Raz'r

Time to impeach?

Yes or No?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Congress of the US begin formal Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

Now Mulvaney says he was misquoted by the press.......

The republican method that we have seen repeated often appears to consist of:

 Deny, deflect, ask what if we did, admit that we did and then accuse the press, you know the enemy of the people of misquoting and mischaracterising the whole friggin thing.

and the bretheren believe this shit, the country is fucked.

 

 

Mick Mulvaney Walks Back Admission Of Quid Pro Quo In Trump’s Ukraine Call

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” the White House chief of staff said.

By Lydia O’Connor

LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney answers questions from reporters at the White House on Thursday.

Hours after saying Thursday that President Donald Trump withheld foreign aid in order to get Ukraine’s help in the U.S. election, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney walked back his remarks.

He released a lengthy statement wrongly blaming the press for putting a spin on his comments.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

Subscribe Now

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” he said. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election.”

But the remarks Mulvaney made at a news conference earlier in the day were not vague. 

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said when ABC News reporter Jon Karl noted that it would constitute a quid pro quo if the U.S. was withholding funding from Ukraine unless it agreed to do an investigation into the Democrats’ server.

“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

Mulvaney’s statement, which followed reports that the White House was shocked by his comments at the news conference, contradicts that.

“The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server,” he said. “The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Now Mulvaney says he was misquoted by the press.......

The republican method that we have seen repeated often appears to consist of:

 Deny, deflect, ask what if we did, admit that we did and then accuse the press, you know the enemy of the people of misquoting and mischaracterising the whole friggin thing.

and the bretheren believe this shit, the country is fucked.

 

 

Mick Mulvaney Walks Back Admission Of Quid Pro Quo In Trump’s Ukraine Call

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” the White House chief of staff said.

By Lydia O’Connor

LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney answers questions from reporters at the White House on Thursday.

Hours after saying Thursday that President Donald Trump withheld foreign aid in order to get Ukraine’s help in the U.S. election, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney walked back his remarks.

He released a lengthy statement wrongly blaming the press for putting a spin on his comments.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

Subscribe Now

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” he said. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election.”

But the remarks Mulvaney made at a news conference earlier in the day were not vague. 

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said when ABC News reporter Jon Karl noted that it would constitute a quid pro quo if the U.S. was withholding funding from Ukraine unless it agreed to do an investigation into the Democrats’ server.

“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

Mulvaney’s statement, which followed reports that the White House was shocked by his comments at the news conference, contradicts that.

“The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server,” he said. “The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption.”

Give him a day or two and maybe he'll say it again.

Or maybe Rudy will speak.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Give him a day or two and maybe he'll say it again.

Or maybe Rudy will speak.  

They’ll go all in on the walk back tomorrow. Blame the press, the deep state, do a full fecal press  

Trump will boast about the quid pro quo over the weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Now Mulvaney says he was misquoted by the press.......

The republican method that we have seen repeated often appears to consist of:

 Deny, deflect, ask what if we did, admit that we did and then accuse the press, you know the enemy of the people of misquoting and mischaracterising the whole friggin thing.

and the bretheren believe this shit, the country is fucked.

 

 

Mick Mulvaney Walks Back Admission Of Quid Pro Quo In Trump’s Ukraine Call

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” the White House chief of staff said.

By Lydia O’Connor

LEAH MILLIS / REUTERS

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney answers questions from reporters at the White House on Thursday.

Hours after saying Thursday that President Donald Trump withheld foreign aid in order to get Ukraine’s help in the U.S. election, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney walked back his remarks.

He released a lengthy statement wrongly blaming the press for putting a spin on his comments.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

Subscribe Now

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” he said. “Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election.”

But the remarks Mulvaney made at a news conference earlier in the day were not vague. 

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney said when ABC News reporter Jon Karl noted that it would constitute a quid pro quo if the U.S. was withholding funding from Ukraine unless it agreed to do an investigation into the Democrats’ server.

“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

Mulvaney’s statement, which followed reports that the White House was shocked by his comments at the news conference, contradicts that.

