• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We're in a permanent coup

not everyone agrees with you

I also read Taibbi's blog about Russiagate. This is a classic, rational Taibbi quote, about mainstream media hysteria and how they did get people's hopes too high regarding the Mueller Report:

Reporters are supposed to be more curious than invested. That’s why a lot of us went into this line of work, because we share that personality quirk. A politician you long admired has been caught capturing and eating hitchhikers? Interesting! The antiwar pol you’ve known for years was spotted at a Lockheed-Martin office party, then voted to reauthorize the F-35? Doesn’t sound right, but let’s check. Part of the job is to never care enough to be certain of anything, at least not during business hours.

The defining characteristic of the Russiagate press corps was certainty. It knew everything in advance, and whenever it turned out to be wrong, it just moved to the next thing it knew. On the morning of the 18th, for instance, before the report came out, we learned executive privilege was never asserted. So long to another controversy that never was.

And Taibbi was right. The speculation on CNN and MSNBC about Trump exerting executive privilege regarding the Mueller Report did not pan out and there was a lot of breathless exaggeration and speculation about this by certain media types like Joe Scarborough.

Taibbi is a sober journalist, quick to point out mainstream media hysteria. We need more people like him in the media. For example, this is what he said about Jennifer Rubin, a moderate Republican columnist that I've never liked:

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, an industrious repeater-of-thoughts and breathless sycophant of the sort that in banana autocracies wins tin medals by the dozen, even went on MSNBC this past December to predict Trump will “resign the Presidency 10 minutes before [Mike] Pence leaves office, allowing Pence to pardon him.”

Taibbi is not liked by the mainstream media, which is why he is never on shows like Meet The Press. He's not afraid to tell certain reporters like Jennifer Rubin how full of **** they are. However, he's smarter than all of them.

And Taibbi is also despised by most Republicans. This is what he said this about Trump regarding the Mueller Report:

Of course there is a ton in the report that is disturbing, and if you’re a Trump fan, which I’m not and never have been, it’s even possible that some of the material Mueller describes will shock you. The Donald Trump described in this report is pretty much the character we’ve come to know pretty well: a needy, vacillating, ignoramus, clearly so used to life at the top of private-sector organizations that he can’t understand the concept of behavioral constraints like the law.
 
Last edited:
No; because the fact finding mission, like some poster called it here, was voted on and approved by the whole House before the investigation began. In other words, both sides of the House plus the executive branch had the same powers and rights during the investigation.

"... To make his point, Levin referred to a House Judiciary Committee resolution from former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in October 1998, in which top committee Democrats were given those powers and the inquiry was authorized by a vote of the whole House before it began.
...
The 1998 document also explains that the committee found it necessary to have its investigation authorized by a House vote because “the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming importance, the Committee decided that it must receive authorization from the full House before proceeding on any further course of action,” as well as the fact that the same historical precedent was set by the House’s impeachment efforts against Presidents Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. ..."


Levin gives an in-depth history lesson on impeachment that Dems and the media won't want you to see - Conservative Review

Pitchfork fever...
 
Nope, you did not answer my question. And here is a clue for you, I am not and have never been a Democrat. Oh well...same old same...sorry to have have wasted both our time.


why deny my answer? you must have some logic
 
from a prominent Dem supporter Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone

Taibbi is one of the few to break with the MSM and call a coup a coup.



We'''re in a permanent coup

Well, the same thing was happening under Obama's administration too.

That Supreme Court justice picks are being dealt with in the way they were at the end of the Obama era is also worrying.

The whole system is corrupt, it's run by the rich, for the rich.

And people don't have a democratic vote.

Time for Proportional Representation. Time for the people to take back control of their country.
 
Well, the same thing was happening under Obama's administration too.

That Supreme Court justice picks are being dealt with in the way they were at the end of the Obama era is also worrying.

The whole system is corrupt, it's run by the rich, for the rich.

And people don't have a democratic vote.

Time for Proportional Representation. Time for the people to take back control of their country.

you conflate using the rules in your favor against entrapping a Presidential campaign and trying to impeach a President? fail

moment Trump was declared the winner corrupt media and Politicians went to work to destroy his Presidency...only to get exposed...
 
you conflate using the rules in your favor against entrapping a Presidential campaign and trying to impeach a President? fail

moment Trump was declared the winner corrupt media and Politicians went to work to destroy his Presidency...only to get exposed...

Wow, you've just exactly what you accused me of. Well done.
 
of course you do....funny part about SC nominee is Biden is the one that gave Mitch cover in making his decision.

After years of experience you get used to seeing the pointless posters quite quickly.

Buh bye.
 
BULLCRAP "COUP". That's not the case. We're in a FACT finding cycle, that's the real story. Maybe we'll finally find out some of the facts since Trump has stonewalled and obstructed any investigations for nearly a year.

