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 - DonaldD

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 09, 2019, 03:39:03 PM »
Got it, Crunch.  You can't actually point out what you said that I said. You're making a habit of misrepresenting people then being too cowardly to either back up your observation, or to admit your mistake... although I'm being a bit generous by calling it a "mistake".

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 09, 2019, 09:03:10 AM »
I’m pointing out that when you say only the Trump campaign has mismanaged donations that you are, once again, making something up.
Please do quote where I stated this, Crunch.
your claim of it being only Trump is a falsehood.

Dude, seriously, you gotta stop making things up.
Again, where did I state it was only Trump that mismanaged donations? I did say he was the only president to have admitted in court to stealing from a charity money that was specifically donated for the benefit of veterans. I'll let you figure out which logical fallacy you have employed to claim that I'm now presenting a "falsehood" about Trump.

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 09, 2019, 06:01:03 AM »
Clinton Foundation has a lot of foreign money floating around.
So does the Red Cross.  There is also no evidence that the Clinton Foundation money went anywhere except to support its identified charitable causes.

But again, irrelevant.  The current president admitted, in court, to stealing from a charity; not only can't you say that was wrong, or that it's unacceptable for the president to have done, but you are seemingly defending him...  Jesus wept.

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 08, 2019, 11:56:10 PM »
I mean, seriously... You've got Crunch trying to whatabout unknown, unnamed past presidents, and you suggesting that people expected Trump to steal from his named charity....

If either Clinton had admitted guilt, in court, of stealing from their own foundation, the right wing would have gone ape-sh1t; any suggestion otherwise is just patently dishonest.

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 08, 2019, 11:39:22 PM »
Bwahahaha! The Clinton foundation?  The same charity that Republicans spent years obsessing over, but where the Clinton's were not proven to have done anything wrong?

As for it being his own charity ... a charity run by his named foundation, or the Red Cross, is functionally no different, with the sole difference being that in the former, Trump gets credit for being philanthropic. I really doubt the people who donated to what they thought was a charity that would spend their donations for the benefit of needy veterans really expected Trump to steal the money and spend it on himself.

I'd like to say I'm shocked that anybody is bothering to defend or rationalize Trump's admitted guilt, here, but I'm sadly not... in any other administration...

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 08, 2019, 09:45:40 PM »
The president of your country just admitted, personally, to stealing from a charity... That the whole country isn't outraged is symptomatic of just how far down the rabbit hole the country has fallen.

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 08, 2019, 08:39:26 PM »
So it’s your claim that Trump is the only presidential candidate, ever, that the campaign inappropriately received funds and had to return it?
It's fair to say he is the only candidate to have admitted, in court, to knowingly stealing from a veterans' charity, and, not paying back, but being forced to pay damages.

Let that sink in - the Republican candidate, the supposed champion of the military and services members, stole money designated for veterans for his own personal purposes... and he (not his campaign, nor people working for him, but the candidate himself) admitted that he was guilty of the act.

General Comments / In any other administration...
« on: November 08, 2019, 04:43:07 PM »
 Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Charities for Misuse of Foundation
Among Mr. Trump’s admissions in court papers: The charity gave his campaign complete control over disbursing the $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, only days before the state’s presidential nominating caucuses. The fund-raiser, he acknowledged, was in fact a campaign event.
To summarize:
  • The Donald J. Trump Foundation gave all proceeds of this charitable event to Trump's presidential campaign.
  • Trump used the sympathy for the needs of veterans to acquire money from donors for his own, personal uses.
  • This event was always planned as a campaign event, notwithstanding how it would be sold to the donors.
  • Trump did this knowingly.
Of course, it's not like Trump has a pattern of using other people's money (ahem, $400M in military/security assistance to Ukraine, access of foreign leaders to the president of all the USA) as bribes to advance his personal electoral chances...

