Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3469 of 4573 (864669)
10-14-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3467 by dwise1
10-14-2019 1:07 PM


Re: Trump's Horrid Video ...
Looks like something a teenager or adolescent would have patched together. The making of the video is not so much the question, but rather the motivation of this grossly misnamed "American Priority" group in showing it at their conference.
Apparently this is what passes for humor for some conservative people.
Admittedly, that is the absolutely best scenario. If destroying America would get him more money, then he would not hesitate. Nor if it would offer him revenge against anyone who had ever criticized him or tried to hold him responsible for his actions.
And he want's to remake America so he can rule for another 12 years (or longer). He said so in Florida. All (any) of that takes destroying America to accomplish.
I no longer give him any benefit of doubt. He sold state secrets to Saudi Arabia right after they murdered khashoggi so they could work on a nuclear bomb. Now he's sending US troops there to do Saudi dirty work.
He's turning Syria over the the Russians.
He's chipping away at all environmental regulations.
He's taking money from the treasury to give to people who don't need it while taking it and services away from those that do.
He is a traitor.
It certainly is Putin's goal.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3467 by dwise1, posted 10-14-2019 1:07 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3470 by dwise1, posted 10-14-2019 2:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3472 of 4573 (864678)
10-14-2019 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3462 by Percy
10-14-2019 8:54 AM


Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3462 by Percy, posted 10-14-2019 8:54 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 3495 of 4573 (864759)
10-16-2019 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3494 by JonF
10-16-2019 9:37 AM


Re: Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Trump did not explicitly and clearly state what the quid pro quo was. ...
Actually just asking a foreign country for help with your election is against the law, the bullying/extortion over the weapons was/is icing on the cake -- a second crime on top of the first -- especially as congress had approved the weapons and withholding them was due only to Humpty Dumpty wanting to use them as leverage on the new Ukrainian President.
Publicly asking China to also provide help with his campaign is also against the law. China's rebuff was poetic.
It was also NOT about corruption, rather obviously as no other investigation on corruption exists.
What he meant was glaringly obvious to many of the people listening to the call and anyone who reads the "transcript" with an open mind. A group which does not include you. (ICANT)
and many other conservatives that think this monster is god's gift to America. ICANT is not alone in their blindness.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3494 by JonF, posted 10-16-2019 9:37 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3499 by ICANT, posted 10-16-2019 11:39 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3533 of 4573 (865626)
10-28-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3532 by ICANT
10-28-2019 12:46 PM


Because
If the house were to recommend impeaching Trump today the Senate would never convict him (that takes 67 votes) so why waste the time and run the risk of losing the majority in the house?
Because it is the right thing to do, and because it is their job.
It only takes 10 "turncoats" and there are rumored 20 republicans that are undecided.
If the house were NOT to recommend impeaching Trump today, whatever the Senate would decide, why would anyone vote ever again?
I was a staunch democrat until the early ninties and I realized the party had left my views that I supported. So I left the party.
If today's republican party fits your views, you were never a democrat.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3532 by ICANT, posted 10-28-2019 12:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3540 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2019 2:16 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3543 of 4573 (865712)
10-29-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3540 by ICANT
10-29-2019 2:16 PM


Re: Because
Because there is a presidential election in 369 days.
The people voted Trump in and they can vote him out, if they want him out.
That is still an option if the Senate does not convict him of his many crimes and misdemeanors in spite of the evidence already public.
But if the house fails to impeach it will be seen as an ineffectual party that is functionally no different than the GOP and just as corrupted by corporate interests. A lot of people already feel this way, saying there is no difference between the parties. Certainly this appears true when you consider neo-libs like Clinton and DINOs in the DNC that rigged the last election against Bernie.
If today's republican party fits your views, you were never a democrat.
There are a lot of old democrats that would disagree with you.
Tell me what current GOP party behavior is like old DEM party behavior you supported. Caging Children? Preventing people from voting? Perhaps it is racism?
I did not leave the beliefs I had in the 50's, and the 60'. The democratic party left their core beliefs they held back then.
What were they, and how are they part of the current GOP ore beliefs?
I find some republicans just as revolting as the democrats. ...
There are very few that I don't find revolting, and I generally them more revolting than the corporate corrupted DINOs.
... But this president has done more for the poor man than any president in my lifetime.
Curiously I am not aware of a single thing he has done for the poor man ... other that "liberate" poor white racism.
Certainly not wages. Certainly not healthcare and other benefits that he has cut. Certainly not Veteran's care, where he is stealing money from their approved funding to build his stupid ineffectual ridiculous fantasy wall.
Perhaps you could enlighten me: Tell me what he has done. Detail it. Good luck.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3540 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2019 2:16 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3544 of 4573 (865720)
10-29-2019 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3541 by ICANT
10-29-2019 2:53 PM


