This blog began as an investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey case, and it's largely continued along the same lines to this day. Over time, however, we've come to consider other issues as well, notably the Amanda Knox case, the Darlier Routier case, and the especially mysterious case of Rebecca Zahau and Max Shaknai. What they all have in common, which for me validates their inclusion here, is the fundamental issue of: justice.
For many years now, I've become increasingly drawn, as have so many others, to an issue of far greater scope and consequence than anything we've covered or possibly could cover, in this relatively modest venue. Indeed it would seem to be the elephant in just about every room these days that can no longer be ignored. I'm speaking, of course, of climate change and the question of whether or not it's any longer possible to justify business as usual in the face of what's famously been called "an existential threat" to the future of humanity. Indeed, how can we justify our endless debate over the mysteries of a single murder case, no matter how horrific, when the future of the world as we know it is at stake? Don't all of us have an obligation to confront this issue head-on? If we're concerned above all with justice then how can we ignore the all-important question of climate justice?
Or is it really an issue at all? Skeptics (aka "deniers") routinely scoff at what they regard as climate change "hysteria," contesting the notion that 97% of scientists agree, insisting that none of the extreme events we've been witnessing of late have anything to do with carbon dioxide emissions but are simply due to the same sort of natural forces the world has experienced since time immemorial. For climate change activists, however, the danger is real. And their demands are becoming increasingly alarming. It's easy enough to declare one's belief in "climate change." It's another thing entirely to willingly alter one's life style in the extreme manner now being demanded. Or else!
I'm wondering how readers of this blog feel about this issue. Are you a "believer," a "skeptic," or somewhere in between? I'm hoping at least some of you will feel brave enough to open up on this issue in your comments, leading, hopefully, to a meaningful discussion/ debate. Those wishing to continue commenting on the Ramsey case can continue to do so on the previous thread.
One note of caution, made necessary by the highly emotional nature of the climate debate: any comments containing personal attacks or other offensive material will be deleted.
I'm a believer, Doc, and while I recognize the importance of the issue, I'm a little surprised you'd raise it here: This has never been a political blog, and I, for one, find it impossible to discuss climate change without pointing out the policy changes of the last 2-1/2 years that have so adversely affected our already benighted planet.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to get as political as you like, CC. I'm raising the issue now for reasons I'd rather not discuss as yet. My take is very different from any I've seen to date, but I'll be holding my tongue for a while until others have had a chance to chime in with their thoughts and opinions.
DeleteVery well then:
DeleteTrump has done immeasurable harm by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, neutering the EPA, attempting a rollback of automobile emissions standards, and his stance on coal ("Trump Digs Coal!" "Coal is beautiful!"). One can only assume, given his track record, that there is some as yet undiscovered financial benefit to him personally.
On the other hand, I think AOC and the other supporters of The Green New Deal are making a mistake by folding a more activist approach to climate change in with jobs, labor and economic issues.
Climate change is a valid issue. Pollution is more prolific than ever.
ReplyDeleteYes, but is it man-made? We aren't talking pollution, we are talking the polar ice caps melting, lakes drying up, etc. And, will this happen in the next few centuries, or in the next few years as some politicians want you to believe.
DeleteIt will happen if we keep polluting the atmosphere.
DeleteFirst of all Doc, good to see you branching out into other areas of interest. As you indicated, for those that want to keep talking about JonBenet's murder, they are free to do so. On to climate change. I am not a believer. But let me clarify. There are many meteorologists who have taken the position that climate change is not man-made, but I will only reference one. Dr. Patrick Michaels Director of the Center for Science at the Cato Institute, and a Phd in Ecological Climatology has stated that the surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was 10 years ago - by 9/10th's degrees celsius. There were two periods of warming, one in the earliest 20th century which could not have been caused by human beings as we didn't put enough CO2 in the air, and one in the latter part of the 20th century, which might make up for a tenth or two. The truth is we don't know what is causing the slight warming. The computer models that are used to cite data and scare people are all sponsored by governments including the U.N. and are far far off in their predictions. In essence they are fudged results. However, these fudged results are used by politicians to increase taxes. Remember, the world was supposed to come to an end as predicted by Al Gore a few decades ago in his fictitious film "Earth in the Balance." It has become another hoax. And I would like to add, when there is a rat infestation in L.A. and unsanitary conditions affecting our planet in the U.S. that politicians do not know how to fix, aka the homeless situation, they frequently turn to things that cannot be fixed like global warming in an effort to look as though they are "doing something." Clean up L.A., and San Francisco. Then we'll talk about the planet and global warming and see if they can fix that by raising your taxes and taking away your cars - not theirs of course, or their jet fuel as they fly all over the country on the campaign stump.
ReplyDeleteThe truth about the Paris Climate Treaty was that it was falsely described by Obama in 2015 as "not a treaty" in the U.S. as a way to avoid the constitutional treaty process, and bypass Congress. Worse was the hypocritical aspect of the "climate change" policies that the treaty (other than the millions of dollars spent in jet fuel, gasoline and electricity by those who attended the event) was that the policies offered no detectable impact on the earth's temperature. The climate policies, already tried in Europe, resulted in skyrocketing electric bills killing the most vulnerable who could not afford to heat their homes. This was a direct result of governmental policies in the name of a fashionable cause, that had no impact on the climate. Since it was not a treaty to begin with, and unconstitutional, Trump could easily get us out of it and he was right to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe Paris Agreement was not a treaty, nor did I refer to it as such. It was, however, an accord between nations to work toward a worldwide solution to what is undeniably a worldwide problem.
DeleteTrump pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Trump refusing to attend the climate change conference at the recent G7, Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Treaty, Trump's scorn for the UN and the WTO, all indicate his unwillingness to acknowledge that we are a part of a global community facing global problems of climate change, peace and economic stability.
Putting your head in the sand while screaming "America First!" avails us nothing.
Please everyone, try to adopt a moniker and use it consistently. Otherwise it's easy to confuse one "anonymous" with another.
ReplyDeleteFrom the scientists who have called this, to the many world adventurers I know, the signs are there that we are in a global warming cycle. Mountaineers have been noting for some time the erosion and melting of our glaciers and snow pack in Nepal, Greenland, Italy, the Artic. I know those who are disbelievers are convinced it is a temporary cycle. I disagree and believe there will come a time when it will be too late to correct. If those who adventure around the world hadn’t conveyed to me the extreme sights of change, it would be easier to accept the debate on a philosophical level, whether it is simply a temporary blip and we’ve been through them before. For me, I go with those who have seen these changes first hand.
ReplyDeleteAs CC has noted, this is a subject one can’t fully explore without moving into a political arena. If the politics to address this does not change, we will cross the pollution border of no return.
-T
Lucky you, T, to know such people and to be able to hear their stories firsthand, while I must make do with Jon Krakauer, Tony Horwitz and others of their ilk.
DeleteI'll sign my Anonymous with a Y. Here are the facts. Earth's climate record shows that warming has preceded, not followed, a rise in CO2. In a published study by the National Academy of Sciences earth's climate 460-445 million years ago found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when C02 levels were 5 times higher than they are today.
ReplyDelete1) Global warming and cooling are primarily caused by fluctuations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
2) Human-produced C02 is re-absorbed by the oceans, forests, and other carbon sinks or basins, negating any climate changes.
3) Predictions of accelerating human-caused climate change are based upon computerized climate models, discussed in a previous post, that are inadequate and incorrect. According to Emeritus Professor of Geography at the U. of Winnepeg, Tim Ball, phD, "IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception. They create the results they are designed to produce."
I think it's a question more of why? Why would other world leaders, politicians, environmentalist activists and progressives want to foist the myth on a public that we are causing the destruction of our planet - that it won't be around in what ten years, twenty years another billion years? Could it be a fad designed to take attention off more serious matters and put forth government legislation that is designed to control every aspect of human consumption, behavior, and activities? How is the Green New Deal practical? Just who won't be allowed to use jet transportation - you, or the ruling class. And just imagine the tax dollars that can be collected by punishing you for driving a car - expensive smog checks every other year and higher and higher car registration fees by the state in which I live. In addition to spending billions of dollars on a train that goes no where. Take a look and see if Climate Change regulations have improved or harmed citizens in other countries where it has been enacted.
Y
Yet 97% of scientists and 18 scientific organizations disagree:
Deletehttps://climate.nasa.gov/
But sure, NASA is part of the deep state and climate change is just a worldwide governmental conspiracy to somehow "control", tax and inconvenience you.
DeleteIf global warming is caused by human beings, then how do you propose to stop it or reverse it? What's the plan?
DeleteY
Reduce the use of petrochemicals by encouraging and rewarding, through tax incentives, hybrid automobiles. Initiate or reinstate automobile inspections to assure cars comport with emission standards. Tax petrochemical producers at a higher rate. Re-commit to a vigorous EPA with oversight powers. Tax and punish companies for chemical dumping and other EPA infractions. Do away with coal-burning. Increase our commitment to sources of renewable energy, such as wind and hydroelectric power. But I'm strictly an amateur - trained ecologists no doubt have more, better ideas.
DeleteBut most importantly, explain to all citizens of this planet that some sacrifice, belt-tightening and inconvenience may be necessary to save the home place, just as our parents and grandparents did in WWII, because like it or not, it's all on the line here, if not for us than for our children and grandchildren.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/13/no-team-trump-didnt-just-junk-clean-water-protections/
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. Very interesting article. I didn't vote for Trump and probably never will, but it seems obvious that he's been getting an extremely unfair shake in the mainstream media. Statements of his are routinely being taken out of context and unjustified accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia and worse have been all over the place since he was elected. As this article makes clear, the worst possible spin on just about any decision he makes is what the general public sees. I'm a long time Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter, but this sort of thing strikes me as extremely unfair. Trump may be a loudmouth braggart and boor, but I've seen no sign of his being the monster the left is portraying him as.
DeletePerhaps you should consider the age-old chicken-or-egg conundrum.
DeleteTrump attacks what he calls the "lamestream media" by decrying "Fake News!", and attacks individual members of the press because it and they call him on the lies he spews daily, and it has ever been thus. Remember "John Barron"?
Trump unabashedly wants to supress outlets and individuals who criticize him, and that's terrifying.