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 08, 2019, 04:25:15 PM »
 ??? "Compelling"

In what way is it not compelling?  Are you suggesting that Taylor made up what he was relating of the Sondland call out of whole cloth?  Or that Taylor mis-remembered and accidentally invented a false memory?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 08, 2019, 03:45:24 PM »
From Ambassador Taylor's testimony (
I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation.  This was the first time I had heard that security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.

Very concerned, on that same day, I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if we are now saying that security assistance and a White House meeting are conditioned on investigations. Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did.

During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U. S . election.

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations. In fact, Ambassador Sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.  He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a box by making public statement about ordering such investigations.
(my bold)

It is 100% a sign of the problem that there are no French boots on the ground today.
It's "100% a sign" but it is not 100% true:

Britain has agreed to deploy additional special forces in Syria alongside France to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the ongoing fight against the remaining Isis forces in the country.

US officials briefed on Tuesday that Britain and France would contribute 10% to 15% more elite soldiers, although the exact numbers involved remain secret.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 08, 2019, 03:17:08 PM »
I was chatting with my imaginary friend, Chester, and I raped a woman... the cops never mention Chester, they always fixate on the rape, instead...

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 03:44:42 PM »
No one seems to feel the need to clearly state terms, and instead buzzwords are being used to try to 'win' arguments.
Unless I'm mistaken, Sondland's comments seem to suggest that there was reasonable presumption that the aid was being withheld until a statement was made about investigations into corruption.
This is somewhat ironic - that you wrote both of these sentences in a single post.

Trump was not requiring that a statement be made about (buzzword/waffle alert) "investigations into corruption".  He was requiring that the Ukraine president announce investigations into Joe Biden and his son.

There is no reasonable benefit to the USA of having the president of the Ukraine announce investigations into two named US citizens (one of whom, coincidentally, is a political opponent.)  You could make the argument that forcing the Ukraine to open an investigation might be beneficial to the USA, but making aid contingent on a foreign politician naming political opponents?  No.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 01:13:30 PM »
by saying "there is no question now" you imply that this testimony on its own puts quid pro quo beyond doubt.
No - see what Yossarian wrote.  Also, see where I wrote "And there are such pieces of evidence..."

At some point, the weight of evidence becomes sufficient to convince.  In this case, that weight has been achieved for many people; whereas for other people, it has not.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 12:26:09 PM »
What is quite clear is that the statement:

"there is no question now whether quid pro quo occurred."

cannot really be supported by Sondland's "revised" testimony.
"Supported"?  Why not?  Those revisions are certainly consistent with Trump's attempt to bribe or extort concessions out of the president of the Ukraine. If by "supported" you meant "proved" well, no - there would need to be many more corroborating pieces of evidence before there is any widespread agreement on this being accepted as a fact.  And there are such pieces of evidence, including "the transcript", Vindman's testimony,  Taylor's testimony, Mulvaney's statements...

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 12:17:19 PM »
What is quoted does not indicate that the link between the Aid and the public statement was anything but his own presumption.
Right - but only at that time (if we are to believe Sondland).  But then Sondland claims that later discussions led him to believe differently, that it was no longer a presumption.  So adding this quote does nothing to clarify Sondland's final conclusions.  That's why I asked whether you understood how his claimed understanding evolved.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 11:21:21 AM »
Lloyd, you seem to think that somehow pertinent - you do realize that what you referred to preceded what Warsaw quoted in time, right?  Sondland "presumed" in early September, but this presumption was then superseded by additional knowledge (after "speaking individually with Mr. Yermak" and that "Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself.")

That was clear, right - that Sondland was describing how his understanding evolved?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 07, 2019, 11:08:38 AM »
And conveniently, the statistics start in 1882
What exactly would have been the point of lynching one's own property, or worse, of lynching somebody else's property?  Are you really unaware of why statistics prior to 1865, or even in the immediate post-war years, would not have been comparable to the reported timeline, anyway?

Of course, prior to 1865, lynching of blacks would more likely have come under the description of "death while escaping" "death while being punished" or "death from natural causes (over-work, insufficient nutrition, poor health care, etc)"

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 06, 2019, 08:24:01 PM »
Trump didn't get the public announcement he was seeking.
So you also accept that Trump attempted to leverage the value of the QPQ, he was just unsuccessful in his attempt... That's refreshingly honest...

