Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Seriati

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65
General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 11, 2019, 06:55:27 PM »
The particular "moron" comments was directed at Trump specifically for suggesting negative interest rates, not about tariffs or such.  For that I can call him a "moron" and suggest that he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

If you were looking at what I was looking at he was commenting on the Fact that the EU actually has negative rates now as a comparison the lack of support he's getting at the Fed.  Given the EU has negative rates are they morons?  Not sure where you mean to go with that.

But saying that a great economy is completely the result of Trump's policies is not true, either.  And predicting that the economy would tank because Warren or Biden gets elected is not based on facts, either.  It's all speculation and expectation, not reality.  And eventually reality comes home to roost.

See above, Trump's policies are not the "cause" of the economic success.  Getting out of the way of the economy is.  That's the opposite of what Biden and Warren are signaling.  They've literally promised to take over control of most of industry and constrain every choice of businesses based on "fairness" rather than economics, and they've promised to take away wealth on top it.  There's no chance that's not going to kill economic optimism.  Whether the future slave class of America can still generate gains remains to be seen.

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 11, 2019, 06:51:01 PM »
Although I think you're right that the direct structures are different I'm not so sure it's more than a difference of scale, as I do think there are unofficial partnerships between the U.S. government and various corporations, most especially tech and military.

That's actually a different issue.  Every government has contractors that work directly with them for a host of national security and other reasons.  There are plenty of companies that deliberately cultivate US government contracts.  The difference is that Google - which has cutting edge AI research that is necessary both for National Defense and for offensive spy and military purposes - can and does refuse to work with the US government and keeps that tech to itself.  In China there's no such potential bifurcation.  Any tech the government finds useful is by default government tech. 

Would Nike agree to let the US government place spies as its employees in other countries?  They might on an exceptional basis, for a Chinese corp its not an exception, its just the expectation.  Would Nike engage in active spying efforts and report the information to the CIA?  We'd be lucky if they revealed accidental information.  Would a US company share stolen tech with the US government so it could be distributed to other US companies in the same industry?  No, cause those are it's competitors, yet that happens frequently in China - because they aren't really competitors at a fundamental level.

But every President and follower who take credit for a great economy is just blowing smoke.  It used to be that Republicans were sensitive to smoke.  Nowadays, though, it looks like they breath it in like fresh air. ;)

I think though there's a confusion here.  The credit I'm giving Trump is that he freed the US economy to do what it does.  I've never given one iota to a thought that his policies are responsible for the success directly.  That's fundamentally what's different between Trump and Obama on this point.  The success of the economy is being generated by the people and companies operating in it.  Trump's biggest "policy" that allowed them to do this is to make it clear that he'll get the government out of their way (less regulation) and let them keep more of what they generate (tax reform).  The delusion on "fixing" the economy is on those who believe they can "stimulate" growth by their specific top heavy choices and directives.

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 11, 2019, 01:32:13 PM »
I wasn't basing my reply on the assumption you meant China alone. I was basing it on the assumption that you're thinking of foreign governments as being the ones competing against the American government and linking that to trade practices like offshore labor and cheap imports.

I think if you really look at the trade barriers they put in place, it's foreign governments fighting with American (and recently "global") companies.  The US governments official policy has been to stay out of it on the partisan level, which is diametrically opposed to the policies of non-US governments.

China takes that a step beyond and considers it corporations as proxies of the government in an economic war, complete with high level cross overs and coordination with it's actual military and spy networks.  The idea of a "Chinese Google" refusing to work with the Chinese government over politics is actually inconceivable, yet in America is routinely occurs.  Even in our European allies there's a lot more cronyism going on than appears to the naked eye.

What's new is corporations within a country also competing against their own country, effectively taking jobs elsewhere to cut costs and to 'pass along the savings' at Walmart, where the people who previously had better jobs now work.

But my point is, its not "within any country" that this occurs, it's largely "within America" that this occurs.  That's the direct result of the US position that the level playing field is the most important thing and the position of everyone else that the playing field should be tilted as much as possible towards their own companies and economies.

US institutes a political policy that China doesn't like, China responds by changing an economic policy.  France levees a new tax in the tech space that only applies to companies with large amounts of global revenue (ie not to 99%+ of French companies), which are almost exlusively based in the US, and the US doesn't react at the governmental level.

Back in the day, like in the British Empire, the East trading companies were operating in a sort of pillaging way, making use of resources and colonies abroad to enrich the homeland. While we decry those sorts of behaviors now (except in practice we actually don't) at least they had the virtue of desiring to enrich their own country. Now it's the opposite, where utilizing resources abroad actually ends up harming their own country,...

Except it literally doesn't harm the countries in the way you think, specifically because those countries are directing how it happens.  It's the strategic goal of China to centralize the world economy in China and all their actions are designed to do that.  They don't care if all of their companies operate at a loss for decades if the end result is control over virtually the entirity of the world's heavy or high tech industry.  Our specific policies of not fighting trade wars, even when the other side is definitely fighting a trade war, got to the point where it was harmful and exploitable.  Our goal was to ensure the most efficient producers and companies would win, not to ensure that a government could fund monopolies at a loss to put all of our businesses out of business with impunity.

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 11, 2019, 10:38:32 AM »
Calling names makes you big again?

It occurred to me last night that you may have taken my "moron" comment as being directed at you.  It was not, in the slightest.  It was directed at Trump.

No worries, I didn't think it was directed at me.  I wouldn't have reacted if you had directed it at me rather than using it as part of an argument.  It's sloppy thinking to think Trump doesn't understand things because he's reaching different conclusions.  In fact the results of what he's done, like using tariffs, are making me personally realize that I've been relying too much on the "experts" without examining exactly what they were saying.  In this case that the export of US jobs to China and other jurisdictions was a feature of the system, but don't worry cause our jobless people will have lower prices and our rich people will have more money from which to pay those taxes.  That the important things is "no US tariffs" no matter how many trade constraints the non-US actors impose.

Sinclair [economics professor at George Washington University] said GOP policies that cut regulations may have helped lead to stronger business investment under the Trump administration, but it’s hard to blame or credit a presidential administration for most economic outcomes.

Indeed, as we have noted time and again in fact checks, experts say it is wrong to attribute too much to individuals or particular policy changes. There are simply too many factors in the economy to boil it down to one.

Trump's cutting regulations and tax cuts may have helped the economy.  His trade wars have hurt the economy.  But overall economic growth has too many players and influences for Trump or any President to have control over it.

I think though you're misunderstanding what that quote really says (or maybe more accurately the fact checkers are misunderstanding the concept they are citing).  It says it's hard to attribute change to particular policy changes.  It leaves literally unsaid whether changes can be attributed to policy changes that are of much broader scope.  This ties directly into your first request that we list out the specific policy changes and their direct impacts - can't really do that.  However, what actually happened was a fundemental shift of ALL policy, which changed from viewing the economy as harming social goals to viewing economic success as the way to achieve social success.  That impacted literally every decision of the entire government.

Or to put it in simpler terms, there's little question that if Warren or Biden get elected and don't moderate their goals that it will have a massive impact on the economy and business confidence.  Again, that's a general and complete change in EVERY policy of the government.

It's almost impossible to believe that a government NO MATTER WHAT it does wouldn't be able to impact an economy.  If that were the case, communist economies and capitalist economies should largely and randomly have been great or bad, and that's not remotely how it plays out in real life.

Fen, when I'm referring to China they're - in my head - really a proxy for the entirity of the less developed world as well as for themselves.  They just happen to be the biggest and one of the most aggressive players there.  But when it comes to running a trade war, virtually all the economies in the world have imposed constraints on trade that disfavor the US.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 11, 2019, 10:16:39 AM »
If its not against the law, as Seriati suggests, then no investigation required. End of story.

So if Biden is the Vice President at the time of his conduct, the options for investigating the conduct really boils down to Barack Obama or Donald Trump.  A rule that an "opponent" can't do the investigation is effectively a rule for something even broader than Presidential immunity.  An absolute immunity for acts of a Vice President, if those acts are not caught by the President of his own party before he leaves office. 

Of course, there's a direct conflict of interest there, and there's zero chance it would be looked upon as legitimate if say Trump declared that what appeared to be a crime by Pence as having been properly investigated and not a crime.  We don't even have to ask, the Trump DOJ already looked at the call and said there was no crime.  Which literally answers the question you are asking, yet you're still asking it and the left/media is still literally writing that it's a crime.

Again, one would think that Trump releasing the actual call AND the whistle blower complaint would be viewed more positively than Schiff making up what's in the call (because the call didn't say what he wanted it to say), conducting secret hearings and "leaking" tidbits that help his case.  If you asked an alien to look at which person was acting like the liar in that circumstance it's hard to imagine they wouldn't say Schiff.

The arguments pointing to Biden guilt or innocence is in my opinion not relevant to the question, nor is reputation.

As a technical matter you're correct, for the purpose of a crime.  For an impeachment not so much, as the issue there is not whether what Trump did was illegal, but rather whether it was a misuse of public office.  And while it shouldn't matter whether Biden's guilty if the investigation itself is legitimate (and there's no reason to believe it's not legitimate to investigate when Hunter's benefits are really indefensible), it just does cause that's the way we're wired.  If Joe's guilty then we'd have little choice but to see the investigation as legitimate (how could it not be if there's a real crime), and if he's not guilty we're going to flip the scrip and claim that in hindsight no reasonable person could have thought he was (and therefore the real motive was an abuse of power).

And this is even worse because it's Trump.  Whether it's legitimate or an artifact of a massive manipulation campaign by the media (which did happen) not even his supporters are SURE he's acting for proper motives and his opponents can't even accept that he COULD BE no matter how plausible the circumstances.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 04:17:55 PM »
That is the question. Is it against the law to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival directly in the way Trump has done? If so both Trump/JFK are guilty.

It's not illegal to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

In fact, in the US it's the executive branch's responsibility to investigate potential crimes whether committed by their allies or their enemies, whether it makes them sad or makes them glad.  Think about the "opposite" position, that people not in control of the government are exempt from investigation?  Or that no one can investigate someone from another party (might want to let the AGs of a few states including NY know that they are violating the law in their investigations of Trump).

The only way this is a crime is if Trump is asking them to make something up.  There's no evidence that did occur (which is more than one can say for the "help" requested and received by the Obama admin to investigate Manaford (only after he became associated with  the Trump campaign)).  If Trump isn't asking for a fake investigation, then this is a political difference (which kills the WB protection by law) in that Trump is pursuing a legitimate policy goal related to the enforcement of Justice - in which case EVEN IF there's a "quid pro quo" it's okay, that's exactly what the "best case" version of what Joe Biden did is - quid pro quo for a legit policy demand.

You still seem to be saying that a president with a good/bad reputation can break the law in the pursuit of the "justice"?

There's zero question that Obama got away with things that would easily trigger an impeachment of Trump.  Can you even imagine if Trump told his base he couldn't do something unilaterally that only Congress could do it, then decided to declare an entire program with the stroke of a pen?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 03:23:03 PM »
Just wana throw this out there.  The search for more "context".  That's called investigating.   ;D

And what's it called when you have 9 hours of testimony and a big bunch of documents that apparently undermine your case, and all that gets released is less than a page that apparently contradicts (when viewed out of context) the results of the "investigation"?

Oh yeah, that's called the House Democrats business as usual.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 02:13:26 PM »
I'm not trusting - at all - leaked transcripts that were specifically leaked to be as damning as possible.  For goodness sakes, there are people on your side claim that Trump's call transcript is not good enough and yet, you want to hang your hat on snippets leaked from 36 pages of text messages and 9 hours of testimony?  The word is that the testimoney killed the whole quid pro quo argument, so why is it that all we get to see are the worst parts without context?

Trump decided it was no longer in our strategic interest to support the Kurds.  That's all that mattered.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say we were supporting the Kurds.  That makes it sound like our policy was to advocate for their independence.  I think, rather, we were attacking ISIS and were supporting anyone in that fight.  Turkey refused to provide the troops and the Kurds were interested - hence we were allied.  I also think the Kurds are sympathetic and as I said above I wouldn't have a problem if we did choose to support them, but I've never seen anything that suggests we were there to support the Kurds.

I think if Trump had chosen to support the Kurds after ISIS is defeated he'd be exceeding his authority (if the Kurd's had a country they could invite him, which is a nasty consequence of this, but without a country he's literally on the ground of countries that are hostile to the US staying).

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 12:48:53 PM »
Except all the contacts were through Gulliani, not Barr.

Guilliani was investigating the matter as Trump's lawyer.  The accounts I saw said he'd largely ceased working on it months previously.  Do you have different information.  Trump's reference to G in the call, was because he was knowledgeable on the subject (you know, cause he did the research on it), but he asked that they coordinate with Barr.

I think you may be misremembering (or may have been deceived by the media).

What I'm saying is that without an active investigation in the US the president shouldn't be pressuring foreign heads of state to start one.

There is an active investigation of the sources of the 2016 election interference.  And the "investigation" into Biden's son, as well as to the 2016 election interference both directly reference speaking to the AG not Giuliani.  So again, it seems your standard has been met.

Some evidence of corruption has to also exist within the US, without that evidence and process Trump shouldn't be bringing this up in a call with foreign heads of state.

That's a false standard.  Do you think the DOJ is prohibited from investigating violations of US law that occur completely on foreign soil?  The foreign corrupt practices act would disagree.  Not to mention, such acts would also be subject to impeachment investigations.  In any event, if you want an "act" you have Biden bragging on tv in the US about forcing the prosecutor out, which is enough to tie it together (or would be to any experienced RICO prosecutor). 

If there were investigators within the US who were being stone walled by Ukrainian officials and they requested help getting the relevant information then the request is appropriate. Starting the investigation at the WH, running it through the presidents personal attorney, and passing it off to a foreign head of state is not an appropriate process.

