Jules

The Senate Impeachment Trial of DJT

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, warbird said:

JZK, you are an idiot

Finally!

You got something right.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

preparation-h-hemorrhoid-ointment-0ae.png.9f24543888019a8e30589ccb2a833bf7.png

Is that how you ease the pain of taking it from the Gropenfuhrer??

Share this post


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

Is that how you ease the pain of taking it from the Gropenfuhrer??

Based on Stormy's description, he ain't hurting anyone.

Share this post


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

They can't even process information spoon fed to them on the networks (the ultimate lo IQ info source).

Gosh...I wish I had that capability like you do.

Lo IQ?

Share this post


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

Gosh...I wish I had that capability like you do.

Lo IQ?

If I may throw him a bone, at least he spelled IQ correctly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Been hitting the bottle?  In an hour you'll be telling us how great the Foxconn deal is.

At least he admitted he is a gravel truck driver.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

And even then we had to tell you about it. ;)

 In all fairness it's a well known axiom that gentlemen don't read each other's mail.  

It's pretty obvious that the Soviets weren't gentlemen.  Especially that Stalin fellow.

Share this post


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

And even then we had to tell you about it. ;)

You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.  (Churchill)

The story about the U.S. discovering Russia that was spying on us started when a brilliant code breaker and FBI agent teamed up to see if they could crack the Russian code.  The U.S. had been compiling coded transmissions for years but had no idea what they said.  Russia's code was considered unbreakable but no one was really that worried because Russia was our ally.  :blink:

Meredith Gardner broke it in 1947.  And the Cold War followed.  Never trust a Russian leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headline in today's paper:

Trump lawyers argue Democrats just want to overturn election

That's about as valid as an attorney telling the jury, "The prosecution wants to nail my client for racketeering because the Mafia elected him Boss."

Share this post


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

You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.  (Churchill)

The story about the U.S. discovering Russia that was spying on us started when a brilliant code breaker and FBI agent teamed up to see if they could crack the Russian code.  The U.S. had been compiling coded transmissions for years but had no idea what they said.  Russia's code was considered unbreakable but no one was really that worried because Russia was our ally.  :blink:

Meredith Gardner broke it in 1947.  And the Cold War followed.  Never trust a Russian leader.

Oh please.  The Cold War started on 9 May 1945.  It didn't get named the Cold War until 1947.

The Russians were our ally because they were fighting the Nazi.  Do you think we didn't notice that until June 1941, they were Hitler's ally?  Do you really think that Roosevelt gave eastern Europe to Stalin because he was such a nice guy?  Do you think that Patton was the only American to realize the threat that the Soviet Union posed?

If you think that the US wasn't using any means available to gather information on the USSR immediately after the end of the war, then you are truly naive and uniformed.

What do you think about this:

Whittaker Chambers meets with Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle; names 18 current and former government employees as spies or Communist sympathizers including Alger Hiss, Donald Hiss, Laurence Duggan, and Lauchlin Currie. Berle notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of Chambers's information in March 1940.       

(from Wikipedia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recording Trump asks how long Ukraine can resist Russians

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump inquired how long Ukraine would be able to resist Russian aggression without U.S. assistance during a 2018 meeting with donors that included the indicted associates of his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

“How long would they last in a fight with Russia?” Trump is heard asking in the audio portion of a video recording, moments before he calls for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

This is why there was a "pause" in security assistance.  Trump was playing a game to see how close he could get to giving the assistance to Ukraine without Russia taking over the country.  The idea Trump did it to get Zelenskyy to publicly claim he was going after Uncle Joe is preposterous!  I'm sure Donny would agree.

Share this post


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

Headline in today's paper:

Trump lawyers argue Democrats just want to overturn election

That's about as valid as an attorney telling the jury, "The prosecution wants to nail my client for racketeering because the Mafia elected him Boss."

I shouldn't say this, but will anyway... it would be great to actually overturn the 2016 election. Yank all those judges off the bench and out of the Supreme Court, renew the environmental and worker protection laws, reverse the distrust and hatred Trump has sown among our former allies.

But that's not possible, in the absence of a time machine

Trump has been President for over 3 years. Removing him from office is not even remotely close to "reversing the election" nor is the 2016 election "the will of the people" since Trump did not win the popular vote.

Trump should be removed from office because of his crimes against the USA.

Unfortunately, Trump is at the head of a faction that is perfectly willing to destroy the USA as long as they get rich out of it, and get to rule over the fragments.

- DSK

Share this post


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

Headline in today's paper:

Trump lawyers argue Democrats just want to overturn election

That's about as valid as an attorney telling the jury, "The prosecution wants to nail my client for racketeering because the Mafia elected him Boss."

Its not so much that they want to overturn the last election as they want to interfere with the next one.

