The Impeachment Thread

[Jaguar]

As I've said before, when this ends up being the bottom of your reasoning, you've made a mistake somewhere.

Melania is no Ivana Trump, that's for sure. Former wife. Ivana had a major role in the organization.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I think I'll post responses to the rest of the post in the other Trump thread, since they aren't especially impeachment related. Or maybe start another thread. Or something. Here's the response to the impeachment related part though.

Well, first of all it would have to be something more compelling than "russian collusion" or "maybe attempted bribery." Lying under oath would be enough to get people on the right to concede. Something simple and concrete like that, where basic laws and common sense are enough to carry a fair perception of wrongdoing. People on the right don't care about his sociopathic tendencies because they're not the victims of it. And they don't care about the victims of it because those victims hate them, and unless you're Jesus of Nazareth it's hard to sympathize with people that hate you. I do try, myself- and always encourage others to do the same when I'm having political discussions with my right-leaning peers.

First of all, "Russian collusion" wasn't a charge against him. Trump pulled that one out of his own ass. The investigation was about (among other things) whether or not he or anyone involved with his campaign conspired with a foreign power to interfere with the 2016 election. It's an insanely difficult charge to prove. It takes a lot more than an incredibly damning trail of bread crumbs - and there was an incredibly damning trail of bread crumbs. I read Comey's book about the investigation in Hilary's emails and he emphasized repeatedly that it was never a criminal investigation because - while it's relatively easy to prove something happened that can be written off as incompetence (not realizing the importance of using secure servers - for which a person will typically get fired for incompetence, but not charged for intentionally endangering national security) - it's remarkably difficult to definitively ascribe motivation and prove it was done for nefarious reasons (i.e. that she used insecure servers so that confidential information could get into the wrong hands).

Russian interference in the 2016 election did happen. Trump obstructed investigation into it, attempting to stop the investigation several times - and that interference and the extent to which he or anyone in his administration conspired to participate - and that is a major abuse of power. Whether or not he was guilty of treason or conspiring is beside the point, obstructing investigation into the interference was clear and any POTUS doing this should be a bipartisan concern.

Trump is obstructing with the impeachment inquiry. It doesn't matter if he is completely innocent of the charges, if the impeachment is a "hoax" - elected officials started an official, legal impeachment inquiry into him and it isn't remotely within his power to stop it or interfere. Yet he's ordered his administration not to cooperate. Another blatant abuse of power.

The single only reason there's currently no perjury on the table? Because Trump refuses to cooperate enough to testify. For either the Mueller investigation or the impeachment inquiry. All that would need to happen is for him to get on the stand and open his mouth, perjury would be in the bag.

So, just for clarity, would you say it's okay for Trump to be setting the precedent for POTUSs to: (1) use their authority to repeatedly attempt to shut down any investigations into themselves and possible treason/conspiring with a foreign power to interfere with elections; (2) use their authority to shut down an official impeachment inquiry that was started legally by elected officials, and which half his constituency agrees should be happening; and/or (3) ignore all intelligence agency reports about who interfered in our elections and befriend a foreign power who helped that POTUS get elected? Are you saying that all of these things are okay for future POTUSs to do, and Democrats (and all the Republicans that agree) are being unreasonable for saying these things are absolutely unacceptable (and we're all only saying it because we hate Trump)?

And @ bolded: do people on the right conflate hate for Trump with hate for them personally?

That spectrum can't be trusted. There is very little consensus on centric sources- people on the right consider the times and the post as being heavily biased:

Democrats / Republicans

Okay, a couple of questions: then where do you get your news (exclusively Fox? exclusively Trump's twitter feed? what ratio of each news source contributes to what you and those around you "know"? and would you say this is typical of rural America?); and do you think distrust of sources like NYT has gotten significantly worse since 2016 because of the emotional flatulence that Trump regularly sprays on twitter about "Fake news"? In other words, how much worse is this problem now that it was before 2016?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

You just answered your own question, as far as her intelligence goes. It's not like she's been an innocent bystander for years; and her "Be Best" project is a joke that she's avoiding the punchline of, considering the obvious big picture. She's either dumb, corrupt, or some combination of the two.

She really does seem like such a vapid simpleton. I feel kind of bad for her when stuff like the "I don't care, do u?" jacket happens - because it seems highly unlikely she'd actually wear such a thing to make a statement about not caring about the hurricane victims, and it's even weird to me that so many people could interpret it that way. It was a stupid thing to wear, sure, but I don't think she'd especially given us any reason to think she's that malicious. (Stupid, self-absorbed, and spoiled - yes, but not malicious). So I feel kind of bad for her sometimes, like she could hardly have married the wrong sugar daddy.