“The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server,” he said. “The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption.”

That bus hit pretty fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Sen. Murkowski is slipping off the reservation. 

Get to work bullshitters or it’s no mushroom sauce for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again the biased and unfair media commits the repeated offense of quoting a member of the Trump Administration verbatim.

When will the unfairness stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all so predictable.

We've gone from there was no quid pro quo to yes, there was some quid pro quo, but it's not illegal. Next it will be well technically it's illegal, but it's no big deal, everybody does it. Following after that it will be but what about Biden's quid pro quo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, oh, man...  The righty contingent is nowhere to be found here right now.   I'm thinking they are regrouping at another emergency meeting over at Dog's place.  From what I understand, the problem with these short notice emergency meetings is they have no time to get a pot luck list together, and they always end up with 4 or 5 people all bringing potato salad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Man, oh, man...  The righty contingent is nowhere to be found here right now.   I'm thinking they are regrouping at another emergency meeting over at Dog's place.  From what I understand, the problem with these short notice emergency meetings is they have no time to get a pot luck list together, and they always end up with 4 or 5 people all bringing potato salad. 

And it's all two or three days out of date.

That could explain all these hallucinatory posts we are seeing from the True Beliebers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the excuses this time are gonna be great.  I was really beginning to miss Rudy G saying something and the regular players here showing up afterwards with mops.  I figure someone in the admin or some attorney told him if he spoke publicly they were going to personally cut his nuts off.  But if Mulvaney wants pick up the slack I think that's great.   I think the best self preservation move this administration did was to stop holding press conferences as they just could not go 15 minutes or so without saying something stupid. I guess they decided to stick their necks out again and attempt to speak publicly in front of cameras and other recording devices.  It has to be a rush. Sort of like skydiving. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah H could handle it she was pathological when it came spinning shit and lying for the leader now they just seem to lack the conviction or perhaps that’s what they want to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Mulvaney tell the nation today that Trump is hosting the next G7 meeting at Doral on his dime? :rolleyes:  

Wow! Billionaires!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I think the excuses this time are gonna be great.  I was really beginning to miss Rudy G saying something and the regular players here showing up afterwards with mops.  I figure someone in the admin or some attorney told him if he spoke publicly they were going to personally cut his nuts off.  But if Mulvaney wants pick up the slack I think that's great.   I think the best self preservation move this administration did was to stop holding press conferences as they just could not go 15 minutes or so without saying something stupid. I guess they decided to stick their necks out again and attempt to speak publicly in front of cameras and other recording devices.  It has to be a rush. Sort of like skydiving. 

W/O a parachute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

W/O a parachute.

And a glide angle like a set of keys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

Man, oh, man...  The righty contingent is nowhere to be found here right now.   I'm thinking they are regrouping at another emergency meeting over at Dog's place.  From what I understand, the problem with these short notice emergency meetings is they have no time to get a pot luck list together, and they always end up with 4 or 5 people all bringing potato salad. 

It turns out they’re all closet vegans and vegan potato salad tastes like crap.

My latest bring is blistered padrón peppers. That and mojitos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Sarah H could handle it she was pathological when it came spinning shit and lying for the leader now they just seem to lack the conviction or perhaps that’s what they want to avoid.

She could stay on script and not say anything nuts.  The Q and A at the end had nothing, or very little, to do with what she just said.  It was usually some crazy shit the Presidunce said the day before.  And she'd skirt the question with "The President has gone on record many times that...", with that slow patronizing blink.  Mulvany appears to be Gulliani grade. From now on, put that fucker behind a podium in front the media and I'm glued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word on the street is that things may not be going well over at Dog's place and it could be a late night.  Apparently there have been some heated discussions on how to avoid Sol's sarcasm and Tom bringing up shit they posted 15 years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They’re safe. No one but the rain-man Tom can figure out how to use the SA search function and Tom is, well, Tom is Tom. He’s good for finding and highlighting the irrelevant in a way that neither enlightens nor entertains.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, benwynn said:

The word on the street is that things may not be going well over at Dog's place and it could be a late night.  Apparently there have been some heated discussions on how to avoid Sol's sarcasm and Tom bringing up shit they posted 15 years ago.