Impeaching Dumbty The Right Thing To DO
ICANT writes:
By doing what the democrats are doing they are running the same risk that the republicans did with the Clinton impeachment. They lost control of the house because of the backlash from the people with their vote.
And by failing to do "what the democrats are doing" they run the risk of losing control of the house as they are voted out for not doing their job.
quote:
Number of Americans supporting Trump impeachment is growing: poll
The number of Americans who now support impeaching President Trump is growing, according to a poll released this week.
A new poll from NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist found that 49 percent of Americans now approve of impeachment, with 46 percent saying they disapproved. The numbers show a 10-point jump in favor of impeachment from April, The Hill reported.
Other surveys from Politico-Morning Consult and Harvard CAPS-Harris also showed public support for impeachment rising.
quote:
Fox News Poll: Record support for Trump impeachment
Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.
A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.
Since July, support for impeachment increased among voters of all stripes: up 11 points among Democrats, 5 points among Republicans and 3 among independents. Support also went up among some of Trump’s key constituencies, including white evangelical Christians (+5 points), white men without a college degree (+8), and rural whites (+10).
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
That's FAUX NOISE NUTWERK, not CNN, for frack sake, the network that went to court to get permission to lie about whatever they wanted to.
By doing what the democrats are doing they are running the same risk that the republicans did with the Clinton impeachment. They lost control of the house because of the backlash from the people with their vote.
Prior to impeachment, how popular was Clinton vs Trump's current popularity? How many people (voters) were in favor of Clinton's impeachment vs Trump's?
quote:
Clinton’s impeachment barely dented his public support, and it turned off many Americans
The U.S. House’s impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s interactions with the president of Ukraine comes more than two decades after the last presidential impeachment crisis — the one that engulfed President Bill Clinton in 1998 and early 1999. The circumstances — factual, political and societal — were very different back then, and so was U.S. public opinion about the push for impeachment.
A quick review of the facts: In early 1998, rumors began circulating that Clinton had had a sexual relationship with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Clinton denied the allegations, both publicly and in a sworn deposition, but later admitted they were true. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation started as an inquiry into the Clintons’ financial dealings but broadened to other matters, argued that Clinton had committed perjury and obstructed justice by trying to influence the testimony of Lewinsky and other witnesses. The Republican-controlled House impeached Clinton on those charges, but in February 1999 the Senate — also led by Republicans — acquitted him.
One key difference between the Clinton impeachment and Richard Nixon’s experience a quarter-century earlier is that Clinton’s job approval ratings were already quite high before the scandal broke, and by and large they remained so. (Trump’s approval ratings have been fairly stable since the early days of his presidency, but at a considerably lower level — around 40% in a summer 2019 Pew Research Center survey.)
A Center survey taken shortly after Clinton’s Jan. 26, 1998, denial of the affair allegations found that 71% of Americans approved of how he was handling his job as president, 10 percentage points higher than a survey taken just before the scandal broke. Clinton benefited from widespread support for his policies and skepticism about the media’s coverage of the allegations.
While that initial boost faded over time, Clinton’s approval rating in August 1998 was still a robust 62%, where it remained for months — throughout his admission of the affair, the release of the Starr report and the opening of impeachment proceedings. Clinton’s approval hit 71% again in mid-December, after the House vote to impeach him.
Clinton’s impeachment process was generally unpopular, according to Center surveys during that time. Roughly three-in-ten or fewer Americans supported impeaching Clinton throughout autumn 1998 and even into mid-December, just before the House did so anyway. Only later in 1999, after Clinton had been acquitted, did retrospective support for impeaching him reach a high of 44%. (Note that question wording on this issue differed by survey, so direct comparisons are imperfect.)
The Center’s results were consistent with polling by other organizations, which typically found between a quarter and a third of Americans favoring Clinton’s impeachment. That contrasted with the Watergate situation, which saw public support for Nixon’s impeachment steadily rise as more and more was learned about the scandal.
People in general did not care about the sexual behavior, considering it a personal matter that did not affect his job performance.
Here we have higher popularity for impeachment, popularity that is growing, and the charges are much more serious than personal sexual behavior -- getting bribes via his companies, favoring certain foreign countries for personal reasons contrary to US foreign policy (Ukraine), etc. plus a lot of people are fed up with his childish brat behavior, lack of leadership and failure to confront climate change. His behavior with Putin appears treasonous, and his caving to Recep Tayyip Erdoan was seen as pathetic, spineless, and a total betrayal of allies, and linked to his having two hotel properties in Turkey making a HUGE conflict of interest. Similar with Putin. This is national betrayal rather that sexual behavior. This has adversely affected relations with ALL our allies.
Meanwhile:
quote:
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Donald Trump
The approval ratings reported here are based on Gallup Daily tracking averages for President Donald Trump in 2017 and 2018, and periodic multiday polls for Trump starting in 2019. Learn more.
Donald Trump's Presidential Job Approval Ratings
Approval rating Dates
%
Latest job approval rating 39 Oct 1-13, 2019
Term average to date 40 Jan 20, 2017-present
Highest job approval rating to date 46 Apr 17-30, 2019
Lowest job approval rating to date 35 four times, last on Dec 11-17, 2017
Donald Trump's Presidential Job Approval Ratings -- Historical Comparisons
Average for U.S. presidents 53 1938-2019
Average for elected presidents' 12th quarter 52 various
Other elected presidents in October of third year
Barack Obama 41 October 2011
George W. Bush 55 October 2003
Bill Clinton 48 October 1995
George H.W. Bush 64 October 1991
Ronald Reagan 47 October 1983

