Here is a recap from the last couple of days:

Biden actually fessed up on video how he threatened the Ukraine with withholding funds if they didnt sack an investigator whom was digging into Burisma. That is copacetic.

Trump threatened to withhold funds if Ukraine doesnt make movement on investigating the previous action. This is bad.

If Trump investigated anyone but a (D), there would be no impeachment.

The President shouldnt *ever* have a political rival investigated, 'even if they are corrupt as hell'.

Is there anything to add?

Quite the grouping these four statements make as a whole, I would say.

(01-23-2020 09:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is another one for the laugh track: Shouldnt investigate a rival "even if that political rival is corrupt as hell."

Really? Are you serious here?

So a President should abdicate every investigation into a political rival "even if the political rival is corrupt as hell"? A cornerstone of the Executive branch is to enforce the laws, and to execute enforcement. Here you are saying a President *absolutely* *must* abdicate enforcement of the a core executive *duty* because the subject is a "political rival". EVEN IF THE POLITICAL RIVAL IS CORRUPT AS HELL.

Assume the political rival say, threatened to detonate a nuke in Chicago. Are you still comfortable with that amazing as **** statement?

I mean, you are seriously suggesting that the President vacate a core duty of the Executive Office? I'll be blunt here, I am gobsmacked that someone would advocate a 'ban on investigation' *even when the rival is corrupt as hell*.

Does that sound horrendously smart to you?

Well, there is a difference between what the president does himself in his personal capacity and what the executive branch does. Normally these things are left to the state department, FBI, etc. not the President’s personal fixer.

Putting aside the parody-like hilarity of comparing Burisma that happened years ago with an imminent nuke threat ... so if the political rival threatened to detonate a nuke, you sick the FBI, CIA, homeland security, etc. at them and you keep Congress in the loop. That is a lot more effective than say, as a random example, sending Rudy Giuliani, Rick Perry, and Gordon Sondland.

And that is why how the President does these things matters.

So you 'sic the FBI [and other natsec apparatus] at them'. You mean the FBI that lied through it's teeth to a FISA court to spy on members of the Trump campaign, right? That FBI?

Going back to the time I spent on a New Mexico ranch, when you kick a horse in the nuts a couple of times, dont be surprised that that horse doesnt come to nuzzle you when you have a carrot.

Thinking a little more on it, perhaps this kind of goes straight back to why Orange Hair didnt tell Pelosi he was droning the shitbird.

Yes, big, you are correct -- the example of 'extortion by nuke' is a parody level exemplar. But one made intentionally to highlight the parody level of the call to never investigate a political rival "even when he is crooked as hell."

(01-23-2020 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote: A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Tell that to then- Vice President Joe Biden. If you are going to set the bar at 'investigating a political rival', you really should actually include 'squashing an investigation into HIS son'.
I mean, seriously, you are going on the warpath for a series of actions, and all the while ignoring the almost *exact* series of actions at the front end?

It's anything but proven that Biden squashed an investigation, and there is ample evidence that what Biden supported, with respect to Ukrainian corruption, was inline with other world leaders and was more likely to increase scrutiny of corruption within Ukraine...

All of which is irrelevant to the larger point.

No it isn’t...

(01-23-2020 09:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote: A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Tell that to then- Vice President Joe Biden. If you are going to set the bar at 'investigating a political rival', you really should actually include 'squashing an investigation into HIS son'.

I mean, seriously, you are going on the warpath for a series of actions, and all the while ignoring the almost *exact* series of actions at the front end?

It's anything but proven that Biden squashed an investigation, and there is ample evidence that what Biden supported, with respect to Ukrainian corruption, was inline with other world leaders and was more likely to increase scrutiny of corruption within Ukraine...

Naw, he just got the fing prosecutor fired.

After threatening to withhold funds.

Funny that.

Funny he bragged about that as well.

On video.

And there is evidence as well that that prosecutor was investigating Burisma corruption. But you 'forgot' that.

Funny that.

Yep, Trump == completely different. Cha cha cha.

Again, the only evidence you’ve ever provided that the prosecutor that was pushed out was actively investigating Burisima comes from a very tainted source - Rudy G...

The summary is that Biden was following US policy that was in-line with international opinion. Trump was NOT following US policy and was operating solely for political gain.