 

I can easily see Dog and Joker hatching a plan for tomorrow's non-support of Trump via Skype. Seriously, these guys are putting in some crazy hours (billable?). Warbird, I assume, is just drinking his own urine and has no idea what time zone he is in.. RegattaDog more than likely is dying of an acute case of lymphogranuloma venereum that he contracted while masturbating into his new sock puppet.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, benwynn said:

Man, oh, man...  The righty contingent is nowhere to be found here right now.   I'm thinking they are regrouping at another emergency meeting over at Dog's place.  From what I understand, the problem with these short notice emergency meetings is they have no time to get a pot luck list together, and they always end up with 4 or 5 people all bringing potato salad. 

They'll be quite confident.

Acting White House chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration considered 10 sites across the country but the Trump Doral resort near Miami was "far and away the best physical facility for this meeting".

"It’s almost like they built this facility to host this type of event," he said.

Mulvaney insisted that Trump was not breaching the constitution because the resort would run the event on a cost-recovery basis rather than seeking to make a profit.

 

This could well be fudging it. After all, hosting such a high-profile event would raise the resort's profile and likely boost the number of future visitors - delivering a windfall to the Trump family.

 

naturally cost recovery means different things to different people.:rolleyes:

recall this?

The most overt fraud was All County Building Supply & Maintenance, a company formed by the Trump family in 1992. All County’s ostensible purpose was to be the purchasing agent for Fred Trump’s buildings, buying everything from boilers to cleaning supplies. It did no such thing, records and interviews show. Instead All County siphoned millions of dollars from Fred Trump’s empire by simply marking up purchases already made by his employees. Those millions, effectively untaxed gifts, then flowed to All County’s owners — Donald Trump, his siblings and a cousin. Fred Trump then used the padded All County receipts to justify bigger rent increases for thousands of tenants.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

They'll be quite confident.

Acting White House chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration considered 10 sites across the country but the Trump Doral resort near Miami was "far and away the best physical facility for this meeting".

"It’s almost like they built this facility to host this type of event," he said.

Mulvaney insisted that Trump was not breaching the constitution because the resort would run the event on a cost-recovery basis rather than seeking to make a profit.

 

This could well be fudging it. After all, hosting such a high-profile event would raise the resort's profile and likely boost the number of future visitors - delivering a windfall to the Trump family.

 

On a "cost recovery basis"? 

Considering Trump has a track record of losing money on real estate, it could be said that he is using the power of his office just to fucking break even.  

Even the Founding Fathers had not thought of that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

On a "cost recovery basis"? 

Considering Trump has a track record of losing money on real estate, it could be said that he is using the power of his office just to fucking break even.  

Even the Founding Fathers had not thought of that one. 

see my edit :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, benwynn said:

The word on the street is that things may not be going well over at Dog's place and it could be a late night.  Apparently there have been some heated discussions on how to avoid Sol's sarcasm and Tom bringing up shit they posted 15 years ago.

 

I missed the meeting or there would have been potato salad featuring bacon grease, a truly magical ingredient.

But I'd be more likely to bring up shit Justin Amash said a few months ago. Like this:

On 10/2/2019 at 7:24 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, benwynn said:

Here's dog basically saying that in order to have a national security implication, it is not enough to just ask for dirt on a political opponent.  "You need the quid pro quo."

Well, now it appears we have it.  

Time for a change in course.  This should be good.

 

capture-jackrussell_wide-7f914e344957de0

Worst case what we have is a quid pro quo involving military aid for cooperation in an existing investigation into foreign involvement in the 2016 election? Is that an impeachable offense? Is that an offense at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Worst case what we have is a quid pro quo involving military aid for cooperation in an existing investigation into foreign involvement in the 2016 election? Is that an impeachable offense? Is that an offense at all?

