Lindsey: Trump Did Nothing Wrong in His Own Mind.

[eman623]

Perhaps. But they did vote the impeaching party in power in 2018.

They didn't vote them in to impeach and remove the president. This may hurt them in 2020.

 

[TrumpGurl]

Lindsey Graham Bizarrely Defends Trump: 'He Did Nothing Wrong In His Mind' | HuffPost

This is a defense? Trump is to be understood, it seems, the way you would the craziest sort of lunatic, except that instead of putting him in an asylum we will let him continue to run the country.

You error is in using the fascist extremist Huffpost as your source. This is not Graham's position at all.

 

[JackA]

You error is in using the fascist extremist Huffpost as your source. This is not Graham's position at all.

Right, it's only what he said. Nothing new there, saying one thing, believing another.

 

[snakestretcher]

Leftists talking about right and wrong and morals.:lamo

Explain the 'morality' behind the theft of charitable donations destined for children in need, and using it for your self-promotion. Explain the 'morality' behind conning hundreds of trusting folk with a fake 'university'. Explain the 'morality' behind bragging about grabbing young girls by the *****. That's the moral vacuum you elected. Congratulations on your vision and recognition of moral probity.
Your 'president' doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Evidently neither do you or his deluded supporters.

 

[snakestretcher]

Look, there are tens of thousands of people lying around in their own filth in LA, SF, Seattle and Portland and the liberals in charge there do nothing about it. Then, they have the gumption to rail about the "immorality" of people who voted for and/or support the president. In that sense, it is a partisan issue.

So there are no homeless people in republican controlled districts. Good, glad we cleared that up. Any tips from their success in ridding their streets of the filthy homeless you can share? Oh, look:

Trump Critics Post Photos of Poverty, Homelessness in Republican Districts Across U.S.

 

[JackA]

You error is in using the fascist extremist Huffpost as your source. This is not Graham's position at all.

Something else I've noticed. Huffpost used to be a "Commie" source. I guess you've had to reverse things since you adopted Putin.

 

[veritas1]

Veritas1:

It's not the holding up of the military aid alone. It is why President Trump withheld the military aid that matters. That delay was designed to benefit his chances of reelection by pushing for an investigation by Ukrainian authorities of one of his domestic political rivals, not to promote American interests abroad. That is the moral bankruptcy at the core of Mr. Trump's decision making in this matter. Your talk of morals ring hollow if you defend such self-serving behaviour. This was extortion/bribery to benefit Mr. Trump personally, and there was nothing moral or right about it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Please don't talk to me of morals. Remember Strzok saying "We'll stop it" in talking of Trump's election and then saying they had an insurance policy in case he won? This has been planned since before the election. It is sedition, plain and simple. The Dems are desperate because they know they can't win the election so they're pulling every dirty trick out of their bag in order to damage Trump. It's not going to work

 

[CaughtInThe]

Republicans can't be embarrassed.

 

[veritas1]

Explain the 'morality' behind the theft of charitable donations destined for children in need, and using it for your self-promotion. Explain the 'morality' behind conning hundreds of trusting folk with a fake 'university'. Explain the 'morality' behind bragging about grabbing young girls by the *****. That's the moral vacuum you elected. Congratulations on your vision and recognition of moral probity.
Your 'president' doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Evidently neither do you or his deluded supporters.

Explain the morality of disenfranchisng 63 million voters in order to gratify a psychotic lust for power. Supporters of the Clintons should never talk of morality, ever.

 

[veritas1]

So there are no homeless people in republican controlled districts. Good, glad we cleared that up. Any tips from their success in ridding their streets of the filthy homeless you can share? Oh, look:

Trump Critics Post Photos of Poverty, Homelessness in Republican Districts Across U.S.

Republicans run very few major metropolitan areas. Democrats run them and have for decades. That is where the vast majority of the homeless crisis exists and they do nothing about it. The weak attempt to dig up some homeless in other places is a sorry defense for the failures of the "compassionate" left.

 

[Evilroddy]

Please don't talk to me of morals. Remember Strzok saying "We'll stop it" in talking of Trump's election and then saying they had an insurance policy in case he won? This has been planned since before the election. It is sedition, plain and simple. The Dems are desperate because they know they can't win the election so they're pulling every dirty trick out of their bag in order to damage Trump. It's not going to work

Veritas1:

So President Trump's actions have nothing to do with this impeachment? His attempts to extort a foreign leader and government into announcing a foreign investigation of one of President Trump's political rival's family had nothing to do with the impeachment? Extortion is a type of bribery and vice versa. Bribery is specifically named in the US constitution as an impeachable offence. The grounds for impeachment are solid but the votes are not there to convict and remove the sitting president.

