purplehaze posted:
jcocktosten posted:
Jennifer Rubin...
 

She was a member of the synagogue my dad was the Rabbi at for 20 years

I didn't know that your dad was a Rabbi.  If his synagogue was in the DC area, I'm sure he had a few other high-profile members.

PH

Used to be Herndon/Reston Virginia.  He retired in 2013 - ish - but just took an interim gig in Gaithersberg.  

irwin posted:
billhike posted:

“We can’t be the policeman for the world”

”We are locked and loaded, waiting to hear from the Kingdom”

 

Are you suggesting that President Trump has made two inconsistent statements?

Though it’d be more apt for Putin's Bitch to say “I always lie, even when I’m telling the truth”......

irwin posted:
billhike posted:

“We can’t be the policeman for the world”

”We are locked and loaded, waiting to hear from the Kingdom”

 

Are you suggesting that President Trump has made two inconsistent statements?

Two? No. Not suggesting that at all. 

wineart 2 posted:
purplehaze posted:

Corey Lewandowski is a charming fellow.

PH

I did find it amusing how well he spoke while having Trump’s penis in his mouth. I’m guessing it speaks to the size of the orange small hands person he was fluffing. 

Thinking of his voice being muffled while kissing a$$

According to Wikipedia..."In 1999, while working for [Congressman[ Ney, Lewandowski brought a loaded handgun in a laundry bag into the Longworth House Office Building. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.Lewandowski said it was an accident, that he forgot the gun was in the bag when he put the laundry in it." 

The charges were dropped.  Now, assuming you feel that people should be allowed to own guns, it should be responsible people, and if you own a gun, you really ought to know where it is at all times. Do gun owners typically keep their guns loaded and hidden in the laundry bags into which they toss their smelly clothes?  And, why was he bringing his laundry to the House building anyway? do they have laundry machines so that the taxpayers foot the bill for doing the laundry for people like him? 

There is a joke in there somewhere about dirty laundry.

 

 

In light of the recent news of Putin’s Bitch and Ghouliani’s totally legal “negotiations” with Ukraine, it begs the following question.  So when you offer up “Treason’s Greetings”, what is the correct usage:
  1. Merry Treason?
  2. Happy Treason?
ProSys posted:
In light of the recent news of Putin’s Bitch and Ghouliani’s totally legal “negotiations” with Ukraine, it begs the following question.  So when you offer up “Treason’s Greetings”, what is the correct usage:
  1. Merry Treason?
  2. Happy Treason?

I'm thinking my preference would be,  "You have the right to remain silent, fuckwad." 

PH

purplehaze posted:
ProSys posted:
In light of the recent news of Putin’s Bitch and Ghouliani’s totally legal “negotiations” with Ukraine, it begs the following question.  So when you offer up “Treason’s Greetings”, what is the correct usage:
  1. Merry Treason?
  2. Happy Treason?

I'm thinking my preference would be,  "You have the right to remain silent, fuckwad." 

PH

While being frog-marched outside the Rose Garden.

For what it's worth Trump, for all the horrors and lies he engages in, has not committed treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and as far was we know the bigot in chief not met the definition. Even the disgraceful call to the Ukraine president is not treason.

I looked up the definition of treason in the constitution and don't quite understand it.  One would have to review the documents associated with the debates on the adoption of the constitution and the Federalist papers, and I sure don't have time for that.

But, trading away US foreign policy goodies (like arms, support, assistance, taxpayer money) to a foreign government in exchange for some domestic political advantage sure sounds like:

1) A very bad idea

2) Demonstrative of someone cares about himself, way more than the country.

 

The Old Man posted:

For what it's worth Trump, for all the horrors and lies he engages in, has not committed treason.

Agreed.  But...

IF trump pressured a foreign president to dig up dirt on, or press legal action against a political opponent, I think that'll get the job done.  This whistleblower report needs to get to Congress  immediately.  Apparently, if the report isn't furnished to Congress per the law, there is a mechanism to have the whistleblower communicate directly with the appropriate legislators.  

It seems that even Pelosi and Nadler are coming around on impeachment, and even a handful of republican pols have started mumbling about the inappropriateness of the behavior alleged.  Pedal to the metal, dems.  It's time to get serious with this dirtbag.

And Ghouliani needs to make more public statements.  He's the gift that keeps on giving!

PH

 

It seems that even Pelosi and Nadler are coming around on impeachment, and even a handful of republican pols have started mumbling about the inappropriateness of the behavior alleged.

