Number of senior FBI & DOJ officials fired under POTUS

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by me again, Jul 3, 2018.

  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  2. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    This looks like it may be a good spot to explain Trump's special gut. Trump has a super power gut that magically knows things better than the brains of experts. It is why he is able to be an expert on practically everything. For example he has claimed to have a natural expertise on covid19.
  3. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Adam Schiff, who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was running an impeachment coup for months.
    He should have been on top of the China matter. He should have been on top of the virus matter, and so you may want to know what Adam Schiff knew and when he knew it and when he started to hold hearings?
    I think this impeachment mater distracted the government from doing more important work for the American people.
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I thought that impeachment was a poor strategic decision, but it's not a "coup" any more than it was when Clinton was impeached. It's a process that's literally in the Constitution.
  5. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Trying to inject a little bit of reality into the Fox News world? :-D
  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    It seemed like a coup to me. Clinton's second term didn't run for re-election - By contrast, President Trump is up for election in less than a year at that time. Impeachment, then, seems a partisan exercise in either circumventing a referendum election or in damaging a president seeking re-election.

    Questionable whistleblower?
    The “whistleblower” is no whistleblower by any common definition of the noun. He has no incriminating documents, no information at all. He doesn’t even have firsthand evidence of wrongdoing from what I saw and heard even on CNN or MSNBC like outlets that in y view characterized by about a month of media hysteria.
    The indiscriminate efforts to remove President Trump over the past three years +, when coupled with the impeachment gambit, have now set a dangerous precedent!
    Highly partisan - one-sided mini coup.
  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Then you don't know what "coup" means.
  8. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Meanwhile on planet Earth, the bulk of the whistleblower complaint was corroborated by the official memorandum of the infamous phone call Trump himself made available to the public, and much of the rest by witnesses before Congress. Even GOP do not deny he did what he's accused of doing; they simply decided to side with "when the President does it it is not illegal".
  9. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    There was nothing impeachable on that phone call. Everybody in the lower house and the Senate knew that.
    This fiasco was one of the many attempts to remove or hurt the president.
    Now there is a new one - This virus has done what Mueller and Schiff failed to do. They think President Trump doesn’t have a prayer. That’s what they’re telling themselves right now, and they’ll show polling data to prove it.
    Left and some on the right think that President Trump voters locked into Trump was the economy, and now Trump has lost that. And there is no way this economy is gonna come back to what it was before the election.
    I think it may take some time but it will.
    I also think left as it seems to me has no candidate that can win in Nov.
  10. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I think AG is still looking into that.
  11. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    There was plenty impeachable (and even more, deplorable) on that phone call, and in actions surrounding the call. You of all people should have the feel for the context.
  12. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I know many immigrants that fall for Trump, in US and Canada. Still can't wrap my mind around it, and how can it possibly be morally justified. I know a few fellow Ukrainians (like Lerner) in that camp; this blows my mind even more.
    My biggest hope is when Biden wins, this whole experience won't prevent him to keep supporting Ukraine, as he did effectively as Obama's VP. God knows our clowns desperately need some adult supervision.
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Suuuure, he is. Well, if he looks hard enough, maybe eventually he'll find Article II, Section 4.
  14. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    His job depends on maintaining this charade, so it will take him loong time finding Article II, Section 4. Sessions did virtually everything he was asked (and was ideologically Trumpian before Trump) - yet he was doomed because he dared to remember conflict of interest rules.
  15. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Well if I remember correctly, AG stated that the caliber of people involved and their position is not allowing for any mistakes, its taking time to investigate.
    I hope they don't find any misconduct etc, I want to believe that the people up there are moral and ethical as they are heads of our top agencies.
    Barr also said in the interview that the purpose of the Durham review is to make sure there was not inappropriate surveillance of the Trump campaign.

    "I had a lot of questions about what was going on," he said. "Some of the facts that I've learned don't hang together with the official explanations of what happened."
  16. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Stanislav I think President Trump and the WH under his administration did much more for Ukraine. The Trump aid program has significantly helped Ukraine defend itself against Russia.
    Taylor called Trump administration policy a "substantial improvement" over what came before. (Obama Biden)
    "I was happy that we were providing aid," Taylor said. "It could always be more. But I was glad if it was coming. I would've been very unhappy if it didn't come."

    "But the Trump administration had a package of aid to the Ukraine?"


    "Including lethal defensive weapons?"


    "Financial assistance?"

    "I was very happy about that."

    "And was that an improvement [over] years prior?"

