# Trump Impeachment



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

I cant stand Trump, but I do think this impeachment affair is totally bogus. 
Once the Russiagate affair fell to pieces the Democrats got desperate and are clutching at straws. 
They have spent the last three years chasing Trump for bogus Russia collusion charges and now they are going after him over a phonecall that amounts to very little in my opinion. 
It will back fire I believe.


----------



## Thirsty (11 Dec 2019)

You need to read more.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Dec 2019)

Whatever about the actual merits of the case, legally maybe there is a case against Trump... there probably was one against Clinton too.
But what matters politically is (a) the American public in general don't care, certainly not Republican voters or swing voters and (b) the Republicans in the Senate will never vote for it.
So yes, I think it is more likely to back fire on them. There's no way Biden comes out of this well either.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## TarfHead (11 Dec 2019)

The Dems strategy seems to be to get Republican representatives to be seen to support Trump.  The Dems they can wield that against them when they're up for re-election.  I believe this strategy is doomed to fail because the so-called 'Court of Public Opinion' either no longer exists or matters.

Trump has his base and as so long as they stick with him, he'll be re-elected, regardless of the impeachment hearing.

We can but hope that he takes the stand in the hearing and does a Colonel Jessup "_You're damned right I ordered a Code Red_".


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Dec 2019)

Of all the things the Dems could try to impeach Trump for that might hurt him with his base \ middle America - this isn't one of them.
Plus Biden will suffer collateral damage with anyone who does care. 
I'm sure his rivals for the Dem nomination are loving it.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I cant stand Trump, but I do think this impeachment affair is totally bogus.
> Once the Russiagate affair fell to pieces the Democrats got desperate and are clutching at straws.
> They have spent the last three years chasing Trump for bogus Russia collusion charges and now they are going after him over a phonecall that amounts to very little in my opinion.
> It will back fire I believe.



The Mueller enquiry hasn't fallen to pieces. There have been 30+ indictments and 8 convictions of Trump associates. It was never going to lead directly to an indictment of Trump as that isn't possible but it did clearly state that Trump obstructed justice. And the evidence from that is part of one of the two articles of impeachment that are being proposed (the obstruction of Congress). The second one, abuse of power, is probably pretty clear if it was a regular court - which of course it isn't. And it's not just one phone call. There is also pretty good evidence of breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution but the Democrats have obviously balanced having too many issues cloud the PR battle.

They probably know the impeachment will not be confirmed in the Senate because of the 2/3rds requirement. But I think there are multiple reasons for going ahead;
(1) It gets republican Senators on the record which will impact re-election races next year.  
(2) They won't convince very core Trump voters. But he actually needs more than that. His core vote is approx. 35% (slightly under). Depending on the breakdown in various states, Trump needs about 45% to get re-elected. So it is more focussed on the voters who swung from Obama to Trump in the last election
(3) Once the trial starts in the Senate, it is out of the Republicans hands. And has been seen in the committee hearings, once people are under oath and testifying, a lot more has come out than originally assumed. While the Republicans control the Senate votes, they won't control the proceedings (Chief Justice does). So it has the potential to cause further surprises
(4) I suspect part of the rationale is to lay down a marker. If there was no attempt to "call out" some of the activities, their concern is that Trump would get up to even more at the next election. In some ways, it may be more targeted at people who enable him who are not immune to prosecution.

I don't think they took the decision easily - in fact the debate about the futility of doing it and potentially giving a Trump a win caused them to hold off for a long time. But I think they eventually came to the conclusion that doing nothing would be morally wrong and lead to a normalisation of behaviour


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Dec 2019)

That's some good analysis, but does it seem more like the strategy of a party who want to contain Trump in a presumed next 4 year term versus that of a party out to win the next presidential election?


----------



## cremeegg (11 Dec 2019)

At the heart of the case against Trump in Ukraine is the reality that Hunter Biden was making money there because of who his father was. That is the issue which will have the biggest political impact, not now, but when Trump gets all fired up over the election. He will claim, not without some justification, that he was 'draining the swamp'. It is nearly as effective a line as 'get Brexit done'.

For Trump to be impeached, i.e. driven out of office by vote in Congress, rather than by a popular vote, would cement the divide in the country between Trump supporters and opponents.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> That's some good analysis, but does it seem more like the strategy of a party who want to contain Trump in a presumed next 4 year term versus that of a party out to win the next presidential election?



I think they are trying to contain Trump's behaviour (and that of officials & aides) so that they have a chance of a fair fight in the elections next year. I think the fear is that Trump tries to use the infrastructure of the State to manipulate the election


----------



## joe sod (11 Dec 2019)

If the democrats lose the election, will they move back to their base and win back the voters that voted for trump. They seemed to be overly concentrated on pleasing the left wing of their supporters. 
It's also the case that if they lose the impeachment of trump, it's another big loss, then the politics and ideology of trump has won the argument and that America will not be going back.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

joe sod said:


> If the democrats lose the election, will they move back to their base and win back the voters that voted for trump. They seemed to be overly concentrated on pleasing the left wing of their supporters.
> It's also the case that if they lose the impeachment of trump, it's another big loss, then the politics and ideology of trump has won the argument and that America will not be going back.



He will be impeached. He won't be convicted unless something extraordinary happens. The first is similar to a prosecution service bringing charges against somebody and is the responsibility of the House of Reps, the second is the court case and the Senate are the jury. The Democrats know this going in.

