Mattis is now officially part of the Deep State (Who knew?)
- Thread starter hopefultiger13
- Start date
For me anyway, any person who has spent part of their lives serving our country in the Armed Forces starts off with two big thumbs up with me. I respect the hell out of that and that person has to do a LOT to fall out of my good graces. So while I may disagree with their politics in general, I ALWAYS shut up and listen when they speak. Two great examples of this are former Arizona Senator John McCain and current Senator Tom Cotton. Don't agree with a lot of their politics, but I always listen with respect and try and think hard about their positions. That's one of the things that Trump does that really, really pisses me off. McCain had balls that dragged the ground when he walked. He served his country long and well. Both in uniform and out. But Trump is allowed to smear his good name and all Trumpians followed like good little robots. Trump isn't fit to carry McCain's jock.
I mostly feel sorry for General Flynn. He had a distinguished career and like many before him, was making money after retirement as a consultant. I don't have a problem with that. It's also my personal experience that most members of the armed forces are fairly conservative in nature. Again, I have no problem with that. The problems started when Flynn bought into Trump's promises on the campaign trail. Him starting that "lock her up" chant was not a good look for him IMHO. That's not what he was about and I think that doing that was not his own idea.
When Trump chose him for NSA, I thought this was a good choice. Like most Military guys, Flynn was loyal to a fault. And he made a HUGE mistake lying to the FBI about his consulting and then lying to the VP as well. I don't care that he was consulting with Turkey. I wouldn't have considered him a risk at all as long as he stayed out of Turkey/US business. However, I DO CARE very much the he lied about it. THAT is what you CAN'T do. Again, I feel that a misplaced sense of loyalty to Trump was primarily to blame, but Flynn can't be in a position like NSA when he refused to truthfully answer FBI questions.
So he had to go. Just another person on a very LONG list of people who went to work for Trump and regretted it when Trump dropped them the second they weren't useful.
I mostly feel sorry for General Flynn. He had a distinguished career and like many before him, was making money after retirement as a consultant. I don't have a problem with that. It's also my personal experience that most members of the armed forces are fairly conservative in nature. Again, I have no problem with that. The problems started when Flynn bought into Trump's promises on the campaign trail. Him starting that "lock her up" chant was not a good look for him IMHO. That's not what he was about and I think that doing that was not his own idea.
When Trump chose him for NSA, I thought this was a good choice. Like most Military guys, Flynn was loyal to a fault. And he made a HUGE mistake lying to the FBI about his consulting and then lying to the VP as well. I don't care that he was consulting with Turkey. I wouldn't have considered him a risk at all as long as he stayed out of Turkey/US business. However, I DO CARE very much the he lied about it. THAT is what you CAN'T do. Again, I feel that a misplaced sense of loyalty to Trump was primarily to blame, but Flynn can't be in a position like NSA when he refused to truthfully answer FBI questions.
So he had to go. Just another person on a very LONG list of people who went to work for Trump and regretted it when Trump dropped them the second they weren't useful.
Lol. Where did Clinton attack gold star families and John Mccain's service to our country?
Please mofo.... All you needed was a Clinton reference to post that here. Clinton didn't serve in the military, he also didn't call veterens un american or not so good etc.
Fact is that conservatives hate that they have to love this guy right now. Because if they admit they fvcking hate the bag of excrement that means 'they' won.
Uh sure. You don't like Clinton we get it. Welcome to the present. Sorry about your feelings
Good call. Been listening to audio of Biden and many other dems using the word "lynching" back in 1998 to describe Clinton's impeachment.
Again, I actually like this post, b/c I can't stand double standards. And that's just ONE of the reasons I despise Trump. He thinks the law and rules are for OTHERS, not himself. But both Dems and Republicans are full of double standards (it's probably the main reason that I would be embarrassed to be associated with either party). I actually don't have a problem with Trump and his lynching comment. I think it's inaccurate, but I don't see anything wrong with it per se. Just like our senator Graham. He said back in the day that the President didn't even have to break the law (just act badly) to be impeached. My how he has changed. But I digress.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Bill Clinton should have been removed from office. He committed Perjury. Period. That's a felony. It's becoming more and more clear that Trump violated the law (although we still don't KNOW that... that's what the impeachment process in the HoR is for). I have a REAL problem with Pelosi not calling for an impeachment vote. She's having it both ways (investigating the President w/o committing to anything... that's wrong... not surprising, but wrong). As much as I despise Trump, I'm still not sure that what he did (IF he did it) rises to a crime that should have him removed.