I read Fox News, Breirbart and the BBC as well as the mainstream media, try to keep informed from many sources. You can keep your defense of this "Very Stable Genius" and your claims that he's being treated unfairly. The guy's a self-serving madman.
While I'm certain there has been some distorted press, I look at not what Trump says, which many times is blasphemous in itself, but look at his actions. Anyone who condones the act of removing babies from parents and placing them behind chain-link fencing qualifies as missing the 'human' compassion chip. IOW, monstrous actions do point to him being a monster.
ReplyDeleteChildren have been removed from their parents routinely in this country and many others for many years without a peep of protest from anyone on the left or right. It happens whenever any parent is incarcerated for breaking the law. And yes, it's tragic. But the only alternative would be to incarcerate innocent children along with their parents, which would be far worse. This accusation is typical of the manner in which the left willfully distorts the facts to paint Trump as some kind of monster.
DeleteI like how you think Doc.
DeleteWhat? You're likening hundreds of children kept in cages, en masse, to the children of convicted felons being placed on a case-by-case basis with relatives or in foster homes under CFS supervision?
DeleteReally? You see this as an apt simile?
First of all, CC. The cages you saw dated from the Obama administration. Migrant children are not currently being kept in cages, OK? As for the "en masse" part, that's due to the "en masse" mass migration of tens of thousands of "asylum seekers" who have literally overwhelmed our ability to properly care for either them or their children. Leftists first denied that this was a crisis, and now they're complaining because the (non-existent) crisis has gotten out of hand. It's not clear what they expect and none of the critics has offered a meaningful solution other than opening the borders to all comers, which would not only be illegal but disastrous. Who's going to look after all those families once they are granted "asylum"?
DeleteI'm aware of their genesis. Read a prominent pediatrician's analysis of the conditions there as recently as July, the differences between 2013-14 and now, and her suggested solutions:
Deletehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Justice/2019/0731/Texas-pediatrician-on-border-crisis-Kids-don-t-go-in-cages&ved=2ahUKEwjggIfDjNHkAhUJXK0KHX5UBycQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1nQkIt4LORAvLBsP8jyN64&cf=1
https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/michael-berry/content/2019-09-27-ice-director-to-congressional-dems-the-cages-were-built-under-obama/
DeleteICE Director Tom Homan tells Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal:
“I’d like to remind you, under the Obama Administration we did that most of the years he was president. We moved money around, DHS has called it reprogramming. We did that under the Obama Administration and I don’t remember any hearings on that. And also, I’d like to remind you that under the Obama Administration, you could point out the cages were built under the Obama Administration. I was there. Family detention, we had 100 family beds under the Obama Administration, we built 3,000 more. So when there was a surge in FY-14, FY-15 on the border, Congress was quick to give all the money we needed the detention facilities, transportation contracts. We reprogrammed money out of the majority of the years he was president. That was fine. Under the Obama Administration, FY-12, we removed 490,000 people, half of what was removed last year. There was no hearings about that. So, you know, this is about transparency. Let’s be factual about it.”
I think whatever and whoever we believe in is shaped by our values, which were shaped by our parents, still uniquely our own. One of my parents was for more government, the other, for less. I was also mistrustful of government as a young adult - being lied to about a war that we had no business entering. Not just one president lying to the public, but three. That mistrust of government is still there for me. And I adhere to the principles laid out for us and why we were founded, by the Founding Fathers. Fortunately in America we don't have a dictatorship, but we came close from 2008-2016. And so back to climate change, the EPA was overstepping it's authority, crippling farmers and land owners with their over-regulatory practices. Since 2018 the EPA, now under Wheeler, as administrator, and Trump's regulatory reform agenda, has become more efficient and effective. We have come a long way in controlling car emissions, and disposal or elimination of more pounds and pollutants and waste. One can read the accomplishments too numerous to list here.
ReplyDeleteMy take is that we need big government because it's the only force capable of controlling big business and the oligarchs who control it. While regulation can sometimes go too far, a considerable degree of regulation is absolutely necessary if the well being of ordinary citizens is to be protected. The great failure of the Obama administration was its failure to effectively regulate, thus leading to the ludicrous degree of inequality now threatening our democracy. Unfortunately Trump is no better and perhaps even worse in that department. But I don't see any of the Democratic candidates doing much better, despite their pie in the sky promises.
DeleteSorry, last two are from "Y".
ReplyDeleteDoc, how do you feel about Bernie Sanders now? I think many of his young supporters, who had given $27 to his campaign, trust and faith, felt stunned when he was called into Obama's office and then abruptly dropped out of the race. Especially since only a few months before he said he would take it all the way to the convention. I'm not going to deride Sanders - my values are not the same, I am not an advocate of socialism, but there was no denying he had some of the qualities I admire most in that he was consistent, he didn't talk like a politician, and it appeared that he was the same in 2016 as he was in the 1960's. Secondly, what is his plan to clean up the environment and control climate change? Are you in agreement with him? Maybe you aren't ready to say, if so, that's fine. Y
ReplyDeleteWell, Y, what I think about Bernie Sanders is:
Delete1. I deeply sympathize with most of his political views, especially his efforts to universalize health care, increase taxes on the wealthy, etc.
2. I too support most socialist goals, at least in principle, so I tend to support the same goals when I see them expressed by him.
3. I seriously doubt he could win the election because I don't think this country is ready for someone who openly espouses socialism, unfortunately.
4. If he does become president it's hard to believe he could be effective, as most of his policies would be vigorously opposed by both Republicans and moderate Democrats.
5. As I see it, the rest of the Democratic hopefuls are mediocrities driven almost exclusively by group-think -- very sad. I hate to say it, but imo Trump, for all his many faults, is probably our best bet. Now let me go to the bathroom and wash my mouth out. :-)
Sure, makes perfect sense, 'cause if you can't have a socialist your next likely choice is an aspiring dictator with no regard for the Constitution or rule of law.
DeleteActually I think Tulsi Gabbard stands out as a prospective candidate as she's unafraid to think independently and is against promoting regime change wars.
DeleteAnd CC, it's the Democrats who flaunt the rule of law, or haven't you heard?
To the exclusion of the Trumpster? No, I haven't heard. Pray, enlighten me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy did you delete your posts?
Deleteaj
Upon reflection I thought it polite to wait for Doc's responses to my queries about Dr Griffin and border conditions, and his allegations that it's the Dems that violate the Constitution and the rule of law rather than the self-aggrandizing, venal grifter who now occupies the White House.
DeleteNo one is claiming border conditions aren't bad, CC, you don't need to convince me on that score. But it's hypocritical for Democrats to blame Trump for a condition for which they are responsible. And how are they responsible? By advocating that border authorities ignore the law and permit tens of thousands of so-called "asylum seekers" to cross our borders with impunity, with no thought as to how these unfortunates will be able to survive once "safely" inside our borders. And that's my answer to your question, since yes the Democratic leadership has been advocating for the government to ignore immigration laws and advising illegals on how to thwart the law.
DeleteNot quite the same thing as your prior allegation that Dems advocate "open borders". Name names, let's get it out there.
DeleteAnd let's quickly move on to your non-answer about the Dems violating the rule of law. Again, name names, deal in specifics.
Yippie skippy Doc, ya' got one true believer in your climate change "social construct".
DeleteI find it reprehensible that the son, or charitably grandson, of Polish Jews who sought asylum in WWII now criticizes brown people who seek a better life in this country. We may not be doing it well, but we're trying, and trying counts.
We've got the room. We've got the faith, and God knows we have the low-paying jobs no Norwegian immigrant wants. We've got the statue, you know, the big green one that stands as a beacon in New York Harbor?
Or now that you're here we should close the gates?
PS - still waiting breathlessly to hear your take on the Dems and their violation of the rule of law, as your legal opinions are...not so.
DeleteTulsi is thinking outside the box, she's not afraid to voice her opinions, and she's not bad to look at.
ReplyDelete"Good afternoon, Mr Biden", from a guy who self-identifies as a socialist and a Trumpster? I don't think so. Keep your little corner of Pittsburgh, and your fast-diminishimg corner on what was a formerly well-regarded blog.
ReplyDeleteI think many(if not most) Americans today are suffering from a lack of trust in our leaders as well as the news media. It is becoming harder to know who to believe, who's exaggerating, who's just trying to win votes, and who's merely jumping on their party's bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteUntil we have elected officials that lead with integrity, respect for others, and maturity, I'm afraid nothing will change. Climate issues are complicated and serious.
We need wisdom desperately.
K
Agreed!
DeleteSome of the comments makes me wonder why the baiting?
ReplyDeleteWhy the bullying?
Is this what the blog is supposed to be about?
Doc put it up, Doc took it down.
DeleteI just wanted to mention that Doc's JonBenet Ramsey blog hasn't gone anywhere. It's still "up" so to speak. Doc has said he is open to new cases, or continuing this case, if anyone has something to contribute (Black Sheep or anyone) you can email him privately and ask for a guest post.
ReplyDeleteSteven Avery news
ReplyDeleteA case I didn't follow but know it was discussed here.
News today, he did confess to the murder.
fox6now.com
link
more_horiz
https://fox6now.com/2019/09/24/wisconsin-inmate-confesses-to-slaying-at-center-of-making-a-murderer-filmmaker-says/amp/
*he is Joseph Evans Jr. ^
DeleteHow are you liking your 2nd bestie today, Doc? You know, the one who admitted violating Federal election laws by soliciting campaign aid from a foreign country; the one who conspired to commit that crime with Rudy Giuliani and Bill Barr; and the one who violated the Emoluments Clause . . . all on paper and on national television, all right out there to read and see for ourselves, unfiltered by media bias.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the rational among us will like him less tomorrow after the acting DNI director testifies to Congress, and even less on Friday when the whistleblower's report is released.
Still waiting breathlessly to hear all your examples of Democrats who violate the rule of law and the Constitution to these Trumpian extents.
Yet another "Bombshell," no doubt about it.
DeleteSo much for your professed interest in "the fundamentals of: justice", eh?