Share this post


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

Headline in today's paper:

Trump lawyers argue Democrats just want to overturn election

That's about as valid as an attorney telling the jury, "The prosecution wants to nail my client for racketeering because the Mafia elected him Boss."

Trump is playing to his base.  That's all that matters.  He knows the Senate won't convict him.  He knows his base will swallow any bull shit he feeds them.  He knows his base will get very angry that those vicious Democrats are trying to invalidate their choice.

Of course nobody else believes that BS.  The question is, is Trumps base big enough to get him reelected?  Will the Democrats actually nominate a candidate that can win?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Its not so much that they want to overturn the last election as they want to interfere with the next one.

Why should a President who has broken the Constitution and works for the benefit of hostile powers stay in office, much less be eligible to run for re-election?

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you think that the US wasn't using any means available to gather information on the USSR immediately after the end of the war, then you are truly naive and uniformed.

Did you read what I wrote?

17 minutes ago, Jules said:

The U.S. had been compiling coded transmissions for years but had no idea what they said.

Don't get your shorts in such a bind on this Ed.  You have to remember there have been many versions of this written over the years and they all likely contain some errors.  What I conveyed came from a book about Meredith Gardner and FBI agent Bob Lamphere.  The book includes exhaustive research on this subject.  But that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. 

Share this post


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

Why should a President who has broken the Constitution and works for the benefit of hostile powers stay in office, much less be eligible to run for re-election?

- DSK

Not only has that not happened, you can't even state an impeachable offense in the impeachment articles.  It is your delusion.

Share this post


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

Why should a President who has broken the Constitution and works for the benefit of hostile powers stay in office, much less be eligible to run for re-election?

- DSK

Don't confuse jzk with common sense and facts.  You know that's his Kryptonite.

Share this post


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

Its not so much that they want to overturn the last election as they want to interfere with the next one.

You're right, the Republicans absolutely want to interfere in the next election, or at least leave the door open for foreign adversaries do it.  It worked so great in the last election, why reinvent the wheel?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Not only has that not happened, you can't even state an impeachable offense in the impeachment articles.  It is your delusion.

I already have, many times.

- DSK

Share this post


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

I already have, many times.

- DSK

No you haven't.

Share this post


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

No you haven't.

Yes he has!!

so there!!

Share this post


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

Yes he has!!

so there!!

Not.

Share this post


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

Did you read what I wrote?

Don't get your shorts in such a bind on this Ed.  You have to remember there have been many versions of this written over the years and they all likely contain some errors.  What I conveyed came from a book about Meredith Gardner and FBI agent Bob Lamphere.  The book includes exhaustive research on this subject.  But that doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. 

From an earlier post of yours:

14 hours ago, Jules said:

Russia has been spying on us even before they were our WWII allies.  We were so naive we thought no ally of ours would ever spy on us.  HA!  It wasn't until 1947 that we discovered Russia had been spying on for quite some time.  

Today they are fucking with right out in the open with divisive propaganda.  They will incite Dems to hate Pubs and turn right around and incite Pubs to hate Dems.  And we are so busy throwing barbs at one another we don't even know it.

Americans are easy prey.  Must be a hold over from the Civil War. :wacko:

Maybe technically speaking they didn't have definitive proof that the Soviets were spying on us until 1947, but the US certainly knew they were doing it.  As Eva Dent from the wiki I cited, and that certainly wasn't the only case.

Also, I am not being pedantic, the name of the country at the time was the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, or to make it shorter,  the USSR, or the Soviet Union. The USSR was formed in 1922 and dissolved in 1991.   

 

My shorts are fine.  I just get annoyed when people casually throw around incomplete facts and very little context, about a very complex subject, to make some kind of incorrect point.  This is not a history forum by any means and if you want to express the ideas you have, at least acknowledge your information is hardly definitive, nor is your point.

Share this post


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

Not.

So's your mama!  :P

And neener, neener.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:
2 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Yes he has!!

so there!!

Not.

 

Share this post


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

 

I think we need to get one thing straight.  No one comes here to PA for a good argument.  

Share this post


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

I think we need to get one thing straight.  No one comes here to PA for a good argument.  

:lol: as if anyone gives a flying fuck what you say :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: as if anyone gives a flying fuck what you say :lol:

Well you sure do keep responding.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Joker said:
12 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

No. Nixon complied with every subpoena and let his minions testify. ...

...until he tried to claim executive privilege for the tapes, the committee drew up articles of impeachment, and Nixon resigned 

You skipped a step that is key  to this conversation 

 
Sirica, acting on a request from Jaworski, issued a subpoena for the tapes of 64 presidential conversations to use as evidence in the criminal cases against indicted former Nixon administration officials. Nixon refused, and Jaworski appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to force Nixon to turn over the tapes. On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court orderedNixon to release the tapes.[37] The 8–0 ruling (Justice William Rehnquist recused himself owing to having worked for Attorney General John Mitchell)[37] in United States v. Nixonfound that President Nixon was wrong in arguing that courts are compelled to honor, without question, any presidential claim of executive privilege.[37]

So...we have established precedent at the supreme court level that Trump should have complied.