That is the difference, and that difference is very clear.

(01-23-2020 10:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a recap from the last couple of days:

Biden actually fessed up on video how he threatened the Ukraine with withholding funds if they didnt sack an investigator whom was digging into Burisma. That is copacetic.

Trump threatened to withhold funds if Ukraine doesnt make movement on investigating the previous action. This is bad.

If Trump investigated anyone but a (D), there would be no impeachment.

The President shouldnt *ever* have a political rival investigated, 'even if they are corrupt as hell'.

Is there anything to add?

Quite the grouping these four statements make as a whole, I would say.

You’re a lawyer, right?

So shouldn’t you be very well acquainted with the idea that legal outcomes of a single action can be different based on the context of the actions?

Or in your eyes, if somebody kills another person, that person is always and obviously guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the action?

(01-24-2020 06:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 10:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Here is a recap from the last couple of days:

Biden actually fessed up on video how he threatened the Ukraine with withholding funds if they didnt sack an investigator whom was digging into Burisma. That is copacetic.

Trump threatened to withhold funds if Ukraine doesnt make movement on investigating the previous action. This is bad.

If Trump investigated anyone but a (D), there would be no impeachment.

The President shouldnt *ever* have a political rival investigated, 'even if they are corrupt as hell'.

Is there anything to add?

Quite the grouping these four statements make as a whole, I would say.

You’re a lawyer, right?

So shouldn’t you be very well acquainted with the idea that legal outcomes of a single action can be different based on the context of the actions?

Or in your eyes, if somebody kills another person, that person is always and obviously guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the action?

No doubt; but here is where we differ.

You believe there is 'no smoke in anything whatsoever' with Burisma. Kind of sua sponte. Kind of 'everyone move along folks. Nothing here.'

Accordingly, and because of that ingrained belief, you think there is zero aspect to any legitimate intent whatsoever with Trump's actions.

I am saying, well, golly, gee willikers, there does seem something fishy with Biden's self-admitted bully job on Ukraine; maybe there might be something, maybe not. But, let's take a look.

But even with that modicum of 'maybe there is something, maybe not', there is a basis of a clear clean intent when calling for an investigation into Hunter's actions and into Slow Joe's actions. You know, that small little modicum that you cannot even bring yourself to self-admit.....

And because of your predetermined, solid as the law of Gravity self-assuredness that there is zero smoke, zero modicum -- Trump's actions now have that same self-assured imprimatur of nothing *but* self-dealing and self-benefit.

That leads you to even more outlandish ideas, you know, stuff like: No President should ever investigate a political rival, even if they are crooked as hell. And that happens to be the *only* safe space in which that deep self-assuredness of zero possibility of any true intent by Trump is safe, I guess.

So, your paean above to different outcomes all boils down to intent. And it outlines in its glow your stunning, resolute, and absolute refusal to even entertain the smallest smidgen of even a hint that, perhaps, there is even a very, very small basis of 'good' intent in Trump's action.

And it makes absolutely clear your steadfast Berlin 1945 bunker-esque refusal to even *consider* for even an iota of time or amount that the coke fiend was playing fast and loose, and that Slow Joe might be covering for it with his very similar 'strong arm'.

And it makes your somewhat inane point about never investigating a political rival 'even when they are crooked as hell' even more understandable --- anything to make *your* pre-determination acceptable *after* the fact of your pre-determination.

The singular truth is that is if there is even a hint, any miasma, or any waft of *anything at all* wrong with coke fiend turned patrimony suit contempt subject's actions being wrong or unsavory, that means there is a thread of validity to Trump's request.

Thank you for bringing up the subject of intent. I was going to do so shortly, but you kind of indirectly opened the door for me.

(01-24-2020 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump .... was operating solely for political gain.

Thank you for your god-like all-knowing answer to this question. Perhaps you can use that power of omniscience for worldly good.

That is a huge burden to bear. I am glad we mere mortals have you to make these final decrees and determinations for us unworthy ones.

(01-24-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump .... was operating solely for political gain.

Thank you for your god-like all-knowing answer to this question. Perhaps you can use that power of omniscience for worldly good.

