Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	The "L" word
Date:	10/22/2019 9:43:11 PM

Seems that Democrats claimed that Bill Clinton was being "lynched" during his impreachment.  But that all changes when Donald Trump says the "L" word.  Then some Black represenative says that yes, he used that term with regard to Clinton, but that he was allowed to invoke it because it was his ancestors who were lynched, but since "we all know" that Donald Trump is a racist anyway, he can't use the word to describe what is happening to him.  So it's okay to say lynched if you are a black democrat and it's your party being done unto, but not if you are a white republican who is being done unto.  Nothing like a double standard with double talk.  

You know, the more I think about the Ukraine situation, I'm not so sure that we haven't done this before.  I can remember times when a country's security assistance was suspended or delayed to put pressure on them to do what we wished.  And what about all the times we've given security assistance to prop us a leader that we were using for other reasons, only to cut them off.  I know for a fact that this was done to El Salvador and Honduras that we were using to support one side in the civil war in El Salvador.  And when that was over, so was their assistance (it was cut back so significantly it was shocking to them).  And I remember when Jordon got cut off (but I can't remember why).  Now they are saying that it was because he was using it for political gain....The world of national security and who we provide assistance to and when/if they get cut off has never been so clear cut, and if someone didn't gain personally from it, it doesn't mean that there wasn't another motive behind it.  

It appears that there are a lot of Ukraine sympathizers, which is not all that unusual for people, like Bill Taylor - we used to call it "going native".

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	The "L" word
Date:	10/23/2019 8:14:11 AM (updated 10/23/2019 8:31:40 AM)

This is all about the drumbeat of negative news to try to sway the 2020 election.  Let us harken back to the days of the Clinton impeachment when Crazy Uncle Joe called it a lynching.  But hey, we're talking about a guy that fondles young girls, has been wrong on pretty much every foreign policy issue, asks paralyzed guys to stand up and can't keep his dentures attached so what should we expect?  Add to the list the following Democrats who used the term lynching with respect to impeachment:  Jim McDermott, Jerry Nadler, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc. 

As for Mr. Taylor, we have seven witnesses whose opening statements and testimony say no quid pro quo with nary a peep from the govt media complex and then we have the one guy who worked for the fired former ambassador and obviously has an axe to grind saying the opposite and its 24/7 wall to wall coverage.  I refer to the opening statement of Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny, "Everything that guys said is bullsh!t......thank you very much."  And of course what has not leaked is that his opening statement was obliterated by the questioning.  But I'll bet our left wing nuts didn't hear that news did they?  And of course the GOP is calling for the release of his full testimony immediately but Pencil Neck says no way......no doubt because it would blow up the fake news of the day. 

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	The "L" word
Date:	10/23/2019 8:54:09 AM

Can you remember when Obama's help to Syria was no arms but blankets and food only?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-obama-order/obama-authorizes-secret-support-for-syrian-rebels-idUSBRE8701OK20120802

https://nypost.com/2019/10/09/sorry-joe-team-obama-refused-to-arm-ukraine-at-all/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization

Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway (just as Clinton did when the House rejected the authorization he wanted to bomb Kosovo, though, at least there, Congress later voted to allocate funds for the bombing campaign). Why would the White House view the President's power to wage war in Libya as unconstrainable by Congress, yet view his power to wage war in Syria as dependent upon Congressional authorization?

According to the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman, Secretary of State John Kerry, this morning on CNN, said this when asked whether the Congressional vote would be binding: "[Obama] has the right to do this no matter what Congress does."

Also goes back to my point - Congress has not authorized a war in Syria - Obama secretly executive ordered it.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	So 2 wrongs do make a right
Date:	10/23/2019 12:07:25 PM

and who appointed Mr Taylor?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	So 2 wrongs do make a right
Date:	10/23/2019 3:47:54 PM

He's an Obama holdover like the former Ambassador but apparently Trump should have canned him as well instead of maintaining some semblance of continuity by making him acting Amb.  And by the way, apparently his whole opening statement fell to pieces under the cross examination of Rep. Ratcliffe......but you wouldn't know that because of your sources of information.  There was no quid, there was no quo, there was no quid pro quo.  If Democrats really had something they would release the entire transcript of this testimony as demanded by the GOP......but he won't.....because he's hiding the fact that they have nothing....zip, zero, nada....

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	WRONG MM JUST PLAIN WRONG
Date:	10/23/2019 4:19:26 PM

Taylor was appointed Ambassador to Ukraine by George W Bush is 2006. Your nose keeps growing every day.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/23/2019 4:47:35 PM

I never said anything about him other than being an Obama holdover.  Tell me what was wrong about that statement.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/23/2019 9:52:04 PM

Allow me to clarify - Bill Taylor was Ambassador to the Ukraine 2006-2009.  He then left the foreign service and went to work for a private organization but continued to take an active interest in Ukaine.  When Trump recalled the woman Ambassador, some other Ambassador who knew Taylor, recommended him to the SecState.  They wanted someone in their quickly and didn't want to wait for confirmation so they appointed him acting "Chief of Mission".  He walked into this in the middle of the play.  I read his statement last night.  I was impressed with the impecable records he must have kept on each and every phone call and meeting.  But I think a seasoned diplomat would do that.  I do think he sincerely cares for the Ukraine and wanted to see the right thing done by them.  I also think that he got a little put out when he realized that there was something "unofficial" going on.  He has an impecible reputation and a long career as a diplomat.  

