With impeachment upon us, I have a question to ask those of you who are right of center. It’s a serious, non-snarky, question.
Quite simply, why do you think Republican members of Congress are willing to jump off the cliff, logically speaking, in defense of the POTUS? There are a number of defenses that have been raised that are flat-out contradicted by the evidence. Or even more clownish arguments, like this one.
I’m not questioning defending Trump from being impeached. He’s the head of the party and we’re in tribal times. I get all that.
What I don’t get is why risk your dignity with all the nonsense. Wouldn’t it be easier and less deserving of mockery to say, yes, what he did with Ukraine was wrong, but it doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense?
I know part of the reason for the sideshow is in hopes of muddying the waters so the public will be confused, but the polling shows that hasn’t happened. So why continue to go down this road if you’re a member of Congress who wants to be taken at least somewhat seriously?
Again, I’m not trolling, so I would appreciate it if you would respect that in your comments. I’m genuinely curious about this.
Get The Picture 
The problem with the defense you suggest Senator is that Trumps offense – using the powers of the office to assist in retaining the office – is exactly the offense that the founders had in mind when they included the impeachment.
The Reps focusing on process objections and other inane nonsense like McCarthy puts out shows that they have no factual argument to make.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The impeachment standard cannot be “doing something while in office that helps your reelection chances.” Hopefully you can see why. That being said, you have to make the case that Trump did something that was contrary to the interests of the American people, but privately good for him. And there’s the problem — you are apparently unwilling to consider the fact that just maybe Biden was involved in some pretty bad corruption over in Ukraine. For some reason, you guys are more than capable of reading between the lines and divining someone’s true intent when it comes to secret deals with Putin, but Joe Biden’s son is put on the board of the most corrupt company in the most corrupt country while his father is overseeing billions of dollars in aid to said country and you can’t imagine why anyone would raise an eyebrow. This right here is why no one is taking this impeachment nonsense seriously. Trump was acting in America’s best interest when he asked the new Ukrainian president to find out whether officials in his country interfered in the 2016 election and whether us officials were taking bribes. We don’t have to rely on process defenses, but you should be leery of your side arguing that the process is irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not particularly interested in chasing you down the rabbit hole on this, but that’s not the issue here. The money was appropriated by Congress and signed off on by the POTUS after the Defense Department cleared Ukraine on corruption. Trump had no authority to withhold the funds at that point, whether he perceived corruption or not. Beyond that, if Biden was a problem, why didn’t anyone in Congress object at the time he was appointed to the Burisma board, or at least by the time the funding process was in play?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not to mention, a sitting president inviting/cajoling/leveraging foreign powers to investigate a political rival is really, really bad precedent that means, if there is no consequence here, ANY future sitting president can leverage tax dollars to imperil the status of ANY U.S. citizen.
LikeLike
Does that same standard apply to Democrats interested in impeaching a Republican? Some are on record as saying their best election hopes in 2020 rest with impeachment. Should impeachment be disallowed on those very grounds?
LikeLike
Certainly the same standard applies. As for “some are on record” re: 2020, that’s pathetic, IMO, if they did. No, there’s no way you can “disallow” impeachment. There’s a process and a vote, just as there was/would have been the other three times.
LikeLike
Interesting. So when should we schedule the impeachment of the Democrats who are impeaching Trump? Should we just combine it all into a mega-impeachment for multiple politicians helping themselves win reelection? Or should these impeachments be done separately?
LikeLike
Not what I said, and I think you can read that.
LikeLike
My question was whether the president faced a unique standard? If he can be impeached for official actions that could improve his election chances, shouldn’t other politicians face the same standard? You replied that they should. Would you like to change your answer?
Should Congressmen not face the same standard? Or should we vary it by party?
LikeLike
I wouldn’t assume that.
LikeLike
As clever as ever, Derek.
LikeLike
Shoot a guy on fifth. Get away with. If an elected dem said something about impeachment first.
It makes sense if you’ve had a lobotomy.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
So does that mean that the best thing any corrupt person that has committed a federal crime could do is run for President. That way they could not be investigated?
LikeLike
Ask Joe Biden…
LikeLike
I’d wager a vast majority of congress doesn’t want an investigation into why a politician’s kid got a job they weren’t remotely qualified for, as sinecures for failsons is a bipartisan grift (see also Megan McCain and Chelsea Clinton’s TV contracts). Though special kudos to Don Jr for lacking in self-awareness to say Hunter Biden only got a job because of his last name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally agree. A can of worms they don’t want to open…
LikeLike
You’d be hard pressed to find a way to avoid that.
People want to ingratiate themselves to people in power.
Should of making family members of pols unemployable, what can you do?
These are the unspoken conspiracies in power that we typically deny even exist, right?
You don’t have to have Joe call Burisma and make a demand.
Burisma does it and makes an assumption that it serves their interests.
No words need to be spoken between Hunter, burisma or Joe about any of it.
Same rules apply when X gets Y a political or judicial appointment. Do you think X calls when their interests are in the balance? Nope. They figure they’re taken care of. And we know they are.
The irony in this instance is that the move to fire the prosecutor put burisma at more not less risk of investigation.
LikeLike
“The irony in this instance is that the move to fire the prosecutor put burisma at more not less risk of investigation.”
If we weren’t talking about ukraine and burisma, that might be true. If there were just a few honest investigators in ukraine, kicking one of them to the curb is not going to increase the chances that people are held to account.
In this case, the next man up quickly wrapped up the investigation, so I think Biden’s gamble paid off.
LikeLike
But the fired prosecutor was a scumbag. That’s why literally everyone wanted him out.
Contrast that to the firing by trump of the very anti-corruption ambassador.
And forgive me if I laugh at trumps supposed anti corruption stance as he pays:
A 25 million dollar fraud settlement for trump U
A 2 million dollar fine for fraud associated with his shuttered foundation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“very anti-corrupt ambassador” ???
This may bring you back to earth :
OAN EXCLUSIVE: Yuriy Lutsenko says Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress
LikeLike
Might want to consider your source(s) on that one.
For starters, Lutsenko was widely considered a corrupt an inept prosecutor (which is doubtlessly a reason why Trump/Giulani wanted Zelensky to reinstate him as general prosecutor) whose career highlights include letting Russian asset & Manafort co-conspirator Konstantin Kilimnik to escape Ukranian custody.
Second, OAN is, how do you say, not a reliable newssource by any stretch of the imagination and has a tendency to both employ white supremacists and spout the occasional bits of Russian propaganda.
LikeLike
O A N ……. !?!?!?!?!?!?! Watch smarter, Dawg.
LikeLike
“But the fired prosecutor was a scumbag. That’s why literally everyone wanted him out.”
Source? “Everyone” who wanted him out is up to their eyeballs in the scandal.
LikeLike
That’s the NY Times in March of 2016… for those who don’t want to click the link:
“The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to post corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.
…
Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up the Ukraine financially, said last montht hat progress was so slow in fighting corruption that ‘it’s hard to see how the IMF-supported program can continue.'”
LikeLike
I am sympathetic to your general argument, but that is not a true statement. He was widely seen as a corrupt prosecutor among western governments (not just the US) who used prosecutions to extract bribes and political favors. You can look that up.
LikeLike
Feel free to google that at NY Times Wapo, MSNBC, ABC. CNN etc…btw, epstein killed himself….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Defrauding a college for millions of dollars is unforgivable. I can’t even.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Trump had no authority to withhold the funds at that point, whether he perceived corruption or not.”
Says who? The Supreme Court hasn’t addressed that specific issue and when it has delved into the issue of foreign policy/relations, the opinions are split with the majority favoring Executive authority. I think that today’s Supreme Court would likely side with the Executive branch on this issue.
LikeLike
Cool. Except this isn’t a foreign policy question. It’s a power of the purse question.
LikeLike
Except that they are the same thing here; it’s both. When you characterize something as being “wrong,” you have to be prepared for this line of inquiry. Specifically, whether the POTUS had the authority to do this.
In further responding to your original question for the Playpen today. I consider myself to be right of center on most issues. I don’t think that this specific instance is impeachable conduct although it admittedly looks absolutely terrible on his part. Frankly, I take the position that the POTUS has the constitutional authority to do what the president did in this case. I don’t think that there are any logical, ethical or emotional gymnastics necessary.
LikeLike
Assuming you understand the separation of powers and the power of the purse the Senator references, what do you base your beliefs on? Can you cite a legal case? Constitutional clause? Once the Pentagon asserted the Ukraine was in compliance with anti-corruption expectations and approved the release of the money, the OMB’s hands were tied, the President had no legal standing to withhold the payment.
LikeLike
If nothing else, I can enjoy the newfound appreciation for Constitutionally limited government that leftists have recently discovered.
Any notion that the president is simply a glorified administrator died with TR, if not Lincoln. The imperial presidency predates Trump by many generations. And that ignores the reasonable argument that the Constitution allows the president authority over foreign policy. Given that foreign aid is, by definition, designed to alter the behavior of other nations, it’s not surprising that presidents have used the administration of such aid as inducement to influence actions. Obama did it. Bushes did it. Clinton did it. And on and on and on.
Now, if you want to discuss whether things should exist as they are, I’ll be much more understanding. The elimination of foreign aid would certainly deny all presidents a powerful tool to influence the globe. Rolling back presidential powers would be a good thing.
But simply arguing that we must deny the Rs the same ultimate power that we can trust Ds with is foolish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You throw names around without citing specific examples, so let me clarify what I believe you are alluding to. Congress can (and almost always does) put stipulations or requirements on the releasing of authorized funds, In the absence of such measures, the OMB is obligated to release the authorized funds once they are appropriated. It’s when these measures/stipulations exist that presidents can find room to maneuver, interpreting them as they desire. It’s how Trump rerouted $3B of the national defense appropriation to the Wall. It’s the stipulation about corruption reform (confirmed by the Sec of Denfense in coordination with the Sec of State) in the aid that Trump sought to use.
BUT, the Pentagon confirmed Ukraine was complying, the aid was to be released. There’s no wiggle room here, the certification required by the bill was satisfied. The President could have rescinded the aid, but he had no legal authority to delay it. Even in that case, he still would have been obligated to inform both of houses of his rescission.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/683
LikeLike
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to state it as power of the purse vs. foreign policy. You ask upon what I base my belief? I subscribe to the theory that supports the view of an Executive Branch which alone determines foreign policy. I understand that’s a rather generic and unspecific response, but I don’t think you’re really looking for a dissertation on the subject (if I’m wrong, I’d be happy to continue the debate via email). With respect to citations, check US v. Curtiss-Wright and also compare it with In re Neagle. That’s not to say that there aren’t compelling arguments (whole theories even) or case law for the opposing view.
I have to disagree with your assertion that once approved by the Pentagon, the OMB’s hands were tied. The OMB’s hands are only tied when its boss directs it.
LikeLike
§1237(c)(2) of the 2019 John S. McCain (ironic, no?) National Defense Authorization Act:
“Certification.–The certification described in this paragraph is a certification by the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms…”
The certification was made, Congress was notified of the certification, what Trump did next is unprecedented.
LikeLike
You’re right, that is some nice irony and I wasn’t aware of it. Thanks for sharing it.
You’re also correct in that what he did next was unprecedented. Where I think we diverge is that I don’t see it as necessarily wrong or unauthorized by the constitution. That’s why I think impeachment is inappropriate in this instance.
LikeLike
I think it is worth pointing out that prior administrations have withheld and threatened to withhold similar funds in pursuit of policy goals. Hell, Joe Biden publicly stated that the Obama administration was withholding appropriated funds until they fired the prior prosecutor who was thought to be corrupt by every western government.
