Wow!! First of all if those were all true it would be rather weak tea.
China purchasing crops from us.
quote:Jon Driedger is vice-president of LeftField Commodity Research. "From an ag perspective, there had been some pretty lofty numbers thrown around about the volumes of ag purchases that China would make from the U.S.," he said. "I think there was probably some headscratching about whether those volumes would be realistic, since they exceeded anything that China had been purchasing previously. The actual deal that was signed had volumes that would be maybe described a little bit more realistic in terms of the amount of purchases but pretty sparse on the details."
quote:China has pledged to buy $50 billion more in U.S. energy supplies, and will raise U.S. agriculture purchases by some $32 billion over two years above 2017’s $24 billion baseline, according to a source briefed on the deal to be signed on Wednesday. The deal also stipulates purchases of an additional $80 billion in manufactured goods. Those totals would certainly trim the roughly $300 billion annual trade gap between the countries. However, analysts who study Chinese commodity flows remain skeptical that Beijing can absorb such quantities of U.S. goods without threatening trade ties with other suppliers, hurting its own domestic producers, and making substantial changes to import standards and quotas.
Reuters | Breaking International News & Views Maybe it should be pointed out to you, donnie is the reason they stopped buying crops in the first place. So no this is not a foreign policy victory. Maybe in the future, but right now our agricultural sector is in ruins thanks to little donnie.
North Korea Stopping it's saber rattling. News from yesteray.
quote:Recent satellite imagery shows vehicle activity at a critical North Korean missile site that could potentially signal early preparations for a missile or missile engine test, according to one administration official and three defense officials familiar with the latest US assessment.
Iran for the moment silent Really? Really? Maybe the 34 Us military members with traumatic brain injury feel differently about that. Oh and yes, donnie himself created the current Iran crisis.
quote:Thirty-four US soldiers have been diagnosed with concussion or traumatic brain injury from an 8 January Iranian missile attack on their base in Iraq, the Pentagon has revealed. The Pentagon spokesman, Jonathan Hoffman, said on Friday that eight service members who had been previously transported to Germany had been moved to the United States. Donald Trump had previously said that the US suffered no casualties from the attack, which was a reprisal for the US drone strike assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani. Questioned later about reports of brain injury, Trump downplayed their severity: I heard that they had headaches. And a couple of other things. But I would say, and I can report, it is not very serious.
Great reduction in illegals coming through our border thanks to a deal he made with Mexico. Which has created a humanitarian crisis and is in violation of US laws and international treaties.
Care to try again?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
My wife drove a Prius for 10 years. We are in the Lake Superior snow belt. It was quite good in snow with snow tires for a small front wheel drive vehicle. That being said we decided to upgrade to AWD. We considered the new AWD Prius, but it was a first year model with it in 2019 and XM radio is not available in any trim level for the AWD Prius. As we live in the country and near a small city(Duluth, MN), radio station selection is quite sparse, so satellite radio is a must have. We went with a Subaru Legacy. Decent gas mileage, but no where near the Prius.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Then it's extortion or coercion. It isn't nothing.
...and if there's any quid pro quo involved it's entirely within normal practice,...
A quid pro quo trading something in our national interest for something in the Ukraine national interest is very legitimate. But a quid pro quo trading something that benefits the president's personal election campaign for something in the Ukraine national interest is a high crime, one of the most serious breaches of the presidential oath of office possible, and a peril the framers most feared.
...though it's not clear yet that there was any quid pro quo at all since Ukraine promised nothing and still got the aid.
Yes, Ukraine managed to stay clear of interference in a US presidential election by refusing to accede to Trump administration pressure to announce an investigation into the Bidens and the Democrats, and Trump released the aid after his scheme was exposed. To use an analogy, one is not innocent of bank robbery because one got caught during the robbery instead of after.
Anyway if there was any corruption involved in the Biden situation it was quite right of Trump to ask for it to be investigated...
Corruption investigations begin when some bit of evidence comes to light that indicates corruption. What is that bit of evidence?
...and since Biden was NOT a political opponent...
Trump most certainly considered Joe Biden a serious political opponent, the most likely nominee of the Democratic party in the 2020 election. Look at all those tweets about "sleepy Joe Biden. Here's an example from late last year:
...the idea that Trump's motive was personal is totally bogus.
Your ability to tell truth from fiction is what is totally bogus. Manuscripts of Bolton's book have now come to light (ironically the leaks apparently come from the White House) revealing that Trump was fixated on Joe Biden and wanted him investigated by the Ukraine, coercing them to do it by withholding aid. From Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times:
quote:President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton. ... In the manuscript, Mr. Bolton writes that Mr. Trump told him in August that he didn’t want to free up the aid until Ukraine turned over Russia investigation materials related to Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s opponent in 2016, and Mr. Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination this year.
He's SUPPOSED to be sure corruption gets investigated especially if aid is to be given.
What hint of corruption has Trump revealed that tells us the Bidens were up to something rotten, instead of that Trump just wanted to discredit a potential political rival in the upcoming election?
Ukraine has opened an investigation, but not into the Bidens. After Lev Parnas made public Mike Hyde's texts about surveilling Yovanovich, they're investigating possible violations of their national sovereignty by Trump operatives performing surveillance on the American Embassy and its ambassador.
The Trump administration is the most crooked and corrupt in American history.
I think it's extortion. What do you think illegally withholding aid and making an oval office visit contingent on compliance, all for his personal benefit should be called?
if there's any quid pro quo involved it's entirely within normal practice
No, it's normal practice to pressure other countries to further the interests of the United States or implement US policy. Trump's only interest was his campaign.
it's not clear yet that there was any quid pro quo at all since Ukraine promised nothing and still got the aid.