There's no expectation that "stone walling" is required to lead to a contact. And I think that you are completely discounting what it's very likely that Trump believes, and that I would suspect that Barr believes as well, that foreign intelligence agencies and/or state department staffers were involved in the frame up that the 2016 election interference that triggered Mueller's probe.  I've not remotely seen an adequate explanation for the amount of spies and foreign government involvement around Papadopoulus (where one spy told him about Russian emails, another spy relayed that to the Australian government, and apparently the US government dedicated undercover resources to investigate him personally).  You have an English spy behind the dossier, with heavy reliance on false statements that originated in Russian/Ukraine.  Against that backdrop the President asking the Head of State actually makes far more sense that going through the diplomatic/intelligence channels that seem to have been misused/involved in the conduct.

Not to mention, I think your timeline of passing this through G to the DOJ is probably false.  It's also an interesting claim to make that Trump's lawyer investigating illegal activities of his opponent and passing that to the DOJ is somehow wrong after spending years defending Hillary's use of Perkins Coie to solicit foreign interference in the 2016 campaign.  Is it wrong or not?  Does it make a difference that Hillary turned up Russian propaganda, and that G appears to have turned up actual conduct?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 11:44:18 AM »
Here's the thing, I've said it multiple times here. If Biden is corrupt the place for that investigation is within the US justice department. Not in Ukraine, while military aid is being withheld while Trump is asking for this investigation.

The request was to contact Barr - ie to refer the information to the US justice department.  We have treaties in place specifically with foreign countries for assistance in connection with investigations where the facts in question reside on foreign soil.  The Ukranian President asserted multiple times that their process would be fair and didn't promise to deliver helpful information, to which Trump repeatedly said that was good.

So pretty much, this is exactly what you say should happen.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 11:14:46 AM »
Seriously though, keep doubling down.  As of now, you all seem to be on record as opposing a fair process and believing that the intent of the framers was to authorize a Kangaroo court in the House, notwithstanding everything they ever wrote or did with respect to fairness and process.

The house doesn't have to do any investigation. They could simply vote to impeach with a list of charges and send it to the Senate.

I agree.  The problem is not that the House can impeach, the problem is that the House DNC want to conduct a show trial on impeachment.  The "sole" power to try impeachments sits in the Senate, who are required to do it under oath, something that is missing in the House.

My second problem is the House using it's impeachment authority for the purpose of trying to generate political dirt to influence the 2020 campaign.  That's not why they have the power either.

If they want to vote out articles of impeachment today, go right ahead.  But trying to run a partisan trial process to "convict in the court of public opinion" is not in their authority.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that they will expressly try to claim that the Senate trial is fake.  They also have the option to vote to investigate if they don't feel they've got impeachable offenses yet (though, every committee head has flat out said they do).  And then we can see if their investigation authorization looks like they intend a fair process or witch hunt.

Here's the thing, I think its likely Trump abused his power in office. I honestly don't think its worth the house impeaching him over because the Senate seems certain to acquit him. A censure vote is probably the right balance here unless something more damning comes out that the senate Republicans simply can't ignore or explain away.

I think the Senate is likely to demonstrate that Trump did not abuse his power, not just to refuse to remove him.  That's a big part why they didn't move on the Mueller obstruction charges, the legal basis was false (which would have come out in any kind of process, but the media ignores) and the "facts" largely consisted of opinion differences.  How well does Comey saying, "Trump did it for this reason" hold up versus two dozen witnesses and public Trump statements saying it was for this other legitimate reason?   Answer it doesn't, but Mueller didn't have to include all those statements in his report.

The history of the Kurds in the region is complicated.  Ideally, I'd hold to the principal of the UN that every people is entitled to self determination.  That means four countries in the area would almost certainly lose a part of their land to a new independent Kurdish state.  So why hasn't that happened?

US airstrikes against ISIS were followed up largely by Kurdish separatists to create a controlled terroritory.  Are they really terrorists as Turkey would assert?  I doubt it, but I haven't found a way to get objective information. 

Optics on what Trump did are horrible.  Pull out Americans and Turkey commences with Air Strikes.  But the alternatives are what?  Do we establish the Kurdish state?  If that was an acceptable possibility it would have already happened (and I don't fully know why the west has never supported it).  Do we declare a perpetual American presence?  That would allow the Kurds to create a state ultimately and most likely through violence and most likely through border conflicts that cross the line into terrorism.  Do we declare it a no fly?  Sure that stops the optics of the fighters, but does nothing to stop the well funded Turkish army moving on the ground.  And both the later options are a "soft" commitment to Kurdish independence that actually increases the chance of harm.  Do we pull out?  The almost certain result of which is to suppress Kurdish independence and cause the regional powers to assert themselves over the Kurds.

I guess - to me - the right answer is based upon a simple question.  Are the Kurds getting their own state?  If yes, then it should be declared and the World should back it.  If no, then it's hard to understand the intermediate processes of protecting the Kurds while they try to create it through force.

So you tell me, is it really just a simple question of not abandoning your allies?  If it is then I think you have to support forming a Kurdish state, which included part of an ally's (Turkey's) territory and how are you going to deal with that.

Maybe I'm missing something, that should persuade me there's a clear answer - I definitely lean towards allowing new states to form.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 05:15:39 PM »
As of now a memo written by the WB on July 26 is public. It has all the same stuff as the WB complaint. Does the conspiracy theory now require that Schiff was involved the day after the call?

Just read the memo, most of it's claims are more incorrect than they appear in the WB account.  In fact they're down right false when compared to the released call - even if you were to argue that the call has edits (which there's literally no evidence to support) many of the bullets would not be true unless it was also materially falsified (again no evidence of this, and next to zero chance it happened).  The fact that the WB does not fully align with the memo, including for the reasons I listed above, is a lot of evidence that it was in fact crafted by a team of lawyers.  The "memo" reads like what you'd expect a whistle blower to relate.  Of course if this memo had been the complaint, it would have been compared to the call record and properly dismissed as false.  Lucky for us it got redrafted.

And again, I note the "parallel" to the behavior of Comey, in drafting memo's to support a treatment that the recollection is more "proven."  Given this is on the 26th, and it's already materially erroneous, it sounds as if there's a real possibility that this person was fed a line to sell.

You may also note that the memo notes that the call transcript should be treated as "eyes only" and yet, the cabal backing the whistleblower seems to have have freely discussed it (or at least '6 or more' of them), and not to have seen it to be a duty to accurately relate the information.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:16:50 PM »
Wow, he moved a department about agriculture to the part of the country that engages in agriculture.  Couldn't possibly be because it'd grown complete unresponsive to the industries it's regulating?

I have no problem with whistleblowers.  I have a problem with labeling this as a whistleblower situation.

Seriously though, keep doubling down.  As of now, you all seem to be on record as opposing a fair process and believing that the intent of the framers was to authorize a Kangaroo court in the House, notwithstanding everything they ever wrote or did with respect to fairness and process.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 02:50:49 PM »
No basis in history?  Except the rights missing were in the other Presidential impeachments.

Why exactly are you afraid of a process that lets the President's lawyers cross examine the witnesses?  How exactly does it improve the decision of the House and the American people not to get all the facts out up front?

The fact is, your position is unAmerican, and I think you know it.  But this show trial only works if only the Democratic message - without regard to the truth - gets put on the table.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:43:58 PM »
Oh bull*censored* scifibum.  The House has never conducted a Presidential impeachment in this manner.  The precedents are rare, as they should be, but they are crystal clear.  And the House is the one that is issuing subpeonas - the Constitution directly speaks to that. 

There's no legitimate basis to argue that the entire basis of our legal system - the adversarial process - has no bearing on the House's investigation.  Only someone who does not want the truth to come out, and who believes that partisan bias is enough would call for that.  Seriously, your argument boils down to a technicality, and supports ignoring the constitutional rights to assistance of counsel, freedom from compelled testimony, requirement of probable cause and right to confront your acusser.

Your argument is literally that the House is entitled to run a banana court.  If you believe that then you have no basis for believing that Trump is guilty of anything.

And RL, I don't have to believe Trump, the transcript was released.  IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE LEAKER'S CLAIMS ON THE IMPORTANT POINTS.  Calling me a partisan doesn't fix the flaw that the leaker either lied or was grossly mistaken on the relevant points.

Ignoring the fact that this seems to literally be connected to Mueller's failure to deliver an impeachment, and the collusion with the House DNC and seeing this as anything but partisan is ALSO highly questionable.  I curious, did you anywhere respond to any of my questions on the fact patterns that relate to the DNC?  Again, you didn't because this is partisan and there is no legitimate basis to ignore the situations that have more factual predicates but involve Democrats.

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:28:38 PM »
As I recall, part of the reason they "colluded" was that they will still need to produce 2 different models even with the deregulation.  Because even if Trump prevented California from upping the standards, the rest of the world (e.g. Europe) would still require those standards.  So this was the case of having similar, worldwide standards so that they didn't have to produce 2 models, or of having two different standards and having to pay the cost of 2 models.

Not even remotely correct.  EU and US models are not now, nor would they be in the future the same.  The EU has a completely different mix of cars/SUVs and trucks than the US and generally uses smaller vehicles in every classification.  The issue isn't that Ford wants to build SUV's in a single plant in the US to send to the EU, it's that they don't want to produce a "CA complaint Ford" that is otherwise identical to the Ford in the rest of the country but costs $12k more, nor does the US government want to let them dump the costs of the CA version on the rest of the country by requiring they be sold at the same price.

Plus the fact that those higher standards are likely to come back (if Trump is even able to force CA to let them go) once Trump leaves office.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  The standards are aspirational not realistic.  For a single vehicle they'd have to double their gas mileage in 6 years - not possible, so they have "credits" that can be earned for doing things like selling electric cars - a good thing - but doesn't justify putting every manufacturer that can't produce them out of business.

Announcing that job killing regulations were going to be repealed.  Yes that was enough.  Announcing we'd move to a competetive tax rate.  Yes.

Which simply means that the market responded before the regulation reductions and tax reductions were a reality.  Hope for change.  Not actual policies or actions.  Just promises.

Change in policy.  You seem to think that's the equivalent of vapor ware.  The business community knew that Obama could be counted on to add costs and burdens to every thing on earth, to look to tax everything on earth and generally to undercount the economic consequences of his actions.  Believably announcing a change in that policy is a real thing.

In fact, I'm dumbfounded here, so many "change in policy" announcments have made real impacts in so many fields that it's almost like a serious case of willful blindness to make this claim (I mean heck, look at what a "sanctuary city" is, it's just a "change in policy" afterall).

Which also means that, if the hoped-for change is not up to snuff, the economic upturn turns to dust.

That doesn't make sense.  Does the LGBTQ community give up on Obama if the court's frustrate a reform?  Rational people, including business people, make judgements based on their belief in what an administration's policies are trying to achieve, not just it's sucess and failures.

Or to put it another way, a failing Trump is thousands of times better for business than a sucessful Warren or Sanders.

First, I doubt you're accurate on Trump's economic understanding.

LOL.  Well, everyone has an opinion.  I suppose you like the idea of negative interest rates for the Feds, too.  What better way to get people to invest in Fed bonds! :)

That's your answer or is it intended as a "proof" of some sort?  I get it, calling people stupid makes you feel smart.

But second, the Fed was acting ridiculously.  For all people want to rewrite Obama's history to pretend he had a great economy, the Fed didn't believe it and tried to prop him up with the lowest interest rates in history.  When Trump got the economy bouncing back the Fed literally tried to put on the breaks because of "inflation concerns."   You know what we haven't had?  Material inflation, yet they clearly overcorrected and have had to back off.

Have you forgotten the Great Recession already?  We needed those interest rates down to stimulate the economy to get it moving again.

Didn't forget that.  It's part of what I think is a poor economic model, but it's still a legit belief that many hold that such a policy would work.  It didn't work though, because even with historically low interest rates Obama's policies were all about dumping massive expenses on the economy.

I saw someone say that we should pay down the debt when the economy is hot and run deficits when it's not.  But the corallary that seems to be ignored is that we shouldn't layer expensive and business killing regulations on the business world when the economy is in recession.  But Obama had no choice, he was a believer and he had to pursue his non-economic policies while he could whether or not the economy could bear them.

Obama started with a lousy economy.  But while he was in office, it built up again, at a rate comparable to increase during Trump's time.

Obama started with a lousy economy.  He did not build it up at a rate comparable to Trump.  In fact, his policies were a direct drag on what should have been a good recovery.  This revisionism you guys participate in explains why you end up believing time and again that failed policies will work in the future.

But the main difference is that Trump started with a good economy, which meant that that growth could easily have created inflation.  The Feds were doing their job, just the way they were intended to.

The Feds are reading out of a playbook that is wholly dependent on an economic philosophy that may not be true.  Trump's economy was threatening to prove it wasn't true, and they literally overreacted and slowed growth.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at how they've had to walk it back after they actually slowed growth.

Even the NYTs acknowledged that the tax cuts gave big benefits to the majority of the tax base, with the middle class recieving real benefits that proporationately had a bigger impact on their incomes than the tax benefits to the rich.  It's kind of just a lie and a talking point to keep repeating the false claim.

It is also just a lie and talking point to ignore that dollar-wise, the rich and especially companies gained the most.

Oh like WOW, you mean people that pay 90% of the taxes got more dollars back from a tax cut?  Shocking!

You guys got caught selling a major lie about the middle class tax cuts, let it go.  When even the NYTs admits it was a middle class tax cut it's over.

It's like a said: the Democrats may be the Tax and Spend party, but at least they tax.  The Republicans are the Cut Tax and Spend party, because they don't understand basic accounting. :)

That's kind of funny, certainly was true for Bush.  I think the new truth is that Democrats are supporting confiscate and spend but still funny.

Trump didn't create the trade wars, he's just fighting back on the ones that have been running for decades.  I think the confusion here comes from misunderstanding the Economics 101 claim that tariffs only hurt yourself.  I mean honestly, the US has the least restrictions to access of our markets of any country on Earth, and when we "trade" with China they exploit us at virtually every turn, yet "Trump started" a trade war with China by putting on mild restrictions compared to the Chinese ones?