Think of it this way - if you weren't ever charged with an offence, why would you not do worse next time around. If they didn't even try to define what normal politics is supposed to look like, then there may be no going back for America.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> There have been 30+ indictments and 8 convictions of Trump associates



True, but were any of them for collusion with Russia? Im open to being corrected, but the indictments were for other offences - tax evasion, false statements to FBI etc. 
None of them however pinpointed collusion by Trump with the Russian government to effect the outcome of election.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> True, but were any of them for collusion with Russia? Im open to being corrected, but the indictments were for other offences - tax evasion, false statements to FBI etc.
> None of them however pinpointed collusion by Trump with the Russian government to effect the outcome of election.



A special prosecutor can't bring any action against a President. It can only bring a report to Congress. The evidence from the report forms part of the evidence for the articles of impeachment. Collusion is a misunderstood term. It isn't specifically defined and it doesn't require a direct link between an action and an outcome. The report did determine that Trump acted incorrectly. Seeking or enticing assistance from a foreign person or government in itself is against the Constitution. It is specifically defined as a impeachable offence.

The special prosecutor can bring charges against other people. The charges did include tax evasion and false statements. The tax evasion related to non declaration of foreign sourced income and false statements included statements / accounts relating to interaction with Russia and Wikileaks. The charges also included witness tampering, failure to declare as a foreign agent and obstruction of justice


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The evidence from the report forms part of the evidence for the articles of impeachment.



I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.

The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!


----------



## TarfHead (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.



The remit of the Mueller investigation never involved collusion.



WolfeTone said:


> The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!



He said it in public from one of his campaign speeches.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.
> 
> The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!



I laughed at that last bit... though in fairness he actually stood up in a speech and said "Russia if you have Hilary's emails, release them". And it later came out that his campaign had been told that morning that Russia had the emails. So - closer to the truth than maybe you meant - lol

The Mueller report findings;
- Russia engaged in "sweeping and systematic" interference in the 2016 campaign
- "Numerous links" between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government and also indirectly via Wikileaks
- Multiple episodes where Trump obstructed justice both through individual instruction to aides and through actions taken
- Following DoJ protocols, the Mueller report stated it accepted it could not indict a sitting president but that it explicitly did not exonerate Trump
- Found many areas of illegality in the campaign but stated that it was for Congress to investigate and decide whether the actions of Trump warranted further action

Again - collusion isn't a specific defined crime. So it wasn't investigating "collusion". The definition for a sitting president would be abuse of power or obstruction of Justice (which Nixon would have been indicted for I believe). But specifically, a special prosecutor cannot indict a sitting President and he could not say that he should be - he left it in the hands of Congress - and that's what is going on now.

But requesting assistance (or not reporting it) in itself is impeachable. The founding fathers had a specific debate on whether the impeachment clause should be in the constitution - the argument being that a bad President would just get voted out at the next general election. The clause was included because the argument was that what would happen if a President worked with outside powers to then rig the system to remain in power. Which incredibly seems to predict the current situation


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> Russia if you have Hilary's emails, release them". And it later came out that his campaign had been told that morning that Russia had the emails. So - closer to the truth than maybe you meant



Exactly, the guy is so bare-faced its hard to believe that he was involved in any such subversive activity...he would have blurted out the details by now.
After details of the Ukrainian phone were released he stood on the White House lawn and asked China if they could assist with investigating alleged corruption by Biden!

I get all the other stuff you listed, but the evidence supporting Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference is weak in my opinion, and goes nowhere near implicating Trump as being involved, or in the knowledge of, etc. Perhaps members of his team were, perhaps not, but it still falls way short of implicating Trump.

It is not unusual for business people or politicians to have links with foreign governments - its quite normal in fact. Having "links" falls way short of corruption.

Of course the elephant in the room (one of many actually) is Cambridge Analytica's involvement. It would appear their involvement was quite "sweeping and systematic" in interfering with the US election.
Yet I dont think it is even mentioned once in the 488 pages of the report!


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

Hey - I'm wary of these discussion going down too deep into detail sometimes. And, I'm not really looking to change your mind on things - nor do I want to bore others. But just a couple more points because I do think there was misunderstanding about what has happened up to now and what is going on - a lot of it due to the simplistic terms used in media



WolfeTone said:


> Exactly, the guy is so bare-faced its hard to believe that he was involved in any such subversive activity...he would have blurted out the details by now.
> After details of the Ukrainian phone were released he stood on the White House lawn and asked China if they could assist with investigating alleged corruption by Biden!


But this is sort of the point - even that statement about China was probably impeachable just by itself. He does do and say things out in the open and just because they are in the open doesn't mean they are legal. He also admitted himself that he looked for favours from Ukraine (he released a transcript). I actually think he doesn't know what is legal and what isn't



WolfeTone said:


> I get all the other stuff you listed, but the evidence supporting Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference is weak in my opinion, and goes nowhere near implicating Trump as being involved, or in the knowledge of, etc. Perhaps members of his team were, perhaps not, but it still falls way short of implicating Trump.


Remember - the investigation wasn't primarily about Trump. It was a special investigation on Russian interference in the election. And the evidence of interference is pretty damning. In fact there was quite a lot of evidence 6 months before the actual election. I don't think you can call it weak - there was a lot of "soft" interference such as Facebook targeting etc. There was also a lot of "hard" interference. Electoral software and databases showed evidence of being hacked in 39 states. In the Summer before the election the FBI issued warnings to all the states about the attempts. 



WolfeTone said:


> It is not unusual for business people or politicians to have links with foreign governments - its quite normal in fact. Having "links" falls way short of corruption.


