Trump faces two deadlines as U.S. Congress ramps up impeachment focus

[WalkingOrders]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

You sound like a hardcore Trump supporter.  What's Trump's new slogan for 2020?  Keep America Great?  Got it.

Steyer is he your guy? He is running at a whopping 2% at realclearpolitics.com you must be proud to see him running head to head with Corey Booker. Keep giving him your money!!! 2% at this stage of the game, man he's gonna need more then phony websites to get to 3% but hey if that's what he thinks works. Seriously, isn't  it time he dropped out?

[candide]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I spoke clearly on my opinion of the crowdstrike conspiracy. I said I had know knowledge of the reasons for believing the server was in Ukraine, but I do have questions regarding why the FBI if the United States would NOT have posession of that server, and why they would not have been the ones to first hand inspect it rather then outsource that to a 3rd party. Regardless of what President would ever have been in power, or what Secretary of State, I believe those are reasonable questions to ask in that circumstance or any similiar one that should ever arise in the future.

You have no knowledge of the reasons for believing the server was in Ukraine because it's a lie.

Quote from Trump

"They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian, and I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?”

Lie 1: the server.

There is no server. The DNC was using cloud computing and the data was stored on 140 different server.

Lie 2: The company is Ukrainian and belongs to a rich Ukrainian guy and the server is in Ukraine. 

Not only is there no server, but the boss of the Crowdstrike is an American born in Russia. The company is an American company and is not based in Ukraine.

https://fortune.com/2019/09/28/crowdstrike-conspiracy-theories-trump-ukraine/

https://www.wired.com/story/trump-ukraine-server-delusion-spreading/

 

Crowdstrike, anyone? ????

[Berkshire]

9 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Steyer is he your guy? He is running at a whopping 2% at realclearpolitics.com you must be proud to see him running head to head with Corey Booker. Keep giving him your money!!! 2% at this stage of the game, man he's gonna need more then phony websites to get to 3% but hey if that's what he thinks works. Seriously, isn't  it time he dropped out?

I don't have a "my guy."  My preference for POTUS would be anyone not named Trump.  A trained monkey would be preferable.  Or even a decent Republican....although that's hard to find anymore in that party. 

[WalkingOrders]

10 minutes ago, Becker said:

I tailor my vocabulary according to the persons I'm addressing. "Duh" seems to suit you.

Right if you say so, still seems like strange vocabulary for a grown man to use, but hey whatever trips your trigger.

[WalkingOrders]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I don't have a "my guy."  My preference for POTUS would be anyone not named Trump.  A trained monkey would be preferable.  Or even a decent Republican....although that's hard to find anymore in that party. 

You sent a link to a  campaign website of Steyer currently tracking at 2%.  So you would vote for a "decent Republican"? So you fancy yourself a conservative then?

[bristolboy]

40 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Yeh - 1 for 2 on that one ????  Dems somehow got the House - but they wont have it for long.

Midterms laways go against the incumbant Party - and they still did in 2018 - wont forget that.

 

Have you seen the latest? (twitter)

“The Democrats don’t have any evidence, but they are still going to do it anyway. That’s the sham that’s going on here.”  
@jasoninthehouse  Jason Chaffetz

Or this one?

"Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with European publications including Germany's Der Spiegel magazine: 'I did not speak with US President Trump in those terms: you give me this, I give you that.' "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7746093/Ukraines-President-Zelensky-renews-denial-quid-pro-quo-Donald-Trump-military-aid.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus&__twitter_impression=true

 

While midterm elections tend to go against the incumbent party, that one was a record setter. And that in spite of good economic news. Which make it a rarity indeed.

Wow! Jason Chaffetz. And I should be impressed by that why?

As for Zelensky, what's he going to say? That he felt strong-armed by Trump? Why would he ever say that? Because he knows that Trump is the kind of person who doesn't react with over-the- top anger when he's contradicted? The Ukraine is in desperate straits. Zelensky can't afford to anger Trump. 

[WalkingOrders]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

You have no knowledge of the reasons for believing the server was in Ukraine because it's a lie.

