The bill is clearly meant to demonstrate that no one would EVER accept a law that dictates what a man can and can't do with their reproductive system.
Maybe not yet, but in the future the @Mathsorcerer version might not be a bad idea. Can't trust the general population to police their own sex-lives, that's for sure...
Maybe not yet, but in the future the @Mathsorcerer version might not be a bad idea. Can't trust the general population to police their own sex-lives, that's for sure...
Just to be clear, you mean the part where I mention giving some sort of benefit for *voluntary choice*, right? I made my choice back in 1995 and never regretted it--one of me is more than enough.
The bill is clearly meant to demonstrate that no one would EVER accept a law that dictates what a man can and can't do with their reproductive system.
Maybe not yet, but in the future the @Mathsorcerer version might not be a bad idea. Can't trust the general population to police their own sex-lives, that's for sure...
Why didn't China think of forced sterilization! That would have made their one child policy so much easier! Hey here's something people don't think of - unnecessary medical procedures often have complications. Sure the risk of an unnecessary medical procedure might be 1 in a million but forcing millions to get it your going have hundreds quickly for whom it went wrong needlessly.
The rates of surgical complications such as symptomatic hematoma and infection are 1-2%. These rates vary with the surgeon's experience and the criteria used to diagnose these conditions. Chronic scrotal pain associated with negative impact on quality of life occurs after vasectomy in about 1-2% of men. 500,000 get vasectomies per year in the US. So about 500 men per year are left with life changing complications from this optional surgery people are suggesting should be mandatory.
Anyway, this is a distraction.
The McCabe case was dropped but the damage to his reputation has been done since he's now "The guy that was investigated for leaking!" or whatever and he was fired. I guess Trump doesn't need a distraction anymore since the kangaroo court in the Senate cleared him of the Ukraine fisaco which was even after the Mueller crimes that he wasn't even impeached for. So in a way, smearing McCabe helped prevent the impeachment for the criminality around the Mueller investigation.
Anyway, Trump say's he's got the absolute right to personally interfere in US justice.
Um.. ok whatever. Maybe there's a reason that isn't really something President's do and brag about.
Are we at the stage yet where he orders his people to kill us then pardons them? Nothing matters anymore stage? I mean besides his environmental roll backs and allowing companies to poison waterways and such.
He's saying he's above the law. Yeah MAGA or whatever right. Just admit it you don't care about America. Orange Man Good Syndrome (OMGS) blinders are on ya.
I'm beginning to think that maybe putting a criminal conman in the White House wasn't such a good idea.
You are correct--that would be a bad idea. Fortunately, Hillary did not win so we don't have to worry about it.
Wow false accusations are the backbone of American politics isn’t it?
Yet, people can point to a number of fraudulent behaviour from Trump (Charity) that he has actually been found guilty of, yet not one accusation holds up for the Clinton’s regardless of how many investigations have been conducted. They are just wild conspiracy theories and wishful thinking.
I'm beginning to think that maybe putting a criminal conman in the White House wasn't such a good idea.
You are correct--that would be a bad idea. Fortunately, Hillary did not win so we don't have to worry about it.
Never say never, only a fool ignores the teachings of history. Nobody thought the wild things a famous right wing nationalist in Germany was saying either until it was too late. For Trump, it's not such a stretch since he's telling us the rule of law means nothing and Barr is there to make excuses for why he can do whatever he wants and it's been shown Republicans won't lift a finger.
While she does live rent free in a lot of people's heads maybe that's because you guys secretly love her or something I have no idea, most people are over Hillary by now lol. It's true that ideologically she is much closer to a neo-liberal conservative than the left maybe that's it.
Wow false accusations are the backbone of American politics isn’t it?
That does seem to be the case, yes. Just ask Schiff and Nadler, who led the pack levying false accusations of "abuse of power" (which is only an opinion and not a violation of any part of the U. S. Code) and "obstruction of Congress" (which, again, does not violate any section of the U. S. Code). The system is built on "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty because we accuse you and your defense team has to prove your innocence". The Democrats must have skipped school the day that lesson was taught.
Speaking of criminal conmen...I see that Avenatti has been found guilty of trying to extort millions of dollars from Nike. This is on top of his other pending cases--he stole money from Stormy Daniels' book advance and the fraud case out of California (he violated the terms of his bail in that case). Perhaps now they can finally disbar him and then he won't be a lawyer any more.
