And one would suspect the reason he or she hasn't yet is not because of lack of evidence but because Trump has been threatening to kill the first whistleblower.
You're really underselling it. "Huh, so basically what you're telling me is that a politician committed treason? I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Gave that the proper context for you. I also don't get why everyone is seemingly okay with politicians lieing at all though. A powerful person who has a direct hand in shaping a countries' laws SHOULD BE TRUSTWORTHY AND HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD. Its both amazing and terrifiying what people are okay with.
Huh. I just HAD to check. I'm like that. And I seem unable to find that sweet spot, where I claimed that it was allright for politicians to lie. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out to me?
That would be swell.
It was when you said, word for word, "Huh. So, basically what you're telling me is that a politician lied?
I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Reducing not only an openly treasonous act to just another lie, but also completely dismissing lying politicians as a problem whatsoever. If you weren't okay with it, then why would you dismis it?
I have to say that I really like Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure I would vote for him, but I think he's very genuine which is refreshing for a politician. Here's hoping he rebounds from this setback and has many more years ahead of him...
I have to say that I really like Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure I would vote for him, but I think he's very genuine which is refreshing for a politician. Here's hoping he rebounds from this setback and has many more years ahead of him...
He's not going to quit. He's been fighting for the same things for 30+ years, and if it kills him, I'm sure he'd be perfectly fine with that. I just......don't see how this doesn't hurt him. At the very least, it makes a potential VP pick of paramount importance. But campaigning is grueling. The guy just had a heart attack. This really isn't something you just jump back into a week later, but he's going to regardless. And if people think Trump is above attacking a guy for having a heart attack if he does get the nomination, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
It was when you said, word for word, "Huh. So, basically what you're telling me is that a politician lied?
I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Reducing not only an openly treasonous act to just another lie, but also completely dismissing lying politicians as a problem whatsoever. If you weren't okay with it, then why would you dismis it?
So, to put it right, me not being surprised that a politician lied is a given approval of it in your mind?
We've got a saying for stuff like that in my hometown: "Wow."
Maybe, just maybe, people who are issued lethal weapons as a matter of course should be kept under increased scrutiny, and I do not mean body cameras that can be conveniently shut off, lost, or destroyed. Just something to consider while insisting police don't need to be held to higher standards than the general population.
Maybe, just maybe, people who are issued lethal weapons as a matter of course should be kept under increased scrutiny, and I do not mean body cameras that can be conveniently shut off, lost, or destroyed. Just something to consider while insisting police don't need to be held to higher standards than the general population.
I think you'll find citing conspiracy theories are not the most effective means to convince anyone of your point.
Especially when we agree in part, and I dont believe anyone ever said that there should be no higher standards for police, only that those standards need to be carefully considered to ensure that they are also ethically arbitrated in the eyes of the law.
In fact, I would suggest submitting a conspiracy theory as evidence for why we need higher standards/penalties for the police is a particularly bad argument, given the number of factual cases that exist in which the police have been shown far too much leniency in extrajudicial murder.
It was when you said, word for word, "Huh. So, basically what you're telling me is that a politician lied?
I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Reducing not only an openly treasonous act to just another lie, but also completely dismissing lying politicians as a problem whatsoever. If you weren't okay with it, then why would you dismis it?
So, to put it right, me not being surprised that a politician lied is a given approval of it in your mind?
We've got a saying for stuff like that in my hometown: "Wow."
I think it's best to take these things very seriously, but to be fair, a crime can be despicable without necessarily being surprising.
Then what was the point of your post? It clearly wasn't, "That's not good" because you would have written something along those lines. A sarcastic, "Wow I'm not surprised at all." carries a very dismissive tone to it.
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election. I could go on for paragraphs about the silence on this matter- and the oh so convenient moral outrage of today- but i'll spare you. Once upon a time, I was told quite often that it was clear that cooperating with foreign countries to interfere in elections was a clear moral wrong- indeed, even treason. Since the Ukrainians were committing an act I was told, and am told today, in no uncertain terms is undemocratic and potentially treasonous, it seems to be perfectly common sense that we need to ascertain what their intentions really are, and at the very least, get an assurance that they do not intend to do so again. If their intent is to clearly meddle in our democratic processes, I don't see why a measure such as withholding aid should be off the table.
