This is how democracy dies. Most of the country including Republicans know what Trump did but because he has control of nearly all of one party then his defenders can fall back in the claim that impeachment is one sided and it has to be bipartisan. Also whether by luck or talent Trump has been able to exploit rules to his advantage rules that are meant to be there for a good reason . Mueller wouldn’t indict because of the DOJ rule of not indicting a sitting president and Mueller is a by the rules man. Then there are people like Will Hurd who say that impeachment has to be completely unambiguous or it can’t happen. These men will argue that they can’t tear the country apart even as a con man continues to exploit the country. the argument I would make to them is that if you didn’t like the abandonment of the Kurds, the public disparagement of our intelligence services, the love fest of Kim Jong Un even as he continued to test weapons, and any more of those things that many Republicans have argued against th ere is going to be much more coming if they don’t act now..
I'm pretty sure Trump pulled out from Syria in exchange for persona/family/business benefit from Turkey or from the pullout
The DEM has been winning election since Trump has been POTUS. Let's not forget that. Yes, some of the Republican tactics can and should be copied to win at almost all costs. Simple messaging, emotional engagement, shameless political attacks, legalize cheating. The two things they should not do is post-fact and welcoming foreign power to interfere in our election since they are a serious danger to the nation long term health. If the DEM actually joins the post-fact and election interference club and actually wins on that - I don't know what else to say other than it's short-sightedness and we all will suffer in the long term. We will be a confused nation pushed by international power and influencers, not just strong US business power and internal influencers. However disagreeing we are to each other, we still have shared American values and we largely reject some of the values from other nations. I don't want those folks (Russia, China, NK, ..) in our backyard. p.s. they already are and Trump and the GOP is almost effectively Russian assets at this point.
He's one of the most disingenuous posters on the forum. Does anyone bother to read his "insightful" posting of cherry picked op-eds? I would put him on ignore except he starts so many threads that half the forum would disappear with him. Moderate Democrat...lol
Interesting. I didn't know that the "swing states" had been carried by Dems previously. I swear, Hillary f-ed up so badly. I'm not a fan of hers; shoot, I'm probably more Republican (pre trump derangement) than Dem. I hope history remembers that jackass-in-chief resulted from Hillary screwing the pooch by ignoring the swing states.
I depend on all of the political junkies here to cover all the news that fits to print. You missed this one apparently: WaPo gave Schiff Three Pinocchios for claiming the whistle-blower has a "statutory right" to anonymity: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/ excerpt: Schiff’s claim that the whistleblower has a ‘statutory right’ to anonymity By Salvador Rizzo November 20, 2019 at 3:00 a.m. EST “I am concerned about a bad-faith effort to out a whistleblower who has a statutory right to remain anonymous.” — Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), in a closed-door deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Oct. 29, 2019 “The whistleblower has a right to anonymity. There are public reports that the life of the whistleblower has been threatened. We do not want this committee used, or this testimony used, to try to exact political retribution against the whistleblower.” — Schiff, in a closed-door deposition of National Security Council official Tim Morrison, Oct. 31, 2019 “The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower.” — Schiff, in a public hearing with Vindman, Nov. 19, 2019 Does the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump have a “statutory right” to remain anonymous, as Schiff claims? *** The Pinocchio Test Schiff’s statement is on the line between Two and Three Pinocchios. The case for Two: The ICWPA provides a confidential process to report concerns, and some observers say it gives whistleblowers an implied right to anonymity. Outing the whistleblower could lead to the sort of workplace retribution barred by law. The whistleblower filed his complaint to the intelligence community inspector general’s office, which is restricted by statute from disclosing his identity (though other officials are not). The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community. The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. (And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?) We found the case for Three Pinocchios more compelling. Schiff says the whistleblower has a “statutory right” to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general. That’s debatable at best. We note that the whistleblower opted for confidentiality by filing his complaint to the inspector general, that he’s faced a barrage of threats, and that Maguire and Atkinson have said he followed the law and should remain anonymous. Three Pinocchios (About our rating scale)
That isn't plausible. Has Trump halted US Aid to Saudi Arabia, Israel (who's leader is currently facing legal troubles for his own corruption), the Philippines, or any of the other nations with far more concrete and grander examples of corruption? The idea that Trump has an interest in weeding out corruption in the national interest is far from plausible. We do have the testimony that Trump was only interested in the Ukrainians performing actions that helped him personally. We also now have Trump singing the praises of the corrupt Prosecutor who all of the allies of the US were demanding to be fired because of his corruption. What are Hunter and Joe accused of doing? Engaging in Nepotism? There has been no evidence presented they are guilty of anything other than that. If there has been evidence please point it out. I would be interested in seeing that. If you're hung up on the whistleblower, you've lost. The whistleblower isn't a part of the case against Trump. The only significance of the Whistleblower is that Trump supporters have threatened to kill them and protecting them and keeping them safe. If we want to have an order to recognize them for doing their part for patriotism and our nation, we can do that. If we want to talk about increasing the protections for whistleblowers which Obama weakened we can do that. But if you are bringing up the whistleblower as a part of Trump's impeachment, then it just isn't relevant.
I'm not hung up on the whistleblower. I'm simply disappointed the political junkies here let me down.
But talking about the whistleblower is like making a complaint about Nunes' tie he was wearing during Wednesday's hearings. It doesn't matter at all and plays no part in anything to do with Trump's guilt or innocence. I would actually be interested in discussing whistleblower protection. I believe that is very important. Obama's handling of that was in the top 2 areas I disagreed with during Obama's first term.
I believe you, but since you are posting about the whistleblower in the Trump impeachment thread, you might as well be.
to be candid, I was actually posting about Schiff's dishonesty--as symbolized by the Three Pinocchios--rather than about the whistleblower per se. I couldn't care less about the whistleblower.
so you have no opinion on this statement? whistleblower opted for confidentiality by filing his complaint to the inspector general, that he’s faced a barrage of threats, and that Maguire and Atkinson have said he followed the law and should remain anonymous
