Thanks. Have to look into that a bit further. I'll get back with you.

:smile:

Like a rambling incoherent child.

Is that where he says something against the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution? I hear he did that yesterday.

Our president went off the cuff this morning, — NOS4A2

Your president has been busted breaking the law and will soon face impeachment, and his only defense is lies and insults.

I have a question.

If it could be established that Trump actually withheld funds for Ukraine to influence them to investigate Biden, would you agree that is worthy of impeachment and removal?

I feel certain that most rank and file Republicans would actually be OK with Trump doing this (i.e. they would still oppose impeachment), so I'm curious about your position on it.

Tiff you're simply dreaming if you think this has anything to do with a larger American backdown. This is Trump being played by a foreign leader, and then appealing to the fantasy of an American backdown to justify it - and in turn leading dupes to think such a backdown has anything to do with it. The Americans fucking off from Saudi Arabia - the no.1 exporter to Wahabi Islam and origin of most of the 9/11 attackers - might actually count as a move worth calling a backdown. This is just a weak president playing people like you to justify a fatally bad decision, impulsively made. You owe yourself better than the fiddle you currently are — StreetlightX

StreetlightX, I owe you an explanation of my delay in responding to our move by our President, to remove the 28 US soldiers from the position in which the Kurds had fought alongside us, leaving them to be slaughtered.

My son had the chance to talk to an Air Force Officer, one of his Professors, who has served active duty since before 9/11 what he thought about what our President did and how he did it.
I was not present for the conversation and the Professor did not answer directly but gave a summary of what the serving men and women thought which was "What he did was a dick move. Period."

And my son added that I have to understand, that it is safe to say that those currently serving and his fellow classmates, who will serve are Patriots to some degree and when the administration makes any move, they are the ones that have to carry the orders out, without the luxury of debating it.

So he left me with the question: do you think it is morally right to leave today, those who fought alongside you, only to die tomorrow as a result of your actions?

I am processing, searching for the role morality plays in a military operation and I am having a hard time finding it.

Clinton needs to be run over by a bus, ASAP. — StreetlightX

I have never understood the animus against Hillary Clinton, nor ever seen any listing at all anywhere, in parts or whole, of the terrible things she supposed to have done. Can you provide? Or point to where such a thing is? Please don't waste my time with no-substance rant sites or lists. but rather, like the man said, "Just the facts, please."

https://www.amazon.com/My-Turn-Hillary-Clinton-Presidency/dp/1609807561

I am processing, searching for the role morality plays in a military operation and I am having a hard time finding it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There's 4000 years of history about the morality of war and when a war is just and when it is fought in a just way. If morality plays no role in military operation then what were the Nuremberg trials about?

I’m not a republican, but if it was established that the sole reason Trump withheld funds was for political dirt for an election I would say it was worthy enough for impeachment.

"Sole" reason? Are you saying he shouldn't be impeached & removed for this if there was also a second precondition?

Do you agree that there is some evidence to suggest he might have been doing this impeachable thing?

If he was withholding aid money until he was assured that the Ukrainian leadership was going to work with current DOJ investigations, such as the Durham investigation, or to root out general corruption, of which Biden may or may not have been involved, then he is merely doing his job.

If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and therefor an impeachable offense.

There is plenty evidence of the former, zero evidence of the latter.

So, Hillary approaches politics in a totally pragmatic way just to get power. Wasn't it your earlier complaint that insisting morals play a role in politics is naïve?

Not that I really want to defend her. It just seems a bit inconsistent coming from you.

Clearly, William Taylor perceived there to be the impeachable quid pro quo:
"“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign".

That constitutes evidence.

The fact that Trump actually withheld the funds is consistent with Taylor's inference, so it constitutes circumstantial evidence.

I'm not claiming these are sufficient to convict, but how can you claim "zero" evidence?

but how can you claim "zero" evidence? — Relativist

Because he's a Trump propaganda noise machine. The evidence is all over the news and everyone knows what's going on.

The Trump presidency: what is nice is how open everything about the chaos is.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the United States and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran's hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country.

Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at his side, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Keane displayed a map showing that almost three quarters of Syria's oil fields are in the parts of the country where U.S. troops are deployed, the people familiar with the meeting said. They said that Graham and Keane told the president that Iran is preparing to move toward the oil fields and could seize the air space above them once the U.S. leaves. - On Monday, the president delivered contradictory public statements about a plan that would keep some U.S. troops in northern Syria indefinitely to conduct counterterrorism missions and protect the oil fields.

"I don't want to leave any troops there," Trump told reporters. "I don't think it's necessary other than we secure the oil."