There was a quid pro quo as shown by Trump's phone call and the documented actions of several other people involved. As Sondland said under oath:
quote:I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,
Had the whistleblower not blown the gaff, Zelensky would have announced investigations on Fareed Zakaria's show in a few days, and God only knows what would have happened to the aid.
BUt that's all irrelevant. Attempted extortion is a crime. Trump did obstruct Congress in a legal an properly conducted investigation.
He's SUPPOSED to be sure corruption gets investigated especially if aid is to be given.
Corruption was investigated. In May the Pentagon officially announced Ukraine had made sufficient progress in fighting corruption to allow aid.
quote:On behalf of the secretary of defense, and in coordination with the secretary of state, I have certified that the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption and making other improvements, Rood wrote.
Rood wrote that his certification, legally required before the aid could be released, was based on insights gained in persistent U.S. engagement with Ukraine, including meetings between the U.S. defense secretary and his Ukrainian counterpart.
Trump obviously has no interest in corruption, just smearing the Bidens. His aids asked him to discuss corruption in his first call to Zelensky in March. He didn't. His aides asked him to discuss corruption in his infamous second. call. He didn't. He did say he wanted the Bidens investigated. As Schiff said:
"If the president was fighting corruption, if he wanted Europeans to pay more, why would he hide it from us?" Schiff said. "Why would he hide it from the Ukrainians? Why would he hide it from the rest of the world? If this was a desire for Europe to pay more, why wouldn't he charge Sondland to go ask Europe for more? Why wouldn't he be proud to tell the Congress of the United States, 'I'm holding up this aid, and I'm holding it up because I'm worried about corruption'?"
"Why wouldn't he? Because of course it wasn't true," Schiff said.
Can you answer those questions?
Finally, Trump has shown no interest in corruption in any other countries, and the alleged Biden misdeeds have been disproven long before the phone call.
Ah, yet another Faith fact-free frolic in the field.
Faith writes:
I'm sure that many do think Trump should be removed from office because they are deceived by the bogus claims of the impeachment machine.
We're guided by the testimony of eleven Trump administration witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee. You can find the committee's report here:
Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
. Please identify the bogus claims for us.
All ignorance, people just believing the rhetoric of know-nothings all out of sheer hatred of Trump for his political views.
The Trump administration officials who gave testimony before the House Intelligence Committee were:
Gordon Sondland
US Ambassador to the EU
Fiona Hill
Senior Direcogtr for Europe and Russia at the NSC
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman
NSC staff member for Ukraine policy
Timothy Morrison
NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia
Marie Yovanovich
former Ambassador to the Ukraine
David Holmes
State Department aide
Kurt Volker
Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Ambassador
Bill Taylor
former Ambassador to the Ukraine
Laura Cooper
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs
Jennifer Williams
Special Advisor to U.S. vice president Mike Pence on European and Russian Affairs
David Hale
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
None are know-nothings. They are all members of the Trump administration in positions of responsibility for administering our affairs with other countries, mostly Europe, the Ukraine and Russian.
Sad day in America when this sort of fraud on the American people can prevail.
The only thing prevailing is the flagrance of your lack of evidence for your claims, of how greatly your claims are contradicted by all available evidence, and of your lack of knowledge.
AND it might be noted, just the idea that there is anything positive or negative about a report that calls itself "news" says a lot about the deterioration of journalism which at one time proudly aimed for completely objective reporting and took pains to eliminate even the whiff of bias in its headlines and stories. Mark Levin's book "Unfreedom of the Press" reports on the history of how this perspective was lost and gave way to opinion masquerading as news.
How, for example, do you propose writing a headline about how Bolton's book says Trump has been lying?
I heard most of that testimony, Percy, it was a remarkable collection of opinion and hearsay, sometimes heard from a person who heard from another person and so on, and then the original person said he just assumed it, he had no facts. There was not one substantive piece of evidence in the entire collection. Somehow you took all that seriously?
quote:Three rockets struck the US Embassy compound in Baghdad on Sunday, leaving one person injured, a US official told CNN initial reports indicate.
The official said the injury was minor and the individual had since returned to duty.
Given that suspicion for the attack will be on Iran, and given that Trump doesn't want anything negative to be associated with his assassination of Soleimani, and given that the entire American government lives in fear of Trump retribution and desperately wants to avoid his crosshairs, I very much doubt this report of a single person injured who has already returned to duty. Naturally I have no way of knowing. I make this determination based on the record of lies the Trump administration has built in its three years. The article continues:
quote:A State Department spokesperson said Sunday evening that they "are aware of reports of rockets landing in the International Zone," but did not address the US embassy itself. The State Department did not respond to a query as to whether any embassy employees were injured.
So the State Department does not, or at least not yet, back up the report of this anonymous US official.
Again, I have no factual information at this time to back up my suspicions. They are based solely on Trump's long record of lies.
"Bolton Accuses Trump of Lying" would at least make it Bolton's doing and distance it from the reporter's point of view. But most of the time some unidentified "official" says something negative about Trump and that makes a headline.
It is Trump who doesn't want to have to use force but they are clearly provoking him, unless we are not getting the right information. I've wondered how he will deal with this situation. Nobody was killed, but it was an act of aggression. I'm sure he's discussing it with his military advisers.
Every day more devastating info comes out. Now John Bolton the extremely far right conservative says there was a quid pro and it was to investigate Biden.
™ Version 4.2
(1)