4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Trump is on firm legal ground in his refusal to cooperate with this coup attempt that is disguised as an "impeachment inquiry."  The letter lays it all out. 

Troll!

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

To put it in plain terms the US of A is so divided that even a civil war is possible 

& I blame Trump for this huge division

Yes and I blame Obama and the Democrats.

I have long since given up trusting the mainstream media to present anything even closely resembling a balanced viewpoint. They are all commercial enterprises now, catering to their audience and presenting only the evidence that is likely to get a warm reception by their readers. So I decided to try some informal research on my own. I already understand the pro impeachment argument, because to me it is quite clear Trump broke the law, but I wanted to understand how Trump supporters viewed his actions.

 

So rather than go in snarling venomous obscenities about how stupid and racist they are for supporting a demagogue as president, I actully tried something very rare in this day and age...I tried to understand their values and viewpoint. The result was interesting, and I suggest everyone try it rather than hurling insults at people who don't agree with you. It's actually much more productive.

 

I actually called some aquaintences I hadn't spoken with for a while to catch up and ask their opinion. What I learned from my investigation is that a large number of Trump supporters also agree that he broke the law, but they view this transgression as very minor. Kind of akin to littering. In their mind, had Trump done something truly eggregious, like planting evidence or attempting to frame someone for a crime they didn't commit, that would be a step too far. But Trump was simply trying to bring exposure to the truth, which people feel was being covered up by the establishment. In other words, this whole thing is another example of Trump trying to "drain the swamp", and they think this is a good thing, even if the method he used to do it might be a technical infraction. After all, the laws are written to protect those in Washington from being responsible for their actions.

 

There is no apetite that I could find in the Trump support base for conviction on this offense, and it is viewed as simply a Democratic smear campaign to denigrate a man trying to expose the hypocrisy that is politics today.

 

I think this effort was instructive. Unless there is more to this story that hasn't yet been revealed, based on what I heard, the answer is probably no. Trump supporters seem to have a perspective that approves of what he did, rather than disapprove. Of course, the less radical believers want to hear more and don't mind the scrutiny of an impeachment hearing, but the bias is obvious. "If Clinton can commit perjury and not be convicted, certainly Trump shouldn't be convicted merely for overreaching to expose corruption."

 

So I am convinced he won't be convicted. The blowback from voters would be unacceptable to the Republican Senate. You can disagree. I certainly believe it is in the best interest of the country to see Trump gone. But I don't see any universe in which it happens unless what he did is a lot more serious than what has been accused of.

 

 

8 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Yes and I blame Obama and the Democrats.

Clever use of sarcasm. 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

pls point out the  congress legal mandate for that.

 

wbr

roobaa01

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

5 hours ago, atyclb said:

i find it very reassuring and comforting having a constitutional scholar as yourself to guide us.

I’d be delighted to address an corrections you have to what I have said

 

as a non lawyer myself, the remark was meant as a compliment.

5 hours ago, PatOngo said:

8 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Did you read the Constitution?

I'll bet you love the smell of napalm in the morning!

epic scene from an epic movie that also attests to how much a surfer loves surfing.  "lance you either surf or you fight" as robert duvall removes his own shirt to surf.

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

The telephone call between Trump and Ukraine has already had the transcript released

the "partial" redacted  transcript release, what about the hidden words/files/transcripts, if one has nothing to hide why is he so worried about releasing the unredacted transcript and fighting with judge{s) order(s) to release the taxes reports, previous presidents did why not him, why and why that's the question

11 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Put your hand on your heart's, wrap yourselves in Ol' Glory, make sure your bump stock AR15 is loaded, send a donation to the NRA and God Bless America!

Having served in the US Army for 20 years and later in law enforcement, your statement is bizarre and meaningless. The Republic has weathered worse storms created by temporary occupants of the Whitehouse and on Capitol Hill (research history). This is merely another footnote to be added.

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

the "partial" redacted  transcript release, what about the hidden words/files/transcripts, if one has nothing to hide why is he so worried about releasing the unredacted transcript and fighting with judge{s) order(s) to release the taxes reports, previous presidents did why not him, why and why that's the question

One lawmaker had his staff read the released transcript at a normal pace, it lasted about 10 minutes. The actual phone call lasted 30 minutes. That's an AWFUL lot of verbiage that wasn't released.

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

One lawmaker had his staff read the released transcript at a normal pace, it lasted about 10 minutes. The actual phone call lasted 30 minutes. That's an AWFUL lot of verbiage that wasn't released.

and that was my point... unredacted transcript for the 30 minutes call, it's on tape, the famous secret computer/server, show it if there is nothing to hide, just show it

1 hour ago, roobaa01 said:

pls point out the  congress legal mandate for that.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Its called the constitution. 

29 minutes ago, J Town said:

One lawmaker had his staff read the released transcript at a normal pace, it lasted about 10 minutes. The actual phone call lasted 30 minutes. That's an AWFUL lot of verbiage that wasn't released.

Here is an excerpt from the transcript page 1. It explains what a TELCON memo is:

 

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

 

The lawmaker's staff likely read straight through as native English speakers. The intelligence officers record only the meat of the conversation, they skip nonsense, mistakes, unimportant grunts, etc. I also listened to a tape of Adam Schiff when he was spoofed by two Russian journalists into believing they had Trump dirt. It was very slow with a lot of back and forth due to accents, need for spelling some words for clarity, and misunderstandings that needed correcting. None of which would be recorded by the intel officers.