Oh, come on.  You know better.  It's not just China.  It's Europe, Mexico, Canada.

I do know better, do you?  I agree, all of those countries have spent decades imposing unilateral constraints on trade to the detriment of the US.  Heck I've even provided links to the report the US compiled on them (hundreds of pages long).  That includes individual countries in the EU as well as the EU.  Trade with the US has been a silent cold war, that's been complicated by our media's refusal to report anti-comptetive policies as part of a trade war.

He's imposed tariffs or threaten to impose tariffs on just about everyone.  And for the most half-assed reasons imaginable--"National security."  Bull!  There was never a national security threat from steel imports at this time.  He only used that excuse because it gave him authority to impose them.

Lol.  Did you forget the prior discussions on this?  Or did you just not read the.  Steel is a national security issue, and the broad based tariffs were designed specifically to target Chinese steel produced at a loss in an effort to seize the strategic market in steel.  They were released expressly when other countries agreed to provisions that constrained the ability of the Chinese to flood those other countries markets with steel (which would have displaced the other countries steel into the US).

Otherwise he couldn't do it.  So the next time you pay hundreds of dollars more for a new washing machine and dryer, remember that you're doing it to keep you country secure! ;)

Where are you buying a steel washer and dryer?  Lol.  I'm more concerned about how washers and dryers have usable lives of less than 10 years, when they used to last 30 or more.  Want to explain that against a backdrop of a word that has too much pollution and over production?  My last washer had a component that spins the drum that in fact dissolves when exposed to steam (which the washer actually produced intentionally) - the way it was cited made it unreparable. 

So to be clear, do you want US factory jobs?  It seems like you have before.  Can't have em if you're going to buy everything cut rate from China.

And while you might think he imposed tariffs on China to counteract Chinese tariffs, look again.

Love this claim.  I never said he did it because of Chinese "tariffs" I said he did it in response to a Chinese trade war.  This is the same thing the media does, they look for "tariffs" and ignore EVERYTHING else.  China was literally engaging in the monopolistic practices of selling below cost to gain a strategic benefit by putting others out of business.  It's literally part of their policy (e.g., the one belt one road initiative).

But hey, let's declare them "good guys" because they didn't use "tariffs" only cutting corners on environmental concerns, product quality, intelletual property theft, and government subsidies.

He never consistently stated exactly which tariffs he wanted removed.  He keeps moving the line, changing what he wants.  Ultimately, he seems to want China to buy as much of our stuff as we buy of theirs.  And for some reason he thinks he can dictate that in a free market.  ::)  I doubt that he truly understands what that means.

Based on what you say, I don't get the sense you understand trading and world markets.  China's market is artificially closed, Trump wants it to open more.  China's business success is built on cutting quality and environmental corners and stealing knowledge, Trump wants that playing field to be more level.  China literally uses government funding as a form of economic warfare to dominate trade in critical areas, Trump is doing what any US President should and reacting to protect our strategic interests against that.

And, yes, we all understand that tariffs hurt China as well as us.  Do you think Trump understands that they hurt us as well?  If so, how do you explain him tweeting that China is paying for the tariffs.  ;D  As if he didn't know that tariffs are paid by the importer, not the exporter.  Moron.

Calling names makes you big again?  I think Trump has correctly deduced that the tariffs are barely marginally hurting the average person, and are in fact redirecting a big chunk of high value jobs into the US, which is in fact helping the common people.  Who are they really hurting?  I suspect, if you follow the money its the same "corporate bad guys" you want to tax and regulate, who maximized their profits by exporting jobs, quality control and environmental compliance to China.

So yes, I get it, Econ 101 "tariffs bad" but I also get that notwithstanding that aggregate trade is hurt, these tariffs are providing direct and specific benefits to real people and acting to reset the overall trade in a way that will be better than before.  That's just a fact, even in Econ 101, if you accept the rule that constraints on trade are always bad, using a tariff to force the Chinese to lift their constraints on trade must end up being a net good.

So what about the Republican non-deficit hawks?  They bear none of the blame?

Sure, they're the same guys that supported Bush's spending without constraint.  Blame them too.

When Republicans start blaming their own for the deficit, then I'll listen to you.

So are you listening to me now?  I'm not convinced that there are more than a handful of politicians - in total - that are serious about cutting expenses.  Every cut punishes someone who becomes an angry voter, every payout makes a voter happy.  There is zero incentive for the politicians to cut and every incentive to spend.

But until then, as long as the deficit is always the Democrat's fault, I'll call bull.  Republicans are worse for the deficit than Democrats, because at least Democrats are willing to raise taxes to pay for the spending.

That's really just a delusion though.  Democrats are raising taxes to punish people not to increase spending.  Go back and read old stuff from Pyrtolin, the reality is that Democrats really just believe in printing money to what ever extent they need to fund the things they want.  The public demands a "fig leaf" to the idea that money is a real thing, hence the need to show taxes.

Well, he's done a lot that is objectively bad for the economy.

Okay, what would that be?  Best case I can see is the mixed bag of tariffs, which have real tangible benefits and for which the harms are hard to see, and even there that's designed as a short term pain for a long term gain.

And the stuff that he has done, it sounds like most of the exuberance has come from anticipation rather than actual implementation.  The objective evidence you have provided (rather than reassuring me exists somewhere) is a bit thin.

This is why we have trouble communicating.  There are thousands of regulatory reversals that you haven't bothered to look at, yet you seem to think your ignorance of them is evidence.  You can't understand why the economy is having positive results, even though those directly responsible for each of the components can and have told you (if you look for it in the media). 

What do you want me to say?  Just keep being "mystified" when the world works based on observable inputs and reactions, but I wish you'd stop voting based on willful blindness.

Oh, by the way, let's not forget that the tax cut was primarily Congress' plan.  I don't recall the Trump Administration doing more than telling them "send me a plan"--much like Trump's plan to end ISIS in six months after he was elected (Candidate Trump: "I have a great plan to end ISIS in six months!"  President Trump: "Generals, give a plan to end ISIS in six month!"  ::) )

Okay.  Sure, go with that.  And I learned my lesson about thinking you would be asking a question in good faith.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 12:15:08 PM »
I'm a elementary guy. And you didn't answer the question

The facts say Trump didn't do what the leaker says.  The motivation of the leaker has nothing to do with Trump making a call, and everything to do with the leaker lying about the contents of the call.
Funny that few are arguing that Trump didn't do what the report claims he did. Instead is diversion, diversion diversion.

Trump didn't do the material things the the report says he did.  This is the Trump dossier redux, mix a lie in with some truth and claim the "verification" and support of the true parts makes the lie true too.

Deep down I think you know your on the wrong side of this one.

What scares me more, is that deep down you don't know you're on the wrong side of this one.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 12:11:38 PM »
So Grant, I read through the timeline you quoted earlier, it's pretty partisan and anti-President.  I found it fascinating how quickly the media can compile something when it's anti-Trump and seem to find a lot of "supporting" items (but can't seem to be bothered when it's not anti-Trump, or able to find confounding items). 

It was fascinating to see where they "start" their timeline and what they treat as background.  They treated Hunter's appointment in 2014 as background and focus on the corruption in the Ukraine at that time.  A problem on which the US and EU should be aligned, correct?  It's seems though that they "forgot" about what was actually going on at that time, and the real dispute BETWEEN the US and the EU related to the Ukraine.  Specifically, the EU was considering expanding it's energy relationship with Russia by purchasing oil and gas from Russia, and the US was hard selling the EU to isolate Russia and, by "coincidence" to buy oil and gas from the Ukraine.  Hunter got that position at the exact time the US government was pushing Ukranian energy for the purpose of isolating Russia.  Interesting timing that Biden is front man on the Ukraine at the exact time we are pushing Ukranian gas to Europe and his son ends up at a Ukranian gas company.

So what about the corruption angle?  Apparently, a big part of the EU reluctance to use Ukranian energy over Russia was tied into the corruption problem, with numerous payments and loans from the EU being redirected to oligarch accounts and being defaulted.  Makes it hard to get those  Ukranian deals going.  Not evidence - to me - that Biden pushed the prosecutor out to save his son, but seems open and shut that Hunter had inside knowledge and exploited his connection (almost certainly with his father's knowledge) to end up in a position to benefit from US policy.

Another tid-bit that gets ignored.  The call with the Ukranian President was literally the day after Mueller's public testimoney.  The issue of how the fake investigation got started was completely on Trump's mind, in his tweets and in his re-tweets.  It's not remotely shocking that he would have asked the Ukranian president about the origins of that probe and the information that was in the Ukraine.  Given the closing of the book on the witch hunt into collusion, Trump and Barr were launching multiple investigations of how DNC lies triggered both spying on a campaign and a two year investigation.

Well, that really sheds some light on the motivation.

Does the motivation of the WB mean Trump did not make the call?

No, it speaks to why the leaker misstated the contents of the call and drafted an impeachment roadmap that they pretended was a WB complaint.

Crunch, I know it's hard, but you're going to have to try to understand that "Democrat" does not equate to "Not Allowed To Do Anything". So far, it looks like the allegations in the complaint are holding up just fine.

Is there another complaint?  The only material "allegations" have for large part been shown false, and were shown false as soon as the call transcript released.  Yep the "allegation" there was a call turned out true, but the allegations of the contents did not.

Specifically, the "allegations" said that multiple officials with direct knowledge of the call said that "after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."  Not true.

"Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid."  Not true, which is exactly why the "no quid pro quo" line is so powerful and why the media and Schiff have falsified statements to create a meme that wasn't there.

"According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia: initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;"  Not true, no pressure was present.  As far as "asking for a investigation" it was in the form of 'lots of people are talking about it' and whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.  In other words, what facts do you have on what looks like a violation of law, and could you send them to the AG (not Rudy).  It's also interesting given that we now know that the investigation had been reopened well before the call - which was apparently not something that the media/DNC wanted widely known, that the leaker hedged the bet.  Since that info was available open source, and he had no problem compiling things related to Ukraine and claimed expertise thereon, it seems like the leaker would have known the answer to that question.  It would have massively undercut the entire basis for this "report" if the investigation was already known to be occurring, but they clearly couldn't resist the hedge - which says to me that they in fact knew it was ongoing and are afraid that when they get revealed the fact that they did would become evident.

"assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine,..."  This is sort of true.  The request for such assistance was the "favor."  But the reference to "Russian interference" was not directly in there.  Rather the actual request was for information in the Ukraine related to the "whole mess" with the 2016 election.  Whether you believe the investigation of Trump's campaign was fake or real, information about either situation would be about a crime and an appropriate request of the President (I think it's obvious what the President believes or he wouldn't be asking for it to be sent to Barr).

"...with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016;"  It's fascinating that this allegation is there.  No where did the DNC get mentioned, nor the work about Russian hackers.  Crowdstrike and "servers" were mentioned, and that's likely a fair implication but claiming it was a "specific request" and then including the extra details make it misleading.  Especially given the lead in discussed in the prior paragraph.  This is in FACT part of the President's duty and he again specifically referenced the AG - who is in fact currently conducting an investigation into how the FBI's counterterrorism investigation started and morphed into the Meuller investigation. 

So, again, proper exercise of executive power, and that's before you even consider that CrowdStrike's reputation for faking things has come to be, and the only source of "Russian" hacking of the DNC servers comes from Crowdstrike.  Not denying the possibility of course, only that it's a heck of a lot to turn upon the word of an openly partisan company with a reputation for manipulating situations and whose claims are politically useful (or more useful say than a finding that four or five countries breached the servers, or that the Chinese downloaded them would be).

"meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem."  This is actually false.  Barr was never presented as a "personal envoy" only as the AG in connection with legitimate investigations.  The linking here was done on purpose and with malice.  Rudy wasn't mentioned until the Ukranian President brought him up, largely because they had met with him months before.  Trump didn't declare him a personal envoy either just someone knowledgeable on the situation (which is literally true, given he was spear heading the investigation in his capacity as one of Trump's lawyers).  In any event the "linkage" was largely just that Trump said he'd have both of them call the Ukranian, only once implying together and several times implying separately.  If you look at it, the repeated references most closely resemembles someone trying to get off a call by repeating the next steps.

That's just from page 2 of the compliant.  So again, it's not holding up on any material claims.  It's an old propaganda trick to mix in a bunch of true but innocuous statements that relate to the manipulative lie.  That's all you're seeing here.  The leaker's opinion about the call is irrelevant when we have the call.  The leaker's claims about the call are false and don't hold up.  If you want to give the benefit of the doubt, this shows why second or third hand information is not admissable in court, cause even a "well meaning" recipient of such information is getting information that's been passed through a game of telephone to say things it never did.

It does not matter if the whistleblower had a bias, what matters is what Trump did and why.

It does matter if the leaker had a bias.  I can't overlook the "coincidence" that the leaker produced an impeachment road map, that he discussed with House DNC committee members prior to August 12th, which is literally in the two week period immediately following Mueller's testimoney implosion that killed any real possibility of using his report as an impeachment road map.  This doc was purpose built to "save" an impeachment looking for a cause.

There's no good basis to accept hearsay that is contradicted by the record.  There's every reason to view this as an illegal leak and not a whistle blower complaint, and that goes 100% to the leaker's bias.

What Trump did - didn't violate any laws, and seems reasonable in light of the conduct being investigated, and I presume his reasons include having been subjected to a 2 year investigation of fake crimes by the deep state and wanting to get to the bottom of it.  How many times has he said some form of "this can never be allowed to happen to another President"?

There are other witnesses and documents that will help show the truth of the matter.

There really are not.  Unless there's another call with Trump this is a fake issue.

So far, we have Pompeo asking if he's allowed to punish people for cooperating with the inquiry.

Really?  We have the actual letters that the House DNC has sent threatening to punish people if they don't cooperate - notwithstanding that the threats are not remotely in compliance with existing law.