DeleteWhat a joke. And so predictable. The democrats like to get out in front of their own scandals (Hillary, Benghazi, her private server, FBI and CIA cabal, spying, and now Biden and Hunter Biden and the Ukraine) by accusing Trump of the very things they are guilty of, with the mainstream media right there, in their corner. It's a giant FU to the people who supported and elected President Trump - because "they know better" than you. But don't even bother to read the transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president. Just assume he's wrong. Such is the party of the desperate.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a transcript, but a summary. As we learned this morning, the actual verbatim transcript is locked in an electronic vault usually reserved for highly confidential matters of national security. Interesting repository for a "perfect", "beautiful", "nothing" call, is it not?
DeleteYou are a voice of reason, CC.
DeleteI’ve been particularly concerned that the conversation was moved to a locked electronic vault with only code word access.
I suspect it's not the first time a 'politically charged' conversation was moved to this vault. Speculative, I know, but speculative based on patterns of Trump behavior. Examples of secretive communications do exist in his dealings with Putin. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that some other conversations were moved to this location.
-T
Read the whistle blower complaint.
ReplyDelete"I was not a direct witness to most of the events described" - whistleblower
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html
Yet the IG and the Director of National Intelligence - both Trump appointees - who had both the access and the responsibility to interview those direct witnesses found the whistleblower's complaint not only credible but of urgent concern.
DeleteThx for the link anon. For now I will stick to news reports as well. And not some opinions by hate mongerers.
Deletehttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-question-top-intelligence-official-handling-whistleblower-complaint/story?id=65856509
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMore good news for Trumpsters: Your dear leader committed attempted obstruction of justice and witness intimidation out loud and on tape at a breakfast meeting this morning. What a guy.
ReplyDeleteThanks, T.
Lookin' like you nailed it, T, when you suggested yesterday that other conversations were hidden in that triple secret server. Now it's talks with MBS, Vlady P and Kislyak.
ReplyDeleteAnd the plot sickens: Not just a conspiracy involving Giuliani and Barr, now it's Pompeo's State Department. What are the chances anyone in Trump's orbit escapes unscathed?
Good morning, folks! It's a bit slow today at work and so I had some time to read through the blog and add my two cents worth.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18 years old (am now 64) and as it stands now, the party has gone too far left for me. My questions is "where are the democrats". Are they going to be appearing anytime soon? The party has been hijacked by the leftist, communist radicals and for democrats like myself, it's unrecognizable.
I'm disgusted with what's going on today. I think the politicians have forgotten that they work for us, and not the other way around. I am sick to death of investigation after investigation and their obsession with everything Trump. Can we get on with the people's business and work on MAJOR issues that have plagued us for years now? Can we stop the personal vendetta against a duly elected President of the United States. Will these leftist radicals be happy only when they see the next Civil War? What's their agenda? Are they willing to sacrifice a country because of their hatred for one man?
Do I like everything about Trump? NO! Do I cringe everything he opens his mouth because I don't know what's coming out of it? YES
BUT, he was elected BY THE PEOPLE and therefore he IS the President of our United States. Easy way to get rid of him. VOTE him out! Can we stop the side show and get on with the people's business?
EG
Thank you EG. As usual, the voice of reason. Apparently Adam Schiff has been sitting on the complaint since August - just as Diane Feinstein sat on Blasey-Ford's complaint until just the right time to release it. It's timing with these folks. And this, is Russia collusion 2.0. The Mueller report was a dud for them, in fact he didn't seem to have written it as not only did he not know what was in it, he didn't seem to know what day it was.
DeleteThe democrats know they have nothing to run on for the 2020 cycle. There are many issues they could tackle - infrastructure, loopholes in the immigration laws, inner city crime, the homeless situation in all of the major cities that they run, and lowering health care premiums without forcing the people into government run health care. It doesn't matter that this too shall blow over, there will be other allegations for the next four years.I know many many democrats who are now in their 80's who know the party has left them. This is not the party of FDR anymore, or JFK.
They can't win on issues so the only way they think they can win is by hoping his popularity will drop (it hasn't, it's gone up) diminishing his support, and having "impeachment" tagged onto his resume. One need only ask how that worked for Bill Clinton - he won re-election and became more popular than ever. They are imploding, and I for one want a front row seat when they do.
Anon,
DeleteI agree with you. It's all BS and most people can see right through it. The ones that can't are blinded by their hatred for Trump. You can't impeach a President because you don't like his personality.
And you're right. Those Democratic candidates are the best they can offer??! If they don't wake up soon, there won't be a democratic party left to vote for.
EG
https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2019/09/28/ukraine-leakerwhistleblower-part-ii/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thepostmillennial.com/five-hundred-scientists-send-letter-to-un-saying-there-is-no-climate-change-crisis/
ReplyDeletehttps://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/
A group of 500 scientists and other experts have penned a letter to the UN declaring that there is no climate crisis and that there needs to be an open discussion on the issue of climate change. “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation,” they write.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/timing-is-key-bikers-rev-for-ride-to-defend-trump-against-impeachment
ReplyDeleteLooks like there will be a push back. Bikers plan to rally for the President.
Investigating,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting those links. Very interesting and scary at the same time.
EG
You are very welcome EG. I agree, interesting and scary. What gets reported or not, what gets greater coverage, what gets ignored.
DeleteU.S. job growth increased moderately in September, with the unemployment rate dropping to near a 50-year low of 3.5%
Deletehttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/04/economy/september-jobs-report/index.html
True, heard this discussed on the radio, thanks for the reminder
DeleteWomen, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans Reach Historic Unemployment Rates
dailycaller.com
https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/10/04/historic-unemployment-rates-women-african-hispanic-americans
https://www.joepags.com/
DeleteIt was Joe Pags radio show I was listening to while driving that talked of the historic low unemployment for minorities and women.
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
ReplyDeleteThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed. . ."
William Butler Yeats
And lower unemployment justifies the graft of our current president, who inherited a recovering economy, has lied to the populace more than 12,000 times, flouts pussy-grabbing, paying off porn stars, alienating our allies, enriching himself by his office, suborning the Constitution and the rule of law, and solicits the help of foreign governments in furtherance of his political ambitions?
ReplyDeleteI think not.
When I learned Pompeo was on the call with Ukraine and initially lied about it, it was a startling moment to compare his oath at West Point: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." Ah, well, it seems to now be a veritable stew of corrupted individuals.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later, the chickens will come home to roost. One simply hopes there’s a national awakening sooner, before we slide into an impervious 'banana republic.'
-T
Here is a beautiful and thankful young lady who also hopes, and prays fervently, for a national awakening:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/i/status/1180524380985679872
He said, she said, they said, you said, I said.
ReplyDeleteOne simple solution. Vote! :)
Let the people decide, as we've been doing for many years now.
EG
While I applaud your highly idealized "simple solution", E, the fact is that a foreign government interfered in our last election - in which our current president lost the popular vote but won in the archaic and outmoded electoral college - and Trump is again inviting foreign powers to influence the next. Not quite what the Founders envisioned.
DeleteThey did, however, envision a Trump, and provided a Constitutional remedy: Impeachment.
" I AM OZ.... the Great and Powerful!
ReplyDeleteWho are you?"
from The Wizard of Oz, 1939
". . . I, in my great and unmatched wisdom . . ."
from Donald J. Trump, 2019
Or would you prefer the 25th Amendment, E? That's a Constitutional recourse as well.
It's not just a simple solution, it's the law of the land. If not for the electoral college, Presidential races would be decided by major cities and that wouldn't be fair, but you already know that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would prefer (And certainly the Founders) is that a bunch of career politicians get back to working for the people and stop wasting our taxpayer dollars on investigations that go nowhere and prove nothing. And for those same politicians to stop thinking they know better than the voters who elected Trump. They are not the ruling class, even though they think they are. Term limits are the answer. Too many of them are sitting in their cushy chairs for way too long.
As I said earlier...do I like everything Trump says and does, NO? But what I dislike more than that, is when these elected for life elitists think they know better than WE THE PEOPLE. How about put forth a candidate that makes sense and WIN! How's that for a concept?
EG
Remember student council elections in high school, E? Remember "one man, one vote"? What possible advantage does that give big cities, if everyone's vote counts equally, and majority rules?
ReplyDeleteAs to the people's business, you'll have to take that up with Mitch McConnell, as the Dems have passed some fifty pieces of legislation that Moscow Mitch has stymied from Senate debate or vote. Clearly the Dems can do their jobs and investigate concurrently. One of those jobs, as mandated by the Constitution, is oversight, which they're - properly - exercising now.
And finally, again, "WE THE PEOPLE" did not elect Trump, though the electoral college did. He lost by some three million votes, those cast by individuals, the only ones that should count.
Sorry, CC...he won, even if you don't like it. That's the system we have, whether you agree with it or not. It gives the smaller states equal footing. If not for the electoral college, the candidates wouldn't waste their time visiting states with low populations and/or resources, etc.
ReplyDeleteYea, they pick and choose what they want to oversee with the media in their pockets doing their bidding. People see through this, they're not blind. As far as working for the people, the only thing I hear out of their mouths is impeach Trump. That's it. That's what they're running on.
Love him or hate him, Trump is here to stay, no matter how much mud the Dems keep throwing at that wall trying to make it stick. Only thing they're accomplishing is making themselves dirty and ripping the country apart.
As I said, find someone who can beat Trump. That's how to "impeach" him.
I am a registered Democrat, have been all my life and I don't recognize these Democrats. I'm still waiting for them to show up and speak up.
EG
I'd like to buy the world a home
ReplyDeleteand furnish it with love
grow apple trees and honey bees
and snow white turtle doves
I'd like to each the world to sing
in perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
and keep it company
that's the real thing
I'd like to teach the world to sing
in perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
and keep it company
that's the real thing
- Coca Cola Company
I will be voting later today. There is a local election and my vote is going to Clinton Woods, even have his sign in the yard. :)
Saw an ad on tv earlier that this Friday REELZ has a special on the Jonbenet case.
ReplyDeleteI don't get that channel but thought some here might, and may be interested.
What the what?! Heard about this on the radio earlier, then found the news article. Wow.
ReplyDeleteTulsa Gabbard tweets
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...
. powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
"Gabbard is frequently mentioned in Russian propaganda and media, including by RT, the news agency backed by the Kremlin, and she has been criticized for foreign policy views that some say are aligned too closely with Russia and other foreign adversaries of the United States — especially her views on Syria and Syrian President Bashar Assad."