Conservatives spend less time thinking about Hillary than liberals/progressive spend thinking about Trump. Oh, and that wild conspiracy will *never* happen, no matter how much you wish for it to happen.
Hillary Clinton hasn't held any official position of power since *checks watch*.....January of 2013. The most high profile thing she has done in the last 3+ years is appear on late-night talk shows to help promote her daughter's books. The idea that she should be at the equal level of public consciousness and scrutiny as the sitting President is ridiculous. However, if an alien landed tomorrow and turned on FOX News on any given night, they'd probably assume she WAS the President. How much time do you remember liberals spending on Mitt Romey after he lost the election?? The answer is pretty much zero.
Impeachment isn’t based on the US legal code. There wasn’t any US laws when impeachment was drawn up.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation. It can’t be both. But yet there it is, in one sentence. One would think withholding Aid being sent to an ally who is currently at war with a bad actor until a personal favour is conducted is abuse of power. But that’s opinion, not fraud.
~
I also find it amusing that the Right thinks actors and sleazy lawyers speak for left wing politicians and any crimes they commit mean the left side of the political spectrum is responsible for their actions in a 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon way.
Speaking of criminal conmen...I see that Avenatti has been found guilty of trying to extort millions of dollars from Nike. This is on top of his other pending cases--he stole money from Stormy Daniels' book advance and the fraud case out of California (he violated the terms of his bail in that case). Perhaps now they can finally disbar him and then he won't be a lawyer any more.
Conservatives spend less time thinking about Hillary than liberals/progressive spend thinking about Trump. Oh, and that wild conspiracy will *never* happen, no matter how much you wish for it to happen.
She's in conservative's heads still despite being all but irrelevant (other than as a candidate who got more votes but didn't win the Presidency).
There's nearly an article a day on her on Fox News.
"1 day ago
What happened during and after the Benghazi attack in 2012?"
It's hilarious and disgusting. Hilarious in that they are so desperate to distract their simple audience and disgusting that they just make stuff up. Fake news.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation.
Actually, it can be both. People make false accusations based on opinion all the time. Consider the "MAGA hat kid", the young man who just received a settlement from CNN over the defamation suit. The story which was presented was not true and yet people were accusing him of all sorts of vicious things.
I was one of the first people saying that impeachment can be for anything, including things which aren't crimes. However, impeaching for things which are not crimes demeans the process of impeachment, which is why they should have gone for censure--and before anyone says "censure is a slap on the wrist" what, exactly, do you think impeachment without removal is? It, also, is a slap on the wrist--Trump got a speeding ticket then (as I said before) did a donut in the parking lot. It *emboldened* him, which is why Democrats probably should not have impeached if they couldn't remove him from office...because now he thinks he is completely untouchable.
What Trump hasn't considered--but I have--is that fact that once he is out of office the lawsuits are going to come crashing down on him like an avalanche.
She's in conservative's heads still despite being all but irrelevant (other than as a candidate who got more votes but didn't win the Presidency).
True. For most conservatives, she distills what they think of as the essence of the Democrat Party. What those people are not realizing is that Hillary is *not* the face of the Democrat Party any more (neither is Pelosi, nor Schumer). Even Biden and Sanders are not the faces of the Democrat Party these days--yes, they are front-runners but their time is over.
edit/add: Hope Hicks is going back to the White House. I am confident that Trump is looking forward to that. Melania....*shrug* I am uncertain what she thinks about it.
..couldn't remove him from office...because now he thinks he is completely untouchable.
What Trump hasn't considered--but I have--is that fact that once he is out of office the lawsuits are going to come crashing down on him like an avalanche.
Trump's the President. As a rich guy involved in lots of shady stuff, he has a lot of lawyers working for him personally as well regular government lawyers that he can ask opinions of on lawsuits.
He has considered this possibility. That's probably why he's been so keen to interfere in the 2020 election in Ukraine. That's also why he keeps 'joking' that he won't leave office after he loses or after two terms.
He knows he'll be in more legal peril IF he leaves office. Right now there's nothing to worry about Barr will quash any case or evidence and Republicans will hide and turn a blind eye and stonewall any evidence seeking by rule-of-law Democrats.