Prior to impeachment, how popular was Clinton vs Trump's current popularity? About 71% vs 39%
How many people (voters) were in favor of Clinton's impeachment vs Trump's? About 30% vs 55%
Big difference.
... There are 46 no votes already committed to in the Senate. I...
Before they have even been presented with the evidence? Fascinating. Looks like a good reason to vote those senators out if they don't even consider the evidence before making an unpopular vote.
Curiously, I think when it comes to an actual vote, a lot of GOP senators will be looking over their shoulders at the public reactions from their districts and worry about getting re-elected if they don't vote for what their constituents want. I expect the democrat contenders to hold the GOP feet to the fire on this ... and it looks like the timing has been arranged by Pelosi to accomplish just that scenario.
We'll see when the evidence becomes public and the public reacts. Remember that once they have made the vote in the house that the Administrations pathetic stonewalling on subpoenas becomes null and void: they will have to comply and testify of go to jail.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3541 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2019 2:53 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3545 of 4573 (865724)
10-29-2019 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3541 by ICANT
10-29-2019 2:53 PM


impeachment
RAZD's math needs a little work as I said it takes 67 votes in the Senate to impeach the President. There are 46 no votes already committed to in the Senate. ...
To begin with the US constitution requires
quote:
Article 1
Section 2
5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3
6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So indictments for other crimes can be made if he is removed from office either by impeachment or by the November election.
... There are 46 no votes already committed to in the Senate. ...
Curiously I have different information:
quote:
30 Republican Senators might vote to impeach Trump if the ballot were secret, GOP source says
  • Mike Murphy, who helped run presidential campaigns for senators John McCain and Mitt Romney, said as many as 30 Republican senators would vote to remove President Trump from the White House if the ballot were kept secret.
  • The impeachment vote will not be a secret ballot, however.
  • That leaves many GOP senators trapped between bad choices: Vote in favor of impeachment and risk the wrath of Trump voters; or vote against impeachment and risk losing moderate voters who are tired of Trump's antics.
As many as 30 Republican senators would vote for the impeachment of US President Donald Trump over his request for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, said a top GOP strategist during a cable TV news segment Wednesday night.
So I would say at this point that any counting of senate votes is premature and irrelevant. Especially as there will be a much longer list of misdoings than just the Ukrain issue.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3541 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2019 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3546 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2019 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3548 of 4573 (865736)
10-29-2019 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3546 by ICANT
10-29-2019 9:01 PM


Re: impeachment
Good to see you did realize that it takes 67 votes to convict a President of high crimes and misdemeanors.
I've never said otherwise.
Do you actually think anyone of the 46 Senators that signed Lindsey Grahams resolution will change their mind?
Do you think that anyone who votes before seeing the actual evidence should be re-elected? Do you think they are honorable or represent values you have?
And I await your answer to Message 3544.
This is no highly popular Clinton getting BJs from an intern not affecting the US Government operation impeachment. It's a bit more serious than that, don't you think?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3546 by ICANT, posted 10-29-2019 9:01 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3552 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 11:44 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 3550 of 4573 (865739)
10-29-2019 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3418 by Percy
10-11-2019 7:40 AM


please change subtitles ... Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
So I sometimes look back to find the first message of a certain subtitle that keeps popping up even though the posts no longer have any relevance to it.
Perhaps subtitles should expire after a certain number of replies....
... or a person replying should have to click a "RE:" button to have it used.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3418 by Percy, posted 10-11-2019 7:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3570 by Percy, posted 11-02-2019 3:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3559 of 4573 (865769)
10-30-2019 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3552 by ICANT
10-30-2019 11:44 AM