No I have no knowledge because I have not researched into it enough to claim any knowledge of the facts other then a knowledge of how the President put them forward in his call. How the President came to such a conclusion (misplaced or not) I have no idea. As far as it being on 140 servers, I do not know that.  I have heard that Crowdstrike was owned by a Ukrainian. Again, I read that once I believe, but have no source. Were all 140 servers located in the Ukraine according to your sources? What is your source? If not Ukraine where were the servers located? All over the world? Why would they spread an email server over so many servers? Is your source wikipedia? Going to Dailybeast they say this: The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June 2016. 

-----

 

what do they mean mostly cloud-based. How would Russia be able to hack 140 cloud based servers owned by cloudstrike? That would be 140 servers located at various locations throughout the USA? and de-commissioned that means wiped, and then what happened to them? Regardless of there being 1 server or 140 servers.  That means then that the FBI simply listened to crowdstrikes technicians with regard to where the hack came from? Cloudbased does not mean they are located in the clouds, there are physical servers, wiped or not that can be produced. If there are 140 the FBI should have custody of 140 of them. Would you not agree? If they don't have custody why not? They couldn't fit them all on a truck? It was too daunting of a task? 

[JHolmesJr]

28 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

My preference for POTUS would be anyone not named Trump.  A trained monkey would be preferable.  

 

Haha...what a beautiful summation of the reasons behind the dems unquenchable thirst for impeachment.

The ignominy of a whupping by a rank unknown must really sting.

 

[bristolboy]

55 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Do you know something about Syria? Are you digging up an article to post to pretend you know something about the situation in Syria? Did you read my post and try to pull something out of the internet somewhere to claim some sort of knowledge? Are you making a point regarding what you think would be best for United States foreign policy in Syria, I mean regardless of what administration is in power? You have some intelligence to share? A position on Kurds, or Turks or the various factions fighting in the region? The article you posted is from Oct 17th, and based upon this article what position is it that you are trying to articulate to the people reading this board regarding Syria?

The issue isn't where I stand on Syrian policy. It's about this claim of yours that it's blaming Democrats for opposing Trump on foreign policy.

"I am alarmed by an intrinched bureaucracy supported by the Democrat party, and what appears to be a media arm, marching all lock step to oppose the policy of an elected administration. "

You blamed Democrats for not supporting Trump's foreign policy. The evidence is against you.

You seem to have left one party out of your reckoning.   Here are a few more minor instances of where Republicans disagreed with Trump but agreed with most Democrats:

 

Trump administration reinstates military aid for Ukraine

President Donald Trump’s administration has released $250 million in military aid for Ukraine, U.S. senators said on Thursday, after lawmakers from both parties expressed concern that the White House had held up money approved by Congress.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-idUSKCN1VX213

 

US Senate votes to defend NATO as Trump attacks alliance

 

Lawmakers in Washington worked quickly Tuesday to set legislative guardrails in support of NATO as President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly bashed the alliance, arrived in Europe for a NATO summit and meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin later in the week.

Hours after Trump landed in Brussels, the Senate passed a non-binding measure, 97-2, that expresses support for NATO, its mutual self-defense clause and calls on the administration to rush its whole-of-government strategy to counter Russia’s meddling in the U.S. and other democracies.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/07/10/us-senate-votes-to-defend-nato-as-trump-attacks/

 

[WalkingOrders]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As for Zelensky, what's he going to say? That he felt strong-armed by Trump? Why would he ever say that? Because he knows that Trump is the kind of person who doesn't react with over-the- top anger when he's contradicted? The Ukraine is in desperate straits. Zelensky can't afford to anger Trump. 

We are back to someone claiming the ability to read the mind of a Ukrainian President. Obviously, this man knows more about Zelensky's thoughts then Zelensky himself. Amazing, can you also bend spoons?

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

Yep - and I am from the past too - but unlike Jingthing and few others in 2016 (dont rememebr you) and will not be wrong about the 2020 election.  Thanks for the edit advice.

I made no predictions about 2016. I was all too aware of what fivethirtyeight.com was saying. They gave Trump a 28% chance of winning. And it should be obvious that predictions about the future, especially about an event so far off, has about as much probative value as the chant of a cheerleader.

