Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment

[Bob in Mich]

One final time, I disagree with your take on Trump/Russia as you know all too well.  I am not getting on that hamster wheel with you again. There was a lot of improper activity by the Trump campaign, just not enough in Mueller's opinion to convict Trump of conspiracy.  There was clearly obstruction of justice.  Without Barr's protection it could have easily gone a different way last spring.  And just to restate, thinking that hundreds in the IC and press are involved in a vast conspiracy that if discovered could result in their death, is still as silly as ever.

 

Did you read the BBC article? 

 

If you keep repeating the same answered question you are going back on ignore fast.  Up to you

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

(Who's the one who believes in a "conspiracy theory" again?)

 

It's very hard to take anyone seriously who still believes this to be true while calling others conspiracy theorists. What facts are you basing your belief on? Mueller proved it didn't happen. The House and Senate probes both concluded the same. There was zero evidence of collusion/conspiracy found by Mueller after millions of dollars, two years, and unlimited subpoena power... yet you still think maybe there's something hiding in the shadows??

 

Bob. I like you, I really do. But if you can't honestly admit that you were duped on Russia -- by the very same people who are pushing "Ukraine!" while RUNNING from any mention of 2016 and the role Ukraine played in the coup attempt -- then why should anyone take your opinion on this matter as anything more than blind partisanship?

 

It's not based on facts. 

It's not based on evidence. 

It's only based on a story you were told, by the media and corrupt IC officials, which has now conclusively been debunked. 

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

Did you read the BBC article? 

 

I don't care about the BBC -- I'm not trying to trap you. I care about YOUR opinion. The BBC is a garbage source as they speak for the UK IC who were up to their breasts in this scandal. 

 

The question I'm asking is a simple yes or no. It doesn't require nuance. Either Trump and Russia colluded together to steal the election -- your premise for the past three years -- or they didn't. Mueller, the House, and the Senate all concluded he did not. Not that there was "some evidence" of it, "just not enough to convict" -- Mueller found NO evidence to support it. None. 

 

But you don't buy it? 

 

(As an aside, the use of breasts above was not done by me but by the censor  and it's funnier than t i t s which is what I wrote)

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

This thread is becoming hilarious.

 

How someone can believe something which has been thoroughly investigated multiple times, by multiple agencies/branches of government, with an unlimited budget, and an agenda purely focused on finding dirt on an individual in a fishing expedition format, spanning the duration of two years, and still turning up zero evidence, can have the gall and total lack of self awareness to call other people conspiracy theorists is nothing short of staggering.

There is literally the same amount of evidence that Jordan Phillips is actually five midgets bound together with fly-paper and saran wrap, and then tucked carefully into a Darryl Talley snow suit featuring the pattern of a large black man as there is of collusion between the President and Russia, and this guy “believes” it’s real.

 

Please, nobody tell him about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Edited October 18, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[Bob in Mich]

I said what I think and I directed you to an article that states that while there were lots of contacts and lies by some about those contacts, there was no provable conspiracy.  You can't seem to take the answer.  Why is that?  Because there was zero evidence?  Oh pulease.

 

If I denied driving to Miami from Buffalo and you discovered my gas receipts over a few days.  Let's say you found $50 gas receipts from Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia, do you have any evidence that I drove to Miami or do you have absolutely zero evidence?

 

From page 9 of the Mueller Report:

 

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Bob in Mich

[Warren Zevon]

He likes you Bob, he really does.

 

 

[Doc]

The House won't impeach because they don't have the votes (and are probably losing what votes they did have by the lack of evidence from these secret hearings).  The Senate won't convict because they know it's all bull####.  But have at it Dems.

[Foxx]

 

https://twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1185154840869179393

 

[Bob in Mich]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

The House won't impeach because they don't have the votes (and are probably losing what votes they did have by the lack of evidence from these secret hearings).  The Senate won't convict because they know it's all bull####.  But have at it Dems.

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function.  The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it.  Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. 

 

I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign.  Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side.  How is that a good thing for the country?  I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer.  That just digs the divide deeper.

[Westside]

25 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function.  The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it.  Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. 

 

I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign.  Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side.  How is that a good thing for the country?  I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer.  That just digs the divide deeper.