We have text messages that show diplomats had reason to believe Trump was asking a political favor and might have been holding back military aid until the favor was promised.

You have a leaked text message (interesting how that particular interrogation was conducted behind closed doors and the leaks are partisan - but nothing to see here), that shows someone asked about whether there was a quid pro quo and was expressly told the direction from the top is that under no circumstances will there be a quid pro quo.

We have witnesses to the call that the ICIG interviewed and found consistent with the WB complaint.

Do we?  Show me.  Are those witnesses expressly claiming the call record is false?  Cause otherwise what we "have" is evidence of more coordination to bring a false claim.

We have the WH ordering people not to comply with the inquiry.

You should read the WH's letter.  It's directly on point about the abuses going on here.

If you can't answer anything else, explain directly, why you believe the House process doesn't need to be fair and comply with Constitutional protections.

General Comments / Re: The appearance of impropriety
« on: October 09, 2019, 10:24:01 AM »
Not sure what you're asking, prior to the hyperpartisan era, recusals for conflict were in fact common even in significant situations.  They still occur routinely in non-partisan situations.

I mean here's a link to an ABA write up of recusals in 2016 (granted they were hyper focused because Kagan had a lot of situations she had to recuse from, and that potentially impacted the ability to push liberal positions through the court).

Not sure how commonly prosecutors recuse themselves, or if there are metrics on other judges (I assume so).  I suspect you're going to see a lot more of these complaints going forward, after all there's a reason that Soros started heavily funding district attorney campaigns.  Whether you see that as a search for better justice, or the ability to exert political control over the bringing of charges is probably a function of which party you support, but there's no question that it's making the elections he touches far more partisan than they ever have been before.

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 08, 2019, 04:31:53 PM »
I know, NobelHunter.  It seems that the economy is doing well in spite of what Trump has done, rather than because of.

Trump has created trade wars, which eventually will cause a downturn if not a recession.

Trump didn't create the trade wars, he's just fighting back on the ones that have been running for decades.  I think the confusion here comes from misunderstanding the Economics 101 claim that tariffs only hurt yourself.  I mean honestly, the US has the least restrictions to access of our markets of any country on Earth, and when we "trade" with China they exploit us at virtually every turn, yet "Trump started" a trade war with China by putting on mild restrictions compared to the Chinese ones?

Did Trump require that to do business in the US a Chinese company has to build a US plant that will be majority owned by US persons (and not of Chinese descent), that all proprietary technology to the companies process must be held in the US in the company files and that the US government have access rights to review it for "compliance"?   Did the US government then steal that information, provide it to US compitetors of the Chinese company, who undersell the products and even export them into other markets undercutting the Chinese company and provide no ability for the Chinese company to have redress in court?  Or was in the US that has a giant industry that exists solely off of pirating Chinese intellectual property?

Yep, Trump "started" a trade war when he put tariffs on Chinese steel produced under market prices because the Chinese government is subsidizing steel for strategic reasons.

And I'm fascinated by how, notwithstanding economics 101 and how nothing but harm comes to the US workers by using tariffs, under Trump and as a direct result of those tariffs factory jobs to produce things in the US have been increasing as have wages to low and mid skill workers (pretty sure, just saw lowest unemployment rate for high schools grads since they began the measurement).  If you listen to them, globalists knew that loss of these jobs was a consequence of not protecting your trade interests (ie, the previous US policy of "free" trade where the other side doesn't have to be free), they just couched it in vague and misleading terms about lower prices (without jobs even low prices are no help).

Trump has tried to influence the Federal Reserve Board's decisions, even though he hasn't a clue on how macroeconomic works.

First, I doubt you're accurate on Trump's economic understanding.  But second, the Fed was acting ridiculously.  For all people want to rewrite Obama's history to pretend he had a great economy, the Fed didn't believe it and tried to prop him up with the lowest interest rates in history.  When Trump got the economy bouncing back the Fed literally tried to put on the breaks because of "inflation concerns."   You know what we haven't had?  Material inflation, yet they clearly overcorrected and have had to back off.

Yeah, the tax cut put a lot more money in the pockets of the rich and companies.  But with the yearly deficit almost at $1 trillion ($200 billion more than last year's deficit), you'd think those CEOs would be worried.

?  Even the NYTs acknowledged that the tax cuts gave big benefits to the majority of the tax base, with the middle class recieving real benefits that proporationately had a bigger impact on their incomes than the tax benefits to the rich.  It's kind of just a lie and a talking point to keep repeating the false claim.

I am concerned about the deficit.  Tax revenues while increasing haven't yet increased by enough.  Spending though?  No one is putting any brakes on that, which leads to bigger deficits (the last reported deficit is $700m).

If any Democrat had done any of these things, the economy would tank.

Well only superficially, because a Democrat would never have done anything Trump did for the right reasons.  A trade war?  Would have been to support a social rather than an economic policy, ergo it would have been a double whammy on the economy.  Lowering taxes?  Dems do it ALL THE TIME they just do it through cronyism and deals with connected people for tax breaks.  Big suprise that Solyndra didn't spark the economy.  Last time I checked its the Democrats screaming for the literal "tax breaks" for rich people SALT deduction to be restored - there's virtually no middle class tax payer that's hit by the current cap, yet it's a major concern of the Democrats (and the media hides the hypocrisy for them).

But because Trump did it, the Republican deficit- and economic-hawks are fast asleep.  It all looks like irrational exuberance to me.

I agree on the deficit, but I think you're confused about what happened.  The Dems have supported Trump's spending, there are more Dems than there are Republican deficit Hawks.  In fact, this is the one area where there's been cooperation (albeit quite and not talked about by the media, first rule of Deficit Club is no one talks about Deficit Club).  Dems wanted out of the sequestration limits (and to be fair the non-deficit hawk Republicans wanted out of some of them too), so they all agreed to put it on the table. 

It's a win win for Congress.  Dems get more spending.  Republicans "can't do anything" and Trump takes the wrap for signing it and "undermining the Republican spending cuts."

That's why I'm trying to get my head around what Trump has actually done.  Because what he's actually done has been bad for the economy, and those who talk about the good things he's done as so vague as to be meaningless.

I'm struck by how you can ask what he's done, admit you've done little reading, not understand how any of it impacts the economy, and then conclude that what he's done has been "bad for the economy"?

It's like objective evidence is beyond your ken.  I can't understand why the Partiots are winning, I mean they keep scoring all those touchdowns but that's not the way you win.

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 08, 2019, 03:59:25 PM »
I can't say that I have researched this, but then again, I don't know where to look.

Pick any deregulatory effort and take a deep look.  Pretty sure I saw you post on the whole stink between CA setting it's own emissions standards versus the US having a uniform standard and the Trump admin revoking their exception.  Both the standards Obama pushed and the ones CA has pushed will not be reached by gasoline powered vehicles and require extensive increases in electrical cars to meet.  Last I heard is that compliance with the CA standards vs. Trump's standards is expected to add about $12,000 to the price of new cars, SUVs and other light trucks.

Why do you think four car companies "colluded" with CA to try and avoid lowering the standards?  Because they don't want to pay the price of producing 2 different US models (which is  a massive cost for them), and they know they could never compete with US "standards" cars sold in the remainder of the country that cost $12k less than the CA compliant model.  If you can get your competitors to agree not to compete problem solved. 

The economic implications of this are enormous.  Whether you like CA's position or not, you have to realize that an extra $12k per vehicle is a massive burden on working and even middle class families.  If you couple it with required replacement standards it becomes obscene.

Or heck, think about the consequence of the lower corporate tax rates.  Tax inversions have virtually ended, and some have reversed.  Profit in the US is not currently something to be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Obviously business confidence skyrocketed after Trump took office.  But why?

Compliance burden is a big part.  Compliance offices in every industry massively expanded under Obama as a direct result of his policies.  Every single part of a compliance office is effectively an economic waste.  Granted they often serve other masters, and provide other benefits, but economically they are waste (and the fact that you are "avoiding fines" is not real economics, the fines themselves are punishments designed to put non-economic terms into economic terms specifically because those concepts do not properly track in economics).  When the balance goes from doing business to complying with law it stunts growth (in an industry I've been connected to for decades, the one man shop effectively became illegal (with a minimum of four being required - 3 of which had little to do with the productive business, other than by accident) and the average "small" shops tripled in size and generated hundreds of times the previous records (not to mention extensive regulatory meetings requirements).  The "improvement"?  Largely nominal.   Massive costs, itty bit rewards.

Were there specific policies that businesses liked, and so their confidence soared?

Announcing that job killing regulations were going to be repealed.  Yes that was enough.  Announcing we'd move to a competetive tax rate.  Yes.

Or was there some vague superstition that, since Trump was a businessman himself and a Republican and made some vague promises to cut regulations, everything was going to be great?

I think, if anything, Trump's business acumen was called into question.  But cutting regulation isn't really all that vague, at least to anyone that's ever had to comply with them.

Unfortunately, I don't know where to find articles that answer that specific question.  Yes, the Wall Street Journal probably has some, but I'm not going to go through several weeks of issues just to find them.

What articles are you basing your opinion on?

Hundreds of em, as well as conversations with clients both prospectively, during and after the fact as they've expanded what they were doing, been willing to do more.

I'm strongly tempted to believe that this "business confidence" thing is the corporate equivalent of the Deep State. Which is to say either a conspiracy or a concatenation of interests that act ensure that things are ordered in a certain way.

No more than "New England Partiot's" confidence is a conspiracy to manipulate us.  Sure the Patriot's get some odd breaks that the rest of us don't, but they wouldn't have been in a position to get the breaks if they weren't good in the first place.

I think it's stunning that you think it takes a "Deep State" kind of mentality to understand why under Obama and in the future, potentially, under Warren or even Sanders, the business confidence is going to go down.  They've flat out said they want to regulate and investigate and "bring charges," I mean heck the CPFB is literally Warren's baby.  Obama had high taxes and both Warren and Sanders not only want to bring them back they want to add to them and tax wealth as well.  What rational business seeing that coming is going to say - "great time to invest billions in US facilities that'll insure our income is stuck in the US for the next 4 years"?  If I'm part of the global elite, which most companies and most of their executives are, why would I be confident about the US climate that is literally promising more taxes, more regulations (despite being second only to the EU now) and higher wages - by force not economic growth (again despite such laws making my plants uncompetitive versus the third world in the past)?

And you are totally correct, I should have lost confidence when a candidate promising to lower taxes, support business growth, remove excess regulatory burdens comes into force.  I mean, why would I be confident when the candidate is running on generating a better economy by unleashing my and other companies to generate growth.

Not sure if you're being ironic, but I would say the same thing unironically. Wall Street "confidence" is just that, a confidence game, where it can be tilted up or down based on what "investors" feel, emotionally. Except "investors" are not a hive mind, so how do they know what they're supposed to feel?

Investors in what?  In some industries they know because the industry publications are great, in others because to even be in the game you have to have an extensive knowledge of what's going on.  At least if you're talking about big investors you can get a pretty good feel for what they're thinking.

Do you ever read any of the publicaly available information that companies file with the SEC?  Management discussions for public companies can be great.  Disclosures by investment advisers and investment funds in certain industries can give you real insight into what's really going on and what the risks and concerns are.  Heck, most regulators publish their own speaches and insights.

Do they read the What We Are Feeling journal each week to know whether they have confidence or not? Or is it not so much investors, as the shepherds that lead the flock, announcing in so many words "we are scared!" and the market dips?

I mean I get a sense of what the confidence levels are from "word on the street," but you could easily pick it up from the WSJ or other financial publications.  Or if you prefer you could chase the trend (on a big lag) by looking at objective metrics connected to financial matters.  Or you could chase the lag of the lag of the trend and just watch what the Fed does.

I'd like to see a real study one day, using mathematical technology we probably don't have yet, of what % of market activity actually relates to 'the real world', like crop seasons, business efficiency, money market fluidity, effective CEO's, and positive regulation along with monetary policy; and likewise what % is completely made-up mind games where the position of the market is a shared delusion based on essentially where certain cliques of people with a lot of capital decide it should be.

Well you should join a finance company, they already track virtually everything you list there.  My favorite is the projections they can make on a company's expected earnings based on hirings and firings of specific people below the CEO level based on metrics that have been connected to those people, or the divisions they worked for over their whole career.

That said, there's definitely some markets that are heavily mind games (take a look at crypto's for example).

When asking what about Trump's presidency would cause markets to be courageous, the question is just as impossible to address as asking what would make an actual person courageous.

Not sure how to take this.  Nothing about the markets is "courageous".  Are you trying to imply that they are being reckless somehow?  They're responding to predictable inputs that say good things are coming their way.  That's all.

Just like consumer confidence (ie spending) is massively up.  It's not a mystery, or just a sense of optimism, it's people who want jobs being able to find them, people who want better jobs having lots of opportunities, its raises and promotions and more money in pockets as wages are up in a big way (notwithstanding that we somehow didn't need any of those government mandated wage increases to get there).  More money, better jobs equals more spending.  It's not rocket science.

Oh sure you can take a guess, but there's no way you're plumbing out that person's brain and assessing which neurons fired, which chemicals mixed with which, and what their sodium and blood sugar levels are like, along with the makeup up the population of their gut bacteria. Now imagine that kind of complication, where with many nodes - each that complex - connected to each other in asymmetric ways.

Or I could say tell you that I'll subsidize $100k of your downpayment on a house.  Would you really need a pyschological test to understand why a lot of people bought houses?  (or an economics degree to figure out why a bunch of people increased the price they were willing to sell a house at?)

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 08, 2019, 12:45:54 PM »
Lol, Wayward, if it were as simple as saying Regulation 47 repealed, $23 million in real impact on the economy, we'd all agree on everything and know exactly what to do.