Here we go.....The first step in admitting they were bullshitting about "No quid pro quo".

It was a reasonable quid pro quo.  A necessary quid pro quo.  The best quid pro quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Here we go.....The first step in admitting they were bullshitting about "No quid pro quo".

It was a reasonable quid pro quo.  A necessary quid pro quo.  The best quid pro quo.

Do you see an impeachable offense or any offense at all. If so what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Worst case what we have is a quid pro quo involving military aid for cooperation in an existing investigation into foreign involvement in the 2016 election? Is that an impeachable offense? Is that an offense at all?

Yes it's an impeachable offense because usurping the power of the purse is the kind of "high crime" that only a President can commit.

For a more complete explanation, here's some Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading:

Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump's Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress' Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Yes it's an impeachable offense because usurping the power of the purse is the kind of "high crime" that only a President can commit.

For a more complete explanation, here's some Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading:

Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump's Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress' Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process

From your cite "If Trump used withholding of aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime". I don't disagree with that. No aid however was withheld and as far as I know no request was made to investigate Joe Biden. Aid was delayed ostensibly to pressure contributions by European countries, out of concern about corruption in Ukraine and to encourage cooperation in an investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only hope those who have failed to put country over party pay the consequences. 

I won't be holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dog said:
40 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Yes it's an impeachable offense because usurping the power of the purse is the kind of "high crime" that only a President can commit.

For a more complete explanation, here's some Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading:

Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump's Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress' Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process

From your cite "If Trump used withholding of aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime". I don't disagree with that. No aid however was withheld and as far as I know no request was made to investigate Joe Biden. Aid was delayed ostensibly to pressure contributions by European countries, out of concern about corruption in Ukraine and to encourage cooperation in an investigation.

"Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until it looked into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukrainian nationals were in possession of a computer server belonging to the Democratic National Committee."

Asked why the administration had withheld $400 million in military aid allocated by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression, Mulvaney first cited the president’s desire to make sure Kiev’s government was not corrupt. Then, confirming a quid pro quo laid out in the partial summary released by the White House of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mulvaney cited a conspiracy theory involving the DNC server that housed emails leaked during the 2016 campaign.

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and some in the administration have been looking for evidence that the DNC hack was carried out by Ukrainian agents seeking to help the Clinton campaign, rather than Russians trying to help Trump — which was the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies.

“Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney responded when asked about the president’s public call for China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. “Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

“Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney responded when asked about the president’s public call for China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. “Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.”

Does that make sense to you. They delayed the aid to Ukraine to get China to investigate Biden? Is that what we're going with now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Worst case what we have is a quid pro quo involving military aid for cooperation in an existing investigation into foreign involvement in the 2016 election? Is that an impeachable offense? Is that an offense at all?

How was the potato salad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BrickTopHarry said:

I'm sure Donnie will be completely forthcoming with the Doral books to show how he's not making any profit off this.

That could be a given. He hasn't been able to make money on anything except s reality show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Do you see an impeachable offense or any offense at all. If so what is it?

Yesterday: We didn’t do it. Check, move on

Today: yeah, we did it, it’s no big deal. 
 

tomorrow: yeah, we did it, yeah, it’s a big deal. But Obama!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 9:52 PM, Bus Driver said:

Are you suffering under the delusion that "both sides get to question witnesses" in an investigation?

That's for the trial.

"Congress" is not a committee or the speaker....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 10:06 PM, warbird said:

Is the inquiry going to be formalized by a vote allowing both sides to question witnesses?????

You're getting as bad as dog at fake questions.  The inquiry was formalized the second pelosi said it was.  They don't need a vote.  And they don't need to allow both sides to question witnessess.  But both sides are.  Because if you understood even the first thing about how these committees work, you'd never babble that crap.

McCarthy alleged that Republicans have not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, which is not accurate. Staff attorneys led the questioning, and the time was evenly divided between Democratic and Republican aides.

It's time to go back to the bullshit about these happening in 'secret'.