Last edited:
Both sides do it. But that doesnt mean we have to accept it either way.
whatever fits the agenda of the day drives words and actions. This witch hunt is just plain dumb. They will go apeshit when the next Dem president is faced with this type of crap.
just do your job and support the people. Put up better candidates and win it in the polls.
Your job is not to invent impeachable offenses and waste time and money on frivolous investigations all in the ultimate goal of stalling our progress for 4 years.
I like this comment except that i am not sure he.violated the law. So far everything I have heard about the quid pro quo stuff would have removed every president ever. There is a line between negotiation and quid pro quo. And I am not seeing where he crossed it yet.
The law is pretty clear. You CAN'T get anything of value from a foreign government that can help you in a federal election. It DOES NOT MATTER if the person in question is engaging in criminal activity or not. You can't do it. Period. Now we've only seen a memo of the actual transcript of the phone call. And the investigation is still ongoing. But William Taylor just testified that Trump held up the aid until Ukraine started a Biden investigation. Taylor was appointed by Trump's Sec of State and has been a diplomat for years, first appointed by Bush in 2006, so this is NOT some Dem that's lying his ass off.
I agree that that would be illegal. But so far has not been proved. The big smoking gun lately was a quid pro quo not related to Biden.
But is the quid pro quo even illegal? I would assume that ANY President could and would use US Aid as a lever to advance US interests. When you give someone money/military aid or whatever, they "owe" you. If they pay for the equipment, it's just business. For example, if Trump said I'm holding up your aid unless you vote this way in the UN Security council, I wouldn't bat an eye. I don't see a problem.
HOWEVER, when you hold up the aid, and the condition you ask breaks US law, THEN we have a problem. Because you broke the law, not because you asked for quid pro quo. Am I wrong here?
Under questioning from Rep. Radcliffe, Taylor admitted there was no Quid Pro Quo. There has to be a Quo before there is Quid Pro Quo. The aid was ultimately released and there is no evidence that the Ukrainians even knew the aid was being held back. Their words; not mine. To my knowledge, the Ukrainians never re-opened an investigation into Burisma.
Like him or not, Trump has been questioning all of the foreign aid dole outs since he first began campaigning. In my view, he should be careful about doling out money; especially to countries that have a history of systemic corruption.
un.f*cking.believable.
You trump disciples ability to constantly move the goal post is astonishing. Before yesterday you were adamant that trump did not withhold money to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate Burisma. After Taylor's testimony yesterday, now your story is yes he did but he eventually released the money so it doesnt count? ****s sake man.
This is similar to your argument about the Mueller report that Trump didnt obstruct justice because he never committed the original crime. That is the same as me being investigated for murder, then going out and murdering the witness, then claiming I cant be prosecuted for the witness murder because I was not proven guilty of the original murder.
IMHO, the quid pro pro doesn't even matter. Trump could have just called and asked them to open an investigation into Biden. And it would be illegal, regardless of quid pro quo or even Biden being a criminal. The law makes no provision either way. You can't get anything of value from a foreign government with regard to a federal election. Period.
I'd like to see your sources on this. Because what I'm seeing is that after being told that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taylor said Sondland told him that if Zelenskiy didn’t publicly announce the investigations, there would be a “stalemate.”
He took “stalemate” to be code for holding up the assistance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor’s text messages take the story forward:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” he wrote to Sondland.
Sondland waited five hours to respond with a clinical denial of any such contingency: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He reportedly talked to Trump before he sent the response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is from the AP Article here: https://www.apnews.com/4f32a3adcf2943bd901cf37446260c9d
So SONDLAND told Taylor via text there was no quid pro quo NOT TAYLOR. BIG DIFFERENCE! And FWIW Taylor did not believe the explanation.
Like I said, show me where Taylor admitted this.
Last edited:
OH NO.... It seems that the Ukraine Powers that Be actually DID KNOW about the military aid freeze... Breaking News from the failing NYTimes.
"The President and his allies have had a simple response: There could not have been any quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know the assistance had been blocked.