You made our case for us. Thank you.

Or are you expecting that the Democrats should be required to re-litigate something that is already established in case law to give Donny time to throw the election again with his Russian pals?

Trump didn't even bother to claim privilege, he just gave Congress the finger and told them to get fucked. Some might call that contempt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

As Eva Dent from the wiki I cited, and that certainly wasn't the only case. ...

I just get annoyed when people casually throw around incomplete facts and very little context, about a very complex subject, to make some kind of incorrect point.  This is not a history forum by any means and if you want to express the ideas you have, at least acknowledge your information is hardly definitive, nor is your point.

So you choose Wiki for your source.  I choose books, in which the author often does exhaustive research in writing the book.  Different strokes for different folks.

The source for the initial post that prompted your annoyance is a book titled In The Enemy's House by Howard Blum.   At the back of the book he lists countless sources, from speaking directly to individuals involved to reading their writings to newspaper and historical accounts.

Another excellent book in helping understand the Russian mindset (and I'm using Russian as an umbrella term) is The Moscow Rules by Antonio and Jonna Mendez.  Both were CIA operatives during the Cold War and worked inside Russia for years.  I also enjoyed The Billion Dollar Spy by David Hoffman.  This is an inside look at a Russian engineer who began giving military secrets to the CIA which gave the U.S. near total superiority over the skies of Europe.

The fact you choose Wiki and I choose books doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.  We just prefer different sources.  No need to cast aspersions on someone just because they don't use the same source as you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jzk said:

I think we need to get one thing straight.  No one comes here to PA for a good argument.  

Yes they do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, warbird said:

JZK, you are an idiot

See, we can find common ground on something if we look hard enough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I shouldn't say this, but will anyway... it would be great to actually overturn the 2016 election. Yank all those judges off the bench and out of the Supreme Court, renew the environmental and worker protection laws, reverse the distrust and hatred Trump has sown among our former allies.

But that's not possible, in the absence of a time machine

Trump has been President for over 3 years. Removing him from office is not even remotely close to "reversing the election" nor is the 2016 election "the will of the people" since Trump did not win the popular vote.

Trump should be removed from office because of his crimes against the USA.

Unfortunately, Trump is at the head of a faction that is perfectly willing to destroy the USA as long as they get rich out of it, and get to rule over the fragments.

- DSK

Firing an employee that steals from you isn't "Reversing the hiring decision." It's holding them accountable for their actions after you gave them your trust.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Headline in today's paper:

Trump lawyers argue Democrats just want to overturn election

That's about as valid as an attorney telling the jury, "The prosecution wants to nail my client for racketeering because the Mafia elected him Boss."

Trump is playing to his base.  That's all that matters.  He knows the Senate won't convict him.  He knows his base will swallow any bull shit he feeds them.  He knows his base will get very angry that those vicious Democrats are trying to invalidate their choice.

Of course nobody else believes that BS.  The question is, is Trumps base big enough to get him reelected?  Will the Democrats actually nominate a candidate that can win?  

And Trump's lawyers are also playing to what he wants to hear. They know he will be watching Hannity and Fox & Friends for the highlights later, and they want to keep him happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jules said:
30 minutes ago, jzk said:

I think we need to get one thing straight.  No one comes here to PA for a good argument.  

Yes they do.

Just not with jzk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jules said:

You're right, the Republicans absolutely want to interfere in the next election, or at least leave the door open for foreign adversaries do it.  It worked so great in the last election, why reinvent the wheel?

Investigating Biden for corruption is "cheating" in an election, but removing the President from the ballot is not interfering in an election.

That is the kind of logic you get here at PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

So...we have established precedent at the supreme court level that Trump should have complied.

You made our case for us. Thank you.

Or are you expecting that the Democrats should be required to re-litigate something that is already established in case law to give Donny time to throw the election again with his Russian pals?

Trump didn't even bother to claim privilege, he just gave Congress the finger and told them to get fucked. Some might call that contempt...

Using your claim of precedent no president since the Nixon SCOTUS ruling can refuse to turn over documents to congress.   In the real world every president, dem or rep since then has refused to turn over documentation to congress and until Trump the congress during those administrations went to seek remedy in the courts.   What changed?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jules said:

Yes they do.

That's not an argument, it is just a contradiction! Just like a PA thread!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Using your claim of precedent no president since the Nixon SCOTUS ruling can refuse to turn over documents to congress.   In the real world every president, dem or rep since then has refused to turn over documentation to congress and until Trump the congress during those administrations went to seek remedy in the courts.   What changed?   

Did Clinton turn over documents?