The difference here is that Trump withheld the funds to gain leverage for his personal benefit (rather than pursuit of official policy).
LikeLike
But Obama and Biden are Democrats. Biden didn’t withhold funds in order to protect his son’s corrupt job. He bravely did it IN SPITE of the fact that his son would benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know one way or the other, but that is why we have a Justice Department. If there is some evidence Biden was improperly motivated, then it should be investigated by the Justice Department (using its cross border resources as appropriate).
I suspect that sufficient predicates for an investigation do not exist, but someone should ask Bill Barr about that.
Unless you think the president is spearheading his global anti-corruption campaign with the Biden investigation (which I think is laughable), whether Joe Biden’s actions were corrupt has little bearing on the significance of what Trump did.
The difference is that there is a host of evidence regarding the president’s motivations, and the only people who dispute that evidence won’t speak under oath.
LikeLike
Color me skeptical when the government investigates itself. And the recent developments just bolster my argument. Mueller releases his report. And both parties crow about having been proved correct.
The deep state fudges some FISA applications based on Steele fantasy provided by the DNC and the IG yawns. “Mistakes were made, but we can totally trust these guys not to keep doing what they’ve been doing.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair enough, but I would be even more skeptical of an investigation by the Ukrainian government initiated under duress.
LikeLike
Right. But given that the prior investigation was scuttled by Biden withholding aid, which US influenced outcome can you trust more?
Honestly, why even hold an investigation? Everyone except Joe Biden admits that Hunter got his do-nothing job because of father’s influence on American aid spending. Joe is on record bragging about forcing Ukraine to fire the last prosecutor. What’s to investigate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a process for that. The president can involve White House counsel who then requests the AG look into it. We have assets all over the world who can investigate corruption discretely.
This is not what was intended. He wanted an announcement.
The exact opposite of what you do in a real investigation.
Can you imagine a US attorney announcing: today we announce an investigation into John Gotti. So lawyer up guys and get your stories straight. We’ll be around to ask questions.
The facts and circumstances make it transparent as to what this was. Personal and political.
LikeLike
Yes. As the Washington Post states, “Democracy dies in the light.”
The best antidote for corruption is secrecy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently someone is stupid enough to believe that we should have public investigations.
If people are exonerated by the investigation, who cares?
No law enforcement investigations are transparent in America. For reasons that are obvious to all but single celled creatures. But we have stupid to change all that.
LikeLike
Right, you fucking fuckers.
Adam Schiff holding press conferences about the secret testimony just shows how brilliant the Democrats are. The investigations are both secret AND public. And stunning and brave!
How can anybody not understand these basic points about Orange Man being so bad?
#ICan’tEven
#MiddleSchoolInvestigations
LikeLiked by 1 person
“That being said, you have to make the case that Trump did something that was contrary to the interests of the American people”
That is the easiest case to make, compelling Ukraine to make statements and insert itself in our politics is MOST OBVIOUSLY not in the interests of our Republic. We can all hopefully agree a free Ukraine is in our interests, compelling them to take a side in our politics risks them losing our favor/support should the wrong horse win the race.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is that there is vitrually no evidence that Trump ever demanded that ukraine announce an investigation. It wasn’t in the call and the ukrainian president has repeatedly denied that anything like that took place. Furthermore, the aid was released before ukraine knew it had been delayed and they never had to do anything to get it. One guys claims that he believed that Trump conditioned the aid on the announcement of an investigation and everyone else with personal knowledge of the matter said that wasn’t true. This will all come out in the Senate trial, though, so I won’t keep boring you with the facts here.
LikeLike
Why did he hold the aid?
Why did Mulvaney confess?
Why did he want the prez of Ukraine to talk to Rudy?
What was the favor?
Why did he repeat what he wanted live on tv: foreigners like Ukraine and China to investigate Biden.
The problem isn’t the evidence. The problem is you.
LikeLike
“The problem is that there is vitrually no evidence that Trump ever demanded that ukraine announce an investigation.”
Multiple individuals have now testified, under oath, that Trump wanted a public announcement on investigations and that this request was expressly conveyed to the Ukranians.
“the ukrainian president has repeatedly denied that anything like that took place”
Because when a person clearly being extorted comes out and says “I’m not being extorted,” that’s sufficient evidence.
“the aid was released before ukraine knew it had been delayed”
That has been expressly disproved by multiple individuals involved in US-Ukraine policy. Ukrainian officials were aware of the hold on the aid at the time of Zelensky’s July phone call.
“they never had to do anything to get it”
That’s because the aid was released after Congress was made aware of the hold-up and a bipartisan group of Senators started asking questions. This is around the same time the White House was made aware of the whistleblower complaint and an investigation into the same by the IG’s office. To translate that into plainer terms, Ukraine didn’t have to do anything to get the aid released because the aid was released as the result of the White House getting caught holding up the aid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice work, saved me the time 🙂
LikeLike
I think you mean there is virtually no direct evidence. There is circumstantial evidence and indirect testimony under oath. There are any number of people who could give direct testimony regarding the president’s request for an announcement of the investigation. They have been prohibited of speaking under oath in violation of the law.
LikeLike
The Ukranian prosecutor that Biden worked to have fired was corrupt, which means Biden’s actions actually increased the likelihood that the company his son was on the board of would eventually be investigated. No question it was at a minimum tone deaf for Hunter to go work for this company, but his father’s actions certainly were not in the best interest of his son, rather a universally agreed upon decision to fire a corrupt prosecutor.
LikeLike
I think we’re all starting to learn that Hunter is perpetually tone deaf and an incredibly bad decision-maker. Not sure if this story is worse or better for him than the confirmed Arkansas love child.
Beginning to see why everyone thought Beau Biden was the one with a political future.
LikeLike
“Doing something while in office that helps your reelection chances” is a red herring. The standard being deployed appears to be “Leveraging the authority of your office against a foreign power to obtain something that is for your benefit rather than the benefit of the country.”
Even then, if Trump just laid out the typical political damage control (“I misspoke, but have reached out to the Ukrainian government to clarify. I would never do something like that.”), then he would have been fine. There would have been some political damage, but they would have never gotten to impeachment. The problem is that he is, in effect, saying that he did it, it is totally fine to do it, and he will keep doing it. At that point he forced the hand of the moderate democrats who did not want to impeach.
LikeLike
You can’t be that naive. Democrats have been investigating Trump since before he was elected on the flimsiest of grounds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes they have, but impeachment was politically untenable until this. I am certainly not suggesting that the prior investigations and current impeachment are not politically motivated, or that anyone’s motives are pure, but it is worth noting that Pelosi could not previously have gotten a majority of the house to go along because moderate democrats were not on board.
LikeLike
Impeachment is still as politically untenable as it ever was. The polls haven’t moved in favor of impeaching/removing. If anything, they’ve slightly moved against it.
What has changed is that it’s primary season. The leftists are out for blood. The Squad must be appeased and they’ve already got their verdict, they just need the trial.
LikeLike
I am not talking about the past few weeks. Polls moved sharply favoring impeachment when the story broke two months ago and Trump came out saying his call was “perfect.” That is when a group of moderate dems went to Pelosi and said they supported starting an impeachment investigation in the house. National polls have hovered around 50% ever since, but the relevant action is the polls in these moderate democrats home states. Regardless of polling, the narrative supporting impeachment went from being a disaster to something that could be explained to voters.
LikeLike
Polls did move between late September and early October. And now they’re at the point they were at in early 2019 before the Mueller report was released.
Yes, more Democrats are willing to sign on to impeachment. But I think that has more to do with Iowa than Ukraine.
LikeLike
One stupid defense does not mean there is no defense. This is an embarrassing partisan spectacle run by Schiff and the Democrats. Schiff has created a tribunal where there can be no presentation of a defense. The President is not allowed counsel and the Republicans cannot call witnesses. The witnesses and “experts” called are all partisan Democrats, most of whom have given large sums of money to Dems. (Did you see that clown yesterday telling Nadler to bang his gavel?) None have any personal knowledge of a quid pro quo or whatever they have changed the issue to today. They do want to tell us how they “feel” or what the “think” Trump was trying to do. That ain’t evidence. Are you comfortable with Schiff gathering the phone records of Nunes, Guliani and John Solomon? Do you think that was an effort to “obstruct” any counter investigation or reporting? If Trump’s offense is so obvious, why stack the deck on impeachment? Why not be open and transparent? This is all about getting the bad orange man and has been since before he was even inaugurated. Ukraine was a honey pot of corruption for many. Foreign aid boomerangs back into campaign coffers, corrupt foundations and jobs for family. Do any of you believe that Biden did not even know his son was on the Board of Burisma? That is what he claims. Impeachment is not about anything more that partisan politics. Lastly, to need a defense you need evidence of a “high crime or misdemeanor”. For me, I am still waiting
LikeLike
That’s because it’s an investigation, not a trial. The trial is in the Senate.
Just like presenting a case to a grand jury to obtain an indictment.
LikeLike
Except that the minority party had these rights in every previous impeachment investigation. Interesting tidbit: one of the attorneys heading the watergate investigation for the democrats publically criticized hillary clinton for hiding documents in a locked office that showed that there was a precedent for allowing minority rights during these proceedings and then she wrote a brief for the investigators arguing that no precedent existed. Stranger than fiction.
LikeLike
Clinton and Nixon were investigated by special counsel. I don’t remember the minority party being able to inject itself into those investigations.
Besides that, can you point me to the provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the minority party’s rights during the investigation phase?
LikeLike
Arguing that sham investigations are fine because there will be a trial? Interesting position.
LikeLike
You know that everyone gets to participate in the grand jury process right? I mean you get to have a lawyer. You can present witnesses….
Wait a minute… No. That’s not how it works at all.
A prosecutor puts an agent on the stand and he reads hearsay and then the citizen gets indicted.
Every fucking day!!
But trump is special. He’s better than us. He’s a king!!
If oj had been the gop president they’d say:
I can’t believe a guy can be charged for driving to and from his ex wife’s house! I mean dna?!! Is this from the same crowd that gave us global warming? It’s a hoax!
LikeLike
The Russians hacked the transcript!
LikeLike
I disagree that it is like a Grand Jury. Grand Juries are secret and never intended to be public. Because a Grand jury is intentionally one-sided, they are kept secret by law to avoid prejudicing the suspect. You cannot claim it is a Grand Jury if it is a public spectacle intended to prejudice the President and influence the public. If this was like a Grand jury, it would be behind closed doors. But, that would be beside the entire point of what Schiff wants to do
LikeLiked by 1 person
One more point, who in this scenario is the “Grand Jury”. Who reigns in the overzealous prosecutor? The Dems are presenting to themselves, as they control the House. It is Prosecutors presenting a public, on-side presentation to themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love it Bluto..keep it coming….
All these “investigations” did was woke a lot of the blazed and diffused wandering thru football season/life and not paying attention to what’s going on:
1 the Schiff “investigation” educated the masses about Govt corruption…how many times did the words Ukraine, Corruption, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s get used?
2.How obvious for the newly woke was it that the democrats and the deep state went to great lengths to contort themselves into condoning it.
3.How many brainless schmoes watched Deep State Dept “witnesses” that saw nothing but felt strongly about Trump holding up the Ukrainian gravy train….
