Ukraine

[homersapien 11,513]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Unfortunately there is a tape of Biden bribing extorting whatever to get the prosecutor fired who was coming after his son. So not mindless bots here chief.

That's totally false. 

I understand you are a Trump sycophant and a Fox bot but you are embarrassing yourself by posting this total BS.

Try thinking critically and educate yourself to the facts, at least the ones we already know.

[homersapien 11,513]

37 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

So Biden wanted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was going after his son, and replace him with another more aggressive prosecutor who would go after his son in a tougher manner.  Well that does sound like something Biden would do. He is dumb as a rock.

Part II. Except that Trump's son isn't making millions working for the corrupt company. So, no, not the same.

Pay attention.  You can read, right?

Shokin was not investigating Hunter Biden.  If anything, it was just the opposite, he was a drag on such an investigation.

Biden was executing U.S. foreign policy - and the policy of many non-U.S. institutions - which wanted Shokin ousted because he was not pursuing corruption in Ukraine.

You are the one who is "dumb as a rock" for swallowing this blatant lie about Biden's motivations in pressing for Shokin's ouster. 

The facts are out there.  Assuming you are capable, try actually reading some of the links I posted.

 

[Tiger Sue 325]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Too much thinking on your part" is the last thing you need to worry about. 

Are you looking in a mirror as you type?

[homersapien 11,513]

Just now, Tiger Sue said:

Are you looking in a mirror as you type?

If you are really looking for something to worry about, I suggest your total lack of wit.

[Tiger Sue 325]

Just now, homersapien said:

If you are really looking for something to worry about, I suggest your total lack of wit.

Your suggestions are baloney. Can you stay on topic or just sling insults.

[homersapien 11,513]

17 minutes ago, Tiger Sue said:

Your suggestions are baloney. Can you stay on topic or just sling insults.

"Are you looking into a mirror as you type?

(Sorry, couldn't resist. )

But to answer your question directly, either. 

I adjust my style to my opponent and substance is largely wasted on you.  Call it fighting fire with fire.

[homersapien 11,513]

Trump on Monday afternoon denied that he offered an explicit quid pro quo to Zelensky, telling reporters: “I did not ask for — I did not make a statement that you have to do this or I'm not gonna give you aid. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that.”

 

Of course he didn't.  I was probably more like:

Nice little independent country you have here.  Would be a real shame if you lacked the resources to defend it, huh?

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

And I hate to see you excuse Trump,

Excuse him for what? All of the brouhaha that you guys are constantly stirring up? Hell, you folks have been trying to remove the man from office since before he was sworn in. 

[aubiefifty 17,099]

Impeaching Donald Trump: Why Ukraine Delivers Where Russiagate Failed

Democrats have found in Ukraine everything they were looking for in Russia: A clear storyline

Evan Vucci/AP/Shutterstock

The floodgates are open. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced “an official impeachment inquiry,” including an investigation of demands President Trump reportedly made of Ukraine to hamper a 2020 political rival — Joe Biden — while simultaneously holding up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the Eastern European nation. “The president must be held accountable,” Pelosi told the nation in a televised address on Tuesday. “No one is above the law”

The sudden push toward removing Trump from office comes exactly two months after Robert Mueller testified to Congress on the Trump/Russia affair. The Ukraine scandal gives Democrats everything the Russia election-interference saga lacked: Naked simplicity.

The special counsel’s report and testimony left Democrats conflicted over how to respond. They were faced with overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice, but that cover up was muddied by the lack of an underlying criminal conspiracy with Russia, leaving the party divided over what to do next.

The conclusion of the Mueller investigation — and the Democrats’ toothless response to his obstruction — left Trump feeling emboldened, taking what he dubbed his “total exoneration” as license to engage in even more egregious behavior in the buildup to 2020.

The day after Mueller’s July 24th congressional testimony, Trump spoke to the president of Ukraine, demanding, reportedly eight times, that the European leader back Rudy Giuliani’s crusade for dirt on Joe Biden, relating to Guiliani’s conspiracy theory that Biden had abused the power of the vice presidency to benefit his son Hunter Biden, who had an energy deal in Ukraine. (There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything improper or advantageous for his son.) In advance of the call, Trump had instructed his chief of staff to hold up nearly $400 million in congress-approved aid to Ukraine, a U.S. ally menaced by its powerful neighbor Russia.

The evidence points to a staggering abuse of power: Trump tried to strong-arm a foreign to nation interfere for his benefit in the 2020 election. And by delivering that demand while blocking the payout of hundreds of millions of dollars, Trump created — at least implicitly — a quid pro quo. This is a story even Democrats can sell — precisely because it strips away the twists and turns of the Trump-Russia saga.

The 2016 Trump campaign’s involvement with Russia’s election interference stopped short, Mueller found, of a criminal conspiracy. Trump and Putin never met. The Russian offers of dirt on Hillary Clinton were delivered and received through surrogates. The Russian hack of DNC and Clinton campaign emails, though leveraged by the Trump campaign, was not orchestrated by Trumpworld.