Delete"Donald Trump did a very stupid thing on Sunday evening: he attended a public event that wasn’t populated solely by his own deranged and drooling fans. Trump attended a World Series game at Nationals Park in Washington DC, and to say that it didn’t go well for him would be an understatement. In fact he got a rather vicious taste of his own medicine."
ReplyDeleteBut no doubt the 40,000 Nats fans are all traitors, the deep state, the Dems and the lamestream media are behind this latest expression of the will of EG's THE PEOPLE to "Lock him up", referring to the criminal-in-chief, right Doc?
Considering the average price for a World Series ticket is $1200.00, I think we can guess who was in attendance.
DeleteEG
https://twitter.com/davidaldridgedc
ReplyDeleteWell c'mon Doc, EG, Y: Let's hear your full-throated defense of the self-acknowledged criminal who presently occupies the White House.
ReplyDeleteLet's especially hear from you, EG, about his inalienable right to the presidency in the face of his high crimes and misdemeanors, or from you Doc, about the media bias influencing this national debacle.
NSC Lieutenant Colonel Vindland, who was on the call when Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainian president, testifies tomorrow, despite Trump's best efforts to stifle him.
Best to think about getting on the right side of Doc's much-vaunted "justice" right effing now.
CC,
ReplyDeleteIf you can't see the media bias, then you're blind. I would be just as upset if they were doing this to a Democrat who was elected President, as I was when they called for Clinton's impeachment.
For me, it has nothing to do with Donald Trump, it could be Jo Schmo for all I care. For you, however, it's only and always about DT and your hatred of him. You just don't get it. You detest the man SO much that it's clouded your good judgement and that's a shame.
Where was your outrage when Obama was caught on a hot mic discussing his flexibility with Vlad after his election? And no, I don't think that was an impeachable offense either.
EG
There is media bias on both sides...Fox and CNN.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Trump has brought on most of this himself. One cannot deny that. He's an embarrassment to our country. He has the vocabulary of a 12 year old. He's impulsive. He's a bully. He's probably going to be re-elected if the democratic candidates continue to move further to the left.(Stop talking "bold ideas"...that's not going to win the votes in middle America.)
K
As I've stated here several times now, I don't agree with everything he says and I cringe with some of the statements he makes. The media bias is obvious, as 92 % of it is negative coverage. You can't argue with the facts. And this Democrat agrees with you. He is going to be elected again because of the far left position and ideology of the candidates.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that's not the point I am making here. He was elected by the people of this country and for those that voted for him, he is keeping his campaign promises. He was elected because of those promises and what he stood for. They knew who he was when they elected him; NOT A POLITICIAN. Since before he was sworn in, the career democrats were out to get him because he doesn't fit the mold and won't play the political games they've played for years, which is what the people got fed up with.
It's a big deal to remove a sitting, duly elected President, so you better have good reason and you better have some evidence. All I see is investigation after investigation that costs us taxpayers thousands where nothing is proven. There are way more important issues on the minds of Americans like health care, infrastructure, education, etc. What have the Democrats accomplished? What are they running on in 2020? I will tell you. NOTHING and IMPEACHING TRUMP. Sorry, that's not good enough for THIS American.
I vote for term limits. These elitist career politicians have overstayed their welcome. Time to go.
EG
Good post. I too am a long-time Democrat, and I agree.
DeleteAnd you think Trump is the answer? To anything that ails our country?
DeleteI understand your point about being elected by the people. I agree this is serious business, needing good reason and evidence. We shall see soon, I hope.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that although media bias always exists, this particular president has contributed greatly to that bias by his tweets, bullying, insults, etc. It's hard to ignore.
Some people just have a way of dividing people, and he's one of them.
K
His insults are directed at those who've accused him, often recklessly and with little to no evidence.
DeleteAu contraire. His insults are directed at anyone at all, including his former political opponents (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton), his own party members who have the temerity to question him, the "rat-infested City of Baltimore, "shithole" countries - in short, anyone and anything that does not feed his narcissism.
DeleteI'm sorry...I'm kind of speechless here. Trump insults everyone who doesn't kiss his ass, the way I see it.
DeleteCyberbullying is such a problem in our schools today with at times terrible consequences. Trump's method of dealing with those who disagree with him is so juvenile and sets such a bad example.
Let him have his opportunity to defend himself on Ukraine. That's fine.
I will never defend him because he's "honest" about his feelings.
K
I agree with you there K. He is his own worst enemy at times and brings on a lot of it. I wish he would tweet less and control his impulsive nature more. It creates unnecessary angst and problems.
ReplyDeleteOpps, K...that was from me...EG
ReplyDeletehttps://fxn.ws/2PfgOVa
ReplyDeleteThat's from a conservative judge who comments for Fox News, EG.
Are you really suggesting Congress and this country should ignore extortion of foreign governments, rampant violations of the Emoluments Clause, 13,500 lies to the populace, and various and sundry violations of the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend, just because he won an election - one skewed by Russia, let's not forget?
He's a criminal E, and a dangerous, unstable man. He deserves to be treated like one.
And for your information, I bear Trump no personal animus, despite having met and observed him at a charity ball at The Breakers in the 90's, at which he kept one hand on Marla's ass or breast the entire evening . . . which did not preclude him looking down women's dresses or up their skirts for three hours.
ReplyDeleteI like a maverick, loved and supported John McCain, thought the Trumpster might surprise me by being an outsider and a breath of fresh air.
Instead he's just an ill wind.
OMG you can really write and write good. I bet no jury safe from you. If I kill somebody on 5 Ave will you represent me.
DeleteCC,
ReplyDeleteYep I am familiar with that Judge and how he hates Trump for not choosing him to be on the Supreme Court.
What I am suggesting is that until you have evidence that you can bring to the American people and substantiate, keep your mouths shut and stop with the leaking and the hyperbole. Or do you want to continue spending tens of thousands of our taxpayer dollars for investigations that lead to nowhere? Cuz I sure as hell don't.
And by the way, I don't care about how many women's dresses he looked down or how many breasts he's fondled. That's between him and his wife. And if you want to start making that a crime, three quarters of Washington's career politicians will be jailed.
How about Congress get to work on REAL issues that people are dealing with everyday. How about putting forth a candidate in 2020 that people can actually vote for. How about retiring when you can't string a sentence together without stammering and stuttering. I could go on and on here. And I haven't even had my "cawfee" yet. ;)
EG
Like it or not, the Constitution proscribes three co-equal branches of government, one of which is performing its duly authorized form of oversight by way of impeachment - not anyone's first choice.
DeleteLike it or not, the Dems have passed 50 bills, forwarded to the Senate, since January, where Moscow Mitch has stalled them all - including one on much-needed gun legislation.
Like it or not, your (and mine, and most of our countrymen's) idealized view of elections was undermined by a foreign government in 2016, at Trump's behest and likely with his cooperation, and Trump has attempted to conspire with (at least) two foreign governments to do so again, right out loud and in public this time, making it impossible for the House to ignore. They're exercising their responsibility, not indulging in some form of vengeance. It's utterly distasteful, and utterly necessary.
Like it or not, how a man comports himself around women is a reflection of his character and fitness for office and respect, not just a matter between himself and his wife. Just ask Bill Clinton, impeached for a blowjob rather than a crime against the country, or talk to Katie Hill if you want the distaff side of the gender and political coin.
Like it or not, it's Trump who cannot "string a sentence" together" in any kind of coherent, articulate form.
I'll vote for anyone but Trump, including any stammering Democrat, or any Republican who steps forward, and according to the latest polls, so will more than half of America.
Like it or not..(and you of all people should know this) you need evidence that can be proven, and not hearsay brought into a courtroom.
DeleteLike it or not (and you of all people should know this) everyone is entitled to due process under the law. The Dems and the media have him convicted already with ZERO proof and without due process.
Like it or not (and you of all people should know this) Bill Clinton was not impeached because of a blow job, but because he LIED under oath about getting one.
Like it or not (and you of all people should know this) in this country we can ALL vote for whomever we want so you will get your shot at choosing one of our wonderful democratic candidates. You might even have a second shot at Hills again. Have at it.
As for me, I'll keep an extra case of Kleenex at the ready. When Trump wins again, as they'll be another four years of crying and histrionics. ;)
EG
Oh for god's sake, E.
DeleteWe've gone way past hearsay in this investigation with Vindland's testimony.
Due process pertains to a trial, not an investigation.
Bill Clinton's underlying "crime" was the blowjob.
Who is Hills and why would I or anyone want a second shot at him/her?
I'll send you the extra case of tissue, E. No need to wait for the election.
And I note you do not address the very important Me Too issues the present resident asshole raises for men and women of conscience.
We have contradictory testimony there. Which is what's going to happen now as the investigation begins. Just more of the same, as in the Mueller report. Two years, 25 million which amounted to zero, zilcho, nada, nothing. This is Russian Collusion part 2.Remember all the "evidence" the Dems claimed to have with Trump colluding with Russians? Well, where was it? Remember how damning Mueller's report was going to be? Get ready because here we go again. More taxpayer's money wasted.
DeleteAs far as a trial goes. They've already found him guilty without the trial. Which is my entire point here.
Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath.
As far as "Me Too" issues, I have said it multiple times here, I do not agree with everything he says and does. I care very deeply about the plight of women and feel fortunate to live in this country, whereas women in other parts of the world are suffering atrocities everyday.
EG
In fact we do not have any contradictory testimony; it's all been corroborative. All.
DeleteThe Mueller Report resulted in ten potential crimes of obstruction of justice. Mueller proved to be too much of a wimp to bring them forward, which does not diminish their importance. The expense of Mueller's investigaton was more than offset by the resulting confiscation of assets from Manafort and the Trumpster's other co-conspirators.
No one has found Trump guilty in a court of law or a Senate impeachment trial, merely culpable. And sure, that's newsworthy.
Women in this country suffer "atrocities" every day, some - allegedly 50 or more - at the literal hands of Donald Trump.
Okay, lets start backwards here:
DeleteWhat "alleged" (which means not proven) 50 women or more are suffering atrocities at the "literal" hands of Donald Trump? Please elaborate.