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

US Senate votes to defend NATO as Trump attacks alliance

Everything you say here simply shows you have zero understanding of anything being said here. Do you understand my point man? I do not support NATO. I do not support US bases overseas in Europe. I do not believe Putin is about to attack Europe via Urkaine. I do not support the enclusion of Ukraine into NATO, I believe the US should pull bases out of South Korea, and Japan. and Refocus funds for R and D against a much larger potential threat in China. I believe that the forces aligned against Trump were attempting to thwart any potential changes in NATO or strategy of positioning of forces in Europe or of thawing relations with Russia in any way. And I firmly beleive that they the PResident now has had his hands tied in that regard. I do not believe that continuing to maintain the NATO alliance is in the best interest of the USA. In that respect I am represent the minority view of conservatives that are in the Republican party. So what are you trying to prove by posting this <deleted>. I am way over your head son. Don't waste my time if you can't handle the argument. The truth is you have no clue about what I am even talking about . You just post news articles on a subject and claim intelligence because of it. Think for yourself. Try it sometimes. You may develop some of your own ideas.

[AussieBob18]

26 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

While midterm elections tend to go against the incumbent party, that one was a record setter. And that in spite of good economic news. Which make it a rarity indeed.

Wow! Jason Chaffetz. And I should be impressed by that why?

As for Zelensky, what's he going to say? That he felt strong-armed by Trump? Why would he ever say that? Because he knows that Trump is the kind of person who doesn't react with over-the- top anger when he's contradicted? The Ukraine is in desperate straits. Zelensky can't afford to anger Trump. 

Yeh - Jason aint that much - but Trump quoted him ????

 

Or Zelensky could just be telling the truth ????

[Berkshire]

51 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

58 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I don't have a "my guy."  My preference for POTUS would be anyone not named Trump.  A trained monkey would be preferable.  Or even a decent Republican....although that's hard to find anymore in that party. 

You sent a link to a  campaign website of Steyer currently tracking at 2%.  So you would vote for a "decent Republican"? So you fancy yourself a conservative then?

I just thought it was funny that the Trump campaign hadn't bothered to procure the domain name of their freakin 2020 slogan.  So Steyer snatched it up.  Yes, Steyer would be preferred over Trump.  Or like I said, even a trained monkey. 

[Becker]

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I just thought it was funny that the Trump campaign hadn't bothered to procure the domain name of their freakin 2020 slogan.  So Steyer snatched it up.  Yes, Steyer would be preferred over Trump.  Or like I said, even a trained monkey. 

And we could make sure the monkey wasn't trained by Putin!

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Everything you say here simply shows you have zero understanding of anything being said here. Do you understand my point man? I do not support NATO. I do not support US bases overseas in Europe. I do not believe Putin is about to attack Europe via Urkaine. I do not support the enclusion of Ukraine into NATO, I believe the US should pull bases out of South Korea, and Japan. and Refocus funds for R and D against a much larger potential threat in China. I believe that the forces aligned against Trump were attempting to thwart any potential changes in NATO or strategy of positioning of forces in Europe or of thawing relations with Russia in any way. And I firmly beleive that they the PResident now has had his hands tied in that regard. I do not believe that continuing to maintain the NATO alliance is in the best interest of the USA. In that respect I am represent the minority view of conservatives that are in the Republican party. So what are you trying to prove by posting this <deleted>. I am way over your head son. Don't waste my time if you can't handle the argument. The truth is you have no clue about what I am even talking about . You just post news articles on a subject and claim intelligence because of it. Think for yourself. Try it sometimes. You may develop some of your own ideas.

You claimed as a fact that it was Democrats opposing Trump's foreign policy. In fact, there is strong bipartisan opposition to some of the most important elements of Trump's foreign policy. What you support or what I support is irrelevant to the claim you made.  But I guess if, like you, someone has no use for facts, then the news is the enemy.