Is there any evidence of problematic involvement by Ukraine? I certainly agree that if there is that should be investigated, but I wouldn't class a simple accusation by Trump as evidence. Here's an article concluding there was no interference by Ukraine. At the moment I've seen nothing substantive to suggest that conclusion is incorrect and I'm therefore currently assuming this is just another example of Trump's normal playbook - to muddy the waters by accusing opponents of whatever dodgy dealing or wrongdoing he is engaging in himself.
First of all, the article is talking about Ukraine in relation to Crowdstrike and hacking, an entirely different matter than the one being discussed. It doesn't even touch on this subject, far as I can tell.
Second, the assertion of Ukraine's involvement in 2016 was not Trump's word, but a Politico investigation, involving multiple sources, ex DNC staffers, them having possession of emails, etc. This has all been mentioned, and sourced, several times in this thread, it is just that nobody cares about these things until there is a chance to ramble on about the evils of Trump, rather than the larger political system.
It's also worth looking at because it brings more context into Trump's relationship with Ukraine. It appears they were at least somewhat aware of this, and it damaged relationships between the two from the beginning. It makes current events seem more logical, and fits into what I was saying previously.
You can read that whole article, or it can be summed up as "American citizen works to expose the criminal conduct of Paul Manafort and his alliance with disgraced, exiled former President Viktor Yanukovych" (including Parliament accusing him of mass killing of civilians). But yes, it's absolutely the fault of Democrats that Donald Trump choose one of the sleaziest actors in all of world politics (and now convicted felon) as his campaign manager. But you are right about one thing, it's not just about investigating Biden. It's also about finding a predicate for a Manafort pardon. Feel free to die on that hill.
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election. I could go on for paragraphs about the silence on this matter- and the oh so convenient moral outrage of today- but i'll spare you. Once upon a time, I was told quite often that it was clear that cooperating with foreign countries to interfere in elections was a clear moral wrong- indeed, even treason. Since the Ukrainians were committing an act I was told, and am told today, in no uncertain terms is undemocratic and potentially treasonous, it seems to be perfectly common sense that we need to ascertain what their intentions really are, and at the very least, get an assurance that they do not intend to do so again. If their intent is to clearly meddle in our democratic processes, I don't see why a measure such as withholding aid should be off the table.
Is there any evidence of problematic involvement by Ukraine? I certainly agree that if there is that should be investigated, but I wouldn't class a simple accusation by Trump as evidence. Here's an article concluding there was no interference by Ukraine. At the moment I've seen nothing substantive to suggest that conclusion is incorrect and I'm therefore currently assuming this is just another example of Trump's normal playbook - to muddy the waters by accusing opponents of whatever dodgy dealing or wrongdoing he is engaging in himself.
First of all, the article is talking about Ukraine in relation to Crowdstrike and hacking, an entirely different matter than the one being discussed. It doesn't even touch on this subject, far as I can tell.
Second, the assertion of Ukraine's involvement in 2016 was not Trump's word, but a Politico investigation, involving multiple sources, ex DNC staffers, them having possession of emails, etc. This has all been mentioned, and sourced, several times in this thread, it is just that nobody cares about these things until there is a chance to ramble on about the evils of Trump, rather than the larger political system.
It's also worth looking at because it brings more context into Trump's relationship with Ukraine. It appears they were at least somewhat aware of this, and it damaged relationships between the two from the beginning. It makes current events seem more logical, and fits into what I was saying previously.
Crowdstrike was referred to in the transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky - apart from an investigation into Biden that was the only other favor Trump was asking for, so it seemed pretty central to me to previous discussion.
In relation to the Politico piece the only significant issue raised that looks to me like potential state interference is the release of the ledger documenting payments to Manafort. As Politico reported, he denied at the time receiving such payments, but it's noteworthy that in his subsequent trial he no longer challenged them. I therefore think there's no doubt that payments were made. However, I accept there is a possibility that the evidence presented of those payments could have been doctored and then released for political purposes. The FBI had agreed earlier in 2016 a protocol for evidence-sharing with the Ukraine anti-corruption unit that released details of the ledger, so they may well have already looked at that possibility. If that's not the case though I agree it would be appropriate to do so.