4.Your boy Nadler was pulled early because the dullards in flyover were catching on that the asshat liberal donor lawyers were too snarky and getting questions they didn’t want to answer like..was it you or shiff for brains that leaked this information to the media …and now…
5. the SENATE where we get to see how the democrats are perfectly happy with manufactured “evidence” being used on Political Rivals (as long as its your rival”…one thing is sure a lot of people are seeing things for themselves and not sucking the Mockingbird tit…
http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-mockingbird/
ever wonder why they all say the same exact phrase?
How fucked up would it be for you Liberals if your i”grand Jury” / witch hunt /show trials were what educated the masses to the corruption Trump is exposing… Epstein didn’t kill himself…
LikeLike
Grand juries are evidence is held in secret until a trial. Not so the ‘Schiff grand jury’.
LikeLike
I’m not right of center but to take a stab at an answer, I think the simple answer is that Trump won’t admit he did something wrong. There’s no way these Republicans in Congress can go with the defense that “yes, he did something wrong, it’s just not impeachable.” There’s absolutely no way Trump gives an inch. His defense is that he was perfect and the GOP damn well better defend him.
LikeLike
What really struck me was Ted Cruz’s defense: claiming Trump was pursuing corruption in Ukraine (even though Sondland’s testimony established that an actual investigation was unnecessary, that all they wanted was an announcement)– when Trump just leveled Cruz in the 2016 primary with BS conspiracy theory after BS conspiracy theory. It was as personal and below the belt as as possible. And now Cruz defends this guy? On the basis of 45’s being a straight shooter?
LikeLiked by 4 people
What was the basis of Sondland’s testimony, though? It was all speculation and he admitted as much. Meanwhile the president of Ukraine has repeatedly said he was not pressured to do anything whatsoever.
LikeLike
C’mon, man. “We were all in the loop.” If you think he was going rogue in the Trumposphere, that’s as crazy as Cruz claiming the king of fraudulent businesses was after corruption for its own sake.
LikeLike
I mean I would have to questions I want you to ask yourself:
(1) Name one other country that the President has made this much hullaballoo with regarding corruption.
(2) If he was so concerned about corruption why did he release the money once the story broke? What changed other than the story breaking?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The basis was him telling Trump that very thing on the phone call from Kiev, that the President “loves your ass” and was, “going to do it [announce the investigation]”. This is not speculation, this is corroborated testimony. Ukraine is trying to keep the aid flowing, they don’t want to be in our politics, but they most assuredly don’t want to anger the current US president who has shown he’s not above petty retribution. What would you expect him to say?!??
LikeLike
This is the same Ukraine that was in the tank for Hillary in 2016, right? Just checking exactly how uninvolved they want to be.
LikeLike
I’m probably going to regret asking, but how were they “in the tank” for Hillary? I’ve heard reference to some Ukrainian official writing an op-ed that criticized Trump’s stance on Crimea, but that’s a far cry from the conspiracy theories that Trump and his allies have circulated. And based on Trump’s aforementioned stance on Crimea, would it be shocking if they favored Hillary over him? And before anyone accuses me of being “in the tank” for her and/or a Never-Trumper, I didn’t vote for either of the two trainwrecks.
LikeLike
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016
“… Valeriy Chaly’s office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.”
And Ukrainian officials did leak Manafort’s finances. The main difference between Trump’s request from Ukraine and Clinton’s is that the Clinton campaign actually got the dirt they wanted.
And that is in addition to the op-ed by the Ukrainian ambassador. Given that the current Ukrainian regime was installed by the Obama administration to antagonize Russia, is it surprising that Trump’s comments suggesting a change in policy would be disturbing to Ukraine? No. And I don’t blame Ukraine for favoring Hillary and I don’t blame Russia for favoring Trump.
The notion that other countries must restrain themselves from acting one tenth as badly as the United States does is humorous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you believe that Ukraine was worried about a Paul Manafort run campaign? Shocking’. They heard “Russia if you’re listening” and thought “this is who we need to protect us from putin.”
When trump said about Putin: “at least he’s a leader” they were sold on the idea that trump was their guy to save them from Russia.
When trump endorsed the seizing of Crimea I’m sure the Ukrainians said here’s a defender of democracy!
Bunch of traitorous idiots the lot of them.
LikeLike
Exactly. Ukraine favoring Hillary is smart. Russia favoring Trump is literally the most dangerous thing to ever happen since history began with the Iphone!
And who gives a shit about Crimean self-determination? Ukraine planted the flag. The fact that most of them speak Russian and self-identify with Russia more than Ukraine has nothing to do with anything! The fact that Russia was reacting to the Obama/Clinton coup in Ukraine installing a regime more palatable to American interests just proves how terrible Russia is.
My middle school current events teacher told me it’s all fine. Anyone who questions the American empire is a traitor … or something.
LikeLike
Would love to hear an instance of Trump going after foreign corruption aside from this Ukranian situation? If he is so passionate about this, then why isn’t he gallivanting all over the globe in search of corruption. Saudi Arabia? Israel? Turkey?
LikeLike
What evidence do you have that Israel is involved in this level of corruption?
LikeLike
See the litany of allegations and indictments that former PM and Trump pal Bebe is facing. You would think that if Trump truly cared about corruption, then he would be in favor of getting to the bottom of that, considering the importance of this alliance in the region.
LikeLike
The Saudi crown prince admitted to having a journalist killed. I’m sure they are sorry. At least sorry they got caught anyway. But no response of any consequence from the U.S. government. We sanctioned 17 people and issued a statement: “The State Department continues to urge the Government of Saudi Arabia to conduct a full, fair, and transparent trial of those responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s death, and to hold accountable all those involved in his death,”
LikeLike
which part of Sondland’s testimony..the first part written by DNC lawyers or when he quoted Trump as Saying, “No Quid Pro Quo…just tell him to do the right thing…Sondland put the ass in Ambassador…
LikeLiked by 1 person
My attitude is that this behavior is the norm from both sides of the political spectrum and it’s all a waste of time and our money. Nearly all of these politicians are in it for their personal gain and are not trustworthy. I’d rather them deal with the country’s business than waste time for political gain. My voting is structured based on philosophy, platform and what seems right for me. Trump is an egomaniacal blowhard, Obama was a sneaky racist intent on redistributing the wealth, Clinton was a sexual predator(who was willing to compromise and conduct the country’s business). Need I go on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Preach on brother… you hit the nail on the head.
LikeLike
Need I go on? Not at all. You lost all credibility when you said Obama was a sneaky racist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re right, he wasn’t very sneaky about it at all
LikeLike
You are ignoring a lot of testimony from officials in the State Department that this is decidedly not the norm. It is technically possible that lots of other presidents and other officials have leverage the power of their offices to get foreign officials to do things for their personal political benefit, but that there is a deep state conspiracy among a bunch of folks to say otherwise under oath as a means of impeaching the president. So I can see why that is part of the public defense here. I would be much more convinced if any of the people pushing the conspiracy defense were willing to give evidence under oath.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Being logically sound and ethically honest are fatal career flaws in a politician.
LikeLike
I’m no Trump supporter (and find him indefensible) but there is a reasonable argument about first terms, especially in the run up to a presidential election. Impeachment is a purely political process with purely political (non-criminal) consequences. In that regard, the electoral remedy is preferable to the more drastic attempt at removal, absent a compelling reason to seek more immediate removal. As a country, we should prefer elections to impeachments.
Again, not a comment on the merits of this impeachment. I honestly haven’t even been following it. Circumstances may support pre-election removal. But the interests of institutional procedure and respect for elections wherever possible tilts the scales against impeachments before elections.
LikeLike
A. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that.
B. If the concern is that Trump is trying the influence the 2020 election with his course of action, what exactly is the point of letting the election settle the matter? Isn’t that encouraging more of the same?
LikeLiked by 2 people
True enough on the constitution point, and a provision like that shouldn’t be there. It’s a prudential, not mandatory, restraint. It’s a political, not legal (in the due process sense), procedure.
On your second point, I’m not savvy enough to say. But two things: It’s hard for me to imagine Trump running an influence campaign now, in light of the spotlight he’s under. Second, doesn’t an impeachment play into his narrative—“they don’t want me, they’re scared of me, but what they are really scared of is you. They don’t want you (trump voters) to even have a choice in the matter. They know they can’t win, so they tried to shut you up.”? He plays the victim and sells a populist victim narrative.
Again, I’m not defending the guy I didn’t vote for, won’t vote for, and despise Don’t read into this a criticism of the current process, which I haven’t been following closely enough to critique.
LikeLike
He publicly asked China to check on Hunter Biden after this got underway. Hell, he met with Lavrov yesterday. He’s operating on the assumption that he won’t be held accountable.
As far as selling the victim narrative, public impression is too baked in at this point to make a difference. His base will love it, but I doubt others will care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lack the knowledge of the facts to engage at this level, and—again—won’t defend the president, who I would love to see defeated or removed.
My assumption (uninformed, I will grant) is that the senate won’t convict him so the hope for removing him lies with the electorate. I put my hope there. If this process makes it easier for Trump to be re-elected, it’s a blunder of historic proportions. And I believe our country’s long-term interests favor impeachments as a matter of last resort. If this is just theater (like the Clinton impeachment, in my view), I think it a mistake.
LikeLike
Is your argument that Hunter Biden is, or should be, immune from investigation?
LikeLike
Has anyone actually suggested that?
LikeLike
Apparently so. Trump is being impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate him. Bluto uses Trump’s suggestion that China investigate him as more bad action.
Some leftists think that, as long as any investigation done is kept secret, and can’t embarrass the Bidens and/or the Democrats, then it’s Constitutional. But we can’t really test the theory.
LikeLike
Do we hold the same standard to the former administration and how they conducted the Russia probe during and (for the appointees left behind, after) the previous election?
LikeLike
You mean, did people make stupid defenses about it I don’t understand? ‘Cause that’s all I’m asking about here.
I’ve said this before, but “but Obama” is a weak defense for Trump’s actions, although I understand why it’s irresistible for some of you.
LikeLike
That’s pretty much your answer though Senator. Why watch one of our own go down while the other side gets away with it? It’s a sign of the times. Neither side cares about justice any more. One reason Trump got elected was to blow up the establishment (on both sides) in Washington DC, including dealing with the unelected bureaucrats.
Want justice? Then all sides have to be held accountable and that hasn’t happened in a long, long, long time.
LikeLike
Your dismissal of “whataboutism” interests me. Do you believe that we should hold each elected official to an independent, never before achieved standard? Do you honestly believe that a politician behaving in a manner consistent with dozens of those elected before him is disturbing and unprecedented?
It seems as though you simply don’t believe, or don’t wish to believe, that Democrats and liberal Republicans have been scumbags going back to before Trump was even born.
LikeLike
I think this is actually worth exploring, considering the IG’s report came out and expressly said there was no evidence or indication of political bias or animus in the origination of the Russia investigation.
(1) Trump wanted Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into the Bidens and Burisma during the course of the campaign, thereby making it into a campaign issue.
(2) In contrast, neither the FBI nor the Justice Department nor the Obama Administration publicly disclosed that Trump or his campaign were under investigation until well after the election was over.
(3) That restraint can be further contrasted with FBI Director James Comey’s multiple public disclosures regarding the status of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server (an investigation that found no criminal conduct, mind you) along with multiple leaks regarding the investigation from the FBI’s New York office (leaks that were paraded on Fox News by one Rudolph Giuliani)
(4) Getting back to the behavior of the Obama Administration, while Barack Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton, held fundraisers for her, and made campaign stops on her behalf, there is absolutely no indication that he or his Administration used the threat of withholding Congressionally-approved military or humanitarian aid to pressure foreign governments to cook up dirt on Donald Trump or to announce investigations into corrupt or criminal behavior.