If you have a real question on this what have you done to investigate?   There's a thousand articles out there on business confidence, on specific and general regulatory relief, have you read any of them?  There's articles out there that discuss business confidence and specific and general reactions by companies to specific changes and to general philosophy.  Have you looked at the Wall Street Journal, or any business publications.  Business confidence really popped after the election and kept rising through and until we got the Democratic house, which sucked the wind out of the potential for progress (if Warren get's elected, business confidence will crater).

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 08, 2019, 10:22:54 AM »
After Biden got that prosecutor fired was the Burisma probe carried out or was it effectively stopped?

Wasn't the Burisma probe dead before Biden got the prosecutor fired?

No, in fact in carried on for a short period with the next prosecutor, who decided there was no evidence against Joe or Hunter.  Normally, that would be the end of it, but we have on record accounts by the first prosecutor from several US-linked vectors (ambassadors, as well as, Joe) that the investigation of Burisma had to be handled with "white gloves" or "kid gloves" (which was taken to mean to drop it), and that he was expressly told that he had to drop it by the President because the US demanded it.  It's an interesting re-direct to point to the prosecutor's own corruption, which was endemic in the Ukraine, as somehow an excuse - when literally everyone knew that Burisma was itself owned by a massively corrupt Ukrainian businessman and literally was exploiting government resources on a corrupt basis.

I mean the logic is really wonky.  Unless you're asserting that Burisma is legit (which, as far as I can tell, no one on earth believes), why would you ask/demand any prosecutor, even a corrupt one, drop a investigation of it?  And then condition US aid on it (which appeared to be the initial request, as the President told the Prosecutor to drop that specific investigation, and then later fired him under pressure).  If Burisma was dirty dropping that investigation should have been no part of a request.  Asking for it to be conducted fairly - totally fine (and you'll note (or more literally you won't note cause we only see things in partisan ways) in the Trump transcript they literally talked about conducting fair investigations).

Every source I've seen has indicated pretty much all of Europe, the state department, and the intelligence community wanted this prosecutor gone. But I'm sure Biden has the kind of influence to get everyone on the same page just to protect the cushy job his son got in Ukraine.

It's actually tough to find good sources (ie those not corrupted by a current writer, writing either to support or attack the President).  Here's one I found that seems good

You can see that item number 1 on the list is to replace Shokin, but the entire write up is about endemic corruption by the government that the US effectively installed.  Shokin looks more like a figure head in this than the core problem.  I think it's most fair to say the push was to end systematic corruption, and that they felt they needed a face at the top that made that a priority rather than was part of the system.

By the way, on that backdrop, it almost makes it a certainty that Shokin is telling the truth about how this was communicated to him.  That's the world they live in with oligarch's making demands or getting favors and Joe's personal involvement would have certainly been interpreted through that world view.

It's also interesting that in the 10 comments from back then, they already flagged out Joe and Hunter as being part of the corruption from Hunter's position at Burisma.

So, it is legit that Shokin's removal was desired, but it looks more like it was a means to an end, that they wanted a systematic ending of the Ukrainian corruption (or would one could look at it to mean that they wanted that corruption to protect rather than undermine EU/US interests if you're cynical - again, that's almost certainly how the Ukrainian oligarch's would have heard it based on their world view).

General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: October 08, 2019, 09:54:56 AM »
I'm more fascinated by the largely unreported and massive jump in middle class incomes under Trump.  Middle class family incomes are up almost $5k - that's a friggin huge difference in the life of most of the country (and lest you think the poor are left behind, their income is also massively up).  Most of the benefits to the poor and middle class have been openly lied about by the media/left (is there a difference?) to the point where people don't even believe their own eyes.

And yoss, I'm laughing at you.  Massive "stimulus" and Obama government can save us policies did very little AND doubled the debt.  Trump's policies, whether you want to call them a stimulus (which is a 1984'esque battle of redefining words bit of propaganda) have in fact had massive economic gains.  Id be willing to bet that we could cut government spending and the deficit and keep the gains, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and and ask your representatives to support spending cuts and we'll find out.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 07, 2019, 04:02:52 PM »
Seriati, you're divorcing your argument from the facts. Let's start here:

However, when you have a whistle blower report that didn't hear the statement, and the statement itself is available and contradicts the whistle blower it undermines the evidentiary value.

The "statement" meaning the call summary IS consistent with the WB report.

Cite to me the quid pro quo the whistle blower alleges in the call summary.  What you can't?  Thought you just said they were consistent?

You're also apparently ignoring the text messages that corroborate and bolster the quid pro quo angle.

You mean the text messages where the US ambassador to the EU expressly stated that Trump was crystal clear that their would be no quid pro quo?  Lol.

Although it's not required for there to be a quid pro quo regardless. Just asking a foreign country to open an investigation into your political opponent when there's no national interest involved in that request is an impeachable abuse of office.

Lol, what's your basis for the conclusion that asking for an investigation of a crime is an impeachable offense?

And how do you walk that back from the Democratic Senators that wrote a letter with an express quid pro quo to the Ukraine threatening them unless they investigate Trump?  Or heck, with the Obama admin seeking out and actually recieving political dirt from the Ukraine on Paul Manafort to support their illegal spying operation during the campaign, that morphed into an actual criminal prosecution of Manafort?

There is no law, or principal of law, that bars investigating crimes committed by your opponents.  Or should we say put NY prosecutor Vance in jail for his investigation of the Stormy Daniels payments, wherein he's demanding 8 years of Trump's tax returns (odd coincidence)?

Your denials and obfuscations are right in line with the ones Hannity and others are using, so perhaps you are mistaking their advocacy for reality.

So my "denials" consist of acknowledging the factual statement that the transcript doesn't show a quid pro quo and that the whistleblower misrepresented that (or just lied about it).

My "obfuscations" consist largely of pointing out that investigation of criminal acts by a former vice president are actually properly the duty of the DOJ and the administration to investigate - who else do you think would handle that investigation?  Or pointing out that you seem to have a problem with Presidential immunity, but to be asserting a "running against Trump" absolute immunity standard - which is expressly not the standard that the Obama administration used against Trump during the campaign.

Or by pointing out that no part of the Democratic effort here resembles in any way a fair process, or a process that protects Constitutional rights or basic fairness? 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 06:03:15 PM »
LOL, you have to be kidding.  See the defense of Biden.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 05:55:20 PM »
Is Trump hammering the Fed to lower interest rates to help the American people, or to boost his profits? We can't know.

Why can't we?  You are aware that not only has the EU lowered rates, they have actually put them negative.  Which means banks have to pay interest to the central bank to keep money there, they don't even have room to go lower.  In fact most of the world has been having a pretty hard time economically compared to the US.

The biggest benefit to Trump of lower rates isn't personal, it's the increased power of the economy, which helps him both politically and by benefiting all businesses (and potential customers).

I was reading the other day, that in Obama's 8 years the average income for a middle class family increased by $1000, and in Trump's 3 years, it's up by almost $4000.  I won't stand behind something I read once, but that would be a stunning reality against the fake economic news we are generally sold.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 05:04:23 PM »
The WB complaint indicated BOTH secondhand and firsthand information, and the ICIG found both claims credible.

Point to which parts were first hand.  Was it just that the whistleblower went to meetings?  Was it something more?  Can't assume it's material, where the whistle blower went out of their way not to attribute anything that is actually criminal or even suspicious to their own direct knowledge.  And again, the "interpretation" they put on thing from "more than 6 officials" turned out to not be supported by the facts.

That means either 6 plus officials didn't say it, or if they did they too didn't have direct knowledge or were misrepresenting the situation.  Kind of like how when an "anonymous source with direct knowledge of the situation" turns out to be completely wrong, it's pretty big undercut to claim that more than 6 people have direct knowledge of something that didn't happen.

"So what's the crime?"

Come on. You have to know that "High crimes and misdemeanors" was never supposed to map to the criminal code.

That's an unexamined truism.  What "high crimes and misdemeanors" did Congress miss over the last 250 years that are so obvious?  Lol.

The "high crime and/or misdemeanor" is, at least:
1) Conducting foreign policy for personal benefit

Zero evidence this occurred.  It's totally a shaky claim, but the media is hard selling it, I'll give you that.  It requires that the quid pro quo did in fact happen and that what Trump was doing was improper, neither of which are actually true.

Or I guess, given we're going with "it doesn't need to be an actual crime" this should be retranslated as investigating malfeasance of members of the DNC is a an impermissable act of a politician (except see DNC Senators that did the exact same thing).

2) Soliciting interference from a foreign country in our domestic politics

Show me where anyone asked the Ukraine to interfere in US politics.  Seriously, show me where.  This is one giant leap of logic that if the Ukraine provides evidence of criminal activity by the Bidens and the US prosecutes them it would be an interference - by law it would not.  Or are you positing that it's illegal for a President's lawyer like Giuliani (or say, Hillary's legal team) to seek out and obtain (or pay for) a foreign government (or UK spy) to provide evidence of a crime (or Russian propaganda that was untrue).  Or should be consider the express and literally equivalent actions of the Obama administration in pressuring and actaully recieving intel from the exact same country during the election, after pressuring them with respect to corruption in their government and after failing to support them as Russian invaded their country?

Oh sorry, forgot rule one, investigating DNC crimes is a high crime and misdemeanor.

3) Obstructing and interfering with Congressional oversight

Which didn't happen either.  There seems to be a delusion that protecting ones Constitutional rights is obstruction of justice.  See the list I cited above, Congress is subject to the Bill of Rights - it's literally part of the Constitution.  Not to mention, you seem to think that the Executive Branch has no rights under the Constitution, rather than being intended to be CO-EQUAL to and not subservient to Congress.

The House pretending they are conducting an impeachment does not entitle them to ignore the Constitution, a fact most everyone of them Nadler and Biden included has acknowledged (and even screamed and whined about) when the shoe was on the other foot.

There may be conduct that DOES map to the criminal code, but there doesn't have to be.

I will concede this is true, but it's a gross violation of the oath of office of each member of the House to pretend that political conduct that they dislike is a high crime simply because they dislike it. 

Yet we'll continue to see people arguing that there's no evidence, no real justification for an investigation. Because they wrote the story in their minds long ago and the evidence before their eyes doesn't matter.

Of course, and we've seen the how the House handles it where they open up their "investigations" literally with statements that the person they are investigating is guilty.  Go back and read Nadler's opening statement in the Lewandoski hearing.  By his statement there's no investigation required, guilt is already a factual matter.  Heck Schiff took it even further, he made up evidence in his opening statement.

But sure, it's the problem of the other side in prejudging the validity of the evidence.  Sigh.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 04:09:50 PM »
Generally one starts with evidence of a crime.  How do you think the police do it today?

It really comes down to what is considered "evidence."

Is a whistleblower's report evidence?  Something that someone witnessed?  Something that someone heard someone else say?  Something that was reported?

Sure is, in fact that's how many investigations start.  However, when you have a whistle blower report that didn't hear the statement, and the statement itself is available and contradicts the whistle blower it undermines the evidentiary value.  When you consider that the IG found that the whistle blower may have a partisan motive that too undermines the account.  Hearsay has to be verified, not undermined, to keep the investigation moving - at least when it's a real investigation, obviously the House DNC doesn't care about anything more than an appearance.

How about suspicious activity?  Can police question someone (aka investigate) based on suspicious actions?  What constitutes "suspicious?"

Sure can.  Usually "suspicious" is conduct that is atypical and consistent with a crime.  Hanging around a building after dark.  In this case the conduct is "speaking with a foreign leader," which is actually part of the job, "asking for help investigating a crime," which is actually part of the job, "considering if a country is too corrupt to receive aide," which is also part of the job and for which a conversation with the brand new government and an explanation of their actions is perfectly consistent (see specifically, Trump's comment about the Ukrainian President surrounding him with the same people that are known to be corrupt).

you seem to be hanging your hat on Trump asking for any information about the ongoing investigation into the 2016 election interference - which again is legit and totally appropriate - and using the very public example of Biden in connection with ongoing corruption.  Was Trump right about it being an open example of corruption?  There's not enough evidence one way or the other, was it outside of the realm of reasonable beliefs to have?  Not at all.  But those comments even expressly say there's a "lot of talk" about and "Biden went around bragging" about it. 

It seems pretty obvious to me that the current investigation based on the whistleblower's complaint is based on "evidence."  So it all pretty moot to me.

Nah, Congress isn't doing a real investigation, and certainly couldn't care less about evidence.  All Congress's investigation is based on is politics and a pretext.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 03:48:35 PM »
Generally one starts with evidence of a crime.  How do you think the police do it today?
The remains how reasonable suspicion is being defined, how much smoke is required before we get to check it out?

Well there has to be evidence a crime occurred.  But the bigger problem here is, what does it mean to "check it out"?  In this case the "best" form of the argument for a crime is that Trump illegally used his office to obtain something of value in connection with the 2020 campaign (at least according to the Dems and the Whistle Blower).  But there's massive problems with that.  First, the DOJ already looked at it and said there's no campaign finance violation, ipso facto there's no crime.  That's also completely evident from the transcript in question.

I've said it more than once, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT OR LAW that states that true information about crimes someone committed is "something of value" under the law.  You can look at Mueller's write up if you don't believe me, they admitted that even they didn't think they could get there.  It's simply false that obtaining that information is a violation of election laws.

So then what's the crime?  Is it corruption?  A "quid pro quo" of holding up Ukrainian aide for "something of value" to Trump personally?  Problem with that is that Trump never said it and the evidence points to his proxies making it express that there would be no quid pro quo internally.  It's also pretty evident that a big part of the reason Trump released his transcript and the WhistleBlower complaint is that he knows there was no quid pro quo (sounds familiar, kind of like when he knew there was no Russian collusion).

So if there's no election law violation, and no evidence of the quid pro quo, what exactly is the crime that needs investigating?

However, I'm not going to die on that hill, the DOJ could just as easily decide appropriately to conduct an investigation.  Whether or not Trump intended a quid pro quo doesn't control whether or not his proxies tried to arrange for one, and there certainly could be crimes there.  But the big problem is that they literally don't go to Trump without facts that aren't in evidence - ie there's no real smoke.

