At the Helsinki summit. When asked if he wanted Trump to win, he replied 'Yes, I did'.
Trump Impeachment
- Thread starter WolfeTone
- Start date
At the Helsinki summit. When asked if he wanted Trump to win, he replied 'Yes, I did'.
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.
Where has she shown support for Assad?
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'.
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.
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....
Last edited:
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?
- 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?
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.
"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!
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!ⶠCheck Us Out On Steemit ⶠhttp://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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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).
(In case anyone here thinks it would).
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited:
"...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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
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.