But then something happens like the her recent tweet shaming someone for making a jab at Trump's delusions of grandeur by using Barron's name - as if that comment were actually bullying Barron in any way, and as if her husband didn't dish out far worse on a daily basis (children included) - and my sympathy for her wanes.

 

[anticlimatic]

So, just for clarity, would you say it's okay for Trump to be setting the precedent for POTUSs to: (1) use their authority to repeatedly attempt to shut down any investigations into themselves and possible treason/conspiring with a foreign power to interfere with elections; (2) use their authority to shut down an official impeachment inquiry that was started legally by elected officials, and which half his constituency agrees should be happening; and/or (3) ignore all intelligence agency reports about who interfered in our elections and befriend a foreign power who helped that POTUS get elected? Are you saying that all of these things are okay for future POTUSs to do, and Democrats (and all the Republicans that agree) are being unreasonable for saying these things are absolutely unacceptable (and we're all only saying it because we hate Trump)?

And @ bolded: do people on the right conflate hate for Trump with hate for them personally?

No, Trump supporters are well away of the difference between the contempt that people on the left feel for them, and the hate they feel at trump for invalidating that contempt.

Regarding questions 1-3, I realize you feel very passionately about this particular issue, and that you've taken in a lot of information from sources I'd consider tainted to frame and fuel this passion. Unfortunately I don't have much to say on the subject, for one very specific reason I'll mention next.

Okay, a couple of questions: then where do you get your news (exclusively Fox? exclusively Trump's twitter feed? what ratio of each news source contributes to what you and those around you "know"? and would you say this is typical of rural America?); and do you think distrust of sources like NYT has gotten significantly worse since 2016 because of the emotional flatulence that Trump regularly sprays on twitter about "Fake news"? In other words, how much worse is this problem now that it was before 2016?

Where do I get my news? I don't. Until someone gets their shit together and starts producing actual news instead of sucking on the cash-cow teat of partisan trolling, I just stick to the local section of my regional newspaper. It's not my fault every news organization in the country decided to shoot their credibility in the face for the sake of lining their pockets, but I'll pay for it with ignorance I suppose. Better that than misinformed/addicted/miserable. Trump coming out and calling things "fake news" was just him pandering to his audience of conservatives that had been thinking that for a long time- his ability to give voice to those people otherwise completely unheard is largely why he's so popular with them. Before he came along people on the left never would have thought that the other half of the country thought that 90% of the news and media was absolute crap- but they did, still do, and aren't necessarily wrong.

 

[Totenkindly]

But then something happens like the her recent tweet shaming someone for making a jab at Trump's delusions of grandeur by using Barron's name - as if that comment were actually bullying Barron in any way, and as if her husband didn't dish out far worse on a daily basis (children included) - and my sympathy for her wanes.

Yup. It feels either very petty or very obtuse. Her husband and the administration is constantly insulting many others, including kids, in the media... and someone mentions her son's name and suddenly she and the rest of the GOP is making it into a political weapon. The comment was simply referring to the name of Trump's son, without belittling the name or the son.

Sadly, I would have predicted that; and while the comment had nothing wrong with it, it was a needless tactical error because of the kind of people we're dealing with.

 

[ceecee]

She really does seem like such a vapid simpleton. I feel kind of bad for her when stuff like the "I don't care, do u?" jacket happens - because it seems highly unlikely she'd actually wear such a thing to make a statement about not caring about the hurricane victims, and it's even weird to me that so many people could interpret it that way. It was a stupid thing to wear, sure, but I don't think she'd especially given us any reason to think she's that malicious. (Stupid, self-absorbed, and spoiled - yes, but not malicious). So I feel kind of bad for her sometimes, like she could hardly have married the wrong sugar daddy.

But then something happens like the her recent tweet shaming someone for making a jab at Trump's delusions of grandeur by using Barron's name - as if that comment were actually bullying Barron in any way, and as if her husband didn't dish out far worse on a daily basis (children included) - and my sympathy for her wanes.

Completely banal. There is nothing at all there but a pretty face and figure. Of course that's what the MAGA crowd likes best, I'm assuming that's the reason the're always inches from creaming their boxers.

 

[Jaguar]

Where do I get my news? I don't.

