Monday, September 30, 2019

Here is the question we should be asking!

54 comments:

wphamilton said...

Checking in on the right-wing chatter. Has Trump's civil war started yet? Or are you waiting for a stronger signal?

cowardly king obama said...

wphamilton said...
Checking in on the right-wing chatter. Has Trump's civil war started yet? Or are you waiting for a stronger signal?


We are waiting for the House to get back from their 2 week vacation they just started.

Appears kind if odd for a party who just started an "urgent" impeachment "investigation"

What a group of disingenuous traitors.

At least go on the record with a vote to proceed

Liz Cheney said...

@Liz_Cheney

@SpeakerPelosi⁩ said on 60 Minutes last night she knew the details of the classified Ukraine call before White House released transcript. This is starting to seem like a political set up. So, Madame Speaker, “what did you know and when did you know it?”

in the record under oath for transparency...

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

HERE IS THE QUESTION WE SHOULD BE ASKING.

So if the so called "whistle blower" complaint was so serious, why didn't any of the actual "first hand" witnesses of accounts actually come forward?
________________

Good question, Ch. They were so busy wringing their hands to one another and wondering how they were going to try to explain this to the public later if it blew up in their faces and maybe even taking steps to keep it hidden from the public that they overlooked the fact that if they believed the President had done something so bad, they should have said so in public, since that is probably the only way they might have gotten him to listen to them.

The whistleblower did the right thing by drawing attention to all of this.

cowardly king obama said...

’Beyond Repugnant’: Republican Rep. Goes Off After Trump Tweets Pastor Linking Impeachment To Civil War

looks like wphamilton got his marching orders

cowardly king obama said...


The whistleblower did the right thing by drawing attention to all of this.

If he is a whistleblower than you are a pedophile "pastor"

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

No, let's just keep asking that question Ch asked. Why indeed?

They will be being asked that question by the investigators, you see.

cowardly king obama said...

If he is a whistleblower than you are a pedophile "pastor"

Have heard lots of rumors about that, guess that makes me a whistleblower in your eyes too.

wphamilton said...

So the answer is "No, the civil war is on hold for the House recess"

OK, carry on with your extremist chatter then.

cowardly king obama said...



OK, and the right will continue addressing that from the left

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Cowardly, like Kansas Democrat, has so little to say that he must constantly indulge in personal insults. Totally stupid ones, at that.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Mr. President, you sit there like a child while I explain to you and to Ch that your real "accusers," if you want to call them that, are the people whom the whistleblower heard expressing their alarm and concern that you had behaved as you did. It is they, many of whom were your own people, your own supporters, who are your real problem at this point, not the whistleblower who only behaved as any patriotic American should

Comprendo? Probably not.
_______

C.H. Truth said...
If the whistle blower refuses to come forward...
Along with the FACT that none of the other so called first hand witnesses have come forward...
I think we can all pretty much assume that he/she lied.
_________
James said...
Poor attempt, Ch. The whistleblower does not need to come forward. People whom he/she says he/she heard expressing their concern are the ones who will need to be questioned: Why were you so upset? What did you say? Why did you not come forward and openly express your deep concerns to others, to the American public? To whom DID you express these concerns and why?

You see? That's how these things operate. The whistleblower is not citing firsthand information, but only those who had firsthand information. It is they who, willing or unwilling, are going to be the real "witnesses."

The examination must center on them. Not the whistleblower, who only did the right thing that they did not do. As a matter of fact, many of them even attempted to hide what the president had said from the public, hoping the public would never see it.

Yep, they will need to answer for that, not the whistleblower.

C.H. Truth said...

They will be being asked that question by the investigators, you see.

Well they actually have to identify someone, huh?

The only named person in the complaint stated that they had no first hand knowledge and was not privy to hearing the call.


So here is the question James..

What if "nobody" with first hand information actually backs up the person in question? What if nobody steps up and says that the transcripts are wrong and that the President "did" in fact demand an investigation and threatened to withhold aid?