Bob fiddles while the DNC burns.

Keep hitting that bong bob, the answers will become clearer. 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Bob fiddles while the DNC burns.

Keep hitting that bong bob, the answers will become clearer. 

 

So insightful as always.  Thanks for the depth of thought you invested in this issue.  You never fail to disappoint Wetside! 

[Westside]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

So insightful as always.  Thanks for the depth of thought you invested in this issue.  You never fail to disappoint Wetside! 

Does that rage inside you burn? Does orange man make you cry and shake with anger? Is that how you liberals felt the last three years? 

 

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!!!

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

There is literally the same amount of evidence that Jordan Phillips is actually five midgets bound together with fly-paper and saran wrap, and then tucked carefully into a Darryl Talley snow suit featuring the pattern of a large black man

 

Well, actually...

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Does that rage inside you burn? Does orange man make you cry and shake with anger? Is that how you liberals felt the last three years? 

 

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!!!

 

Truthfully, not rage at all Wetside.  Just checked my BP - 110/70.  

 

I just post when I need some distraction.  Today is one such day and the arguments made by blind Trump supporters are so easy.

[Westside]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Truthfully, not rage at all Wetside.  Just checked my BP - 110/70.  

 

I just post when I need some distraction.  Today is one such day and the arguments made by blind Trump supporters are so easy.

Probably because you're stoned out of your mind

[Bob in Mich]

Just now, westside2 said:

Probably because you're stoned out of your mind

 

Oh gosh, how original of you!  There is no reply to counter such brilliance.   I have no chance against this tower of intellect.

[Westside]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Oh gosh, how original of you!  There is no reply to counter such brilliance.   I have no chance against this tower of intellect.

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!

[Bob in Mich]

14 minutes ago, westside2 said:

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!

What a dig!  Damn, that one really hurts. 

 

Is someone helping you to write these really clever replies?

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, westside2 said:

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!

 

He doesn't have rage.  He's got some tasty waves and a cool buzz...he's fine...

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function.  The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it.  Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. 

 

I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign.  Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side.  How is that a good thing for the country?  I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer.  That just digs the divide deeper.

It is what it is now, Bob. When Filthy Harry stood on the Senate floor and told a bald-faced lie about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years, and not only did not apologize for it but grinningly said “it worked, didn’t it?”, just to harm Romney's campaign, it told me that almost anything is fair game. The Russia farce was that, on steroids. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

I said what I think and I directed you to an article that states that while there were lots of contacts and lies by some about those contacts, there was no provable conspiracy.  You can't seem to take the answer.  Why is that? 

 

Because the accusations made, since December 2016 through the day Mueller's report was released, was not that "there MIGHT be Trump/Russia collusion" but that there "DEFINITELY was collusion/conspiracy" and the entire election was stolen because of it. It wasn't just one paper saying that, it was all of them. It was sitting members of Congress saying it. And you said it as well. 

 

We know now that none of it was true. It was all fiction -- starting with the dossier which, again, many in multiple threads and papers and from the seats in Congress SWORE under oath was accurate. 

 

But it never was. Multiple investigations have proven this.

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 Because there was zero evidence?  Oh pulease

 

There was zero proof of collusion/conspiracy discovered by Mueller. In fact, his report debunked much of the dossier (and all of it's most salacious/nefarious charges). 

 

In fact, we know now that what started this whole thing -- the contact between Mifsud and G-Pop which was painted for three years as being between a Russian intelligence officer/asset and a member of Trump's staff -- was entrapment. Mifsud is a western intelligence source, not a Russian one. 

 

Three years of lies were built on the notion that Mifsud was a Russian spook. 

 

He never was. 

 

Without that, the entire narrative falls apart -- as Mueller definitively proved in Volume I. 

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

From page 9 of the Mueller Report:

 

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. 

 

What's the standard of justice we operate under? Guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty? 

 

There was NO evidence to support a conviction. None. The "links" you mention are not proof or evidence of anything other than the world of diplomats and spooks is very, very small. And in fact, we now know that at least some (if not all) of the "links" Mueller covered (like Mifsud) are either misleading or flat out false. 

 

Because it was a coup. 

 

Still is. 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function. 