He has great incentive to be a dictator; to never leave office.
True. For most conservatives, she distills what they think of as the essence of the Democrat Party. What those people are not realizing is that Hillary is *not* the face of the Democrat Party any more (neither is Pelosi, nor Schumer). Even Biden and Sanders are not the faces of the Democrat Party these days--yes, they are front-runners but their time is over.
Seek help, sounds like Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS). Symptoms include wild fantasies and conspiracy mongering about a grandmother who hasn't held any official government office in over 7 years.
Do you gloss over the fact that I talk about "conservatives" as a third party group of which I am not a member on purpose? I don't think about her...but I do have to admit that I love conspiracy theories about her, mostly just because I love conspiracy theories.
He has great incentive to be a dictator; to never leave office.
Identifying characteristics of a dictatorship:
no idependent media/only State media exists -- nope
suppression of the freedom of though/speech -- nope
very little/no opposition political party -- definitely no
legislature is a puppet of the executive/legislative and executive power in the hands of only a few -- no
Unfortunately, that conspiracy theory is not plausible which means that it can't even be a conspiracy hypothesis.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation.
Actually, it can be both. People make false accusations based on opinion all the time. Consider the "MAGA hat kid", the young man who just received a settlement from CNN over the defamation suit. The story which was presented was not true and yet people were accusing him of all sorts of vicious things.
No, you are clumping to distinct things together here:
The false accusation was he stood in front of a protesting Native American drummer who served in the Vietnam war.
This was the false accusation and I was the first one in this thread to defend the kid and saying that only one side of the story has been shown in the first uploaded video, and jumping to conclusions about what transpired is not in anyone’s best interest.
The opinion that he is a smug wealthy white Christian kid whose republican backing parents used a sleazy republican lawyer to settle with a news organization to highlight the president’s false news narrative is a completely different issue.
Everything that Trump has been accused of regarding Ukraine, he has freely and openly admitted to it, making it not a false accusation, but rather an opinion of it met the level to remove him from office.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation.
Actually, it can be both. People make false accusations based on opinion all the time. Consider the "MAGA hat kid", the young man who just received a settlement from CNN over the defamation suit. The story which was presented was not true and yet people were accusing him of all sorts of vicious things.
No, you are clumping to distinct things together here:
The false accusation was he stood in front of a protesting Native American drummer who served in the Vietnam war.
This was the false accusation and I was the first one in this thread to defend the kid and saying that only one side of the story has been shown in the first uploaded video, and jumping to conclusions about what transpired is not in anyone’s best interest.
That's true, you were one of the only ones to originally take the side of the kid and not the media. The fact that they all leapt down that kids throat without investigation should give anyone pause.
Still I think mathsorceror in that the impeachment deal is a false accusation based on opinion, on the part of the whistleblower who didn't hear the call and all his enablers. It's based on the same shaky premises as all the rest.
I still think it's wild mainstream news figures were openly stating a minor had a "punchable face", among other things. Just more evidence that the hate the left holds for the right is off the charts in a way that is in no way comparable
This was the false accusation and I was the first one in this thread to defend the kid and saying that only one side of the story has been shown in the first uploaded video, and jumping to conclusions about what transpired is not in anyone’s best interest.
I never said that *you* did anything of the sort.
CNN deserved to lose that case. The only problem I have is that they weren't forced to pay out *more* money.
Ken Paxton (Texas Attorney General) is moving forward with his lawsuit to try and have California's "travel ban" lifted--that State is currently not allowing anyone representing the State to go to Texas (along with other States) using State money. I disagree with Paxton on this--California is within its rights to disallow reimbursement for travel expenses for its own reasons. What Texas' response *should* be is to raise the rates on all that natural gas, electricity, and water we sell to California to the highest level the law will allow--if they want energy then they can pay for it.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation.
Actually, it can be both. People make false accusations based on opinion all the time. Consider the "MAGA hat kid", the young man who just received a settlement from CNN over the defamation suit. The story which was presented was not true and yet people were accusing him of all sorts of vicious things.
No, you are clumping to distinct things together here:
The false accusation was he stood in front of a protesting Native American drummer who served in the Vietnam war.
