The Trump Presidency

Sounds like they are going to start an impeachment inquiry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

for the record:

It's going to get messy that is for sure...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the monarchy is pretending to be a republic ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

billionaire world leader internet bullys 16 yo climate activist...
i hope that wasn't on company time

am i reading that correctly ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds quite stupid to use this action against Biden as the justification for impeachment.

Common sense tells us that Biden is highly suspect of corruption.

Why? That Biden's son has got a job in the Ukraine where he has to do nothing but to collect the wage, and the firm itself is suspected to be corrupt, is at least suspect. Would there be any reason to give this job to Biden's son if not because of the job of his father?

Then, there seems no doubt that Biden has used strong pressure to get rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor who at least potentially could have been dangerous for the firm which has "hired" Biden's son. Some objective reasons based on the interest of the US? In this case, Biden would have reasonably insisted that some other diplomatic channel would have to be used for this, simply out of his own interest. And the job of his son would have given him a good reason not to become involved in this particular action - to enforce this removal of the prosecutor obviously created the risk of defamation that he wants to protect his son's criminal deads or so. That he has not done what would have been natural makes him even more suspect given that this risk was predictable. What could be the reason to do such things even if this leads to such a risk of defamation? The plausible explanation is that he had no choice - the son was in real danger, and to leave the job to other US diplomats would have been too dangerous, because he would have to explain them too much.

As usual for cases where corruption is plausible given that obviously something has been paid to a family member of a politician without a visible reason to pay, it will be anyway impossible to hope that this can be clarified. The suspicion will remain anyway, even a court acquittal would not help here. All one can do is to try that this will be forgotten as fast as possible.

The impeachment attempt is the opposite of this. As long as the impeachment procedure is in the media, the corruption suspicion of Biden remains in the media too.

And once Biden will remain suspect to everybody with common sense, all that Trump has done is to recommend Selenskij to investigate a quite plausible criminal case. Which is good, not bad. And the constellation Trump vs. Biden would be that of Trump against a plausibly corrupt guy who has tried to prevent persecution by attacking the one who has informed the relevant law enforcement agency about the suspicion.

This makes sense if some powerful enough among the Dems want to get rid of Biden. Any other ideas?

The problem with this argument is that it may also help Biden. Last but not least, this starts a fight Biden vs. Trump now, and here every Dem has to support Biden. Openly saying that Biden is unacceptable because of this suspicious behavior, even if he would be innocent, would be a support of Trump, because it would justify what Trump has done.

From Trump's side, everything has looks like done reasonably. First attacking these four colored socialist extremists, giving them full support of the Dems (that means, making the Dems as a whole unelectable for those who favor capitalism), now attacking Biden, forcing the Dems to support with Biden a guy who is unacceptable for those who hate corruption. The more reasonable (and therefore dangerous for Trump) candidates are now out of the public discussion.

Even in case of success, Trump being impeached for an attempt to clear the corrupt Washington swamp would be the worst Pyrrhus victory for the Dems imaginable, and could easily lead into a civil war.

 

Violations of the Presidential oath of office are not reasonable doings by a President.

These documented behaviors of Trump are violations of the Constitution and Trump's oath of office. They are - by themselves, disregarding Trump's many other felonies and oath-breakings and profiteerings - grounds for impeachment.

Trump's behavior was recorded and witnessed - no "clarification" is necessary, merely the provision of the recordings, and the testimony of the witnesses.

Trump is forbidden, by law, to make such deals with foreign officials.

No, it would not. Trump was forbidden, by law, to do what he was recorded doing, regardless of Biden's guilt or innocence. Nothing Biden did or did not do justifies Trump's violations of his oath of office and legal duties.

Trump is currently the most powerful member of the Washington swamp. Some of the Dems are attempting to clear it. Civil war is not the means they are choosing - they are relying on honest enforcement of the law, despite the difficulty of such a task in dealing with a sitting President.

You are on record as claiming to support the enforcement of law, rather than war, in these matters. So we anticipate your support of those Dems, in their difficult battle against the swamp.

 

This is nothing I care about. And, I would guess, this is also nothing a Trump supporter or a possible swing voter would care about. Because these people do not care that much about the letter of the law itself, but if what Trump has done was something morally wrong. And if Biden is, from the point of view of a reasonable person, sufficiently suspect to be corrupt to start criminal investigations, then telling the law enforcement of the country where the crime has possibly happened is nothing morally wrong.

