Follow the money from Russia with love and a PTape all the way to impeachment.
Suckers. Odds on them claiming executive privilege to be Putin on the ritz’s boy toy?
People have known this for years, but they're all talking now. Why??
Enough is enough. Team Trump Treason is comprised in more than one way and can’t be trusted to keep the National security of the United States first and foremost. He only cares about himself, his ego and wealth. The fourth estate has had enough of his traitorous ass.
Big fucking oops by the administration of brilliant brilliance of brilliancy. Remember how when they were transitioning and they ignored the Obama folks because they had it all figured out? Oops, suckers?
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
edited September 2019
2019
Wouldnt be suprised if we get some kind of update into one of these Barr investigations soon. The conveniently timed distraction is probably right around the corner...
Judge Jeannie had both those toothless wonders on last night. JV team members Jordan and Meadows. Our boy on the left? Former wrasslin coach who made some questionable decisions and apparently doesn't own a jacket. It's night and you're a member of congress. Homie on the right? Old school racist, and knows a black woman that Don Trump appointed to a job she wasn't qualified to do.
The mainstream R's (they're really RTs...get it?) don't appear to be budging just yet. Don and Linsdey did play golf yesterday, and they probably worked out an OBVIOUS strategy. Those two on Don's REAL favorite show, talkin about the Dem Ukraine WH.
WH is code for White House...Like the Russia WH. It's also the first two letters of Don's favorite 5 letter word.
Wouldnt be suprised if we get some kind of update into one of these Barr investigations soon. The conveniently timed distraction is probably right around the corner...
or the effing emails again. as John Oliver said...BASIC
I believe I saw a PBS poll had it at 49% before the complaint too.
Bottom line is this is just a much easier to digest issue than the Russia investigation is for most people. Easy and quick. A slam dunk, you might say.
It really is amazing how different political sides talk about things. Watching FOX yesterday and the message they were conveying that "impeachment is not wanted by a majority of the country." and yet this poll is growing to "yes" on impeachment. Show a poll to a conservative and they'll shoot it down too...
The news shows are really getting tiresome. Does anybody read a source that isn't biased? Do they exist?
Yes they exist. Even Fox's nightly news with Shepard Smith is fairly centered because he isn't a tRump drone.
Comparing MSNBC to Fox isn't fair. Fox's pundits just outright lie and use false stories and conspiracy theories as support. MSNBC pundits (Maddow, O'Donnell, etc.) are clearly liberal but they do not lie or use selective facts. They always present both sides of the story.
Maddow? Really?
Shepard Smith I happen to love. He really is the lone bight spot on all of FOX.
Yes, really. She is liberal and she let's you know it. But she is always the first to let you know when she is using unconfirmed information. She consistently uses "if this is true" to preface information presented.
her dramatics are what turn me off.
I don't like her either. Repeating the same stuff over and over making a 4 minute segment into 15.
but I hate the false equivalency.
I hate the overuse of the term false equivalency.
Maybe because you present them fairly often and people point it out? I'm not trying to be snarky... It's just what I see happening sometimes and it might explain your feelings about the term. "Overuse" is only really applicable if the term isn't being applied legitimately.... In this case it was being used legitimately, and it is most cases on this board.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I believe I saw a PBS poll had it at 49% before the complaint too.
Bottom line is this is just a much easier to digest issue than the Russia investigation is for most people. Easy and quick. A slam dunk, you might say.
It really is amazing how different political sides talk about things. Watching FOX yesterday and the message they were conveying that "impeachment is not wanted by a majority of the country." and yet this poll is growing to "yes" on impeachment. Show a poll to a conservative and they'll shoot it down too...
The news shows are really getting tiresome. Does anybody read a source that isn't biased? Do they exist?
Yes they exist. Even Fox's nightly news with Shepard Smith is fairly centered because he isn't a tRump drone.
Comparing MSNBC to Fox isn't fair. Fox's pundits just outright lie and use false stories and conspiracy theories as support. MSNBC pundits (Maddow, O'Donnell, etc.) are clearly liberal but they do not lie or use selective facts. They always present both sides of the story.