(5) So yes, let’s please apply the same standard.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Slow down there, fella. Did the report actually say that there was “no evidence or indication of political bias” or did it say that they were unable to find “evidence”. Those are two very different things and the fact that you threw in the word “indication” to bolster your argument proves to me that you understand why the latter would be important.
LikeLike
This is a fair point, though the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation is often equated with the idea that it did not exist. Sometimes, even the existence of evidence when coupled with a decision not to pursue prosecution, is equated with an exoneration. (See e.g. the Mueller investigation.)
LikeLike
Johnson was impeached in his first term. Nixon’s impeachment process was initiated during HIS first term. This is yet another “process” argument by the Republicans that has no basis in fact. It’s simply a ruse to confuse.
LikeLike
The law and what someone thinks the law should be are very different things.
LikeLike
The rationale behind doing this in spite of an upcoming election, is Trump is trying to cheat at said next election.
LikeLike
What is it, exactly, that you think Trump is guilty of? And, how do you square the fact that, not only are there zero Republicans voting for this nonsense, but two Democrats are voting against it? You ever just stop for a second and ask yourself if you might be in the guilty “tribe”?
LikeLike
Not my point, but thanks for playing.
LikeLike
This sounds oddly like the Democrat playbook during this entire charade… If you aren’t willing to discuss whether you think Trump did anything wrong, I don’t see how we can have a conversation about whether the Republicans should defend him.
LikeLike
I asked a question and you want to change the subject. I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not relevant to my post. As I said, I don’t have a problem with the Republicans defending Trump, I just don’t understand why they’re defending him the way they are.
LikeLike
They are defending him every way. They are talking about facts and process. It’s not like you have to choose.
LikeLike
They’re inventing stuff out of whole cloth. They do have to choose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They may be talking about facts – just not the facts relating to the charges – all kinds of other facts though. Heck, any kind of other fact.
Interesting to note that most of the responses here seem to be from those that do not support the president’s position. I suspect those defending him don’t care what he did / does so how they defend him is immaterial.
LikeLike
“This sounds oddly like the Democrat playbook during this entire charade…”
You’re catching on.
LikeLike
I will be happy to answer this:
Using the authority of his office as leverage to obtain an announcement of an investigation into his political rival by a foreign government for the purpose of improving his own political fortunes.
Obstructing the observance of lawful subpoenas of congress.
I don’t think that #1 would really require impeachment if Trump would just acknowledge that it is an inappropriate abuse of power. He could even had just said, “I mispoke and have reached out to Ukraine to clear up any confusion. I think what Biden did was an abuse of power, and have requested that the justice department look into it for possible criminal indictment. I hope Ukraine looks into it as well and that they cooperate with our investigation. Additionally, I am personally funding investigators who are in Ukraine now trying to obtain more details. But whatever they come up with, our support of Ukraine and the relationship between my administration and the Ukrainian government are not at stake.” Instead, he doubled down.
#2 is actually a pretty big deal. Congress has an important oversite role, and I don’t think presidents have the authority to ignore it. Hopefully the end of the impeachment will not prevent the subpoena issue from being addressed by the courts. So far, the Trump administration has lost badly in almost all these cases, and I expect that to continue.
LikeLike
The Republicans should acquiesce to the Democrats on this one. The Dems are running primarily as anti-Trump which for obvious reasons has gotten a lot of traction. If the Reps were wise, they would let the Dems push for a removal from office, and then convince Trump to move aside by threatening a yes vote to removal unless he “voluntarily” removes himself from running for re-election. I think the Reps would win a lot of hearts and minds back if they weren’t letting this be a yes-no vote on Trump and instead focus on the left’s policy proposals for the next ten months.
There are a lot of Trump supporters who will vote for him no matter what. There are a lot of Republican voters who will vote Republican no matter who the candidate is. But is that Midwest Populist movement that voted for Obama going to return to vote him in again? I don’t see the path to victory for Trump 2020, as the Good Senator likes to say. I think the only chance for the Republicans to maintain the white house is to let the dems push Trump out so they can have a reset while letting the impeachment rile up the R base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Winning through surrender? Bold strategy, Cotton.
LikeLike
More like losing the battle to win the war.
LikeLike
This is simple.. it’s political and a means to an end. Republicans and Democrats are doing the exact same thing by getting in their respective corners and entrenching themselves. This has never been about behavior, the right thing or any of that. Love Trump or hate him, this has nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with partisan politics. This is a waste of time, energy and money. All for a damn show trial. Shame on them all.
LikeLike
So it’s ok to offer our tax money to foreigners to help in your election efforts?
Had obama offered 400 million tax payer dollars to Mexico to did up dirt on the Romney clan you’d say what?
Minimizing what took place here is a dangerous thing. American voters are supposed to decide who the president is and this piece of shit continues to invite foreign interests in the tent.
Russia if you’re listening.
Do us a favor.
I think China AND Ukraine should investigate the Bidens.
This is a guy who has zero instinct to play by any rules other than what serves his own interests. That is a danger and is inconsistent with the oath of office.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s never OK to expose Democratic corruption!
And it’s also not OK for American voters to make the wrong decision, like voting for Orange Man. Only when the deep state is free to reverse the results of elections resulting in incorrect results can democracy truly prosper. That’s why they need to do things like lying to FISA courts.
I have hard evidence that Trump is part of a Satanic cult practicing human sacrifice. Trust me.
LikeLike
Do you actually believe Trump is the first person to do this? I’m not saying it’s ok, but let’s not pretend this hasn’t been going on by both parties for years…. Hell.. Biden’s own corruption is getting exposed in the process. They haven’t brought up Hunter’s sweetheart deal are they? The Dems may be right here, but it doesn’t matter because they’re only trying to further their political interests. The comical thing is they know The Senate won’t convict him, and he’ll likely get reelected as a result. They’re shooting themselves in the foot, and exposing their own hypocrisy in the process. Congrats.
LikeLike
It’s a cult.
The politicians have important positions in that cult that they wish to maintain both for now and when, they hope, normalcy reappears.
Don’t blame them. We knew they were whores when they announced themselves as politicians. Blame us for electing the most shameless among the whores.
The Republicans could have saved themselves from this in the summer of 2015. Many were resistant and/or prescient. Cruz wanted to amplify trump and assumed he’d implode and Cruz would be coronated.
The lesson: always do the right thing. Expediency has a very high cost. And now we’re all paying it.
Always remember that when Ms. Graham, Sen. (W-SC) sneers her angry indignation these days that she said this about trump:
“I think he’s unfit. I think he’s crazy. I think he’s a kook.”
She was right.
LikeLike
homophobe
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll probably vote for mayor Pete in the primary so you’re FOS.
My issue is being in the closet associating with a group of people many of whom want you in jail or dead for your private personal presences.
LikeLike
Don’t try to backtrack now. You’ve admitted you are a homophobe and are probably a racist too. What would your lib friends think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You think I care about what people think?
You really haven’t been paying attention have you?
LikeLike
I don’t know about Derek’s past comments re: homophobia, which I hadn’t seen, but calling Lindsey “Mrs. Graham” isn’t in itself homophobic. –Gastr1, super lib at yr service.
LikeLike
It’s Miss Lindsey. Your welcome.
https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1204537915637784576
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. LOL
LikeLike
This is so odd. Usually the puppet master has his hand up the dummy’s ass but I don’t see it here.
LikeLike
Yes. Republicans are on record with jail and death sentences for homosexuality. This is literally not hyperbole. Millions will die!
LikeLike
Consensual sex between people of the same sex was criminalized throughout the south. A Georgia law was affirmed by a conservative Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick.
It was only admired Clinton appointed judges was the ban overturned in Texas vs. Lawrence.
And you have this: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/opinions/un-death-penalty-resolution-usa-lgbt-ghitis-opinion/index.html
Some people are too dumb to read.
LikeLike
At least we can both agree that, while Democrats shouldn’t be held accountable for their racist past in things like putting Japanese Americans in internment camps, Republicans should definitely be held responsible for the racist actions of Democrats in things like passing sodomy laws in Georgia several generations ago.
And some of those fucking fuckers can’t even read the explicitly pro-homosexual sodomy references in the Constitution!
#EmanationsOfPenumbras
#TheConstitutionSaysWhatWeWantItTo
#AmendmentsAreUnnecessary
LikeLike
Maybe so, but the alternative was, and still is, even worse.
Career politicians like Hillary and Biden are just f’ing awful.
You have to know damn well that the Clintons are the most self serving and treasonous people to ever put their hand on a Bible while lying through their teeth. Biden has tried to play that game and even Obama knows he’s too dumb to get away with it…he’s caught by his own stupid admission.
With few exceptions, career politicans are scoundrels.
Trump is not a politician. He’a a pragmatic, egotistical, flamboyant businessman and showman that has captured the trust of the people that feel (know) they have been getting raped by the career politicians and federal bureaucracy.
Love him or hate him, he is energetic and has shown how lazy and unaccomplished the last (at least) four administrations have been.
He’ll probably be re-elected because these same people know that the impeachment is pure bullshit that was promised by the Democrats while DJT was being sworn in. While Trump may be a bullshit artist, the Democrats are weasels and some of them are very dumb weasels. There’s a lot of reasons that the Democrats don’t want DJT or anyone else looking into corruption in the Ukraine. Quid Pro Joe is just the tip of the iceberg.
When a man like DJT is seen by half of this country as a breath of fresh air you know things have been rotten.
Either way we’re divided and we’re in trouble.
Tribalism and Parasitism rule the day. We are no longer a united people.
I personally would like to see both parties dismantled (by the voters) and banned from ever reforming. I’d love to see term limits for all positions.
Anyone that thinks this impeachment is anything but political is silly.
It is the biggest mistake the Democrats could have made.
The Senate trial will be an expose’ of corruption in the Democrat Party.
LikeLike
“he is energetic”
He literally refuses to exercise or walk medium or long distances because he believes the human body has a finite amount of energy.
LikeLike
And he has to pop handfuls of Adderall merely to remain upright many days…
LikeLike
Each handful holds enough to keep me zooted all the time #BeBest
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heehee—-
LikeLike
Of course the Republicans will defend the President, he’s done nothing wrong. This whole impeachment is just political bullshit, just like the Russian collusion hoax. It turned out that it was actually Clinton and Obama who were colluding with the Russians. It was Biden who was extorting Ukraine not Trump. As far as those bullshit polls go, how did those polls predicting Clinton would beat Trump work out for you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for amplifying Russian propaganda!
Putin appreciates your support.
Maybe the Russians will beat back the Ukrainian menace with its dangerous western ideas of of democracy. We know you’re pulling for that!
Mainstreaming propaganda that serves the interests of our enemies is perhaps the single biggest reason this fight is necessary.
This entire exercise, from the extortion to the defense, is designed to strengthen Russia, an aggressive foe, and weaken Ukraine, an ally under attack.
If you had the capacity for shame, you’d feel it.
LikeLike
The FBI went to Obama with evidence that the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election. Obama did nothing. Trump was not President, how was he supposed to stop it? Obviously it was Obama and the Dems who were colluding with the Russians.
LikeLike
Damned if he does damned if he doesn’t right?
McConnell kept that info from being followed up on.
There was no way to take a public strong stance on russian interference without it appearing political. Obama was sensitive to that. They tried to show McConnell it was happening. He said: you go public, we scream foul.
That’s the truth.
LikeLike
Obama and the Dems were colluding with the Russians to allow Trump to win over their own nominee.
Makes perfect sense.
LikeLike
Maybe they thought that buying a few Facebook ads was insignificant.