Boy, those democrats must be terrible at running an investigation since they have been in the process for 3 years now and not found any proof of their claims. Democrats are full of BS and willing to impeach an elected President for no other reason than they lost in 2016.
 
MSM as guilty as Dems in the Coup

44rqo51ipks31.jpg
 
Boy, those democrats must be terrible at running an investigation since they have been in the process for 3 years now and not found any proof of their claims. Democrats are full of BS and willing to impeach an elected President for no other reason than they lost in 2016.

This is all blowing up right in Trump's face, and it's deeply evil. He'll be impeached.
 
MSM as guilty as Dems in the Coup

44rqo51ipks31.jpg

Well, I'd revise that slightly and say that the MSM are complicit in the coup itself, through their own actions and statements.
 
That's so dumb, it's not a coup and if it were, it's Trump's coup of taking over this country illegally.

Given:
  • the behind closed doors testimony
  • the denial of access to hearing transcripts
  • the prevention of any witness cross examination
  • the prevention of the minority to subpoena witnesses
  • the lack of representation of the accused
which part of this 'impeachment inquiry' political theater meets the bar of legality or constitutionality?

Do please note that in the Clinton impeachment, it was
  • bi-partisan
  • a House vote was held and passed
  • both parties had subpoena power
  • both parties could question witnesses
  • both parties could access hearing transcripts

Seems wholly one sided, politically biased beyond belief, and on top of that, the ringmaster of all this circus lied into the record.

I think that the Democrats are destroying themselves by adopting this 'procedure' (making it up as they are going along), and with it, damaging the country (how bad, yet to be seen).
 
Given:
  • the behind closed doors testimony
  • the denial of access to hearing transcripts
  • the prevention of any witness cross examination
  • the prevention of the minority to subpoena witnesses
  • the lack of representation of the accused
which part of this 'impeachment inquiry' political theater meets the bar of legality or constitutionality?

Do please note that in the Clinton impeachment, it was
  • bi-partisan
  • a House vote was held and passed
  • both parties had subpoena power
  • both parties could question witnesses
  • both parties could access hearing transcripts

Seems wholly one sided, politically biased beyond belief, and on top of that, the ringmaster of all this circus lied into the record.

I think that the Democrats are destroying themselves by adopting this 'procedure' (making it up as they are going along), and with it, damaging the country (how bad, yet to be seen).

1. It's supposed to be closed door and it's not testimony, it's DEPOSITION and that's different than testimony

I don't have the time or patience to respond to the rest but you're totally wrong on all points. Trump will be impeached and a whole mess of men will go to prison for this. Have a great night.
 
1. It's supposed to be closed door and it's not testimony, it's DEPOSITION and that's different than testimony

I don't have the time or patience to respond to the rest but you're totally wrong on all points. Trump will be impeached and a whole mess of men will go to prison for this. Have a great night.

In a deposition only one side gets to ask questions of the witness?
In a deposition only one side gets access to the transcripts?

I stand by my current position that this is little more than orchestrated political theater, a hoax, orchestrated, once again, by the Democrats.

You don't have the time or patience for a reality based assessment of all this. Simpy don't want to hear it. So noted.
 
Given:
  • the behind closed doors testimony
  • the denial of access to hearing transcripts
  • the prevention of any witness cross examination
  • the prevention of the minority to subpoena witnesses
  • the lack of representation of the accused
which part of this 'impeachment inquiry' political theater meets the bar of legality or constitutionality?

Do please note that in the Clinton impeachment, it was
  • bi-partisan
  • a House vote was held and passed
  • both parties had subpoena power
  • both parties could question witnesses
  • both parties could access hearing transcripts

Seems wholly one sided, politically biased beyond belief, and on top of that, the ringmaster of all this circus lied into the record.

I think that the Democrats are destroying themselves by adopting this 'procedure' (making it up as they are going along), and with it, damaging the country (how bad, yet to be seen).


What a facile specious argument.

Except for the fact that an impeachment investigation is much like a grand jury where there is no opportunity for those being investigated to question the evidence or witnesses called. That comes with the indictment much like the articles of impeachment when sent to the Senate for trial.

The "process" is actually well defined in the constitution and it doesn't require a vote to start a investigation of impeachable offenses on the part of the president. That is already part of the congress' constitutional mandate.

Simple facts can be such a bummer.

Trump has every right whine about how everyone not his base is trying to get him the hell out of office for his grotesque corrupt ignorant bungling. Most sane people actually do think he deserves to be removed.

