied in high school and college.

It would have been very easy for Kavanaugh to say that he drank and partied a boat load during that time of his life and still denied all the allegations. It would have been easy for him to explain that he quickly matured and hasn't been that immature young man for 30+ years. Instead, he repeatedly minimized his drinking and gave bizarre explanations for slang terms in his yearbook.

I'm scared to ask what you did when you were a Rice student. I drank and partied plenty of times. I never thrust my naked genitals at anyone (without consent) and certainly never in front of a group of people. There is only one thing that truly embarrasses me to admit. I drove drunk once, thank God no one was hurt and that I didn't get pulled over. My flimsy defense at the time that I was following a friend who was completely sober but that doesn't excuse my dangerous and reckless decision. Other than that, I liked beer and many other liquors, I smoked pot once, and tried to never be an a$$hole to anyone.