Share this post


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

Using your claim of precedent no president since the Nixon SCOTUS ruling can refuse to turn over documents to congress.   In the real world every president, dem or rep since then has refused to turn over documentation to congress and until Trump the congress during those administrations went to seek remedy in the courts.   What changed?   

Nothing. 
No Executive other than Nixon had EVER resisted the power of Congress with respect to impeachment. 
The courts unanimously ruled Nixon had to turn over EVERYTHING to a Congressional Impeachment inquiry.

There are bajillions of reasons Congress might ask the Executive for information. For all but reasons surrounding Impeachment, the Congress has no special authority and the other two branches may legally interfere. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That's not an argument, it is just a contradiction! Just like a PA thread!

Yes it is, it isn’t, and it is not. 

Share this post


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

Nothing. 
No Executive other than Nixon had EVER resisted the power of Congress with respect to impeachment. 
The courts unanimously ruled Nixon had to turn over EVERYTHING to a Congressional Impeachment inquiry.

There are bajillions of reasons Congress might ask the Executive for information. For all but reasons surrounding Impeachment, the Congress has no special authority and the other two branches may legally interfere. 

Again, I think you didn't read the case.  The court agreed with the existence of executive privilege and held that the judicial branch will tailor the balance between the need for the privilege and the need for evidence in the government's case.  It then ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes for an in camera review.   It also held that there could be times where the government would not be entitled to the information at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jzk said:

Investigating Biden for being Trump's major political rival corruption is "cheating" in an election, but removing the President from office for crimes against the USA the ballot is not interfering in an election.

That is the kind of logic you get here at PA.

OTOH insisting that 3 years of Trump ruling the country in defiance of the Constitution has not happened is really shoving your head further and further into the sand.

image.png.5a50ec69f7547d89b252d192dcd32387.png

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Did Clinton turn over documents?

 

3 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Nothing. 
No Executive other than Nixon had EVER resisted the power of Congress with respect to impeachment. 
The courts unanimously ruled Nixon had to turn over EVERYTHING to a Congressional Impeachment inquiry.

There are bajillions of reasons Congress might ask the Executive for information. For all but reasons surrounding Impeachment, the Congress has no special authority and the other two branches may legally interfere. 

Oh I see the claim is impeachment allows congress free reign to demand anything and everything.  I think that claim right there needs to be decided by the courts.  
While the constitution gives control of impeachment to congress nothing in the guidance about impeachment says anything about nullifying the rest of the constitution.  

Share this post


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

OTOH insisting that 3 years of Trump ruling the country in defiance of the Constitution has not happened is really shoving your head further and further into the sand.

image.png.5a50ec69f7547d89b252d192dcd32387.png

- DSK

3 years of defying the Constitution?  Why didn't they put that in the articles of impeachment?  if the Dems only knew about PA, they would have a bullet proof case instead of the charade that they currently have.  

Share this post


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

3 years of defying the Constitution?  Why didn't they put that in the articles of impeachment?  if the Dems only knew about PA, they would have a bullet proof case instead of the charade that they currently have.  

How many heads of departments and Cabinet officers are "pending approval" or "acting?" That is IN the Constitution. 3 years is not temporary.

How many allies has Trump alienated or bullied or insulted? How many foreign treaties has Trump abrogated on his own say-so? That is the responsibility of Congress, as outlined in the Constitution.

How much money has Trump made from his office? How much of that money has come from non-USAnean sources? That is against the Constitution, the "phony" (according to Trumpublicans) emoluments clause.

Etc etc etc

Then there is the very simple principle that Trump has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, which he has not because he neither knows nor cares what it says. He believes (and Trumpublicans agree) that "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want." Furthermore, Trump has harmed the country instead of governing it; he has given preferment to hostile foreign powers, he's carried out trade wars that harmed the economy, his policies are literally shortening the life span of Americans. Are you better off now than in 2015? Unless you're one of the 0.1% wealthiest, the answer is no. If you're below ~ 70th percentage in wealth, you are dramatically worse off.

By this standard,  you should nominate Bashar Assad for President. He's done for Syria what Trump is doing to America. You seem to like it

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How many heads of departments and Cabinet officers are "pending approval" or "acting?" That is IN the Constitution. 3 years is not temporary.

How many allies has Trump alienated or bullied or insulted? How many foreign treaties has Trump abrogated on his own say-so? That is the responsibility of Congress, as outlined in the Constitution.

How much money has Trump made from his office? How much of that money has come from non-USAnean sources? That is against the Constitution, the "phony" (according to Trumpublicans) emoluments clause.

Etc etc etc

Then there is the very simple principle that Trump has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, which he has not because he neither knows nor cares what it says. He believes (and Trumpublicans agree) that "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want." Furthermore, Trump has harmed the country instead of governing it; he has given preferment to hostile foreign powers, he's carried out trade wars that harmed the economy, his policies are literally shortening the life span of Americans. Are you better off now than in 2015? Unless you're one of the 0.1% wealthiest, the answer is no. If you're below ~ 70th percentage in wealth, you are dramatically worse off.