In short, the campaign and the Kremlin were like dirty dance partners, intuiting each other’s movements, and building toward mutual gratification. But because the parties never jumped in bed together, Mueller found, there was not a chargeable conspiracy. “We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference,” the report states. “That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

Mueller did not provide the smoking-gun evidence many lawmakers were looking for to buttress a claim that the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors, meriting impeachment. What Mueller presented to Congress, instead, was powerful evidence of obstruction of justice, that the president had, with corrupt intent, repeatedly attempted to cover up his contacts with the Russians, including by ordering multiple (disobedient) deputies to short-circuit the special counsel’s investigation.

This evidence of a criminal of the cover up had been enough to spur nearly 150 Democratic House members to call for Trump’s removal. But the lack of an underlying crime — and a desire for voters to deliver their own verdict on Trump in 2020 — left the caucus divided. Until this week, House leaders had lobbied against attempts to remove Trump from office, believing Republicans would acquit Trump in the Senate.

The Ukraine scandal, by contrast, points to a stark impeachable offense. If the facts back the allegations, the president leveraged the public purse for personal political benefit, undermining national security and the integrity of the 2020 election. Boom. There is nothing ambiguous here. Trump is at the center of the action, personally making demands for election interference of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, with corrupt intent. 

Trump has confirmed the basic details of the call with with the Ukrainian leader. But the president denies explicitly tying the military aid to his demand for dirt on Biden. “There was no quid pro quo,” he told reporters gathered at the United Nations in New York. “There was no pressure applied, nothing.”

But as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) points out, the imbalance of power creates the threat. 

And Murphy makes the case that the issue of the quid quo pro is, essentially, icing on the impeachment cake. “If, as it appears Mr. Trump has already acknowledged, the president violated his oath of office by using the constitutional powers entrusted to him to try to destroy a political rival,” Murphy wrote Tuesday morning, “then the president must be impeached.”

Although Pelosi only announced an impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, the Speaker also offered her own verdict on the president, whom she insisted had “seriously violated the constitution.” The president’s illicit demands of the Ukraine, Pelosi said, revealed the “president’s betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

 

Democrats have found in Ukraine everything they were looking for in Russia:

May as well read that dems are throwing a "Hail Mary".  

[TexasTiger 13,134]

Guess some of y’all will be parroting this soon:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1176673472774332416

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:02 PM, SaltyTiger said:

America is great Brother Homer. Always has been. "Make Again" was a great campaign slogan.

 Even with hateful, stupid, and obviously ignorant post like the above people like me and @NolaAuTiger love you......can't say the same for some others. 

Homer is just an old fart. He wishes he lived on the Florida coast. My guess is that he likely cannot afford it.... probably wasn’t successful enough. After all, he was only a scientist. Oh well.

On 9/23/2019 at 2:03 PM, homersapien said:

You snowflake hypocrites like to dish it out, but you can't take it.

I responded fairly to a "hateful, stupid and obviously ignorant" comment you made about me.  Deal with it.

You’re an old fart. It’s ok we still love you. 

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

After all, he was only a scientist

Maybe he can explain why the sea level rose so much during the Obama years

New study assesses sea level rise over past 25 years

[homersapien 11,513]

On impeachment, the worm has turned

The worm has turned.

For months, Democrats agonized over whether to impeach President Trump. Would it cause them to lose House seats? Would it hurt their chances of winning the Senate? Wasn’t it pointless because of the near certainty the GOP Senate wouldn’t convict him?

But Trump just made the Democrats’ choice for them. He left them no alternative but to proceed with impeachment — and they will.

The president admitted Tuesday that he withheld congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine just days before a phone call with the Ukrainian president in which he demanded Ukraine produce dirt on Trump’s likeliest Democratic opponent. That, on its face, is a flagrant abuse of power and nearly identical to the behavior, denied by Trump, at the core of the Russia investigation: seeking a foreign government’s help in a U.S. election.

It is the latest instance of him using the levers of government for his own political ends, to enrich himself, to reward friends and to punish opponents. This is the stuff of tin-pot dictatorships, not the United States. If the Constitution means anything at all, Congress must seek his removal.

Now that Democrats are pursuing an impeachment inquiry, the pressure — and the quandary — shifts. The question now is whether Republicans, who have tacitly endorsed Trump’s behavior so far, will go on record to uphold the propriety of this conduct and in doing so, affirm the constitutionality of such behavior not just for him but for presidents to come.

Republicans (who decided perjury about sex was impeachment-worthy, and who thought it an abuse of power to defer deportations of certain illegal immigrants) must now decide whether to accept Trump’s standard as proper for future presidents. Would Republicans, with their votes on Trump’s impeachment, condone the actions of, say, future President Elizabeth Warren when she:

Defies congressional power of the purse by unilaterally raiding the Pentagon budget to finance her pet projects?