LikeLike
LikeLike
It’s you who are full of political bullshit.
LikeLike
I think the easiest answer is market driven.
Where is the Republican consumer? That’s where Republican politicians are setting up shop.
Oddly, after 10 years of happily bringing the latest conspiracy theories to family gatherings, they have gone strangely silent on all things politics. We’re not a hyper liberal extended family – most of them are in Huntsville, as Bible Belt and defense industry as it comes.
So I’m not sure it’s a smart long term bet, but the guys and gals who weren’t comfortable with that sort of reality relocation went the opposite direction and retired. So it’s definitely the conventional wisdom.
LikeLike
I’ve been pondering the Republican response to the impeachment as well. I think it boils down to that a centrist, middle ground response of “Trump’s behavior was wrong, but impeachment was not meant for this” doesn’t resonate with their constituents. I believe this is the case because lots of people on both sides (left and right) have moved away from the center party power groups (GOP and the DNC). As the 2016 election was in full force, people pissed off with the current power houses (GOP/DNC) on both sides were gravitating towards more populist candidates. – Trump on the right and Sanders on the left. The GOP tried their best to defeat Trump but choose to join him when it was finally seen that he would win the nomination. The DNC went the other route and choose to cheat to give Hillary the nomination when it appeared that Sanders was going to win on the Democrat’s side. As history has shown, this was the wrong play and the DNC ended up losing as the more populist candidate was elected. Since then, moderate, central posturing from politicians doesn’t resonate as much. The current powers in the DNC still haven’t figured this out and are trying to keep their base as much to the center as possible. The GOP members of Congress are sticking with what worked before hand and as a result we are seeing all these impeachment arguments that appeal to the far-right viewpoint and less of center. They know that to keep the party in power, Trump is their man and therefore they replicate his responses and actions in their defense of the impeachment.
LikeLike
Agree as another right of center Republican. I voted libertarian last election President Trump is a narcissist who cares only about himself and his cronies. I have family members who support him but I feel they are a little queasy about it. Soliciting foreign help in our election should upset all of us. The fact that it keeps happening and is being ignored is as scary as the Cold War was. Lindsey Graham has lost my support with his behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s amazing how some of these guys, like Graham and Cruz, have gone from railing against Trump to being totally up his @$$. I’m inclined to agree with this analysis though. A calm, reasonable defense of the President wouldn’t resonate with the base, so they go full on “Hoax! Coup! Deep State!” It’s impossible to tell how many actually believe what they’re saying versus how many are just pandering. And yes, I know both sides are guilty of pandering all the time. Still doesn’t make it right.
LikeLike
DRAIN THE SWAMP!!
LikeLike
QAnon Lives, too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right of center, non-Trump supporter here.
It’s really pretty simple. In the part of the right that the ~30% of voters who are gung-ho for Trump live, the definition of being a Republican is now being willing to go to the mat to defend Trump. That’s not so much a Trump thing as it’s a hatred of his opponents thing. Those MoCs are afraid of getting a critical tweet that leads to their being primaried from the “right” (I put that in quotes because the really Trumpy candidates tend to be a lot more combative than conservative). As long as you’re backing Trump, you’re seen as fighting the left. That’s far more important than any policy today when it comes to primary messaging, or so they believe.
I think they’re mistaken. I don’t believe that the Trump base is the true base of the party, but they’re the most finicky when it comes to turning out Republican votes. The strategists are afraid that if they lose those folks (who tend to generally hate the GOP even though they love Trump), they’ll be a rump party nationally. It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because they intentionally jettisoned the lessons of the 2012 autopsy when Trump won the nomination. Until that point, the idea was to try to bring in younger/browner/more upscale suburban/urban voters to expand the map. When Trump took over the party, that strategy shifted to going after older/white/more downscale rural voters. It worked in 2016 and it may work in 2020 due to the ineptitude of the Democratic Party, but it’s going to ultimately doom conservatives to a long-term minority eventually because they’re betting the house on identity politics with declining demographics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice response. I think you hit the nail on the head – there is now an understanding with today’s world of social media and 24 hour news that as a politician you can quickly be labeled with a single negative “phrase” that can kill their career or re-election. Therefore you can’t skirt too close to the center or other side and you’ll be labeled in their camp.
LikeLike
Blutarsky, this is your blog and you can frame things as you wish, but I think your questions are slanted, even biased. I believe all sides have risked, and lost, their dignity, and not in a new and unique way. Most of the career politicians who infect us these days first lost their dignity when they ran for 4th grade class president, and they’ve been digging deeper ever since.
I regret I cannot respond to the inquiry.
LikeLike
You are more than welcome to ask the same question of the Democrats. I’m not stopping you. As I said, I’m genuinely curious why somebody like McCarthy would make an argument like that.
LikeLike
You want to seperate the flyshit from the pepper and not avail yourself to the macro….
LikeLike
Ukraine has been a money laundering center of our corrupt government’s military industrial complex for years…Our government (that you liberals now trust explicitly) has a nasty habit of setting up small / medium size never ending theaters of war where our boys and girls are killed while we pour billions of dollars into the defense of “US interest” …once here the money goes to corrupt politicians and oligarchs who are given the taxpayers money and then redistribute “contributions” to “Foundations” operated by our politicians…i.e. (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000)
On this thread you can see Victor Penchuk (said Corrupt Ukrainian Oligarch) donated between $10-$25 million to the Clinton Foundation… (your girl was Secretary of State also selling uranium to Russia… but thats off point) other politicians: Bidens, Romneys , Pelosi’s, Kerrys, wives, children, etc.. are given no-show board seats for kickbacks / money laundering. ie Joe and Hunter Biden for example…
Exhibit A
https://www.theatlantic.com/…/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804
Exibit B
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe+biden+bragging+about+firing+prosecutor&view=detail&mid=D028B587C0404AB35A77D028B587C0404AB35A77&FORM=VIRE
Ukraine, our political hierarchy actively worked against Trump and his campaign (along with the FBI, CIA, NSA, deep state, etc. etc, etc…) to protect their cash cow…
To put it in understandable terms …
Democrats would rather go with a strong Offense (Impeachment) rather than defend the indefensible….and count on the willfully ignorant to make condescending / snarky statements about anyone who tries to defend Trump or explain the scheme thinking the asker would want to know… since they were “curious”..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stop! He’s already dead!
LikeLike
Alright, explain how this makes sense to you, Joe Biden gets a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he’s investigating his son’s company. Joe Biden then (while actively considering a presidential run and of his own volition) brags about getting the prosecutor fired onstage in a venue with numerous cameras and people watching him. You think a guy in his position is bragging about something like that?!? It’s not Joe challenging a guy to a push-up challenge, it’s straight political suicide.
This allegation in particular is complete nonsense; even if you are too lazy to look-up the numerous news articles from 2015 that detail the corrupt prosecutor and the Western allies calling for his removal, use your basic common sense. The news media pumping this shit is making people look like gullible fools.
LikeLike
yea…Joe Biden’s not that stupid corn pop and cnn, msnbc, cbs, anderson vanderbilt and chris wallace have all said it was ok to them….btw epstein killed himself…sorry about that, wipe your chin, I’ll call you in the morning….
LikeLike
Sounds like malarkey to me.
LikeLike
“Republican members of Congress are willing to jump off the cliff, logically speaking,”
Only if you firmly believe the offenses justify impeachment and removal.
I grant that they’re saying some ridiculous things, but everybody is.
LikeLike
Again, not my point. I don’t have a problem defending Trump. I don’t understand some of the ludicrous defenses they’re raising to do so.
LikeLike
They’re saying ludicrous things because they’re politicians, and that’s what politicians do. Is there really anything special or unique about these particular instances?
LikeLike
You mean, other than impeaching a POTUS?
LikeLike
Why should they be less stupid during impeachment than the rest of the time? I admire your implication that they should rise up and be statesmen, but . . . nah.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree with this more. You get this many people living in their respective echo chambers and we are shocked when they make somewhat incoherent arguments. I didn’t vote for Trump I am a Libertarian but I dont think what they are trotting out rises to the level of impeachment. Democrats were headed here one way or the other since the night he was elected. He wants this fight.
LikeLike
And, I know I can go plenty of other places to see the same questions about Democrats, so pardon me bearing down.
LikeLike
Doesn’t bother me. Feel free to share with the class.
LikeLike
Gird your loins, Dems gone fix everything.
LikeLike
“ Wouldn’t it be easier and deserving of less mockery to just say what he did with Ukraine was wrong, but does not amount to an impeachable offense?”
There in lies the answer to your own question Senator. Those left of center refuse to accept that simple concept as well.
Honestly-no snark intended as you requested-if one is dragged into a circus of sorts and challenged to attract attention, can they expect to succeed in the court of public opinion by remaining dignified and appealing to sound judgment? In our fragmented toxic bipartisan culture, both sides are more interested in “winning the press conference” than actually doing the business of governing. My honest two cents…
LikeLike
You think they’re succeeding in the court of public opinion?
LikeLike
No, I don’t. I think both sides are fighting to win the “look at me” dance. And it’s devolving daily…for both sides.
LikeLike
“What I don’t get is why risk your dignity with all the nonsense. Wouldn’t it be easier and less deserving of mockery to say, yes, what he did with Ukraine was wrong, but it doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense?”
“Again, I’m not trolling, so I would appreciate it if you would respect that in your comments. I’m genuinely curious about this.”
What a wicked web we weave…
LikeLike
Not really. I haven’t seen a single Republican take that position. That’s a little strange to me.
LikeLike
If you really wanted to know you would know…you are ideologically constrained…as are all Senators….
LikeLike
Just like you wont hear a Democrat (even on this board) say –
“of course Joe was into some dirty shit over there, but who wasn’t? You can’t just go around (the complicit) State department if you want to get this into the public sphere, though. You have to get the CIA to send in an informant to meet with a low level staffer and then let another CIA asset ‘overhear’ their dinner conversation so that you can get a properly predicated FISA warrant and do some real digging.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“but that’s not the issue here. The money was appropriated by Congress and signed off on by the POTUS after the Defense Department cleared Ukraine on corruption.” soooo…nothing to see here, lalalalala, apply snark liberally as necessary…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll simply say this: IMO, the GOP is screwed. First, the fact that they cast their lot with Trump will do irreparable harm to them long term, and I know many independent/Libertarian/etc. types like me who are astounded that so many in the GOP have let Trump run buckshot all over them. Second, IMO the GOP is facing a, as I like to call it, a demographic death spiral, where their core base is aging rapidly while the democratic one continues to attract younger/minority types.
While I’m certainly no fan of either party, I do appreciate that they essentially keep each other in check, thus I shutter at the thought of one party (in this case, Democratic) gaining omnipotent power while the GOP fades off like the Whigs of yesteryear. If that happens, we are screwed (fwiw, I’d say the same thing if the GOP gained full control as well.)
LikeLike
Hasn’t that always been the case though? The Democrats are always the party of the young and free thinking, but once they start paying taxes and wondering why they are killing themselves for someone else to get the benefits they become more conservative. Then once they become older and they need to rely on the government for their source of income, as in social security and medicare, they tend to lean more to the Democrat side. This has been going on since the 60’s and they have not figured it out yet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s true, but Trump is shifting the baseline. He’s far more unpopular (and, by extension, the Republican brand is as well) than previous Republicans.
What’s interesting about that is that Trump isn’t really going for any sort of theoretical policy changes. For him, it’s all an immediate question of cui bono? In a way, he’s playing the part of the Democratic caricature over all these years. He’s not for deregulation or lower taxes because he thinks that’s the right play long-term. He’s for them because he thinks they reward his people. It’s possible that even though the baseline has shifted in favor of the Democrats, if national politics also shifts to a lot more direct patronage of voters over ideological debates, people may be more willing to flip parties when their stations of life change.