 

One party has worked actively to de-legitimize the court and the executive. 

 

It wasn't the GOP. 

 

That's beyond doubt. 
 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it. 

 

Bob, again I'm not trying to be disrespectful but this is a gross misunderstanding of history and the position of the founding fathers. They distrusted centralized government because they knew it would always be corrupt. The temptation for avarice and greed were constantly warned about by nearly every one of the founders. 

 

That's why it's our job, as citizens, to hold the government accountable. Not the other way around. It's our job to hold them to account when they do things like: illegally spy on their political opposition for their own gain, or attempt a palace coup. 

 

The founders NEVER trusted the government and insisted that we the people did not either. 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Just stop with the coup talk.  It is incorrect as well as inflammatory and you know that.   As I just pointed out, why would coup leaders be following any rules?  They wouldn't.  Power is taken without an impeachment process in a real coup.  In addition, this current inquiry surrounds Trumps actions in 2019.

 

There are some less stable folks around here, ahem TYTT, that could be convinced this is an actual takeover and so convinced that he needs to gun down his neighbors.

one of the more interesting parts of this attempted coup, imo, is how the entrenched govt lifers have convinced the liberal left to kneel at the glory hole of a corrupt big govt.  people who for years railed against law enforcement, the military and widespread systemic and institutionalized racism are literally falling over themselves to defend those once labeled the enemy.  it’s like they have no sense of what they believe in. 
 

you have to give the plotters credit—they know their crowd.  When one “scandal” blows up, they simply shine the laser pointer somewhere else and the generally dim-witted lefties follow like Alice The Goon.  P***** leads to “the children are more caged than when Obama caged ‘em” leads to Russia No Russia leads to It was never about Russia it was about Obstruction that ain’t obstruction leads to Ukrainamania leads to mental gymnastics of how a liberal VP bragging about withholding aid because his self-destructive and supremely addicted kid can make a few mill to blow on hookers and meth is really the definition of crackerjack governing but a president investigating known corruption is the REAL problem.  
 

Bobby I M, I can’t speak for the public schools everywhere, but in WNY in the 70s, we learned there is more than one type of coup.  Nixon didn’t send his henchmen to round up he’s enemies, but it sure seems like what he did do got his tit in a ringer.  
 

this is a coup. 
 

damn you for making me use run on sentences here, Bob.
 

 

[Bob in Mich]

DR, don't try to squirm out of this after harassing me for pages.  You stated that Mueller stated there was zero evidence of a conspiracy and I said there was insufficient evidence to charge. To prove you are exaggerating about this zero evidence of conspiracy claim,  I copy the exact words from the Mueller report and then we see your apology....oh Bob, you were right?  Nope, just slip sliding. 

 

You are the one being dishonest I am afraid pal.  There was some evidence of interaction as well as strong evidence of obstruction.   A serious person would not cling to a false narrative but we see that DR is not being honest or serious.   I like you DR but you need to think for yourself and also be able to admit when you are wrong.  Good night

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

DR, don't try to squirm out of this after harassing me for pages.  You stated that Mueller stated there was zero evidence of a conspiracy and I said there was insufficient evidence to charge. To prove you are exaggerating about this zero evidence of conspiracy claim,  I copy the exact words from the Mueller report and then we see your apology....oh Bob, you were right?  Nope, just slip sliding. 

 

Bob, I'm not squirming. You're 100% incorrect on this. The facts are with me, not you. I'm also not at all trying to be combative or disrespectful.

 

"Links" between Russians (who aren't really Russians like Mifsud) to Trump's campaign is not evidence of collusion or conspiracy. It's certainly not proof. All it's evidence of is that the world of spooks and diplomats is tiny. Which it is. 

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

You are the one being dishonest I am afraid pal.  There was some evidence of interaction --

 

There wasn't though. 

 

Not a single American was indicted or charged with anything resembling that. Instead, the evidence shows multiple attempts made by western intelligence officials posing as Russians to entrap team Trump members. 

 

Yet... you're silent on that. Why?

 

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

A serious person would not cling to a false narrative but we see that DR is not being honest or serious.   I like you DR but you need to think for yourself and also be able to admit when you are wrong.  Good night

 

All this and you still haven't answered the question... in your opinion did Trump collude with the Russians to steal the election? Forget if you can prove it, what do you believe happened?