By this standard,  you should nominate Bashar Assad for President. He's done for Syria what Trump is doing to America. You seem to like it

- DSK

Make your case in November.  Stop trying to impose your views on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How many heads of departments and Cabinet officers are "pending approval" or "acting?" That is IN the Constitution. 3 years is not temporary.

How many allies has Trump alienated or bullied or insulted? How many foreign treaties has Trump abrogated on his own say-so? That is the responsibility of Congress, as outlined in the Constitution.

How much money has Trump made from his office? How much of that money has come from non-USAnean sources? That is against the Constitution, the "phony" (according to Trumpublicans) emoluments clause.

Etc etc etc

Then there is the very simple principle that Trump has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, which he has not because he neither knows nor cares what it says. He believes (and Trumpublicans agree) that "the Constitution says I can do whatever I want." Furthermore, Trump has harmed the country instead of governing it; he has given preferment to hostile foreign powers, he's carried out trade wars that harmed the economy, his policies are literally shortening the life span of Americans. Are you better off now than in 2015? Unless you're one of the 0.1% wealthiest, the answer is no. If you're below ~ 70th percentage in wealth, you are dramatically worse off.

By this standard,  you should nominate Bashar Assad for President. He's done for Syria what Trump is doing to America. You seem to like it

- DSK

All of the above are your opinions on Trump policy.   We should never impeach a president over policy disagreements.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Make your case in November.  Stop trying to impose your views on others.

If you think that typing stuff on the internet is "trying to impose my views" then you must be weak-willed. Spineless. We know you like authority figures and are gullible, it kind of fits the pattern.

In any event, if you don't like my freely expressing FACTS on the internet, you know what to do.

Just now, The Joker said:

All of the above are your opinions on Trump policy.   We should never impeach a president over policy disagreements.  

Incorrect. What the heads of departments DO is a matter of policy. The Constitution prescribes the process for having people run the top agencies of the US gov't. Trump is not only not following it, he's circumventing it. That's not policy, that's a crime.

Actually it's two crimes, for a person who has a sworn duty.

- DSK

Share this post


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

If you think that typing stuff on the internet is "trying to impose my views" then you must be weak-willed. Spineless. We know you like authority figures and are gullible, it kind of fits the pattern.

In any event, if you don't like my freely expressing FACTS on the internet, you know what to do.

Incorrect. What the heads of departments DO is a matter of policy. The Constitution prescribes the process for having people run the top agencies of the US gov't. Trump is not only not following it, he's circumventing it. That's not policy, that's a crime.

Actually it's two crimes, for a person who has a sworn duty.

- DSK

No, stupid, trying to remove the President for those reasons is "trying to impose your views."  Make your case.  Put up a reasonable alternative.  You haven't done either, so you will lose horribly.

What a dumbass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Joker said:

We should never impeach a president over policy disagreements.  

What about gangsters? When there is ample evidence of misconduct should a gangster be jailed? Or just shunned in the grocery checkout line?

And, it is arguably Trump policy to extort, bribe, murder, lie, obstruct, and deeply embarrass the USA. Among other disgusting things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, El Boracho said:
40 minutes ago, The Joker said:

We should never impeach a president over policy disagreements.  

What about gangsters? When there is ample evidence of misconduct should a gangster be jailed? Or just shunned in the grocery checkout line?

And, it is arguably Trump policy to extort, bribe, murder, lie, obstruct, and deeply embarrass the USA. Among other disgusting things.

FWIW I agree that a policy disagreement is not a reason to impeach.

Unless it is something major, like say for example, FDR had decided that instead of going to Congress and asking them to declare war, FDR had decided to surrender to Germany and Japan and start selling them munitions & oil.... maybe even leasing them US military units, for profit.

Some Republicans of the day would have applauded this.

But the power of foreign treaties -still- rests with Congress, so it may be portrayed as "policy disagreement" but it is the President usurping the power of Congress that is the problem.

Trump is a stupid man, born rich, and has bullied and cheated his way through life. Apparently that is the new American ideal; in a few months we'll see if they've managed to corrupt the election machinery and/or enough people still think that honesty and hard work are the way to prosper.

- DSK

Share this post


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

So you choose Wiki for your source.  I choose books, in which the author often does exhaustive research in writing the book.  Different strokes for different folks.

The source for the initial post that prompted your annoyance is a book titled In The Enemy's House by Howard Blum.   At the back of the book he lists countless sources, from speaking directly to individuals involved to reading their writings to newspaper and historical accounts.

Another excellent book in helping understand the Russian mindset (and I'm using Russian as an umbrella term) is The Moscow Rules by Antonio and Jonna Mendez.  Both were CIA operatives during the Cold War and worked inside Russia for years.  I also enjoyed The Billion Dollar Spy by David Hoffman.  This is an inside look at a Russian engineer who began giving military secrets to the CIA which gave the U.S. near total superiority over the skies of Europe.