[bristolboy]

42 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

No I have no knowledge because I have not researched into it enough to claim any knowledge of the facts other then a knowledge of how the President put them forward in his call. How the President came to such a conclusion (misplaced or not) I have no idea. As far as it being on 140 servers, I do not know that.  I have heard that Crowdstrike was owned by a Ukrainian. Again, I read that once I believe, but have no source. Were all 140 servers located in the Ukraine according to your sources? What is your source? If not Ukraine where were the servers located? All over the world? Why would they spread an email server over so many servers? Is your source wikipedia? Going to Dailybeast they say this: The “server”

Yes, because the matter is of so little concern to you? Clearly a case of willful ignorance. For some, facts are the enemy.

[WalkingOrders]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, because the matter is of so little concern to you? Clearly a case of willful ignorance. For some, facts are the enemy.

There are far bigger concerns on my mind then the crowdstrike server. I have questions about it. But please forgive me for not meeting your expectations. Do tell me again, what is the line I am supposed to believe? I will just say yes OK and then you can let it go.

[WalkingOrders]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You claimed as a fact that it was Democrats opposing Trump's foreign policy.

I have claimed numerous times that Trump represents an assault on the American Foreign policy consensus that has existed between Neo-conservatives and Neo-liberals that runs all the way from GW Bush through Obama for over 16 years. I represent the minority view of the Republican party in that regard. The Democrats are definitely at the forefront of opposing Trump policy, however there is a very vocal minority of Republicans in the House and Senate who are the same swamp as are the Democrats. You seem really confused about American politics to me man. We really are not having any kind of a discussion here. You would be best to just let it go. You do not understand anything I am talking about. That's ok, but it does not make for any kind of discussion on Policy.

 

Let me get you out of the weeds here. Trump you don't like him. You want him impeached. I don't . The Democrats might send it to the Senate where it will get voted down. Then an election comes. Trump might get re-elected. Maybe not. There now we have nothing more to argue about. That sums it up.

 

As for as policy, you don't have any view, of your own, as far as I can tell. So best to not try to find arguments that simply run along the lines of Trump is bad, without regard to historical or current contextual facts of the matter of individual cases of foreign or domestic policy. You can only frame things in terms of if Trump supports something it must be bad. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

No I have no knowledge because I have not researched into it enough to claim any knowledge of the facts other then a knowledge of how the President put them forward in his call. How the President came to such a conclusion (misplaced or not) I have no idea. As far as it being on 140 servers, I do not know that.  I have heard that Crowdstrike was owned by a Ukrainian. Again, I read that once I believe, but have no source. Were all 140 servers located in the Ukraine according to your sources? What is your source? If not Ukraine where were the servers located? All over the world? Why would they spread an email server over so many servers? Is your source wikipedia? Going to Dailybeast they say this: The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June 2016. 

-----

 

what do they mean mostly cloud-based. How would Russia be able to hack 140 cloud based servers owned by cloudstrike? That would be 140 servers located at various locations throughout the USA? and de-commissioned that means wiped, and then what happened to them? Regardless of there being 1 server or 140 servers.  That means then that the FBI simply listened to crowdstrikes technicians with regard to where the hack came from? Cloudbased does not mean they are located in the clouds, there are physical servers, wiped or not that can be produced. If there are 140 the FBI should have custody of 140 of them. Would you not agree? If they don't have custody why not? They couldn't fit them all on a truck? It was too daunting of a task? 

Well, if you did not know it was a lie, now you know it! (By the way, I DID provide reliable sources in my previous post, which are already answering most of your questions)

 

So basically the only claim that is left is that it may have been innapropriate for the DNC to ask a computing company to solve and investigate this issue before the FBI started investigating it. I don't know, but obviously it is no problem for the DOJ, as recently confirmed in October 2019:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-defends-assessment-by-crowdstrike-and-fbi-that-russia-interfered-in-2016-election

 

You may also learn that Crowdstrike is a supplier of the RNCC. Moreover, it has been used as late as April 2018 (please also note that Hockey talks about "servers" not server):

"The hack was first detected by an MSSP, a managed security services provider that monitors the NRCC’s network. The MSSP informed NRCC officials and they, in turn, alerted Crowdstrike, a well-known cybersecurity firm that had already been retained by the NRCC."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/04/exclusive-emails-of-top-nrcc-officials-stolen-in-major-2018-hack-1043309

 

Just in case you may still doubt that Crodstrike is not an Ukrainian company, here's the SEC report

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1535527/000104746919003095/a2238800zs-1.htm

[WalkingOrders]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Well, if you did not know it was a lie, now you know it!