Indeed - there is no question of people having links with foreign governments. That's not an issue. What will be on trial during impeachment will be whether any assistance was requested from foreign entities. That would be illegal.

And corruption isn't in the articles of impeachment (nor did it form part of the Mueller report). I suspect corruption (or breaking the emoluments clause) may have been discussed but probably not included to try to keep the process cleaner. But I'm sure it is a valid concern - has Trump or his businesses benefited directly from the Presidency. There is certainly rumours that the only way to get a meeting with him is to use his properties. But I suspect less clean to present as a case because you'd have to show intent.  



WolfeTone said:


> Of course the elephant in the room (one of many actually) is Cambridge Analytica's involvement. It would appear their involvement was quite "sweeping and systematic" in interfering with the US election.
> Yet I dont think it is even mentioned once in the 488 pages of the report!


CA were employed as a contractor by a campaign - there is nothing illegal in that and it wasn't in the remit of the report. I think their access to data is questionable but probably more of a question the data owners have to answer i.e. Facebook


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> And, I'm not really looking to change your mind on things -



Agreed. 
So my call on this is that the impeachment will fail, and will ultimately work to give Trump a boost for the 2020. 
If Biden is the Dem candidate, Trump will demolish him.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> If Biden is the Dem candidate, Trump will demolish him.



I don't think Biden would be strong enough against him. I also don't think Biden will end up being selected - even though the odds have him favourite. 

January / February will give a good indication.


----------



## Sunny (11 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> I don't think Biden would be strong enough against him. I also don't think Biden will end up being selected - even though the odds have him favourite.
> 
> January / February will give a good indication.



Indeed. I have a nice bet on Hillary Clinton making a late charge into the race but she needs to decide pretty quickly....

Also looking for odds on Chelsea Clinton in 2028 but probably a bit early since she has ruled out Congress in 2020. She is a guaranteed runner for office though.


----------



## Firefly (11 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I get all the other stuff you listed, but the evidence supporting Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference is weak in my opinion



Given you are happy to financially support wikipedia, perhaps you might want to print off the following article and make yourself a nice cuppa









						Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

Firefly said:


> Given you are happy to financially support wikipedia, perhaps you might want to print off the following article and make yourself a nice cuppa
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks @Firefly but all of that has been in the public domain for a long time. My skepticism surrounding the whole affair arises from the lack of hard factual evidence. Simply stating that Russian trolls set up FB pages in the year running up the campaign in favour of Trump and against Clinton is no evidence at all, its only an allegation, along with the rest of it.
The hard evidence is mostly 'classified' - how unfortunate.

But dont mind my skepticism, as much as I cant stand Trump and hope he is beaten in 2020, its the skepticism of his fellow Republicans, as demonstrated in this hearing with Mueller himself that prompts me to think that the whole affair is a flimsy circus at best.

Mueller testimony

You might want something stronger than tea!


----------



## joe sod (11 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> Indeed. I have a nice bet on Hillary Clinton making a late charge into the race but she needs to decide pretty quickly....



If hillary clinton runs again then I will definitely believe in the russian interference. I bet the democrats will be feverishly working to get her to forget that.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

Collusion, Conspiracy?

Tomato, Tomato?


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Dec 2019)

"Outside my purview" 

Outside my purview


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Thanks @Firefly but all of that has been in the public domain for a long time. My skepticism surrounding the whole affair arises from the lack of hard factual evidence. Simply stating that Russian trolls set up FB pages in the year running up the campaign in favour of Trump and against Clinton is no evidence at all, its only an allegation, along with the rest of it.
> The hard evidence is mostly 'classified' - how unfortunate.
> 
> But dont mind my skepticism, as much as I cant stand Trump and hope he is beaten in 2020, its the skepticism of his fellow Republicans, as demonstrated in this hearing with Mueller himself that prompts me to think that the whole affair is a flimsy circus at best.
> ...



The evidence on the social media targeting came out a long time ago - so much has happened that I suspect most people have forgotten about it. But the targeted adds and the organisations that published and promoted them and the target markets were published in a report about a year after the election. There was a huge amount of detail and actually really interesting. That report was actually used as a template to counteract the same happening during our recent referendum

As for the GOP - I really fear for the direction of it. Before Trump, there was essentially a bit of a takeover of much of the Republican party at grass roots level - the Tea Party. That has morphed into a hardline base (which is Trump's base). It's now at a stage where even moderate Republicans are completely towing the line as they fear being "Primaried" more than they fear re-election. It is noteworthy that those who have broken ranks have either announced they won't be re-running or got kicked out of the party. Many of the GOP leaders now defending Trump's actions have historically held very different views.

It's not dissimilar to how Corbyn won the leadership (Momentum activists gaining control of local party organisations) or what has happened with the Tory's (ex-UKIP pushing out moderate candidates) - so-called "entryism". Same is happening in the US - a swing to the extremes


----------



## TarfHead (12 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> .. so-called "entryism". Same is happening in the US - a swing to the extremes



Agree.  And I believe it is naive to assume this could not happen in Ireland.  With recent events, namely Peter Casey, Verona Murphy, Lorraine Clifford-Lee, and well as that Voldemort who picketed the Google offices, it's creeping in.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> But the targeted adds and the organisations that published and promoted them and the target markets were published in a report about a year after the election.