Both republicans and democrats have been at these meetings, questioning these witnesses.  The noise is just infowars bullshit.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Does that make sense to you. They delayed the aid to Ukraine to get China to investigate Biden? Is that what we're going with now?

You are now to the point of admitting there was a quid pro quo, which is a change from a previous stance.  You are making progress.

Mulvaney confirmed that which the White House has long denied.

I figure I'll just wait until more of the President's inner circle open up and implicate him.

Then, we will rub your nose in it and whack you with a newspaper.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi emphatically pointed out to Trump that "All roads lead to Putin." The fundamental quid pro quo. Unfortunately it may be the rare case where neither Trump nor Putin has involved any other people, witnesses, in the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You are now to the point of admitting there was a quid pro quo, which is a change from a previous stance.  You are making progress.

Mulvaney confirmed that which the White House has long denied.

I figure I'll just wait until more of the President's inner circle open up and implicate him.

Then, we will rub your nose in it and whack you with a newspaper.

Sure you will BD...Like you rubbed RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA in my nose. As for the quid pro quo, there is nothing inherently wrong with a quid pro quo, they are negotiated all the time. Quid pro quos are currency of foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

Quid pro quos are currency of foreign policy.

Then why don't common criminals, kidnappers and bank robbers for example, use the quid pro quo defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Then why don't common criminals, kidnappers and bank robbers for example, use the quid pro quo defense?

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between executing the interests of the country and using influence for personal political gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between executing the interests of the country and using influence for personal political gain.

Or just plain breaking the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Or just plain breaking the law.

I think "breaking the law" is a red herring leading toward Trump's defenders since the law and standards of proof are hazy at that level; violating customs and traditions of the office is sufficient for conviction in an impeachment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or is Dog tail-between the legs embarrassed right now? Pretty tepid defense this morning. Maybe that potato salad was a bit rancid.

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learningJ24 said:

I think "breaking the law" is a red herring leading toward Trump's defenders since the law and standards of proof are hazy at that level; violating customs and traditions of the office is sufficient for conviction in an impeachment.

Yes, but it doesn’t hurt that the chair of the FEC keeps tweeting about the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between executing the interests of the country and using influence for personal political gain.

Oh I understand the difference. The only case I have seen for the latter is Schiff's fabrication from the chairman's seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh I understand the difference. The only case I have seen for the latter is Schiff's fabrication from the chairman's seat.

You don't understand the difference. The problem for Mulvaney, and Trump is that in a criminal investigation you don't get to walk back a taped admission of guilt. This isn't Fox News, or the Sarah Sanders show. Bus Driver will be along shortly, lucky for you this won't be the Sunday paper he swats you with.

 

Mulvaney concedes that Trump’s desire to investigate “DNC server” was part of the reason Ukraine aide was held up

reporter: so it was a quid pro quo

Mulvaney: we do that all the time. get over it. politics is going to be involved in foreign policy. elections have consequences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh I understand the difference. The only case I have seen for the latter is Schiff's fabrication from the chairman's seat.

"Get over it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Sure you will BD...Like you rubbed RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA in my nose. As for the quid pro quo, there is nothing inherently wrong with a quid pro quo, they are negotiated all the time. Quid pro quos are currency of foreign policy.

You have absolutely changed your tune.  It wasn't long ago you were claiming there was no quid pro quo.  Don't believe me?

Look here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

You are now to the point of admitting there was a quid pro quo, which is a change from a previous stance.  You are making progress.

Mulvaney confirmed that which the White House has long denied.

I figure I'll just wait until more of the President's inner circle open up and implicate him.

Then, we will rub your nose in it and whack you with a newspaper.

I don't often yell on line or in person, but:  THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "QUID PRO QUO"!

Simply asking for the assistance of a foreign power to interfere in a US of A election is more than sufficient for an impeachment.  The whole "quid pro quo" stuff is a smelly red herring dragged across the trail by the Mango's apologists to amaze and confuse the Maggots.