What lie? The President asked questions or has been told mis-information, and it was a private phone conversation. Do you feel lied to. Is being wrong a lie? What are you even talking about? What is your issue here. what is your point? As I said earlier. You quote at considerable length other peoples opinions on matters. What Hockey? What are you even talking about? Servers not server? I don't care I have no debate with you. I have questions. I do not simply blindly think that its OK. Or that its not OK as I have not read enough on the subject. I do not think that if I read two or three links that I can now make a judgement on what happened. Do you? Are you an expert now?  I already know that its an American Company. There is still a Ukrainian connection that I have not followed through on. and I am NOT going to run off an spend a week investigating the crowd strike server, what am I going to be able to prove that the President himself is wrong on the crowdstrike server? So what? What do you want?

 

Here let me go the same place I just did. The Democrat party in the House (alone with not one Republican) is trying to impeach the President of the USA, will they do that? I don't know if they have the votes and think it is worth the political gamble I suppose. Then what ? Then it dies in the Senate. Why? Not enough evidence to persuade even ONE Republican Senator! People like you will go on screaming and I don't care, but its a fact the President will not be removed. The evidence is already out there and its insufficient to move Republican Senators, or perhaps even all the Democrat Senators. Now those are the facts man. Live with it. Current talk is that the impeachment push in the house is dying. If you don't believe that go look it up. Perhaps you can find something different, but we have no more argument. The President is NOT going to be removed from Office. Thats it. Now let's turn to the election. Even any impassioned viewer can see that the Democratic slate is in absolute dissaray. Forget Trump exists for a moment. Biden is slobering over himself and his words are coming out as gibberish. NO one shows up for his events. Trump fills stadiums. Look, Obama filled stadiums, he was a great candidate. Use that to compare. Bernie is a communist, the USA is NOT going to elect a communist. Warren is thought of as flakey, who else Buttigieg? Now we fall into the 2% 1% candidates. The impeachment hearings themselves are probably in all likelyhood really seriously damaging the democrat slate.  Now please don't argue with me. If you thnk I am 100% wrong fair enough. We are talking about factors affecting the probability of future events. The impeachment is dying . THe democrat slate appears to be dying. They need another candidate out there. Soon. or its over. Trump will coast.

[Rimmer]

Some baiting and petty bickering posts have been removed

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I have claimed numerous times that Trump represents an assault on the American Foreign policy consensus that has existed between Neo-conservatives and Neo-liberals that runs all the way from GW Bush through Obama for over 16 years. I represent the minority view of the Republican party in that regard. The Democrats are definitely at the forefront of opposing Trump policy, however there is a very vocal minority of Republicans in the House and Senate who are the same swamp as are the Democrats. You seem really confused about American politics to me man. We really are not having any kind of a discussion here. You would be best to just let it go. You do not understand anything I am talking about. That's ok, but it does not make for any kind of discussion on Policy.

 

Let me get you out of the weeds here. Trump you don't like him. You want him impeached. I don't . The Democrats might send it to the Senate where it will get voted down. Then an election comes. Trump might get re-elected. Maybe not. There now we have nothing more to argue about. That sums it up.

 

As for as policy, you don't have any view, of your own, as far as I can tell. So best to not try to find arguments that simply run along the lines of Trump is bad, without regard to historical or current contextual facts of the matter of individual cases of foreign or domestic policy. You can only frame things in terms of if Trump supports something it must be bad. 

"I have claimed numerous times that Trump represents an assault on the American Foreign policy consensus that has existed between Neo-conservatives and Neo-liberals that runs all the way from GW Bush through Obama for over 16 years. I represent the minority view of the Republican party in that regard. The Democrats are definitely at the forefront of opposing Trump policy, however there is a very vocal minority of Republicans in the House and Senate who are the same swamp as are the Democrats."
Confused much?

 

As for predictions about the 2020 elections results...I have not made any. It's you who's been doing that. I just point out that assertions about what the results will be have zero probative value. Generally used when someone has nothing germane to add to a discussion.