That's a summary that includes a mere fraction of the story, including trying to investigate Trump, and seemingly failing, on behalf on the DNC, direct communications with them, admissions from those involved the motivations were to undermine the campaign, denouncing him publicly through the media and other ways with the hopes that it would influence things. Trying to make it all about Manafort is to ignore, like, the first few paragraphs. Why would investigating Manafort with the intent to hurt Trump be okay anyway, when the entire outrage here is that Trump allegedly ask them to investigate Biden's son to hurt Biden? Seems like a poor excuse, aside from the glaring factual errors.
I, for one, think investigations into potential criminal activity are fine, and thus have no objection to Biden nor Manafort.
However, this went far beyond that into clear electioneering, using a foreign country behind the scenes to influence domestic politics.
But anyway, we can compare this to what we know from the direct communications from Trump to Ukraine. No desires to be part of a behind the scenes influence campaign, a desire for them to not interfere in elections, and refraining from the use of dirty tactics, in general. Nobody cares about the principle of the matter, just the parties involved.
As we all know, the D's were working with the Ukrainians to try to sabotage Trump during the 2016 election. I could go on for paragraphs about the silence on this matter- and the oh so convenient moral outrage of today- but i'll spare you. Once upon a time, I was told quite often that it was clear that cooperating with foreign countries to interfere in elections was a clear moral wrong- indeed, even treason. Since the Ukrainians were committing an act I was told, and am told today, in no uncertain terms is undemocratic and potentially treasonous, it seems to be perfectly common sense that we need to ascertain what their intentions really are, and at the very least, get an assurance that they do not intend to do so again. If their intent is to clearly meddle in our democratic processes, I don't see why a measure such as withholding aid should be off the table.
Is there any evidence of problematic involvement by Ukraine? I certainly agree that if there is that should be investigated, but I wouldn't class a simple accusation by Trump as evidence. Here's an article concluding there was no interference by Ukraine. At the moment I've seen nothing substantive to suggest that conclusion is incorrect and I'm therefore currently assuming this is just another example of Trump's normal playbook - to muddy the waters by accusing opponents of whatever dodgy dealing or wrongdoing he is engaging in himself.
First of all, the article is talking about Ukraine in relation to Crowdstrike and hacking, an entirely different matter than the one being discussed. It doesn't even touch on this subject, far as I can tell.
Second, the assertion of Ukraine's involvement in 2016 was not Trump's word, but a Politico investigation, involving multiple sources, ex DNC staffers, them having possession of emails, etc. This has all been mentioned, and sourced, several times in this thread, it is just that nobody cares about these things until there is a chance to ramble on about the evils of Trump, rather than the larger political system.
It's also worth looking at because it brings more context into Trump's relationship with Ukraine. It appears they were at least somewhat aware of this, and it damaged relationships between the two from the beginning. It makes current events seem more logical, and fits into what I was saying previously.
Crowdstrike was referred to in the transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky - apart from an investigation into Biden that was the only other favor Trump was asking for, so it seemed pretty central to me to previous discussion.
In relation to the Politico piece the only significant issue raised that looks to me like potential state interference is the release of the ledger documenting payments to Manafort. As Politico reported, he denied at the time receiving such payments, but it's noteworthy that in his subsequent trial he no longer challenged them. I therefore think there's no doubt that payments were made. However, I accept there is a possibility that the evidence presented of those payments could have been doctored and then released for political purposes. The FBI had agreed earlier in 2016 a protocol for evidence-sharing with the Ukraine anti-corruption unit that released details of the ledger, so they may well have already looked at that possibility. If that's not the case though I agree it would be appropriate to do so.
Just to be clear here- you see no issue with a political party and a foreign country working together to conduct opposition research and disseminate damaging information during an election?
We only have to go to the second paragraph for a decent summary of everything:
"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
"Publicly questioning his fitness for office to try to help Clinton" sounds like straight up electioneering to me.