That is a huge burden to bear. I am glad we mere mortals have you to make these final decrees and determinations for us unworthy ones.

Listening to the impeachment hearings and testimonies made it very clear that Trump was not interested in the corruption.

Hill's revelation during her testimony was enough to cement that. But couple it with the fact that Trump was pushing for an announcement, first and foremost, the fact that he involved his personal lawyer, and the fact that he did not involve the usual foreign policy apparatus, and it's pretty clear to any of us who aren't blinded by an undying love for the supreme leader, that he was acting purely out of political gains.

(01-24-2020 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump .... was operating solely for political gain.

Thank you for your god-like all-knowing answer to this question. Perhaps you can use that power of omniscience for worldly good.

That is a huge burden to bear. I am glad we mere mortals have you to make these final decrees and determinations for us unworthy ones.

Listening to the impeachment hearings and testimonies made it very clear that Trump was not interested in the corruption.

Hill's revelation during her testimony was enough to cement that. But couple it with the fact that Trump was pushing for an announcement, first and foremost, the fact that he involved his personal lawyer, and the fact that he did not involve the usual foreign policy apparatus, and it's pretty clear to any of us who aren't blinded by an undying love for the supreme leader, that he was acting purely out of political gains.

As noted before, we are deeply thankful for your omniscient and all encompassing judgments. One question from this mere mortal: is the answer really 42?

Glad to note your comment on those of us who are blinded. It is common amongst your set and type to denote us mere mortal outcasts as 'ignorant', 'deplorable', and 'blind'. Glad to note you have ascended to that lofty perch. But, not the first time you have done that, mind you.

We truly are blessed.

I am so glad to see that your premier omniscience into everything extends into this humble person's motivations and beliefs as well. You truly are a marvel and a miracle for the world at large.

Please, as a last request from this unworthy -- how does one as low and blind as myself achieve the grandeur that you emanate?

(01-24-2020 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump .... was operating solely for political gain.

Thank you for your god-like all-knowing answer to this question. Perhaps you can use that power of omniscience for worldly good.

That is a huge burden to bear. I am glad we mere mortals have you to make these final decrees and determinations for us unworthy ones.

Listening to the impeachment hearings and testimonies made it very clear that Trump was not interested in the corruption.

Hill's revelation during her testimony was enough to cement that. But couple it with the fact that Trump was pushing for an announcement, first and foremost, the fact that he involved his personal lawyer, and the fact that he did not involve the usual foreign policy apparatus, and it's pretty clear to any of us who aren't blinded by an undying love for the supreme leader, that he was acting purely out of political gains.

As noted before, we are deeply thankful for your omniscient and all encompassing judgments. One question from this mere mortal: is the answer really 42?

Glad to note your comment on those of us who are blinded. It is common amongst your set and type to denote us mere mortal outcasts as 'ignorant', 'deplorable', and 'blind'. Glad to note you have ascended to that lofty perch. But, not the first time you have done that, mind you.

We truly are blessed.

I am so glad to see that your premier omniscience into everything extends into this humble person's motivations and beliefs as well. You truly are a marvel and a miracle for the world at large.

Please, as a last request from this unworthy -- how does one as low and blind as myself achieve the grandeur that you emanate?

I love that your response to my evaluation of evidence is to ***** and moan and rely on childish tactics. Real good look.

By the way lad...... you *are* aware that there are two phases of the 'trial', right? I mean, if you havent, then here is the shocker: another side gets to be presented.

But glad to know that you either are ignorant of that little detail (i.e. both sides get to present), or, simply dont give a flip. Your flat on citing of absolute judgement without even bothering to note that the other side hasnt presented here, and wasnt even afforded the opportunity to present in front of the House, really does drill down to irrevocable and fundamental construct of your absolute predetermination of the matter, doesnt it?

(01-24-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 09:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump .... was operating solely for political gain.

Thank you for your god-like all-knowing answer to this question. Perhaps you can use that power of omniscience for worldly good.

That is a huge burden to bear. I am glad we mere mortals have you to make these final decrees and determinations for us unworthy ones.

Listening to the impeachment hearings and testimonies made it very clear that Trump was not interested in the corruption.

