Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's been pointed out that the use by a President of a citizen not within government has been done before.

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy

 

"Among all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion."

 

I truly don't understand what you're trying to argue since there are supporting facts.  But you, too, can twist facts to suit your purposes and end up calling me a liar.  Your problem, not mine.  But you do expose yourself for who you truly are.

 

Talk about dishonest. Is that the article you originally linked to? Wasn't that about special envoys who mediate conflicts in conflict zones? I believe the examples cited in the article you linked to cited Bosnia-Herzegovina and 2 conflicts in southern Africa. 

Anyway, is there any case of a president who makes his special envoy a person who by his own account is involved in this to defend the president. A President who pushes another head of state to consult with this person. A person who is there not to defend the office of the Presidency but to defend Donald Trump. A person who, acting as a defense attorney, is promoting a theory that incriminates a likely opponent of the president? That sounds to me like a high crime or misdemeanour. Very corrupt.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Agree. It’s for the Dems to lose not because of bias and hypocrisy ( plenty in the Reps camp) but poor strategic planning and too timid to face down Trump. 

IMO more to do with not being able to find a charismatic candidate acceptable to middle America. Warren- oh my, what are they thinking?

[Nigel Garvie]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO more to do with not being able to find a charismatic candidate acceptable to middle America. Warren- oh my, what are they thinking?

People would never have expected that Obama would be acceptable to middle America, though would they.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

People would never have expected that Obama would be acceptable to middle America, though would they.

Obama is a moderate compared to Warren and Sanders. Obama didn't really get red baited very much. So not the same issue. 

[bristolboy]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Obama is a moderate compared to Warren and Sanders. Obama didn't really get red baited very much. So not the same issue. 

I think you're forgetting about how Republicans spoke of the Kenyan socialist.

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think you're forgetting about how Republicans spoke of the Kenyan socialist.

Not forgetting. There was no basis for that. Again not the same level. Red baiting Warren and especially Sanders has more credibility. 

[elmrfudd]

On 11/13/2019 at 11:49 AM, Eric Loh said:

Dems just protecting the constitution. Dems have raised more funds than the Reps and should relished the election opportunity. 

Trump has set records in fund raising, how have they raised more?

 

And no, there is nothing they are doing that is about protecting the constitution or the office. But it is setting a precedent that they will regret for decades

[elmrfudd]

On 11/15/2019 at 9:53 PM, bristolboy said:

Talk about dishonest. Is that the article you originally linked to? Wasn't that about special envoys who mediate conflicts in conflict zones? I believe the examples cited in the article you linked to cited Bosnia-Herzegovina and 2 conflicts in southern Africa. 

Anyway, is there any case of a president who makes his special envoy a person who by his own account is involved in this to defend the president. A President who pushes another head of state to consult with this person. A person who is there not to defend the office of the Presidency but to defend Donald Trump. A person who, acting as a defense attorney, is promoting a theory that incriminates a likely opponent of the president? That sounds to me like a high crime or misdemeanour. Very corrupt.

perhaps the better example is FDR's envoy, the socialist Harry Llyod Hopkins that did much more than Rudy or anyone else during a little conflict called world war II

[Nigel Garvie]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Obama is a moderate compared to Warren and Sanders. Obama didn't really get red baited very much. So not the same issue. 

Hmm, not quite my point, which was just to say unexpected things happen, rather than focus on "Red baiting" per se.

 

However I agree with all the last few comments. It is a worry when fighting someone as warped as Trump (Or Johnson), if the opposition choses this moment for a severe attack of "More left than thou" rhetoric. The UK Labour party never fails to indulge in such navel gazing when the people of the country desperately need them to present an electable alternative - tragic.

[Becker]

This probably made Trump's day:

 

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards Beats Trump Pick In Louisiana

 

"“How sweet it is!” a delighted Bel Edwards declared to celebrating supporters, AP reported.  As for Trump, who campaigned vigorously against him, the governor quipped: “God bless his heart.” It’s a phrase southerners often use to politely knock someone.

The narrow victory was widely regarded as a referendum on Trump in a deeply red state."

[candide]

Just now, Becker said:

This probably made Trump's day:

 

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards Beats Trump Pick In Louisiana

 

"“How sweet it is!” a delighted Bel Edwards declared to celebrating supporters, AP reported.  As for Trump, who campaigned vigorously against him, the governor quipped: “God bless his heart.” It’s a phrase southerners often use to politely knock someone.

The narrow victory was widely regarded as a referendum on Trump in a deeply red state."

It's been even acknowledged by Fox News!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-casts-louisiana-vote-as-impeachment-referendum

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

well now, an opinion of a man passed up by Trump is just that. But you keep on hoping.

 

PS, sorry that I disappointed you 

I'm positively delighted that you've replied although you didn't answer my question.

You stated:

"....i refer to the dimwitted notion of quid pro quo...."

 

I asked, is Napolitano dimwitted too. I.e., he's the dimwit and you're the smart one?

Is that correct?