Following testimony by William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, to House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the freezing of the aid was directly linked to Mr. Trump’s demand for the investigations, the president took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to approvingly quote a Republican member of Congress saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had “provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.”
But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.
The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records."
Here's a link to the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html Note that I had to log in through facebook to view the article.
Also note that MediaBias/Fact Check has this to say about the NYTimes:
"The President and his allies have had a simple response: There could not have been any quid pro quo because the Ukrainians did not know the assistance had been blocked.
Following testimony by William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, to House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the freezing of the aid was directly linked to Mr. Trump’s demand for the investigations, the president took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to approvingly quote a Republican member of Congress saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had “provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.”
But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.
The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records."
Here's a link to the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html Note that I had to log in through facebook to view the article.
Also note that MediaBias/Fact Check has this to say about the NYTimes:
- Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors. The failed fact checks that occurred were on Op-Ed’s and not straight news reporting.
Well, of course there is no link because Schiff/Pelosi have put a gag on the Repubs in the closed door hearings. Everything you're referencing is what Schiff is leaking to the press. McCarthy and other repubs have stated that can't reveal what happened in the room, but that Rep. Radcliffe shot down Taylor's testimony in the first 90 seconds of his questioning. Until Schiff makes the hearings and testimony public, we don't really know anything except what Schiff leaks. Can a POTUS be impeached behind closed doors in a SCIF without being given basic legal rights? Why can't the public watch or even read transcripts. WTH is Schiff up to?
I don't trust anything Schiff would ever do or say. He's already lied a couple of times regarding the WB. In fact, I believe he conspired with the WB.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/23/...john-ratcliffe-impeachment-witness-testimony/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...d-ukraine-aid-collapsed-destroyed-at-hearing/
FYI: I don't have to tell you that Breitbart and DC are right wing sites. lol. I also watched McCarthy state the same things on FOXnews last evening.
So you don't believe Schiff b/c he's lied a couple of times. Hell, man Trump lies ALL THE TIME and you believe every damn word he says. I don't really trust Schiff either, but if Donald Trump told me it was raining, I'd damn sure look out the window before grabbing a rain coat.
I've linked an article with actual quotes from the testimony from the associated press. I'd be willing to be that there's more than a single Representative behind it. Like recordings or something to take quotes from. The AP is pretty accurate as a rule.
And Republicans can't reveal what happened but they revealed what happened?
AND the dailycaller is not just a right leaning site they are fact challenged:
Overall, we rate the Daily Caller strongly right biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact checked on a per article basis.
and good Lord, breitbart
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.
The repubs can't state what was said because of Schiff's gag order, but somehow, Taylor's opening statement gets leaked to the press. Go figure. I'll take sides with the people fighting for transparency. If you believe this secret inquiry is legit, then you have have no problem with the USSR or any common Banana Republic where people are commonly prosecuted without the Due Process that is the cornerstone to the American way of justice. Clinton wasn't treated this way. Neither was Nixon. Respectively, the minority party in each situation was allowed to bring their own witnesses, the POTUS in each situation had his legal representative present for the hearings and could cross examine. You do know this is not happening. It's a kangaroo court.
Trump hasn't lied about what he claimed he would do for America, if elected. He's either done it or is fighting like hell to get it done. Like him or not, no one can say he's not the most transparent president in at least a generation.
So now you're going to excuse Schiff lying about his contact with the WB? Schiff needs to be deposed! I'd be willing to bet that Schiff and Pelosi conspired with the WB,( who once worked for Biden and didn't tell the IG about his prior contacts with Schiff,) to manufacture the whole thing!
lol. Who is fact checking your fact checker?
I see your fact checker getting fact checked often. Plus, both of these sites were spot on during the Russia Hoax investigation whereas anything else you can point to, was not. Or, do you still the Russia investigation was legit? lol
Hey send this one to your "fact checker"
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/23/military-leader-of-syrian-kurds-thanks-trump/
...and this one:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ss-bill-taylor-he-has-fourth-hand-info-video/
I say lets cut out all the secrecy and have open meetings. I will certainly not believe anything that is leaked by Schiff to Marxist press. Hey, for that matter, remember when the dems were screaming for Barr to release the Mueller report, which he was not legally required to do? He always said he would, but the dems screamed anyway, you know, for effect. Why now, does everything have to be is secret. Are you not the least bit concerned about the lack of transparency?