Exactly and yet Trump hasn't been given that presumption of innocence that we are ALL entitled to. In the eyes of the media and the Dems, he is guilty before stepping into a courtroom. My point exactly. Totally biased.
Mueller was a hero BEFORE the report came out. Once it came out and there was nothing there OR they WOULD have brought indictments, he became a wimp.
We just had someone testify that he saw nothing wrong with the phone call and he was there when it was made. He was in the room, unlike the whistleblower. Morrison said he was not concerned that anything illegal had been discussed.
EG
Check out "All the President's Women: The Making of a Predator" for a complete list. Many women do not press charges or come forward, which does not illegitimize their allegations of abuse.
DeleteTrump is entitled to the presumption of innocence only in a courtroom, not as the subject of an investigation. The fact that he himself admitted to his solicitation of Ukraine and China in his re-election efforts absolutely colors his perception in the press and in the public mind.
Mueller was a highly respected FBI director, not a heroic prosecutor. His report clearly stated had been able to exonerate Trump, he would have done so. He did not. His report also sets forth ten counts of obstruction of justice. He failed to charge because of a DOJ guideline prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president, a mistake.
That is not at all what Morrison testified. He corroborated the substance of the Zelensky call, bit said he did not find it illegal.
You're right--"said he did not find it illegal". Isn't that exactly right? NOT illegal meaning NO crime there?
ReplyDeleteAnd I suppose his sons, etc. were also protected from being indicted? You know, the whole gang that was in on this big collusion and obstruction scheme where we were told for two years how they had PROOF and that the EVIDENCE was coming. Well where is it?. Where are those indictments?
Yes, I know he is but the Dems forgot about that innocent until proven guilty thingee. They did the same thing with Kavanaugh. It's not only totally unfair its downright dangerous.
I am all for the Me too movement, but I also have sons and I wouldn't want some woman accusing them of something without providing a shred of evidence to back it up and having them spend time in prison just because they're men and we always have to believe the women because they're women. It's unfair, it's unjust and it's downright dangerous.
EG
Morrison said when he heard the infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky he did not think he heard anything illegal. That may be true, but whether or not Trump broke the law isn’t dispositive in the case of an impeachment. Abuses of power can, and often are, legal, but still impeachable. And Morrison’s opinion on whether Trump broke the law is even less relevant, the fact that he corroborated all the other testimony is.
ReplyDeleteMueller made clear in his report that DJTJ did hold a Trump Tower meeting with Russians but that he did not charge him because, essentially, the kid may have been too stupid to understand Federal election laws. There were thirteen indictments handed down as a result of Mueller's investigation. Mueller stated baldly that he could not exonerate Trump himself.
Again, subjects of an investigation are not entitled to the presumption of innocence or due process.
"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." Commentators and lawyers, including this one, have described such an action as sexual assault. There's your evidence, E, and as usual, right from the piggy"s mouth.
I'm hoping if your sons ever made such statements, or were accused of assault by 50-some women, you would get them help rather than mindlessly defend them.
Let's think about that for a moment. He got elected, even though he spoke those words. Can you imagine how disgusted people had to be with the government and the way it was, to be able to ignore and accept someone running for President who spoke those words? Just ponder that for awhile and maybe you'll understand my point.
ReplyDelete"We the people" were disgusted with the status quo. A government, run by a bunch of career politicians who thought they were the ruling class. People who hadn't voted in years, got out to vote. They were sending a message. We threw out the King years ago and we have a Constitution that gives us rights. They work for US and somewhere along the line, they forget this.
DT came in and upset their apple carts, got in their faces, stopped the gravy train. He wasn't one of them and they can't stand that. Hey, if you had a cushy job, where you voted yourself top notch medical benefits, lifetime pensions and lifetime salaries, you'd be pissed off too that some outsider somehow got in. In fact, you'd be astounded and you'd start talking "impeachment" before he even entered the oval office, which they did. A concerted effort to overthrow a duly elected, President was underway in 2016.
My sons wouldn't make such statements or assault women, but if they were accused of it, I'd want to be damned sure they'd get a fair trial and wouldn't be found guilty first, innocent later. By then, reputations and lives are ruined. It's dangerous.
By "atrocities" I was referring to the 500.000 women of the Congo, who were raped so brutally that their genitals were mutilated to the point where they couldn't urinate, bear children and in some cases couldn't even stand upright and walk. What Donald Trump said was dead wrong and it was insulting. But I don't think I'd call it atrocious.
EG
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion. Sorry CC, but I can't resist chiming in. First off I must say I agree just about 100% with EG. Trump may be an obnoxious boor, but no one can accuse him of hiding his true feelings. You can accuse Trump of being "liar in chief," but no politician in memory has ever been so honest in revealing his true thoughts and feelings on just about every topic imaginable. Whereas most politicians hide their true feelings (i.e. dissemble), publicly stating what's expected and conforming to the rules of political correctness regardless of what they really think, Trump tells the world precisely what is on his mind, in no uncertain terms. One could indeed claim that he's the first president since Geo. Washington who cannot tell a lie. Tongue in cheek, natch. And when he does lie he does so in such an obvious manner that he never gets away with it -- and if you know ahead of time that your lie is so preposterous that everyone can see through it, is that really a lie? Or just a load of bluster?
ReplyDeleteNow as far as the Ukrainian issue is concerned, I seem to recall a certain video in which Joe Biden publicly brags about coercing the Ukrainian President to fire a certain "corrupt" prosecutor or else he, Biden, would prevent needed aid from being sent by the US government. Looks like a quid pro quo to me. And since the prosecutor had been going after the company on which Biden's son serves on the Board of Directors, for a cool $50,000 a MONTH, it certainly looks like corruption. Especially when we consider that Biden's son knows little to nothing about the company's business and was clearly appointed because he was the vice-president's son.
So why wouldn't the President want to see this situation investigated? Would we expect him to ignore what looks like blatant corruption simply because Biden, like a dozen or more Democrats, has placed his hat in the ring? And lest we forget, all Trump requested was an investigation, NOT a prosecution, not an arrest, just an investigation.
Looks to me like all this "impeachment" nonsense is little more than an attempt at misdirection. Point the finger at the guy who wants a possibly corrupt official investigated as a means of deflecting attention from the real suspect.
Sorry, I cannot agree that Trump's lying about facts and figures is excusable under any circumstances. It's pathological and self-serving, not amusing, as you seem to imply.
DeleteBiden's "quid pro quo" predated his son's involvement with Burisma, and was an attempt - joined by other countries - to curtail a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. Look it up.
Trump did not "request" an investigation from Zelensky, he witheld Congressionally approved aid and a White House meeting to obtain it. That's called extortion.
If Trump wanted a real investigation of years-old corrupt activities by an American citizen, the appropriate step would be to ask the FBI, which could then coordinate with the foreign government.
"Sorry, I cannot agree that Trump's lying about facts and figures is excusable under any circumstances. It's pathological and self-serving, not amusing, as you seem to imply."
DeleteIf I thought Trump was lying about anything of any real consequence, I'd tend to agree with you, CC. Yes he exaggerates, yes he brags, yes he tosses accusations left and right, but they are always in response to those who he believes to have unjustly accused HIM. Very often his alleged lies, racist statements and "insensitive" acts have been taken out of context by media sources making no secret of their desire to remove him from office.
"Biden's "quid pro quo" predated his son's involvement with Burisma, and was an attempt - joined by other countries - to curtail a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. Look it up."
I did look it up, CC, and found an extremely long, complex timeline filled with various allegations by various individuals on both sides of the issue, based all too often on hearsay and unwarranted assumptions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/24/full-trump-ukraine-timeline-now/).
According to what I found, Hunter's involvement with Burisma began May 13, 2014. Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general on Feb. 10, 2015. Burisma was investigated by Shokin after that appointment, obviously.
Biden tells Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin or lose more than $1 billion in loan guarantees on Dec. 8, 2015. So no, Biden's quid pro quo came AFTER his son's involvement with Burisma. And Hunter's term as a Burisma board member did not end until mid-April 2018.
According to Shokin, in a Washington Post interview of July 22, 2019, he was removed as prosecutor general over the Biden issue. “I will answer that the activities of Burisma, the involvement of his son, Hunter Biden, and the [prosecutor general’s office] investigators on his tail, are the only — I emphasize, the only — motives for organizing my resignation,” he says.
As for the withholding of military aid, the decision to withhold the aid came well before the phone call to Zelensky of July 25, 2019. In contrast to the clear quid pro quo held out by Biden, there is NO mention of any quid pro quo in that phone call -- not even the whistle blower alleges that. Zelensky agreed during that call to carry out the investigation Trump very politely asked for (without any trace of the so often alleged arm twisting), yet the aid in question did NOT follow directly on that call. If that was the quid pro quo why didn't Trump follow through on it?
On Sept. 24, 2019, "Trump confirms he withheld the funding but suggests it was because other European countries should pay for Ukraine’s military aid." While it might seem disingenuous to take Trump at his word on this, that explanation does make some sense and cannot easily be dismissed, especially since the release of the funds finally comes on Sept. 11, 2019, over a month after the notorious phone call.
As you will gather from the timeline the whole matter is extremely complex and there is no simple way to evaluate the validity of any of the many witnesses, whose testimony goes out in all directions. The Dems will have to sort through all this during their "impeachment" inquiry and I don't envy them.
For a better timeline, explanation of Shokin's removal, and Joe Biden's involvement and statements, google "Biden Ukraine Timeline" and read the article by Just Security.
DeleteWe'll just have to disagree about Trump's lies. When one literally cannot believe anything that comes out of the president's mouth, that's potentially dangerous.
Doc is right. DT is the most transparent President in our lifetimes, in fact to a fault.
DeleteWhy would Trump ask the FBI to help him investigate anything? You mean the same FBI who lied to a FISA court judge? That FBI? Oh yea, Trump could have trusted them to investigate corruption when they themselves are guilty of it and hated the man. NOT.
EG
Then why not direct his concerns directly to Bill Barr at the DOJ, let him direct an inquiry? Seems preferable to engaging in extortion of a foreign government.
DeleteBill Barr? You mean the Attorney General accused of being in Trump's pocket? THAT AG? The one who is investigating the origins of the phony Russian dossier?
