Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:

My guess is that McConnell, Graham and Trump would be thrilled if the House never sends over the Articles.  How would that look in November?   The D's have no leverage here.

Jim

Maybe they don't have any leverage to force McConnell to hold what they call a fair trial, but withholding does have some advantages. One, it is driving Trump bonkers. Trump wants and needs a speedy acquittal in the Senate so that he can feel vindicated and then claim complete and total exoneration. Even though an acquittal in the Senate would not mean he is innocent, it would only say the politics favored that outcome. Two, the longer they wait, the more other evidence can pile on from other ongoing investigations. I seriously doubt that all of the misdeeds that were going on surrounding this Ukranian extortion scheme have come to light. There are more of Trump's and Rudy's and Perry's wrongdoings that have not seen the limelight yet. Three, I would not underestimate Pelosi's machinations. I'm sure she will send the articles to the Senate once McConnell and Schumer come to some agreement. Why should she be in a hurry when no agreement is available?

By the way, I want to point out how adult, calm, and even enjoyable some of this dialog has been. I wonder what could be missing that's preventing it from all turning into a series of childish tantrums full of name-calling and personal insults?

Originally Posted by James Brown

I have absolutely zero belief that for Schiff and Pelosi this is a matter of conscience.  For those two operators this is a matter of naked political tactics.  W/N Trump actually did anything wrong or illegal is completely irrelevant to these two.  

I similarly have zero belief that Trump is innocent, and had a perfect call. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump was trying to extort the Ukrainians to manufacture dirt on his political opponent. There are also ongoing investigations looking into whether or not they were using their political influence to try and land lucrative energy deals for their supporters. However, I do realize that some of the impeachment processes were just naked politics, whose only purpose was to harm Trump politically. At the same time, though, it's Trump's fault he got impeached. He thought that he could come to the Presidency and continue to use non-disclosure agreements and cut hush money checks to cover up his unethical and immoral behavior. Congressional oversight taught him differently.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Christianity Today

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html?fbclid=IwAR0LwvLRfsXCZ9gCBV4_W53139jIt0fToC9uzL-YrrAp8TaryDlEikPRKGA

"So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence."

This editorial could portend something significant. The cynic in me says they want Pence. We shall see what happens. We should all be watching the 538 polls over the next week or so to see if they shift.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

This will not be without cost to them, so I think you should take this at face value, whether they want Pence or not.

Indeed. I'm reading, though, that a lot of comments on their FB page from evangelicals are positive. Some negative feedback, of course, but a lot of positive reaction too. Here is an entirely anecdotal story. I have a friend who left her child-hood Baptist church community because she could not square her religious beliefs with evangelical support for Trump. She and her husband switched to Episcopalian not too soon after Trump was elected. She is absolutely over the moon about this editorial. One drop in an ocean of opinions I know, but still may be worth relaying.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

How does it feel to be a “useful idiot” 

Prediction. Rudy's fishing trip will amount to nothing, except maybe it will make his and Trump's position worse. Isn't Comey supposed to already be in jail? I mean, it's clear that Trump and his supporters love conspiracy theories, but seriously, have they ever been right even once? Let's be clear CrowdStrike is a Russian counter-intelligence ploy meant to deflect attention from their misdeeds. Hillary's emails amounted to no wrong-doing and no indictments, and similarly with Benghazi. Obama was born in the United States. Vaccines do not cause autism. Trump was not at ground-zero on 9/11. His inauguration crowd was significantly smaller than Obama's. He didn't lose the popular vote because of voter fraud. He didn't see Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on television on 9/11. Immigrants do not bring a higher crime rate. Obama did not pay a ransom to Iran. Ted Cruz's father had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. The Russia inquiry was not politically motivated, or a witch-hunt or a hoax. Trump was not wiretapped by Obama, and last but not least, wind-mills do not cause cancer. But yes, please, continue to tell us how Rudy is *finally* bringing the goods home.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

90 minutes after the "perfect" phone call:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/politics/emails-ukraine-aid-timeline/index.html

This latest revelation perfectly illustrates the leverage that Pelosi and the Democrats have, and it's why I've said multiple times 1) Trump's scandals are far from over, and 2) there is nothing wrong with delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Trump and McConnell would love nothing more than a speedy-rush to a sham trial in the Senate that supposedly "exonerates" Trump. One other thing that is interesting to note is that all of the Republican whinings about lack of process and not being able to call witnesses in the House investigations is translating into significant public support for witnesses in the Senate trial. If the GOP wanted to exonerate Trump, they would put Bolton, Eisenberg, Mulvaney, and others under oath. But they won't, because the truth is they have no exculpatory defense and their only choice is to deflect, and obfuscate and whine.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

90 minutes after the "perfect" phone call:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/politics/emails-ukraine-aid-timeline/index.html

Imagine what we would know if Trump had not obstructed Congress and the investigation. If they had exculpatory evidence, they would have presented it. Thank goodness for whistle-blowers, the fourth-estate, and our fantastic foreign service officers.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Stop being presumptuous! 

There is, without a doubt, naked politics going on, on both sides. For example, if the Senate were Democratic-controlled, the impeachment articles would already be there. Similarly, the White House would be in no hurry for them to arrive. However, Trump and White Counsel have yet to produce even a single drop of exculpatory evidence. Of course, the GOP and the White House peddle spin for why key witnesses like Mulvaney and Bolton are not cooperating. However, the spin does not belie the fact that they would provide valuable information about the President's intent when he did what no one seriously disputes. I agree with Schumer; what do you have to be afraid of Mr. President?

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Few people are wrapped up in the differences over witnesses.  A person that isn't involved in politics everyday needs to know in a sentence or two why he should be impeached. The Dems can't do it.

I think that most Americans understand perfectly well that it is unacceptable for a president to use the power of his office to extort foreign countries into investigating his political rivals. Most Americans know that a president should only be using the power of his office to act in good faith for the common good, and using that power for his gain is wrong. These are not difficult concepts to understand.

As an analogy, let's assume I'm a salesman at my company. My company happens to sell a product that provides a competitive advantage. A new customer of ours badly wants our product since they are facing an existential threat without our product. I happen to have a personal enemy who works at this customer's business. I tell the CEO of this business that I'll be happy to sell him our product, but I need a favor, though. I need him to blacklist and tarnish my personal enemies' reputation and make sure his career is dead on arrival. Someone turns me into our ethics and compliance board. What happens to me, Mel? Within nanoseconds, my company will fire me. This analogy is what the President did. If he were anyone else, he would already be indicted, charged, and be serving time in prison. Lock her up indeed.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I think Iran will probably attempt to retaliate, but they got a pretty good hit that I doubt they thought would happen.  

Soleimani's replacement is already in place, and his killing has done little more than provide a rallying cry for reprisals. No one in the West is grieving his death, but his death will not stop the threat from Iranian Quds forces in the region. If anything, this action has only served to ensure that there will be more conflict. It would be nice if we had an administration that didn't lie at every turn and who we could trust when they say the killing took place to disrupt an imminent threat. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and it's not evident that killing Soleimani, no matter how much he deserved it, was the best way to interrupt a plot. So much for getting out of endless wars. Wasn't that the justification used for abandoning our Kurdish allies in Northern Syria? This administration seems to operate its foreign policy on little more than impulse and whim.