Hill's revelation during her testimony was enough to cement that. But couple it with the fact that Trump was pushing for an announcement, first and foremost, the fact that he involved his personal lawyer, and the fact that he did not involve the usual foreign policy apparatus, and it's pretty clear to any of us who aren't blinded by an undying love for the supreme leader, that he was acting purely out of political gains.

As noted before, we are deeply thankful for your omniscient and all encompassing judgments. One question from this mere mortal: is the answer really 42?

Glad to note your comment on those of us who are blinded. It is common amongst your set and type to denote us mere mortal outcasts as 'ignorant', 'deplorable', and 'blind'. Glad to note you have ascended to that lofty perch. But, not the first time you have done that, mind you.

We truly are blessed.

I am so glad to see that your premier omniscience into everything extends into this humble person's motivations and beliefs as well. You truly are a marvel and a miracle for the world at large.

Please, as a last request from this unworthy -- how does one as low and blind as myself achieve the grandeur that you emanate?

I love that your response to my evaluation of evidence is to ***** and moan and rely on childish tactics. Real good look.

No lad, its to your passing of absolute judgement. I suggest you learn that distinction.

And your reversion to referring to those who may not agree with your god-like judgement as 'blind'. But you have done that before, so I am not surprised.

And, again and as noted above, glad to see you have passed such judgement solely on the basis of one side's presentation. Good for you. That takes a special type of skill.

And when it cant get any thicker:

So the Schiff/Nadler duo has, for the last three days, said that the Senate (paraphrase here) 'must subpoena a whole gaggle of witnesses to testify.' The one and overriding message that gets beaten into pulp by every single House manager is the overriding need to call witnesses who didn’t testify before the House.

Yet, the committees under Schiff and Nadler didnt pursue witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney; they couldnt see the reason to get slowed down by a court fight over executive privilege.

So now we have these turkeys calling for the Senate to do the job that they could have done, or should have done. Amazing.

This is like the bad associate who presents a brief with nothing but conclusions, says the case rulings that support it are out there, and that the person to whom he is presenting this as a finished piece should do the job finding the citations that they didnt do.

What a clown show.

(01-24-2020 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump .... was operating solely for political gain.

Whose political gain was at stake when Obama told the Russian President he could be "more flexible after the election"?

Sounds like Obama wanted to do some things the Russians wanted but that would not play well with the American public. so, solely for his own political gain, he postponed them.

This is the leftist hypocrisy that maddens me. They defend these actions by Obama while condemning similar actions by Trump - talking out of both sides of their mouth.

heck, they will even say that Obama stood up to the Russians while Trump is a puppet. Crimea begs to differ.

(01-24-2020 06:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you 'sic the FBI [and other natsec apparatus] at them'. You mean the FBI that lied through it's teeth to a FISA court to spy on members of the Trump campaign, right? That FBI?

The FBI isn't perfect, but I don't think they are biased en masse. "Sic" was obviously a bit of hyperbole. In that situation the President uses the tools that are most effective to prevent the nuke going off. Those tools do not include Rudy Giuliani and Gordon Sondland leading the charge. If you think there is a massive corruption problem in Ukraine involving a famous US political family, again, you use the tools that are most effective, which again do not include Rudy Giuliani and Gordon Sondland. And when the famous US political family is a current political opponent, the President makes sure his actions are taken at arm's-length so that it is clear any actions taken are done to benefit the country, not him personally.

(01-24-2020 06:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, big, you are correct -- the example of 'extortion by nuke' is a parody level exemplar. But one made intentionally to highlight the parody level of the call to never investigate a political rival "even when he is crooked as hell."

(01-24-2020 08:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You believe there is 'no smoke in anything whatsoever' with Burisma. Kind of sua sponte. Kind of 'everyone move along folks. Nothing here.'
...
And it makes your somewhat inane point about never investigating a political rival 'even when they are crooked as hell' even more understandable --- anything to make *your* pre-determination acceptable *after* the fact of your pre-determination.

Pretty sure I never said that the President can never investigate a political rival. If so, I misspoke. My point was that if such an action is going to be taken, it needs to be done in a way that demonstrates the investigation is being done for the good of the country, not just the good of the President.