[Bob in Mich]

28 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

one of the more interesting parts of this attempted coup, imo, is how the entrenched govt lifers have convinced the liberal left to kneel at the glory hole of a corrupt big govt.  people who for years railed against law enforcement, the military and widespread systemic and institutionalized racism are literally falling over themselves to defend those once labeled the enemy.  it’s like they have no sense of what they believe in. 
 

you have to give the plotters credit—they know their crowd.  When one “scandal” blows up, they simply shine the laser pointer somewhere else and the generally dim-witted lefties follow like Alice The Goon.  P***** leads to “the children are more caged than when Obama caged ‘em” leads to Russia No Russia leads to It was never about Russia it was about Obstruction that ain’t obstruction leads to Ukrainamania leads to mental gymnastics of how a liberal VP bragging about withholding aid because his self-destructive and supremely addicted kid can make a few mill to blow on hookers and meth is really the definition of crackerjack governing but a president investigating known corruption is the REAL problem.  
 

Bobby I M, I can’t speak for the public schools everywhere, but in WNY in the 70s, we learned there is more than one type of coup.  Nixon didn’t send his henchmen to round up he’s enemies, but it sure seems like what he did do got his tit in a ringer.  
 

this is a coup. 
 

damn you for making me use run on sentences here, Bob.
 

 

 

Stop it.  You are brighter than this.  A coup?  That is just not what is happening.  What is happening are investigations into Trump's 2019 actions.  That is it.  Congressional investigations would not be required in a coup.  Stop with the exaggerations and the inflammatory words, please.

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

All this and you still haven't answered the question... in your opinion did Trump collude with the Russians to steal the election? Forget if you can prove it, what do you believe happened?

 

I warned you.  bye bye   Back to ignore so don't expect any more replies from me.

 

I tried to give you another chance but you just badger and badger.  I shouldn't have to answer questions 10 times because you are too dim to recognize a reply.  Good Luck with all of your theories.   out

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I warned you.  bye bye   Back to ignore so don't expect any more replies from me.

 

I tried to give you another chance but you just badger and badger.  I shouldn't have to answer questions 10 times because you are too dim to recognize a reply.  Good Luck with all of your theories.   out

 

You're free to do what you want, but you're misreading me if you think it's badgering. And if I missed your answer I apologize but I don't see it. I'm asking what your opinion is because I'm curious where you are now -- not what Mueller said or the BBC. And not what you can prove (I'm not trying to debate the point). I'm curious whether you think Trump worked knowingly with Russia to steal the election. 

 

That's not me trying to badger -- it's me trying to understand your position so we can communicate better. That's all. No intent to offend or badger.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

27 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Stop it.  You are brighter than this.  A coup?  That is just not what is happening.  What is happening are investigations into Trump's 2019 actions.  That is it.  Congressional investigations would not be required in a coup.  Stop with the exaggerations and the inflammatory words, please.

Bob, you go along for the ride if you want, and I take you at your word that you believe what you believe. 

 

In the simplest form Bob, the facts are pretty clear. The greatest intelligence gathering agency in the world simply does not miss as badly as it did on the Russia hoax. It defies logic that the opposition party would stumble into unmasking citizens, surveil members of the other party, selectively leak bad Intel through sources in the media, and start the ball rolling on the "Our President is Controlled By Russia!" Hill and have it end the way it did. 

 

If they come for the guy that 60m people believed in they better be right. When it was clear they were not, there are only two reasonable altentatives imo:

 

1. The IC, FBI and Obama admin was so grossly incompetent to have so totally misread the tea leaves and the players in the game that they missed spectacularly on front of the citizenry and is the laughingstock of the world; or

 

2.  The goal was to undo the results of the election through leaks, intimidation, innuendo and a propaganda campaign that would impress Herr Goebels. In the meantime, the "investigation" would stall, impede or paralyze the administration and certainly impact the reputation of the president. 

 

3 years in, the coup failed, though one can argue the damage done impacted the midterms and perhaps the next election. 