It shows.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Regarding questions 1-3, I realize you feel very passionately about this particular issue, and that you've taken in a lot of information from sources I'd consider tainted to frame and fuel this passion. Unfortunately I don't have much to say on the subject, for one very specific reason I'll mention next.

It doesn't matter how I feel about them. The things I listed can be taken away from the actual Mueller Report, things Mueller said when he testified, and watching the impeachment inquiry. I listed the very basic things that aren't debatable, the bare minimum of what would still be true even if he's innocent of all the charges Democrats accuse him of.

Doesn't the idea of reading the actual Mueller report have any appeal, especially if you're actually going to get in conversations about it? How can you possibly have an opinion about whether he merits impeachment if you don't trust absolutely any news source about it?

 

[highlander]

She really does seem like such a vapid simpleton. I feel kind of bad for her when stuff like the "I don't care, do u?" jacket happens - because it seems highly unlikely she'd actually wear such a thing to make a statement about not caring about the hurricane victims, and it's even weird to me that so many people could interpret it that way. It was a stupid thing to wear, sure, but I don't think she'd especially given us any reason to think she's that malicious. (Stupid, self-absorbed, and spoiled - yes, but not malicious). So I feel kind of bad for her sometimes, like she could hardly have married the wrong sugar daddy.

But then something happens like the her recent tweet shaming someone for making a jab at Trump's delusions of grandeur by using Barron's name - as if that comment were actually bullying Barron in any way, and as if her husband didn't dish out far worse on a daily basis (children included) - and my sympathy for her wanes.

I saw an interview of her on 60 minutes and actually found her to be relatively intelligent. I was impressed with her. I think she went into the marriage with several million dollars in net worth due to her career as a model - which was pretty good for her age at that time. She had been successful on her own.

 

[highlander]

Where do I get my news? I don't. Until someone gets their shit together and starts producing actual news instead of sucking on the cash-cow teat of partisan trolling, I just stick to the local section of my regional newspaper. It's not my fault every news organization in the country decided to shoot their credibility in the face for the sake of lining their pockets, but I'll pay for it with ignorance I suppose. Better that than misinformed/addicted/miserable. Trump coming out and calling things "fake news" was just him pandering to his audience of conservatives that had been thinking that for a long time- his ability to give voice to those people otherwise completely unheard is largely why he's so popular with them. Before he came along people on the left never would have thought that the other half of the country thought that 90% of the news and media was absolute crap- but they did, still do, and aren't necessarily wrong.

That's why I watch the actual hearings instead of watching the news about them. I'm not seeing any news outlet that captures the significance and depth of insight of what is going on.

Trump wasn't entirely wrong with his "fake news" allegations and I agree with you there. The news isn't what it used to be. That being said, I find the news to be much more accurate than what he says on a moment to moment basis. He lies constantly and consistently, not to mention attacking anyone who disagrees with him so at least I know to expect.

 

[rav3n]

I saw an interview of her on 60 minutes and actually found her to be relatively intelligent. I was impressed with her. I think she went into the marriage with several million dollars in net worth due to her career as a model - which was pretty good for her age at that time. She had been successful on her own.

Are you aware of Aaron Banks in the U.K.? He too has an Eastern Block wife who managed to avoid being deported because of her treatment of her 54 year old U.K. first husband, in that she used him to gain citizenship. She was 25 at the time. How she managed to avoid deportation was that an MP interfered. This MP interfered because the woman he was having an affair with, was a Russian spy who pretended to be a parliamentary intern, had asked him to interfere.

Banks was investigated for illegally funneling millions of illicit pounds (suspected to be Russian money) into the brexit referendum. He has many Russian contacts and has met with Trump too.

My guess is that Melania is a honeypot, especially since her father was a member of the Communist Party of Slovenia. Aaron Bank's wife's father is also a member of the Communist Party but in Russia.

 

[highlander]

Are you aware of Aaron Banks in the U.K.? He too has an Eastern Block wife who managed to avoid being deported because of her treatment of her 54 year old U.K. first husband, in that she used him to gain citizenship. She was 25 at the time. How she managed to avoid deportation was that an MP interfered. This MP interfered because the woman he was having an affair with, was a Russian spy who pretended to be a parliamentary intern, had asked him to interfere.

Banks was investigated for illegally funneling millions of illicit pounds (suspected to be Russian money) into the brexit referendum. He has many Russian contacts and has met with Trump too.