Based on how I read most of your comments you set the Bar high for Trump and low for Biden?

Same bar, except in Biden's case we have him bragging about the act on tv that would have been the very and exact act that was corrupt.  He literally demanded as a condition of US aide - expressly, which is what's missing in Trump's record - that a certain prosecutor be fired.  In fact, he told them he was getting on a plane in 6 hours and the billion was effectively going with him.  While his son's company was under investigation by that prosecutor.  That very same prosecutor has gone under oath and made certain statements related to that event that flat out state a corrupt purpose.  Not an anonymous whistleblower, the actual person involved, and actual witnesses of an event that in Biden's own words occurred and that we have video of (not a transcript that DOES NOT SHOW THE EVENT).

Is it possible Biden is innocent, sure, I said as much in my early comments.  Is it possible Trump did something corrupt, that too is possible.  However, based on the records you'd have to not believe in justice to believe that Biden's conduct should not be reviewed, and I personally don't see much to investigate on Trump, but wouldn't stand in the way of a fair investigation (Congress on the other hand is not engaging in any kind of recognizable process, both Nadler's and Schiff's have opened up with statements of guilt of the person they are investigating).

If Biden is guilty does that exonerate Trump?

Nope, Biden's guilt is an independent question.  But the question itself is misleading until you can set out what Trump needs to be "exonerated" from.

Is President asking another government to investigate a political rival breaking the law.

No.  Which law would it be breaking?  Again, you are aware that under the Constitution the President is in fact the chief law enforcement officer directly charged with this kind of investigation.  Would I be happier if Trump had asked more neutrally for evidence of law breaking?  Sure, if you go back and look he also talked about the Ambassador from the prior admin, which if you do a little digging was massively connecting in the entire manipulation of the Ukranian government.  But pretty much the most public piece was Biden.

Is the hint of smoke from the transcript of a quid pro quo wink wink enough for a investigation?

What hint of a quid pro quo?  It's not in the transcript, and it appears to have been the express direction from Trump to his staff that there was to be no quid pro quo.

Are you being honest with yourself. If Obama had made the same call would you demand a investigation?

Why do you think he didn't?  What did he mean about flexibility with Russia after the election?  Who exactly did arrange to obtain dirt from the Ukraine on Manafort during the election?

If you believe this is problematic, why are ignoring the letter the DNC Senators recently sent to the Ukraine threatening to pull the support of the left if they don't investigate Trump?

Again, walk me through the fairly applied process you're running.

Morally and ethically how do you feel about what Trump said he did?

I actually feel morally and ethically fine about it.  Tactically I wish he'd have more sense than to say things that can be misconstrued.  But there's no crime in asking for evidence of a crime.  Period.  End of story.  Even if the evidence also benefits him.

Or you know, you could actually establish a President doing something illegal and then investigate

My comment you referred to was about how we were undermining the foundations we say we are standing on.
Trumps go to preemptive/counter punch strategy is effective. It very much confuses things as everyone gets to choose what mud stinking on the wall to point to. Essentially its don't look at me look over their.

Except it's not what happened.  Trump reacted to  - not preempted - what appears to be a set up.  The fact that the establishment keeps miscalculated how he'll react does make me laugh.

The problem "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Trump attacks everything the same way and its should be understandable that some people see this as smoke to be investigate. Trump would be much more effective if he learned that not every *&^% thing is a (*&^ nail

And to the Democrats, everything looks like an impeachable offense.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 11:46:02 AM »
Generally one starts with evidence of a crime.  How do you think the police do it today?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 11:16:52 AM »
Very confused

What I learned that if I'm the president and want do something that crosses a line.
I can do it and get away with it if I can get some one in the news media to make a parody of it, confuse the facts and then use that to explain why it never happened.

I'm not saying that's what's happened here. However its clear to me that going forward holding any President accountable is never going to happen. Just way to easy to confuse things.

Or you know, you could actually establish a President doing something illegal and then investigate.  To write what you did above, you have to completely ignore going on three years of an impeachment searching for a cause because, "everyone knows Trump is guilty."  Honestly, the first article I saw calling for his impeachment was filed one minute after the inaugeration (there were some before that too that somehow wanted to impeach him as President-elect).

So what you've seen is if there is an impeachment in waiting searching for any basis that the party behind thinks they can get the voting public behind, then no matter what the President does - whether completely legal or not - it'll be characterized as "illegal" or not required to be illegal because impeachment only requires it be bad.  When it doesn't turn out to be that bad, then you spin spin and spin again, including like for example by producing a parody that falsifies what happened in a formal televised  Congressional hearing (and did you just catch Pelosi going on tv and stating that Shiff used Trump's own words, which is a flat out lie).

It was not unreasonable for the house to want to see the whistle blowers report and the recording of the call. they should have been able to do so behind close doors and before it hit the news.

Actually that's an interesting question.  Why do you think they should "see it" where it doesn't comply with the law?  The DOJ is actually the governmental body that's charged with investigating violations of law not the House.  The house sees certain whistle blower concerns that meat a proscribed list of requirements enacted into law solely as an oversight function.  In this case, the intent is put more eyes on intelligence work (ie spying) because of it's history of manipulation and abuse.  What part of a President's call with a foreign leader is "intelligence work" or in any way connected thereto?

But moreover, even after you ignore the gross legal defect because the intent is to "get this to Congress" no matter how in correctly, you still have to ignore that the House had no intent to see this behind closed doors.  That was always an option, but it didn't serve their ONLY GOAL, which is to influence the public to support them in an impeachment without a basis.  Cause they are right about one thing, they can ignore their actual Constitutional duty and impeach without a basis, but it will only fly if the public gets behind the witch trial.

I can't help but wonder if the administration orchestrated the chain of events to force the Dem's to be forceful in getting the information, making it look more suspicions then it may be and get them to play into the game. It would not surprise me at all.

There's clear evidence of orchestration but it isn't by the administration.  Especially given that they actually followed process and notified Congress of the complaint and that they were withholding the details BECAUSE they didn't meet the conditions for release (by the way, I don't see any way -under the actual law- to dispute that).

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 10:56:00 AM »
Sure, by most accounts Trump's businesses are in fact suffering, not profiting, as a result of his Presidency.  Should be a no brainer if you consider that he makes most of his money from his brand, from luxury properties in blue states and golf courses some of which are in blue states.  Here's a link to a Forbes,  Where they are "debunking" that Trump  is losing $3-5 billion by pointing out he's "only" lost $1.4 billion and on $200 million of that is attributable to his Presidency.  Of course they are ignoring future value, which he very likely is not.

So losing $1.4 billion, versus signing sweetheart deals in China and Ukraine (by the way, apparently the only two countries that Joe Biden was directly spearheading).  Please do investigate, I welcome any impartial and fair investigation that treats everyone the same.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 10:39:27 AM »
In fact, I would point out that fact that no where does the whistle-blower specify which part of the CFR or USC that the POTUS violated as proof that it was not complied by a group of activist lawyers, unless they were incompetent or didn't care about the content.  The only reference to the USC in the memo is a reference to the procedures governing whistle-blowing within the intel community.  Hence, they showed what THEY were doing was LEGAL, not what they were reporting was ILLEGAL.  That's a pretty big hole, in my opinion, that a group of lawyers would not have missed.

They didn't miss it, it just doesn't exist because the call wasn't illegal.  This was drafted by activist lawyers as an "impeachment" roadmap not as a prosecution document.  Just like I called - at the time - that Mueller's raid on Cohen and seizure of his files entitled to attorney client privilege meant one of two things (it either wasn't about Trump, or they never intended a trial and it was all about leaking privileged materials to a Congressional impeachment proceeding) this isn't drafted to demonstrate a crime.  It's drafted to generate political outrage, where the leaker and the activist lawyers thought Trump's only defense would be to cover it up and assert executive privilege.   If he'd done that, then the "leaked" complaint would be the only text out there and it includes material things that were never in the call.  And they would have declared him guilty of obstruction of justice.  Heck that was clearly the plan, they've gone forward with it on their demand letters to members of the administration, notwithstanding that it's no longer obvious from the way this played out (it's like watching a military commander who sticks to the plan even after contact with the enemy mooted part of it).

I'm incredibly struck that we - as Americans - have lived our whole lives believing that we have freedom from unreasonable searches (ie no warrants without probable cause), right to remain silent, right to counsel, right to due process (ie the process has to be fair), right to confront accusers, and that NONE OF THAT has been applied to any part of the Special Counsel's investigation or now to the "impeachment" investigation. 

Do you believe we have rights or not?

purports to be unclassified (notwithstanding that it reveals information that is presumptively classified)

It clearly states that without the enclosures, the whistle-blower believes the memo itself is unclassified.  If it did contain classified information, the IG shouldn't have released it.

And?  Since when is a whistle-blower entitled to set classification?  Not to mention, the statute itself expressly sets how the complaint may be filed and shared.

Relying on the self-serving statement of the whistle-blower is as bad as believing Comey when he said his memos were unclassified (the IG flat out said he was wrong and that they were government property, yet the DOJ chose not to prosecute - and I note, notwithstanding Comey's testimony to Congress that the memo's were his personal recollection and that his discomfort with the talks with Trump are what inspired him to write him, we now know that not only was the memo pre-planned, it was pre-planned in consultation with other officials and shared with them - in other words, drafted as a government document and not reactionary).

and was absolutely and clearly compiled using the resources of the US government, at a minimum by inappropriate access to State department files, but more likely intelligence files.

The question of access depends on the level of clearance the whistle-blower had.  I don't know who they are.  Do you, Serati?

Don't have to, they clearly tried to access the transcript of the President's call and from their own claims of multiple officials confirming "parts" of their allegations imply they had multiple conversations that violated the confidentiality restrictions that apply to sensitive material.  It also seems obvious to me, that they researched events using government (internal) systems and tried to access explanations and documents that were not within their mandate (like going looking for the transcript of the speech).  It's interesting that they knew the speech was moved to the secure server, and that "others" had moved as well, but declined to mention that this was now standard practice specifically because of intentional and politically malicious leaks of such transcripts from the original server.

And even if there were a conspiracy, does it change the content of the memo and concerns expressed within?  If the "Deep State" were responsible for the memo, would it change the validity of their claims?

Yes it would change it materially.  There's no whistleblower protection afforded to individuals over disagreements of policy.  And it would be evidence of a coup or criminal coordination if senior staff assisting in the drafting of a whistleblower complaint that misused government resources, breached classification rules and violated legal confidentiality requirements to compile. 

In fact reading it again, this document seems designed to try and criminalize the investigation of what appears to have been a deep state plot to use the Ukranian government to influence the 2016 election.

More conspiracies.  Who was behind this "deep state plot"?  Is this a Q Anon thing?  That's what it sounds like.

It's just a fact that the Obama admin sought and received information from the Ukraine connected to Manafort.  There's an allegation that the information they received was falsified - it apparently didn't match with the actual transaction records obtained through subpeonas of the banking system.  And it's an investigatable assertion that they pressured the Ukraine to produce it knowing it was false.

We now know for a fact that multiple members of the senior DOJ and FBI engaged in a coordinated anti-Trump effort, whether you believe it was justified is irrelevant, it's just a fact it occurred.  We know for a fact that senior intelligence staff, including the head of the CIA also participated in that effort.

We have evidence that suggests that the predicate for the investigation - which honestly appears to just be a conversation Papadopoulous had - involved multiple "friendly" spy agencies, and very likely could have been a set up.  We have a British agent directly involved in sparking that investigation by passing along Russian propaganda.  We have wiretaps and spying authorized on the opposition party's Presidential campaign during the election based on FISA warrants that seem to have been baseless, and the spying that was conducted excessively overbroad.  We have no defensive briefing whatsoever.  We have rampant and wide spread "unmasking" of US persons in those spying accounts (which themselves, notwithstanding that information on US persons through FISA rather than legal proceedings should be maximally protected) somehow ending up at very low classification levels and even leaked.

No where in any of this was Trump and his campaign treated like American citizens with rights.  But sure Trump is the problem for trying to get to the bottom of it, and there's no "deep state" involved in the constant leaking and abuse of process.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 10:09:12 AM »
And Trump just publicly asked China and Ukraine to investigate the Biden's. WTF is wrong with the justice department that they can't investigate the corruption themselves?

Cause everyone knows this should be done secretly as the Obama admin did?  When they expressly asked the Ukrainian govenment for dirt on Trump's campaign manager, Manafort?  When they met with Ukranian officials during the election to get the dirt?  And that investigating anything about that is itself just a criminal act of Trump?

Lol.  There's a reasonable suspicion of a crime by one or both Bidens.  There's no probable cause.  However, reasonable suspicion is enough to investigate.  We've had investigation treaties in place with most countries in the world for decades (or longer).  With what's in the public knowledge, the DOJ doesn't have the power to subpeona (would need probably cause for that), nor the power to investigate in the countries where the crimes would have happened, ergo the treaties.

Is the thought hear that politicians and their children are immune to being called to account for crimes they did abroad?  I've seen alot of people upset about Presidential immunity, notwithstanding that the President was extensively investigated - in an investigation launched by his political opponents that included spying on his campaign, and yet you seem to be asserting some kind of absolute immunity for investigations into Presidential candidates (for Democrats only) that would prohibit not only prosecuting them but even investigating them (or their families) where there is a prima facie fact pattern that demonstrates potential crimes.  Walk me through it?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 10:01:17 AM »
If an IG report gets quashed, it kind of seems like civic duty to leak that fact to the press.

Did it get quashed?  It was simultaneously being investigated by the CIA, the DOJ and the normal IG process, including notifying the committees that it had been filed.  The GC determined both that it was not an urgent concern and that it was not about a member of the Intelligence Community (either fact not being true eliminate it from being required to be reported to the Intelligence Committees).  If it's not required to be reported to the committees it could still involve criminal conduct, the DOJ reviewed it and found there was no crimes involved.  Pretty much not "quashed," just defective, and pretty much openly being dealt with including in the committee's knowledge (as the existence of the complaint was notified by the administration to the committees, even though it now turns out the Democrats on the committee knew before the administration or even the IG, but not before CIA management - interesting).