 

 

You simply do not imply a president is guilty or treason and "Ah, whoops no bigs" it when proven false. Screw that. 

[Bob in Mich]

8 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Bob, you go along for the ride if you want, and I take you at your word that you believe what you believe. 

 

In the simplest form Bob, the facts are pretty clear. The greatest intelligence gathering agency in the world simply does not miss as badly as it did on the Russia hoax. It defies logic that the opposition party would stumble into unmasking citizens, surveil members of the other party, selectively leak bad Intel through sources in the media, and start the ball rolling on the "Our President is Controlled By Russia!" Hill and have it end the way it did. 

 

If they come for the guy that 60m people believed in they better be right. When it was clear they were not, there are only two reasonable altentatives imo:

 

1. The IC, FBI and Obama admin was so grossly incompetent to have so totally misread the tea leaves and the players in the game that they missed spectacularly on front of the citizenry and is the laughingstock of the world; or

 

2.  The goal was to undo the results of the election through leaks, intimidation, innuendo and a propaganda campaign that would impress Herr Goebels. In the meantime, the "investigation" would stall, impede or paralyze the administration and certainly impact the reputation of the president. 

 

3 years in, the coup failed, though one can argue the damage done impacted the midterms and perhaps the next election. 

 

 

You simply do not imply a president is guilty or treason and "Ah, whoops no bigs" it when proven false. Screw that. 

 

You seemed brighter than this, Lemony Snicket.  To me you are getting played by Trump's usual tactics.  In addition, you are twisting recalled facts around to fit this coup narrative.  For instance recall Comey actually hurt the Clinton campaign down the stretch.   If working to get her elected in this super critical situation, why do that?  It seems in most people minds that given there were investigations into both candidates at the time, that he might have either said that or said nothing to tilt it.  Instead he tilted it in favor of Trump. 

 

Where are all these Trump campaign surveillance recordings?  I would have thought during the Mueller testimony or really any of the investigations into his admin's wrongdoings, we would have some Congress person or prosecutor type play a surveillance recording.  Did I miss that - did that happen ?  If the conspirators went to all that trouble to allow them to spy on everybody 'legally', I would think they would have used some as evidence of something somewhere along in this coup attempt.

 

The biggest issue I have is with the conspiracy theorist's ever present shadowy they or them.  They seem to be the only one present the whole 3 years.  Who are they by name?

 

A 3 year coup is silly but ok, this theory would require continuity of plotters across time.  All of the 'bad guys' that supposedly engineered this attempt to keep Trump from office are not in positions of power to engineer anything in 2019.  Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, Page, etc supposedly were the plotters.  None of them are in any way involved with these 2019 Ukraine accusations or investigations. 

 

After the usual denials and required backpedaling, Trump himself and his Chief of Staff have admitted the whole story.  It is clear he asked Ukraine and China for campaign help in smearing Biden and Mulvaney admitted the quid pro quo involving the aid.  Why all the talking points about lying whistle blower or second hand or partisanship or treasonous informants or Schiff involvement, etc, etc?  Why all the stories, the second computer server, changing positions and backpedaling if they weren't all trying to cover this up?  Why does anyone go to this much trouble to cover up an action?  You may be tired of accusations but these are not the actions of innocent players.

 

The only persons I see involved in both investigations are Congressional players on both sides.  If you want to say Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the Dem politicians are political and don't always represent issues in a fair manner, fine.  Obviously, the same goes for the Repubs.  Nothing newsworthy there and I have seen no accusations of coup attempts by these folks but correct me if I am wrong.  These players have all acted in a political fashion.  If you see something coup-like here, please explain.

 

The Trump tactic trio to get out of any accusation against him:

 

1) Everyone is picking on Donald.  Trump always proclaims he is the victim.  Hell in the era of 'Me too' he has 20 something women accusers and most here are convinced he is being wronged by every one of those *****.  Yes, there has been one accusation after another but those were brought on by Trump, his lying, his associates, their lying, and Trump's often slightly shady ways.  Those laser pointers looking for Trump scandals are there looking at every public figure for newsy misdeeds.  The fact that they keep finding another scandal when looking at Trump should be the takeaway, not that they are all picking on poor lil Donny.  His supporters will admit he lies way too much but inexplicably they will unquestioningly believe his denials to any accusation.

