|
Post by debutante on Nov 2, 2019 12:39:54 GMT -5
Since the Democrats are willing to view "hearsay" as the equivalent of actual first hand information -- why not also accept "whistleblowing" on the "whistleblowers"? Attached is an account of the public behavior of one of the witnesses as told by another member of the armed forces who had ample time to observe him. From this account, it's apparent that this "witness" has his own agenda, and has had it, long before the issue of the Ukrainian phone call arose. This information is relevant as to his "motivation" for the claims he has made and calls his veracity into question. Yet, no questioning of the so-called witnesses is allowed. And this is why this Soviet Styled "impeachment" farce should be prosecuted as an attempted coup. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190077852680634368.html--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 4, 2019 9:59:20 GMT -5
Whistleblowers only point to problems to be checked by others. They have no power or influence except to expose. It's up to others to actually look at the problem. In the Ukraine case, first Trump totally denied that he said what whistleblower said, then later he and his staff admitted that he said it, but then they claimed it wasn't actually a crime. So according to Trump (and several of his people), the whistleblower told the truth. The question now is not whether he did it (he admits that he did), but whether or not it was illegal.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 4, 2019 10:35:45 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
I haven't read an admission anywhere. Not that it matters. According to Mark Levin, A constitutional law expert -- Trump was rightly executing his executive powers even if he had done this (which I still haven't seen evidence thereof).
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 6, 2019 9:56:00 GMT -5
At first Trump and his gang denied that he asked for the Ukrainian pres to investigate the Bidens or else he (Trump) would withhold military aid. Then a couple of days later, Trump and his gang admitted, publicly, that he did so, but then they said that it was not illegal. It's been on all the TV stations, papers, etc., even Fox. So that's the question now: is it legal for a sitting president to trade US taxpayer money to a foreign government in return for that government providing dirt on a political foe of the sitting president? There's no question now that he did it, only whether it's illegal or not.
The House Dems are going for two attacks. (1) abuse of power - is using the office off the pres for your own personal gain a crime? (2) obstruction of justice - if the abuse if a crime, did the pres and his people try to hide that crime.
The current impeachment investigation (which will take many months and will run over into prime campaign time next year) is merely a process to decide whether to file impeachment charges. I have no doubt that nothing will come of this because, even if the House Dems file formal impeachment charges, it's the Rep Senate that would hold the trial. And right now they'd probably vote along party lines and acquit Trump. So other than the general irritation of the investigation and pissing Trump off, nothing will come of it. Still, it's just possible that the Reps might step up and dump Trump. He's made many enemies in the Rep party (Ted Cruz, etc), and the only thing holding them back is fear of a backlash from Trump sheeple if they turn on him. But the Nov 2018 elections and the ones from yesterday showed strong support for the Dems around the nation, which means that a year from now the Reps may be running scared and willing to get rid of Trump to save their own jobs. The majority of the Rep party would much rather have Pence as pres than Trump, so I believe that they might make that change if they can figure out a way to do it and blame the Dems. If the polls next summer stay the same as they are this week, the Reps will be forced to do something dramatic or they will lose both the presidency and the Senate.
As I say, WAY too early to be making predictions. The American public is notorious for having a memory problem and only the things that happened in the past 4-6 weeks matter. So the question is: what will be in the news in the middle of Oct 2020? That's what will determine the election.
I can't find exactly how many Americans will be eligible to vote in 2020. All I see is percentages, not numbers. But we have maybe 360 million or so citizens, and let's say that 200 million were 18 in Nov 2016. Trump got 63 million. The other 137 million or so either voted for Clinton or didn't vote at all. So basically, the fight in 2020 for both parties will be to harvest as many of that 3/4 majority that they can. I saw one list that estimates there will be 5 million new voters per year between 2016-2020, young who turn 18 and new citizens. So maybe there will be 220 million potential voters to fight over. Lots of nastiness from both sides yet to come over the next year. And the demographics are changing. As old white men die off (mostly Trump supporters) they are being replaced by under-23 or non-whites (mostly Dem supporters).
As I say, right now it's impossible to predict. But the Dem's victories in 2018 and their victories in Red states like Virginia and Kentucky yesterday will be giving the Reps sleepless nights for the next few months.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 6, 2019 10:44:46 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
I'm not worried about Trump's fate. He will serve a second term (my source has never failed me).
What I suspect is happening is that the reports are being delayed for maximum impact just before the elections. I am frustrated that the wheels of justice are being delayed (and I believe purposely for effect).
They've got the "goods" -- they're staging it for maximum effect. However, they need to feed somebody to the wolves soon because people are getting restless.
Take this ABC revelation -- somebody needs to go to jail for not turning that evidence over to the cops. If they didn't want to run the Epstein story because they were protecting powerful people in politics here and abroad -- I can understand their fear of getting cut off of access to the palace. But they could have given the information to the police.
Instead ABC let that pedophilia continue for three more years (supposedly because the story wasn't ready). Yet, they went on the air with that goofball Christine Blasey Ford who is an obvious nutcase.
I want whoever killed that story in jail for aiding and abetting pedophiles. It won't happen, but it should.
The only good thing that's come out of it is that today I read a report that Prince Andrew's PR guy (who he hired to clean up his image after his association with Epstein became widely known) just resigned after two months. I don't know why but perhaps the fellow just felt he couldn't be party to it anymore.