Re: impeachment
Hi RAZD
RAZD writes:
Do you think that anyone who votes before seeing the actual evidence should be re-elected? Do you think they are honorable or represent values you have?
You have already voted for impeachment as has most of the democratic party.
You didn't answer my questions: do you that anyone who votes before seeing the actual evidence should be re-elected? Do you think they are honorable or represent values you have?
What I have said is that several actions taken by Trump are sufficient to start the impeachment process. The emoluments clause in the constitution for one. I have not seen all the evidence.
So those senators have the same information that you have and have made the determination that there is no impeachable offense.
They have not seen all the evidence yet. They have not even seen the criminal charges. The GOP is pretending that the evidence is insufficient by attacking the witnesses, not the actual evidence. That's ad hominem and basically admitting a losing position. There is a big difference between saying evidence supports an impeachment and saying whether or not it supports removal of the President.
Could you name just one impeachable offense?
Emoluments clause -- making a profit off foreigners for personal gain through hotels and golf courses
Obstruction of justice -- detailed in the Mueller report
Obstruction of congress -- failure to comply with subpoenas to furnish evidence
Treason -- giving classified information and favor to an enemy state (Russia) against Congressional approval, not enforcing sanctions approved by bipartisan Congress with > veto votes
Treason -- giving classified information to a foreign state (nuclear bomb building information to Saudi Arabia) against Congressional approval
Election law violations -- asking other countries for help in his election, Russia, Ukraine, China.
Hillary and the DNC bought and paid for the phony Russian dossier to interfere with the 2016 election, not Trump.
The original contract was with never-Trump Republicans. It has not been proven phony yet.
I have read the phone transcript and there is no impeachable offense in it. Muller did not find an impeachable offense.
False. He said he could not acquit Trump of obstruction of justice and that it was up to congress to determine whether or not the evidence was impeachable. He said he could not charge Trump because of DOJ policy not because of lack of evidence.
Just because he beat Hillary in an election is not an impeachable offense. Although the day after the votes were counted the impeachment was declared to have begun.
False. What action was taken in the GOP controlled house to impeach him? What evidence do you have? There was talk that he was in violation of the emoluments clause, but it was not in congress which is where declarations of impeachment occur.
If no one in the Ukraine government knew anything about money being withheld for any reason and Zelinsky said he did not feel pressured in any way ...
While sitting in public next to Trump, who pats him on the knee. He looked uncomfortable to me. Countries where corruption is rampant are familiar with this behavior and accept as the cost of doing business.
... where in the conversation is there an impeachable offense?
Trump: "I want you do do us a favor though" investigate Biden and you can have the aid previously approved by the US Congress but held back by Trump. Seeking foreign aid in an election is against federal election law.
And we now know that the "transcript" that is not a transcript was edited to take out even more damaging information.
You should read this about the phone call:
quote:
Letter: Read the Ukraine transcript
If you haven’t had an opportunity to read the transcript of the phone call between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, let me suggest you invest a few minutes and do so. Just Google it; it’s not very long and it’s a real eye-opener. As I read through it, two things in particular struck me:
First, I was stunned by the drooling obsequiousness with which Mr. Zelensky addressed Mr. Trump. This fawning flattery would have been embarrassingly obvious to all but the most self-deluded narcissist. Clearly, Mr. Zelensky knew his audience.
But more important, I noted how clearly the connection between restoration of military aid and Trump’s desire for Ukraine’s help in investigating Biden was very obviously intended to be understood by Zelensky. Once the discussion finally turned from Trump’s many fine qualities to military aid, Zelensky concluded his pitch by saying, We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. To this, Trump responded immediately, I would like you to do us a favor though Trump does not preface this by saying, On an unrelated matter or apropos of nothing, or even by the way
We have all heard Trump’s request for a favor quoted in the news, but no one seems to bother include the word though, which I think is a significant part of the statement. That is unfortunate, as when read in its entirety, it is painfully clear that Trump wanted Zelensky to understand that this is a quid pro quo, related to the military aid of which they had just been speaking. Zelensky makes very clear to Trump that he intends to help out with the Biden thing, then goes on to close with more dripping flattery, and a comparison of their respective big kahuna presidential jets before ending the call.
and from Faux Noise Nutwerk:
Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document
See bottom of page 2 and top of page 3.
quote:
Here’s the full, declassified memorandum of Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
(S/NF) President Zelenskyy: ... I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
(S/NF) The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
(S/NF) President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.
(S/NF) The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
How does request for more arms turn into a discussion of Biden and a favor for Trump?
We now know that those ellipses represent additional information that has not been publicly shared.
If no one in the Ukraine government knew anything about money being withheld for any reason and Zelinsky said he did not feel pressured in any way where in the conversation is there an impeachable offense?
Because they did know, because Giuliani has said he told them.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3552 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 11:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3563 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 4:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3562 of 4573 (865782)
10-30-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3561 by Taq
10-30-2019 3:07 PM