 

2)The people and the media have short attention spans and easily tire of a story.  They can be easily distracted by another shiny object, like the Doral-G7 story for example.  He easily moves the story along to the next controversy to protect himself when a story closes in on him.  People tire of stories quickly and just want to move on.  He uses that.

 

3) If he repeats a lie enough, the people will believe it.   I believe this is Propaganda 101.  As example, after the Barr summary Trump and his supporters were over the top with the repeating of  'No Collusion, No Obstruction.  Totally Exonerated'.  As all later read in the report, that was not truthful but it sure caught on.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You seemed brighter than this, Lemony Snicket.  To me you are getting played by Trump's usual tactics.  In addition, you are twisting recalled facts around to fit this coup narrative.  For instance recall Comey actually hurt the Clinton campaign down the stretch.   If working to get her elected in this super critical situation, why do that?  It seems in most people minds that given there were investigations into both candidates at the time, that he might have either said that or said nothing to tilt it.  Instead he tilted it in favor of Trump. 

 

Where are all these Trump campaign surveillance recordings?  I would have thought during the Mueller testimony or really any of the investigations into his admin's wrongdoings, we would have some Congress person or prosecutor type play a surveillance recording.  Did I miss that - did that happen ?  If the conspirators went to all that trouble to allow them to spy on everybody 'legally', I would think they would have used some as evidence of something somewhere along in this coup attempt.

 

The biggest issue I have is with the conspiracy theorist's ever present shadowy they or them.  They seem to be the only one present the whole 3 years.  Who are they by name?

 

A 3 year coup is silly but ok, this theory would require continuity of plotters across time.  All of the 'bad guys' that supposedly engineered this attempt to keep Trump from office are not in positions of power to engineer anything in 2019.  Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, Page, etc supposedly were the plotters.  None of them are in any way involved with these 2019 Ukraine accusations or investigations. 

 

After the usual denials and required backpedaling, Trump himself and his Chief of Staff have admitted the whole story.  It is clear he asked Ukraine and China for campaign help in smearing Biden and Mulvaney admitted the quid pro quo involving the aid.  Why all the talking points about lying whistle blower or second hand or partisanship or treasonous informants or Schiff involvement, etc, etc?  Why all the stories, the second computer server, changing positions and backpedaling if they weren't all trying to cover this up?  Why does anyone go to this much trouble to cover up an action?  You may be tired of accusations but these are not the actions of innocent players.

 

The only persons I see involved in both investigations are Congressional players on both sides.  If you want to say Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the Dem politicians are political and don't always represent issues in a fair manner, fine.  Obviously, the same goes for the Repubs.  Nothing newsworthy there and I have seen no accusations of coup attempts by these folks but correct me if I am wrong.  These players have all acted in a political fashion.  If you see something coup-like here, please explain.

 

The Trump tactic trio to get out of any accusation against him:

 

1) Everyone is picking on Donald.  Trump always proclaims he is the victim.  Hell in the era of 'Me too' he has 20 something women accusers and most here are convinced he is being wronged by every one of those *****.  Yes, there has been one accusation after another but those were brought on by Trump, his lying, his associates, their lying, and Trump's often slightly shady ways.  Those laser pointers looking for Trump scandals are there looking at every public figure for newsy misdeeds.  The fact that they keep finding another scandal when looking at Trump should be the takeaway, not that they are all picking on poor lil Donny.  His supporters will admit he lies way too much but inexplicably they will unquestioningly believe his denials to any accusation.

 

2)The people and the media have short attention spans and easily tire of a story.  They can be easily distracted by another shiny object, like the Doral-G7 story for example.  He easily moves the story along to the next controversy to protect himself when a story closes in on him.  People tire of stories quickly and just want to move on.  He uses that.

 

3) If he repeats a lie enough, the people will believe it.   I believe this is Propaganda 101.  As example, after the Barr summary Trump and his supporters were over the top with the repeating of  'No Collusion, No Obstruction.  Totally Exonerated'.  As all later read in the report, that was not truthful but it sure caught on.

You’re projecting here Bobby Sherman, teenage heartthrob.   Lot’s of words strung together with “well if...” and “why would...” and “comey helped...”. 
 