Maddow? Really?
Shepard Smith I happen to love. He really is the lone bight spot on all of FOX.
Yes, really. She is liberal and she let's you know it. But she is always the first to let you know when she is using unconfirmed information. She consistently uses "if this is true" to preface information presented.
her dramatics are what turn me off.
I don't like her either. Repeating the same stuff over and over making a 4 minute segment into 15.
but I hate the false equivalency.
I hate the overuse of the term false equivalency.
Maybe because you present them fairly often and people point it out? I'm not trying to be snarky... It's just what I see happening sometimes and it might explain your feelings about the term. "Overuse" is only really applicable if the term isn't being applied legitimately.... In this case it was being used legitimately, and it is most cases on this board.
No, just think it is way overused and used inappropriately often. Many times people are not trying to actually compare 2 things. But it’s become the crutch used to avoid talking about some other things that people do not want to discuss or acknowledge.
But I see why we would disagree on here because you use it incorrectly fairly often.
I believe I saw a PBS poll had it at 49% before the complaint too.
Bottom line is this is just a much easier to digest issue than the Russia investigation is for most people. Easy and quick. A slam dunk, you might say.
It really is amazing how different political sides talk about things. Watching FOX yesterday and the message they were conveying that "impeachment is not wanted by a majority of the country." and yet this poll is growing to "yes" on impeachment. Show a poll to a conservative and they'll shoot it down too...
The news shows are really getting tiresome. Does anybody read a source that isn't biased? Do they exist?
Yes they exist. Even Fox's nightly news with Shepard Smith is fairly centered because he isn't a tRump drone.
Comparing MSNBC to Fox isn't fair. Fox's pundits just outright lie and use false stories and conspiracy theories as support. MSNBC pundits (Maddow, O'Donnell, etc.) are clearly liberal but they do not lie or use selective facts. They always present both sides of the story.
Maddow? Really?
Shepard Smith I happen to love. He really is the lone bight spot on all of FOX.
Yes, really. She is liberal and she let's you know it. But she is always the first to let you know when she is using unconfirmed information. She consistently uses "if this is true" to preface information presented.
her dramatics are what turn me off.
I don't like her either. Repeating the same stuff over and over making a 4 minute segment into 15.
but I hate the false equivalency.
I hate the overuse of the term false equivalency.
Maybe because you present them fairly often and people point it out? I'm not trying to be snarky... It's just what I see happening sometimes and it might explain your feelings about the term. "Overuse" is only really applicable if the term isn't being applied legitimately.... In this case it was being used legitimately, and it is most cases on this board.
No, just think it is way overused and used inappropriately often. Many times people are not trying to actually compare 2 things. But it’s become the crutch used to avoid talking about some other things that people do not want to discuss or acknowledge.
But I see why we would disagree on here because you use it incorrectly fairly often.
I never misuse it, but I know you think I do.
In any case, the way it was used right here was an appropriate use of the term, so I just didn't understand why you decided to complain about the term when you did.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
I wonder if those numbers would be different if there wasn't a Mueller investigation and all the hysteria surrounding it. Like, if you just throw out all the Russia stuff, and the first real impeachable offense was him pressuring the Ukrainian president, would there be more people in favor of impeachment? I just feel that they actually have him this time, but there might be people out there that think it's just a baseless attempt to take Trump down because they feel that way about Mueller's investigation.
I wonder if those numbers would be different if there wasn't a Mueller investigation and all the hysteria surrounding it. Like, if you just throw out all the Russia stuff, and the first real impeachable offense was him pressuring the Ukrainian president, would there be more people in favor of impeachment? I just feel that they actually have him this time, but there might be people out there that think it's just a baseless attempt to take Trump down because they feel that way about Mueller's investigation.
You know, I can understand some for not wanting impeachment inquiry. I think it’s wrong, but I understand. They are worried about what it does to the country (divisive). But we are already there.
What i cannot understand is how anyone can objectively look at the data and come up with a “trump did nothing wrong” and it’s “just a witch hunt”.