Ukraine & Trump election assistance
Doesn't change the fact that Biden has the support of Congress and our allies when he pushed for the firing of Shokin.
Does not change the fact that Trump was looking for US internal election assistance from a foreign country in violation of federal election law. Biden was not doing that no matter how the GOPers spin it.
Doesn't change the fact that Ivanka, Eric, Little Don, Jared Kushner and Barr's son are not that different from the hiring of son Biden ... if one is corruption then the other is as well, and if Dumbty is honestly looking for corruption he need look no further than the white house
Don't get distracted
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3561 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 3:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3565 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 5:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3564 of 4573 (865794)
10-30-2019 5:25 PM


Trump a danger to the world, socialism favored by younger voters
quote:
Americans of all ages see Trump as bigger threat to world peace than Putin or Kim
Gen Z Millennial Gen X Boomer Silent
Donald Trump 26% 28% 25% 27% 27%
Kim Jong-un 25 17 24 25 17
Vladmir Putin 12 16 14 16 19
Xi Jinping 10 9 11 17 22
Nicols Maduro 6 9 3 3 2
Data: YouGov, Victims of Communism; Note: Number of Gen Z respondents: 303, Millennial: 554, Gen X: 494, Boomer: 587, Silent: 162; Table: Axios Visuals
Americans across all generations have something in common: They are more likely to say President Trump is a bigger threat to world peace than North Korea's Kim Jong-un, Russia's Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping or Venezuela's Nicols Maduro, according to a new YouGov poll for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit educational group.
Why it matters: Those of all ages see the president the leader of the free world as equally or more dangerous to global peace than dictators with histories of oppression and human rights violations.
Go deeper: 70% of millennials say they'd vote for a socialist
(See link for more information on capitalism and socialism popularity for different age groups.)
So 1 in 4 see Trump as a threat to world peace ... in all age groups ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 3566 of 4573 (865818)
10-31-2019 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3563 by ICANT
10-30-2019 4:48 PM