Your faith in the governmental industrial machine is admirable.

 

Suggesting “Comey helped Trump” in the Clinton unforced error(s) where a former Secretary of State was described by her allies as having played fast and loose with national security issues  is akin to suggesting Comey helped Trump by investigating Whitey Bulger.  She created her mess, she was dismissive of concerns about national security, and exposed her throat to her enemies.  I’m in the camp that thinks children of a lesser god, guilty of far lesser crimes, do time and are financially ruined while the heiress apparent walks with a few hurtful words thrown her way.  Comey had no choice but to opine here, not to help Trump, but to deal with a very messy situation. In a sense, he was a reluctant ******* here. 
 

The players here have access to the most sensitive information in the world.  Brennan, Comey et al did not sit back and allow justice to take its course, they advanced a narrative that served the purpose of undermining the results of the election.  In a sense, we were promised that the details would follow vindicating these American hero’s just looking out for our democracy. 
 

Grossly incompetent or fabricated and death by a thousand paper cuts.  If they are the hero’s of your story, so be it. 
 

I don’t disagree with some of your characterizations of 45, but everybody has something to critique. 
 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You’re projecting here Bobby Sherman, teenage heartthrob.  

 

Mmmmm Bobby Sherman ? ? 

 

Er, Bob in Mich? Not-so-much. 

[Bob in Mich]

44 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You’re projecting here Bobby Sherman, teenage heartthrob.   Lot’s of words strung together with “well if...” and “why would...” and “comey helped...”. 
 

Your faith in the governmental industrial machine is admirable.

 

Suggesting “Comey helped Trump” in the Clinton unforced error(s) where a former Secretary of State was described by her allies as having played fast and loose with national security issues  is akin to suggesting Comey helped Trump by investigating Whitey Bulger.  She created her mess, she was dismissive of concerns about national security, and exposed her throat to her enemies.  I’m in the camp that thinks children of a lesser god, guilty of far lesser crimes, do time and are financially ruined while the heiress apparent walks with a few hurtful words thrown her way.  Comey had no choice but to opine here, not to help Trump, but to deal with a very messy situation. In a sense, he was a reluctant ******* here. 
 

The players here have access to the most sensitive information in the world.  Brennan, Comey et al did not sit back and allow justice to take its course, they advanced a narrative that served the purpose of undermining the results of the election.  In a sense, we were promised that the details would follow vindicating these American hero’s just looking out for our democracy. 
 

Grossly incompetent or fabricated and death by a thousand paper cuts.  If they are the hero’s of your story, so be it. 
 

I don’t disagree with some of your characterizations of 45, but everybody has something to critique. 

 

 

I think you apparently passed my point in the night.  I should have reiterated but was closing in on short story length as it was.  The current investigation into the Ukraine issue is not tied to the 2016 players and is no way a coup.

 

I didn't mean to imply Comey wanted to help Trump before the election.  I agree he was reluctant in saying anything.  Disagreeing with you though in that he certainly did have a choice as whether to publicly raise the Clinton email issue again just before the election.  He was pretty much in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation at that point but he could have just sat on it.  I know if I was going to ensure Trump did not get elected, as is needed in the coup tale, I would have sat on it.

 

Finally my point regarding Comey, Clapper and Brennan, etc, wasn't that they are heroes but that they were the, if you believe it, the plotters in the coup.  The point is these are no longer players.  Perhaps the perceived '3 year long coup' is a series of investigations into a series of questionable actions by this admin.

 

Edit:  You didn't really answer my questions.  Can you do that please?

 

Where are the surveillance recordings? 

Who is the 'they' in this coup tale? 

Why go to so much trouble to cover the Ukraine saga if nothing wrong? 

Which Congress folks are coup plotters?

Edited October 19, 2019 by Bob in Mich

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

54 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Mmmmm Bobby Sherman ? ? 

 

Er, Bob in Mich? Not-so-much. 

You're killing me here. You'd think there would be a lot of Bobisms to use but I've gone through em rather quickly with my friend from Michigan.  I almost recycled  Bob-Babaran. Where is the honor in that? 