[elmrfudd]

4 minutes ago, Becker said:

This probably made Trump's day:

 

Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards Beats Trump Pick In Louisiana

 

"“How sweet it is!” a delighted Bel Edwards declared to celebrating supporters, AP reported.  As for Trump, who campaigned vigorously against him, the governor quipped: “God bless his heart.” It’s a phrase southerners often use to politely knock someone.

The narrow victory was widely regarded as a referendum on Trump in a deeply red state."

just an observation, did the person Trump endorsed get more or less percentage of the vote after the endorsement?

[Becker]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

just an observation, did the person Trump endorsed get more or less percentage of the vote after the endorsement?

Well, me and Napolitano are dimwits while you're the smart one so why don't you do the research yourself?

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

I'm positively delighted that you've replied although you didn't answer my question.

You stated:

"....i refer to the dimwitted notion of quid pro quo...."

 

I asked, is Napolitano dimwitted too. I.e., he's the dimwit and you're the smart one?

Is that correct?

I never said he was dimwitted, he has an opinion, that is all it is. He will be impeached by the house, acquitted in the senate and win another term. one has to wonder what other lame attempts these desperate dims will cook up after the re election. 

[Becker]

 

Deleted post edited out*

 

You claim people who believe there was a quid pro quo are dimwitted.

I believe there was a quid pro quo, ergo I'm dimwitted.

So are you now saying that people who believe in the existing evidence and clealry see a quid pro quo are not dimwitted?

[bristolboy]

34 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

perhaps the better example is FDR's envoy, the socialist Harry Llyod Hopkins that did much more than Rudy or anyone else during a little conflict called world war II

Was Harry Lloyd Trump's personal attorney who described the purpose of his mission as defending Roosevelt from political attacks? Because if that's the case, then you've got a point. Otherwise, not so much. 

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I never said he was dimwitted, he has an opinion, that is all it is. He will be impeached by the house, acquitted in the senate and win another term. one has to wonder what other lame attempts these desperate dims will cook up after the re election. 

He pulled out all the stops and still couldn't put the Republican candidate over the top in a deeply red state. And you know why that was? Record black turnout. Trump supporters seem to forget that it isn't only them that Trump motivates to vote. I don't see how all the money in the world is going to immunize Trump from what he's said and what he's tweeted. 

[Sujo]

25 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

I never said he was dimwitted, he has an opinion, that is all it is. He will be impeached by the house, acquitted in the senate and win another term. one has to wonder what other lame attempts these desperate dims will cook up after the re election. 

It depends on what other lame illegal things trump does. Congress is doing its constitutional duty, if thats ok with you.

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

just an observation, did the person Trump endorsed get more or less percentage of the vote after the endorsement?

After the runoff vote on Oct 12, his percentages remained unchanged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Louisiana_gubernatorial_election#Polling_2

 

[elmrfudd]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

After the runoff vote on Oct 12, his percentages remained unchanged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Louisiana_gubernatorial_election#Polling_2

 

well then there you go, he will not be re elected based on this then.....

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

those are opinions, not facts. but if that works for you, and it makes you feel like you are going to get what you want or need, go for it

They are facts. Uncontested facts.

[elmrfudd]

Just now, Sujo said:

It did happen. And yes there is evidence it happened.

no, it did not, but again, if it makes you feel better that you think it did, that is ok. it will amount to nothing but a waste of time, and another increase in fund raising

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

no, it did not, but again, if it makes you feel better that you think it did, that is ok. it will amount to nothing but a waste of time, and another increase in fund raising

Oh so sorry. I didnt know you meant alternative facts.

[elmrfudd]

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

those are opinions, not facts. but if that works for you, and it makes you feel like you are going to get what you want or need, go for it

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

They are facts. Uncontested facts.

 

if they were uncontested, why is there no unanimous vote to impeach? I mean they are "uncontested" right?

 

or are they just partisan blather and bluster??????

 

 

hmmmmm....I wonder what uncontested means.....??

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

if they were uncontested, why is there no unanimous vote to impeach? I mean they are "uncontested" right?

 

or are they just partisan blather and bluster??????

 

 

hmmmmm....I wonder what uncontested means.....??

It means defence has not called any witnesses to contest the facts.

 

Though its easy for trump to do so. Pompeo, Barr, Giuliano, Mulvaney could all testify that the facts presented are not true.

 

Would be very easy. Wonder why not.

[opalred]

nunass and the little man jorden will make up some  new rubbish 

probable nunass will complain his cows are not getting pregnant /as he has no the time to get home to attend to them

[Becker]

34 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

claiming a quid pro quo when the claimed quid and quo never happened is now "evidence"??

 

if you do not think that is dim, I can't help you out on that.

And that is your "opinion" unsupported by what the hearings have shown.

 

[Rimmer]

An inflammatory post and a reply have been removed

[bristolboy]

Trump casts Louisiana vote as impeachment referendum

“President Donald Trump returned to the campaign trail Thursday to stump in Louisiana for the second time in as many weeks, using a raucous rally to mock two U.S. diplomats who raised questions about his dealings with Ukraine at the center of an impeachment inquiry. … ‘The people of this country aren't buying it – you see it because we're going up and they're going down,’ Trump said. ‘Let's keep it going for a while.’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-casts-louisiana-vote-as-impeachment-referendum