DeleteWhy isn't the POTUS allowed to ask about a quid pro quo perpetrated by a former VP?
BTW...Did you hear he is moving to your state from my city? ;)
EG
Yes, that Bill Barr. Again, why not ask him to investigate rather than committing extortion?
DeleteJudging by the latest from the SDNY, I rather think he'll be spending his golden years in New York, not Florida.
Because he chose not to which is his prerogative. He isn't the first President not to have done so. And just because you keep repeating the word "extortion", it doesn't make it so.
DeleteI prefer to wait until I see the evidence before hanging someone. So far, its the SOS. The Dems claiming to have ironclad proof and coming up with nothing. I think this is going to be more of the same.
EG
Here’s a little description of what this revolves around – the Constitution, as viewed by Jennifer Rubin, columnist and lawyer.
ReplyDelete"When a politician demands a private benefit (opposition research for a politician’s private use) in exchange for performing public act (releasing aid), that is called soliciting a bribe. That sort of mixing private gain with public conduct is precisely the definition of corruption. It is this sort of corrupt dealing that the impeachment clause in the Constitution contemplated when it refers to “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Hilarious that they even had Kurt Volker text a script to top Ukranian officials which they wanted Zelensky to read as a public announcement about investigations into Burisma-Biden and 2016 election investigations. They also specified no one else could make this announcement; it had to be Zelensky.
Gawd, is Trump ever good at selling and marketing.
But never-mind . . .
Republicans have just said no-one’s testimony (no diplomat, no ambassador, no official) will change their minds about the impeachment being a farce. Turn off the lights. Fold up the impeachment tent. It’s over.
EG's "The People" have spoken loudly at two sporting events in the last two weeks. Now Trump's handlers have decided he should attend a third, this time in deep red state Alabama at the Tide/Tigers game on Saturday, presumably in hopes of eliciting cheers at a public event.
ReplyDeleteThey underestimate student volatility, to the extent that Trump is now personally, via Twitter, threatening them:
AL.com had posted this tweet: “The Alabama SGA warns groups: Protest Trump during the LSU game and risk losing your reserved seating.” Donald Trump then retweeted that tweet.
That, after the Alabama SGA had made clear its original warning related to "altercations in block seating" and not "political protests", and went on to say it in no way intended its original statement violate First Amendment rights.
Threatening college kids at a football game? How low does this guy go?
Never mind, rhetorical question.
I'm all for letting "We the People" decide in November of 2020.
ReplyDeleteThere's something about allowing corrupt politicians decide how corrupt DT is, that gives me a really bad feeling.
How about you?
EG
You're missing the point, EG. The House has a Constitutional mandate to investigate corruption, as I and others have pointed out to you, and that evidence is mounting.
DeleteThere is, at this writing, no chance that the "corrupt" House investigation will triumph over the equally corrupt Republicans in the Senate.
At best, all any of us can hope for is that by exposing malfeasance "The People" will be sufficiently educated to make better decisions in 2020 . . . hopefully without foreign governmental interference this time.
That's fine, CC and I agree with that. The problem is their investigations are based on accusations that are never substantiated. In other words, lots of time and money wasted for absolutely no reason other than the fact that they hate DT and can't and won't accept the fact that he was elected. In addition they know they don't have a single candidate that's going to win in 2020 so they're running on impeaching DT with the help of the media."The people" knew enough and had enough of the corrupt politicians in 2016 and that's how we got DT in the WH.
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing stinks! If you wan't to get rid of DT, vote him out.
EG
Not true. So far all six diplomats, ambassadors and Trump aides have, without exception, corroborated the impropriety (charitably) of the Ukraine call.
DeleteI intend to, and based on 2018's Blue Tide, Tuesday's repudiation of Trump in Pennsylvania and Virginia, the incumbent Republican governor's defeat in Kentucky, and Trump's recent reception at public events, so does most of America.
One can only hope the further damage he inflicts on the country is minimal between now and then.
All we have are what's leaked to the media and most comments have been taken out of context. I want to see when the questioning comes from the other side. Let's get two sides of the story before we condemn someone. We've been down this road before with the collusion illusion so forgive me if I'm skeptical of the "evidence" the Dems have.
DeleteEG
No need to be skeptical of the evidence: The transcripts of those depositions are being released, and are available to anyone online.
DeleteYou forget that there are Republicans in those closed hearings, equally capable of asking questions, equally capable of leaking.
We'll see if they can do any better next week in the public hearings.
I read the transcript of the phone call and saw no evidence of a quid pro quo. I did, however, hear about a quid pro quo when VP Biden spoke about withholding a billion unless the prosecutor was fired. THAT was a quid pro quo if I ever heard one.
ReplyDeleteEG
Off point - your point. The transcripts of the House investigation depositions are available online, free of any media filter or bias.
DeleteWhat you're referring to is not a transcript, as it states itself, but a summary. If all was so perfect, why doesn't Trump release the actual, verbatim summary, and why was it locked in a special server?
That special server where many such transcripts are stored? Only DT can't store things there? According to Susan Rice, so did Obama. What's your point?
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of summarizing the transcript, Schiff's parody before Congress and televised to millions was okay?
The bias, the double standard and the hypocrisy is outrageous and blatantly obvious to most fair minded people.
And btw, two states and three stadiums do you not make up the majority of Americans. Let's see what happens in 2020.
EG
Again, you evade my questions:
DeleteIf the call was so perfect, why not release the actual verbatim transcript rather than a summary?
If, as you say, the leaked statements of the diplomats, ambassadors and aides are "taken out of context", why not avail yourself of the actual transcripts?
If the information from closed door hearings was, in your view, so incredibly biased, why is it the attendant Republicans have not leaked contrary information?
You're the one evading questions here, not me. ;)
ReplyDeleteWhat about VP Biden and the quid pro quo?
What about lying to the FISA court, submitting a phony and unverified dossier in order to open a bogus investigation of a duly elected POTUS to get him impeached? You wouldn't call that a high crime? I'd say it was treason. What say you?
Answers:
Maybe because as in all official government transcripts certain parts have to be redacted by law.
The Republicans refused to take part in what they considered a bogus impeachment investigation that wasn't brought forth properly. As I recall they stormed the room in protest.
EG
I think it reprehensible that Hunter Biden profited from his family name, just as I find it so for DJTJ, Ivanka and Eric.
DeleteI think Joe should step aside, not least because of his own personal involvement in Ukraine.
I think the Steele Dossier was improperly used to influence the FISA court.
None of which alters Trump's efforts to involve a foreign government in the next election.
Trump's Ukraine call did not, by any witness testimony, involve National Security interests, the only circumstance that would require the redactions you suggest.
Republicans did, in fact, participate in the House hearings, 13 of whom participated in the photo op to which you refer.
I think I feel better about you, CC. I was beginning to wonder. ;)
ReplyDeleteNot only did it influence the FISA court, it was done to begin an investigation accusing DT of colluding with the Russians in order to have him impeached. Treason?
EG
I realize you've only been here three years, E, but surely long enough to know I'm a hardnosed attorney, former prosecutor and major proponent of the rule of law, regardless of the circumstances or my personal feelings.
ReplyDeleteWell I had always thought so, but lately I had my doubts. ;) I am not at all convinced however, that your personal feelings toward DT haven't influenced your posts here. You wouldn't be the only one, as I have family members who feel exactly as you do about DT, which makes for "lively" discussions on holidays.;)
ReplyDeleteYou haven't answered my question. Treason?
EG
As I've made clear, despite one meeting I have no personal feelings toward Trump, and in fact tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when first elected; however, I deeply dislike anyone who breaks the law and lies.
DeleteI suggest you look up the definition of treason before bandying it about, as Trump does.
In short, no.
treason - "the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government"
ReplyDeleteBy lying to a FISA court in order to get a bogus investigation going in order to impeach, which basically means, to unseat or overthrow a duly elected POTUS?
In fact, they wanted him out, before he even got in.
I'd say that was the definition of treason.
Please explain why this isn't so.
EG
As I've explained, impeachment is a duly, recognized Constitutional mandate. There were no grounds for it in 2017, nor were there any in 2019, until Trump solicited election interference from a foreign government.
DeleteLying to a FISA court to begin an investigation into Carter Page and, later, George Papadopoulos, both of whom had ties to Russia, does not meet the definition.
They used that as an excuse to begin an investigation that they THOUGHT would lead to Trump and collusion with Russian. Carter and George had nothing to do with Russia. It was all BS and they knew it. I am sure the IG's report will spell it out and they'll be indictments. It was all done in an effort to get rid of Trump.
ReplyDeleteEG
"When the Mueller Report was released in April 2019, it described Page's testimony about his role in the 2016 Trump campaign and connections to individuals in Russia as contradictory and confusing, and his contacts with Russians before and during the campaign as tangential and eccentric. He was not charged with any crimes, though the report indicated there were unanswered questions about his actions and motives: 'The investigation did not establish that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election'. However, with incomplete "evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow", "Page's activities in Russia – as described in his emails with the [Trump campaign] – were not fully explained."
ReplyDeleteGeorge Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about the timing and the possible significance of his contacts in 2016 relating to U.S.-Russia relations and the Donald Trump presidential campaign.
Durham, if it he to whom you're referring, is not an IG, and if his joint efforts with Barr "investigating the investigators" had yielded fruit since his appointment, I'm quite sure Trump would have trumpeted it on Twitter and in a chopper talk.
And still, not treason. It's a big word, one you and Trump should take more care using, if for no other reason than that the penalty therefor is death.
DeleteI guess we will have to just wait and see, CC.
ReplyDeleteI predict Trump in a landslide victory in 2020.
EG
Hi EG, I too think he will win by a landslide.
DeleteDJ Jr was in the B'ham area tonight for a book signing. I didn't go, but will see if the news mentions the turn out later.
For those that want to watch the game, CBS will be airing it.
Roll Tide Roll! :D
(for others that follow missing persons, Tim Miller and Texas Equusearch is also in Alabama this week)
Hi Lil....good to hear from you and yep, he's got his hand on the pulse of the American people and is cleaning the swamp as promised which is causing them to go haywire with false accusations and bogus investigations. Stock up on the Kleenex, another four years of histrionics is coming.