Wouldn't that make the accuser's accusation unsubstantiated?

Would you still want the House to follow through on impeachment over someone who's story doesn't check out?

C.H. Truth said...

Furthermore...

For sake of argument. Let's say everything about the Hunter Biden investigation that Democrats and Biden defenders are saying is true. Let's say that Biden just wanted the prosecutor fired for completely unrelated reasons and there was no motivation to protect his son or his son's company.


Doesn't threatening to hold back aid (that was approved by Congress for the Ukraine) in order to make a foreign government fire one of their own investigators constitute some sort of extortion and or abuse of power?

Wouldn't it constitute extortion or abuse "regardless" of the motivation?

American Greatness said...

@theamgreatness

Joe Biden’s presidential campaign sent a letter to the executives of several major news outlets on Sunday, asking them to no longer book Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, as a guest on their programs.

Fir transparency I guess

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Ch actually asks me,
"Would you still want the House to follow through on impeachment over someone who's(sic) story doesn't check out?"
____________

Ch, you are not stupid, and neither am I, so how can you ask such a stupid, self-serving question?

Of course the House will not even be ABLE to follow through on the whistleblower's "story" if it doesn't check out.

Checking that "story" out is the first if not the entire purpose of the investigation.

Good lord! Am I talking to a child, or a sycophant?

Anonymous said...

CHT I think you should know Roger takes thing from here that you write acts like there his writings and posts them on his Facebook .

Senator John Cornyn said...

@JohnCornyn

Now the complainant, with no personal knowledge and who IG said exhibits political bias, is raising money off of the impeachment controversy

Sean Davis Retweeted Senator John Cornyn

Straight out of the Christine Blasey Ford, Peter Strzok, and Andrew McCabe playbook: leak, lie, and profit.

WSJ said...

“during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump”

C.H. Truth said...

Checking that "story" out is the first if not the entire purpose of the investigation.

Do you honestly believe that?

Pelosi is said to be pushing for an actual impeachment vote (regardless) by Thanksgiving. She is suggesting that there will be limited (if any) hearing before the vote. McConnell suggests that a vote in the Senate would take place within a few weeks at most.


You really don't understand that this has never been about getting to the truth. It's always been about what percentage of House members were in favor of impeachment. Once it got to a certain number, Pelosi was basically incapable of not acting. Getting to the truth is not what this is about. It's entirely about staging the vote at this point.

The reason that Democrats do not want this person testifying in public or will likely not hold many public hearings at all in regards to this is primarily because the Transcripts did not match the allegations and it's very, very unlikely that they will be able to find "any" tangible evidence that the transcripts are wrong.


But I will bookmark this James...

If it turns out that this person's story was never substantiated. Then I expect that you will be true to your suggestion and that you will no longer support an impeachment vote.

Because that vote is coming. Facts be damned. There is no stopping it now.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

CH SAID:
Doesn't threatening to hold back aid (that was approved by Congress for the Ukraine) in order to make a foreign government fire one of their own investigators constitute some sort of extortion and or abuse of power?

Wouldn't it constitute extortion or abuse "regardless" of the motivation?
____________

JAMES SAYS:
One little difference.
The "investigator" was an official already universally condemned for having done corrupt things, and apparently was not really even engaged in investigating, but only later lied that he was.

Numerous of our allies and others were already calling for that corrupt official to resign, and for all kinds of reasons.

So you see, motivation CAN be important in these matters.

So what was Trump's motivation?

That's what this is all about.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

If there is anyone who seems to be supporting the thesis "facts be damned," it would seem to be sycophant you, Ch.

cowardly king obama said...

CHT said:Because that vote is coming. Facts be damned. There is no stopping it now.

Everyone over the cliff, someone will catch you !!!

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Ukrainian Prosecutor Says No Reason to Investigate Biden
September 30, 2019 at 10:02 am EDT

A Ukrainian ex-prosecutor general told the BBC there is no reason for his country to investigate President Trump’s political rival Joe Biden.