impeachment is evidence gathering, not a trial
... you have already convicted Trump of an impeachable offense. ...
Gathering information on evidence of wrong doing is not convicting. There is no conviction until the senate votes.
But I'm glad you think the actions listed are bad.
He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.
Evidence for this claim is ...? His tax returns?
You can lose money in one business and make a profit in another. The fact that he profits from using his golf resorts and having the taxpayers pay for it and his staff etc. is still counter to the emoluments clause no matter how much he loses in other businesses (he, after all, is a known business failure with many bankruptcies to his name)
No charges of obstruction was presented.
The report listed several instances of obstruction, but said that DOJ policy to not charge a sitting president prevented him from making charges so they were left for congress to deal with.
quote:
Mueller Said He Would Have Exonerated Trump On Obstruction If The Evidence Supported It, But He Couldn’t
WASHINGTON Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote in his final report that his office would have exonerated President Donald Trump if the evidence had supported it, but based on the information they had, they could not do that.
Mueller ultimately declined to make a prosecutorial judgment about whether Trump had committed any obstruction offenses, choosing instead to submit his evidence and legal analysis on the issue to Attorney General Bill Barr. Mueller repeatedly found substantial evidence that Trump had committed potentially obstructive acts and that often his intent was to stymie the investigation into himself and his campaign. Barr, after consulting with senior Justice Department officials, concluded that the evidence did not support finding that Trump had committed a crime, however.
Undercutting Trump’s claim that Mueller, in addition to Barr, had cleared him of wrongdoing on obstruction, Mueller wrote that if his office had confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction, we would so state. But based on the facts and the law, he wrote, we were unable to reach that judgment.
The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred, Mueller wrote. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
The obstruction section of the report, when read as a whole, depicts an administration in which Trump’s impulsive responses to the events unfolding around him routinely put him at odds with his senior aides and White House lawyers. It describes several instances where top officials simply ignored directives from the president or those close to him in order to avoid taking action that they believed was ill-advised or, more seriously, could undermine his own administration.
Former White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out Trump’s order to contact the Justice Department about Trump’s concerns that Mueller had a conflict of interest because McGahn and other advisers thought it was silly. When Trump decided to fire former FBI director James Comey, one White House aide wrote in her notes, ‘[i]s this the beginning of the end? in reference to his presidency.
The report shows that White House officials were aware early on that however they responded to the Russia investigation could raise questions about attempts to obstruct justice. After then—attorney general Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in March 2017 because of his role in Trump’s campaign, the White House counsel’s office tried to limit communication between the White House and Sessions, with one note from the office reading, Serious concerns about obstruction.
Mueller wrote that historical guidance from the Justice Department against indicting a sitting president in part guided his decision not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment about whether Trump committed obstruction. The Office of Legal Counsel had previously issued an opinion that the indictment of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the functions of the executive branch, and Mueller said he recognized that independently as well.
And we know that Barr lied about the report.
The executive and the congress are co-equal branches of government.
If the congress wants to make Trump comply all they have to do is take him to court and let the court decide. They haven't because they are afraid the court will support Trumps decision.
Actually it is in the courts
quote:
The Justice Department Argued Congress Can’t Force Senior Trump Advisers To Testify And That There’s Nothing Courts Can Do About It
The legal fight involves the Mueller report and tests an immunity argument that the Trump administration is making to block potential witnesses from testifying in the impeachment inquiry.
The case involves a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee to former White House counsel Don McGahn. It predates House Democrats’ formal announcement of an impeachment inquiry into Trump, but represents the first test in court since Trump took office of an argument the administration is pushing to stymie the impeachment inquiry: that current and former senior White House officials have absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas.
Over nearly four hours of arguments, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson repeatedly expressed skepticism as Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the courts lacked authority to intervene in a fight over congressional demands for information. Like the immunity argument, the role of the courts also bears on Democrats’ impeachment inquiry there’s already one lawsuit filed by a potential impeachment witness asking a judge to decide if he has to comply with a subpoena or go with the White House’s claim of immunity.
So what does checks and balances mean? Jackson asked. How can the legislature actually exercise oversight with respect to the executive unless it has some ability to enforce its inquiries, its commandments with respect to ‘give me information’?
The Justice Department has previously acknowledged that the significance of the McGahn case extends beyond the Mueller probe. In a lawsuit brought earlier this month by Charles Kupperman, the former acting national security adviser in the Trump administration subpoenaed to testify in the impeachment inquiry, the Justice Department told a judge earlier this week that the case raises a number of issues that may overlap with the issues presented in the McGahn fight.
A ruling from a single district court judge isn’t binding on any other judge in the DC federal court, but judges do pay attention to what their colleagues do when presented with similar issues. Whoever loses at this stage of the McGahn case is expected to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. From there, the losing side could petition the Supreme Court to get involved.
So I strongly urge you (and other readers) to read this article in full, it could be very pivotal to the whole issue of balance of power.