True the House could seek impeachment, however it will go nowhere in the Mitch House.  Sorry, sad state of affairs.  Shame it has to be 67 votes to convict

irwin posted:

I looked up the definition of treason in the constitution and don't quite understand it. 

 

In the case of the United States vs. Aaron Burr, Chief-Justice Marshall said:

"There is no difficulty in affirming that there must be a war, or the crime of levying it cannot exist...

From this article: https://www.nytimes.com/1861/0...e-united-states.html

So unless there is overt war or forces arrayed against the country for the purposes of engaging in war, the treason charge is off the table.  No worries, the forces of good and reason appear to have sufficient ammunition to go after the orange idiot via other avenues.   Should be an interesting few weeks to come!

PH

flwino posted:

True the House could seek impeachment, however it will go nowhere in the Mitch House.  Sorry, sad state of affairs.  Shame it has to be 67 votes to convict

Conviction in the Senate is not the primary goal of impeachment now.  And I think that the originally reasonable arguments by Pelosi et al. against impeachment have gone by the wayside with this most recent idiocy from the WH.   It's time for the Congress, to borrow a phrase from the mango mussolini, to lock and load.  

PH

purplehaze posted:
flwino posted:

True the House could seek impeachment, however it will go nowhere in the Mitch House.  Sorry, sad state of affairs.  Shame it has to be 67 votes to convict

Conviction in the Senate is not the primary goal of impeachment now.  And I think that the originally reasonable arguments by Pelosi et al. against impeachment have gone by the wayside with this most recent idiocy from the WH.   It's time for the Congress, to borrow a phrase from the mango mussolini, to lock and load.  

PH

For one, PH, I disagree with something you say about you-know-who.  If the House were to vote to impeach him I fear it would be seen as purely partisan, especially as there is zero chance of him actually being forced out, and so just supercharge his base and Republicans.  That is the last thing needed a little more than a year out from an election.  Let him continue to misbehave and the middle ground that will decide the next election will tire ever more of him and vote him out.  

The focus now needs to be on outcomes not process.

bman posted:
purplehaze posted:
flwino posted:

True the House could seek impeachment, however it will go nowhere in the Mitch House.  Sorry, sad state of affairs.  Shame it has to be 67 votes to convict

Conviction in the Senate is not the primary goal of impeachment now.  And I think that the originally reasonable arguments by Pelosi et al. against impeachment have gone by the wayside with this most recent idiocy from the WH.   It's time for the Congress, to borrow a phrase from the mango mussolini, to lock and load.  

PH

For one, PH, I disagree with something you say about you-know-who.  If the House were to vote to impeach him I fear it would be seen as purely partisan, especially as there is zero chance of him actually being forced out, and so just supercharge his base and Republicans.  That is the last thing needed a little more than a year out from an election.  Let him continue to misbehave and the middle ground that will decide the next election will tire ever more of him and vote him out.  

The focus now needs to be on outcomes not process.

1- It's the job of the Congress to impeach when iron-clad evidence exists that sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed.  They've been wavering on the edge for many months now.  If the Ukraine allegations prove true, the Democratic party would be negligent not to at least begin a formal inquiry.  Again, conviction in the senate is not the end goal.  An expedited process for disclosure of evidence and additional attention to the MANY misdeeds that have been foisted on the American public will help.  Much as with Nixon, public sentiment was largely against impeachment at the beginning.  When all the cards were laid on the table, the momentum to remove Nixon was irreversible. 

2 - Partisan, schmartisan.  The base is the base.  It is NOT going to grow.  There are many who didn't vote in 2016, some remaining republicans with some shred of decency and a slew of never-Hillary Dems and independent voters (the total of Stein votes in critical swing states were more than sufficient to swing the election to Clinton if they'd voted Dem) who, if mobilized, could make a meaningful difference in 2020.

3 - Ultimately, the country is now in a true constitutional crisis.  Failure to act, and to act decisively could set an awful precedent for future presidents regardless of party affiliation.  If rump pressured Zelensky to disparage Biden, it needs to be aired and pursued.  

rump doesn't believe that the Dems will come after him, and that surety will affect his behavior going forward if he is not held to account.  It's time.  