And does it justify leaking it to the press?  If you believe it was falsely quashed the statute authorizes the direct transmission to the committees.  Why not do that?  That would be your civic duty.  Oh yeah, it does not go public in that circumstance, the ability to make parts of it public only come after the IG sends it not the leaker.  Since the strategy REQUIRED it go public, it leaks instead of the going to the committee.  Interesting choice for the "honorable" leaker, who's pursuing their "civic duty," especially given that we know for a fact the leaker was in contact with the committee, which means there is no chance they did not know they could send it in that circumstance and that the leak to the press is likely prosecutable.

And what do you make of Shiff colluding with Democrats on and off the committee to prepare the way for the impeachment while not notifying the Republican members of the committee about the complaint?  The charge is to the committee not to it's Chairman and his party's political needs.  It's interesting that you think the complaint was "quashed" but are silent about that breach, or that it's a "crime" for Trump to investigate a crime (which is technically his Constitutional duty) as he could benefit from it politically, but not a crime where Biden did benefit personally from the exercise of official power (apparently because you believe that the "alternative" explanation for his actions should be respected in one case without regard to the benefit, and completely ignored in the other), or where the Chair of a House committee ignores his duty to the committee, breaches committee confidentiality to share confidential information with his caucus all for the political benefit of his party (with no reasonable, or even plausible, non-political explanation).

I've asked this many times.  What exactly is the objective rule that you are applying?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 10:30:45 PM »
The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint.

Lol, Shiff's staffer recommended he meet with a lawyer, probably recommended the DNC connected lawyers that drafted the complaint that was filed.  Lol.

Watch what Shiff says when you see him speak, he's got the trick of being specific in true to the point that he implies a lie. He'll say "we didn't do something" and mean the committee including the Republicans, knowing full well that the Dems on the committee in fact did it.  He'll say he "saw" no part of a report while he was in a room where it was being drafted but only participating orally.  You have to look at exactly the words he uses.  Saw it all the time when he was talking about Mueller.

While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.

Called it.  Couldn't make it public or leak it unless it was sent by the IG.  When it wasn't sent, they triggered the leak to the WaPo.  Lol. 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 08:57:15 PM »
So let's say you support an impeachment investigation.  Ask yourself why there hasn't been a vote in the House.  What would change?  First of all the legal uncertainty would be gone, courts are not obligated to treat the Pelosi announcement in the same manner as a real impeachment.

Second, process.  The House would be required to establish a legitimate process.  In the other impeachments that involved counsel from the President being present with the right to cross examine witnessed.  Remember what was missing from the Mueller report?  That's right, any ability to cross examine the witnesses or dispute the nonsensical and self serving conclusions.  Notice what's been missing in Nadler's and Shiff's hearings?  Any ability to object to the "questions" they ask?  Nope.  Even when the questions themselves are lies the witnesses are forced to respond under penalty of perjury.  Even when they threaten a witness with jail or violating legal privilege there's no consequence.

Ask yourself why, if this is legitimate, the House is resisting any steps to make it appear impartial. 

I mean Shiff, as the chair of the intelligence committee, opened up with reading a fictional account of what Trump supposedly said, that was fake and way worse than reality.   Does that sound like an impartial investigation?  Nadler opened up Lewandowski's hearing by stating "as fact" that Trump was guilty of multiple crimes.  Can you imagine a judge that did so?

The right to confront your accuser?  Shiff's biggest concern is keeping the whistle blower secret so that he can not be confronted, so that we can not evaluate the IG's conclusion that the whistle blower appears motivated by political bias.  Let's let Strzok write a complaint while we are at it.

What part of American justice does the Democrat's "process" match?  Questioners who can lie, assert false facts, threaten witnesses, introduce secret accusations?  Is this really the America you support?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 08:26:43 PM »

So much effort to make this NOT about whether the President is abusing his office for personal gain. Yet, that is what it's about.

Sorry you went to all that effort?

That was just to explain, why the complaint appears to me to the work of activist lawyers, and deep state efforts.  I would have liked to cover the other pages as well, but too much time, for what I expect to be (and seems based on this comment) zero return.

So, it's your assertion that if Biden or his son committed a crime, that's for the President's "personal gain"?  Or if Ukraine has information about the predicate of the Mueller investigation, like say whether there was an active conspiracy with the Obama administration, that's just for the President's personal gain?

Did I miss how people on this cite backed a two year investigation that compelled through subpoena the internview of hundreds of people and production of millions of documents for an investigation into Russian "collusion" that never occurred?  Was that just for the "personal benefit" of the DNC?

What makes you think that the whistleblower doesn't have legal experience? They could well have a law degree.

Nothing makes me think that.  There's no chance this was drafted by the whistleblower on their own, it wasn't drafted by a single lawyer, this is the work of a firm or group of lawyers.

Or they could have consulted a lawyer on their own before choosing to draw Trumpian wrath upon themselves.

No, not with how this was written.  This was written as an impeachment template, it's what they wanted Mueller to provide but that he failed to do.  All it's deficiencies are wrapped up in vagueness and areas where there are legitimate executive  privilege.  In other words, it was designed such that the only defenses are to "hide" the truth or to turn over things that legitimately are not the business of Congress. 

And, there's no crime revealed - the whistle blower is not a whistle blower.

There's no "and therefore, Democrat conspiracy" that can be attached to those observations even if we accept them all as true.

Pelosi's own statements demonstrates she had advanced knowledge of the complaint (ie before it's release), and the reporting today makes it clear that Shiff and other Democrats on the committee did as well.  Pre-knowledge and a complaint that's purpose drafted to support an impeachment enquiry, coupled with actual steps by Pelosi such as declaring a "formal" impeachment enquiry before she could know what was in the debate, are enough to establish a conspiracy under Rico sufficient to investigate.

I think it is interesting that most of the people demanding that there be evidence before accusing Trump seem perfectly fine using conjecture and inference to accuse Schiff.

I didn't require evidence before accusing Trump.  I'm suggesting that when you have the evidence and it doesn't prove the case you should back off the claim.  There's nothing in the call that is illegal or inappropriate.  The whistle blower case makes multiple false statements designed to overhype the call.  It really does look like there was coordination.

It's not a secret I don't trust Shiff.  He flat out said, as the ranking member and later chair of the Intelligence Committee that there was evidence of Russian collusion that we had not seen.  That turned out to be a lie, we'd seen pretty much everything of significance that was in the Mueller report, and more we had ALREADY seen the supposed predicate and it was  a nothing burger.

See also:

Urgent concerns about Biden's son's past business activities, ZERO concern about Trump's children's CURRENT business activities.

Which ones do you have some kind of evidence about?  I mean honestly, Hunter gets a seat for $600k a year on the board of a Ukraine gas company at the exact time his father is running the energy policy for the country, despite no actual qualifications.  Maybe you can provide the information on the equivalent situation?

Treating wild-ass conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike that originated on 4chan as a legitimate national interest basis for twisting Zelensky's arm.

Maybe provide the passage in the transcript where Trump 'twists Zelensky's arm' or are you too relying on Shiff's version?

Lol.  This is why I'm responding.  You guys are making up a story.  It's not entirely your fault, the media is selling it to you.  But it is your fault if you don't look at the call transcript and keep citing to things that didn't happen.

Or you can do some legwork and see if you can find actual evidence of the point.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:02:23 PM »
I just read the whistle blower complaint.  If you didn't believe in  a deep state before, that document should remove all doubt.   

Cumon, man.  Why's it always have to be a conspiracy?

Not sure why you think it's a "conspiracy," by which based on the rest of your comments you seem to mean something out of the X-Files.  I mean there are something like 2 million federal employees of which over 350,000 are based in DC.  There are hundreds of agency's and thousands and thousands of senior bureaucrats.  Do you really think they simply fold their loyalties over to the policies of each new administration?

We know they don't.  We know that the "resistance" has been all over the deep state.

We also know that one of the big media complaints about Trump early on, was that he was upending the cozy relationship they have with the government.

We can see the results in the constant leaks, in the one sided coverage, in the lack of any interest in fairness or review of crimes in both directions.  Honestly, this one is a total joke, Trump is being impeached for investigating crimes, specifically, DNC/Obama Admin election interference in 2016, Biden's potential selling access to the Admin, and Joe's potential abuse of office - all of which are better established than the "crime" of soliciting 2020 election interference by asking for any evidence of actual crimes.  By the logic of the left, investigating any Democrat, no matter how guilty, would be de facto an abuse of power and interference in the 2020 election.

It's either a media conspiracy, or a deep state conspiracy, or a NATO conspiracy, or a G20 conspiracy, or an Illuminati conspiracy, or a CIA conspiracy, or an Israeli conspiracy, or a Saudi conspiracy, or a Republican conspiracy.  I don't even know what "deep state" means, other than it's used like there is some deep conspiracy within the US government to hurt Trump.  Some nefarious group of a government within a government.

Deep state means the bureacracy.  Specifically, it's a conspiracy that seems to center in the Intelligence services, which isn't surprising when you look back and remember how Obama changed the rules on sharing classified information on the way out the door to ensure that virtually everyone in that service could access anything they wanted without having to show a need.  The media are in fact colluding with the DNC, they have in fact been caught doing so multiple times, the fact is they are the common thread between the DNC and the deep state leakers as well.

The rest of your "groups" are just thrown in for nonsence.

It was clearly compiled with the help of activist lawyers

If it was clearly complied by activist lawyers, what is the proof of that?  That it was well written?

Interestingly, I wrote that before the latest revelations, that Shiff new about the complaint before it was drafted, which should cause any person with doubts to understand the truth that this was drafted by a legal team to give Shiff and the DNC a purpose built plan to impeach.  Having Mueller fail, they went back to well, and this time faked up a much better template.

Why did Shiff spend 15 minutes hammering the acting DNI about "ensuring the whistleblower will be protected"?  Aren't we a country where the accused has a right to confront their attacker?  Not in this case, hundreds of years of legal form and precedent, the common law and the Constitution be damned.  Knowing who the whistleblower is would allow the normal people to make a judgement about whether they are just a partisan hack, or even a spy, keeping them anonymous is a tactic to make them seem more credible.

As to why I said it was drafted by activist lawyers, a thousand tells from reading an enormous amount of documents.  Not only that, it was drafted by a firm, with multiple lawyers having a hand, work produced without that level of collaboration doesn't come across anywhere near as polished.  It's also blatantly obvious that the information therein was compiled using government resources and most likely contributions from multiple members of the Intelligence Agencies.

Start with the first paragraph.  It puts the 2 most key things legally in that paragraph, and only those things for emphasis, they go directly to the right to release the information (which is done to try and prejudge that the individual submitting the claim is not themselves violating the law in doing so).  They are the specific legal conclusions "urgent concern" which entitle the whistleblower to go to the Intell Committees regardless of the IG's actions, and that "not classified" which purports a right to share everything without providing it to any review authority.  I note, it is now known, that the whistleblower had no intention of following the legal process as they have already spoken to members of the Intell committee (who probably where involved in connecting them with the lawfirms) and that they leaked it to the media.   

I've also seen a large number of similar documents drafted by non-lawyers, and they would almost never start with two non-substantive facts that are legally critical, and nothing about substance.  They'd start with what a non-lawyer thinks is critical the statement that they saw an illegal act.  Which if you think about it, would be the first thing on the mind of a whistleblower - the actual situation that justifies blowing the whistle.

Next paragraph, first sentence again is deliberately drafted to go directly to legal concerns.  "In the course of my official duties.." written to pre-empt the claim that the person was misusing intellingence or other resources by looking into confidential matters (which the President's communications are as a matter of fact and law).  This is almost certainly false, and again, something that is unlikely to be the way a non-lawyer leads off, particuarly with where the sentence goes next.  "...received information from multiple US Government Officials.." which is an interesting description of duties, and leads to the immediate question of why is this reference there.  It's there to generate pretend credibility.  It's not just me, it's multiple people, and while I don't have first hand knowledge (comes later), they do.  Why didn't they report it?  Not clear, especially in the context of deciding, apparently independently to share information - most likely in violation of their obligations to confidentiality - with this person.  And where does the sentence go?  Does it go to the most likely thing a person would think, blackmail?  abuse of office?  Nope - campaign violation of the 2020 race.  Why does it go there, that's not the place a layperson would think of naturally.  My guess is it goes there because someone on the Mueller team that really wanted to prosecute Don Jr. was involved in the drafting.  it's relying on the LEGALLY UNPROVEN idea that true information is a thing of value that it's illegal to recieve from a foreign national.  Go reread the Mueller report on that, they even pointed out that they weren't sure they could prove or prosecute it - and lest you think that this was part of Trump's presidential immunity, you'd be wrong, it was Don Jr. and Kushner, neither of whom was entitled to immunity.  So why was it in the Mueller report?  No good reason other than as a smear.

The next sentence doesn't just say the straight forward claim, it includes the preamble "among other things," which again is a classic lawyerism, where most non-lawyers would list out the multiple things they think prove their case, or just the one thing without the preamble.  Every law firm, on the other hand, would insert some  form of that at some stage of the drafting.

The next two lines are designed to build a basis to investigate Guilliani and to force Barr to recuse himself.  I note, Nadler made that second demand almost real time, and the subpeona's have issued on Guilliani.  Ask yourself, why a whistleblower would think those two are so critical that they need to be in the final 2 sentences of the preamble before there's even a reference to the phone call?  Or to the facts?  It's because this was purpose designed to play to a play book that Shiff is playing out.