It was very clear that trump had no interest in protecting future elections by dealing with Russia. Take out the whole question on whether or not he asked for and worked with the Russians. The fact he is ignoring our intelligence community and did nothing is troubling enough.
Now he is doubling down and specifically asking another country to get involved in our election by coming up with dirt on a potential rival. How can anyone look at it all together and think, “there is nothing wrong here”. Heck even if you just think it’s not that bad what he asked of the Ukrainian President....as long as you can see and admit that it was still inappropriate (maybe just not impeachment level) that’s another thing. But there are a whole lot of people ignoring data, ignoring the trend. And all they can do is try to find something bad someone else has done. Why is that ever a reason to not deal with the other issue ill never know.
I think some people are also saying they don't support the inquiry simply because they don't think it will lead to Trump leaving office (and they may well be right obviously) .... I believe they are missing a big part of the point. But that could be another part of why the % of those not supporting it is as high as it is.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think some people are also saying they don't support the inquiry simply because they don't think it will lead to Trump leaving office (and they may well be right obviously) .... I believe they are missing a big part of the point. But that could be another part of why the % of those not supporting it is as high as it is.
That's how I felt during the Russia probe and talk of impeachment. But this Ukrainian thing is so cut-and-dry that I feel removal from office is actually possible. No need for a two-year investigation and 400-page report. He called the Ukrainian president, asked them to investigate Biden's son, and suggested there'd be a reward for doing it. So this actually has a chance. With a public impeachment trial, maybe some of those GOP Senators might actually feel the pressure to vote to remove him. Maybe...
I wonder if those numbers would be different if there wasn't a Mueller investigation and all the hysteria surrounding it. Like, if you just throw out all the Russia stuff, and the first real impeachable offense was him pressuring the Ukrainian president, would there be more people in favor of impeachment? I just feel that they actually have him this time, but there might be people out there that think it's just a baseless attempt to take Trump down because they feel that way about Mueller's investigation.
You know, I can understand some for not wanting impeachment inquiry. I think it’s wrong, but I understand. They are worried about what it does to the country (divisive). But we are already there.
What i cannot understand is how anyone can objectively look at the data and come up with a “trump did nothing wrong” and it’s “just a witch hunt”.
It was very clear that trump had no interest in protecting future elections by dealing with Russia. Take out the whole question on whether or not he asked for and worked with the Russians. The fact he is ignoring our intelligence community and did nothing is troubling enough.
Now he is doubling down and specifically asking another country to get involved in our election by coming up with dirt on a potential rival. How can anyone look at it all together and think, “there is nothing wrong here”. Heck even if you just think it’s not that bad what he asked of the Ukrainian President....as long as you can see and admit that it was still inappropriate (maybe just not impeachment level) that’s another thing. But there are a whole lot of people ignoring data, ignoring the trend. And all they can do is try to find something bad someone else has done. Why is that ever a reason to not deal with the other issue ill never know.
Even if people don't think it's bad, and he's dumb enough to think it's not bad, any reasonable lawmaker in any country would know it's an amazing abuse of power to do that. If the Dems can forgo grandstanding like they usually do and really present in an impeachment trial why the Ukranian stuff is grounds for removal, maybe there's a chance the GOP Senators will go along. I think I've heard one of them say that 30 GOP Senators would vote to remove him if it were annomous. Bunch of pussies. A reasonable case presented against Trump might make them have to man-up and do what their job entails.
The three panels gave Rudolph W. Giuliani until Oct. 15 to provide the
material. In a statement released Monday, the House Foreign Affairs,
Intelligence and Oversight committees said Giuliani “admitted on
national television that, while serving as the President’s personal
attorney, he asked the government of Ukraine to target former Vice
President Joe Biden.” This is a developing story. It will be updated.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Attorney
General William P. Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign
intelligence officials seeking their help in a Justice Department
inquiry that President Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence
agencies’ examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election,
according to people familiar with the matter.
Barr’s
personal involvement is likely to stoke further criticism from
Democrats pursuing impeachment that he is helping the Trump
administration use executive branch powers to augment investigations
aimed primarily at the president’s adversaries.