DeleteEG
EG, I am amazed how there are those so effected by the fact Trump is in office that they are consumed with their negative emotions towards him. Kleenex, oh it will likely be a thorazine shuffle for many.
DeleteTrump's donations far exceed Obama's during his second running, and of course those running against Trump now.
I believe those that never voted in the last election will come out in droves to vote for him this election. One reason they have been so fed up with the verbal pollution from the likes of those on tv and online; Baldwin, Maher, Behar, Colbert, ...antifa...add in the attacks on his wife and children, plus everything you've mentioned. In the words of the President, it's gonna be "huuuge".
Omg, I don't watch the view as it's a hate show with queen harridans but Behar was caught in a lie
Deletehttps://thehill.com/homenews/media/469470-joy-behar-roasted-for-denying-wearing-blackface-enjoy-the-cancel-culture-you
The rabid anti-Trumpers are unwell. I watched Wendy Williams this morning (repeat of previous day) and her guest was Karamo Brown, from Queer Eye, recently on Dancing with the stars. He said he made the comment that Sean Spicer was nice, (also on dwts) and had to leave Twitter as his sons were getting death threats. Ellen DeGeneres got hate because she sat next to George Bush.
Then those that are proud to be part of a mob mentality to boo at stadiums. Seek therapy, all y'all that have no impulse control and have to reveal the hatred in your hearts.
Lil - Nothing amazes me anymore when it comes to what they're doing to this President. It's unprecedented and what's dangerous about it is that they're making new laws as they go along to fit their agenda. It's disgraceful and every single American should be concerned with what they're doing. The media bias, double standard and the hypocrisy are so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain.
DeleteThis type behavior on the part of the career elite politicians who think they're the ruling class only makes me dig my heels in deeper and I am not the only one.
EG
No EG, not the only one. While I was out today, a caller called into the Hannity program. One I don't normally listen to. She said she didn't like Hannity at first, because he wasn't a Democrat. Until she started checking into his statements and saw the facts. She has been a Democrat for years, but voted for Trump and will again in 2020 and said so will several of he female friends in Arizona. So yes, there are Dems that flip and vote for Trump. She can't abide by the atrocious things said about the President, even if you don't like him. So the more they bash, the more votes will go to Trump.
DeleteWell bummer, my Tide lost. The over 100k people in the stands were respectful. A bit more than attended the Nationals at home, lol.
DeleteThe news reported about 40 protesters outside, then the ugly baby balloon got slashed.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-receives-mostly-warm-welcome-at-alabama-lsu-rival-game.amp
w/video
Hi again Lil,
DeleteAnd yes, lots of Democrats like myself feel as I do. For me, it's not about Trump. I'd protest if they were doing this to any other person that was elected by the people. He's an outsider who made his way into the club and they can't stand it. They've wanted him out before he even got in. This was a "not too well" orchestrated plan, that seems to be backfiring on them.
EG
I'll accept that as your less than gracious concession to facts, E, as you've not been able to refute any of mine.
ReplyDeleteHere are two more for you: Today the defunct Trump Foundation was ordered to pay $2M to various real charities in compensation for its fraud. In December of 2018, Trump University was ordered to pay $25M in compensation for its fraud.
In 2020 the American people will overwhelmingly vote Trump out of office, thereby ending his biggest fraud of all.
Facts? I am waiting for the facts. Unlike you who have heard one side of the story and have already got him guilty and impeached. Just tonight there was breaking news about the Whistleblower's attorney talking about a coup and impeaching Trump a week after he was elected. We need to hear more about this, we need to know when Schiff first met with the Whistleblower. We need to hear it all before overthrowing an election. I am not satisfied and you shouldn't be either.
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, most American want to hear HOW this was a quid pro quo because I sure as hell haven't heard anything yet to convince me of anything.
I will graciously and readily admit I was wrong, IF they prove he is guilty of an impeachable offense. So far, nahhhh..with what they have, they better start coming up the next "insurance policy" because this latest one, isn't working too well for them.
EG
With all due respect, CC -- and I do very much respect your opinion . . . why would a quid pro quo have been necessary since, as we know, Zelensky readily acceded to Trump's request?
ReplyDeleteIt was Biden who insisted on a quid pro quo, and publicly bragged about it. While it's been suggested that Biden's wanted the prosecutor removed because he wasn't doing enough to fight corruption, this is NOT the reason he gave. Biden didn't claim the prosecutor wasn't being tough enough, he accused him of being "corrupt," a very different thing. He said nothing about stepping up the fight against corruption, he just wanted that specific person out. It's been claimed that the prosecutor had not been investigating Burisma at the time. However, in a recent interview he insists he was fired specifically because he was in the process of investigating both Burisma and Hunter Biden's role in that company.
And regardless of anything else, the fact that the US vice-president's son was appointed to the board of a Ukrainian power company, at such an exorbitant salary, is highly questionable to say the least -- if not out and out corrupt. Certainly there is lot to investigate regarding Biden's role in Ukraine while he was in office. Regardless of any personal interest, Trump was certainly within his rights to insist on an investigation of Joe Biden's behavior.
Fact: Military aid was held up.
DeleteThe crux: It was held up to “encourage” Zelensky to make a public statement, either to benefit Trump’s reelection by creating an aura of Biden corruption OR to make a public statement to show Trump’s noble desire to root out corruption. Zelensky was ready to appear on CNN to make his announcement about the desire to beat down corruption. And then the News/Scandal/CallItWhatYouWill broke.
"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said. His revised under oath testimony.
What public statement was this? The New York Times reported that Andriy Yermak, a senior Zelensky aide, had hashed out wording with then-US Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker in drafting a public statement to discredit Joe Biden.
Doc, you should call your new “something different” blog: Breitbart News Network 2.0.
Clearly Trump wanted a public statement made. But it's not at all clear that the aid was delayed for that reason. As far as I can tell, no such statement was ever made, and yet the aid eventually went through. Why was that? It's also important to recall that Trump's principal interest was investigating the events leading up to the Mueller probe, an aspect of the case the Democrats have all but ignored (because face it, it reflects VERY badly on them and some of them could be in very hot water because of it).
ReplyDeleteMost of what's been reported is hearsay, most often from members of the "deep state" (i.e., entrenched bureaucracy) who've resented Trump from the start. Just think of all the terrible accusations tossed out during the Mueller probe, where so many (including Shiff) were convinced they had proof of collusion. We're not hearing much about THAT anymore, but I recall it very well and for me the credibility of the Dems and the media hacks who echoed their unfounded accusations is nil.
So far, the inquiry has uncovered multiple clear examples of the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo, where a White House invitation and military aid were withheld while Trump's handpicked diplomats pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into his political rivals. It was established in Sondland's testimony and text messages from Volker — who both pressed Ukrainian officials to announce the investigations. Other key players, including Taylor, the top Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council Tim Morrison and NSC's Vindman, also testified that they understood there was a quid pro quo after listening to Trump's call with Zelensky or discussing it with other diplomats.
ReplyDeleteTim Morrison and Lt. Colonel Vindman were on the July 25 call - no hearsay.
Many of those interviewed expressed concern over Rudy Giuliani's involvement in Ukraine. Trump, in his own words to Zelensky, urged the Ukrainian president to "Talk to Rudy", and those words appear in Sondland's testimony. Giuliani, who had no official US role in Ukraine, appears to have been Trump's cutout.
All of which leads me to believe there is ample probable cause for further investigation into Trump's possible bribery and extortion of Ukraine for his personal political gain.
With regard to your questions about the aid, Doc:
ReplyDeleteThe Trump administration notified Congress in February 2019 and May 2019 that it intended to release Congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine.
Despite this notifications to Congress, in June 2019 the Trump administration placed military aid to Ukraine on hold, without explanation. Giuliani had begun his machinations in that country in April or May.
Authorization from the State Department to release the aid came on September 11. 2019, after news of the current scandal had broken.
A Zelensky interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria had been scheduled for September 13th. It was cancelled by Ukraine on the 11th, when the funds were released.
President Trump had every right to call for an investigation on Biden. First off, it was a clear quid pro quo and came straight from Biden's mouth and secondly the Ukraine was ground zero for the Russian hoax which led to the dossier, which led to the 2 year witch hunt which lead to NOTHING.
ReplyDeleteThis is just more of the same except this time the Dems are changing the rules to fit their agenda which is not only unconstitutional but its dangerous. They are dividing this country solely because they hate DT and its been a concerted effort since before he entered the WH to get him impeached. The Dems will get full credit for Trump's victory in 2020. Maybe Schiff will do a parody of Trump's inauguration speech this time.
EG
Good. Trump wants an investigation into Biden's activities in Ukraine; so do I. But let's do it properly. Have Barr appoint a special investigator, just as he did with John Durham, rather than extort a foreign government to release a statement saying they're performing an investigation.
DeleteExplain to me, please, how Ukraine was "ground zero for the Russian hoax" rather than ... well, Russia.
And finally, again, still, E, there is nothing unconstitutional about impeachment.
IF the Republicans get to call Ohr and Chalupa to testify, we will all find out what part the Ukraine played in digging up dirt for the dossier which Nunes said originated there. However, Schiff has to approve the list and we all know how that will end.
ReplyDeleteWe need a crime, CC in order to impeach a duly elected President. So far, I haven't seen one. I am in good company though because Alan Dershowitz doesn't see a crime either and he's a scholar of constitutional law and criminal law. What are you seeing that he isn't?
EG
I see abuse of power, bribery and extortion in Trump's attempts to influence a foreign government to involve itself in our 2020 election. Laurence Tribe, another con law scholar and Harvard professor, agrees with me.
DeleteNellie Ohr and Alexandra Chalupa belong in John Durham's ongoing investigation, while Hunter Biden and Devon Archer belong in any investigation of Joe Biden that may yet be commenced.
Schiff will likely argue they can shed no light on Trump's attempt to influence Ukraine, and provided the House keeps to that narrow standard for impeachent, he's right.
Yes now they're throwing around "extortion" because quid pro quo hasn't work too well for them. The funds were released to the Ukraine before they even knew they were being held, so how does "extortion" work with that one?
ReplyDeleteThere certainly was an attempt to influence a foreign government to involve itself in the "2016" election. That's what Trump wanted investigated and I agree with him and so should every American.