Impeachment is, AFAIU, always directed against a sitting president, not? Whatever, impeaching Trump for something which is not morally wrong, even if it really violates the letter of some law, is the way toward a civil war.

First, my argument is that those Dems increase (unintentionally, but does this matter?) the danger of a civil war. Thus, if I would support them, the only intention on my side could be the wish to increase the danger of a civil war in the US.

Then, no, I'm not on such a record. Feel free to quote evidence if you have such a record.

Instead, I have often enough named US law a "three felonies a day" law, which is the same as totalitarian lawlessness, where everybody can be imprisoned because it is impossible to live without permanently violating some laws. As well I have often, correspondingly, named the US prison system a GULAG. And the reason was not that I think those imprisoned have not violated some laws. More enforcement of laws in three-felonies-a-day countries means nothing but increasing the GULAG population by imprisoning people no reasonable, non-totalitarian state would imprison. I would not support such things.

The law I supported is international law, the sovereignty of the states, against the US law of the jungle. Even in this case, I do not support any enforcement of the law beyond the reputational one.

 

Actually, the problem here is that is complete excrement.

A whole lot of people wanted the prosecutor out; his office's apparent failure to properly handle corruption cases disrupted IMF and other international agreements to help Ukraine. Inasmuch as the dismissed prosecutor could have been dangerous for the firm that hired Hunter Biden, the office had already investigated the company and passed on prosecuting; the idea that he could have been dangerous to Hunter Biden flies in the face of the point that he chose to not be dangerous to the company.

Supreme Court Justices and federal judges can be impeached. Most recently, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., was impeached in 2010, and removed from office for bribery and making false statements; Samuel B. Kent was removed in 2009 for sexual assault, obstruction and impeding, and making false and misleading statements. Before that, President Clinton in 1999, a district court judge named Walter L. Nixon in 1989, and a district court judge named Alcee L. Hastings, in 1988. Toward that last: Hastings' impeachment and removal was so politically contentious that Floridians in the Twenty-Third (now the Twentieth) sent him to Congress, where he's been for twenty-six years. And, sure, it's worth noting that Rep. Hastings did vote to impeach Judge Kent in 2009.

 

Too late.
It is something you went out of your way to deny.

You don't. You support Trump, instead - the primary source of US jungle law these days.

Yes, you have.
You are in fact that gullible, that ignorant, and that helpless, in the face of US media professionals.
So I have often pointed out to you where you got that silly ass line, as well as the others you parrot - it's easy for anyone familiar with US Republican Party propaganda and US corporate authoritarian media feeds to identify your sources.

So you don't support the law, this week. Instead, you blather about "morality" without knowing what happened.

Trump backers, like you, do not care what Trump has done or is doing, from any perspective. How do we know this? By the fact that they - you - have never bothered to find out what Trump has done or is doing (you - like them - will never read the Mueller Report, for example).

If they -or you - had had any interest in what Trump was doing, they would have noticed that Trump has been morally wrong in almost all his actions; swindles and corruptions and betrayals of oath are moral wrongs, caging and abusing children is morally wrong, assaulting women is morally wrong, lying about physical reality for one's own personal benefit is morally wrong, financially profiting from an office of public trust is morally wrong, cheating and stealing and betraying and abusing the vulnerable are all moral wrongs, and so forth. Trump is fascist, and fascism is a moral sewer - not only often wrong, but almost nothing but wrong; set up to do wrong.

They are also illegalities, crimes, and impeachable offenses - which is something you and the rest of the Trump supporters do suddenly care about whenever the US corporate media feed tells you the letter of the law is important. Remember "no collusion"? No indictment from Mueller? All those legal technicalities that were central issues a few days ago?
Meanwhile:

No.
And once again you make your complete ignorance completely obvious - if you ever wonder how people found out you were so utterly ignorant about US politics and society, you can refer to that post right there: you have been posting about Trump and Mueller and impeachment and so forth for months now, without the slightest idea what you were talking about. And everybody who reads your posts knows it.

When Trump and his supporters threaten people with violence - as you parrot there - they are morally in the wrong. Trump is a moral garbage pile - like all fascists, an utterly corrupt human being.

You are one of his parrots.

 

Opinion:
He is not only a parrot.
Given the extreme consistency of his many, many posts and continued irrational support for the very thing about the USA he holds in contempt it is obvious he is not merely a parrot.
After all why support the very swamp he has repeatedly called for draining...
Also...
It is Trumps devotion to a patriotic multi polar world, premised on nationalism, which Trump himself could never have thought of but merely copied from Putin, that earns his devotion to Trumps cause, regardless of how idiotic the POTUS may act.
To me it is blatantly clear that Trump is really a Putin Clone when it comes to this multi-polar (anti-globalization) manifesto.
This manifesto is to deliberately and methodically destroy any attempt at globalization, the destruction of international law and international regulation, including trade, humanitarian, immigration, human rights etc.