I would genuinely be interested in specific examples of these FB ads. My own searches havent yielded very much. 
There was one site that offered to downloads of block amounts of adds, with the warning that it could take a long time. But I may have to resort to block download, if supposedly widespread targeted FB ads cant be identified easily.
I would have thought, with these FB ads targeting millions of US voters that it would be easy to come across specific examples. 
And aside from all that, there appears to be little to none analysis done showing to what extent these ads actually influenced voters.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I would genuinely be interested in specific examples of these FB ads. My own searches havent yielded very much.
> There was one site that offered to downloads of block amounts of adds, with the warning that it could take a long time. But I may have to resort to block download, if supposedly widespread targeted FB ads cant be identified easily.
> I would have thought, with these FB ads targeting millions of US voters that it would be easy to come across specific examples.
> And aside from all that, there appears to be little to none analysis done showing to what extent these ads actually influenced voters.



Below is a good basic intro article from the time which gives an overview of the tactics - it has links to the actual report issued by the Senate and the full library of ads. It is a starting point though - there were academic studies and deeper analysis of the information dump over the following months. 

The key point, of course, is that very few ads were specifically mentioning candidates. What they were doing was looking to cause chaos - the same tactic as with Brexit (actually they probably used Brexit to fine tune the tactics)









						Most Russian Facebook ads sought to divide Americans on race
					

According to a new analysis, most Russian-linked Facebook ads before and after the 2016 election were tied to race, crime, and policing.




					www.vox.com
				




Edit : there is virtually no way of measuring what specific effect this type of campaign has. But bear in mind it was a total of about 80k votes in three states that put Trump in the Whitehouse, the effect doesn't need to be large


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. 

There is little than can established in forum like this one way or the other, but what I will say is I agree



EmmDee said:


> there is virtually no way of measuring what specific effect this type of campaign has.



...and while the difference was around 80K votes in three States in favour of Trump, would we be having this conversation if the effect had resulted in 80k votes in favour of Clinton? 

I did download one of those ads purporting to be from Russian troll farm and like you said, it doesn't reference any candidate. It does spew homophobic bile against gay people in the military. 
But its impossible to measure the effect, if any, on voting intentions. It may embolden some people to vote with the candidate they think is most likely to share such views, or in equal measure, it may embolden some people to vote with the candidate who is most likely to stand against such views. 

So Russia interfering in the election is one thing (if you can call this interference), but associating Trump as the beneficiary of this interference is wholly disingenuous in the absence of being able to measure the effect of such interference. 
Combined with Muellers awful performances in testimony, and the quite obvious glaring flaws in his report, I remain every bit skeptical about the truth of this whole affair. 
The final nail in the coffin for me was when Hilary Clinton tried to smear a serving Democratic congresswoman, a candidate for Presidential nominee, Tulsi Gabbard,  a serving member of the military who volunteered to serve as a medic in the US invasion of Iraq, treating injured US soldiers - as a Russian agent. 

There appears little room for HC to go any lower. She is toxic to many in Democratic party now, let alone how much Republicans despise her. 
If she runs, she will lose to Trump.


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Dec 2019)

Surely HC needs to move on for the betterment of the US. She couldnt win against the worst candidate in living memory, the patriotic thing would be to let someone else have a go. I've no major axe to grind with her but she's just not a winner it seems and the world cannot afford another 4 years of Trump (or the world would be much better if it didnt have to suffer another 4).


----------



## Sunny (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The final nail in the coffin for me was when Hilary Clinton tried to smear a serving Democratic congresswoman, a candidate for Presidential nominee, Tulsi Gabbard,  a serving member of the military who volunteered to serve as a medic in the US invasion of Iraq, treating injured US soldiers - as a Russian agent.
> 
> There appears little room for HC to go any lower. She is toxic to many in Democratic party now, let alone how much Republicans despise her.
> If she runs, she will lose to Trump.



If that is the final nail in the coffin of Hillary Clinton, then Trump must be nailed in the coffin, covered in cement and buried two miles underground.

For the record, she didn't say that she was a 'Russian Agent'. She said she was a favourite of the Russians which has also been identified elsewhere by people who monitor that stuff. There are plenty of stories about it. Also Tulsi Gabbard is not some sort of innocent heroine Florence nightingale figure who can't stand up for herself. There are enough things in the past to show why she will never get the democratic nomination hence the rumours that she will run as third party candidate. 

I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton but she has favourable rating among democrats of nearly 70% . She is probably the only candidate that can attract the campaign funding that the democrats will need unless Bloomberg is willing to pay his way. Can she beat Trump? She has as a good a chance as any. Sanders, Bloomberg, Biden are not exactly star candidates. At the moment, the polls say they would all beat Trump but as the last election showed, the polls mean nothing when elections start and the Trump campaign goes to war. Clintons problem is still the same though. For some reason and I have never fully understand why, people have a strange dislike towards her. I think she is as ambitious, ruthless and as untrustworthy of any male politician but she always seems to get held to different standards.... Like she was beaten by a sexist, racist, stupid man with orange hair and orange skin.....Just weird.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> For the record, she didn't say that she was a 'Russian Agent'.



Correct, my bad. Here is the text of what she actually said,

"_They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate."_

Completely despicable.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I did download one of those ads purporting to be from Russian troll farm and like you said, it doesn't reference any candidate. It does spew homophobic bile against gay people in the military.
> But its impossible to measure the effect, if any, on voting intentions. It may embolden some people to vote with the candidate they think is most likely to share such views, or in equal measure, it may embolden some people to vote with the candidate who is most likely to stand against such views.



I think you're missing the point. They aren't trying to pick a winning candidate. They are trying to get Western Democracies to turn in on each other. They are also moving the "Overton window" - what is acceptable political discourse. So by running ads like the above (and other extreme topics), it allows a candidate such as Trump to come out with what would have previously been considered unacceptable policies and statements.