Yuriy Lutsenko said any investigation into Biden and his son would have to start in the U.S.: “I don’t know any reason to investigate Joe Biden or Hunter Biden according to Ukrainian law.”

Anonymous said...

CH the trump fellator again posts the absurd defense that it is Pelosi's fault for the inquiry!!!!!!


Pelosi is said to be pushing for an actual impeachment vote (regardless) by Thanksgiving. She is suggesting that there will be limited (if any) hearing before the vote.


Seems to even mentally challenged voters like you that the Call is a simple case....especially having trumps word officially in the record.....what more do you need???? Clinton had his blow job and was impeached......trump making deals and hiding the records trying to elicit a thing of value for missiles is pretty self evident of extreme behavior......!!!!! Suggesting she is doing anything out of the ordinary is a lot tamer than trump saying schiff is treasonous.....you dumb fuck....

cowardly king obama said...


The "pastor" said : The "investigator" was an official already universally condemned for having done corrupt things, and apparently was not really even engaged in investigating, but only later lied that he was.

Total lies, there are sworn depositions by people on both sides of the issue in Ukraine that blow that up, but who cares about people with direct knowledge?

cowardly king obama said...

A Ukrainian ex-prosecutor general told the BBC there is no reason for his country to investigate President Trump’s political rival Joe Biden.

Lots of corrupt people in the Ukraine, easy to find someone without direct knowledge to quote a narrative...

We must be getting real close to the IG report on this matter...

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Another Whistleblower Complaint May Be Released
September 30, 2019 at 9:33 am EDT

House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) said he’s consulting lawyers about whether to make public a complaint by a federal employee about possible misconduct in the Internal Revenue Service’s auditing of President Trump, Bloomberg reports.
___________

Ads for ‘Trumpcare’ Are Everywhere

Axios: “Do a quick search for health insurance, and you’ll find plenty of ads for ‘Trumpcare’ plans that cost $59 or less per month. But there’s a catch: Trumpcare doesn’t exist, and many of these advertised plans offer bare-bones coverage.

“For people who buy health insurance on their own instead of receiving it through an employer, searching for a plan is already challenging. And deceptive marketing only makes it harder, especially when these plans will leave consumers on the hook for potentially ruinous medical bills.”

John Cardillo said...

@johncardillo

Crowdstrike’s venture capital came from two primary sources,

Former Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner who was Hillary’s CFIUS counterpart when Uranium One was approved, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet CEO who was considered Hillary campaign staff.

Ukraine has answers. Dems are terrified.


Can sure see it here !!!

Let's have a public hearing on them.

C.H. Truth said...

The "investigator" was an official already universally condemned for having done corrupt things, and apparently was not really even engaged in investigating, but only later lied that he was.

Our laws don't work that way James...

We don't parse actions and deem them legal or legal based on whether the person taking that action deems it appropriate (especially when it comes to politics). Otherwise we would be creating a legal system where we pick and choose whether we agree with the political move to determine whether the same actions are legal or illegal.


Either it's always illegal for a President (or Vice President) to demand certain actions from a Government in exchange for something else or that action is perfectly legal for a President (or Vice President) to take.

I tend to believe that the concept that we can never negotiate with a Government is silly. If we are providing something to a Government, then we can ask for something in return. In fact, I strongly suspect that this is how this works 99.9% of the time. Ukraine gets aid from us, we get something in return (cooperation with something or a promise of military aid in the region or what not). We would be idiots and saps to simply give, give, give and never ask for anything in return.

Right now we quite literally have both sides in this argument demanding that our Administrations asking for something in return for something else constitutes a crime. When in fact, it's simply normal every day negotiations.


Do I think it was "ethical" for Obama to set up negotiations with Ukraine to create a joint effort in investigating Paul Manafort? Probably not. Do I think he did it "because" Manafort was Trump's campaign manager? Of course. Do I think Paul Manafort would be a free man today had he not joined Trump's team? Absolutely.