But
the high level Justice Department focus on intelligence operatives’
conduct will likely cheer Trump and other conservatives for whom
“investigate the investigators” has become a rallying cry.
The
direct involvement of the nation’s top law enforcement official shows
the priority Barr places on the investigation being conducted by John
Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, who has been assigned the
sensitive task of reviewing U.S. intelligence work surrounding the 2016
election and its aftermath.
The
attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a
nearly three-year old election still consumes significant resources and
attention inside the federal government. Current and former intelligence
and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday
that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in
re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless
allegations of misconduct.
Barr has already made
overtures to British intelligence officials, and last week the attorney
general traveled to Italy, where he and Durham met senior Italian
government officials and Barr asked the Italians to assist Durham,
according to one person familiar with the matter. It was not Barr’s
first trip to Italy to meet intelligence officials, the person said. The
Trump administration has made similar requests of Australia, these
people said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
The
president still complains frequently that those involved in the
investigation of his campaign should be charged with crimes, asserting
the FBI search for possible election season collusion between Russia and
Trump campaign officials was a witch hunt, spurred by agents and
bureaucrats opposed to Trump becoming president. That investigation
ended earlier this year when special counsel Robert S. Mueller III
determined there was insufficient evidence to charge any Americans with
conspiring with Russia, and declined to reach a decision about whether
the president had sought to obstruct justice.
David
Laufman, a former Justice Department official who was involved in the
early stages of the Russia probe, said it was “fairly unorthodox for the
attorney general personally to be flying around the world as a point
person to further evidence-gathering for a specific Justice Department
investigation,” and especially so in Barr’s case.
“Even
if one questions, as a threshold matter, the propriety of conducting a
re-investigation of the Justice Department’s own prior investigation of
Russia’s interference, the appointment of John Durham — a seasoned,
nonpartisan prosecutor — provided some reason to believe that it would
be handled in a professional, nonpartisan manner,” Laufman said. “But if
the attorney general is essentially running this investigation, that
entire premise is out the window.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think some people are also saying they don't support the inquiry simply because they don't think it will lead to Trump leaving office (and they may well be right obviously) .... I believe they are missing a big part of the point. But that could be another part of why the % of those not supporting it is as high as it is.
That's how I felt during the Russia probe and talk of impeachment. But this Ukrainian thing is so cut-and-dry that I feel removal from office is actually possible. No need for a two-year investigation and 400-page report. He called the Ukrainian president, asked them to investigate Biden's son, and suggested there'd be a reward for doing it. So this actually has a chance. With a public impeachment trial, maybe some of those GOP Senators might actually feel the pressure to vote to remove him. Maybe...
It would take 20 Republican senators, or more if senators in trump states like Manchin are unlikely to vote to remove
I'm trying to think of a way out here for Democrats.
The best idea I have is if the House impeachs, then Biden or the democratic nominee publicly asks the senate not to remove him. As in, "let me at him, I'm gonna kick his butt and the people will vote him out."
And we’re still connecting dots, yo! Connecting dots is fun! Like, how about whether there are any other dots on the passcode protected server, like dots that should have been turned over during the Team Mueller investigation. You know, like “all notes, transcripts, summaries” of conversations with certain Russians, maybe friends of or Putin on the ritz himself? You can’t honestly believe the conversation with The Ukraine was the first and only, right? You don’t honestly believe that, do you?
Comments
https://apple.news/AUHzWRbHMQmeGBrZXkVRtdA
Because you know,
Suckers. Odds on them claiming executive privilege to be Putin on the ritz’s boy toy?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/AuQ_P6JFwQH2wAIVuw8z0cQ
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Judge Jeannie had both those toothless wonders on last night. JV team members Jordan and Meadows. Our boy on the left? Former wrasslin coach who made some questionable decisions and apparently doesn't own a jacket. It's night and you're a member of congress. Homie on the right? Old school racist, and knows a black woman that Don Trump appointed to a job she wasn't qualified to do.
The mainstream R's (they're really RTs...get it?) don't appear to be budging just yet.