Famously, the Internet Research Agency (the Russians) arranged a Pro "Black Lives Matters" rally and a counter "Stand by our Police" rally for the same time - which ended up in violence. All from St Petersburg  



WolfeTone said:


> ... Tulsi Gabbard ...



And now I'm interested where you are sourcing - first of all Clinton won't be the nominee. Not a chance. But neither will Gabbard. She is very problematic from a DNC point of view and just won't get much primary support. The only area where she has significant support is the alt right, 4Chan discussion boards, libertarians and white nationalists - the Daily Stormer ran a campaign to get her qualified for the initial Democratic debates.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> They aren't trying to pick a winning candidate.



Im sorry, but Putin is on record as saying his preferred candidate was Trump. Also, from page 1 of the Mueller report;

"_As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that 
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a 
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. 
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence 
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also 
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although 
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump 
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit 
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities."_

Its clear to my mind that the investigation established, in their minds at least, that Russia has a clear and preferred candidate that it wanted to win.

As for Tulsi, a typo on my part. She is a prospective Presidential nominee. I don't think she will get it either, but to label as an 'asset' for a foreign country, whilst a serving member of Congress and of the US military, is really low-brow stuff.
It just points further to this Russia conspiracy stuff being overblown and wholly unsubstantiated.


----------



## Sunny (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Im sorry, but Putin is on record as saying his preferred candidate was Trump. Also, from page 1 of the Mueller report;



Really? Where on the record did Putin say that?


----------



## Sunny (12 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Correct, my bad. Here is the text of what she actually said,
> 
> "_They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate."_
> 
> Completely despicable.



How is it despicable to state that Russia might be interfering with elections? Other independent observers have said the same about Russian coverage of Gabbard who has shown support for Assad, is against military intervention etc etc which is music to Russian ears..... Nobody is accusing her of Treason but it is hardly despicable to suggest that Russia might be interfering again....But then I suppose it is all fake news


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> Really? Where on the record did Putin say that?


Putin said it at the Helsinki summit.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> Really? Where on the record did Putin say that?



At the Helsinki summit. When asked if he wanted Trump to win, he replied 'Yes, I did'.


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> How is it despicable to state that Russia might be interfering with elections?



I never said it despicable to state that Russia might be interfering. I said it was despicable that HC could label a serving member of the US Congress, a serving member of the US military, as an asset of a foreign nation. 
Unless HC has evidence to back it up, which she hasn't, as I believe she has now retracted the comments following legal intervention from Gabbards lawyers, then it is a despicable thing to do.



Sunny said:


> Gabbard who has shown support for Assad,



Where has she shown support for Assad?



Sunny said:


> is against military intervention etc etc which is music to Russian ears



Being against military intervention is music to lots of peoples ears, not least the families of serving US military who are engaged in multiple conflicts around the world in the war against 'terror'. 



Sunny said:


> Nobody is accusing her of Treason



As a serving US soldier, being labelled as an asset of a foreign nation, it doesn't come much closer. 
Can you imagine, if any of her fellow comrades in a battle zone actually believed what HC said? Just like you seem to believe Gabbard has shown support for Assad.


----------



## Sunny (12 Dec 2019)

Tulsi Gabbard reveals she met Assad in Syria, without informing top Democrats
					

Hawaiian congresswoman claims she went on a ‘fact-finding’ mission in support of ‘peace’ for Syrian people, but characterized US-backed rebels as ‘terrorists’




					www.theguardian.com
				




From her own website:
'I have in the past expressed skepticism as to the actual source of two specific chemical weapons attacks: one at Khan Sheikhun on April 4, 2017, and the other at Douma on April 7, 2018. Both attacks occurred in towns under the control of al-Qaeda-linked opposition forces. Both attacks resulted in multiple civilian casualties, and both were immediately blamed on the Assad government. However, there is evidence to suggest that the attacks may have been staged by opposition forces for the purpose of drawing the United States and the West deeper into the war.'

There is no evidence of that and every international observer including her own country have held Assad responsible.

There is plenty more in her past before you become her biggest defender.

Indeed insulting the military is terrible. Can you imagine a President of the United States laughing at John McCain how he was only a hero because he was captured.. Then mocked him when he died.
Making a joke of General John Allen and the fight against ISIS. Making borderline racist comments about a dead soldiers mother not being allowed being able to speak because she was muslim..>Forgetting the name of another dead soldier when talking to his family and that the soldier knew what he was signing up for...mocked intelligence officers for being stupid. Called a senator who had served in the Marines a coward....

If you think Clintons remarks were despicable and the final nail in her coffin, you obviously haven't been listening for the past few years. And I haven't seen her retract anything....


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Hard to know where to begin with all of that!

- expressing doubt about chemical weapons attack at Douma makes her a conspiracy theorist, not a supporter of Assad.

- Im not, nor ever have been, nor ever intend to be, her biggest defender. (Albeit I would be delighted if she won the Presidency. Best candidate out there to beat Trump in my opinion)

- I assume you are referring to Trumps insults in the past? I agree, he is despicable too. Hard to know between him and HC who is worse in that regard.

- You appear to somewhat the big defender of Clinton. Are you her biggest defender?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> There is no evidence of that and every international observer including her own country have held Assad responsible.