    "It was."

    "Was it a substantial improvement?"

    "It was a substantial improvement, in that this the administration provided Javelin anti-tank weapons," Taylor explained. The shoulder-fired missiles, he said, "successfully deter Russians from trying to grab more territory."

    Then there was Volker.

    "There has been U.S. assistance provided to Ukraine for some time," he told the House. "Under the Bush administration, Obama administration, and now under the Trump administration. I was particularly interested in the security assistance and lethal defensive weapons. The reason for this is this was something that the Obama administration did not approve. They did not want to send lethal defensive arms to Ukraine. I fundamentally disagreed with that decision."

    "I thought that this is a country that is defending itself against Russian aggression," Volker continued. "They had their military largely destroyed by Russia in 2014 and 2015 and needed the help. And humanitarian assistance is great, and nonlethal assistance, you know MREs and blankets and all, that's fine, but if you're being attacked with mortars and artilleries and tanks, you need to be able to fight back."

    "And has the lethal defensive arms that have been provided to date, has that been helpful?" asked Castor.

    "It has been extremely helpful."

    "And ... you can see materially that this is helping the country of Ukraine?"

    Yovanovitch, removed from her post by Presiden Trump, was less inclined to give the president credit for anything. But even she admitted that her preferred policy in Ukraine — lethal aid — became reality under Trump.
    "In terms of lethal assistance," she continued, "We all felt it was very significant that this administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine."

    "Did you advocate for that?"


    "And did you advocate for that prior to the new administration back in 2016?"

    "Well, yeah."
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Even if this were a full picture, it would not justify the extortion, now would it? But it is not a full picture.
    For one, the big driver to Ukraine aid is the bipartisan support in Congress. I really, really fear that Trump's actions politicized this, and this bipartisanship may not survive.

    Obama/Biden administration had pressure on Ukrainian government to make progress on reforms. An element of this pressure, in fact, was encouraging personnel changes at the office of Prosecutor General, the very action Trump/Giuliani/henchmen tried to build Biden smear around. If you followed the goings on at all (and in 2014, well, any red-blooded Ukrainian did), you would know that. Trump got the dealings to the level of backroom deals Ukrainians are sadly too prone to. Heck, he utilized Mr. Furman and his associate, guys too sleazy even for Ihor Valeriyovych Kolomoyskyi (and this is saying something).

    You don't suppose Trump sold Ukraine those Javelins without deriving personal benefit, do you? It is not even hard to surmise what exactly Pres. Poroshenko gave Trump in exchange for this, and for a brief awkward meeting (both of which were very important for Poroshenko politically).

    (Spoiler: Ukrainian prosecutors quietly stopped collaborating with DOJ investigation of Paul Manafort just as Trump suddenly agreed to the concessions).
  18. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    There was no extortion, There was a left news distortion.
    President Trump's deriving benefit is for the American people. But it's hard to see behind all the fake news operations.

    It's interesting - Left (Obama Biden) administration had pressure on the Ukrainian government
    But current administration - that's become an extorsion. The problem there was not even presure.
    A request can be interpreted in diferent ways as we seen.
  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Alan Dershowitz's argument. Do you really not see how bat$h1t insane it is? By this logic, why not cancel the democracy, Trump dictatorship would derive even more "benefit for the American people".
    And oh BTW, Trump is a disaster at the job. Makes GWB look competent, and Nixon - ethical.

    Obama admin (who were firmly center-left, btw) were restricting Poroshenko admin's worst instincts, for the better of Ukrainian people. Trump cultivates Zelensky's worst instincts, for the benefit of himself.

    When the primaries started, my wife said "I hope it's Biden", even though someone like Warren is much more her type (a hyper-competent female). Solely because what he did on Obama's behalf in Ukraine; after McCain died, Biden is perhaps the best friend we have in Washington. Or had, if your Putin puppet idol soured him to that whole region.
  20. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    President Trump is excellent at his job.
    Obama admin was weak on many issues. Even with good intentions such as ACA that basically left people with huge bills and very little coverage.
    Ukraine also very weak, this is one of the reasons Russians did what they did in 2014. I'm sure it wouldn't have happened if Trump was president at that time.
    The economy got very good since President Trump took office and unfortunately temporary due to current COVID 19 and " special efforts if some politicians"
    is suffering at this time. We will see how things unfold.

    I definitely prefer Biden over many other DEM's candidates but I don't think he can bring it home for the Dems.
    Just my thoughts.

Share This Page