Every act Trump has made since being elected has in some way aided this manifesto.
This is why Schmelzer is blindly posting in the way he does. IMO

Trumps role, the one the Russians supported in the 2016 elections, so to speak, is to remove all the international regulatory shackles that prevent the USA and more importantly Russia from doing what they want, Nuclear, militarily, and trade etc.

To believe that extortion for favor is somehow acceptable is also very telling...IMO

 

Reporting by The Hill claims the prosecution was ongoing. I'm afraid Trump got his wish, they got into public discussion a possible conflict of interest, at the very least, on Biden's part. The Senate will not convict. Trump supporters, who live in a bubble of lies, will not care about anything the Democrats expose. Trump will claim vindication and another term. I understand why it had to be done, but I have a bad feeling about this.

 

Yes, but John Solomon is a conspiracist right-winger who is leaving The Hill in a couple days to start his own website, and based his article on a conspiracist deposition filed by the fired prosecutor, Shokin, at the request of attorneys for Dmitri Firtash, a disgraced "oligarch" facing charges in the U.S. And I actually went looking into that deposition because I wanted a particular detail Solomon claimed; the phrasing of his article, compared to the deposition, was unclear, so it's hard to say Solomon's reporting is accurate.

At least, that was the artcle I read last night. Shokin's case is apparently a reopening of a settled issue.

The thing about the GOP is that it might be easier to risk skipping the trial, entirely. That's within McConnell's power. Trying to play the Shokin Shake will certainly cause public confusion, but no lawyer genuinely wants a part of that because of the way the detail breaks down. If they go that route, Senate Republicans might be able to reverse-kangaroo this thing, but history will devastate their names; the better, as such, route for McConnell's corruption would be the procedurally blatant.

 

Whatever, if my son has worked at such a place, in such a position, and this was known to the public (the Russian propaganda has used this to suggest that in this way US politicians gain personal gains from organizing the coup), I would have refused to do anything in the Ukraine because of the possible conflict of interest. Biden was stupid enough to do something which looks suspect from the start.

Thanks. It makes sense to compare this precise answer, combined with a lot of information, with the long "you know nothing" rant of iceaura which contained only a single bit of information, the "no". But there is noting worth answering, so let's go immediately to a question made by QQ:

I haven't. I don't make calls what to do inside the US. There is no reasonable person with political power in the US worth to be addressed with a call. Draining the swamp would be an extremely hard job, one would need a political genius like Putin for doing such a thing at least partially. I have explained many times that Trump is simply the less dangerous for the world piece of shit swimming in the swamp, less dangerous because of his stupid actions destroying a lot of soft US power without starting a war. At least, this was my hope, and this hope has been fulfilled up to now.

This is already quite close - but I would not think there is a "devotion to a multipolar world". If the unipolar world could be preserved, Trump would be happy to preserve it. He is simply not ready to fight for the unipolar world. And so there is hope that the dangerous transition period remains more or less peaceful. If there would be a Dem who would be more "devotion to a multipolar world", I would immediately support him. This would certainly not be Biden.

Except that this is what the globalists want. Russia wants something quite different, namely, a revival of international law, with sovereign states. Which gives all states more power inside their states, but less power to influence others.

I don't find such a thing acceptable. (Sounds like a confusion of a believer of Dem propaganda that other people believe those propaganda lies too. The only extortion case I'm aware of was the extortion used by Biden to get rid of the prosecutor. Not that I would wonder if Trump would use extortion methods too. This is something I would expect from every US politician, with Ron Paul as the only exception I would actually make.)

 

Wow. So literally purging one's opponents makes for "political genius" these days?

 

But, Schmelzer, you make a point of presenting yourself as clueless. Hell, it's even part of your argument.

Let us take a look at a couple of points about that:

There are four sentences in that paragraph:

• "This is nothing I care about" — There is a lot that is relevant that you don't seem to care about, and if that was all it was, that would be all it is.

• "And, I would guess, this is also nothing a Trump supporter or a possible swing voter would care about." — The magatude, sure, but the question of swing voters runs much akin to whether or not the real issue for them is supremacism, or some such.