LikeLike
No doubt, either party in charge of all 3 bodies of Govt. , 4 counting the courts, we’re screwed 6 ways to Sunday.
LikeLike
As a right of center, who gives a rats ass. Just put a candidate out there that will beat him, and keep people like me at home on voting day. If Biden is the nominee, I will have to go vote against him.
The problem is this crap is actually making his supporters like him more and firing up his base. I held my nose the first time, I do not want to do that again, so Dems get your shit together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your mouth to gods ear, brother.
LikeLike
I say “what he did was his job. Not his right but his job as POTUS. Biden is shown clearly on video , in front of an audience, bragging about commiting a felony, shaking down the Ukrainian government by threatening to withhold $1 billion $$ from Washington if they don’t fire an investigator (Chief investigator-prosecutor) who is investigating the corrupt company that gives his (Biden’s) son $83,000 a month while it receives some of the $3 billion $$ in aid our government has given Ukraine for development of their fossil fuel industry.”
I want the President to do his job and make sure this corruption is investigated.
Let me ask you ‘Senator’. Why is it such an outrage among democrats to mention investigating the Bidens?? What hypocracy !!!
Trump and this country has endured a 3 year investigation based on a corrupts set of staged ‘facts’ engineered by democrats that we all knew were false 2 years ago.
Now the dems go apoplectic when one of their own is focused on for investigation. Even after making those admissions in public on tape.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s just not possible for Trump defenders to stick to the facts in this case, is it? You can’t defend the President without mentioning what you think happened years ago that had nothing to do with Mr. Trump attempting to extort political favors from a foreign government for his own political gain. This, to me, means there is no defense for what Trump has done and continues to do in 2019, as President, solely for his own benefit.
And if you think “Trump and this country has endured a 3 year investigation based on a corrupts set of staged ‘facts’ engineered by democrats that we all knew were false 2 years ago,” go back and read the Mueller report, which tells you very plainly that Russian interference in the 2016 election, intended to help candidate Trump, was proven by multiple US intelligence agencies. Of course, that has nothing to do with the impeachment charges, which deal with What’s Happening Now.
Also, before you go calling me “liberal,” please know that I owned my own small business for 37 years, before selling it and going into the banking business. I hate that the Republicans have allowed Trump to take over their party.
LikeLike
Why read the Mueller report? Read the Horowitz IG report. The FBI knew FISA warrant was defective b/c they knew the ‘Steele dossier’ was fraudulent. They interfered with the intel committee investigation chaired by Nunez (not the current chair- lackey Schiff) and other investigation – mainly civilian watchdog org,- for 2 years.
Are you trying to say you’re a conservative ? Yet you don’t like the improvements Trump has made in the country -economy and judiciary- in the last 3 years ??
Russian ‘interference’ (so called) amounted to $100,000 of ads on Facebook. The successful Russian interference is the democrats lie about it and what their lie has done to this country.
Proving their $140 million to the Clinton Foundation was an investment
well spent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the Mueller Report:
On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement “that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” Those “thefts” and the “disclosures” of the hacked
materials through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, the statement continued, “are intended to interfere with the US election process.”
On January 6, 2017, members of the intelligence community briefed President-Elect Trump on a joint assessment-drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, and National Security Agency-that concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened in the
election through a variety of means to assist Trump’s candidacy and harm Clinton’s.
LikeLike
Russia if you’re listening!
Russia waited five hours to start so there was no connection. At all.
LikeLike
If only Mueller had been privy to this information. This is a bombshell Derek!
Some Republicans even laughed! Like it was a joke!
#OhMyGod
#ILiterallyCan’tEven
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Biden is shown clearly on video , in front of an audience, bragging about commiting [sic] a felony, shaking down the Ukrainian government by threatening to withhold $1 billion $$ from Washington if they don’t fire an investigator”
Couple of things. Biden did not commit a felony. Biden threatened to withhold IMF loan guarantees a threat that was consistent with US policy toward the Ukraine and consistent with the position of the European Union, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank, organizations that also wanted to see Viktor Shokin removed as prosecutor general.
The reason these organizations wanted Shokin removed was because he was not investigating or prosecuting widespread corruption. For example, at the time Shokin came to power, the investigation into Burisma was dormant and – consistent with his behavior toward Ukrainian oligarchs – Shokin had done nothing to re-start that investigation.
Back to the general point, threatening to withhold loan guarantees in a manner that is consistent with and in furtherance of US foreign policy is not a felony.
Please note my use of the term loan guarantees. This was IMF money, which the US was going to guarantee. This differs significantly and materially from the aid withheld by Trump, which was direct aid that had been approved by Congress and cleared by the Pentagon. Under the law, Trump is not allowed to impound or withhold that aid and, as the testimony of multiple State, NSC, and DoD officials has clearly laid out, withholding aid to the Ukraine was not consistent with or in furtherance of US foreign policy nor is the requesting of investigations – or announcements of investigations – into the Biden family.
LikeLike
It’s like trying to defend ‘manball’….
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Trump did was borderline wrong by strong arming another country against someone he doesn’t like. Is that legally an impeachable offense, I would leave that up to real unbiased lawyers. I wouldn’t defend him but this entire impeachment is politically motivated. Politicians now don’t give a rats tail what goes on as long as their party does the deed. If Hillary had won and said those things to Ukraine because Biden was running against her second term the exact same things would be going on now but the other “party” would be saying them. This isn’t about right or wrong it’s about power.
I voted for Trump, not because I liked him but just like almost every election since I was 18 I vote for what I thought at the time was the lesser of two evils. Until the people, that is us, get tired of the way things are going and force change in Congress (term limits on Congress, limits to PACs, election reform, to name a few) expect things to get worse. Career politicians will say and do anything to stir their bases because that is where they get their power from.
This country has gotten to the point where we can’t even calmly talk politics, or religion, without turning into assholes to each other and that is what the politicians want. As long as WE are enemies we will not come together to realize they are the real problem.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand your premise. You say the voters need to get their shit together, but then you advocate for changes that implicitly infer that voters are incapable of getting their shit together. If voters are capable, then they can choose between incumbents and challengers, they aren’t susceptible to PAC money, and they don’t need some pretty straightforward democratic elections “reformed”, whatever that means.
I think a couple of things, though, could make for better candidates. First, repeal the 13th Amendment and get back to the Senate representing states. Second, have ranked preference voting in primaries that fill up with a clown car full of candidates and favor more controversial nominees over consensus nominees in many cases.
LikeLike
Actually, the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery. You might want to brush up on your Constitutional scholarship if you want to be taken seriously.
LikeLike
I thought the 13th was prohibition?
LikeLike
He may mean it you know. Lots of pro slavery people. How many MAGAts say: they was better off with an owner and a whip! At least they got to spend lots of time outdoors!! Best thing we ever did for them. A bible and a job!
You know, racists…
LikeLike
Yes! Millions of people are pro-slavery. Of course, they won’t explicitly state it. But clairvoyant middle schoolers know what they mean when they state that they favor lower taxes and enforcing immigration policies passed under Democratic administrations.
#DogWhistlesAbound
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How many MAGAts say: they was better off with an owner and a whip!”
Oh, I see now. I was wondering what was up with some of these comments. I didn’t realize there were literal crazy people in here,
LikeLike
Sorry if I wasn’t clear I have a hell of a sinus headache.
Yes 100% agree with the 13th amendment.
The PAC money is one of the reason that politicians get into politics so they can line their pockets and we need more controls on the way the money is handled.
I believe we should have some type of ID to vote, the government requires it for every minor function in our lives but not in something as important as an election.
LikeLike
or whatever amendment that was. 17th maybe?
The 13th is not one I would recommend be changed in any way.
LikeLike
After looking it up I wouldn’t change the 13th amendment, I just made an incorrect assumption Fishie was correct. It is the 17th amendment that should be changed.
LikeLike
Amen
LikeLike
Voted for Bill Clinton twice.
Would never vote for his spouse.
Never liked Trump re his TV shows.
When he announced, I cut my first campaign contribution for him till I hit the limit.
Why? I wanted a business person in the WH.
Tired of career politicians who never do anything. Some going over 3 decades. What are their achievements?
Tell me what the job market, stock market, business expansion, and etc been like since 2016. Love my 401(k).
Face it, we probably have the poorest educated peopel in this country re business I have ever seen. Why. Our over priced, heavily subsidized education industry.
College football is business. The global markets are busines. Who is not? Those out of touch, let’s impeach this person on no evidence, etc.
What a waste of time and money.
2020 election less than year away.
Impeachment is just a campaign strategy. Maybe it works.
Go ahead. Business is about risk. Vote him out. See how jobs, wealth creation, global competiton, etc go.
Its only your financial future and your offsprings’. Roll the dice, and cross the Potomac.
LikeLike
You wanted a “businessman” in the WH and so you voted for Trump? Got it.
LikeLike
No, just a guy who played one on tv. A hollywood celebrity type.
LikeLike
You mean, like a librul?
LikeLike
The defense of Trump should be thus:
(1) there is no prohibition on investigating the other party’s candidates – a Dem Admin investigated the Repub candidate, using the FBI, CIA, and foreign intelligence agencies, based on the slimmest of evidence, and using improper means;
(2) Trump did it the wrong way (shocker) – instead of having State and the FBI approach Ukraine, he used his personal lawyer;
(3) quid pro quos are the basis of foreign policy;
(4) assuming arguendo there was a quid pro quo, claiming such is a violation of campaign finance law is stretching said law to the extreme;
(5) and finally, he’s an asshole, a jerk, etc., but he’s better than the wackadoodles the Dems are running.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting that defense.
You say Trump did it the wrong way. I agree, and that’s the problem. If you’re the President of the United States, you don’t try to coerce a foreign government into digging up dirt–real dirt, or manufactured dirt–on your political rival, who in 2019 is a private US citizen.
If there’s a reason to investigate, let United States investigative agencies do it.
LikeLike
You mean like Obama, Sally Yates, etc did to Trump during the 2016 campaign?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was wrong!
This time it’s good!!
Or something…
The problem with the “Obama did it” nonsense is that it never was made public. They could have buried trump with the allegation of collusion but didn’t.
Trump wanted the allegation from Ukraine as public as possible.
But for dumb you’d see the hypocrisy.
LikeLike
“They could have buried trump with the allegation of collusion but didn’t.”
Not for lack of trying! Then they spent the next 3 years trying to impeach him over their cooked-up “collusion” theory. Then they tried to get him on process crimes during their sham investigation. Now they’re trying to get him because he was trying to get to the bottom of their little scheme because he went around the deep state conspirators. Pardon me while I don’t think that is a crime.
LikeLike
idiot.
They could have interfered with the election by leaking it.
stupid.
Before the election.
dummy.
They didn’t.
moron.
LikeLike
What Trump did is no where as bad as what the O Admin did. It’s the problem with Dems – they think they can get away with anything, and don’t have the forethought to understand the standard they are setting.
LikeLike
So you admit what trump did is bad.
It’s a start.
LikeLike
Now if we could only get you to acknowledge that the liberal left is not infallible, is not as pure as the new driven snow, and pulls the same kind of shit when the shoe is on the other foot then we would have a major breakthrough
LikeLike
When did a dem president barter your money for a personal political favor?
LikeLike
Awesome points, Derek.