I don't think it is beyond imagination that someone who is a true believer and has always walked the straight and narrow, to be pretty horrified to find out that he was being undermined and kept out of the loop about policies that were impacting the country he had diplomatic responsibility for.  And Rudy G is not exactly a smooth operator.  Until I read his testimony, I was having trouble figuring out where Rick Perry fit into all of this, but now it makes sense.  

Bill Taylor went a little native, but I think he does care about seeing Ukraine hold off Russian intervention.  I think a lot of those that testified believed in that.  I think if I were Taylor, I would have resigned the minute I knew that there was an "unofficial policy network" working behind my back, because I wouldn't work that way.  

In the end, I do not think that Trump will be kicked out of office for this, but I would still like to see him lose Guiliani who I think enjoys his position a little too much.  I only wish that Trump would reflect on how ridiculous this whole caper is and how little he will get out of it.  

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/23/2019 9:59:44 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful insight.  It is a refreshing change from a lot of the one side or the other posturing on this forum.  I strongly suspect that even if the Trump call was a little "out there" it would pale by comparison to other presidents' shenanigans were the whole truth known. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 8:32:37 AM

So he did in fact work for the Obama administration and as I said, he had an axe to grind because of Guiliani working behind the scenes to get Ukraine to investigate the Russian collusion hoax.  You can fault Trump for taking that route if you want, but I don't.  How could he possibly trust the State Dept, CIA or DOJ to push this given that there are likely more than a few current admin employees in both those departments that are culpable and are lawyering up?  The only one he trusted was Guiliani, and I don't blame him one bit.  Trump went to DC to change how things are done and is at war with the bureaucracy and there is no sane person who would argue he could trust them to get to the bottom of the Russian collusion hoax.  We paid Mueller and his merry band of Democrats $30M to investigate the President but now Democrats want to impeach the President for wanting to investigate the hoax.

But here's a couple of questions for you to consider.  Is it wrong for a politician to ask for something, even a quid pro quo, even if it benefits them politically?  Is it wrong for the chief law enforcement officer to ask for a foreign country to comply with a treaty signed by a former President to investigate corruption, even if it also benefits them politically? 

Because if you answer yes, you have indicted every politician from the beginning of time because it has always and will always happen.  Just ask Ukraine when it comes to Biden if it happens.  To say this is different because it's Trump is hypocrisy.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 9:29:41 AM

I knew I had seen this somewhere - so Ukraine has been trying tince the summer of 2018 to hand over evidence of wrongdoing by the Obama administration pressuring Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election.  Had sent it to the state department ( no suprise they were not interested in it), have seen reports that it was sent to the FBI and federal prosecutors, attempted to hand deliver it but was stopped by the state department.  No wonder they were looking for other channels beyond the "normal" channels.  

According to interviews with more than a dozen Ukrainian and U.S. officials, Ukraine’s government under recently departed President Petro Poroshenko and, now, Zelensky has been trying since summer 2018 to hand over evidence about the conduct of Americans they believe might be involved in violations of U.S. law during the Obama years.

The Ukrainians say their efforts to get their allegations to U.S. authorities were thwarted first by the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which failed to issue timely visas allowing them to visit America.

Then the Ukrainians hired a former U.S. attorney — not Giuliani — to hand-deliver the evidence of wrongdoing to the U.S. attorney's office in New York, but the federal prosecutors never responded. 

The U.S. attorney, a respected American, confirmed the Ukrainians’ story to me. The allegations that Ukrainian officials wanted to pass on involved both efforts by the Democratic National Committee to pressure Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election as well as Joe Biden’s son’s effort to make money in Ukraine while the former vice president managed U.S.-Ukraine relations, the retired U.S. attorney told me. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 9:36:01 AM

Would seem to me that there is a big difference between asking someone to investigate the truth (ala Trump/Ukraine) and asking someone to fabricate dirt where none exists (ala the Clinton-funded Dossier)

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Ya think?
Date:	10/24/2019 9:43:40 AM

Not according to Democrats.  For those hypocrites one is perfectly fine while the other is an impeachable offense.....well, because Orange Man Bad!  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 9:55:06 AM

I'm pretty sure you are right about that. Perhaps not so blatantly, but we have a long history of squeezing countries to do what we want. The information is out there, but you have to do the research.  

You know, we tend to blame politics for everything, but there are good people out there that are trying to do the right thing  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 10:10:17 AM

MM, I know I will never convince you that there are good and honest people that try to do the right thing regardless of politics.  Although appointed by Obama, I don't necessarily believe that Bill Taylor is saying anything more than the truth as he knows it.  