The next bullet point - vaguely asserts that the information has come to the whistleblower by more than half a dozen officials, as a routine matter as part of the routine process.  Sounds good right?   Except it doesn't make any sense.  Is it really routine to share information about President's allegedly violating the law?  Nope.  So what is this referring to?  It's implying that it refers to evidence of illegality, but it in fact it doesn't.  It refers to evidence that we have had a foreign policy that involves the Ukraine, and that this person received ordinary course updates thereof.  This is a classic trick of activist lawyers writing for a non-legal audience.  Make them see more than is there without saying anything that isn't untrue.

Second bullet, I wasn't an eye witness.  Qualified by "most," and why?  Because it leads to an implication that they saw the damaging parts, without ever saying any such thing.  It's also a nod to the problem that was inherent in reporting hearsay - ie that it wasn't clear that the whistleblower would be protected, not withstanding the shady revisions to the form - and by the way the explanation posted about the background law is not remotely persuasive for why the form was revised, nor is it clear that it's an accurate interpretation.  Honestly, what's the difference between a whistleblower and a flat out spy?  There's no criminal conduct in Trump's transcript, which means this person is  actually a spy not a whistle blower.  Then the second bullet double's down on the corroboration, both of the other persons and the public press accounts.  Wait what?  Public press accounts, how are they corroborating anything?  Well once again cause this bullet is drafted to make you think it says more than it does.  It's kind of like one could say you have multiple sources of corroboration for the Trump dossier, cause you have six people that say he stayed in a Russian hotel, notwithstanding that none of them verified anything about a prosititute. 

In effect, all the two bullets actually say for purposes of considering whether the author perjured themselves is that multiple sources told him some stuff, much of which was also reported in the media.  It say's nothing about illegal activities, which is what they want you to believe was verified by multiple sources (lawyer trick).

The next paragraph is written it tight sentences that would appear in a legal filing.  State exactly the statute, the exact relevant phrase, then state it's not exact phrase of exemption.  Revert to duty to report (not clear why the first hand sources didn't report against this backdrop).  Several of the assertions are false.  Whistleblower asserts they are reporting through proper legal channels - notwithstanding they spoke to the committee before they drafted the complaint, and released information to the media when the IG didn't turn it over to the committee.  That's especially notworthy now that we know Shiff did have pre-knowledge.  Remember what I said about how releasing it to the media allowed it to go public and separated Shiff from appearing to have brought it forward.  That's 100% what happened based on what we now know.  Releasing it the committee would have done nothing since Dems on the committte already knew about it, it had to go public before they "officially got it" (else it would have been a delberate leak on their part).  It's also now expressly false that releasing it to the media was the only way the committee would learn about it.

Substantively it's also wrong because the conduct in question was - as a matter of fact - not a violation of law, and accordingly, does not appear to be a proper exercise of a whistleblower action.  The argument that impeachment doesn't have to be about an illegal act, doesn't help, as the whistle blower claim did.  It's also disputable that it involves a legitimate difference of policy, in that Trump's policy appears to be to ask for assistance in the investigation of an actual crime (2016 election interference), and two possible crimes (Hunter's selling access, Joe's abuse of office), and the Ukraine and the US have a treaty obligation each other to assist upon request.  Is the claim that it's illegal for the President to ask for that assistance as the head of the Executive branch (false on its face)?  It has never been established anywhere at law that obtaining evidence of a crime by a person is a campaign contribution to the other person - and even if it were, the Obama administration, the Hillary campaign, and multiple DNC Senators and Reps asked for exactly that evidence literally from the Ukraine.

The bullet following claims a risk to National Security - which is not remotely established or relevant - and doubles down on election interference.  Again these claims are here, rather than much more common ideas about Trump blackmailing the Ukrainian President because this was written by lawyers (they know the blackmail idea is dead in the water based on the record, and that the election interference has no legs in a real court but is a highly partisan and sellable issue for Congress) who are activists (election manipulation charges are 100% the goal of the activists to make the upcoming DOJ investigation into the 2016 election look like "revenge" and stale factors).  The whole point of this, so far, is to undercut Barr - by forcing recusal (ideal) or making him look partisan when they bring criminal charges for 2016 malfeasance, while writing an issue for the DNC House that is incapable of being disproven - as in there's no judicial resolution of receiving true information being an illegal campaign contribution, that the DNC wants to sell - because they are furious about how Hillary/DNC emails flipped a winnable election and because it effectively criminalizes Republican's looking for dirt on the DNC while the DNC knows the media will continue to cover for any Democratic research efforts, no matter how egregious (hiring a British spy to collect Russian propaganda, which you use to start a 2 year witch hunt, after using it to illegally spy on a major US political campaign.  The DNC made Nixon look like an amatuer and apparently is not only getting away with it, but is on track to criminalize the investigation of it).

And then the final paragraph of the introduction, is classic lawyer speach about the classification.  This report is "unclassified," notwithstanding that it includes a plethora of information that is subject to executive privilege and confidentiality the vast majority of which is not illegal or reportable conduct.  And then it writes  a true lawyer sentence that warns anyone classifying any part that their reasons are subject to review, effectively flipping the burden to the person applying the standard.    This is a loser it court.  This is a loser before a review tribunal.  This is exactly what the DNC/House needs to pretend they are applying a process and investigating something.

That's just the preamble Grant, effectively page one.  Everything about it screams lawfirm and careful planning and tactics that have zero to do with reporting a crime, and everything to do with establishing a pretext for an impeachment enquiry.  The DNC preknowledge (maybe even assitance in drafting, certainly in connecting the whistle blower with the lawyer) explains why Pelosi was willing to go "formal" without seeing it, she'd already seen it or been told it asserted a quid pro quo by Trump.  Once again Trump's instincts bizarrely flipped the script.  As there is nothing illegal, or really even wrong, in his phone call he ordered it and the whistle blower complaint made public.  He's not hiding anything, and thereafter we discover that Shiff and the House DNC have been hiding a bunch, that the whole thing has been orchestrated from the start, that most of the claims about what was in the whistle blower report (ie the whole quid pro quo) where not true, and they were being discussed in that window where the DNC already knew what was in the report, notwithstanding that they were pretending not to, and had not yet seen the transcript.  Seeing the transcript come out before the report (when they thought they'd have months to selectively leak the report's claims before the trasncript was forced out after the court's overruled executive privilige, or even months of "what is he hiding" forced them to have to walk back talking points that were already live.  The media was in fact so unprepared for the reversed release order that they couldn't flip the script, and they actually falsified reporting by doing things like editing out the 500 words between Trump asking for a favor and the conversation about Biden.  Even Shiff couldn't help himself, and had to do a "parody" of what Trump said, while pretending to read from a transcript that in no way matched what he said.

We really need an amendment that requires Reps and Senators to go under oath in some contexts.

I get it you want to pretend that a Deep State conspiracy is some kind of impossibility, but there's no question that you have a coordination here between at least the House Democrats, the media and a "whistle blower," and probably other members of the Intell Community.  It's even more troubling in that the whistle blower doesn't in my view appear to qualify as a whistle blower.  This wasn't a good faith report of a troubling event, this was a researched and compiled legal brief targeted at an impeachment, almost certainly compiled with the aid of a law firm (almost certainly without clearance and a breach of confidentiality), with the full support and knowledge of members of Congress.  If that's not enough evidence of a Deep State conspiracy for you, then I'm going to have to downgrade further my faith in humanity.

It's tough to say what's going on, I don't trust the Washington Post, they are spinners and the paper of choice for distribution of leaks by leftists.  My understanding is that "retroactive classification" is an actual process that requires that a change in circumstances make what initially was unclassified now classified, like discovering that a discovery related to a solar panel has a military application.  That can trigger changing the classification on existing emails.

Notwithstanding, the WaPo's claim, I doubt that's what happened here.  I suspect rather that the emails on Hillary's server were misclassified, and that the extensive review brought that to light.  It wouldn't be that surprising given that the State Department was pressuring everyone to lower the classification on those emails to try and save Hillary's campaign, that some of them are classified lower than they should be.  Both senders and recipients should be aware of the proper classification standard.  If the WaPo's claiming that this is "retroactive classification," they're actually misrepresenting what's going on.

But again, tough to really say based on the partisan way information is released these days.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 27, 2019, 04:31:22 PM »
I agree with your analysis on who is paying Rudy and how it should work, but I completely disagree with that as a statement of how it in fact does and did work.  The vast majority of Obama's tsars were overwhelming loyal to him personally, and in fact, much of the bureaucracy is effectively loyal to the Democratic party.  Why do you think leaks are so prevalent with Trump?  It's not because he's especially noxious (though he is), it's because most of those guys are not only not loyal to them but deliberately adverse.

I mean rep Swalwell (?) flat out said it's an admission of guilt that this transcript was moved to the more secure server, and it's been intimated that other such discussions were "inappropriately moved" as well.  Of course, I've seen it reported, though you have to look for it, that the practice of moving Presidential conversations to the more secure servers started after, and is a direct response to, 4 or 5 leaks of Presidential conversations with foreign leaders to the media, several of which had diplomatic impacts.  That's treachery, and I don't recall it ever happening under any prior President, and the leaks themselves where almost exclusively politically damaging without being criminal or even particularly questionable.

Sounds reasonable to me.  Presidential calls - absent a compelling whistleblower case - should never ever have been leaked, and then only to Congress not the media.  Ask yourself some real questions about the timeline here.

Does it not seem an interesting coincidence that the standup patriot whistleblower didn't send the report to the Intelligence committee, even though that was expressly authorized by the statute?  Instead leaked it to the media?  Imagine, just for a second, how frustrated Shiff would be if he already had the whistleblower report in hand but it hadn't been provided by the admin, and then the "deadline" came and went but he couldn't see an easy way to call the President out. What to do?  Create a leak to the media, now the whole thing is in public where he wanted it and he can act on the information without triggering an investigation of himself for the breach of security and potential criminality of the leak.  And he's cleansed of the bad optics of being the one who reveals the report.  I don't even think that's a "remote" possibility, I think it's what happened.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 27, 2019, 03:48:35 PM »
I'm going to help out here.  What you're referring to are "Special Envoys".  Yes there is a history of them.  They are typically emergency appointments for temporary jobs.

I need to get back to you on prior request, I'm not always sure if you guys realize how when you ask for an explanation like how the whistle blower complaint demonstrates something it takes quite a while to actually show the work on the math problem.

But I did want to help you out here, the word you're looking for is "tsar" or "csar" and you might have forgotten it because Trump has largely ended the practice which was relatively routine under Obama of appointing people to wield significant executive authority but skip the Senate confirm policy.  That said, Rudy would barely be on the bottom rung of the tsar category.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 26, 2019, 12:36:09 PM »
Everyone on the left seems to believe that they have an absolute right to investigate the President for anything at anytime, and that anything that the President asks for that he can't prove is solely unrelated to his own benefit is a crime.

Out of curiosity, what's the appropriate remedy or oversight for members of the House of Representatives conducting fake or overblown investigations to serve their own political interests?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 26, 2019, 11:49:11 AM »
Yes, wow, you read the disclaimer - which always appears when the call isn't recorded.  you got me.

Lol, I struck by my view that everything discussed on the call is in fact proper and reasonable.  So what's your complaint again, and how are you applying it evenly?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 26, 2019, 11:31:04 AM »
Yeah, Trump just wants a crime to be investigated.

You don't think that after suffering through a special counsel investigation and having his entire Presidency derailed on a fake investigation he wants the crimes connected with creating that fake investigation investigated?  Seems nonsensical to me to believe that.

(BTW, just to be clear, the summary is not an actual transcript.

Last refuge of the scoundrel, when what you want isn't there call it into question.  It's the same transcript that the whistle blower referred to in their complain as the "word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced."  It's the same one that is produced as the transcript of other calls by the situation room, where you get the combined notes of nearly a dozen people in the room.

But yeah, make hay over the disclaimer, even if that's just silly.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 26, 2019, 10:35:59 AM »
In fact reading it again, this document seems designed to try and criminalize the investigation of what appears to have been a deep state plot to use the Ukranian government to influence the 2016 election.  Makes sense, the Mueller probe was able to hide all DNC malfeasance in the 2016 election for over 2 years by intimating that anyone doing such an investigation would be obstructing justice.  Why not try again here, by trying to force anyone with an actual interest in justice out of the investigation so that it can be run again by deep state cronies.

Think specifically of Nadler's demand that Barr recuse himself in that context.  There's nothing about Barr that calls for that, so what was it about?  Fear.  It's pretty clear there's either DNC or deep state bodies in the Ukranian files, or that senior people on that side believe their could be.  Yet it's Trump who is the bad guy for trying to get to the bottom of it.

Getting tired of living in a world where the "crime" is investigating Democratic lawlessness.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 26, 2019, 10:13:50 AM »
It wouldn't take much coordination rightleft, and in fact Media Matters is in exactly the business of coordinating journalists and Democratic politicians so even if you think it takes coordination it's more than there.

On the lies, at least a dozen articles with paraphrases of that "quote" that Trump's favor was to investigate Biden, not to give information on the 2016 election interference.  Think about how insidious that lie is, if Trump was actually trying to get to the bottom of the 2016 hacking and election interference it's a complete undercutting of the media theme that he was involved, so they pretend that didn't happen.  But it's even more, by that deliberate reconstruction is full on and intentional lie to convince people that the media knows will not read the actual transcript.

I just read the whistle blower complaint.  If you didn't believe in  a deep state before, that document should remove all doubt.   It was clearly compiled with the help of activist lawyers (bet you they didn't have security clearance), purports to be unclassified (notwithstanding that it reveals information that is presumptively classified), and was absolutely and clearly compiled using the resources of the US government, at a minimum by inappropriate access to State department files, but more likely intelligence files.  There's no way a single whistleblower put that together, which almost certainly means there is in fact a conspiracy operating internally to the government. Trump misusing official resources is "impeachable" deep state activists? 

It's massively agenda driven.  Read it for yourself, then go back and consider everything the DNC politicians have been saying "without evidence" it's pretty clear that they had a copy, or even helped draft it, to give themselves a pretext.  Fact is Trump releasing the transcript demonstrates conclusively that this was a contrived hit piece.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 65