And they are still working on other witnesses. Funny how there are so many people that are convicted of illegal behavior, plus so many willing to testify under oath if there is no there there. Funny how the Administration is scrambling to cover up information if there is no wrongdoing.
Veto votes are not treason, that is just the president disagreeing with congress. Trump has been tougher on Russia than any previous president. Especially the one that stated, you can tell putin that after the election I can be more flexable.
You're not reading -- that ">" means "greater than" -- the bipartisan votes for imposing sanctions on Russia exceeded the number needed to overturn a veto, and that means that he has to comply. He didn't.
Nuclear power plants are a long way from giving information on nuclear bomb making. Saudi Arabia could have nuclear bomb making information as simple as making a deal with North Korea, they have the money to buy anything they want.
Again, you are not getting it: the congress had voted to withhold the information, again bipartisan greater than veto proof, and he did it anyway.
This means he violated the constitution balance of power, again, and the rest of your excuse is irrelevant.
The closest I have seen to that is him telling Russia if they had Hillary's email's he would like to have them.
Then you are not looking. He asked both Ukraine and China to help him. It was on tv.
As far as asking a foreign government to investigate a US citizen's dealings in their country is not asking to help him in his election.
Except that the only citizen in question is linked directly to a candidate, and the information requested could be used against that candidate. It wasn't John Doe from Puxatauny NJ selling illegal cigarettes.
Get your head out of the sand. What RINO republican paid anything for the dossier?
Really?
quote:
Trump—Russia dossier
Research funded by conservative website
In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on several Republican presidential candidates, including Trump.[1] The Free Beacon and Singer were "part of the conservative never-Trump movement".[31] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016,[32] The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.[2][33]
In October 2017, the Free Beacon issued a statement:
All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.[34]
Although the source of the Steele dossier's funding had already been reported correctly over a year before,[2][33][35] and the Free Beacon had issued a statement to this effect in October 2017,[34] a February 2, 2018, story by the Associated Press (AP) contributed to confusion about its funding by stating that the dossier "was initially funded" by the Washington Free Beacon, so the AP posted a correction the next day: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it."[36]
Free Beacon started the process. Hillary's lawyer just paid to continue the investigations.
No prosecutor can acquit a suspect of anything as that is not their job. ...
Right. I should have said that Mueller could not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, because there was evidence of it and that he could not indict Trump on it because of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, so he was leaving it for Congress to pursue.
... A prosecutors job is to gather the evidence and then state he has enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution or that does not have enough evidence to proceed. He did not have enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.
No -- he was prevented from proceeding to indict/prosecute by DOJ policy regarding a sitting president.
Remember Barr just became AG and it was his firm belief that they could not prosecute a sitting president. Mueller had to comply with his new boss on this.
So I ask you now is there any statement in green that is soliciting military aid from Trump?
quote:
Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
Zelenskyy asks for the aid, and Trump responds
quote:
I would like you to do us a favor though ... I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Those ellipses (...) we now know omitted some information. Further, before saying anything about approving the foreign aid:
quote:
... I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
"It's very important that you do it ..." with still no mention of allowing the aid to proceed. The implication is clear: do this and we can talk about the aid. You have to be willingly blind not to see it.
On the other hand Biden said fire the prosecutor or you will not get the billion dollars. At the same time his Son Hunter sat on the board of a company the prosecutor was investigating and had been ordered to wind up the investigation.
Biden plus bipartisan congress plus US allies wanted the prosecutor fired because they were not investigating the rampant corruption.
Biden's actions is declared OK but Trumps requests for an investigation into things that took place involving US citizens in Ukraine is not OK.
Biden plus bipartisan congress plus US allies wanted the prosecutor fired because they were not investigating the rampant corruption. This did not involve US political campaigns, this did not involve asking them to investigate US citizens. Trumps request involving a single US citizen that is tied to a Dem candidate does involve US political campaigning, and Trump singled out Biden for investigation and that is what is not okay. See the distinction?
Let's look at the "corruption" involved ... Hunter Biden on the board of a company. What do we see that is similar or worse? Try the whole Trump family ... like Ivanka getting Chinese patents and exemption from Chinese tariffs?
I don't see any place in the transcript where Giuliani said anything.
Are you playing dumb? He was mentioned in the transcript as a contact, and he has since confirmed that he discussed the arms aid conditional on help with the "favor" ... on tv. Keep trying, the evidence keeps mounting.
So you would impeach the president on what someone else said.
If by impeach you mean gather incriminating evidence sufficient to include in articles of impeachment to present in a senate hearing then yes. Clinton was impeached, then it went to the senate where he was not convicted.
Impeachment is like a grand jury hearing, gathering information, it is not a trial.
BTW I just saw Sen Manchin D WV say there had been no evidence presented so for to support impeachment. So he is presently a NO vote in the Senate.
He's a DINO and one of the worst DINOs in congress. He has voted with republicans more than democrats. What he says is worthless.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3563 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 4:48 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3568 by Percy, posted 11-01-2019 4:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3587 of 4573 (866442)
11-11-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3582 by Taq
11-07-2019 11:59 AM