First of all, there is evidence of drawing the West deeper into war - *none of which in conclusive, but it is evidence all the same.*









						Trump to Withdraw U.S. Forces From Syria, Declaring ‘We Have Won Against ISIS’ (Published 2018)
					

The president overruled his military and diplomatic advisers, who warned against abandoning Kurdish allies and ceding influence in Syria to Russia and Iran.




					www.nytimes.com
				




"_President Trump has ordered the withdrawal of 2,000 American troops from Syria, bringing a sudden end to a military campaign that largely vanquished the Islamic State but ceding a strategically vital country to Russia and Iran.

In overruling his generals and civilian advisers, Mr. Trump fulfilled his frequently expressed desire to bring home American forces from a messy foreign entanglement. But his decision, conveyed via Twitter on Wednesday, plunges the administration’s Middle East strategy into disarray, rattling allies like Britain and Israel and forsaking Syria’s ethnic Kurds, who have been faithful partners in fighting the Islamic State.

The abrupt, chaotic nature of the move — *and the opposition it immediately provoked on Capitol Hill and beyond *— raised questions about how Mr. Trump will follow through with the full withdrawal."_

After beating ISIS, why not withdraw troops? 
In whose interest was it not to withdraw troops? 

Secondly, it was widely reported at the time that the Syrian Defence Forces were close to winning the war. 
This is supported by the fact that Assad is still in power today!, and the war has largely subsided - it is not conclusive evidence, I dont proclaim it to be, but evidence it is. 
It made *no sense* for Assad to gas his own people when he was on the cusp of victory! 

Dont take my word for it, here is former British army commander  giving his view, before being cut off for...ad breaks! 



			https://twitter.com/timand2037/status/984919903252627457?s=09
		



And being the bit of a news junkie that I am, its searing pieces like this one from brave CNN reporters that lead me to believe that all is not well in the reporting of chemical attacks that can KILL!!!

This comedian explains it well









						CNN Reporter Sniffs "Poison" On Air
					

A CNN reporter sniffs a backpack allegedly doused with chemicals.Here's How You Can Support Our Show & Independent Media!▶ Check Us Out On Steemit ▶ http://b...




					youtu.be
				




Thats right, the CNN reporter, reporting a chemical gas attack in Douma, sticks her face into a backpack to sniff, and declares something iffy!! 

So it must be true!! 
Or rather, its just in your face propaganda because no reasonable person would sniff a backpack that they considered may be dosed with lethal gas. 
And if the Douma attack is true, then why lie about iffy smelling backpacks??

Nevermind the whistleblower from the OPCW that stated the report on the alleged Douma attack was doctored, had missing information, and that the levels of chlorine were exaggerated!! 

Its reported here in the Guardian.









						Chemical weapons watchdog defends Syria report after leaks
					

Whistleblower claims OPCW’s findings misrepresented some facts over 2018 chlorine attack




					www.theguardian.com
				




(Please read beyond headlines)

The heel of the hunt is, that the levels of chlorine detected after the attack were at micro levels detected in any home or public toilet that had been recently bleached. 
It is this type of information that the whistleblower, not me, is claiming was omitted from the report, deliberately. 

If true, why?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Dec 2019)

I just watched that Jimmy Dore clip again, with the CNN reporter sniffing a backpack that was suspected of being contaminated with chemical gas that could kill!
It had me in stitches!!

But aside from that, I forgot to mention the part where reputable reporter Robert Fisk, also reported that a doctor, present on the scene where victims of the apparent chemical attack in Douma, stated that the victims were NOT suffering from chemical attack, but from dust inhalation after a shelling attack.

So on the one hand we have the US government, Military Industrial Complex, Corporate oil and gas lobby buying up Congressmen, women and Senators to support military intervention in the Middle East for last 16yrs and no sign of ending.
And on the other hand, there is a serving US Congresswoman, who served in the war in Iraq prepared to speak out against what is really going on, a former British commander questioning the logic of Assad attacking with chemicals when on the cusp of victory, a reputable journalist like Robert Fisk reporting that a doctor in the hospital in Douma stating it was dust inhalation, not chemicals, and a blatant, but rib-cracking propaganda piece from CNN! 

I don't know what the truth is, but im satisfied you dont either.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> And I haven't seen her retract anything....




You are correct, my bad (again!) she hasn't retracted. Instead, publications like the NY Times have apparently  'corrected' the reporting on the incident for Clinton. She didn't have to do a thing! The media, unprompted apparently, did it for her!! 
How nice of them.

Clinton correction


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> And I haven't seen her retract anything....




You are correct, my bad (again!) she hasn't retracted. Instead, publications like the NY Times have ' corrected' the reporting on the incident for Clinton. She didn't have to do a thing! The media, unprompted, did it for her!!


Here is Sanders and Trump! defending Gabbard. Well done HC! Democrats AND Republicans defending Tulsi - shrewd move! 



Sanders and Trump defend Gabbard against Clinton smear

So here is a report of the apparent correction

NY Correction for Clinton


So you packed alot into your last post. Im sorry it took this long to respond to each and every point - UK elections et al - but I hope, whether you agree or not, its irrelevant to me, you might acknowledge that at least I put up a meaningful argument. 
If not, perhaps you could point out - specifically - where it is that I take threads off topic, and down rabbit holes? 
God forbid anyone should call for me to be banned!


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2019)

I'm very skeptical about the whole Assad chemical attacks thing. It makes no sense to risk international action in an attack which had zero strategic importance. There are the bad guys and the other bad guys in the Syrian war with a small amount of good guys mixed in. It's a dirty proxy war that the Russians cannot let Assad lose. Knowing that the West should have kept out of it.

I strongly dislike Hillary Clinton. She's not as much of a slimeball as her husband, the alleged rapist and confirmed mis-user of his authority to have inappropriate sexual relationships with his subordinates, but she's still despicable. 