But "can" Obama come up with any sort of legitimate reason for this investigation? He sort of can if he argues that he believed that Trump was colluding with the Russians and using Paul Manafort as a go between. Do I think that claim is dubious and an excuse to simply investigate someone in a manner that can hurt a political opponent? Of course.

But does it make it illegal?

Trump hasn't even taken the steps to actually start any sort of investigation. He has engaged in some preliminary discussions about it. He would most certainly have to talk to Barr before doing anything (which he hasn't). But he should have the freedom (much like Obama did) to engage in preliminary talks if he can make an argument that perhaps we abused executive power to harm his campaign or to help a blood relative escape investigation. Even if those actions are not eventually deemed to be "illegal" there is no crime in exposing them.

Perhaps Trump would even find out later that there was nothing to the situation with the former prosecutor and drop it completely. Perhaps he might do the same with Crowdstrike and the Server situation. But to say he cannot address these issues, ask about them, or talk about them or that somehow doing so is a crime... flies in the face of basic common reasoning.

No President could escape without prosecution if that is the standard.

Anonymous said...

Lil Scotty once again infers in the R conspiracy theory that has been totally debunked with this steaming pile of old white mans shit....

(or Vice President) to demand certain actions


BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! You and trump are spinning your wheels as the voters come out of their trump induced stupidity....This aint even logical ....like obama being kenyan......total bullshit and you still got trumps dick stuck in your ass.....LOLOLOL

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The criminal in the White House says that congressman Schiff should be arrested for treason.

If he had his way, we would see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, facing a firing squad.

And you would be writing a 500 word diatribe blaming the Democrats.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Your arguments are shallow, Ch. And no one is saying Trump has no right to try to defend himself. Try away. But he needs someone or something far better than Guiliani or you to try to defend him.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Fascism?
“Rep. Adam B. Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people,” Trump tweeted. “It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?”

You would post the YouTube video session of his firing squad killing and cheer!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Welcome back!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I used to think Ronald Reagan and George W Bush were intellectually sub-par, but, by God, they're Mensa material compared to this guy.

And he's not getting any better.

Treason because you dare to disagree with him?

C.H. Truth said...

Your arguments are shallow, Ch.

Hardly...

Just asking you to pick a side. Either our Presidents and (vice Presidents) are allowed to ask for things from foreign governments (including help with investigations) or they are not.

If you believe these actions are illegal, then I would have you denounce both Obama and Biden.

If you believe these actions are legal, then I would have you defend Trump.


But there is no intellectually honest manner to defend Biden for threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine, defend Obama for seeking help from Ukraine in investigating Trump's campaign manager...

and then condemn Trump for doing far less.

Because at this point there is no evidence that he threatened to withhold anything and there is no actual investigation of anyone taking place.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Even it turns out that this person's story is substantiated, would you still support the President against all enemies foreign and domestic?

You will never answer my question.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"there is no evidence that he threatened to withhold anything"???????????


You have lost your mind.

Commonsense said...

Even it turns out that this person's story is substantiated,

Well there are already inconsistencies between this person's story and the transcript.

So if you are hoping for substantiation, that ship has sailed.

This person needs to come out and identify his first person sources. If he doesn't then we can just assumed he made it all up.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Your view is in the minority.

When impeachment was a theoretical concept that Democrats might undertake, it wasn’t a popular concept, even as the Ukraine allegations were coming out. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 57 percent of Americans didn’t think President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

But now that an impeachment inquiry is here, Americans seem more open to the idea. A CBS News-YouGov poll published Sunday found that more than half of Americans, 55 percent, approve of the fact that Congress has opened an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

“It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?”

Makes you happy, but most Americans disagree with you.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The President of the United States of America is threatening a civil war if he's removed from office. This is EXACTLY why he needs to be removed from office ASAP... #Trump

Commonsense said...

You sure put a lot of faith in that CBS/YouGov poll Roger.

Commonsense said...

The president is not threatening anything. Settle down.

cowardly king obama said...