I am just failing to find a distinct moral difference between this event and the worst case scenario with Trump's Ukraine involvement. Is it, or is it not, okay to ask a foreign country to conduct investigations during an election? The case against Trump was done with the explicit intent to influence elections.
The documents released by the House democrats themselves that I discussed earlier states specifically that soliciting foreign powers for illicit aid during elections is "unethical, unpatriotic, and wrong", and indeed, is "a grave offense against the Constitution".
You just can't have it both ways. Since Trump has not asked for election influence, and indeed has expressed the opposite concern by all accounts, if anything he has the moral high ground here.
I am just failing to find a distinct moral difference between this event and the worst case scenario with Trump's Ukraine involvement. Is it, or is it not, okay to ask a foreign country to conduct investigations during an election? The case against Trump was done with the explicit intent to influence elections.
The documents released by the House democrats themselves that I discussed earlier states specifically that soliciting foreign powers for illicit aid during elections is "unethical, unpatriotic, and wrong", and indeed, is "a grave offense against the Constitution".
You just can't have it both ways. Since Trump has not asked for election influence, and indeed has expressed the opposite concern by all accounts, if anything he has the moral high ground here.
Where did anyone ask or demand the Ukrainians investigate anything on the Democratic side?? Much less hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in Congressionally appropriated military aid to facilitate the cooperation. And your reading of those texts and Trump's released read-out of the call is a fantasy-land, and that is putting it mildly.
"Bill Barr is being up-front about contents of the Mueller report, he would NEVER be stupid enough to misrepresent it". "Look at how transparent they are being releasing the phone call". "I see no evidence this is tied to holding up the military aid". This person sound familiar to you??
By the way, if it's such a great and moral high ground that he is standing on, why is he now blaming the entire call on......Rick Perry. Which is now about his 3rd or 4th version of the events. Why was the complaint not turned over as legally required to Congress?? Laws mean alot when a migrant crosses the border, but not so much if you're Bill Barr and Donald Trump. Why did Pompeo lie about being in on the call?? Why was this call and scores of others disappeared down a code-word server?? If it was such a noble cause, they should want EVERYONE to know about it. Why is it all being coordinated by a non-government official accountable to no voter or elected representative?? Why did Volker resign and turn over his texts?? Why did one of the participants on the text CLEARLY state they were withholding aid for election help?? Why did the person responding to that statement demand a ceasing of further communication about the subject?? Why were even Republican members of the Senate not given a reason why the appropriated aid money was being held up?? Why did Bill Barr not immediately recuse himself from the matter since his name was literally MENTIONED in the complaint?? Why was a whistleblower report turned over to the subject matter of the report, which defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the statute??
But moreover, what is the alleged crime Hunter Biden is supposed to have committed that supposedly his father was trying to prevent from being looked into (even though we've been over time and time again that the prosecutor who was replaced was adamantly opposed by the entire Western world and was specifically NOT investigating Burisma because he was SOFT on corruption, which is WHY he was removed)?? Because if you're arguing that nepotism and cashing in on your last name is gross, that's one thing. If you are arguing it's illegal, I direct to the fact released this morning that Jared and Ivanka literally made $82 MILLION dollars last year while working IN the West Wing.
Much like Hillary's emails, the crime that was allegedly committed is so amorphous that it has less form than vapor. Not a single person advocating Hunter Biden be investigated has even a cursory explanation as to why they think so. They haven't even bothered coming up with a theory.
I don't think the anti-Trump activities in Ukrainians three years ago are relevant to this subject. The two stories don't involve the same Ukrainians or the same Americans; the only link is that they both have the word "Ukraine" in them. The messages available so far make it clear that the Trump administration's goal was not to restart an investigation into any anti-Trump meddling by a Ukrainian official--it was to threaten Biden.
In relation to public statements by the Ukraine government against Trump I don't see anything sinister about those. Remember that Trump had been clearly favoring Russia over Ukraine during the campaign (for instance suggesting that their annexation of the Crimea should be accepted internationally) at a time that Russia was in an undeclared war against Ukraine.