He let Putin shove one up America's butt and then hands him Syria while DESTROYING America's credibility as a reliable ally around the world. Meanwhile he shakes down America's allies to produce partisan political dirt in support of his idiotic conspiracies about domestic opponents in order to win reelection. How low does he need to go before his followers say enough is enough? Please sir can I have another.....
 
The Resolution
The resolution is as follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman
for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the
committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and
completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of
Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach
William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of
America. The committee shall report to the House of
Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or
other recommendations as it deems proper.
Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation,
the committee is authorized to require--
(1) by subpoena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any
person (including at a taking of a deposition
by counsel for the committee); and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such
information;
as it deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member
acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the
other acting alone, except that in the event either so
declines, either shall have the right to refer to the
committee for decision the question whether such
authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall
be convened promptly to render that decision; or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by
subcommittee.
Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over
the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or
any member designated by either of them, and may be served by
any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority
member, or any member designated by either of them. The
chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated
by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer
to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to
administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness. For the
purposes of this section, ``things'' includes, without
limitation, books, records, correspondence, logs, journals,
memorandums, papers, documents, writings, drawings, graphs,
charts, photographs, reproductions, recordings, tapes,
transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which
information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through
detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible
objects, and other things of any kind.
H. Rept. 105-795 - INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITH RESPECT TO ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

That which I mentioned in my previous post was resolved for both parties of the committee.

Even Bill Clinton got a more fair and impartial process from the Republicans than what the Democrats are doing now.

Think about that for a minute.
 
In a deposition only one side gets to ask questions of the witness?
In a deposition only one side gets access to the transcripts?

I stand by my current position that this is little more than orchestrated political theater, a hoax, orchestrated, once again, by the Democrats.

You don't have the time or patience for a reality based assessment of all this. Simpy don't want to hear it. So noted.

Matt Gaetz was kicked out because he didn't belong there. Gaetz is not on any of the three committees conducting the impeachment investigation — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight. Those Congressmen stuck around Washington during their break in order to continue the impeachment probe.

And NO the questions are not solely asked by democrats. BOTH parties in those committees have free reign to ask any questions of their choosing. Republicans can do nothing more than complain about the process.
 
Matt Gaetz was kicked out because he didn't belong there. Gaetz is not on any of the three committees conducting the impeachment investigation — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight. Those Congressmen stuck around Washington during their break in order to continue the impeachment probe.

And NO the questions are not solely asked by democrats. BOTH parties in those committees have free reign to ask any questions of their choosing. Republicans can do nothing more than complain about the process.

Hey, if Gaetz didn't belong there, he shouldn't have been there. :shrug: I don't care.

What is being reported is that only one party represented in the committee gets to ask questions of the witness.
Another 'news' media failure? Seems they have so many lately.

Considering that the transcript reveals that there was no quid pro quo, that the Ukrainians weren't even aware that the aide was delayed, nor perceived that there was any 'pressure' to investigate, that the Ukrainian's themselves re-opened said investigation in Feb of this year, that direction from the president was 'no quid pro quo', and other facts reported, it certainly seems like the entire thing is predicated on yet another Democrat orchestrated hoax.
 
Hey, if Gaetz didn't belong there, he shouldn't have been there. :shrug: I don't care.

What is being reported is that only one party represented in the committee gets to ask questions of the witness.
Another 'news' media failure? Seems they have so many lately.

Considering that the transcript reveals that there was no quid pro quo, that the Ukrainians weren't even aware that the aide was delayed, nor perceived that there was any 'pressure' to investigate, that the Ukrainian's themselves re-opened said investigation in Feb of this year, that direction from the president was 'no quid pro quo', and other facts reported, it certainly seems like the entire thing is predicated on yet another Democrat orchestrated hoax.

The "no quid pro quo" story is about to be proven wrong.

Gordon Sondland to Testify He Took Trump’s Denial of Ukraine Quid Pro Quo at His Word
The U.S. ambassador to the EU to say he couldn’t independently verify president’s assertion

Gordon Sondland to Testify He Took Trump’s Denial of Ukraine Quid Pro Quo at His Word - WSJWASHINGTON—The U.S. ambassador to the European Union plans to tell Congress that President Trump personally assured him that there was no quid pro quo relationship between a package of aid for Ukraine and Mr. Trump’s request that the Ukrainians open investigations, including into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, according to a person familiar with the ambassador’s planned testimony.


The ambassador, Gordon Sondland, is expected to testify that he relied entirely on Mr. Trump’s assurances when he told a State Department colleague that there were “no quid pro quo’s of any kind” linking U.S. security assistance to Ukrainian investigations and that he couldn’t independently verify the president’s assertion, this person said.


 
MSM as guilty as Dems in the Coup

44rqo51ipks31.jpg

You want to equate tapping a felon's phones, Paul Manafort's phones, with Trump's claims that Trump's phones in Trump tower were tapped?