This was the false accusation and I was the first one in this thread to defend the kid and saying that only one side of the story has been shown in the first uploaded video, and jumping to conclusions about what transpired is not in anyone’s best interest.
That's true, you were one of the only ones to originally take the side of the kid and not the media. The fact that they all leapt down that kids throat without investigation should give anyone pause.
Still I think mathsorceror in that the impeachment deal is a false accusation based on opinion, on the part of the whistleblower who didn't hear the call and all his enablers. It's based on the same shaky premises as all the rest.
But this was the process when it came to the whistleblower:
1. Whistleblower makes the accusation
2. The accusation goes to the IG to be verified
3. If substantial, the IG passes along the accusation to congress.
4. Congress (Committee) does closed door investigation into the accusation to make sure it can be verified.
5. Congress (Committee) then holds an open investigation into the accusations bringing everything to the public attention.
6. Committee then passes it recommendations to Congress where they vote on the next procedure based on everything brought forward to that point.
If it was a false accusation it wouldn’t have passed step 3 or 4.
Edit: let me do say that Democrats should not have been leaking the juiciest parts of the investigation when it was closed and the Republicans should not have been saying they were “shut out” of the shadowy investigation. All information should have stayed hidden until it was ready to go public.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation.
Actually, it can be both. People make false accusations based on opinion all the time. Consider the "MAGA hat kid", the young man who just received a settlement from CNN over the defamation suit. The story which was presented was not true and yet people were accusing him of all sorts of vicious things.
No, you are clumping to distinct things together here:
The false accusation was he stood in front of a protesting Native American drummer who served in the Vietnam war.
This was the false accusation and I was the first one in this thread to defend the kid and saying that only one side of the story has been shown in the first uploaded video, and jumping to conclusions about what transpired is not in anyone’s best interest.
That's true, you were one of the only ones to originally take the side of the kid and not the media. The fact that they all leapt down that kids throat without investigation should give anyone pause.
Still I think mathsorceror in that the impeachment deal is a false accusation based on opinion, on the part of the whistleblower who didn't hear the call and all his enablers. It's based on the same shaky premises as all the rest.
But this was the process when it came to the whistleblower:
1. Whistleblower makes the accusation
2. The accusation goes to the IG to be verified
3. If substantial, the IG passes along the accusation to congress.
4. Congress (Committee) does closed door investigation into the accusation to make sure it can be verified.
5. Congress (Committee) then holds an open investigation into the accusations bringing everything to the public attention.
6. Committee then passes it recommendations to Congress where they vote on the next procedure based on everything brought forward to that point.
If it was a false accusation it wouldn’t have passed step 3 or 4.
Edit: let me do say that Democrats should not have been leaking the juiciest parts of the investigation when it was closed and the Republicans should not have been saying they were “shut out” of the shadowy investigation. All information should have stayed hidden until it was ready to go public.
Not really. The IG acts like a Grand Jury in this case, making sure the claims meet a minimum standard of credibility so that they may be forwarded to other departments, whether it be Congress or the intelligence services.
The fact that their motives are obviously suspect doesn't help either.
If it was a false accusation it wouldn’t have passed step 3 or 4.
It would pass if the people involved were politically motivated to have accustions against Trump, which they were.
Except The IG isn’t partisan.
And if the accusations were false, and it went public, that’s be a huge amount of ammunition for the other side to take advantage of in a political spectrum. So no, it wouldn’t pass if it was politically motivated.
And if was politically motivated, a person like Justin Amash wouldn’t have voted for them.
Did you guys miss where the President has now admitted the thing he was accused of and impeached over?
The whistleblower has been proven to be 10000% correct and deserves the thanks of a grateful nation for bringing this abuse of power to the public. Shame on Republicans for not defending the nation.
8 days after his acquittal, Trump openly admitted sending Giuliani to hunt for dirt on Joe Biden — reversing a key part of his impeachment defense
If it was a false accusation it wouldn’t have passed step 3 or 4.
It would pass if the people involved were politically motivated to have accustions against Trump, which they were.
Except The IG isn’t partisan.
And if the accusations were false, and it went public, that’s be a huge amount of ammunition for the other side to take advantage of in a political spectrum. So no, it wouldn’t pass if it was politically motivated.