Oh look. One of the main points of the article is hogwash. Should have expected nothing less from Ken Vogel, who never meant a right-wing smear he won't write up as a news piece:
Despite claims to the contrary, this is ALL about Manafort. Every bit of it. It was as if Trump had hired Al Capone as his campaign manager and it was just supposed to be ignored like it wasn't happening. This has never been all that hard. Manafort was neck-deep with pro-Russian factions in Ukraine. He is brought onto the campaign as manager for NO PAY and miraculously, the whole Convention platform on Ukraine changes. Incidentally, there is a operation ordered from the top to sabotage US social media from Putin. In the end Manafort is JUST about ready to sing to Mueller, and then starts lying to them again and the deal is revoked. The moment Muller is done testifying, Giuliani is skulking around Ukraine looking for info that can justify a Manfort pardon in addition to shopping for an announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden. But hey, what do I know?? I've only been talking about Manfort being at the fulcrum of all this since July of 2016.
And for the record, I know all about Alexandra Chalupa and have for some time, because I listen to her sister's podcast on a regular basis. She is a Ukrainian-American who was so genuinely concerned about what was going on in that country that she started looking into it herself. Naturally, with what she found, she didn't keep it a secret. But unless you want to strip the "American" part from her nationality, there is nothing foreign about her. And for the record, she has been constantly harassed and threatened by right-wing trolls for the last 2+ years, because I know those on that side of the aisle nowadays care oh so much about that issue. And not for nothing, but the idea of this single article in Politico being sighted as the Rosetta Stone of this entire saga when the same people will out of hand dismiss literally ANY other article they see sight unseen as fake news is too rich for words. This is yet another crossroads where the dude-bro left and the alt-right have decided to make a stand.
Then what was the point of your post? It clearly wasn't, "That's not good" because you would have written something along those lines. A sarcastic, "Wow I'm not surprised at all." carries a very dismissive tone to it.
I can hardly be blamed for how you choose to interpret something I wrote.
But I don't consider myself to be a harshly unfair débatteur. So, I'll give you another opportunity to quote me on where I word for word approved of any wrongdoings.
A minor disclaimer, though: The whole "You said so, because that's how I choose to interpret it"-option is out the window. That's not gonna fly a second time, just like it didn't fly the first time.
Something continues to bother me about Bernie Sander's heart attack. Because I feel like his supporters (much more so than himself) make him problematic. Because they see in him the same messianic figure the right sees in Trump. Let me ask a serious question: if you father had a heart attack, and he insisted on going back to what is essentially an 80+ hour a week job traveling across the country in less than two weeks, would you give him your blessing or encourage him to do so?? Because I'm guessing in almost every case the answer to that question would be an emphatic "no".
Something continues to bother me about Bernie Sander's heart attack. Because I feel like his supporters (much more so than himself) make him problematic. Because they see in him the same messianic figure the right sees in Trump. Let me ask a serious question: if you father had a heart attack, and he insisted on going back to what is essentially an 80+ hour a week job traveling across the country in less than two weeks, would you give him your blessing or encourage him to do so?? Because I'm guessing in almost every case the answer to that question would be an emphatic "no".
It's not the same. Bernie Sanders is not telling people to go commit violence like the President is. His supporters wear these hats:
Something continues to bother me about Bernie Sander's heart attack. Because I feel like his supporters (much more so than himself) make him problematic. Because they see in him the same messianic figure the right sees in Trump. Let me ask a serious question: if you father had a heart attack, and he insisted on going back to what is essentially an 80+ hour a week job traveling across the country in less than two weeks, would you give him your blessing or encourage him to do so?? Because I'm guessing in almost every case the answer to that question would be an emphatic "no".
It's not the same. Bernie Sanders is not telling people to go commit violence like the President is.
I'm not suggesting they are the same. But I am suggesting that just like in 2016, if they don't get THEIR nominee, they will take their ball and go home. I mean, Bernie has already accomplished alot. He has moved the party to the left on countless issues almost by himself. I'm not saying Bernie supporters are violent, I'm saying that alot of them don't even view Elizabeth Warren as a viable alternative, when she is easily about 95% as progressive as Bernie is on most issues. I can understand staying home if it was Biden if you are on the far-left, but Warren??