Just like the duck and dodge defense against the Mueller Report, repeating "No collusion" over and over when the report listed 10 specific examples of impeachable obstruction of justice.  The Red Hats are so easily distracted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh I understand the difference. The only case I have seen for the latter is Schiff's fabrication from the chairman's seat.

Schiff did not claim what he read was a verbatim transcript.  He stated this is "the essence of" what President Trump was communicating.

If you don't get that, forget about ever paraphrasing or mentioning something without a bona fide, citable quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

You don't understand the difference. The problem for Mulvaney, and Trump is that in a criminal investigation you don't get to walk back a taped admission of guilt. This isn't Fox News, or the Sarah Sanders show. Bus Driver will be along shortly, lucky for you this won't be the Sunday paper he swats you with.

 

Mulvaney concedes that Trump’s desire to investigate “DNC server” was part of the reason Ukraine aide was held up

reporter: so it was a quid pro quo

Mulvaney: we do that all the time. get over it. politics is going to be involved in foreign policy. elections have consequences

How many of the Faithful objected when they heard the phrase "Elections have consequences"?  Shirley they will object when their team says it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

How many of the Faithful objected when they heard the phrase "Elections have consequences"?  Shirley they will object when their team says it.

I expect that every sleazy lawyer on the right is going to try and rewrite law to justify the president's innocence. The problem, is Trump already admitted guilt, Mulvaney corroborated it. It's end of story now, everything after this is just icing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, as alternative to endless partisan bickering, from the WaPo: “Trump could decide that he has accomplished more in three years than any other president accomplished in eight (the best ever!). Why not retire early, grab a pardon from Mike Pence and spend all his time golfing? It is not as far-fetched as it used to be.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Or, as alternative to endless partisan bickering, from the WaPo: “Trump could decide that he has accomplished more in three years than any other president accomplished in eight (the best ever!). Why not retire early, grab a pardon from Mike Pence and spend all his time golfing? It is not as far-fetched as it used to be.”

Because there s that little problem with the SDNY, which a pardon and golf will never fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Or, as alternative to endless partisan bickering, from the WaPo: “Trump could decide that he has accomplished more in three years than any other president accomplished in eight (the best ever!). Why not retire early, grab a pardon from Mike Pence and spend all his time golfing? It is not as far-fetched as it used to be.”

A federal pardon won't help him with his state crimes. Donnie has to be president long enough to outrun the statute of limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

You're getting as bad as dog at fake questions.  The inquiry was formalized the second pelosi said it was.  They don't need a vote.  And they don't need to allow both sides to question witnessess.  But both sides are.  Because if you understood even the first thing about how these committees work, you'd never babble that crap.

McCarthy alleged that Republicans have not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, which is not accurate. Staff attorneys led the questioning, and the time was evenly divided between Democratic and Republican aides.

It's time to go back to the bullshit about these happening in 'secret'.

Both republicans and democrats have been at these meetings, questioning these witnesses.  The noise is just infowars bullshit.

 

Cross examine?   What the flying fuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RD, you left out the money quote: "We continue to outperform 2016." So much winning!

One small problem though:

image.png.0c5e2aaac7d1f4255e491163ea739acc.png

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/10/17/north-texas-buzzing-as-president-donald-trump-headlines-mega-rally-in-dallas/

And just in case you want to go Fox News on me, the American Airlines Center can only hold 21,000.

image.png.ac3bbfdc2dcf7c6cc6ecd1c9b8d1b0d1.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Center

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

Because there s that little problem with the SDNY, which a pardon and golf will never fix.

Heh. Maybe “Golfing in Russia.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

RD, you left out the money quote: "We continue to outperform 2016." So much winning!

Brad's gotten $30+ million out of the campaign for his business so far, he's definitely outperforming 2016.

Unknown is the size of the kickback to the Trump crime family, but shucuck's don't care about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog got in a red car and drove down I-95 to rob a bank with a 12 gauge and spent the money on hookers.