This is not sedition as Mr. Trump is not the state itself but an elected agent of the state. This is not sedition, it is the Rule of Law rather than what President Trump would prefer to operate under which is the unquestioning fealty of the Rule of Man. The House of Representatives as part of the Congress are not vassals of the Office of the President. They are a co-equal branch checking the powers and abuses of the sitting President. The list of abuses is long because President Trump is an impetuous, ill-disciplined scoff-law who cannot follow the rules laid out in the US constitution, by legal jurisprudence and by US custom and usage. If the House committed an error, it was not holding Mr. Trump accountable for all his legal abuses leading up to his election and while he served in the Office of the President of the USA. Peter Strzok's comments are immaterial because the successful impeachment and the likely failed trial flow from President Trump's choices and actions, not those of the Congress or any party in it.

Sure there's politics in the mix. Impeachment is both a para-legal and a political process. But without Mr. Trump's actions there would be no grounds for impeachment. He brought this on himself by his own actions and choices and if he does not pay the price officially in the Senate, then he will likely pay it politically in November of 2020. Democracy may be messy. But fortunately it is often self-correcting when the electorate realises they have made a very bad choice.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[snakestretcher]

Republicans run very few major metropolitan areas. Democrats run them and have for decades. That is where the vast majority of the homeless crisis exists and they do nothing about it. The weak attempt to dig up some homeless in other places is a sorry defense for the failures of the "compassionate" left.

Good, so you agree there is homelessness, poverty and deprivation in Republican controlled districts, and it isn't an exclusively Democrat 'thing'.

 

[snakestretcher]

Explain the morality of disenfranchisng 63 million voters in order to gratify a psychotic lust for power. Supporters of the Clintons should never talk of morality, ever.

I don't answer strawman arguments. Try addressing what I posted instead of deflecting.

 

[veritas1]

Veritas1:

So President Trump's actions have nothing to do with this impeachment? His attempts to extort a foreign leader and government into announcing a foreign investigation of one of President Trump's political rival's family had nothing to do with the impeachment? Extortion is a type of bribery and vice versa. Bribery is specifically named in the US constitution as an impeachable offence. The grounds for impeachment are solid but the votes are not there to convict and remove the sitting president.

This is not sedition as Mr. Trump is not the state itself but an elected agent of the state. This is not sedition, it is the Rule of Law rather than what President Trump would prefer to operate under which is the unquestioning fealty of the Rule of Man. The House of Representatives as part of the Congress are not vassals of the Office of the President. They are a co-equal branch checking the powers and abuses of the sitting President. The list of abuses is long because President Trump is an impetuous, ill-disciplined scoff-law who cannot follow the rules laid out in the US constitution, by legal jurisprudence and by US custom and usage. If the House committed an error, it was not holding Mr. Trump accountable for all his legal abuses leading up to his election and while he served in the Office of the President of the USA. Peter Strzok's comments are immaterial because the successful impeachment and the likely failed trial flow from President Trump's choices and actions, not those of the Congress or any party in it.

Sure there's politics in the mix. Impeachment is both a para-legal and a political process. But without Mr. Trump's actions there would be no grounds for impeachment. He brought this on himself by his own actions and choices and if he does not pay the price officially in the Senate, then he will likely pay it politically in November of 2020. Democracy may be messy. But fortunately it is often self-correcting when the electorate realises they have made a very bad choice.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

An FBI's agent's open admission to be part of a plan to subvert a campaign or the presidency that comes from it, is irrelevant? No, it is THE relevant point. It shows there was a campaign afoot at high levels to manipulate an election or destroy the resulting presidency if that manipulation failed. THAT is the crucial story here. THAT is the danger here, not Trump tweeting something, making an offhand comment, replacing an ambassador or making a phone call.

This was, and is, sedition, pure and simple and it's been planned since before the 2016 election. IF the electorate made a bad choice, as you claim, then let the electorate correct it themselves. What the left fears is that, contrary to these claims, the electorate is quite satisfied with Trump's performance and will return him to office. That's why we've seen the panic from house Democrats that led them down the road to a shoddy and un-Constitutional impeachment.

 

[veritas1]

I don't answer strawman arguments. Try addressing what I posted instead of deflecting.

What you posted has nothing to do with the case at hand anymore than Bill Clinton's history of sexual assaults had anything to do with his impeachment.

 

[Evilroddy]

An FBI's agent's open admission to be part of a plan to subvert a campaign or the presidency that comes from it, is irrelevant? No, it is THE relevant point. It shows there was a campaign afoot at high levels to manipulate an election or destroy the resulting presidency if that manipulation failed. THAT is the crucial story here. THAT is the danger here, not Trump tweeting something, making an offhand comment, replacing an ambassador or making a phone call.

This was, and is, sedition, pure and simple and it's been planned since before the 2016 election. IF the electorate made a bad choice, as you claim, then let the electorate correct it themselves. What the left fears is that, contrary to these claims, the electorate is quite satisfied with Trump's performance and will return him to office. That's why we've seen the panic from house Democrats that led them down the road to a shoddy and un-Constitutional impeachment.

Veritas1:

Peter Strzok's and Lisa Page's text-messages have nothing to do with Official US policy. Strzok's comments were his own, private opinions, by his own admission inflamed by Mr. Trump's attacking of the Gold Star Khan family and do not reflect the position of either the FBI or the US Government in any way. It is possible to hold personal biases and still do an impartial job, judges do it all the time. Mr. Strzok's comment's were based on what he thought should happen hypothetically, not on what actually happened. He was removed from his post for his lack of discretion caused by putting these text messages to Ms. Page on official FBI phones and was reassigned to other non-Trump related duties.