Also pretty sure I never defended Hunter Biden's deal with Burisma. Hunter Biden getting hired by Burisma sounds like the swampiest swamp that ever swamped a swamp. It sure seems like Hunter Biden was hired with the hopes that it would allow Burisma/Ukraine to influence US policy. I haven't seen any evidence that it worked, since as Lad pointed out repeatedly, Biden's call to fire the corrupt prosecutor was a reflection of the policy of the US and its allies at the time.

Can we agree that Trump's actions would look less suspicious if he had taken them in 2017 or 2018 before Biden entered the presidential race? I haven't seen any timelines showing that Trump began taking actions on this until just days after Biden officially entered the presidential race (though they also coincided with the Ukrainian presidential election).

(01-24-2020 10:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And when it cant get any thicker:

So the Schiff/Nadler duo has, for the last three days, said that the Senate (paraphrase here) 'must subpoena a whole gaggle of witnesses to testify.' The one and overriding message that gets beaten into pulp by every single House manager is the overriding need to call witnesses who didn’t testify before the House.

Yet, the committees under Schiff and Nadler didnt pursue witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney; they couldnt see the reason to get slowed down by a court fight over executive privilege.

So now we have these turkeys calling for the Senate to do the job that they could have done, or should have done. Amazing.

Bolton said he wouldn't comply with a House subpoena. Enforcing the House subpoena would have taken months and months in Court to maybe force him to comply. So the House made the strategic decision that they had enough evidence without his testimony to move forward. Now Bolton is saying that he will testify with a Senate subpoena. So the House managers are calling for him to testify now that he says he will comply without the months-long fight in Court.

Mulvaney and Perry said they would not comply with House subpoenas. While they haven't said they would comply with a Senate subpoena, the political pressure to do so would be much, much higher than for the House subpoenas because such a decision would require multiple Republican Senators voting in favor of the subpoena with the process overseen by a relatively conservative Chief Justice Roberts.

It really isn't amazing or complicated. It was a bit of a strategic dice roll.

(01-24-2020 12:48 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 10:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And when it cant get any thicker:

So the Schiff/Nadler duo has, for the last three days, said that the Senate (paraphrase here) 'must subpoena a whole gaggle of witnesses to testify.' The one and overriding message that gets beaten into pulp by every single House manager is the overriding need to call witnesses who didn’t testify before the House.

Yet, the committees under Schiff and Nadler didnt pursue witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney; they couldnt see the reason to get slowed down by a court fight over executive privilege.

So now we have these turkeys calling for the Senate to do the job that they could have done, or should have done. Amazing.

Bolton said he wouldn't comply with a House subpoena. Enforcing the House subpoena would have taken months and months in Court to maybe force him to comply. So the House made the strategic decision that they had enough evidence without his testimony to move forward. Now Bolton is saying that he will testify with a Senate subpoena. So the House managers are calling for him to testify now that he says he will comply without the months-long fight in Court.

Mulvaney and Perry said they would not comply with House subpoenas. While they haven't said they would comply with a Senate subpoena, the political pressure to do so would be much, much higher than for the House subpoenas because such a decision would require multiple Republican Senators voting in favor of the subpoena with the process overseen by a relatively conservative Chief Justice Roberts.

It really isn't amazing or complicated. It was a bit of a strategic dice roll.

"The House made a decision that they didn't want to slow things down by having to go through the courts. And yet now they're basically saying you guys gotta go through the courts. We didn't, but we need you to," Murkowski said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/t...7a827f4b3a

Strategic dice roll to call every Republican Senator a co-conspirator? And 'treacherous'?

Quote: "So far, I'm sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup. Voting to deny witnesses and obviously a treacherous vote. A vote against honest consideration of the evidence against the president. A vote against an honest trial. A vote against the United States."

Whoa there Sparky.... All Republicans did was follow the precedent of the Clinton trial.

Yep, I think the point that was the end result of the 'thought experiment' that lad jumped for us is that this is nothing but partisan.

(01-13-2020 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Trump successfully droned one of the biggest dirtbags on the planet. And he allowed the Iranians to save face with a retaliatory attack that blew up sand, and some tents.

34 US service members diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries after Iranian missile strike

So more damage to US service members than initially reported. I am still curious to see how this plays out in the coming months. I think it is still too early to judge by those of us without access to the relevant intelligence leading up to the Soleimani strike.