two articles relating to impeachment hearing
The first applies to the republican obsession with diverting the discussion to Biden:
quote:
What Joe Biden Actually Did in Ukraine
When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed President Barack Obama to take decisive action, and fast, to make Moscow pay in blood and money for its aggression. The president, a Biden aide recalled, was having none of it.
Mr. Biden worked Mr. Obama during their weekly private lunches, imploring him to increase lethal aid, backing a push to ship FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Kiev. The president flatly rejected the idea and dispatched him to the region as an emissary, cautioning him about not overpromising to the Ukrainian government, Mr. Biden would later write in a memoir.
So, Mr. Biden threw himself into what seemed like standard-issue vice-presidential stuff: prodding Ukraine’s leaders to tackle the rampant corruption that made their country a risky bet for international lenders and pushing reform of Ukraine’s cronyism-ridden energy industry.
You have to be whiter than snow, or the whole world will abandon you, Mr. Biden told the country’s newly elected president, Petro O. Poroshenko, during an early 2014 phone call, according to former administration officials.
Mr. Giuliani has claimed, without evidence, that Mr. Biden’s push to oust Mr. Shokin was an attempt to block scrutiny of his son’s actions. In fact, Mr. Biden was just one of many officials calling for Mr. Shokin to go. Good-government activists were protesting his actions in the streets, as were eurozone power players like Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, along with Ms. Nuland and Senate Republicans.
Mr. Biden’s advisers say that he and his son had informally agreed years earlier not to discuss anything pertaining to the younger Mr. Biden’s business activities, as a way to insulate them both.
Bob Bauer, former Obama White House counsel and Biden adviser, said that even pressuring Hunter Biden to quit the board would have constituted a breach of that firewall, and suggested that was one of the reasons the vice president chose not to do it. The independent activities of an adult child simply don’t create a ‘conflict of interest’ for the parent who is a public official, he said. And as a matter of sound ethical practice, it is important for officials in this position to maintain that distance: to be able to show that, in doing their jobs, they could not have been affected by discussions or involvement with their adult children relating to private business matters. Their posture has to be, ‘Whatever you decide to do, I am going to do what I have to do.’
Mr. Biden has said he first learned of his son’s activities in Ukraine when the story broke in 2014. He told his son, I hope you know what you are doing, according to Hunter Biden’s account of their discussion in The New Yorker earlier this year.
If that settled matters between father and son, Hunter Biden’s activities struck many of the officials working on Ukraine policy as an unnecessary distraction, or worse. Mr. Biden’s own aides were so worried about the optics, they enlisted State Department officials to gather facts to determine how to handle the story, according to people who worked with his office.
Yet few, if any, had raised the issue with Mr. Biden directly when it first arose. Most viewed the revelation unseemly, but not illegal or a violation of ethics rules as simply not worth risking a scolding from Mr. Biden, who had reacted angrily when Mr. Obama’s aides raised the issue of his son’s lobbying during the 2008 campaign. One person who briefly discussed the matter with Mr. Biden said he was anguished by his son’s personal problems and unsure how to help him recover.
Hunter Biden is a red herring non-issue, only brought up to muddy the impeachment process (repubicans, it sems, do not have any other defense)
and
quote:
The Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Begins A New Phase This Week: What You Need To Know
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants are turning a new page in their impeachment inquiry this week based on a principle familiar to classics scholars: repetitio mater studiorum.
"Repetition is the mother of all learning."
For news audiences, key details about the Ukraine affair have been told, so far, twice: First, in leaked and preliminary accounts of what witnesses told investigators behind closed doors, and then in the full transcripts released last week of their depositions.
This week, some witnesses will tell their stories for a third time, in open hearings scheduled before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
On Wednesday, lawmakers are scheduled to hear testimony from two diplomats, William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
On Friday, the committee is scheduled to hear from the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled from her mission to Kyiv this spring in an important early stage of the Ukraine affair.
Pelosi, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and others believe they've now established the broad facts of the case, having confirmed and reconfirmed them from a number of witnesses.
Now they want some of the key actors to tell their stories once more in open testimony to try to shape public opinion.
More at link.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3582 by Taq, posted 11-07-2019 11:59 AM Taq has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3589 of 4573 (866532)
11-12-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3588 by Percy
11-11-2019 6:13 PM


There were two crimes revealed by the transcript.
What Trump did is more accurately described as extortion, which is using threats to force some action, often paying money, but it could be anything of value. Trump held the threat of withholding military aid over Ukraine's head in order to force them into a publicly announced investigation of his political rival for his own political advantage in the 2020 election.
That's the obvious one that everyone has focused on.
He was also asking a foreign government for assistance in his election, which is a crime according to federal election law. He has also blatantly done this with Russia and China. On TV.
... and there was absolutely no quid pro quo. Trump has been right about this all along.
Trump is very good at revising the conversation by near truths.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3588 by Percy, posted 11-11-2019 6:13 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3590 by AZPaul3, posted 11-12-2019 1:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024