And if was politically motivated, a person like Justin Amash wouldn’t have voted for them.
Here's the answer you'll get:
Anybody who reports on wrongdoing = politicial motivations.
Republicans who ignore evidence = (silence)
Basically, if you try and stop me you don't agree with me, you are "politically motivated". Which makes it cool to be politically motivated yourself because everyone else is politically motivated against you. It's a joke of an argument.
It's like an argument of a criminal who cried the cops are biased against him.
Basically, if you try and stop me you don't agree with me, you are "politically motivated". Which makes it cool to be politically motivated yourself because everyone else is politically motivated against you. It's a joke of an argument.
It's like an argument of a criminal who cried the cops are biased against him.
Exactly this.
Anyone who gives testimony that is detrimental to the GOP or the president is labeled as politically motivated, and therefore their testimony is dismissed as lacking credibility.
Essentially, when someone consumes all of their news only through the lens of their partisanship, they will then process that information in a manner friendly to their ideology. This is the antithesis of critical thinking.
Yeah during the Mueller investigation Trump spouted about partisanship and "12 angry Democrats" about Republican Robert Mueller's investigation.
What about all the partisan antics and conflicted Republicans? Can't you tell those guys are totally partisan hacks? The party that cut ran an trial without evidence or witnesses and stole a Supreme Court seat (and are like now if year we;d fill the seat if it opened before the election later this year). The people crying tears about partisanship are the worst partisans of all.
There should have been Democrats on the Mueller investigation instead of tired old Republican Bob Mueller. No Republican should be given the benefit of the doubt to be trusted to do the right thing at this point.
@Mathsorcerer "Conservatives spend less time thinking about Hillary than liberals/progressive spend thinking about Trump. "
Only barely. Trump is the sitting President, so everything he does has immediate impact and urgency. Not to mention the far reaching consequences of his actions. NOT being concerned about him is insanity.
Conversly, Fox News ran stories on the "Clinton Administration" over a year into Trump's presidency. She hasn't held official office in, what, 7 years? This is not remotely an equivalence.
Clinton was laying the groundwork for the Russia conspiracy during 2016. James Comey, an Obama apointee fiercely supportive of him, admitted under Oath to leaking information to the press in total defiance of his position in order to start the Special Council which amounted to nothing and has spent most of his energy spewing anti Trump hatred on Twitter ever since. The entire time he was there he acted like an enemy to his boss, "writing down" conversations to try to use against him later and the like. Yeah, no evidence of any partisanship here. All very by the book.
Yeah, the fiercely liberal James Comey, Deputy AG to John Ashcroft in the Bush Administration. Life-long Republican. Obama appointed him because he was one of those Democrats obsessed with being viewed as "bipartisan" even though it gained him nothing. The idea Comey was picked because he was some Obama/Clinton stooge is patently absurd. In fact, all of the ACTUAL malfeasance and breach of protocol hurt Hillary exclusively.
FBI Directors are appointed to 10 year terms after Watergate strictly to AVOID partisan manipulation of the Department. Obama took it so seriously he nominated a goddamn Republican even though he was under absolutely no obligation to do so. And as we can see, it literally didn't matter, because fast forward 7 years, and James Comey and Robert Mueller are all of a sudden Democratic Party agents.
Second of all, Comey didn't "leak" anything. In what universe are what amount to personal journal entries classified information?? Just because Fuck-wad the 45th repeated it a thousand times doesn't make it so. And finally, he kept the contemporaneous memos because he realized awfully quickly that if he didn't cover his own ass with a record of what happened, Trump would simply lie about it like he does, oh, EVERYTHING else. And remind me how many times Trump has been willing to speak about ANYTHING that has happened under oath. The answer is and remains a big fat zero.
Yes, that exact James Comey. The same one fiercely loyal to Obama, and the same man who expresses a pathological hatred for Trump seemingly every day.
Why is it so hard to believe the man who openly states his contempt for a person to have a bias against him? It's perfectly logical to make this conclusion based on his actions and statements.
But I love the "he's a republican!" as though it is some sort of gotcha. As if there aren't differences in the Republican party that are as different as Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders. Not everyone on "the same side" likes each other, and it's completely obvious Trump is disliked by a big faction of D C republicans.