@ThacoBell@Verticor: This thread is not here for semantic debates, and this tangent is going nowhere. Picking apart the meaning of a single brief comment from another page of the thread is not going to shed light on any issue--and I can tell that neither of you are enjoying this argument, either, which is the only other reason to keep it going. At the risk of seeming bossy, I would recommend referring to the first paragraph of Rule 5 and the second sentence of Rule 2 of the thread rules.
I would recommend just dropping it. I don't see any future in this tangent, and it costs nothing to drop it.
So, in regards to that witness in the Amber Guyger trial getting murdered last night, I was waiting for the inevitable smearing of gang affiliation or whatnot to pop up. But it hasn't. But was has come out is......disturbing to say the least. Because it appears he was shot in the mouth. Now we can pretend we don't know what that might mean, but it's pretty damn hard not to go to "you wouldn't shut up, so now we're shutting you up for good." Even if you are going to kill someone, shooting someone in the mouth is deliberate overkill meant to send a message, or why would you take the time to do so?? Now I don't know where this is going to go. Maybe these thoughts ARE hysteric nonsense. But I can tell you based on what I'm seeing on social media that a very large part of the African-American population of Dallas BELIEVES he was killed for testifying in the trial. I'm certainly going to be paying attention to where this leads.
Edit: I'm now reading more conflicting reports about where he may have been shot. The initial information came from a lawyer for the family, and he is now saying we need to wait for an autopsy, so I'll withhold judgement until that time. I still don't like the way this one smells, but don't want to jump to conclusions without knowing more.
@ThacoBell@Verticor: This thread is not here for semantic debates, and this tangent is going nowhere. Picking apart the meaning of a single brief comment from another page of the thread is not going to shed light on any issue--and I can tell that neither of you are enjoying this argument, either, which is the only other reason to keep it going. At the risk of seeming bossy, I would recommend referring to the first paragraph of Rule 5 and the second sentence of Rule 2 of the thread rules.
I would recommend just dropping it. I don't see any future in this tangent, and it costs nothing to drop it.
Very well, henceforth I swear I shall stop reciprocating to baseless accusations directed towards me. Good enough?
Comments
US Diplomat's wife flees the UK and hides behind diplomatic immunity after killing 19 year old in a head on collision.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/05/us-diplomats-wife-claims-immunity-leaves-uk-afterfatal-road/
New York Times: 2nd intelligence official might submit whistleblower complaint
And one would suspect the reason he or she hasn't yet is not because of lack of evidence but because Trump has been threatening to kill the first whistleblower.
It was when you said, word for word, "Huh. So, basically what you're telling me is that a politician lied?
I'm absolutely swooning with astonishment here!"
Reducing not only an openly treasonous act to just another lie, but also completely dismissing lying politicians as a problem whatsoever. If you weren't okay with it, then why would you dismis it?
He's not going to quit. He's been fighting for the same things for 30+ years, and if it kills him, I'm sure he'd be perfectly fine with that. I just......don't see how this doesn't hurt him. At the very least, it makes a potential VP pick of paramount importance. But campaigning is grueling. The guy just had a heart attack. This really isn't something you just jump back into a week later, but he's going to regardless. And if people think Trump is above attacking a guy for having a heart attack if he does get the nomination, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
So, to put it right, me not being surprised that a politician lied is a given approval of it in your mind?
We've got a saying for stuff like that in my hometown: "Wow."
But take notes. Someone got it:
To think this was deliberate action one might have to establish a prior pattern of mysterious deaths involving people who in some way opposed police violence.
Maybe, just maybe, people who are issued lethal weapons as a matter of course should be kept under increased scrutiny, and I do not mean body cameras that can be conveniently shut off, lost, or destroyed. Just something to consider while insisting police don't need to be held to higher standards than the general population.
I think you'll find citing conspiracy theories are not the most effective means to convince anyone of your point.
Especially when we agree in part, and I dont believe anyone ever said that there should be no higher standards for police, only that those standards need to be carefully considered to ensure that they are also ethically arbitrated in the eyes of the law.