None of them are as bad as Trump. He's in a different league. I don't agree with the impeachment process because it won't work and is a political own-goal. If it would work I'd be all for it.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Dec 2019)

I share that view, am im comfortable in the knowledge that being skeptical about what actually occured in Douma regards a chemical attack does not make me, or you, or Robert Fisk, or former British Army commanders, or Tulsi Gabbard a supporter of Assad. 
(In case anyone here thinks it would).


----------



## EmmDee (19 Dec 2019)

One thing relating to impeachment which has probably been under-reported; now that Trump has been impeached, no future President can grant him a pardon for these charges.

He is effectively now open to prosecution after his Presidency - so it does raise the stakes for him and may be the longer term thinking behind impeachment even if it won't get through the Senate


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Dec 2019)

True, but unless im mistaken, his odds for being re-elected have shortened. I suspect, but could be wrong, that the likelihood of 4 more years of Trump has increased. 

A prosecution after his Presidency is possible, but I would suggest highly unlikely. The evidence of corruption (on the charge relating to the Ukraine phone call) is, in my opinion, extremely flimsy.


----------



## EmmDee (20 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> A prosecution after his Presidency is possible, but I would suggest highly unlikely. The evidence of corruption (on the charge relating to the Ukraine phone call) is, in my opinion, extremely flimsy.



The charge isn't "corruption", it's (a) abuse of power and (b) obstruction. And no matter how many times you say it, there is no charge around a phone call. The testimony around the phone call is part of the body of evidence on the first charge.

Interestingly, one of the main mainstream evangelical publications broke ranks and called for his removal - if he starts to lose that constituency which has been rock solid behind him, the GOP might start looking at plans


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> The charge isn't "corruption", it's (a) abuse of power and (b) obstruction. And no matter how many times you say it, there is no charge around a phone call. The testimony around the phone call is part of the body of evidence on the first charge.




You are correct re the charge. I was merely referring to charges amounting to corrupt practices - abuse of power and obstruction. 

The obstruction charge, unless im mistaken, is 'obstruction of the work of congress', for which is not even a crime? 
I was under the impression it was supposed to be for 'obstruction of justice' 

Regardless, it all boils down to argument. The evidence, including the Ukraine phone call, is to my mind extremely flimsy. 
I base that view on argument that has been presented on both sides. For those in favour of impeachment, I have not been convinced, at all. 
Those against this impeachment, are convincing in their argument, in my opinion. 
I listened to this from Senator McConnell, it pretty much exposes the shallow agenda and partisan crusade that the Democrats are basing this impeachment on.

Mitch McConnell


----------



## EmmDee (23 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> You are correct re the charge. I was merely referring to charges amounting to corrupt practices - abuse of power and obstruction.
> 
> The obstruction charge, unless im mistaken, is 'obstruction of the work of congress', for which is not even a crime?
> I was under the impression it was supposed to be for 'obstruction of justice'
> ...



I don't think quoting McConnell lends any credibility to your argument (I'd also be wary of Fox News as your source btw). The guy has acted as a shill for the last 3 years - even to the point that he has said he will not be impartial in the process and will coordinate the process with the White House.... bearing in mind all 100 Senators will have to swear to be impartial and are acting as the jury. It's like the foreman of the Jury stating they are going to coordinate with the defendant. He isn't even pretending to take the constitution seriously.

But I'd keep an eye on him - he's a snake. Before Trump was elected he was vocal against him. And if the numbers start looking bad, McConnell will be quick to burn Trump.

Unrelated, The National Review has now come out calling for Trump's removal.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Dec 2019)

EmmDee said:


> I don't think quoting McConnell lends any credibility to your argument (I'd also be wary of Fox News as your source btw).



Fox News is not the source, the Senate chamber of the US Congress is the source, specifically McConnell. Fox news merely the broadcaster, among others Im sure.
Regardless of what anybody thinks of McConnell, or Trump, or Clinton, or Sanders, or Pelosi etc, etc, by their very nature they are all partisan.

What is critical is in the substance of what he has to say

- that neither the obstruction of Congress or 'abuse of power' are criminal offences
- that this impeachment was by and far the quickest ever impeachment (12wks) relative to previous impeachments.
- that even _before _Trump became the Republican nominee, there were news articles talking about impeaching him.
- On inauguration day, Washington Post headlines stated that the case for impeachment had begun
- that the speaker of the house, Pelosi, admitted that she had been working on Trumps impeachment at least two years before the Ukrainian phone call.

McConnell then cites the damaging effect of this impeachment. He, rightly, points to how previous impeachments - Nixon, Clinton, had significant support on both sides of the political divide. In this instance, all one-sided, and instead of Republicans joining with Democrats in a non-partisan fashion, at least one Democrat has instead joined the Republican party in no small part on account of this impeachment.
McConnell, rightly, in my opinion, identifies with the division this impeachment represents and how, from this point on, the bar is set so low to impeach all other Presidents. To such an extent, that the Presidency becomes a creature serving congress, rather than serving the people.

Its hard to accept anything other than this impeachment as purely partisan crusade absent of any real evidence of substantive wrong-doing.
Wrongdoing, yes, but substantive wrongdoing, no.


----------



## Thirsty (23 Dec 2019)

"...points to how previous impeachments - Nixon, Clinton, had significant support on both sides..."

On the contrary, Nixon had full support of Rep. Party until the very last moment & was then persuaded to resign; Nixon was never actually impeached.