Comments
Maybe not yet, but in the future the @Mathsorcerer version might not be a bad idea. Can't trust the general population to police their own sex-lives, that's for sure...
Why didn't China think of forced sterilization! That would have made their one child policy so much easier! Hey here's something people don't think of - unnecessary medical procedures often have complications. Sure the risk of an unnecessary medical procedure might be 1 in a million but forcing millions to get it your going have hundreds quickly for whom it went wrong needlessly.
The rates of surgical complications such as symptomatic hematoma and infection are 1-2%. These rates vary with the surgeon's experience and the criteria used to diagnose these conditions. Chronic scrotal pain associated with negative impact on quality of life occurs after vasectomy in about 1-2% of men. 500,000 get vasectomies per year in the US. So about 500 men per year are left with life changing complications from this optional surgery people are suggesting should be mandatory.
Anyway, this is a distraction.
The McCabe case was dropped but the damage to his reputation has been done since he's now "The guy that was investigated for leaking!" or whatever and he was fired. I guess Trump doesn't need a distraction anymore since the kangaroo court in the Senate cleared him of the Ukraine fisaco which was even after the Mueller crimes that he wasn't even impeached for. So in a way, smearing McCabe helped prevent the impeachment for the criminality around the Mueller investigation.
Anyway, Trump say's he's got the absolute right to personally interfere in US justice.
Um.. ok whatever. Maybe there's a reason that isn't really something President's do and brag about.
Are we at the stage yet where he orders his people to kill us then pardons them? Nothing matters anymore stage? I mean besides his environmental roll backs and allowing companies to poison waterways and such.
He's saying he's above the law. Yeah MAGA or whatever right. Just admit it you don't care about America. Orange Man Good Syndrome (OMGS) blinders are on ya.
I'm beginning to think that maybe putting a criminal conman in the White House wasn't such a good idea.
Wild conspiracy is wild. The event you describe will never occur.
You are correct--that would be a bad idea. Fortunately, Hillary did not win so we don't have to worry about it.
Wow false accusations are the backbone of American politics isn’t it?
Yet, people can point to a number of fraudulent behaviour from Trump (Charity) that he has actually been found guilty of, yet not one accusation holds up for the Clinton’s regardless of how many investigations have been conducted. They are just wild conspiracy theories and wishful thinking.
Never say never, only a fool ignores the teachings of history. Nobody thought the wild things a famous right wing nationalist in Germany was saying either until it was too late. For Trump, it's not such a stretch since he's telling us the rule of law means nothing and Barr is there to make excuses for why he can do whatever he wants and it's been shown Republicans won't lift a finger.
You're talking about Hillary? Hahaha. She didn't run a fraud university, she didn't rip off a children's cancer charity, she doesn't lie all the time and commit tax fraud. She doesn't say nonsense like "nobody knows more than me about windmills". She is not Individual 1 and her lawyer is not in prison for covering for her. Michael Cohen is in prison, he did the crime with individual 1 - donald trump.
While she does live rent free in a lot of people's heads maybe that's because you guys secretly love her or something I have no idea, most people are over Hillary by now lol. It's true that ideologically she is much closer to a neo-liberal conservative than the left maybe that's it.
That does seem to be the case, yes. Just ask Schiff and Nadler, who led the pack levying false accusations of "abuse of power" (which is only an opinion and not a violation of any part of the U. S. Code) and "obstruction of Congress" (which, again, does not violate any section of the U. S. Code). The system is built on "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty because we accuse you and your defense team has to prove your innocence". The Democrats must have skipped school the day that lesson was taught.
Speaking of criminal conmen...I see that Avenatti has been found guilty of trying to extort millions of dollars from Nike. This is on top of his other pending cases--he stole money from Stormy Daniels' book advance and the fraud case out of California (he violated the terms of his bail in that case). Perhaps now they can finally disbar him and then he won't be a lawyer any more.
Conservatives spend less time thinking about Hillary than liberals/progressive spend thinking about Trump. Oh, and that wild conspiracy will *never* happen, no matter how much you wish for it to happen.
And what is abuse of power? Is it opinion or is it a false accusation. It can’t be both. But yet there it is, in one sentence. One would think withholding Aid being sent to an ally who is currently at war with a bad actor until a personal favour is conducted is abuse of power. But that’s opinion, not fraud.