The fact you choose Wiki and I choose books doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong.  We just prefer different sources.  No need to cast aspersions on someone just because they don't use the same source as you.

The point is, the information I posted came from Wikipedia but it was a pretty well known event.  I prefer multiple sources, I didn't think it was worth a deep dive to confirm something that is obvious.  I could post for days on he subject and barely scratch the surface.  I don't make 'authoritative' general statements on a subject unless I have read about it extensively.  I certainly won't do it after reading one book, no matter how many footnotes there are or how long of a bibliography is in it.  

I have read the other books you mentioned above.  I have also read a few hundred books about WW II in Europe and quite a few about espionage.  I am pretty familiar with the Soviet/Russian mindset.  I also live pretty close to Russia and I know a few Russians. History of all kinds and European history is a bit of a hobby of mine that I have had for 50 years or so.  I was a soldier in Europe during the Cold War, and I have visited Europe since I was a child. I have lived in Europe for the last 20 years.  So excuse me for getting a little annoyed about inaccurate statements.

My main concern is that you posted something that was completely untrue.  I am sure that Blum was aware that the Soviets were spying on the US well before 1947, it has nothing to do with your source, it has everything to do with your misuse of it.  Just as I'm sure that Tolkachev wasn't responsible for the US 'domination of the skies over Europe', which is in itself pure conjecture since the US and the Soviets never went to war in Europe.  There were far more factors involved than just one spy, for the US superiority over much of the Soviet military equipment, aircraft and everything else.

I am casting aspersions on you because of your glib statements that are a bit inaccurate, that's all, nothing personal.

Share this post


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

Its not so much that they want to overturn the last election as they want to interfere with the next one.

Are you here all week? How’s the veal?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

So...we have established precedent at the supreme court level that Trump should have complied.

You made our case for us. Thank you.

Or are you expecting that the Democrats should be required to re-litigate something that is already established in case law to give Donny time to throw the election again with his Russian pals?

Trump didn't even bother to claim privilege, he just gave Congress the finger and told them to get fucked. Some might call that contempt...

The tapes in question were turned over in 1974, this is altogether different and the house didn't bother to peraue the issue, Why?

Share this post


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

The point is, the information I posted came from Wikipedia but it was a pretty well known event.  I prefer multiple sources, I didn't think it was worth a deep dive to confirm something that is obvious.  I could post for days on he subject and barely scratch the surface.  I don't make 'authoritative' general statements on a subject unless I have read about it extensively.  I certainly won't do it after reading one book, no matter how many footnotes there are or how long of a bibliography is in it.  

I have read the other books you mentioned above.  I have also read a few hundred books about WW II in Europe and quite a few about espionage.  I am pretty familiar with the Soviet/Russian mindset.  I also live pretty close to Russia and I know a few Russians. History of all kinds and European history is a bit of a hobby of mine that I have had for 50 years or so.  I was a soldier in Europe during the Cold War, and I have visited Europe since I was a child. I have lived in Europe for the last 20 years.  So excuse me for getting a little annoyed about inaccurate statements.

My main concern is that you posted something that was completely untrue.  I am sure that Blum was aware that the Soviets were spying on the US well before 1947, it has nothing to do with your source, it has everything to do with your misuse of it.  Just as I'm sure that Tolkachev wasn't responsible for the US 'domination of the skies over Europe', which is in itself pure conjecture since the US and the Soviets never went to war in Europe.  There were far more factors involved than just one spy, for the US superiority over much of the Soviet military equipment, aircraft and everything else.

I am casting aspersions on you because of your glib statements that are a bit inaccurate, that's all, nothing personal.

Wiki is a great place to get some initial sources on just about everything.  Of course, the information gathered must be viewed with some level of skepticism.  

Criticizing wiki as a source with nothing more is quite ridiculous.  The internet has an advantage over "books" in that information can be updated very quickly. 

When I was in Moscow, I noticed that the Russians are quite comfortable trashing many horrors of their history such as Stalin, Ivan IV, etc.  

But when it comes to Crimea, Russians act like it is a well settled fact that the Crimeans fairly voted to secede from the Ukraine due to it being occupied mostly by Russians.  Russians also make the case that it is the US with bases all around Russia, not vice versa.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

So...we have established precedent at the supreme court level that Trump should have complied.

You made our case for us. Thank you.

Or are you expecting that the Democrats should be required to re-litigate something that is already established in case law to give Donny time to throw the election again with his Russian pals?

Trump didn't even bother to claim privilege, he just gave Congress the finger and told them to get fucked. Some might call that contempt...

Trump should have complied with what specifically?  

Share this post


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

All of the above are your opinions on Trump policy.   We should never impeach a president over policy disagreements.  