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: November 06, 2019, 04:06:21 PM »
So... the $400M package of US military and security aid for Ukraine... it absolutely had/has a concrete value to the Ukraine (oh, I'd say about $400M worth...)

But did that $400M have any value to the USA?  Could it have been used for anything else, or, knowing that it was valued by the Ukraine, could it have been used in some kind of trade with that country for something of value to the USA?

Obviously, the question that's coming is pretty obvious: what is the lost opportunity cost to the USA if those $400M were used instead to benefit the president's re-election campaign?  And what might the financial value be to the president's campaign of using at least part of that $400M as leverage?

I've heard a number of apologists make the claim (now that there is nothing wrong with the quid pro quo, there never was a problem with quid pro quo) that all presidents do this.  But they never really consider the cost to the country, all those millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, that were theoretically diverted to the president's election campaign...

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 06, 2019, 09:54:28 AM »
For context, yossarian posted the link to the transcript, accompanied by the following:
This is mostly just a link to the transcript of McKinley's testimony.
So, when Crunch dismissed the link out of hand due to his expectation of bias, since he was responding to yossarian's post, he was basically dismissing the transcript.  A transcript which contains questions (and the associated responses) placed by both the majority and minority representatives, of which both parties were allotted the same amount of time for their inquiries.

That is the actual context of the transcript, if Crunch had bothered to read it.  But Crunch did not, instead relying on his partisan expectations, and now decrying that a partisan editorial acceptable to Crunch was not also included.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 10:06:03 PM »
  Leaks from a Grand Jury put people in jail,   
This is ironic, given how extremely leaky Ken Starr's Grand Jury team was during the Clinton impeachment process.  And no, nobody went to jail over it.
The purpose of a Grand Jury is also radically different than what's going on.  It's to authorize the state to use even more powers - the House currently believes its authorized to use any power.
Putting aside your unfounded partisan conclusion, this is exactly what the impeachment process is - the bringing of articles of impeachment so that the Senate can bring to bear "even more powers", i.e., to try impeachment and attempt to convict.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 03:49:35 PM »
Of course, if you were curious enough to test your ideas, you would look at the transcripts and see if there was any "refusing to allow questions that conflict with the preferred narrative" by the Republicans who were present in this "secret meeting"
WS, I think you are being waaaay too subtle here.  You should just point out that in this particular transcript, there at least dozens of pages of testimony (I stopped after about 40 pages, but it kept going) questions and answers, asked by the Republican representatives and answered by the ambassador.  And no, there were no interruptions from the Democratic representatives or chairman.  Which puts to the lie "refusing to allow questions that conflict with a preferred narrative"

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 02:38:45 PM »
Being Trumpian in your level of gaslighting doesn't actually make you look good, here, you realize...

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 02:22:02 PM »
So that's a "no" then - you cannot answer?

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 01:53:01 PM »
I will repeat - so, what did you actually mean to imply by the following?
Nobody has to read it, that tells you exactly what the story willbe.
It's a pretty simple question.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 05, 2019, 08:06:36 AM »
Oh please Crunch - if you're going to try to condescend, at least have the courage of your convictions.

So, what did you actually mean to imply by the following?
Nobody has to read it, that tells you exactly what the story willbe.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 04, 2019, 08:34:59 PM »
It's a link to the transcript of his testimony, Crunch.  How can a transcription being linked from NPR change the contents of the transcription in any way? SMH

If leftwits could produce a woman whom Trump had nonconsentually kitty-grabbed,
then the could reasonably claim that the line describes assault 
Your words, your challenge, your conclusion, Pete. Maybe you misspoke - but then own your mistake.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Sure, although I don't think Clinton bragged about assaulting women.  Which is irrelevant to the point being made, that notwithstanding Pete's "not a true Scottish rapist" argument, there are plenty of women alleging that Trump DID touch them sexually without consent.

produce a woman whom Trump had nonconsentually kitty-grabbed,
then the could reasonably claim that the line describes assault

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 01:54:19 PM »
Imagine if instead of a retired British spy digging up dirt on Trump, it was Obama calling foreign heads of state and saying
I understand this is (part of) your point, but in case it gets lost in the details: Fusion GPS was hired by political (non-governmental) entities - specifically, The Washington Free Beacon and the DNC. I don't think anybody accused Obama of being involved in contracting with Fusion GPS to acquire opposition research on Trump.