The president's comments came as the Pentagon was preparing orders for maintaining several hundred troops in northern Syria, according to a senior U.S. official.

I have never understood the animus against Hillary Clinton, nor ever seen any listing at all anywhere, in parts or whole, of the terrible things she supposed to have done. — tim wood

It's all part of the alt-right agitprop. At worst, Clinton was annoying.

Bill Taylor’s fears are evidence of Trump’s criminality? That does not constitute evidence of anything, except perhaps Taylor’s assumptions and fears.

If that constitutes evidence, then what about Sunderland’s response to that text, which is suspiciously missing from your analysis?

You are to Clinton what @NOS4A2 is to Trump, utterly and blindly uncritical. Your only saving grace is you talk less about her than he does about him.

What did Hillary DO? What lie or lies did she tell? Whom did she cheat or betray? And by implication to compare her with Trump? And it might help to look at Democrat and republican presidents since FDR.

FDR
Truman
R - Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
R - Nixon
R - Ford
Carter
R - Reagan
R - Bush
Clinton
R - Bush
Obama
R - Trump

Any differences between, that you can discern?

What lie or lies did she tell? — tim wood

:brow: Are you serious? You could start with this: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ . Close to one-third of every statement recorded was a lie. But I really only wanted to point out how you and the other side mirror each other but can't see it.

Any differences between, that you can discern? — tim wood

Yes, Trump is a rude scumbag. The rest were polite ones.

..."And some, I assume, were good people".

*

There is clear evidence of criminal acts committed by Trump whilst in office. Most of the chatter about Clinton seems to me scurrilous rumour-mongering, not least the ludicrous Alt-Right theory that she was running a child exploitation ring from a pizza palour.

In fact the 'moral equivalence' stance turns a blind eye to the unprecedented degree of corruption and criminality exhibited by Trump. It's an example of how Trump's 'whataboutism' has leached into the media landscape such that even purportedly detached observers now solemnly recite it as accepted fact.

You should direct that to Trump's resident spin-doctor. I don't have a dog in the fight. (I'd only remark that not being a worse liar than Trump is an achievement shared by 99.9% of the human race, including by frequent liars like Clinton.)

If he was withholding aid money until he was assured that the Ukrainian leadership was going to work with current DOJ investigations, such as the Durham investigation, or to root out general corruption, of which Biden may or may not have been involved, then he is merely doing his job.

If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and therefor an impeachable offense.

There is plenty evidence of the former, zero evidence of the latter. — NOS4A2

Why was it being spearheaded by Rudy? He's not a government official. According to the envoy to Ukraine's testimony, this requirement to commit to an investigation wasn't directed through the official channels.

And the requirement wasn't just to carry out an investigation or root out corruption: "But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference". Certainly seems to be concerned with damaging optics of a political rival.

You should direct that to Trump's resident spin-doctor. I don't have a dog in the fight. — Baden

Well, neither do I, but you barked. :-)

I'm not bothering with trump trolls.

Well, neither do I, but you barked — Wayfarer

Well, I'm off back to my kennel now before I get Trump discussion rabies and start foaming at the mouth. :zip:

Why was it being spearheaded by Rudy? He's not a government official. According to the envoy to Ukraine's testimony, this requirement to commit to an investigation wasn't directed through the official channels.

And the requirement wasn't just to carry out an investigation or root out corruption: "But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference". Certainly seems to be concerned with damaging optics of a political rival.

According to Rudy he was doing it in his capacity as a defense lawyer, and it wasn’t, as I once assumed, in the capacity of the government. Rudy had given his findings to the state department through the proper channels back in March.

...According to Tim Morrison, as described by Taylor. Of course, there is no such CNN interview.

Bill Taylor’s fears are evidence of Trump’s criminality? That does not constitute evidence of anything, except perhaps Taylor’s assumptions and fears. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's evidence, because he was in position to know what was going on.

If that constitutes evidence, then what about Sunderland’s response to that text, which is suspiciously missing from your analysis?

I think you mean Sondland. Sure, taken at face value, Sondland's response is evidence to the contrary. I didn't mention that because I was simply challenging your claim of "zero" evidence of quid pro quo. Contrary evidence does not erase the existence of the positive evidence.

Regardless, we know that Sondland was not actually expressing his own opinion (Sondland admitted this in his testimony), so this erases its exculpatory value. And we also have Taylor's full testimony- do you even deny THIS as evidence against Trump?!

When I said “zero evidence” I was saying it in regards to your question earlier, and my explicit answer:

“If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors”

Show me a statement or policy or anything that references finding political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election, or anything to do with the next election and political dirt. If you find that the evidence of what he has been accused of will go from zero to one.