Don and Linsdey did play golf yesterday, and they probably worked out an OBVIOUS strategy. Those two on Don's REAL favorite show, talkin about the Dem Ukraine WH.
WH is code for White House...Like the Russia WH. It's also the first two letters of Don's favorite 5 letter word.
blah blah blah
So predictable. SAD.
What's scary is the 45%
I dont think there is swaying any of those people.
Maybe because you present them fairly often and people point it out? I'm not trying to be snarky... It's just what I see happening sometimes and it might explain your feelings about the term. "Overuse" is only really applicable if the term isn't being applied legitimately.... In this case it was being used legitimately, and it is most cases on this board.
But I see why we would disagree on here because you use it incorrectly fairly often.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
What i cannot understand is how anyone can objectively look at the data and come up with a “trump did nothing wrong” and it’s “just a witch hunt”.
It was very clear that trump had no interest in protecting future elections by dealing with Russia. Take out the whole question on whether or not he asked for and worked with the Russians. The fact he is ignoring our intelligence community and did nothing is troubling enough.
Now he is doubling down and specifically asking another country to get involved in our election by coming up with dirt on a potential rival. How can anyone look at it all together and think, “there is nothing wrong here”. Heck even if you just think it’s not that bad what he asked of the Ukrainian President....as long as you can see and admit that it was still inappropriate (maybe just not impeachment level) that’s another thing. But there are a whole lot of people ignoring data, ignoring the trend. And all they can do is try to find something bad someone else has done. Why is that ever a reason to not deal with the other issue ill never know.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
House committees subpoena Giuliani for Ukraine documents as part of impeachment inquiry
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
I think 35% are all in no matter what.
Guess we will see.
Attorney General Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016
Attorney General William P. Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May. (Shawn Thew/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)
Attorney General William P. Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials seeking their help in a Justice Department inquiry that President Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence agencies’ examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the matter.
Barr’s personal involvement is likely to stoke further criticism from Democrats pursuing impeachment that he is helping the Trump administration use executive branch powers to augment investigations aimed primarily at the president’s adversaries.
But the high level Justice Department focus on intelligence operatives’ conduct will likely cheer Trump and other conservatives for whom “investigate the investigators” has become a rallying cry.
The direct involvement of the nation’s top law enforcement official shows the priority Barr places on the investigation being conducted by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, who has been assigned the sensitive task of reviewing U.S. intelligence work surrounding the 2016 election and its aftermath.
The attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government. Current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.
Barr has already made overtures to British intelligence officials, and last week the attorney general traveled to Italy, where he and Durham met senior Italian government officials and Barr asked the Italians to assist Durham, according to one person familiar with the matter. It was not Barr’s first trip to Italy to meet intelligence officials, the person said. The Trump administration has made similar requests of Australia, these people said.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.
The president still complains frequently that those involved in the investigation of his campaign should be charged with crimes, asserting the FBI search for possible election season collusion between Russia and Trump campaign officials was a witch hunt, spurred by agents and bureaucrats opposed to Trump becoming president. That investigation ended earlier this year when special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined there was insufficient evidence to charge any Americans with conspiring with Russia, and declined to reach a decision about whether the president had sought to obstruct justice.
David Laufman, a former Justice Department official who was involved in the early stages of the Russia probe, said it was “fairly unorthodox for the attorney general personally to be flying around the world as a point person to further evidence-gathering for a specific Justice Department investigation,” and especially so in Barr’s case.
“Even if one questions, as a threshold matter, the propriety of conducting a re-investigation of the Justice Department’s own prior investigation of Russia’s interference, the appointment of John Durham — a seasoned, nonpartisan prosecutor — provided some reason to believe that it would be handled in a professional, nonpartisan manner,” Laufman said. “But if the attorney general is essentially running this investigation, that entire premise is out the window.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
It would take 20 Republican senators, or more if senators in trump states like Manchin are unlikely to vote to remove
I'm trying to think of a way out here for Democrats.
The best idea I have is if the House impeachs, then Biden or the democratic nominee publicly asks the senate not to remove him. As in, "let me at him, I'm gonna kick his butt and the people will vote him out."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©