The cherry-picked opinions of one or two employees taken out of context do not reflect the institutional biases of an entire organisation anymore than the choice of one or more football players electing to take the knee reflects the policy of the NFL. So the Strzok comments reflect the opinions of one person and not the institutional position of the FBI. They are therefore immaterial to the Mueller Reporting process and even more so to the unrelated recent impeachment by the House. Sedition is not expressing a dislike for an individual operating in a government as an agent of that government. Sedition is trying to overthrow an entire government by non-violent and covert means, outside of the established democratic process. As I tried to make clear before, Mr. Trump is not the State, he is an agent of the state. If you feel a major agent of the state (like a Supreme Court judge or a Speaker of the House) is a problem and in your personal life advocate for that person's removal from office, that is called having an opinion, not committing sedition.

Trump chose to do the things he did and is being held accountable for his actions by other agents and branches of that same State of which Mr. Trump is a part. The recent successful impeachment is based on President Trump's actions and motives with regards to Ukraine and corruption investigations. It is not based on Mr. Strzok's personal biases and is not sedition. President Trump is not the State; only absolute Kings and Queens are the State. President Trump is not an absolute monarch (yet) and for the sake of the American Republic I hope no present or future president ever will be an absolute, elected monarch. The Republic of Rome collapsed into imperial tyranny because mere men declared themselves to be absolute dictators, often with cries of approval from many Romans. America could easily repeat that mistake if people confuse loyalty to individuals with loyalty to an office. That way lies the Rule of Man, vassalage, fealty, noble privilege and a new Dark Ages.

Therefore, I strongly disagree with your position regarding sedition, your characterisation of checks and balances as apprehended or actual sedition and a requirement for unquestioning personal loyalty to the person in an office of the State, rather than to the office itself.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[veritas1]

Veritas1:

Peter Strzok's and Lisa Page's text-messages have nothing to do with Official US policy. Strzok's comments were his own, private opinions, by his own admission inflamed by Mr. Trump's attacking of the Gold Star Khan family and do not reflect the position of either the FBI or the US Government in any way. It is possible to hold personal biases and still do an impartial job, judges do it all the time. Mr. Strzok's comment's were based on what he thought should happen hypothetically, not on what actually happened. He was removed from his post for his lack of discretion caused by putting these text messages to Ms. Page on official FBI phones and was reassigned to other non-Trump related duties.

The cherry-picked opinions of one or two employees taken out of context do not reflect the institutional biases of an entire organisation anymore than the choice of one or more football players electing to take the knee reflects the policy of the NFL. So the Strzok comments reflect the opinions of one person and not the institutional position of the FBI. They are therefore immaterial to the Mueller Reporting process and even more so to the unrelated recent impeachment by the House. Sedition is not expressing a dislike for an individual operating in a government as an agent of that government. Sedition is trying to overthrow an entire government by non-violent and covert means, outside of the established democratic process. As I tried to make clear before, Mr. Trump is not the State, he is an agent of the state. If you feel a major agent of the state (like a Supreme Court judge or a Speaker of the House) is a problem and in your personal life advocate for that person's removal from office, that is called having an opinion, not committing sedition.

Trump chose to do the things he did and is being held accountable for his actions by other agents and branches of that same State of which Mr. Trump is a part. The recent successful impeachment is based on President Trump's actions and motives with regards to Ukraine and corruption investigations. It is not based on Mr. Strzok's personal biases and is not sedition. President Trump is not the State; only absolute Kings and Queens are the State. President Trump is not an absolute monarch (yet) and for the sake of the American Republic I hope no present or future president ever will be an absolute, elected monarch. The Republic of Rome collapsed into imperial tyranny because mere men declared themselves to be absolute dictators, often with cries of approval from many Romans. America could easily repeat that mistake if people confuse loyalty to individuals with loyalty to an office. That way lies the Rule of Man, vassalage, fealty, noble privilege and a new Dark Ages.

Therefore, I strongly disagree with your position regarding sedition, your characterisation of checks and balances as apprehended or actual sedition and a requirement for unquestioning personal loyalty to the person in an office of the State, rather than to the office itself.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Sorry, but it went far beyond Strzok's emails which simply reflected the ongoing effort to thwart Trump. Remember, Strzok never intended those emails to be seen publicly. It was much more than blowing off steam as the surveillance of Carter Page and the campaign showed. When one branch of government, or the incumbent administration, attempts to subvert an election and get one person elected as opposed to another and then carries forward with an "insurance policy" (impeachment) to see that the original goal is reached, we have entered highly treacherous waters. That the Democrats and the DC establishment can't accept Trump's victory is why we are where we are. The remedy here is the 2020 election but these groups know they can't win at the polls. That is what all this is really about. Several Democrats have admitted as much.