Blatant violations of the emoluments clause are just a "policy" issue? 

On the contrary, they are corrupt practices - and impeachable

what an idiot 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wiki is a great place to get some initial sources on just about everything.  Of course, the information gathered must be viewed with some level of skepticism.  

Criticizing wiki as a source with nothing more is quite ridiculous.  The internet has an advantage over "books" in that information can be updated very quickly. 

When I was in Moscow, I noticed that the Russians are quite comfortable trashing many horrors of their history such as Stalin, Ivan IV, etc.  

But when it comes to Crimea, Russians act like it is a well settled fact that the Crimeans fairly voted to secede from the Ukraine due to it being occupied mostly by Russians.  Russians also make the case that it is the US with bases all around Russia, not vice versa.

 

 

Book shave an advantage over the internet many ways.  It is easy to find a thoroughly reviewed book by a reputable author.  The internet including Wikipedia is full of false information.  Reading a few pages at most, usually less on Wikipedia is hardly the same as reading many books.  Historical information is rarely updated 'quickly', even on the internet.  It's history, it happened in the past.  There is rarely a compelling need to update it quickly.  The one thing the internet is good for updating quickly is misinformation.

There wasn't anybody in the Soviet Union that liked Stalin.  Even his own daughter didn't like him.  His closet cronies didn't like him.  So to say that the Russians today happily trash Stalin is hardly a surprise.

If you want to believe Uncle Vlad's propaganda about Crimea, go ahead.  Crimea belongs to Ukraine.  Putin invaded the country and annexed Ukraine, much like Hitler annexed Austria and the Czech Sudetenland prior to the start of WW II.  And for the same reason.  Oh, there are ethnic Germans living there that want to be part of the Fatherland.  The international conventions governing the rights of sovereign countries don't allow dictators or anyone else to annex parts of, or  entire countries just because they want them.  I am not aware of what the Ukraine constitution says about what happens if a portion of the country wants to leave, if it's even possible, but I doubt the way it happened in Crimea was in the least bit legitimate.  

The US has around 65,000 troops all over Europe including in Turkey.  At the height of the Cold War there were about 400,000.  The US has no troops in any country that borders on Russia.  Russia has over 1 million troops on active duty and another 2.5 million in the reserves.  I think Russia's crying is more bull shit.

So you were in Russia. Now you are defending Russia and it's propaganda.  You support Trump to extreme lengths.  Suddenly it's all starting to make sense, nyet?

Share this post


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

If you want to believe Uncle Vlad's propaganda about Crimea, go ahead.

So you were in Russia. Now you are defending Russia and it's propaganda.  You support Trump to extreme lengths.  Suddenly it's all starting to make sense, nyet?

By what reading of my post would anyone in their right mind believe that I believe "Uncle Vlad's propaganda" or interpret that I am defending it?

Is all of your knowledge formulated like this?  

Yes, it is starting to make sense now.

Share this post


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

Investigating Biden for corruption is "cheating" in an election, but removing the President from the ballot is not interfering in an election.

That is the kind of logic you get here at PA.

You mean impeaching a duly elected president, don't you?  Every president who has been impeached has been duly elected.  Trump isn't so special after all.

Share this post


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

Incorrect. What the heads of departments DO is a matter of policy. The Constitution prescribes the process for having people run the top agencies of the US gov't. Trump is not only not following it, he's circumventing it. That's not policy, that's a crime.

Actually it's two crimes, for a person who has a sworn duty.

- DSK

Nonsense...Department bureaucrats are un-elected and have no policy making authority. Trump is the elected president and all authority in the executive branch flows from him.  He does not follow bureaucrats they follow him and the notion the he can circumvent them betrays a fundamental ignorance about how the government works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, jzk said:

By what reading of my post would anyone in their right mind believe that I believe "Uncle Vlad's propaganda" or interpret that I am defending it?

Is all of your knowledge formulated like this?  

Yes, it is starting to make sense now.

 

54 minutes ago, jzk said:

But when it comes to Crimea, Russians act like it is a well settled fact that the Crimeans fairly voted to secede from the Ukraine due to it being occupied mostly by Russians.  Russians also make the case that it is the US with bases all around Russia, not vice versa.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

what an idiot 

Flatterer.

Share this post


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

I don't make 'authoritative' general statements

If you interpreted my statements as being authoritative, that came from you, not me.  I never said I was an authority on the subject but many of the authors I have read are.

Can we play nice now?

Share this post


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

If you interpreted my statements as being authoritative, that came from you, not me.  I never said I was an authority on the subject but many of the authors I have read are.

Can we play nice now?

I had the feeling you were stating and supporting an authoritative fact.  Of course I could be wrong.

Now that I had the last word, I am more than willing to end the circular discussion, no problem.   ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

 

When you read books, do any of them teach you the English language?  I told you how Russians "act."  I didn't say what I believe or endorse their "act" in any way.  Are you ill?