That being said, there are people posting on this thread who took a huge amount of exception to the DNC working even so indirectly with Steele, and who have no issue with what Trump has admitted to doing directly in his role as president.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 12:19:01 PM »
QPQ would definitely be an additional reason for impeachment, but using the office of the president to request foreign governments to interfere in US elections and to attack political opponents is already sufficient for impeachment.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 06:40:59 AM »
That you claim to see only one reason why all the Republicans voted against, simply shows you to be transparently disingenuous, completely lacking in self-awareness, or just plain dumb.

DonaldD: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 31, 2019, 11:33:51 PM »
What's the lie??

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 31, 2019, 09:32:48 AM »
One of the most basic rights afforded to American citizens is the right to due process. Due process does not protect the guilty; it is the means by which we guarantee the most fundamental aspect of our nation’s justice system: innocent until proven guilty.
It has been kept alive by a Star Chamber in which the president is not represented and the Republican questioning and calling of witnesses is done at the behest of the Democratic leadership
Oh, please - the impeachment process is equivalent to grand juries investigating whether an indictment should be brought before a court - and grand juries have no requirement of transparency, nor of allowing defendants to present cases, nor even to inform defendants of the action being taken.  Show me any significant number of police officers, never mind the 'Fraternal Order of Police', claiming that grand jury secrecy is an affront to due process... 

Such sturm und drang over a process that was acceptable when the shoe was on the other foot.

That just sounds like political-talk for "don't cross the wrong people
You do often misinterpret pretty straightforward statements, yes.

Seriously, it's very very simple - don't abuse your authority in such transparent ways, and you will be far more likely to avoid stepping in it. Anybody who still thinks it wasn't a really bad idea to try to convince the Ukrainian President to investigate Biden must be willfully blind.

The rule of thumb is for the president - basically, don't do stupid things that would invite impeachment.

It really isn't very complicated - does the president have the authority or the ability to do things, like strong arming foreign governments into investigating political opponents?  Yeah, sure.  What could be the harm, after all?  If the subject of an investigation is not guilty, no harm. Of course, in politics, perceptions matter - both the perception that the president might be using his position as the president of the whole population, a position which is actually above politics, for political purposes, as well as the perceptions of investigations themselves - hey look - Ukraine is investigating Joe Biden for criminal activity!  Now, I don't know if he committed the crime he's being investigated for, but lots of people are talking about how he broke the law, and well, look - Ukraine!

Should there be some blanket rule against the president speaking to foreign leaders about political opponents?  No.  But if a president does do so, that person better be very careful because using the position of president for pure political hackery, inviting other countries into the US electoral cycle, could very well get you impeached.  It seems like a very reasonable rule of thumb.

This means that any investigation in which a foreign government is participating in any way that involves political opponents must be nixed
No, it doesn't.

What I actually wrote was "one thing that people here "can't allow to happen", or can't allow to continue happening, is using one's elected office to request foreign governments to interfere in domestic US elections; especially to request them to work against one's political opponents."

"using one's elected office" to "request [foreign countries] to work against one's political opponents" is NOT at all synonymous with (requesting, I assume) a foreign government to participate in an investigation that in any way involves political opponents.  Nor does it imply that any foreign investigation "be nixed". The challenge here is as much political as anything, especially since the issue is one of motive, and the impeachment process is not a court requiring the same levels of evidence: if the political opponent actually is found to have committed a crime that is corroborated by the results of the foreign intervention, the president having made the request might actually have a fig leaf of cover - whereas if the result of this investigation is ambiguous, the president would be left out to dry, having requested a foreign power to interfere with one's political opponent without any valid rationale.