In fact, I would suggest submitting a conspiracy theory as evidence for why we need higher standards/penalties for the police is a particularly bad argument, given the number of factual cases that exist in which the police have been shown far too much leniency in extrajudicial murder.
https://www.theroot.com/woman-who-filmed-aftermath-of-botham-jean-shooting-says-1832270038
Then what was the point of your post? It clearly wasn't, "That's not good" because you would have written something along those lines. A sarcastic, "Wow I'm not surprised at all." carries a very dismissive tone to it.
First of all, the article is talking about Ukraine in relation to Crowdstrike and hacking, an entirely different matter than the one being discussed. It doesn't even touch on this subject, far as I can tell.
Second, the assertion of Ukraine's involvement in 2016 was not Trump's word, but a Politico investigation, involving multiple sources, ex DNC staffers, them having possession of emails, etc. This has all been mentioned, and sourced, several times in this thread, it is just that nobody cares about these things until there is a chance to ramble on about the evils of Trump, rather than the larger political system.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainian-efforts-to-sabotage-trump-backfire/
It's also worth looking at because it brings more context into Trump's relationship with Ukraine. It appears they were at least somewhat aware of this, and it damaged relationships between the two from the beginning. It makes current events seem more logical, and fits into what I was saying previously.
Crowdstrike was referred to in the transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky - apart from an investigation into Biden that was the only other favor Trump was asking for, so it seemed pretty central to me to previous discussion.
In relation to the Politico piece the only significant issue raised that looks to me like potential state interference is the release of the ledger documenting payments to Manafort. As Politico reported, he denied at the time receiving such payments, but it's noteworthy that in his subsequent trial he no longer challenged them. I therefore think there's no doubt that payments were made. However, I accept there is a possibility that the evidence presented of those payments could have been doctored and then released for political purposes. The FBI had agreed earlier in 2016 a protocol for evidence-sharing with the Ukraine anti-corruption unit that released details of the ledger, so they may well have already looked at that possibility. If that's not the case though I agree it would be appropriate to do so.
I, for one, think investigations into potential criminal activity are fine, and thus have no objection to Biden nor Manafort.
However, this went far beyond that into clear electioneering, using a foreign country behind the scenes to influence domestic politics.
But anyway, we can compare this to what we know from the direct communications from Trump to Ukraine. No desires to be part of a behind the scenes influence campaign, a desire for them to not interfere in elections, and refraining from the use of dirty tactics, in general. Nobody cares about the principle of the matter, just the parties involved.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/05/ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-approved-black-ops-to-help-ukraine-president
Just to be clear here- you see no issue with a political party and a foreign country working together to conduct opposition research and disseminate damaging information during an election?
We only have to go to the second paragraph for a decent summary of everything:
"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
"Publicly questioning his fitness for office to try to help Clinton" sounds like straight up electioneering to me.
The documents released by the House democrats themselves that I discussed earlier states specifically that soliciting foreign powers for illicit aid during elections is "unethical, unpatriotic, and wrong", and indeed, is "a grave offense against the Constitution".
You just can't have it both ways. Since Trump has not asked for election influence, and indeed has expressed the opposite concern by all accounts, if anything he has the moral high ground here.
Where did anyone ask or demand the Ukrainians investigate anything on the Democratic side?? Much less hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in Congressionally appropriated military aid to facilitate the cooperation. And your reading of those texts and Trump's released read-out of the call is a fantasy-land, and that is putting it mildly.
"Bill Barr is being up-front about contents of the Mueller report, he would NEVER be stupid enough to misrepresent it". "Look at how transparent they are being releasing the phone call". "I see no evidence this is tied to holding up the military aid". This person sound familiar to you??
By the way, if it's such a great and moral high ground that he is standing on, why is he now blaming the entire call on......Rick Perry. Which is now about his 3rd or 4th version of the events. Why was the complaint not turned over as legally required to Congress?? Laws mean alot when a migrant crosses the border, but not so much if you're Bill Barr and Donald Trump. Why did Pompeo lie about being in on the call?? Why was this call and scores of others disappeared down a code-word server?? If it was such a noble cause, they should want EVERYONE to know about it. Why is it all being coordinated by a non-government official accountable to no voter or elected representative?? Why did Volker resign and turn over his texts?? Why did one of the participants on the text CLEARLY state they were withholding aid for election help?? Why did the person responding to that statement demand a ceasing of further communication about the subject?? Why were even Republican members of the Senate not given a reason why the appropriated aid money was being held up?? Why did Bill Barr not immediately recuse himself from the matter since his name was literally MENTIONED in the complaint?? Why was a whistleblower report turned over to the subject matter of the report, which defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the statute??