 

As for this

"You can only frame things in terms of if Trump supports something it must be bad."

 it's an empty generalization. But could it apply to you? I've never read anything by you that's remotely critical of Trump. But I prefer to stick to specific cases and not make empty generalizations.

[candide]

6 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

What lie? The President asked questions or has been told mis-information, and it was a private phone conversation. Do you feel lied to. Is being wrong a lie? What are you even talking about? What is your issue here. what is your point? As I said earlier. You quote at considerable length other peoples opinions on matters. What Hockey? What are you even talking about? Servers not server? I don't care I have no debate with you. I have questions. I do not simply blindly think that its OK. Or that its not OK as I have not read enough on the subject. I do not think that if I read two or three links that I can now make a judgement on what happened. Do you? Are you an expert now?  I already know that its an American Company. There is still a Ukrainian connection that I have not followed through on. and I am NOT going to run off an spend a week investigating the crowd strike server, what am I going to be able to prove that the President himself is wrong on the crowdstrike server? So what? What do you want?

 

Here let me go the same place I just did. The Democrat party in the House (alone with not one Republican) is trying to impeach the President of the USA, will they do that? I don't know if they have the votes and think it is worth the political gamble I suppose. Then what ? Then it dies in the Senate. Why? Not enough evidence to persuade even ONE Republican Senator! People like you will go on screaming and I don't care, but its a fact the President will not be removed. The evidence is already out there and its insufficient to move Republican Senators, or perhaps even all the Democrat Senators. Now those are the facts man. Live with it. Current talk is that the impeachment push in the house is dying. If you don't believe that go look it up. Perhaps you can find something different, but we have no more argument. The President is NOT going to be removed from Office. Thats it. Now let's turn to the election. Even any impassioned viewer can see that the Democratic slate is in absolute dissaray. Forget Trump exists for a moment. Biden is slobering over himself and his words are coming out as gibberish. NO one shows up for his events. Trump fills stadiums. Look, Obama filled stadiums, he was a great candidate. Use that to compare. Bernie is a communist, the USA is NOT going to elect a communist. Warren is thought of as flakey, who else Buttigieg? Now we fall into the 2% 1% candidates. The impeachment hearings themselves are probably in all likelyhood really seriously damaging the democrat slate.  Now please don't argue with me. If you thnk I am 100% wrong fair enough. We are talking about factors affecting the probability of future events. The impeachment is dying . THe democrat slate appears to be dying. They need another candidate out there. Soon. or its over. Trump will coast.

Defections again. I did provide facts, not opinions. There is not one server, that's a fact. Crowdstrike's co-founder is not Ukrainian, he is American born in Russia, that's a fact. Hickey (sorry, not hockey, damend autocorrect),  National Department of Justice deputy assistant attorney general said the procedure was usual.

 

My point is that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is based on lies (call it false information if you like).

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As for this

"You can only frame things in terms of if Trump supports something it must be bad."

 it's an empty generalization. But could it apply to you? I've never read anything by you that's remotely critical of Trump. But I prefer to stick to specific cases and not make empty generalizations.

I have repeatedly tried to frame this to the truth of this: Trump is being opposed primarily over policy not personality. Personality is simply used. I have spoke volumes on US policy go back and read man. I have even said that I am not so much a supporter of Trump as I am in total opposition to the Democrat party, the former Neo-con Neo-liberal consensus between Republicans and Democrats and so on. Even now Notice how I state my position. Yet again. Not a single time have I heard you say how you stand on immigration, on Russia, Ukraine, China, spending, debt, National defense, I think you mentioned climate change once (by saying Trump was anti-science so I assume that is what you meant). But anyway this is all about policy positions for me, and absolute unwillingness I have to forgive the democrat party for all of these shinanigans. And that is all this is as far as I am concerned. Bring the impeachment to the Senate. Lets get it over with. An election is coming lets get that over with to. But I am tired of all this so called resistance <deleted> by children. I am not sure if you are an American, if not, you don't have any skin in this game anyway and its just one big troll exercise for you. Can you vote? Vote against Trump. Can't vote? Isn't there a UK politics board for you? Brexit topic or something? Maybe I am wrong on you in that respect. I have posted numerous posts on policy differences I have with the Democrat party. I am a paleoconservative that is my philosophy and that is how I vote.