It's for this reason that the president should avoid at all costs being seen to be using his position in government to attack political opponents.  Could a president do such a thing, and might it be defensible?  Sure - but until all the cards are on the table, there's no guarantee that the investigation will show what was 'suspected' - it's a huge risk.  As well, and as has been mentioned earlier, the president avoiding using his position as head of government in this way does not magically stop actual investigative arms of the government from doing their jobs, including making requests of foreign governments with which they may have intelligence sharing agreements.

Well, it seems clear to me that one thing that people here "can't allow to happen", or can't allow to continue happening, is using one's elected office to request foreign governments to interfere in domestic US elections; especially to request them to work against one's political opponents.

I suppose we could bypass that, Fenring, except Seriati was responding to D.W.'s response to Crunch's nutty claim, and then you inserted yourself into the same discussion... and now, you are asking us to ignore that this whole aside was based on Crunch's nutty claim.

Sure we can ignore Crunch's claim... just like we should then just ignore D.W. responding to that claim, and Seriati responding to D.W.'s response, and my responses to Seriati's on the topic... although it also sounds like Seriati just might believe that WS' hypothetical means WS actually believes Trump is a murderer in waiting, too...

I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet, but it's absurd to keep acting like it's not on the table, when I LITERALLY had to respond to the hypo that our systems make not be adequate because the President could murder Congress.
I'm not sure why you don't understand that a hypothetical literally means that the posited scenario does not require that it occur in reality... 

It feels like a motte and bailey, among other reasons, because you're insisting that no one really believes Trump will murder anyone (which we sort of knew already)
Except "we" actually do not agree on that - Crunch clearly pretends, at the very least, to believe it.

I'm not switching between anything - just pointing out that nobody here believes, as Crunch argues, and as Seriati has yet to deny, that Trump is likely to murder anybody.

That you then go on about the "between the lines" possible interpretation doesn't change that Crunch's words are explicit, clear and unsupported. Nor that Seriati disagreed with D.W.s push-back against that unsupported statement.

I hate to say it, DonaldD, but I think your interpretation of the thread title, while technically correct, isn't really accurate in terms of what it's saying between the lines.
What it is saying between the lines is that the hypothetical of the President murdering people was being discussed in a court of law. By a judge.  And by the president's lawyer.  And in the very context of what is being discussed here - a debate on the limits of presidential accountability.

For instance there hasn't been and never, ever was a thread entitled "Obama could murder someone on 5th Ave and get away with it" because Obama was a chill dude.
Or just maybe it's because Obama never jokingly claimed he could do so...    ::)

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.  Only he, and his attorney have floated that hypothetical.

Again, this is literally the thread title, and when I did response in detail on the issues, Wayward literally refocused on the murdering part.
No, it is NOT the thread title.  The thread title is "Trump Lawyer Argues President Can't Be Prosecuted for Murder While in Office".  It is not that Trump is expected to murder somebody; it is not that anybody here believes it likely.  It is that the thread title is mooting the extreme case of incontrovertible evidence of serious felony guilt. D.W. summed it up well.

Now, what Crunch wrote was very specific: "Orange man is so bad that you literally fear he will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, guns in both hands, firing randomly into crowds and nobody could stop him"

Crunch could have written "he could walk down..." in stead of "he will walk down" but he chose the words he chose, and reinforced them with "you literally fear"...

Seriati, why did you put "nonsequitor" in quotes?  I certainly did not misspell "non sequitur"; you did.

Back on topic, you were responding to D.W. when he responded to Crunch:
Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.
Presumably, you were disagreeing with this point, which is why I asked you if actually do believe that WS is "honestly worried about Trump personally murdering" someone.  Because Crunch, actually does believe this (or he would have us believe so - "Orange man is so bad that you literally fear he will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, guns in both hands, firing randomly into crowds and nobody could stop him")

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17