 

If there was 20 minutes missing, I'm sure the career intelligence officers recording it would be blowing their whistles.

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

Here is an excerpt from the transcript page 1. It explains what a TELCON memo is:

 

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

 

The lawmaker's staff likely read straight through as native English speakers. The intelligence officers record only the meat of the conversation, they skip nonsense, mistakes, unimportant grunts, etc. I also listened to a tape of Adam Schiff when he was spoofed by two Russian journalists into believing they had Trump dirt. It was very slow with a lot of back and forth due to accents, need for spelling some words for clarity, and misunderstandings that needed correcting. None of which would be recorded by the intel officers.

 

If there was 20 minutes missing, I'm sure the career intelligence officers recording it would be blowing their whistles.

Again, that is the redacted transcript.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Again, that is the redacted transcript.

He wont believe it. It doesnt fit the narrative that trump is the chosen one.

 

Because trump stuffed it up it means Biden is bad even though repubs holding both congress and senate didnt think there was anything in it. So nothing to see. But when dems have congress then there is lots of blame.

 

Trump investigated. Oh look over there. 

1 hour ago, Benmart said:

Having served in the US Army for 20 years and later in law enforcement, your statement is bizarre and meaningless. The Republic has weathered worse storms created by temporary occupants of the Whitehouse and on Capitol Hill (research history). This is merely another footnote to be added.

Interesting you mention that, I have been researching some Republican history for the past week or so.

 

 

 

Three years of this circus and they still refuse to go back to work, sad batch we have placed in congress.

Doesn't take a genius to see that this is an illegitimate and one-sided 

impeachment ATTEMPT.

 

Pelosi should take the vote which she will win....and then watch as Trump

flattens them all.

amused by the number of people on here down on the "former" junta currently governing thailand who are delighted by similar antics perpetrated in the us 

1 hour ago, Benmart said:

Having served in the US Army for 20 years and later in law enforcement, your statement is bizarre and meaningless. The Republic has weathered worse storms created by temporary occupants of the Whitehouse and on Capitol Hill (research history). This is merely another footnote to be added.

seems all that training hasn't blighted your sense of irony.

 

as i side note, i googled both "history" and "research history" without coming up with any of the storms you allude to.

 

5 minutes ago, metempsychotic said:

seems all that training hasn't blighted your sense of irony.

 

as i side note, i googled both "history" and "research history" without coming up with any of the storms you allude to.

 

Google...America in Vietnam!

1 minute ago, PatOngo said:

Google...America in Vietnam!

thanks, ill get right on that.

3 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

I agree. That the Dems have ignored all precedents set by the previous impeachment proceedings in the House is absolutely a disgrace.  All previous impeachment proceedings required a vote and the setting of the articles of impeachment.  This includes putting forward the evidence and timeframes and a framework for the investigations.  This is required to allow both the opposing Party to participate in the committee hearings and the POTUS to defend themselves. That the Demms have refused to vote or set the articles is an abolute disgrace and an insult to the Republic.  The White House and the GOP are rightly refusing to cooperate with a 'kangaroo court' witch hunt. 

Trump has ignored precedents of financial transparency and disengagement to prevent conflicts of interest that were far better established than those for impeachment.  How do you fell about that?

Bill Maher called it a coup and Trump a dicktator and traitor a long time ago. Back then, I thought he was mostly exaggerating. Now I see it exactly as he called it. The US Government is being taken over by an insane dictator. 

41 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump has ignored precedents of financial transparency and disengagement to prevent conflicts of interest that were far better established than those for impeachment.  How do you fell about that?

You believe that because CNN told you?  Come of it and get real.  This is politics and Trump is going to smash the Dems. 

I feel very good about that. And I feel very good about the 2020 election. 

12 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

You believe that because CNN told you?  Come of it and get real.  This is politics and Trump is going to smash the Dems. 

I feel very good about that. And I feel very good about the 2020 election. 

Geez, are you really that uninformed? 

 

Trump has not released his taxes.  Every President since Nixon has released his taxes.  That's not "Fake News" from CNN, that's historical fact.  The precedent is far more firmly established than any impeachment precedent.

 

 

The anonymous member of the intelligence community who filed the whistleblower complaint against President Trump that has resulted in a formal impeachment probe against him reportedly had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-relationship-with-democratic-2020-presidential-candidate-report/

 

“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate" 

2 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The anonymous member of the intelligence community who filed the whistleblower complaint against President Trump that has resulted in a formal impeachment probe against him reportedly had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-relationship-with-democratic-2020-presidential-candidate-report/

 

“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate" 

And?

18 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

The anonymous member of the intelligence community who filed the whistleblower complaint against President Trump that has resulted in a formal impeachment probe against him reportedly had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-relationship-with-democratic-2020-presidential-candidate-report/

 

“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate" 

That in no way invalidates what the whistle blower has reported, which has been verified by the White House.

1 hour ago, chokrai said:

 I don't think there is one Trump supporter out there that spends one minute of one day thinking about Trumps taxes. That is not why they voted for him. 

How many Trump supporters are such hypocrites as to care about imagined impeachment precedents but not about the precedent of Presidents releasing their tax returns?

 

Trump supporters are obsessive about honesty, transparency, conflicts of interest and precedents when it comes to Trump's critics, but don't care at all about Trump's flagrant lies, opaqueness, conflicts of interest and disdain for precedents.