• "Because these people do not care that much about the letter of the law itself, but if what Trump has done was something morally wrong." — While there is a certain amount of truth about that, i.e., magatude, the "swing voters" at stake by this particular standard aren't really swing voters.

• "And if Biden is, from the point of view of a reasonable person, sufficiently suspect to be corrupt to start criminal investigations, then telling the law enforcement of the country where the crime has possibly happened is nothing morally wrong." — Herein we find the fallacious hook, the change of subject. That is a very big and presupposing if.​

One of the functional problems about your attitude—e.g, "This is nothing I care about"—is that for all you rant, you never really do seem to know quite what you're on about. I mentioned, in another thread, that an analysis that went along with a note on statute simply could not keep up with reality; the maybes and what-ifs kept resolving too quickly. Your blithe simplicity is an unbelievable pretense of, or else actual and disqualifying, ignorance.

Setting aside your characterization of swing voters, we can look at your turn to Biden according to the notion that, apparently, you cannot discern the difference. At the point of doing something which looks suspect from the start, the idea of a political genius like Putin tells us a good deal about what we need to know.

Consider that compared to "telling the law enforcement of the country where the crime has possibly happened", or that "Biden is, from the point of view of a reasonable person, sufficiently suspect to be corrupt to start criminal investigations", you cannot tell the difference between a Vice President on official business conveying the enforcement message of a nation participating in an international agreement according to its responsibilities thereunder, to the one, and an American president, to the other, telling a new president abroad to coordinate with his personal attorney and the U.S. Attorney general in attending a conspiracy theory pursuing dirt on a known political opponent.

Beyond that, by the time you posted this one, it is already known that the question of Donald Trump's underlying behavior and the apparent manipulation of Ukranian military aid has dragged Secretaries of State, Commerce, Defense, Justice, and Energy into this mess, as well as officials at CIA, and the Acting Director of National Intelligence. In the grand question of the conservative mantra that government doesn't work, and the old joke that they Republicans elected and prove it, we can readily admit Donald Trump seems correct about one thing: A phone call that violates the constitutions of two countries and ensnares five cabinet secretaries, two sections of our intelligence apparatus, and the Vice President really might be perfect.

And where in all that are you? Merely, "telling the law enforcement of the country where the crime has possibly happened"?

Imagine that. Things that make you go, "Hmmm …"? Not really; it's just Schmelzer.

Thus, to come back around: Disdain "the long 'you know nothing' rant" all you want, but Iceaura is not wrong when he notes you have been at it "for months now, without the slightest idea what you were talking about. And everybody who reads your posts knows it." In the larger question, carrying on with out the slightest apparent idea what you're on about is something you've been at for years, sir, and everyone who endures your posts can see it.

I can still just look back to your bizarre, know-nothing rants about Trump and North Korea, and your inability to properly discuss social contract. It's the same thing all over again, just piles of nonsense pulled out in the moment because you know better than having a clue. And it all goes one way. Sure, it's generally anti-American, yet you clearly favor the sinister, harmful, and criminal.

And, honestly, we saw that kind of shit for years before you, Schmelzer; self-conscious abject rightism is hardly a new scene.

 

Headline acts ...
Tabloid headlines on Broadway...

soiled saddle sore sentiment

a good cow poke

western jessie

dont hate the player hate the game
= USA morality bi-partisan moral normalisation
as long as you pick one of the sides you become morally sanctioned

i do not see any real change in the usa peoples morality

a good example to look at is the old crack-pot usa police officer hired as a gun for hire to protect children from armed intruders
who abducted 2, 6 year old children from his work-place(the school he was working at) and took them to the police station to have them arrested and charged
where they were then arrested and charged by sworn police officers in a police station.

what country was this in ?

tip of the sword huh ...

i think the usa is its own patsy

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...0190925-csp5onkudbgjvewtalicej2jfe-story.html

nobody stepped in

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...0190925-risam2gjpjavxfkckyhqxqs3o4-story.html

 

keeping it purely factual
he publicly requested on international mass media coverage to the world to request foreign state actors to hack his fellow USA citizen political opponents.

...
and thats supposedly ok for a democracy ...
Republican party endorsed it

dont forget that

the message was clear from the republican party
if you want fascism you vote republican
if you want democracy you vote democrat

meanwhile he is gaming the system against its own greed and making millions(like most of the usa political elected officials[if they weren't then they would not need to be filthy rich to be elected in the first place])
like a real capitalist.

queue both-sides-isms

 

which side is the correct choice for those who dont want to buy insurance or learn about how politics controls laws and morality ?