Man…
Believe me…the DEMS are FAR from being angels…but they seem to be clearly outmatched by Trump and all of these Eastern European Criminals.
The dude who won’t speak ill of Trump no matter what he does because his policies are good is calling someone else a sheep? You’re exactly who he was talking about when he said he could kill someone and his followers wouldn’t care.
This is sobering, and should be a concern for all Americans.
But it won’t be.
2 Likes
Bwa-ha-ha. This is so outrageous it’s starting to get funny. Leschenko is @pat’s “some guy”:
The effort by President Trump to pressure the government of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son had its origins in an earlier endeavor to obtain information that might provide a pretext and political cover for the president to pardon his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to previously undisclosed records.
The records I have reviewed also indicate that on at least three occasions, Rudy Giuliani was in communication with Manafort’s legal team to discuss how the White House was pushing a narrative that the Democratic National Committee, Democratic donors, and Ukrainian government officials had “colluded” to defeat Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid. (This story has since been debunked as baseless, though that has not prevented Trump, Giuliani, and other surrogates in conservative media from repeatedly pushing the story.)
In particular, the records show that Manafort’s camp provided Giuliani with information designed to smear two people: one was a Ukrainian journalist and political activist named Serhiy Leshchenko, whom Manafort believed, correctly, of helping to uncover Manafort’s secret payments from Yanukovych; another was Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American political consultant and US citizen, whom Manafort suspected, mistakenly in this case, was also behind the exposé. The records also show that Giuliani and attorneys for Manafort exchanged information about the then US ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who Giuliani believed had attempted to undercut his covert Ukrainian diplomacy and fact-finding;
So to join your club, I have to speak ill of Trump, otherwise I cannot play with the other kids? The irony of this demand I cannot ignore. “You don’t think for yourself unless you think what I think.” is what you are saying.
Mufasa can testify to the fact that I have criticized Trump before, which I know will not make me a 1%er in your little club house, but I am not here to ensure I say things that are pleasing to your ears, so you can give a couple of shakes on your pom-poms.
You can always post those retractions from the NYT.
Club? Kids? No you called someone else a sheep. I said that was surprising coming from someone who defends everything Trump does.
Nope. Not sure where you’re making this up from but it’s not from my post.
I don’t need him to tell me anything. I’ve been here and I’ve read the posts. Your an ardent supporter. Which is fine just don’t expect to call someone else a sheep and not comment.
I don’t know what a 1%er in your clubhouse means nor do I care if you say things pleasing to my ears. Most of this sounds like gibberish though. You called TB a sheep and I essentially called you one. Nothing less nothing more.
You’d think this would be easy to post.
I didn’t say that. I said he was a source for this supposed “bombshell” report and yet was not working for, nor had not worked for, for month’s, or was in the room when Zelenskyy and Trump had their phone meeting. Meaning if he was in fact a source for the “bombshell” he could not really know what was discussed and what that discussion meant.
The problem with the whole issue is that it’s so toxically partisan that where ever you get your news, you will only get part of a story that seems to be unraveling. Further the reporting so bad that it’s downright untrustworthy. Here is an excerpt from the actual letter:
Do you have an opinion as to why you think Trump refuses to release the actual transcript of the call?
He’s not required to. There could be sensitive information there in… There are lots of reasons to show only a redacted version.
Here is the actual ‘bomb shell’ letter. It’s weak at best. Names are not named, specifics are fuzzy at best and there are no actual witnesses. I don’t think this would be admitted as evidence in a court of law. It lacks in many ways.
More interesting tid bits:
So there were a dozen or so witnesses to the call, but he’s not sure anybody was present during the call? What? How is that supposed to work?
I say investigate it to your hearts content, but I don’t see anything here but partisan wrangling. Knowing the author of the letter, will tell us a lot about the motive for this letter.
He didn’t release a redacted version. He released a WH drafted summary.
Could he not just redact the ‘sensitive information’ and display the rest to the public?
To quote the biggest girl in Congress,
You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.
All Oval Office calls are recorded and transcribed by human beings. The WH lawyers are also known (and not disputed by anyone) to have listened to the recording prior to advising Trump to move the recording to the National Security server.
Edit: I should clarify that the lawyers listening is the part not disputed. As of now, whether or not they told him to move the recording and mark it sensitive or he decided himself is hearsay.
This is one of the least partisan things of Trump’s presidency imo.
Yeah that seems to be the hot tweet of the week. I’m hoping the name comes out too, but I feel bad for the guy who sac’d his career for this.
Sure, I would be fine with that. Maybe, he will and it’s a timing thing, or he won’t just to snub his naysayers.
Do you think this would actually put this to rest though? Even if it’s a complete exoneration? I don’t. I think your smart enough to know that it wouldn’t either. Perhaps he’s holding back an ace, or it could get him in some sort of trouble. I don’t know, I just know it won’t satisfy his enemies.
Didn’t work for Clinton. He got more popular and probably banged hotter chicks. And he was caught dead to rights lying under oath.
I appreciate you talking to me like a human.
Personally? No. But that’s because I think the reason he hasn’t completely shit on the Democrats with a transcript that clears him is because no such transcript exists.
American view of impeachment jumped with the WH summary version. I can’t imagine how bad it would get if the real thing gets out.
As a thought experiment, the WH transcript doesn’t exonerate him. BUT in a 1:10000000 scenario where somehow he took his own words out of context, and the actual transcript clears him, I think releasing it would be the only/best move there is.
He doesn’t need to satisfy his enemies. He needs to retain his base. Even my mom’s family, WV born and raised, are starting to turn on him due to this.
Fwiw, I think the only reason is because they’re all still so pissed about the trade war. Not sure if this would have actually tipped the scales had he not been busy shooting himself in the foot with the economy.
Clinton was successfully impeached. Impeached =/= removed from office.
But the call happened. So he was right.
He doesn’t read the nyt so it’s not as easy as you think.
I see this but I also agree with Pat in the sense that I truly believe we’re at a point with Trump where unless it is 100% no doubt slam dunk that he did something awful it may have little effect on his poll numbers.
I have no doubt most of the Trumpies who live in the same county as me essentially see limited problem with this. I think his base is so far gone for him they don’t even bother anymore. At some point constant lies, boot licking dictators, asking foreign countries for dirt on your opponent it all just seems like another day in Trump land. I mean he had no problem publicly asking Russia for help with Hilary’s emails.
I’m not diminishing what I view as the seriousness of the matter, merely how I think his base views him. And didn’t he bring in a bajillion dollars the same day they started impeachment inquiries over this? I’ve said before it seems as if his approval rating ceiling is low but his floor appears to be high if that makes sense.
1 Like
Good thing Biden didn’t know about his son’s business. He didn’t golf with the board of Bursima or anything. Looks like a Warren-Trump 2020 election. Or, at the very best. Warren-Pence haha.
Is Biden trending down in any polling from all of this yet? The only people I’ve seen going with the “but… But… Biden” approach are Trump supporters do far
Wasn’t warren pulling ahead in some states? A few of the other candidates in the primary have tentatively attacked him on it. Time will tell. But considering the shadow of corruption helped them lose to president “dotard” in 2016 some high ranking DNC officials have to be weighing whether Biden is the right direction.
Plus it takes all the wind out of the “collusion with Russia!”, “collusion with Ukraine!” narrative when you’re collecting millions of dollars from foreign firms as a direct result of your government job.
I just don’t see the energized lefty base holding their nose to a vote for a corrupt, child sniffing Biden. Why not someone they actually want to vote for?
1 Like