Share this post


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

When you read books, do any of them teach you the English language?  I told you how Russians "act."  I didn't say what I believe or endorse their "act" in any way.  Are you ill?

I will say that you didn't wave the Russian flag, but you certainly didn't condemn their actions either.  I stand by my statement. Carry on comrade.

Share this post


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

I will say that you didn't wave the Russian flag, but you certainly didn't condemn their actions either.  I stand by my statement. Carry on comrade.

I said they act as if something were a well settled fact.  That clearly implies that it isn't a well settled fact.  I did take a picture of my daughter waving the Russian flag.  Is that ok?

Share this post


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

Nonsense...Department bureaucrats are un-elected and have no policy making authority. Trump is the elected president and all authority in the executive branch flows from him.  He does not follow bureaucrats they follow him and the notion the he can circumvent them betrays a fundamental ignorance about how the government works.

Yeah?

Please point out the Constitutional amendment that removed the responsibility of advising and consenting for Presidential appointment to national-level authority?

Nothing I said suggests that Trump should follow bureaucrats, that's just spinning bullshit.

- DSK

Share this post


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

I said they act as if something were a well settled fact.  That clearly implies that it isn't a well settled fact.  I did take a picture of my daughter waving the Russian flag.  Is that ok?

Is she trying to get appointed to a Cabinet position by Trump?

Waving a Russian flag is a good start.

- DSK

Share this post


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

I said they act as if something were a well settled fact.  That clearly implies that it isn't a well settled fact.  I did take a picture of my daughter waving the Russian flag.  Is that ok?

Sure, whatever.

Post the pic or it didn't happen! (never mind if your daughter is under 18. I might be ill but I'm not sick.)

Share this post


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

Sure, whatever.

Post the pic or it didn't happen! (never mind if your daughter is under 18. I might be ill but I'm not sick.)

You are going to have to take my word for it.  If you ever do get to Moscow, check out the subway system.  Each subway station is a completely different work of art, like its own museum.  I spent an entire day just going from station to station.  

IMG_20180202_081546.jpg

IMG_20180202_071042.jpg

Share this post


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

You are going to have to take my word for it.  If you ever do get to Moscow, check out the subway system.  Each subway station is a completely different work of art, like its own museum.  I spent an entire day just going from station to station.  

IMG_20180202_081546.jpg

IMG_20180202_071042.jpg

Very ironic that you praise Moscow's subway when you are stridently (one might say virulently) against public investment in infrastructure in the USA

Not surprising, though

- DSK

Share this post


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

Very ironic that you praise Moscow's subway when you are stridently (one might say virulently) against public investment in infrastructure in the USA

Not surprising, though

- DSK

You think I advocate forcing slave labor in a communist society to build subway stations such as these?  I don't remember saying that.  I don't advocate building Egyptian pyramids either, but I would think they are worth a look if you ever happen to get there.

Share this post


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

You think I advocate forcing slave labor in a communist society to build subway stations such as these?  I don't remember saying that.  I don't advocate building Egyptian pyramids either, but I would think they are worth a look if you ever happen to get there.

Your pardon, I thought you were praising them.

The pyramids (and the Sphinx, don't forget) are indeed worth a look. Back when I saw them, they were still surrounded by desert.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Your pardon, I thought you were praising them.

The pyramids (and the Sphinx, don't forget) are indeed worth a look. Back when I saw them, they were still surrounded by desert.

- DSK

Hey, no problem.  But as I was saying, the Moscow subway stations are also worth a look.  But I do pity the poor souls that were forced to build them.  Same goes with beautiful cathedrals in Europe.

Share this post


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

Hey, no problem.  But as I was saying, the Moscow subway stations are also worth a look.  But I do pity the poor souls that were forced to build them.  Same goes with beautiful cathedrals in Europe.

Shit, surely a sign of the end times, but I have to agree with you.

But I have seen enough fucking European cathedrals and churches in the last 55 years.  If I see another one, I will puke.

I'm an atheist but Martin Luther was right about many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:
25 minutes ago, jzk said:

Hey, no problem.  But as I was saying, the Moscow subway stations are also worth a look.  But I do pity the poor souls that were forced to build them.  Same goes with beautiful cathedrals in Europe.

Shit, surely a sign of the end times, but I have to agree with you.

But I have seen enough fucking European cathedrals and churches in the last 55 years.  If I see another one, I will puke.

I'm an atheist but Martin Luther was right about many things.

 

We don't have 1,000 year old cathedrals around here, and quite a shortage of Roman ruins too, so I cheerfully gawk at them when I get the chance. I also have a couple hundred gigs of photos of gargoyles, but that's a different topic....

We also have tobacco curing barns around here, but we don't have ones like they do in Indonesia. And we don't double-crop rice and tobacco. Interesting place.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites