Now that Les Parnas's testimony is a available, Mayor Giuliani and Trump will be further exposed. — Punshhh
If the Senate votes to exclude witness testimony, they will be collectively betraying their oaths of office. If witnesses are allowed they will either have to ignore the evidence, therefore losing any integrity they have, or if they accept it they will have to rule against Trump.
Thanks, but I hope you can clarify a few things.I would go further than presume he is innocent. I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. — NOS4A2
Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent?
Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?
Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint?
Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma. — NOS4A2
He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate?Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there — NOS4A2
— NOS4A2
Ok, but you obviously do not believe she is right. So what's your take on it: Mistake? Lying? Something else?Fiona Hill opined that the efforts to look into the Bidens was a "political errand." Was she lying? Was she simply mistaken? Is there no possibility she was right?
There is always a possibility she could be right. — Relativist
He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate?
Ok, but you obviously do not believe she is right. So what's your take on it: Mistake? Lying? Something else?
Actually, it was the State Department that was most successful in overthrowing Serbia's Milosevic. CIA didn't have much part in that. And thanks to that Milosevic died in a prison cell in the Hague and Serbia... is a close and loyal friend of Russia!Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise. — NOS4A2
Of all the factors bearing on the demise of the Milosevic regime, direct democracy promotion assistance in the form of financial support, training and contact with other regional activists was the most influential.
Democracy-promotion assistance from all sources totaled nearly $150 million in the period between 1988 and 2000. Nearly two-thirds of this amount was expended in 1999 and 2000 alone. Some of the largest providers of democracy assistance were the Open Society Fund based in Belgrade, the United States Agency for International Development, the European Union, bi-lateral European donors and a host of other quasi-governmental and private institutions. After 1998, assistance broadened and deepened to include initiatives designed to bolster the survivability of the resistance and engage in confrontation with the regime. There was less of a focus on sustainable development and more on short-term political change in Milosevic's last two years in office.
No wait? It isn't anymore the 400 pound guy on the bed? Ohh... It's the 'Steele dossier'. Ah yes, Russia is totally innocent. Poor, poor Russia. They wouldn't hurt even a fly.I suspect this is all connected to “Russian meddling”, and the current impeachment attempt against Trump is an attempt at a cover up. — NOS4A2
God forbid you would find out. Washington can keep secrets so well, as we all know.God forbid someone finds out what went on in Ukraine. — NOS4A2
Can you offer any evidence that Trump was actively battling corruption in Ukraine -other than the Biden matter - that predates the whistleblower complaint? — Relativist
Trump has no jurisdiction in Ukraine so I do not see how he could actively battle corruption there. He was clearly concerned about Ukraine’s involvement in the Russia hoax, their election meddling with the DNC, Biden’s involvement with the Burisma. — NOS4A2
He could have established more, or stricter, benchmarks and held up funding if they weren't met. There were, in fact, benchmarks and these were met in May. Do you surmise that Trump considered these inadequate? — Relativist
OK, but the point is that going after Biden wasn't the only thing he could do about Ukraine corruption. A process was in place, and if he deemed this was inadequate he could have addressed it. He didn't. Which gets us back to this:There are no explicit statements regarding benchmarks that I am aware of. — NOS4A2
Do you agree that on the surface it looks bad to pursue the Bidens in this way, since Joe is a political opponent? — Relativist
Please expand on this by answering two questions:No, I do not. — NOS4A2
You know, on this issue I just base my view just on Trump's obscene adulation of Putin, the utterly crazy propositions Trump has made (and has had to quickly backtrack) and the sheer devotedness on NEVER EVER saying one critical thing about his best friend Vlad. Listening through a Donald and Vladimir press conference was like listening to a leader of a Great Power and a proxy puppet government giving a press conference. Hence I reason that yes, we really can talk of Agent Trumpov in the White House. It's the biggest intelligence coup ever in the history of intelligence work.
Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?
2) Under what circumstances is it OK for a President, acting as President, to push an investigation of a political opponent? For example, is it always OK? OK if there's an objectively good reason to think the opponent committed a crime? OK if he has hunch that the opponent committed a crime?
OK, do you think reasonable people could think it does look bad (on the surface, at least)? Bear in mind that a September poll showed that 63% of Americans (including 32% of Republicans) considered it wrong (source)Please expand on this by answering two questions:
1) are you saying it doesn't look bad to YOU, or do you feel that it shouldn't look bad to any reasonable person?
1) it doesn’t look bad to me. In fact, to me, it looks like the president is doing his job. — NOS4A2
)
2) It is always ok to ask another leader to look into possible corruption between two countries no matter who is involved, but especially when it involves the conflicts of interest of high-ranking officials, their family, and corrupt energy companies paying vast sums of cash. — NOS4A2
I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?That’s hilarious. There are, of course, more simple explanations for reserving criticism of a world leader, but sure, Trump’s the Manchurian candidate. — NOS4A2
You know my answer. No, he is not a murderer. No, he is not a criminal. — NOS4A2
They’ve been trying to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. It’s an unjust affair. There was no crime. There was no wrong doing. — NOS4A2
OK, do you think reasonable people could think it does look bad (on the surface, at least)? Bear in mind that a September poll showed that 63% of Americans (including 32% of Republicans) considered it wrong (source)
That's not what I asked. I asked when it is OK for a President, utilizing his office, to push for the investigation of a political opponent.
Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature.
I don't know what candidate he is, but really, have listened through a Putin-Trump press conference?
It's REALLY different (like Twilight Zone different) from let's say Trump speaking with an "NATO ally", who Trump can pummel all he wants.
But just listen to him speaking to his followers. Then Trump make sense and is consistent. It's a great Witch hunt against him lead by the Obama-Hilarites of the deep state.
If I take you literally, and extrapolate to any serious wrongdoing (you were too specific to the Bidens; makes it sound like a special pleading), it suggests you think a President can investigate anyone because anyone "may" have done something seriously wrong. Can you provide a reasonable, nonpartisan generalized standard that you'd be fine with applying to someone of either party?When that political opponent may have abused his office for personal benefit by letting his son reap vast sums of money from a corrupt company in a destabilized country he just helped destabilize. — NOS4A2
If I take you literally, and extrapolate to any serious wrongdoing (you were too specific to the Bidens; makes it sound like a special pleading), it suggests you think a President can investigate anyone because anyone "may" have done something seriously wrong. Can you provide a reasonable, nonpartisan generalized standard that you'd be fine with applying to someone of either party?
You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?
I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?
You still aren't getting it. What should be the basis of pursuing an investigation? Is a hunch that's rooted in animosity sufficient?
I know you don't believe Trump was doing this for political gain, but would it be OK if some future President actually did something analogous for personal political gain? If not, then on what principle do you allow the just investigations while disallowing the unjust?
— Relativist
I'm asking you do define a principle you would apply - in general. The principle should apply to this case, of course, but I'd like to know what that is. If you don't have a general principle, it just seems a partisan judgment. One possible principle might be the same sort of standard that would be used to decide to conduct a criminal investigation. Would that work for you? i.e. A president should only use the power of his office to directly influence a foreign power to investigate a political opponent if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed to warrant an investigation. You don't have to agree with that, but I'm asking you to provide the standard you consider appropriate.The basis is the evidence. — NOS4A2
That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.He didn’t do anything wrong seems a sufficient standard to me — NOS4A2
That's not a standard, that's a judgment. If you can't show that your judgment is based on some objective standard, then it would appear to be purely partisan.
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.