So yes, it is safe to say these career officials are idiots and are falling for bad reporting. That the others share the same fantasies makes it all the more a obvious that this is anti-Trump hysteria at best, a coverup of corruption at worst. — NOS4A2
Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and Burisma?
Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about Mr. Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.
Zeldin: And then it’s your inference that Mr. Giuliani’s goal would be the President’s goal?
Taylor: Yes.
Zeldin: And your source is the New York Times?
Taylor: Yes.
Zeldin: So do you have any other source that the President’s goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?
Taylor: I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the President was thinking
This is one of the great successes (if that word can be used in this way) of the Trump presidency: He has succeeded in eroding truth and bending reality among those who support him. He has succeeded in commandeering conservatism and twisting it into something nearly unrecognizable.
And now, all of Trump’s supporters and defenders are erecting a protective hedge around him. The cult of Trumpism can’t be allowed to fall.
They are devoted to Trump’s version of the truth and his version of reality. In it, he is a tough-talking tough guy who uses colorful language and sharp elbows to change things in their interest and in their favor. In this reality, he is unfairly and incessantly maligned by those obsessed with hating him as a person and for his supposed successes. In this reality, Trump is being bullied.
Also, nothing said about him is to be believed, no matter who says it and how much proof is presented. Conversely, believing him, a compulsive liar, happens by default. — Charles M. Blow
There are two very big lies that Donald Trump and his sycophants have used, through aggressive, bombastic repetition, to shape the public debate about impeachment, and about Trump’s legitimacy more broadly.
The first big lie is that “the people” elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people. Trump lost the popular vote and might have lost the Electoral College without Russian interference, and yet many Democrats and pundits have been bullied into accepting the fiction that he has democratic, and not just constitutional, legitimacy.
The second big lie is that Russia didn’t help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion. It’s true that the report by Robert Mueller, the former special counsel, did not find enough evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russian state actors. But the Mueller report found abundant evidence that the campaign sought Russian help, benefited from that help and obstructed the F.B.I. investigation into Russian actions. His investigation resulted in felony convictions for Trump’s former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, personal lawyer, first national security adviser, and longtime political adviser, among others.
Had public life in America not been completely deformed by blizzards of official lies, right-wing propaganda and the immovable wall of Republican bad faith, the Mueller report would have ended Trump’s minoritarian presidency. — Michelle Goldberg
Trump has been making deals for half a century so I suspect you have little clue what you’re talking about. — NOS4A2
Key take-away is the hold was put on the Ukraine aid because of the “the President's concern... — NOS4A2
Actually, recently reviewed emails dispute your point, detailing that the after-the-fact-justification was concerned about complying with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, not covering up the president’s alleged crimes. — NOS4A2
In the early August email exchanges, Mulvaney asked acting OMB director Russell Vought for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid and how much longer it could be delayed. Trump had made the decision the prior month without an assessment of the reasoning or legal justification, according to two White House officials.
...
Also included in the review are email communications between OMB and State Department officials and others discussing why the White House was holding up nearly $400 million in military aid and whether the hold might violate the law, one person said. — Washington Post
People familiar with the Office of Management and Budget’s handling of the holdup in aid acknowledged the internal discussions going on during August, but characterized the conversations as calm, routine and focused on the legal question of how to comply with the congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, which requires the executive branch to spend congressionally appropriated funds unless Congress agrees they can be rescinded.
“There was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to conduct the policy review,” said OMB spokeswoman Rachel K. Semmel. “OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed, not scrambling.”
...
In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned the OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally approved funds.
Answer the question about obstruction; If Trump has done nothing wrong why the obstruction?
Also answer why in your mind a good leader is someone who causes massive amounts of civil unrest and massive budget deficits?
Why does Trump break informal protocol with all other past Presidents by not releasing his tax records?
Why is his administration trying to undermine the legislative branches constitutional mandate to perform checks and balances on the executive branch? Why is he talking about civil war?
Do you seriously read every transcript looking for one or two lines that you can take out of context every time that supports your dogmatic fixation with Hitler and Stalin's love child?
What about the times the president has directly told his supporters to "Punch" people in the face and all of the white nationalist rhetoric he puts up on Twitter? What about Stephen Miller's emails? How can you ignore the historical similarities with past dictatorships?
Your stances I feel beg the question; are you a monarchist and were you one before Trump ever hinted that he was going to run for office one day?
You do realise you have just lied to an entire community about the state of affairs in the USA right? We can verify everything you are saying and if your best defense is to just bury your head up the presidents ass and take a direct dose of his BS then you are already lost.
Where are you from in the USA — Mark Dennis
He's not from the U.S. But wherever he's from, he's doing a great job of discrediting White House spin by presenting it here in a form so easily refuted. Maybe he's a closet never-Trumper. — Baden
You have disrespected me by not responding to me many times. I have spent a lot of time in responses to you which have yet been unanswered whereas all your claims have been debunked by myself and many others.
You're still not answering questions. I've shared reasonable suspicions and given arguments to back them up whereas as you seem to be practing the 5 D's of Dogdeball. Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge. That's all you ever do with us so you'll just have to forgive us if we all get a little frustrated with your gaslighting nonsense.
Everyone here knows that usually the lack of a response is usually because the other party doesnt have one. I've never once turned down the option to answer if I think I have a good countsr so why are you withholding on us if you have arguments that haven't already been refuted? Don't pull your punches now.
There was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld to conduct the policy review,” said OMB spokeswoman Rachel K. Semmel. “OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed, not scrambling. — NOS4A2
President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter.
The State Department decision, which hasn’t been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year, and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid.
In December 2018, months before the Ukraine issue surfaced as a top priority for the president, the Government Accountability Office had warned the OMB it was not following the law in how it chose to disburse and withhold congressionally approved funds
So we have a good reason not to trust the OMB spokeswoman.
This tweet coupled with Trump’s signing of the Hong Kong human rights bill could symbolize his coming fight with this generation’s Drago, the Chinese communist party. — NOS4A2
Drago was a fictional character hyped up full of propaganda... a fitting comparison.
Drago was a fictional character hyped up full of propaganda... a fitting comparison.
No pro-democracy protester has ever held up an Ivan Drago picture while protesting communist totalitarianism... — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.