Dog says:

1. My car isn't red

2. My car is red but I didn't drive down I-95.

3. My car is red and I did drive down I-95 but I didn't rob a bank.

4. My car is red and I did drive down I-95 and I did rob a bank, but not with a 12 gauge.

5. My car is red and I did drive down I-95 and I did rob a bank and it was with a 12 gauge, but I didn't spend the money on hookers.

6. I did drive down I-95 and I did rob a bank and it was with a 12 gauge, and I spent the money on hookers, but my car isn't red.

 

* We have photos of the hookers too!

hooker_dog.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Brad's gotten $30+ million out of the campaign for his business so far, he's definitely outperforming 2016.

Unknown is the size of the kickback to the Trump crime family, but shucuck's don't care about that.

I added to the post. Turns out AA Center can only hold 21,000.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Dog got in a red car and drove down I-95 to rob a bank with a 12 gauge and spent the money on hookers.

Dog says:

1. My car isn't red

2. My car is red but I didn't drive down I-95.

3. My car is red and I did drive down I-95 but I didn't rob a bank.

4. My car is red and I did drive down I-95 and I did rob a bank, but not with a 12 gauge.

5. My car is red and I did drive down I-95 and I did rob a bank and it was with a 12 gauge, but I didn't spend the money on hookers.

6. I did drive down I-95 and I did rob a bank and it was with a 12 gauge, and I spent the money on hookers, but my car isn't red.

7. Crime happens. Get over it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty funny to watch the Reich pivot smartly from "no quid pro quo!" 

to, "it's ok if we do it" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

pretty funny to watch the Reich pivot smartly from "no quid pro quo!" 

to, "it's ok if we do it" 

Predicted next party-line talking point: "Hey it's not like we're running concentration camps and torturing prisoners.... oh wait"

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

RD, you left out the money quote: "We continue to outperform 2016." So much winning!

One small problem though:

image.png.0c5e2aaac7d1f4255e491163ea739acc.png

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/10/17/north-texas-buzzing-as-president-donald-trump-headlines-mega-rally-in-dallas/

And just in case you want to go Fox News on me, the American Airlines Center can only hold 21,000.

image.png.ac3bbfdc2dcf7c6cc6ecd1c9b8d1b0d1.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Center

You didn't count the jumbotron outside.

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2019/10/17/trump-rally-dallas-beto-rally-grand-prairie-texas-video-pictures/4011241002/

from the cite

How many people at Beto, Trump rally tonight?

American Airlines Arena said Thursday evening that their facility reached capacity for the Trump rally, creating an overflow crowd who watched the rally on a large monitor outside.

The arena announced that 18,500 were at Trump's event. Dallas police estimated about 5,000 people were outside. The O'Rourke's campaign said 5,532 people attended his rally in Grand Prairie.

As to Beto

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/18/beto-orourke-counter-rally-donald-trump/3989896002/

From the cite

The space where O'Rourke's supporters gathered holds 6,350; 5,532 were in attendance, according to his campaign. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BrickTopHarry said:

Nobody expects that Beto is likely to win the Democratic nomination so this is not exactly meaningful.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warren-s-big-rallies-biden-s-smaller-events-what-crowd-n1057371

Warren seems to be the only one who's managed to pull a 20K number but that was in Washington Square NYC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone is clearly winning the nomination those numbers will change.

A third of the audience for someone who's in the leader pack that the POTUS draws?  I'd take that any day if I were Warren.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we just go with Trump had the biggest crowd ever in all of the histories of the universe, then shut the fuck about it?

Asking for a friend. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You didn't count the jumbotron outside.

Mister Minister, even your arithmetic (18,500 + 5000) doesn't add up to "53,985 voters identified".

We continue to outperform 2016. So much winning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Mister Minister, even your arithmetic (18,500 + 5000) doesn't add up to "53,985 voters identified".

We continue to outperform 2016. So much winning.

That wasn't one of the numbers you cited and I don't actually follow attendance unless someone makes a point of it.

Either way it none of the dems seem to be getting much in the way of enthusiasm going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

That wasn't one of the numbers you cited and I don't actually follow attendance unless someone makes a point of it.