~
I also find it amusing that the Right thinks actors and sleazy lawyers speak for left wing politicians and any crimes they commit mean the left side of the political spectrum is responsible for their actions in a 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon way.
Agree.
She's in conservative's heads still despite being all but irrelevant (other than as a candidate who got more votes but didn't win the Presidency).
There's nearly an article a day on her on Fox News.
https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/the-clintons
"1 day ago
What happened during and after the Benghazi attack in 2012?"
It's hilarious and disgusting. Hilarious in that they are so desperate to distract their simple audience and disgusting that they just make stuff up. Fake news.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-i-m-living-rent-free-inside-donald-trump-n1001026
Actually, it can be both. People make false accusations based on opinion all the time. Consider the "MAGA hat kid", the young man who just received a settlement from CNN over the defamation suit. The story which was presented was not true and yet people were accusing him of all sorts of vicious things.
I was one of the first people saying that impeachment can be for anything, including things which aren't crimes. However, impeaching for things which are not crimes demeans the process of impeachment, which is why they should have gone for censure--and before anyone says "censure is a slap on the wrist" what, exactly, do you think impeachment without removal is? It, also, is a slap on the wrist--Trump got a speeding ticket then (as I said before) did a donut in the parking lot. It *emboldened* him, which is why Democrats probably should not have impeached if they couldn't remove him from office...because now he thinks he is completely untouchable.
What Trump hasn't considered--but I have--is that fact that once he is out of office the lawsuits are going to come crashing down on him like an avalanche.
True. For most conservatives, she distills what they think of as the essence of the Democrat Party. What those people are not realizing is that Hillary is *not* the face of the Democrat Party any more (neither is Pelosi, nor Schumer). Even Biden and Sanders are not the faces of the Democrat Party these days--yes, they are front-runners but their time is over.
edit/add: Hope Hicks is going back to the White House. I am confident that Trump is looking forward to that. Melania....*shrug* I am uncertain what she thinks about it.
Trump's the President. As a rich guy involved in lots of shady stuff, he has a lot of lawyers working for him personally as well regular government lawyers that he can ask opinions of on lawsuits.
He has considered this possibility. That's probably why he's been so keen to interfere in the 2020 election in Ukraine. That's also why he keeps 'joking' that he won't leave office after he loses or after two terms.
He knows he'll be in more legal peril IF he leaves office. Right now there's nothing to worry about Barr will quash any case or evidence and Republicans will hide and turn a blind eye and stonewall any evidence seeking by rule-of-law Democrats.
He has great incentive to be a dictator; to never leave office.
Seek help, sounds like Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS). Symptoms include wild fantasies and conspiracy mongering about a grandmother who hasn't held any official government office in over 7 years.
Speaking of conspiracy theories....
Identifying characteristics of a dictatorship:
no idependent media/only State media exists -- nope
suppression of the freedom of though/speech -- nope
very little/no opposition political party -- definitely no
legislature is a puppet of the executive/legislative and executive power in the hands of only a few -- no
Unfortunately, that conspiracy theory is not plausible which means that it can't even be a conspiracy hypothesis.
No, you are clumping to distinct things together here:
The false accusation was he stood in front of a protesting Native American drummer who served in the Vietnam war.
This was the false accusation and I was the first one in this thread to defend the kid and saying that only one side of the story has been shown in the first uploaded video, and jumping to conclusions about what transpired is not in anyone’s best interest.
The opinion that he is a smug wealthy white Christian kid whose republican backing parents used a sleazy republican lawyer to settle with a news organization to highlight the president’s false news narrative is a completely different issue.
Everything that Trump has been accused of regarding Ukraine, he has freely and openly admitted to it, making it not a false accusation, but rather an opinion of it met the level to remove him from office.
That's true, you were one of the only ones to originally take the side of the kid and not the media. The fact that they all leapt down that kids throat without investigation should give anyone pause.
Still I think mathsorceror in that the impeachment deal is a false accusation based on opinion, on the part of the whistleblower who didn't hear the call and all his enablers. It's based on the same shaky premises as all the rest.