My personal view is that, like Al Capone, Trump will eventually be caught on his taxes.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Dec 2019)

Thirsty said:


> On the contrary, Nixon had full support of Rep. Party until the very last moment & was then persuaded to resign; Nixon was never actually impeached.



Yes, true to a point. 
Nixon in his capacity and is his privilege as a sitting President, refused release of tapes (at least 42 transcripts) that were subpoenaed by the judiciary committee investigating Watergate. 
It went as far as the Supreme Court which ruled that the tapes be released. At which point, upon their release, and the revelation of content, Republicans and Democrats, in bipartisan form, made it clear that impeachment was inevitable. 
Before it could occur, Nixon resigned. 

Compared with Trump impeachment, there was one tape, which was released by Trump without recourse to the courts. 
Following its release, no Republicans have sided with Democrats - instead, at least one (if not two) Democrats have sided with Republicans supporting Trump. 

The Democrats are propelling Trump to a second term. Their favourite candidate is Joe Biden. If he gets the nomination, then it will be a landslide.


----------



## Sophrosyne (23 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> that neither the obstruction of Congress or 'abuse of power' are criminal offences




Impeachment does not require proof of criminality.


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Dec 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Impeachment does not require proof of criminality.



True, and McConnell deals with this in his speech to the US Senate. 
I would recommend the link above earlier, from about 7mins 50s to 12mins.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jan 2020)

Given the outrage and condemnation of Trump expressed by Democrats for not consulting Congress first over the Sulemani killing, can we expect another impeachment article for 'abuse of power'?


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Feb 2020)

Trump cleared of impeachment charges, not unexpected in my opinion.

The Democrats, led by corporate fascism, have tried twice - Russian collusion, Ukraine corruption.
Meanwhile, ordinary working communities in the USA, looking on the military aggression across the Middle East and elsewhere through the blood sacrifices of their sons and daughters  are struggling, to pay the mortgage, the rent, healthcare etc...sound familiar?
The people want Bernie Sanders to contest Trump. 
Is there anyone else who could compete against Trump?


----------



## TarfHead (6 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Trump cleared of impeachment charges, not unexpected in my opinion.



No-one expected him to be removed from office.  That has been inevitable from the outset.  Republican Senators are are more motivated by avoiding a mean tweet from Trump, than they are about their oath of office.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Feb 2020)

TarfHead said:


> No-one expected him to be removed from office.  That has been inevitable from the outset.  Republican Senators are are more motivated by avoiding a mean tweet from Trump, than they are about their oath of office.



Most of them were critical of Trump's behaviour, but declared it did not meet the high bar required for impeachment.








						GOP senators label Trump’s behavior ‘shameful’ but not impeachable
					

As Republicans senators explain how they will vote on whether to convict President Trump and remove him from office, a familiar refrain is emerging: The president’s behavior was wro…




					thehill.com
				




I would have thought that'd still be enough to get a tweet missile from Trump, but maybe after the vote 

Would anyone care about a tweet from an impeached President? He'd be a busted flush and yesterday's man.


----------



## Purple (7 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The people want Bernie Sanders to contest Trump.
> Is there anyone else who could compete against Trump?


Nobody wants Bernie to compete against Trump more than Trump does. He knows that if Bernie is the Democratic candidate then he is virtually assured of a second term. That's why Trump is attacking Biden all the time.
Given the Democratic field is a basket of misfits, nobodies, has-beens and nutters I think that a Trump victory is a safe bet.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Nobody wants Bernie to compete against Trump more than Trump does. He knows that if Bernie is the Democratic candidate then he is virtually assured of a second term. That's why Trump is attacking Biden all the time.
> Given the Democratic field is a basket of misfits, nobodies, has-beens and nutters I think that a Trump victory is a safe bet.



It seems like normal politics has broken down with the Democrats when it comes to selecting Presidential nominees. 
Or maybe that's the way politics has gone at national level in the States.

I've never heard of Deval Patrick but he is a former Governor of Massachusetts, succeeding Mitt Romney (Republican). 
Only the second elected black governor in American history. Seems to have an impressive CV, Harvard Law School alumni, considered for the Supreme Court by Obama.
John Hickenlooper was Governor of Colorado, a swing state.

I guess you can call them nobodies at national level, but that kind of background used to be enough to get someone taken seriously to be the Democratic nominee.


----------



## Purple (7 Feb 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> It seems like normal politics has broken down with the Democrats when it comes to selecting Presidential nominees.
> Or maybe that's the way politics has gone at national level in the States.
> 
> I've never heard of Deval Patrick but he is a former Governor of Massachusetts, succeeding Mitt Romney (Republican).
> ...


Yep, now you have to be a crackpot leftie. They are like the UK Labour Party, electing a leader who is so toxic to the majority of people that they allow a nutter from the other side to win the election.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> electing a leader who is so toxic to the majority of people



Sanders is topping most of the polls.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Nobody wants Bernie to compete against Trump more than Trump does. He knows that if Bernie is the Democratic candidate then he is virtually assured of a second term. That's why Trump is attacking Biden all the time.



Biden was the front-runner. But Trump will make mince meat of him in any election. 
Sanders would be the greatest challenge against a Trump second term.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Feb 2020)

Purple said:


> Nobody wants Bernie to compete against Trump more than Trump does. He knows that if Bernie is the Democratic candidate then he is virtually assured of a second term. That's why Trump is attacking Biden all the time.



Biden was the front-runner. But Trump will make mince meat of him in any election. 
Sanders would be the greatest challenge against a Trump second term.


----------