My guess is that Melania is a honeypot, especially since her father was a member of the Communist Party of Slovenia. Aaron Bank's wife's father is also a member of the Communist Party but in Russia.

I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain what you are suggesting exactly? I'm familiar with honeypot as a computer security term but not otherwise. Wasn't Slovenia part of the USSR previously? Wouldn't most upstanding citizens at that time be members of the communist party?

 

[anticlimatic]

That's why I watch the actual hearings instead of watching the news about them. I'm not seeing any news outlet that captures the significance and depth of insight of what is going on.

Trump wasn't entirely wrong with his "fake news" allegations and I agree with you there. The news isn't what it used to be. That being said, I find the news to be much more accurate than what he says on a moment to moment basis. He lies constantly and consistently, not to mention attacking anyone who disagrees with him so at least I know to expect.

I don't watch the news, I don't follow Trump on twitter, and I don't watch his speeches. Something about them reminds me of Nicholas Cage's acting. If it catches my interest, I do love watching the raw kind of 'data' online- hearings, raw video footage, that kind of thing. Nothing brought up in this impeachment trail so far catches my interest to that degree. Same thing with the Muller investigation. I'm sure many others might take interest, but I just find it boring. But if I was interested- or if I someday become interested- the unedited hearings would be what I'd watch too.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain what you are suggesting exactly? I'm familiar with honeypot as a computer security term but not otherwise. Wasn't Slovenia part of the USSR previously? Wouldn't most upstanding citizens at that time be members of the communist party?

Slovenia was part of the former Yugoslavia.

 

[Warrior]

I don't care if Trump is guilty or innocent. Lock him up for all the hate crimes he's caused to Muslim women and Hispanics and Jews and other Muslims. Under this presidency I don't feel safe seeing a Muslim woman refugee with a headscarf get into an uber car. EDIT: "On many sides, on many sides....." EDIT: You can play "but he was doing hyperbole" "he was upset" all day, trump is not dumb he is a mastermind conspirator and a horrible human being and he deserves to get locked up with the same hardcore latin americans and african americans he despises......I bet they'd treat him real nice....

 

[anticlimatic]

It doesn't matter how I feel about them. The things I listed can be taken away from the actual Mueller Report, things Mueller said when he testified, and watching the impeachment inquiry. I listed the very basic things that aren't debatable, the bare minimum of what would still be true even if he's innocent of all the charges Democrats accuse him of.

Doesn't the idea of reading the actual Mueller report have any appeal, especially if you're actually going to get in conversations about it? How can you possibly have an opinion about whether he merits impeachment if you don't trust absolutely any news source about it?

I don't get into conversations about the Muller report specifically. Although I don't watch the news, I do talk to a lot of people who do- and listen- regardless of where they get it. I take interest in what's important to them, how they feel about what they hear about, that kind of thing. Most of what interests me in politics these days- since objective media coverage of it has gone the way of the dinosaurs- is more on a sociological/spiritual level. I don't have any grand ideas, hypothesis, or particular goals about it- that's just the lens with which I view it. And I have my basic principals that I vote for. That's about the extent of it for me.

 

[ceecee]

That's why I watch the actual hearings instead of watching the news about them. I'm not seeing any news outlet that captures the significance and depth of insight of what is going on.

Trump wasn't entirely wrong with his "fake news" allegations and I agree with you there. The news isn't what it used to be. That being said, I find the news to be much more accurate than what he says on a moment to moment basis. He lies constantly and consistently, not to mention attacking anyone who disagrees with him so at least I know to expect.

This is why CSPAN is the best thing in the world for the current time. No commentary, opinion or churnalism because that's all MSM is. Trump isn't wrong abut there being "fake news" but he is really only talking about any news he doesn't agree with or that shows him in a bad light so no one listens when he speaks any longer. He lies constantly and about the most minuscule things that don't even require lying.

I do find it interesting that Trump supporters often go to great lengths to show just how bored and uninterested they are yet are right there to jump on people discussing the things they find boring and uninteresting. Pick a lane.

 

[highlander]

Slovenia was part of the former Yugoslavia.

Which was communist.....

 

[Warrior]

Which was communist.....

actually they were market socialist. but yes, they were on the "communist bloc". market socialism is when allocation of resources is decided by the private sector, ownership is public, communism, or command socialism, both are public.

 

[Coriolis]

Which was communist.....

But not the USSR. The experience of communism was different across the Soviet bloc, with nations like Hungary and especially Yugoslavia considered the most lax, or western-oriented.