PH

purplehaze posted:
bman posted:
purplehaze posted:
flwino posted:

True the House could seek impeachment, however it will go nowhere in the Mitch House.  Sorry, sad state of affairs.  Shame it has to be 67 votes to convict

Conviction in the Senate is not the primary goal of impeachment now.  And I think that the originally reasonable arguments by Pelosi et al. against impeachment have gone by the wayside with this most recent idiocy from the WH.   It's time for the Congress, to borrow a phrase from the mango mussolini, to lock and load.  

PH

For one, PH, I disagree with something you say about you-know-who.  If the House were to vote to impeach him I fear it would be seen as purely partisan, especially as there is zero chance of him actually being forced out, and so just supercharge his base and Republicans.  That is the last thing needed a little more than a year out from an election.  Let him continue to misbehave and the middle ground that will decide the next election will tire ever more of him and vote him out.  

The focus now needs to be on outcomes not process.

1- It's the job of the Congress to impeach when iron-clad evidence exists that sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed.  They've been wavering on the edge for many months now.  If the Ukraine allegations prove true, the Democratic party would be negligent not to at least begin a formal inquiry.  Again, conviction in the senate is not the end goal.  An expedited process for disclosure of evidence and additional attention to the MANY misdeeds that have been foisted on the American public will help.  Much as with Nixon, public sentiment was largely against impeachment at the beginning.  When all the cards were laid on the table, the momentum to remove Nixon was irreversible. 

2 - Partisan, schmartisan.  The base is the base.  It is NOT going to grow.  There are many who didn't vote in 2016, some remaining republicans with some shred of decency and a slew of never-Hillary Dems and independent voters (the total of Stein votes in critical swing states were more than sufficient to swing the election to Clinton if they'd voted Dem) who, if mobilized, could make a meaningful difference in 2020.

3 - Ultimately, the country is now in a true constitutional crisis.  Failure to act, and to act decisively could set an awful precedent for future presidents regardless of party affiliation.  If rump pressured Zelensky to disparage Biden, it needs to be aired and pursued.  

rump doesn't believe that the Dems will come after him, and that surety will affect his behavior going forward if he is not held to account.  It's time.  

PH

PH, I can agree with your first comment that if the current allegations prove true then impeachment in the House would be appropriate. But only with pretty solid proof, allegations are not enough,especially with Zelensky backing Trump's denial. While his base would not care the all-important middle would be supportive. 

How about this for motive?

From the Post, a few moments ago... 

President Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine at least a week before a phone call in which Trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.
 
I know we're kind of living in an upside down world, but, WTF?  
 
PH
purplehaze posted:

How about this for motive?

From the Post, a few moments ago... 

President Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine at least a week before a phone call in which Trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.
 
I know we're kind of living in an upside down world, but, WTF?  
 
PH

When all we could prove was obstruction of justice without proof of an underlying crime, I thought the right political move was not to impeach; although the level of obstruction and abuse of power was impeachable, imo. 

This, however, is beyond the pale. If “high crimes ans misdemeanors” is to mean anything, it means this level of malfeasance via use of the Presidency. I also think this is something easier for the middle of the country to grasp. 

I do hope, however, the Presidential hopefuls (especially my guy — Biden — and my alternates — Klobuchar, Bennet, and Buttigeig) stay pretty clear of this and let Congress take care of the impeachment. Because, really, there is very little chance he’s going to be removed. And an impeachment is going to motivate Trump supporters to the polls like nothing else could. 

winetarelli posted:
purplehaze posted:

How about this for motive?

From the Post, a few moments ago... 

President Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine at least a week before a phone call in which Trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.
 
I know we're kind of living in an upside down world, but, WTF?  
 
PH

When all we could prove was obstruction of justice without proof of an underlying crime, I thought the right political move was not to impeach; although the level of obstruction and abuse of power was impeachable, imo. 

This, however, is beyond the pale. If “high crimes ans misdemeanors” is to mean anything, it means this level of malfeasance via use of the Presidency. I also think this is something easier for the middle of the country to grasp. 

I do hope, however, the Presidential hopefuls (especially my guy — Biden — and my alternates — Klobuchar, Bennet, and Buttigeig) stay pretty clear of this and let Congress take care of the impeachment. Because, really, there is very little chance he’s going to be removed. And an impeachment is going to motivate Trump supporters to the polls like nothing else could. 

PH - if proven, yes. Meaning one or more of those sources would need to go on the record with a sworn statement, for the reason wt mentions in his last comment and because the middle has tuned out and will see it as just more partisan hijinks without solid proof. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×