[WalkingOrders]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

My point is that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is based on lies (call it false information if you like).

Not important to me - didn't I say this already? I do not have the time to research it fully. I have not even had the time to understand what the fully developed conspiracy theories are on the subject. I have questions. I still do. I still find things do not make sense. I refuse to believe that I have to be forced to accept someone elses view on this if its okay with you. I have other things to ponder.

[Skallywag]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Not enough evidence to persuade even ONE Republican Senator! People like you will go on screaming and I don't care, but its a fact the President will not be removed. The evidence is already out there and its insufficient to move Republican Senators, or perhaps even all the Democrat

Actually 3 Republican senators support impeachment; Romney, Murkowski and one other, at this point.

 

POTUS is hurting himself by not testifying in front of the Judiciary committee.  

Withholding the appropriated military aide to the Ukraine is the only issue here - and he is guilty. 

Yes, he did finally release the aide on September 9. Not the issue.  Biden or Schiff, Not the issue.

 

POTUS does not seem to realize this is something he cannot control...the legislative branch have started the impeachment proceedings and are allowed certain due process under the Constitution.  POTUS saying there is no evidence and its another witch hunt has nothing to do with the Impeachment proceedings.  His "opinions" do not count.  Remember the USA has 3 branches of government and POTUS is in charge of just one branch.

POTUS will not be able to "lie" or "deflect" his way out of this one.

 

"The idea that a president on his own can unilaterally say, ’Oh, I’m not going to bother cooperating with an impeachment investigation’? That is the essence of constitutional arrogance" "Not only is Trump refusing to participate, but he has also “tried to gag every executive branch employee” and blocked “every document, every phone call, everything from being given to Congress,” 

 

[WalkingOrders]

21 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Actually 3 Republican senators support impeachment; Romney, Murkowski and one other, at this point.

See how they vote should it get that far. And one more time: The President will NOT be removed from Office I am 100 percent sure. I am not even going to bother with arguing with you as it has no bearing on the way this is going to play out. You do not understand the process. According to the article here read it again. Are they supporting impeachment? Or refusing to outright denounce the impeachment effort in the house?  Read carefully there is a difference: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/only-3-senate-republicans-aren-t-defending-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1078906 and even they are political in their choices here as they are more centrist in their states.

 

23 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Remember the USA has 3 branches of government and POTUS is in charge of just one branch.

You are talking to a retired US Navy Chief are you seriously saying that I need to "remember that in the USA we have 3 branches of Government"? This is a basic fact for a child. Show some respect for those you are speaking to on this argument man. Do you know what that is like for me? You some non-American saying to me that I need to remember what I learned in when I was 6 years old? You don't even have any skin in the game here yet you want to argue that you know something about the impeachment process of the United States? And make statements like "Remember we have 3 branches of Government" Come on man. 

 

And you have decided he is guilty? Of what? what you read? Therefore you believe it? There are matters of timing related to the President and his attorney's not participating in this sham. Do some reading. Try going to fox news, or other conservative outlets. Don't believe them if you choose, but at least you will learn the other side of the issue. What Country are you from? It's like me saying to you Knowing you are from Sweden and saying "Remember your Capital city is Stockholm. A trial will be held in the Senate of the United States as you know. Not one vote will be against the President if it gets that far. Romney would be signing the end of his career in one stroke. 

 

Wherever you are from, answer this question and be honest? What was Hunter Biden's job over there at Burisma? What did he do for his $85,000 a month? Let's stop playing games here. You have been reading news for 3 years on Trump being impeached, or being a Russian agent etc. What happened to all that? 

[J Town]

49 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

<snip>

POTUS is hurting himself by not testifying in front of the Judiciary committee.

<snip>

He's not even sending an attorney. He can NOT spew any more about "unfair treatment." 

[WalkingOrders]

3 minutes ago, J Town said:

He's not even sending an attorney. He can NOT spew any more about "unfair treatment." 

Oh well, 5 more years to go. Take it easy.