Comparing Saint Obama to the Orange Man is blasphemy. And anyone who does it must be insulted repeatedly in order to demonstrate how intelligent our side is.
#OnlyTheSmartestPeopleCallOthersNames
#IKnowYouAreButWhatAmI?
LikeLike
I guess Derek is unaware of all the contributions “with no strings attached” to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests. Hillary was Secretary of State with what looked to be a shoo in for president. As soon as she wasn’t the money waned. Bill was just out of office but still wielding his status as a former president. The were sure they were going to be buying influence in Clinton Whitehouse. They bet on the wrong horse.
LikeLike
Hillary learned from Bill’s mistakes in accepting campaign money from China. Not that Slick Willy’s morals could ever be compromised by something like money.
LikeLike
Sure feels like trolling. It is tribal and both sides are at fault for this. And the answer is in the question. You cannot rely on honest reporting from the Main Stream Media on anything regarding Trump. So if you are a politician, you understand how any statement that in the smallest sense confirms any wrong doing will be used against the President and, if possible, against you. Add to it, that Trump himself, will take it as a personal affront, making your life in Washington even more miserable than it is. So the answer is that you are forced to pick a side either for or against.
In short – both sides suck. Trump does for going down this path with the Ukraine. Democrats do, because they have done ‘nothing’ since he entered office, but try to find a way to get him out of office.
It’s shameful.
LikeLike
Not my intent to troll, so apologies if it comes off that way.
LikeLike
HofR has authored over 50 bills. And they are immediately thrown in the closet by M.McConnell and not taken up by the Senate.
LikeLike
How can we live without government dictating the minutiae of our lives?
#GridlockIsTerrifying
#ImpeachAllRepublicans
LikeLike
Peacefully!
LikeLike
What you typed is the vacuum of thought. Carry on.
LikeLike
The problem with the whole thing was Trump was considered guilty but the Democrats had to find something after all the other things could not be proved. They of course are doing the usual political thing of payback for Clinton’s Impeachment and being pissed that Hilary didn’t win, but to think that any member of either party has the the country’s welfare at heart is bullshit. We are now seeing politics as a blood sport.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why read the Mueller report? Read the Horowitz IG report. The FBI knew FISA warrant was defective b/c they knew the ‘Steele dossier’ was fraudulent. They interfered with the intel committee investigation chaired by Nunez (not the current chair- lackey Schiff) and other investigation – mainly civilian watchdog org,- for 2 years.
Are you trying to say you’re a conservative ? Yet you don’t like the improvements Trump has made in the country -economy and judiciary- in the last 3 years ??
Russian ‘interference’ (so called) amounted to $100,000 of ads on Facebook. The successful Russian interference is the democrats lie about it and what their lie has done to this country.
Proving their $140 million to the Clinton Foundation was an investment
well spent.
LikeLike
Read the intelligence assessment on Russian election interference.
Stop promoting Russian propaganda suggesting their efforts were minor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. Trust in Clapper and Brennan. They wouldn’t lie about something big like this. Again.
LikeLike
Senator. Enough already! We get it. You hate Trump and good for you. I wish you would leave it off of your “Georgia football blog” that as you say, is only about football and not other UGA athletics.
This impeachment nonsense is just poorly acted theater, driven by the media. Wait until 2020 and VOTE AGAINST him.
The majority of Americans do not care about impeachment and the polls show this. The people are tired of 3 years of the media and Democrats trying and failing to get him out of office. As Obama famously said “elections have consequences”.
LikeLike
The House Kangaroo Court is simply the Democrats pandering to their far left base. For one to think Trump’s actions rises to the levels of high crimes is just absurd. The whole thing is just one more effort to reverse the 2016 election. The country would be much better off if the Dems fought Trump on policy and focused on the 2020 election. But, if you compare the number of people at Trump’s rally’s versus Democratic contenders you might understand their motivations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the key is the phrase you used – tribal times. Statesmanship is dead. Some of the defenses you mentioned are bad. However, I don’t think anyone in DC cares. In these tribal times, all that matters is how effective you are at wielding power. I don’t think its even arguable that Democrats are more effective at wielding power. Using the same standard to measure the Republicans defenses, the case being made by the Democrats is weak. And no one in DC cares. What people in DC care about is optics and effectiveness. “Is it gaining traction?” Tribal conjures images of who is more powerful and has the bigger Richard. All that is happening in DC is making sure you look better, are louder, and make people think you can provide federally funded iPhones. You ask the question about risking dignity. With all due respect, your question presupposes a particular definition of integrity. Dignity is no longer rooted in integrity; it’s rooted in how many likes.
LikeLike
You can say that the guy who paid out 25 million in a fraud settlement and paid a 2 million dollar fine for fraud is opposed to corruption or is a purveyor of corruption.
This is your choice.
Just remember when you attach yourself to the fraudster as an agent for good government, know that you’re also on Putin’s side.
Russia if you’re listening!
Do us a favor Ukraine!
China should investigate Biden!
Does the gop want the american voters to decide the election all by themselves?
No they don’t. They’ll accept the help and give them cover.
LikeLike
LikeLike
He paid a $2 million dollar fine for giving money to charity.
You are the very definition of what the Russians call dupes, people too stupid to know they are aiding the Russians in achieving their goals. I am sure Putin is proud of you.
LikeLike
I asked two of our erstwhile veterans how they could support a man who used his position to avoid the military. They said they didn’t like it but if he fucks with liberals that’s enough for them. I didn’t need to hear anymore.
LikeLike
They have standards!!
Pwning the libs and hating on “those people” is the secret to the trump coalition. They want to be entertained by someone who buys into their own prejudices.
I can imagine how the Russians could have believed the populace could be so easily manipulated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Real American heroes would have gone to Vietnam and then faked some purple hearts to get home early.
LikeLike
What ever happened to Russia, Russia, Russia? 3 years and no evidence.
Now it’s all about Ukraine. Ukraine is corrupt as shit. Why are we even giving them money? Even though it’s not a trial yet, if Schiff had a winning hand he wouldn’t be doing his inquiry in secret down in the basement secure room. He would be doing it for all to see. I hope they impeach him, make everyone in the house publicly cast a vote and send it to the Senate. This circus needs to be made public and transparent. Hopefully it will all eventually come out and the real traitors and criminals will be exposed.
LikeLike
Thank you coach Jordan.
LikeLike
Gym Jordan?
LikeLike
He’s so aware of misconduct he had no idea the team doctor was a serial rapist. Dude is on it!
LikeLike
Associating with rapists is horrifying!
LikeLike
Today:
Miss Graham: “They opened up a counterintelligence investigation in July (2016),” Graham said. “We know the Russians are messing in our election. And it was the Russians, ladies and gentlemen, who stole the Democratic National Committee emails, Podesta’s emails and screwed around with Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t the Ukrainians. It was the Russians. And they’re coming after us again. So, to be concerned that the Russians are messing with presidential campaigns was a legitimate concern.”
Someone forget to get her the russia approved talking points.
By the way: who asked them to do this?
“Russia if you’re listening….”
LikeLike
More original thought from Derek. He’s implying that Lindsey Graham is a woman in order to insult him!
You don’t see quality points like that in elementary school.
#ItTakesAMiddleSchooler
LikeLike
Like I said earlier, gird your loins…and your investments. The Dems gone fix it all.
LikeLike
I did not vote for Trump. I find the guy to be an immoral fraudulent blowhard very similar to Obama, both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, etc.etc. That being said, I am right of center. Maybe I’m too far right of center for this question…
Answering each in turn:
Quite simply, why do you think Republican members of Congress are willing to jump off the cliff, logically speaking, in defense of the POTUS?
There is no logical cliff too tall for any politician to fling himself off of for political gain. Once the Republicans decide that it is not politically beneficial to defend Trump this and all other defenses will cease outside of a few that feel that there may be a political boomerang effect that could work to their advantage.
Wouldn’t it be less deserving of mockery………wrong….doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense?
There is no way that any member of the Republicans who has to stand election will say that Trump is wrong because it will be held against them in an election coming down the road. The politician will be quoted as saying that the President was wrong but supported him anyway. Now, once it becomes in the estimation (rightly or wrongly) of a given politician that supporting Trump is politically more dangerous than non-support they will immediately say he was wrong, evil, bad or any other pejorative that they can to distance themselves from his political stench. Politicians don’t care what thinking people might make of any of their defenses at this point because the electorate has largely ceased to think.
So why go down this road…….if you want to be taken at least somewhat seriously?
Politicians only care about being taken seriously to the point that their election chances are not estimated to be impinged.
Now a slight editorial – I do think that it is quite interesting that the Republicans have decided to fire the FPL and die next to Trump politically. I’m not sure how the party finds its way back if this gamble goes south. I actually am hoping the destruction of the party continues apace but that is akin to hoping that Jake Fromm has great wide receivers next year. In other words, there is a chance but I wouldn’t bet on it. I had great hope that Bernie would do to the Democrats the same atrocities that Trump has done to the Republicans and that we could have some level of choice beyond the two party jackassery going forward, but it appears the Democrat political machine is somehow smarter than that. It will take a transcendent fool on the level of Trump to destroy the Democrats but the timeline and the shear numbers of fools on that side supports its eventuality.
I will not engage in discussion on this topic beyond the Senators specific engagement of my answers to his questions.
LikeLike
“Inside the room, lawmakers and staff from both parties are allowed to ask questions until they run out. The depositions open with opening remarks from Mr. Schiff, who said he then invites a member of the minority to do the same. The witness also gives an opening statement.
After that, said Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), a clock starts ticking. Democrats get an hour to question the witness, followed by Republicans with the same time. Once the first two hours are up, they move to 45-minute increments. Lawmakers and staff are asking questions.
“There is a clock, with a timekeeper,” Mr. Meadows said, noting that the aide makes sure each party gets equal time.”
LikeLike
Getting equal time to ask questions Democrats approve of, from witnesses Democrats approve of, isn’t exactly impartial.
LikeLike
Rev Jim… pass the kool aid ….
LikeLike
The reason is simple. The republican party no longer exists. In its place is a Trump personality cult. Members of a cult tend to act in bizarre ways.
LikeLike
The democrat party has to do something to divert attention from a Presidency that has succeeded in the behalf of the American people. The polititions are jackals.
LikeLike
The democrat party has to do something to divert attention from a Presidency that has succeeded in the behalf of the American people. The polititions are jackals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Society in Crisis
Victor Davis Hanson column: When our guardians fail us
Trump Russia Probe ComeyFormer FBI Director James Comey arrived on Capitol Hill in December 2018. He testified in a House probe of conduct by federal law enforcement officials in the investigation of President Donald Trump’s alleged Russia ties, as well as Hillary Clinton’s emails. The Associated Press▲
By Victor Davis Hanson
Dec 5, 2019
One symptom of a society in crisis is the unreliability or even corruption of its own auditors.
After all, when the watchmen have lost moral authority to watch, who can be believed or trusted? Or, as the Roman satirist Juvenal famously put it, “Who will guard the guardians?”
It was recently reported that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered an email to bolster a suspicious FBI effort to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant authorizing the surveillance of Carter Page, a onetime employee of President Donald Trump’s campaign.
If true, Clinesmith helped the FBI successfully delude the court into granting what was likely an illegal request to spy on the Trump campaign. Clinesmith was reportedly expelled from special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team for cheering on opposition to the Trump presidency by writing “Viva la resistance!” in a text message discussion.
After FBI Director James Comey was fired, he leaked his own memos of private and confidential conversations with the president. Whether Comey would go to jail hinged on how the FBI would categorize his memos post facto — as merely “confidential,” or as “secret” or “top secret.”