EXPLOSIVE REPORT: Rep. Adam Schiff Linked to Prominent Ukrainian Arms Dealer!

What the hell is going on with Shifty Lying Schiff and his Ukraine Arms Dealer – Is Schiff being paid off? Is this why he is willing to lie on national TV about President Trump’s action in the Ukraine?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/explosive-report-rep-adam-schiff-linked-to-prominent-ukrainian-arms-dealer/

fundraising by individuals from Ukraine for Adam Schiff INTERFERENCE IN US ELECTIONS. Schiff need to investigate.

This is not going well for democrats

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The real question is, "is he going crazy "

As his hold on sanity frayed, and the neverending Twitter screaming reached fevered levels, he began doing what we all expected him to do—make it increasingly difficult for his supports to stick by him. And while demanding that Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, be arrested for treason was bad enough, it was his call for civil war in case he was ousted!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Senate would have to take up impeachment of President Donald Trump if the House effectively votes to charge the president, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday.

"I would have no choice but to take it up," the Kentucky Republican told CNBC. "How long you are on it is a different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up based on a Senate rule on impeachment."

He might not turn it into a trial on Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Harvard Law professor John Coates argued that the social media post itself is an "independent basis" for lawmakers to remove him from the White House after he threatened Civil war.

"This tweet is itself an independent basis for impeachment - a sitting president threatening civil war if Congress exercises its constitutionally authorized power,"

Buck Sexton said...

@BuckSexton

You know what’s really a “threat to our democracy?”

That 90% of the news media that most Americans rely on to help them be part of an informed electorate are engaged in partisan activism under the guise of journalism and simply cannot be trusted

Donald J. Trump said...

@realDonaldTrump

“Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats can’t put down the Impeachment match. They know they couldn’t beat him in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, and they’re increasingly aware of the fact that they won’t win against him in 2020, and Impeachment is the only tool they have to get....

...rid of Donald J. Trump - And the Democrats don’t care if they burn down and destroy this nation in the process. I have never seen the Evangelical Christians more angry over any issue than this attempt to illegitimately remove this President from office, overturn the 2016....

....Election, and negate the votes of millions of Evangelicals in the process. They know the only Impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. That’s the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him.....

....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
**********************************

The FAKE NEWS apparently is saying posting this quote from a pastor is "a sitting president threatening civil war if Congress exercises its constitutionally authorized power"

and roger apparently agrees

Commonsense said...

Roger has gone batshit crazy. He's simply grasping at straws.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Because he retweeted a civil war threat is grounds for impeachment.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Watergate on steroids.



Pinterest
Linkedin
DONALD TRUMP
House subpoenas Rudy Giuliani for Ukraine documents as part of impeachment inquiry
Democrats are demanding he turn over Ukraine-related documents by Oct. 15
Image; Rudy Giuliani
Former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani speaks during the Conference In Support Of Freedom and Democracy In Iran on June 30, 2018.Anthony Devlin / Getty Images file
Sept. 30, 2019, 1:11 PM PDT
By Dareh Gregorian
House Democrats have subpoenaed President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani for Ukraine-related documents as part of their impeachment inquiry.

“Pursuant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, we are hereby transmitting a subpoena that compels you to produce the documents set forth in the accompanying schedule by October 15, 2019,” the letter from House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff, Oversight chair Elijah Cummings and Foreign Affairs chair Eliot Engel says.

The lawmakers noted that Giuliani has acknowledged in several recent interviews that he had asked a Ukrainian prosecutor for information about former Vice President Joe Biden.

“In addition to this stark admission, you stated more recently that you are in possession of evidence—in the form of text messages, phone records, and other communications—indicating that you were not acting alone and that other Trump Administration officials may have been involved in this scheme,”

Anonymous said...

NYT's reports that Trump asked Austraiia to help barr to investigate origins of mueller probe.....Also Just reported by WSJ....Pompeo complicit in the Ukraine call by listening in and doing NOTHING!!!!! He should be fired!!!!!!