Do you think that Paul Manafort is the same person as Donald Trump?
If not, then why the **** would you think that tapping a felon's phone lines — Paul Manafort's phone lines — is the same ****ing thing as tapping Trump's phone lines?

If you think that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump are two separate human beings, do you think Trump's phone lines in Trump tower are the same thing as Manafort's phone?
Do you think Paul Manafort and Donald Trump shared a family plan?
Maybe they shared some weekend minutes or something?

If you think it's unlikely that Trump and Manafort were on party line coming out of Trump Towers AND you think Manafiort and Trump are two separate individuals...
[ stop me if either one of those suggestions above is too controversial for you ]
...then why the **** would you think that tapping a felon's phone lines — Paul Manafort's phone lines — is the same ****ing thing as tapping Trump's phone lines?


Bonus questions
Do you think it's wrong to tap the phone lines of a felon to gather evidence for the felon's trial?
 
The "no quid pro quo" story is about to be proven wrong.

Gordon Sondland to Testify He Took Trump’s Denial of Ukraine Quid Pro Quo at His Word
The U.S. ambassador to the EU to say he couldn’t independently verify president’s assertion

Gordon Sondland to Testify He Took Trump’s Denial of Ukraine Quid Pro Quo at His Word - WSJWASHINGTON—The U.S. ambassador to the European Union plans to tell Congress that President Trump personally assured him that there was no quid pro quo relationship between a package of aid for Ukraine and Mr. Trump’s request that the Ukrainians open investigations, including into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, according to a person familiar with the ambassador’s planned testimony.


The ambassador, Gordon Sondland, is expected to testify that he relied entirely on Mr. Trump’s assurances when he told a State Department colleague that there were “no quid pro quo’s of any kind” linking U.S. security assistance to Ukrainian investigations and that he couldn’t independently verify the president’s assertion, this person said.



Considering the text was before the conversation, the direction from Trump to his representatives would appear to have been clear. The transcript doesn't have any quid pro quo. Would seem that nation's leaders ask other nation leaders for favors.

Tucker Carlson Uncovers Election-year Request From Bill ...
Conservative news, politics, opinion, breaking news analysis, political cartoons and commentary – Townhall › tipsheet › leahbarkoukis › 2019/10/08 › tucker-carl...
7 days ago - Tucker Carlson Uncovers Election-year Request From Bill Clinton to Tony Blair ... to find evidence of former President Bill Clinton asking then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair for a political favor…during an election year. “You've ...

Must be the circles they run in, which would seem to make sense. Who else are they going to ask favors of? Other peers, would make sense.

There's more evidence of Democrats eliciting Ukrainian (and others) 'foreign interference' in the 2016 elections than what has been shown to date from Trump.

1.British intelligence passed Trump associates' talks ... - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com › 2017/04/13 › politics › trump-russia-british-intellige...
Apr 14, 2017 - Washington (CNN) British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and ...

2.Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire – POLITICO
https://www.politico.com › story › ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Jan 11, 2017 - Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. Ukrainian ...

3.Australian diplomat whose tip prompted FBI's Russia-probe ...
https://thehill.com › 376858-australian-diplomat-whose-tip-prompted-fbis-...
Mar 5, 2018 - The Australian diplomat whose tip in 2016 prompted the Russia-Trump investigation previously arranged one of the largest foreign donations to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable efforts, documents show. ... Australia was one of four foreign governments to donate more than $25 ...

Beck relayed how Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau Chief Artem Sytnik appeared to be caught on audio bragging that he had helped Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

A quote from former Ukrainian state prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko explains the importance of the Sytnik recording.
"I don't know how, but the Americans got an audio recording of Mr. Sytnik's conversation," Lutsenko says. "He is resting with his family and friends and discussing how he would like to help Hillary."
In the video played by Beck, Director Sytnik is heard speaking about the election and claiming that the Russians helped Trump.
"Yep. I helped him, too. Not him, but Hillary. I helped her," Sytnik says, according to a translation.
"While Hillary... she is — how shall I put it?" he continued later in the recording. "She belongs to the cohort of politicians who comprise the hegemony in the U.S. Both in the U.S. and in the entire world. Right. For us it is... sort of... better. For the Americans.... what Trump is doing is better for them."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/glenn-beck-reveals-bombshell-ukraine-audio

Why not start with some of those? I think Barr and Durham are already doing so.

Seems we've hit a particularly nasty bit of US politics and politicians in the last, oh, 1/2 dozen years or so.
 
Last edited:
why deny my answer? you must have some logic

Because you did not answer my question, you avoided it by claiming trump would win no matter what, I guess you cannot conceive of the possibility that he might lose in 2020.
 
Back
Top Bottom