But moreover, what is the alleged crime Hunter Biden is supposed to have committed that supposedly his father was trying to prevent from being looked into (even though we've been over time and time again that the prosecutor who was replaced was adamantly opposed by the entire Western world and was specifically NOT investigating Burisma because he was SOFT on corruption, which is WHY he was removed)?? Because if you're arguing that nepotism and cashing in on your last name is gross, that's one thing. If you are arguing it's illegal, I direct to the fact released this morning that Jared and Ivanka literally made $82 MILLION dollars last year while working IN the West Wing.
Much like Hillary's emails, the crime that was allegedly committed is so amorphous that it has less form than vapor. Not a single person advocating Hunter Biden be investigated has even a cursory explanation as to why they think so. They haven't even bothered coming up with a theory.
https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/court-cancels-earlier-ruling-that-ukrainian-officials-interfered-in-us-election.html?cn-reloaded=1
Despite claims to the contrary, this is ALL about Manafort. Every bit of it. It was as if Trump had hired Al Capone as his campaign manager and it was just supposed to be ignored like it wasn't happening. This has never been all that hard. Manafort was neck-deep with pro-Russian factions in Ukraine. He is brought onto the campaign as manager for NO PAY and miraculously, the whole Convention platform on Ukraine changes. Incidentally, there is a operation ordered from the top to sabotage US social media from Putin. In the end Manafort is JUST about ready to sing to Mueller, and then starts lying to them again and the deal is revoked. The moment Muller is done testifying, Giuliani is skulking around Ukraine looking for info that can justify a Manfort pardon in addition to shopping for an announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden. But hey, what do I know?? I've only been talking about Manfort being at the fulcrum of all this since July of 2016.
And for the record, I know all about Alexandra Chalupa and have for some time, because I listen to her sister's podcast on a regular basis. She is a Ukrainian-American who was so genuinely concerned about what was going on in that country that she started looking into it herself. Naturally, with what she found, she didn't keep it a secret. But unless you want to strip the "American" part from her nationality, there is nothing foreign about her. And for the record, she has been constantly harassed and threatened by right-wing trolls for the last 2+ years, because I know those on that side of the aisle nowadays care oh so much about that issue. And not for nothing, but the idea of this single article in Politico being sighted as the Rosetta Stone of this entire saga when the same people will out of hand dismiss literally ANY other article they see sight unseen as fake news is too rich for words. This is yet another crossroads where the dude-bro left and the alt-right have decided to make a stand.
I can hardly be blamed for how you choose to interpret something I wrote.
But I don't consider myself to be a harshly unfair débatteur. So, I'll give you another opportunity to quote me on where I word for word approved of any wrongdoings.
A minor disclaimer, though: The whole "You said so, because that's how I choose to interpret it"-option is out the window. That's not gonna fly a second time, just like it didn't fly the first time.
So, if you please.
It's not the same. Bernie Sanders is not telling people to go commit violence like the President is. His supporters wear these hats:
I'm not suggesting they are the same. But I am suggesting that just like in 2016, if they don't get THEIR nominee, they will take their ball and go home. I mean, Bernie has already accomplished alot. He has moved the party to the left on countless issues almost by himself. I'm not saying Bernie supporters are violent, I'm saying that alot of them don't even view Elizabeth Warren as a viable alternative, when she is easily about 95% as progressive as Bernie is on most issues. I can understand staying home if it was Biden if you are on the far-left, but Warren??
I would recommend just dropping it. I don't see any future in this tangent, and it costs nothing to drop it.
Edit: I'm now reading more conflicting reports about where he may have been shot. The initial information came from a lawyer for the family, and he is now saying we need to wait for an autopsy, so I'll withhold judgement until that time. I still don't like the way this one smells, but don't want to jump to conclusions without knowing more.
Very well, henceforth I swear I shall stop reciprocating to baseless accusations directed towards me. Good enough?