Last edited:
There's a BIG difference between not enough evidence to prosecute and innocent. I believe that you've said that a time or two yourself. But I did say that I would trust the Mueller report and I don't believe I've mentioned the Russia investigation until today. If it was such a hoax, why are all those Trump folks in jail for lying? Why not just tell the truth if there was nothing to hide? Yep, don't believe Schiff or the Press, but believe the liar in chief. I'm down with cutting out the secrecy.
Like I said, you don't believe these folks but Trump lies ALL THE TIME. And his word is gold right?
AND NOW THIS
https://apnews.com/a089ddade65f42978c45147aa4ec2dca
lol oh man... this is getting unbelievable. Are republicans, who have access to the same witnesses, really simply stopping questioning of those witnesses by another political party, because they are scared? Sure looks like it.
https://apnews.com/a089ddade65f42978c45147aa4ec2dca
lol oh man... this is getting unbelievable. Are republicans, who have access to the same witnesses, really simply stopping questioning of those witnesses by another political party, because they are scared? Sure looks like it.
Dude, I said it in another thread. Truth has no place in Trump's defense. It's whatever sounds good and makes Trump look good at the time. There was no quid pro quo is soon going to change to ... yep, there was quid pro quo but it's not impeachable. And every Trumpian on here will be spouting that line like it's directly from God's mouth (which to fair, came from Trump, so it's kind of true for them). The fact that Trump lied to them about it earlier will mean NOTHING.
Trump is right even when he lies. Trumpians will support him NO MATTER what.
Dude, Truth has no place in your post. Sondland doesn't remember any such thing. Fake news still racking your brain. Some of these people are saying they "assumed" a quid quo pro. They admit they had no direct knowledge of anything. In fact, Sondland, who actually spoke to Trump about the situation, was told there would be no qpq from the man himself; not to mention that the situation itself, never played out as a qpq. Keep on hating though, because it is amusing.
Look at the transcript of Sondland's testimony. Especially, the parts that he "forgot" the first time around. He now "remembers" a conversation with a Ukranian staffer where he said that the aid was contingent on an investigation into Biden.
Here's the AP Quote:
"
Sondland, in an addendum to his sworn earlier testimony, said that military assistance to the East European ally was being withheld until Ukraine’s new president agreed to release a statement about fighting corruption as Trump wanted. Sondland knows that proposed arrangement to be a fact, he said, because he was the one who carried the message to a Ukrainian official on the sidelines of a conference in Warsaw with Vice President Mike Pence.
“I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland recalled.
His three-page update, tucked beneath hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from Sondland and former Ukraine Special Envoy Kurt Volker, was released by House investigators "
So basically Sondland has now joined the Deep State because we KNOW that Trump wouldn't lie to us right? You are getting behind the times. I'm sure that if you've watched Hannity tonight he's told you what you NOW think. That even though there was quid pro quo, it's not an impeachable offense. AND Donald Trump NEVER said that there was no quid pro quo and he also NEVER said that the Ukrainians didn't even know about the money being held up. After all, what are you going to believe... the things that came out of Trump's mouth a couple of days ago, or what's coming out now.
And the AP Article here
Last edited:
The only actual quote that you posted:
“I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland recalled.
He actually used the word "likely". This would mean he really wasn't sure, just assuming. The only real evidence he could possibly give is his actual conversation with Trump.
Really don't care what you believe, because you're gonna hate regardless, but here is a fact check of your article:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-sondland-did-not-prove-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/
Trump said it best about people like you...
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?” Trump said, mimicking firing a gun with his fingers. “It’s, like, incredible.”
LOL. Highly amused by all you left wing, truth denying, haters. Can't wait for the dems to try and take this crap into an impeachment trial with nothing but hearsay and assumptions as evidence; especially following the IG report, which will precede the Durham indictments. Will be sweet to sandwich a good ole Impeachment Trial in between those two.
The truth about people like you... you have have no desire to follow the Constitution nor the rule of law. With left wing, truth deniers, the ends always justify the means. You're a Joy Behar democrat. Can't wait to hear you justifying Obama admin. criminal conduct during the 2016 elections.