● Rejects the authority of congressional oversight, disregards subpoenas and refuses to furnish documents, including a whistleblower complaint about the president deemed “urgent” by the intelligence community?

● Is found by an independent prosecutor appointed by her own administration to have engaged in 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice but is not charged because regulations prohibit such a move against a sitting president?

● Approves and reimburses secret payments, in violation of campaign-finance law, to a person threatening to put out damaging information about her?

● Fires an FBI director who refuses to call off a probe of one of her close associates?

● Declares federal law enforcement officials who investigate her guilty of “treason,” demands they be put under investigation and succeeds in getting one of them fired and brought to the brink of indictment?

Rescinds the security clearance of a former CIA director critical of her, as well as the press credentials of journalists who criticize her administration?

● Persuades a foreign leader not to admit Republican members of Congress into his country?

● Grounds the jet used for official business by the congressional leader of the Republican Party?

● Repeatedly releases highly classified intelligence, some to a foreign enemy and some only to Democrats?

● Threatens to cut off highway funds and disaster aid to states and territories controlled by Republicans, and declares she has the “absolute” right to move criminals to jurisdictions governed by Republicans?

● Funnels millions of taxpayer dollars to her own businesses, pressures federal agencies and international organizations to do business with her personal enterprises, invites foreign governments to pay millions of dollars to her businesses, and rejects a law requiring her to provide Congress with her tax returns?

Calls for a boycott of the parent company of a media outlet critical of her, threatens an antitrust action against the owner of another media outlet critical of her, says she can unilaterally order businesses to disinvest from a country and calls for federal punishment of individual businesses she doesn’t like?

● Circumvents the Constitution’s advice-and-consent provision by running the government with “acting” officials (unqualified but loyal to her) not confirmed by the Senate?

● Offers to pardon those who commit crimes enforcing her policies, questions the authority of certain judges because they are GOP appointees and pardons a political ally who ignored court orders?

● Without congressional approval, establishes a de facto network of internment camps, run under inhumane conditions, for a class of people she disdains?

And, finally, asks and coerces foreign governments to sabotage her Republican opponents’ campaigns?

Republicans have blessed all of this and more with their silence. They must now state their positions explicitly. If they vote to accept such conduct by this and, therefore, future presidents, the American experiment will be badly damaged. But if they aren’t at least forced to answer the question, it has already failed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-impeachment-the-worm-has-turned/2019/09/24/d579601c-defb-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

[homersapien 11,513]

37 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Homer is just an old fart. He wishes he lived on the Florida coast. My guess is that he likely cannot afford it.... probably wasn’t successful enough. After all, he was only a scientist. Oh well.

You’re an old fart. It’s ok we still love you. 

Not entirely.

While I have science degrees and spent about 8 years doing applied research/technical support, the rest of my career was in marketing - specifically new business development.

So, what are you up to now?

[homersapien 11,513]

23 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Maybe he can explain why the sea level rose so much during the Obama years

New study assesses sea level rise over past 25 years

And this relates to Ukraine how? 

But to answer your curiosity, it obviously rose because of the same thing that's causing it to rise now.  

(Looks like that trajectory may be increasing, huh?)

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And this relates to Ukraine how? 

Just feel like we have talked enough about Ukraine for now Brother Homer.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Not entirely.

While I have science degrees and spent about 8 years doing applied research/technical support, the rest of my career was in marketing - specifically new business development.

So, what are you up to now?

Like Salty, I am just messing with you Homer. I can appreciate your jest also.

Preparing for my upcoming SCOTUS oral argument.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Like Salty, I am just messing with you Homer. I can appreciate your jest also.

Preparing for my upcoming SCOTUS oral argument.

You're going before SCOTUS?  Or a grad school exercise?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You're going before SCOTUS?  Or a grad school exercise?

School is a thing of the past.

[WDavE 332]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's totally false. 

I understand you are a Trump sycophant and a Fox bot but you are embarrassing yourself by posting this total BS.

Try thinking critically and educate yourself to the facts, at least the ones we already know.

Financial records from Morgan Stanley show numerous lines of money going into the account of “Robert H. Biden.” The funds originated from oligarchs and anonymous LLCs in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

 In 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days later, Hunter Biden’s firm scored a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

School is a thing of the past.

Sweet!  Would be curious to hear your thoughts on the experience in front of SCOTUS after it's all said and done.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Sweet!  Would be curious to hear your thoughts on the experience in front of SCOTUS after it's all said and done.

If/when the time comes (bc nothing is certain) I will let you know. In the meantime I must say I miss engaging with you all. Especially my childish arguments w/ bro Homer ❤️

[aubiefifty 17,099]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

May as well read that dems are throwing a "Hail Mary".  

or maybe the guys you love so well really is a crook......

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If/when the time comes (bc nothing is certain) I will let you know. In the meantime I must say I miss engaging with you all. Especially my childish arguments w/ bro Homer ❤️