If the only person that Trump thinks he can trust is Guiliani, then he has a bigger problem than just Ukaine.  I don't think Guiliani is loyal to Trump necessarily - it is just that Trump is letting him have his little fantasy that he is some kind of diplomatic genius.  

Personally, I think we should stop stalking what was done in 2016, and stay focused on the upcoming election.  It would appear that Biden is no threat to Trump for 2020, as he falls in favor of Elizabeth and Bernie.  Trump's appetite for revenge is legendary, but most of the time there is no great benefit to going backward.  Trump would be better off in the long run focusing on the future and what he plans to do.  

I will never be sorry about not voting for Hilary, who I think is a blithering idiot, but these behaviors of Trump's only serve to reinforce that he is impulsive and has a lack of self control.  Yes, he vowed to drain the swamp, but have you ever consided that in draining this swamp he is creating another of his own making?  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 11:00:18 AM

I get your concerns about Guiliani but he wasn't running some alternate diplomatic mission with Ukraine or anyone else.  He has stated repeatedly that he was charged with one thing, to get other countries like Ukraine to investigate what happened in 2016.  He may have done it in a ham handed way and he may have made political mistakes by throwing in the Biden corruption, but I still have zero issues with Trump not trusting the bureacracy to carry this water for them.  He has zero idea who he can really trust and who has a vested interest in keeping the lid on what happened.   He had to use someone he trusted and for better or worse it was Guiliani.

As for your comment about 2016 I have to admit I am beyond surprised that you don't want to get to the bottom of what happened.  The DOJ, CIA and State Department of a former administration used the forces of the U.S. government to spy on a Presidential candidate.  That would appall me regardless of party. A candidate for President used a law firm cutout to illegally develop a dossier filled with lies that were leaked to the press and used as justification to spy on the opposing candidate's election team.  That would appall me regardless of party.  And all this led to a 2-year $30M witch hunt that despite their partisanship ended up refuting the entire premise of investigation.  That should appall every American not suffering from TDS.  Your damn right I want to know what happened in 2016 and 2017 leading up to the Mueller investigation and I want anyone that committed a crime to be indicted and if convicted sent to prison. 

And I am appalled that anyone would think that's not needed in order to restore some semblance of faith in government.  If they get away with it then why should we ever believe anything that comes from government or the media?  I'm sorry, but this is far too important to brush it under the rug because it goes to the heart of our Republic and the peaceful transition of power.

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 11:59:06 AM

I may be just a small pea in a pod, but I agree with you 110% that until those guilty of the actions taken to try and overturn President Trump's election as President of the United States receive "equal punishment under the law", that you, I, or others like us would receive, nothing is going to change in the way "disloyal" politicians use their government positions to the "detriment" of America. Unless current investigations lead to "indictments" and those found guilty receive appropriate punishment, nothing is going to change, the "deep state" will continue to exist and the "swamp" will only get "deeper". If we don't have "equal" justice under the law, we have "no justice" at all.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/24/2019 9:53:49 PM

You misundertand.  I do think it is important to figure out what happened in 2016 but only as a means to keep it from happening again.  I don't think it should be about revenge or getting dirt.  Trump came out of the dossier investigation fine - he didn't lose the election as a result and in the end it reflected poorly on Hilary et al.  It wasn't true.  

I just think all these endless investigations have to end at some point.  

And I disagree with you about Guiliani. He was indeed running shadow diplomacy, along with Sonderland.  You do not have the President's personal lawyer mucking around in diplomacy.  It makes no sense and creates a bad situation for the Ambassador as you are seeing.  It undermines his ability to speak for the U.S., which is his job.  That is why you are seeing all these people testifying - it isn't about politics, it's about it not being right.  Even John Bolton knew that Guiliani was going to blow things up  and he said as much. In the real world, it is expected that the Ambassador carries the U.S message.  You may not see it, but what has been done is wrong.  

Trump is right, other people have used assistance as a pot sweetner to get countries to fight corruption or accomplish specific things - but it usually in the best interest of the US, not because someone wants to get revenge.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/25/2019 8:42:29 AM

Yep, I did misunderstand you.  But I still believe Guiliani's main charge was to get Ukraine's assistance on figuring out what happened in 2016.  Burisma and the Biden's was a twofer and politically a mistake.  But I have yet to see proof that Guliaini was doing anything more than that with Ukraine.  If he did then that was clearly a mistake on his part. 

Despite all that, none of this is even remotely an impeachable offense any more than Biden's crony capitalism or Obama's shoveling a billion dollars to the Mullah's in Iran.  So if Trump is so bad then Democrats should be able to defeat him easily in 2020.  And yet, they don't think they can because of all he has accomplished despite the 24/7/365 opposition from the left, Democrats, the media and NeverTrumpers.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No, I am completely correct
Date:	10/26/2019 11:35:53 AM

The Democrats do not have a strong candidate and they know it.  Their only strategy is that if they can get Trump out of office, and Pence takes over, they think that one of their half-assed candidates can beat Trump.  Because Trump is a polarizing personality, they can only hope that people will vote against him, and not that they will vote for a Democratic platform.