But this was the process when it came to the whistleblower:
1. Whistleblower makes the accusation
2. The accusation goes to the IG to be verified
3. If substantial, the IG passes along the accusation to congress.
4. Congress (Committee) does closed door investigation into the accusation to make sure it can be verified.
5. Congress (Committee) then holds an open investigation into the accusations bringing everything to the public attention.
6. Committee then passes it recommendations to Congress where they vote on the next procedure based on everything brought forward to that point.
If it was a false accusation it wouldn’t have passed step 3 or 4.
Edit: let me do say that Democrats should not have been leaking the juiciest parts of the investigation when it was closed and the Republicans should not have been saying they were “shut out” of the shadowy investigation. All information should have stayed hidden until it was ready to go public.
It would pass if the people involved were politically motivated to have accustions against Trump, which they were.
Not really. The IG acts like a Grand Jury in this case, making sure the claims meet a minimum standard of credibility so that they may be forwarded to other departments, whether it be Congress or the intelligence services.
The fact that their motives are obviously suspect doesn't help either.
Except The IG isn’t partisan.
And if the accusations were false, and it went public, that’s be a huge amount of ammunition for the other side to take advantage of in a political spectrum. So no, it wouldn’t pass if it was politically motivated.
And if was politically motivated, a person like Justin Amash wouldn’t have voted for them.
The whistleblower has been proven to be 10000% correct and deserves the thanks of a grateful nation for bringing this abuse of power to the public. Shame on Republicans for not defending the nation.
8 days after his acquittal, Trump openly admitted sending Giuliani to hunt for dirt on Joe Biden — reversing a key part of his impeachment defense
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-giuliani-ukraine-reversing-impeachment-defense-2020-2
Here's the answer you'll get:
Anybody who reports on wrongdoing = politicial motivations.
Republicans who ignore evidence = (silence)
Basically, if you try and stop me you don't agree with me, you are "politically motivated". Which makes it cool to be politically motivated yourself because everyone else is politically motivated against you. It's a joke of an argument.
It's like an argument of a criminal who cried the cops are biased against him.
Exactly this.
Anyone who gives testimony that is detrimental to the GOP or the president is labeled as politically motivated, and therefore their testimony is dismissed as lacking credibility.
Essentially, when someone consumes all of their news only through the lens of their partisanship, they will then process that information in a manner friendly to their ideology. This is the antithesis of critical thinking.
What about all the partisan antics and conflicted Republicans? Can't you tell those guys are totally partisan hacks? The party that cut ran an trial without evidence or witnesses and stole a Supreme Court seat (and are like now if year we;d fill the seat if it opened before the election later this year). The people crying tears about partisanship are the worst partisans of all.
There should have been Democrats on the Mueller investigation instead of tired old Republican Bob Mueller. No Republican should be given the benefit of the doubt to be trusted to do the right thing at this point.
Only barely. Trump is the sitting President, so everything he does has immediate impact and urgency. Not to mention the far reaching consequences of his actions. NOT being concerned about him is insanity.
Conversly, Fox News ran stories on the "Clinton Administration" over a year into Trump's presidency. She hasn't held official office in, what, 7 years? This is not remotely an equivalence.
FBI Directors are appointed to 10 year terms after Watergate strictly to AVOID partisan manipulation of the Department. Obama took it so seriously he nominated a goddamn Republican even though he was under absolutely no obligation to do so. And as we can see, it literally didn't matter, because fast forward 7 years, and James Comey and Robert Mueller are all of a sudden Democratic Party agents.
Second of all, Comey didn't "leak" anything. In what universe are what amount to personal journal entries classified information?? Just because Fuck-wad the 45th repeated it a thousand times doesn't make it so. And finally, he kept the contemporaneous memos because he realized awfully quickly that if he didn't cover his own ass with a record of what happened, Trump would simply lie about it like he does, oh, EVERYTHING else. And remind me how many times Trump has been willing to speak about ANYTHING that has happened under oath. The answer is and remains a big fat zero.
Why is it so hard to believe the man who openly states his contempt for a person to have a bias against him? It's perfectly logical to make this conclusion based on his actions and statements.
But I love the "he's a republican!" as though it is some sort of gotcha. As if there aren't differences in the Republican party that are as different as Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders. Not everyone on "the same side" likes each other, and it's completely obvious Trump is disliked by a big faction of D C republicans.