 

I'm not bragging here but I used to be compared to Bobby Sherman back in the day, were Bobby Sherman a bit more homely and with literally no talent whatsoever. 

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're killing me here. You'd think there would be a lot of Bobisms to use but I've gone through em rather quickly with my friend from Michigan.  I almost recycled  Bob-Babaran. Where is the honor in that? 

 

I'm not bragging here but I used to be compared to Bobby Sherman back in the day, were Bobby Sherman a bit more homely and with literally no talent whatsoever. 

 

Baby steps, Dr. Marvin.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

The Board's darling in 2016:

 

https://q13fox.com/2019/10/18/final-straw-gop-ex-ohio-gov-kasich-supports-impeachment/

 

Where there is smoke, there's usually fire....

[snafu]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

The Board's darling in 2016:

 

https://q13fox.com/2019/10/18/final-straw-gop-ex-ohio-gov-kasich-supports-impeachment/

 

Where there is smoke, there's usually fire....

 

Who set the fire?

The way Pelosi and Schiff are running this “investigation” is a burning dumpster.  The smoke you see is coming from that.

 

This impeachment imbroglio is a political stunt, nothing more. There’s zero bipartisan support in the House, not because they’re all towing the line but because it is transparently political.  The only two people of note that have called for impeachment are R Presidential hopefuls who despise Trump. That’s political, too.  John Kasich is a phony butthurt loser.  Mitt Romney is a phony spurned once and future neverTrumper. 

 

There’s no crime, high or low,  there’s no misdemeanor.  The blow up is over allegations of Trump getting political dirt on Biden — and in typical hypocritical fashion the impeachment “investigation” is to get political dirt on Trump.  The R’s on the house intelligence committee are absolutely right to complain about the way Shiff is handling things, and every Dem should be completely embarrassed, but they’re not because of their hatred for the President and their disdain for anyone who supports him. 

 

Trump haters like to put the cart before the horse.  It’s happened before (Russia) and it’s happening now.  It is obvious. If what Trump did was so Godawful, then why investigate?  Put the impeachment to a vote right now. D’s in the house can’t and won’t do that because it doesn’t serve their purpose.  

 

I’m no Trump lover, so don’t bother going there.  I just see a load of crap going on. I also see that the way this “investigation” is being handled completely erodes our government now and especially in the future. I don’t put it past Republicans to point to these last three years next time there’s a Democrat in the White House.  Does nobody see the future when they act today?

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

14 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

The Board's darling in 2016:

 

https://q13fox.com/2019/10/18/final-straw-gop-ex-ohio-gov-kasich-supports-impeachment/

 

Where there is smoke, there's usually fire....

 

Jebus, I cannot imagine that son-of-a-mailman being anyone's favorite. I know the NeverTrumpers love him, but after he smacked Newt around and took his Congressional ball home, I thought everyone knew Kasich was all about Kasich!? On the other hand, the good people of Ohio did elect him governor, so, apparently not.

[Bob in Mich]

Judge Napolitano anyone? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5FkaWbI8s

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Jebus, I cannot imagine that son-of-a-mailman being anyone's favorite. I know the NeverTrumpers love him, but after he smacked Newt around and took his Congressional ball home, I thought everyone knew Kasich was all about Kasich!? On the other hand, the good people of Ohio did elect him governor, so, apparently not.

The son of a slum lord is more appealing?

 

Kinda shows where the righteous one's in this country's moral compass is.

 

And yes... I realize David Berkowitz worked with the USPS.  Don't all the crazies?

 

Ut oh... Gotta go... I hear @Howard 's walker coming down the hall.  I keep telling him: "Use tennis balls!"

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Judge Napolitano anyone? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5FkaWbI8s

 

 

It's what businessman bring to the game. Illinois prisons have been littered with businessman turned "politician."

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

The son of a slum lord is more appealing?

 

Kinda shows where the righteous one's in this country's moral compass is.

 

And yes... I realize David Berkowitz worked with the USPS.  Don't all the crazies?

 

Ut oh... Gotta go... I hear @Howard 's walker coming down the hall.  I keep telling him: "Use tennis balls!"

 

 

Well, that quickly  escalated to . 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Well, that quickly  escalated to . 

What'd you expect?  ?