Anyhow -- this pedophilia crap has to stop. I don't understand why they've got to bother children when they can have consensual sex with other adults. It's sick and twisted. I don't care how rich, famous, and well connected they are -- I want them in jail.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 7, 2019 8:40:33 GMT -5
Agreed. But it's something that's being going on as far back as we have history, so I don't expect it to stop any time soon. 8-<
Whistle blowers - The Reps have been airing the claim that the Constitution says you can "face" your accusers. But they're leaving out that the Cons is specifically referring to criminal trials only. An impeachment or an impeachment investigation is not a criminal trial, so it doesn't apply at all. The ONLY thing an impeachment can do is remove someone from office. If they've committed crimes, then that can be covered with a regular trial after the impeachment, with the usual fines and punishments. And that's when whistle blowers go public.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 7, 2019 12:05:17 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
But the problem is that you can't whistleblow because you disagree with policy. Apparently, Trump has a right to ensure that nations who receive funding from the United States do their part to see to it that the funds won't be used towards corruption. Also, that corruption in general is not a standard practice in the receiving nation.
From what I've gathered, the place reeked of corruption during the prior administration.
Also, there is no law stating that a candidate running for office is immune from investigation for past or present crimes. If there was, does that mean Joe Biden could grab an ax and hack his competition for the Democratic nomination to eliminate them and get away with it? Of course not!
The Dems are making up their own laws as they go along. They run to Obama judges who support them in this crazy behavior.
I wonder if the "deplorables" could file a class action suit against Pelosi and Schiff for attempting to invalidate their vote. Seriously -- I believe it might be presented as an issue of contract law.
The understanding is that citizens vote for the candidate of their choice to fulfill a certain set program. We are promised that if our candidate wins -- he will fulfill his promises to the best of his ability. This is technically a contract between the voters and the US government.
Pelosi and Schiff (et.al.) have done nothing but interfere in the execution of the fulfillment of that contract. They are now attempting to nullify it despite both parties -- the winning voters and their winning candidate wishing it to remain.
I don't think the losing party has this much power because this so called "impeachment" has totally left out one party to the contract -- the Trump voter.
Neither Pelosi nor Schiff should have the power to nullify my vote (and the vote of my fellow deplorables) without my (our) consent.
I think somebody should file a class action suit and see where it goes.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 9, 2019 8:45:27 GMT -5
>Apparently, Trump has a right to ensure that nations who receive funding from the United States do their part to see to it that the funds won't be used towards corruption. ---Most of the nations we give funds to are seriously corrupt, including Israel, the Philippines, etc. No one ever asks them anything. Trump didn’t ask for an investigation into general corruption in the Ukraine, he asked for an investigation only about his political foe. And he phrased it so it sounded like blackmail – if you don’t find something I can use, I won’t give you the money.
>Also, there is no law stating that a candidate running for office is immune from investigation for past or present crimes. ---Nope, nor should there be. This includes Trump with all his scams in New York, like the fake charities and fake university.
>They run to Obama judges who support them in this crazy behavior. ---Some of the judges are from Bush and some even from Trump. A judge’s loyalty should be to the law, not to a particular party or politician.
>Neither Pelosi nor Schiff should have the power to nullify my vote (and the vote of my fellow deplorables) without my (our) consent. ---So are you saying that if Trump chops up someone with an ax, he can’t be punished unless the people who voted for him agree? LOL
---An impeachment investigation is not nullifying anyone’s vote. It’s collecting evidence to pass on to the Senate, where, if there’s enough evidence, there will be a trial. Since the majority in the Senate are Reps, Trump could only be removed if the Reps go along with it.
---And keep in mind that many people who voted for Trump are supporting this investigation. It’s not just Dems. Also remember that we are a nation of maybe 350 million people and only 63 million voted for Trump. So this is not a minority trying to overturn the will of the majority. Trump has never had the support of the majority of citizens.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 9, 2019 9:49:33 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
I am going to be off the board for a bit due to an unforseen family health issue. Things are really chaotic and I can't give any reply the attention it deserves.
I'll explain later.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 10, 2019 9:01:06 GMT -5
Sorry to hear it. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Nov 11, 2019 14:14:47 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Thanks.
The good doctor spent his whole life taking care of the whole world and neglecting his own health.
I am ecstatic to report that he survived his coronary bypass which they just completed a short time ago.
It was the grace of God the way it was discovered that he had a problem. Since he retired, my husband kept booking doctor appointments for me for every little thing to the point that I was getting irritated. It seemed every week he has me seeing someone to make sure Nothing is wrong. Finally, one day I said, "How come YOU never go?" So I made him go for the first general check up he's had in over twenty plus years.
Next thing I know, he's scheduled for a coronary bypass.
This week has been pure hell. I can't live without him and I've been scared to death.
Weirdly -- he eats healthier than I do, exercises all the time, and weighs what he did the day we got married. It's obviously an inherited problem from his Dad's side of the family. They drop dead at the drop of a hat with no warning.
I eat garbage, never exercise, and am frankly more than a little overweight-- but I've been known to do stretches of the Pauling protocol. So, I have almost no blockage on tests.
Go figure.
But I am so happy he pulled through the surgery. I feel like a million pound weight just fell off my shoulders. They're keeping him asleep for four hours before they wake him so I won't see him for awhile.
Moral of the story...go for one of those calcium heart scans even if you think you are in good health.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Nov 12, 2019 8:35:13 GMT -5
good news indeed.
Both sides of my family used the classic redneck diet. Fry bacon in the morning, fry eggs in the bacon grease, save the grease and fry lunch and supper in it. Put butter on everything that you don't fry (biscuits, etc.), put salt on everything healthy (apples, watermelon, etc.). And as part off the lifestyle, never exercise and smoke a lot.
They all lived like that and lived into their 90's, so I'm hoping that I can match that with just a tiny bit of effort. I'm 73, but I basically eat like I'm 16, only just a lot less. LOL
|
|