EG
Furthermore, why would Trump need help from anyone in order to beat Joe Biden or any other of the democratic candidates?
ReplyDeleteAs it stands now not one of them is going to win against Trump. And don't bring up polls because we all know they meant nothing in the last election. They had Hillary winning by a mile. WRONG!
Joe Biden is probably a very nice man and when in his prime a force to be reckoned with I'm sure. However, those days are over for Joe and anyone watching him in the debates etc knows it. Obama has pretty much left him high and dry without so much as a head nod. It's sad, really to see. Similar to watching Mueller testifying which was also devastating for the Democrats.
EG
Laura Cooper, the top Pentagon official who oversaw Russia and Eastern Europe told House impeachment investigators that Ukrainian officials had raised the issue of the suspension of security aid as early as August:
ReplyDelete"I knew from my Kurt Volker conversation and also from sort of the alarm bells that were coming from Ambassador [Bill] Taylor and his team that there were Ukrainians who knew about this".
Yeah, extortion works, as does quid pro quo.
Again, why would Trump need help from anyone? The Dems know they're in trouble which is why Bloomberg, Clinton and now Holder and God knows who else are contemplating a run?
ReplyDeleteLC had "concerns", meanwhile the Ukraine got the aid and the President of the Ukraine said what quid pro quo?
I want to hear from the all important whistleblower whose testimony suddenly isn't all that important because we now have the transcript which the Dems are calling a summary, therefore incomplete. Gimme a break here. PULEAASSSEEEE.
EG
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo be precise, you said Ukraine was not aware of the US withholding aid: Laura Cooper has testified they were.
ReplyDeleteTo be precise, Zelensky never said "no quid quo pro".
To be precise, the call summary states on its face that it is just that, and not a verbatim transcript.
I've no idea why Trump thinks he needs help from anyone, nor do I care.
ReplyDeleteThe salient point is that he solicited help from a foreign government to influence the next election.
This is called guilty by accusation which is why we need to hear all testimony from all sides so that we can make an informed decision. I want Schiff under oath along with the Whistleblower as well as several others.
ReplyDeleteZelensky said there was no pressure. What do you suppose that means? What could he have been referring to? The air in his tires? I mean, come on.
And yes, Schiff's "summary" of the transcript to millions of people on television was completely accurate. NOT. Do you realize that some people thought he was serious?! Dangerous and irresponsible doesn't even begin to describe what he did. It was criminal.
And now we have Schiff of all people running the show. The same man who said numerous times on national television that he had evidence that DT colluded with the Russians. It's laughable if it wasn't so scary.
EG
I'm aware of no such thing as "guilty by accusation". Perhaps you got this from Dershowitz?
ReplyDeleteThe transcript to which you're, presumably, referring was released by Trump, not Schiff. I deplore Schiff's parody of it, yet the facts remain the facts: Trump admitted to attempting to influence a foreign government for political advantage in 2020.
You'll be able to hear "all testimony from all sides" if the House refers Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.
"Trump admitted to attempting to influence a foreign government for political advantage in 2020."
ReplyDeleteThat's an assumption. We don't know what his motive was and will probably never know. However, the Democrats attempt to impeach a duly elected President "for political advantage" is all too clear.
No, it's a fact, as borne out by his own call summary, and his later chopper talk, wherein he exhorted Ukraine and China to investigate Hunter Biden rather than opening his own DOJ investigation.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the House has a Constitutional mandate for oversight, including by impeachment, if necessary.
But let's talk more about "guilty by association", your claim that Ukraine was unaware of the reason Trump withheld Congressionally approved aid, and your statement that "Carter and George" had no involvement with Russia.
Sorry, Doc. I thought you were EG. Lately it's difficult to distinguish between inchoate Trumpsters.
ReplyDeleteAnd, btw, still waiting to hear your reply to my posts in the 10th.
DeleteWell? Let's hear it, Doc. Let's hear your refutation of my posts on the 10th.
ReplyDeleteAnd you, E? Talk to me more about "guilt by association", the Cooper testimony, and "Carter and Page". You've been here long enough to know I abhor misinformation - talk to me, defend yourself.
I've no vested interest in Trump, Biden, or either political party, merely the the rule of law and thr facts.
I'm up at all hours, and have nothing better to do; take your time, the both of you.
Please don't keep denying your hatred for Trump. It's as clear as the nose on your face and I can go back and copy and paste quite a few words you've used to describe the man. You're biased, just like the media and that's unfortunate given your profession.
ReplyDeleteThe best or worst part of all of this is that this entire fiasco will die in the Senate, so all Congress is doing, is wasting more of our taxpayer dollars and continuing to divide the country. All because they don't have a single candidate at this point who can beat Trump and they know it.
Why don't we let the people decide in 2020?
EG
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't give a flying fuck about Trump, and I've made it clear I think Biden should be investigated. I vote my conscience, regardlesd of party.
DeleteAbove all, I believe in the rule of law, and I too once took a vow to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Why don't you adequately respond to my questions rather than respond with more misinformation? Talk to me about "Carter and George", " Guilt by association", and Cooper's tedtimony.
What do you want to know about Carter and George?
DeleteCarter was exonerated by the Mueller report after being accused of colluding with the Russians. Another false accusation that ruined a man's life.
George - Spent 12 days in jail because he lied about a meeting he had to get dirt on Hillary which was a set up. Later wrote a book on how he got caught in the middle of the plot to bring Trump down.
Your point?
What about Cooper? She was concerned about the funds being held. That's okay, she can be concerned. Bottom line is the funds were released. Your point?
Definition of Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
What did Trump obtain exactly and who did he force or threaten?
EG
Don't attempt to practice law on my watch, E, and don't attempt to abrogate the entire legal definition of extortion.
Delete"Carter and George:had nothing to do" with Russia". They did.
Cooper testified that Ukraine knew about the witholding of funds in early August. You said they were unaware.
As you'll remember from my interactions with Inq/Castor/Lou, I've no tolerance for misinformation.
CC...You're the lawyer, not me and I would hope you knew more about the law than I did. I do however believe in due process and that's what I want to happen here. I want to see and hear from all parties involved and I want clear-cut evidence. Not concerns, not emotions, not opinions. I want proof before overturning the people's vote.
DeleteAs far as Carter and George, I meant their involvement wasn't what the FBI had implied as in spying and colluding with Russians.
I know what Cooper testified to, however I read that the Ukraine didn't know about the money being held until late August. I'm curious to see how that unfolds.
Lastly, I don't misinform anyone. I am an avid reader and a political junkie. IMHO the Dems should've put this much time, money and effort into finding a worthy candidate that we could've gotten behind and voted for instead of one witch hunt after another.
EG
OK, CC, Nov. 10. Here's what you wrote: "Authorization from the State Department to release the aid came on September 11. 2019, after news of the current scandal had broken.
ReplyDeleteA Zelensky interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria had been scheduled for September 13th. It was cancelled by Ukraine on the 11th, when the funds were released."
See my post of Nov. 4:
". . . the decision to withhold the aid came well before the phone call to Zelensky of July 25, 2019. In contrast to the clear quid pro quo held out by Biden, there is NO mention of any quid pro quo in that phone call -- not even the whistle blower alleges that. Zelensky agreed during that call to carry out the investigation Trump very politely asked for (without any trace of the so often alleged arm twisting), yet the aid in question did NOT follow directly on that call. If that was the quid pro quo why didn't Trump follow through on it?"
I see no direct evidence that Trump held out a quid pro quo or that he even saw such a thing as necessary-- why would he when the Ukrainian Pres clearly had no problem with investigating Biden. It's all hearsay, innuendo and assumption.
However, even if he did hold out a quid pro quo that was his prerogative as president. Much of the testimony regarding this situation couples Trump's desire to investigate the root cause of the Mueller "witch hunt" with his interest in having the Bidens investigated. My guess is that, if there was a quid pro quo it would have had far more to do with the former than the latter.
Bottom line: there is NO sign of any quid pro quo or even any arm twisting in Trump's call to Zelensky, and Zelensky has never complained about anything like that. On the other hand, the prosecutor Biden had fired has publicly blamed his firing on his investigation of the Bidens. The case against Biden is much stronger than that against Trump.
Zelensky stated in the UN presser that he didn't want to be involved with this present US scandal. The poor guy, and his country, needs continuing aid from the US and Europe to hold out against Russia; he'd say anything, and who could blame him?
DeletePresumably Durham is, and has been, since May of this year, "invedtigating the root cause of the 'Mueller witch hunt', a witch hunt that has yielded 34 indictments and convictions of several Trump cohorts to date, including Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, and soon Roger Stone.
Solkin was widely criticized by many in the European community othrthan Biden, for corruption far beyond him and his family.
I absolutely believe Biden and his son should be investigated, properly, through the DOJ.
I absolutely believe in the Constitutional right of oversight by Congress, through impeachment if necessary.
It's necessary.
It's clear the Dems are counting on their inquisition to reveal unsavory info about Trump that would potentially sway voters in their direction come 2020. They can't seriously believe they can remove him from office prior to the election since, as EG has noted, they don't have the votes in the Senate.
ReplyDeleteProblem is: we all knew how unsavory Trump was prior to the 2016 election and he got elected anyhow. What the Dems need is a viable candidate, NOT another witch hunt.
EG did not note that, Doc, I did. And let's not revisit the electoral versus the popular vote.
DeleteI'll (borrowing from Neil Simon in The Goodbye Girl), vote for a one-eyed Episcopalian kangaroo before I'll vote for Trump, and as of this writing, so will more than half of America.
I believe Doc was referring to my post at 4:37PM regarding the impeachment being DOA when it hits the Senate.
ReplyDeleteNeil Simon and half of America might just see that happen. At the rate they're all jumping aboard, why not a kangaroo? It's become nothing more than a circus.
EG
Neil Simon won't see that happen, as he died last year. As a, presumably, savvy New Yorker, I'd assumed you'd know that, and recognize my statement as the homage it was meant to be.
DeleteBut pearls before swine, n'est ce pas?
And I believe he was referring to my post on 11/7.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, the circus starts tomorrow, in real time.
Interesting that Trump screeched about closed door hearings, yet now is protesting an impeachment on live TV, is it not?