Either way it none of the dems seem to be getting much in the way of enthusiasm going.

Your confederate RD cited that "53,985 voters identified"number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

You didn't count the jumbotron outside.

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2019/10/17/trump-rally-dallas-beto-rally-grand-prairie-texas-video-pictures/4011241002/

from the cite

How many people at Beto, Trump rally tonight?

American Airlines Arena said Thursday evening that their facility reached capacity for the Trump rally, creating an overflow crowd who watched the rally on a large monitor outside.

The arena announced that 18,500 were at Trump's event. Dallas police estimated about 5,000 people were outside. The O'Rourke's campaign said 5,532 people attended his rally in Grand Prairie.

As to Beto

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/18/beto-orourke-counter-rally-donald-trump/3989896002/

From the cite

The space where O'Rourke's supporters gathered holds 6,350; 5,532 were in attendance, according to his campaign. 

 

If Beto says 5,000 were at his rally (we all know there weren't 5,000), then there were more democrats at Trump's rally than Beto's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Also 6a - Robbing banks is not illegal anyway.

Or as the Chief of Staff stated - "Robbing Banks happens all the time. Deal with it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shubrook said:

If Beto says 5,000 were at his rally (we all know there weren't 5,000), then there were more democrats at Trump's rally than Beto's.

Ignore the lie, and move on to try to sling shit somewhere else.  *clap*. *clap*. *clap*.  Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

Can't we just go with Trump had the biggest crowd ever in all of the histories of the universe, then shut the fuck about it?

Asking for a friend. 

 

EDpd3YoVAAEZMz4?format=jpg&name=medium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That wasn't one of the numbers you cited and I don't actually follow attendance unless someone makes a point of it.

Either way it none of the dems seem to be getting much in the way of enthusiasm going.

 

Are any of the Dem candidates "performers?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That wasn't one of the numbers you cited and I don't actually follow attendance unless someone makes a point of it.

 Either way it none of the dems seem to be getting much in the way of enthusiasm going.

 

Are any of the Dem candidates "performers?"

Better yet - have any of the Dem candidates proven their qualification for the job by hosting a Reality TV show?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Rick Perry was one of the three amigos, the House asked for documents relating to his trip to Ukraine to speak with Zelensky with a subpoena.

The Energy Department has decided that the documents are important, they understand the importance of the request, and they aren't going to comply. 

The executive branch has decided its a superior branch of government, not subject to oversight.

Awesome. We've got a king, folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dog said:
13 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Yes it's an impeachable offense because usurping the power of the purse is the kind of "high crime" that only a President can commit.

For a more complete explanation, here's some Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading:

Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump's Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress' Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process

From your cite "If Trump used withholding of aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden, he both violated the Constitution and committed a federal crime". I don't disagree with that. No aid however was withheld and as far as I know no request was made to investigate Joe Biden. Aid was delayed ostensibly to pressure contributions by European countries, out of concern about corruption in Ukraine and to encourage cooperation in an investigation.

Hmm.

Quote

The quid pro quo interpretation of this exchange derives further support from the fact that Trump had just put a freeze on the delivery of some $400 million in US aid to Ukraine, and had also made clear to Ukrainian officials that he would not even do a call with President Zelensky, unless the Biden investigation was on the agenda. Trump has since claimed that the aid freeze was put in place out of concern about corruption in the Ukrainian government. But that story is undercut by  the fact that the Trump administration had previously certified that Ukraine had taken sufficient steps to combat corruption to qualify for the aid.

A clever lawyer could parse all these statements and actions in such a way as to put a more innocent spin on them. We do not —so far—have proof of a quid pro quo, beyond reasonable doubt. But, as David French explains, that is by far the most likely explanation.

Some might say there was no real harm here, as Trump did eventually release the aid in September, after members of Congress made inquiries on the subject. But a failed effort to subvert Congress' spending powers is still constitutionally problematic. Moreover, Trump's scheme to use the aid may not have failed. It is entirely possible he thought he had succeeded. After all,  the transcript indicates that President Zelensky promised to reopen the investi