Two of the adjudicators were Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, former Comey friends and FBI subordinates. The FBI eventually ruled that the leaking of the memos was not felonious. Page and Strzok, who were involved in an amorous relationship, were later dismissed from Mueller’s team for exchanging texts that showed bias and hatred toward Trump, the object of their team’s investigation.
We are awaiting the results of investigations being conducted by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz and federal prosecutor John Durham. Both are examining whether the nation’s top investigators at the FBI, CIA and DOJ were themselves corrupt.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chair of the House Intelligence Committee, recently wrapped up an impeachment inquiry to discover whether Trump committed impeachable offenses.
Schiff himself has lied about the prior relationship between the so-called whistleblower and his own staff. He read into the congressional record his version of a transcript of a presidential conversation that was so inaccurate and misleading that Schiff was forced to relabel it a “parody.”
In surreal fashion, Schiff stated that he did not know the whistleblower’s identity. Then, during the hearings, he claimed that he wanted to protect the whistleblower’s anonymity by halting all questions about direct communications with the whistleblower — whose identity Schiff supposedly did not know.
The whistleblower, we were initially told, was a civic-minded, nonpartisan civil servant who risked his or her career to report alleged presidential misconduct. Although the whistleblower’s identity has not been confirmed, what has been reported in the press suggests the very opposite of such a glowing nonpartisan portrait.
The whistleblower went first to the House Intelligence Committee staff for guidance on how to lodge a complaint. The whistleblower’s lawyer was a known anti-Trump activist who had previously boasted about the effort to remove Trump, which he compared to a coup.
The whistleblower relied on hearsay and had no firsthand knowledge of presidential wrongdoing. Critics allege that the whistleblower will not come forward to testify, as promised by Schiff, because under cross-examination the whistleblower would have to detail a collaborative association with anti-Trump partisans and Schiff’s staff.
It is easy for our legal and ethical custodians to hound unpopular politicians whom the media despises, and who incur strident political opposition. Investigators and inquisitors know that any dirt they can dig up, even if questionably obtained and of dubious truth, will earn them praise.
In the case of Trump, our watchmen embraced any means necessary to reach the supposedly noble and popular ends of weakening or removing him.
But the reason we have auditors in the first place is for precisely the opposite purpose: to examine evidence fairly, even if the final conclusions are likely to exonerate someone deemed boorish and crude by most of federal officialdom.
In other words, our investigatory agencies should function like the First Amendment, which primarily serves not to protect free speech that we all admire, but to protect unpopular speech that most prefer not to hear.
The moral test of our Justice Department, the congressional opposition and the FBI was to give even an often unpopular president some semblance of a fair audit.
All three so far have flopped miserably.
Their failures remind us why nearly 2,000 years ago, Juvenal believed that society could not outsource to supposedly exalted moral officials the final authority to judge others.
Instead, we must count only on ourselves.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Contact him at: authorvdh@gmail.com
© 2019, Tribune Content Agency, LLC
View on Richmond.com
Tags
Fbi Donald Trump Politics Law Institutes Public And Administrative Law
comments
back to top
© Copyright 2019 Richmond Times-Dispatch, 300 E. Franklin St. Richmond, VA | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fake news.
LikeLike
Not impeaching 3/4s of the way through the first term is a reasonable argument. Just censure him and make your case to the voters. You only need to pick up a few thousand from 2016. I think Pelosi was pressured into this by the idiot wing of her party or was just desperate to help her party’s candidates
LikeLike
That’s far too reasonable. Get the fuck out of here.
LikeLike
Senator there are many of us who believe that the phone call that Donald Trump made to the Ukraine was perfectly fine. There was nothing wrong with him saying what he said. If you want to believe the mainstream media and Democrat talking points, Which are the same thing, you’re free to do so. I see the Republicans defending an innocent man. Theirs is a noble cause.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He needs a hot line to the Oval Office where foreign leaders can negotiate the price of domestic political dirt.
I understand that Uganda has a porno with a person that isn’t but looks like mayor Pete. They’re will to sell if for 10,000,000 us tax dollars!!
What a deal!!
What we have to make sure if is that we pay for the influence that foreigners provide in our elections.
Foreigners elect. We fund. Voting is secondary to the influence we’ve purchased!
Perfect!
LikeLike
LikeLike
So why make things up?
LikeLike
I just think it’s comical you liked your own post. Nice touch!
LikeLike
Trump’s words to the Ukraine president were absolutely in order and in our national interest. This trumped-up impeachment allegation is based only the fact that Uncle Joe was one of 20+ democrats running in their primary. I don’t think Trump gave one rats ass about “political advantage”, it didn’t even occur to him. He saw possible evidence of corruption, and asked for a favor. The funds to Ukraine were forwarded, and the Ukrainians never announced any investigation.
The Horowitz report and the Senate hearings today seem to point to many rats in the swamp. Trump was elected to drain said swamp. He has, so far, been remarkably effective.
LikeLike
Because the guy who paid a 25 million dollar fraud settlement and 2 million dollar fraud fine is a corruption crusader?
Seriously? How much did the lobotomy set you back?
LikeLike
Derek…You know why Trump doesn’t need glasses?
Cause he’s GOT 2020!!!!
LikeLike
So- you be a comical straw man fool ass clown . See, I can ad hominem too
Keep up yo fonting, bro. LOL…
LikeLike
If we start punishing people for using the power of their office to secure reelection, then we’ll have to go after every living ex-president, ex-vice president, every senator, every congressperson, every governor. Everyone does it. Everyone.
LikeLike
Do tell. We need expanses. Apparently you have many.
You know there is a difference between “use” and “abuse” right?
LikeLike
You know there is a difference between “use” and “abuse” right?
“Using” it relieves tension… “abusing” it makes you go blind?
LikeLike
I would say having your political opponents investigated by the IRS is an abuse. I would also say selling China guided missile technology in exchange for 1996 campaign contributions is also an abuse.
LikeLike
“…Wouldn’t it be easier and less deserving of mockery to say, yes, what he did with Ukraine was wrong, but it doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense?…”
Typical leading question along the lines of “When did you stop beating your wife?” You can’t have civil discourse or intellectual disagreement based on an opinion stated as fact. If, after actually reading the transcript of the call, you are convinced that it was “wrong”, your partisanship is showing. If asking Ukrainian officials to look into possible wrongdoing from 2016 is not permitted because one of the individuals involved happens to be a candidate for President in 2020, then how the hell does Operation Crossfire Hurricane get started in 2016? Oh yeah, President Trump has the wrong letter in parentheses behind his name. Rules for thee but not for me.
And 3 years of this garbage is getting old. No minds are being changed by the “National Crisis” de jour ginned up by Democrats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump isn’t being impeached. The democrats don’t even have a crime. Americans are mocking the democrats lame failure to overturn the 2016 election.
They are going to pass a hyper-partisan statement that they disagree with his policies. They will call it an impeachment but it will be dismissed by the senate, possibly without even holding a trial, and forever have an asterisk next to it.
As embarrassing as it is, it could be the greatest political blunder in the history of American politics as the house is in play again and the president they are trying to remove is all but guaranteed to be re-elected at this point.
Trump will use this failed coup as a hammer through the next year and throughout his next term. Congrats Nancy!
LikeLike
Perhaps if Dwight D. had not have had so high political aspirations and listened to Patton instead of__________ him __________. Russia, Korea and Vietnam would not have been a problem. Maybe if Robert Kennedy didn’t go after JFK’s mafia friends….. in fact he called him and told him on his trip to California not to stay at Frank’s Sentra’s house cause the heat was on. That set JFK a night at Peter Lawford’s where he came upon a lady named Marylyn. If Marlyn were not threatening a article in a major magazine.
Maybe she and JFK would have lived. Perhaps Robert and Jackie lived. If there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction the 18 years of 3,400 American souls would not be lost in Afghanistan, Iraq and those camel holes. Perhaps Benghazi goes away. You can blame Bush, Obama and Trump on the continuing trillions of dollars thrown in those desert shitholes as well as the poor maimed and PTS ( a veteran commits his or hers own demise app. every 22 minutes )
I am not a lawyer but ai think there is enough good left in this country for us to agree on about 85% of all our problems and we’d cut each other’s throat in a disagreement of the other 15% because we know that our arguments are right and if you open your mouth your stupid, morbid and collectively wrong.
Perchance most of the above lines are fiction; Choose your beliefs. If I have a job to represent the people of my district and got paid handsomely for it during my term ( and pampered by the lobbyist for my best vote ) doctors, medicines and full insurance and received the same pay for the rest of my life. I think or pray whether I was Liberal or Conservative I could act better than the carnival barkers on both sides. ( No Offense, Senator………. your behavior and words are impeccable )
At some point this country needs level headed, intellectually gifted men that are not bought and paid for. Ironically most are millionaires before they are voted in and by the time they leave their grandchildren will never have to work unless they themselves choose to fun.
…….. A government of the people, for the people, by the people rings a very hollow tune in the 24 hour news cycle and even your words where the Senator plainly asked your opinion and before the end of it ya’ll were throwing cow patties personally and calling people you have no knowledge of that if your Mom had heard ya’ll she would have sent you out to get a switch. If the switch wasn’t big enough she’d go get one herself and ya’ll wouldn’t have wanted that. I know once I told my grandmother I was still sick and she let me stay home. When a Mom came in from work aI was playing on the garage dirt floor. That day and the tip end of a bamboo fly rod enhanced my educational future of never missing another day. Sick or not ! It seems that most of your Mom’s just simply put you in timeout and that’s not working here or in our country. May you all be blessed and come to some sense of agreement and civility at this Blessed Time of Year.
LikeLike
Two Words…Two Simple Words that Express the sentiments of all North East Georgia!
Mic Drop. BOOM…
LikeLike
Bull Shit
LikeLike
CLOSING THOUGHTS
https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/07/why-do-people-hate-trump/
I just read this list of reasons why you guys hate Trump…I get it now! He’s rich, he’s crass, he doesn’t kowtow to dicktators like obama did, etc…and whether you are a condescending law professor / Senator, a deep state bureaucrat bleating to keep the gravy train rolling or acting like your typical libtard pitching a fit on the cereal aisle (Derek)…bottomline….
He doesn’t give a shit how you feel about him or what he is doing to repair this country …
As for me and my house…I wanted someone to go up to the swamp and flip the table on the pompous assholes who have hijacked our country…
I quit getting any “news” filtered through the MSM…I go to Youtube and hear it straight from Trump…
If you want to know your opponent / enemy watch the tape…
go back and read or listen to 2 speeches and you will know exactly where Trump is coming from and why those of us that root for him do….
1.His inaugural speech (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/the-inaugural-address/) and the
2. Last speech he made at the UN in Sep 2019
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-74th-session-united-nations-general-assembly/)
If you compare his actions to his words then..if you are honest… your takeaway should be that he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do…taking this country back from the control of globalists, asshole politicians and a ruling elite more concerned about controlling you through over regulation and taxation than giving you the freedom to live your life without their approval.
If you are in that Lawyer / Beaurocrat / Socialist Asshole camp (hit dawgs holler) then carry on…take your best shot at getting rid of him..you only make the rest of us more resolved to support him and you have made it clear which side of the fence you are on…
If after that you still don’t like Trump and/or the direction the USA is going then Trump and at least 63 million of us don’t give a shit how that makes you feel.
Go Dawgs…
LikeLike
Amen and amen brother !
LikeLike
And just fuck you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And just double fuc u carpetbagger go back to your shit hole sanctuary state hippie douche bag
LikeLike