master, slave

Or better, in prison.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin
Loading thread data ...

Except that the delay (and the hypothetical review) was coupled with a sugg estion that the Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

The delay and review might make sense (except that with a Russian-inspired insurrection going on, no kind of delay makes much sense).

If looked at from James Arthur's remarkably partisan point of view.

If either of them had been committing a crime, he could have tried to direc t the FBI to prosecute under US law. Mueller has nailed a bunch of Trump's associates in exactly that way. Sadly for Trump, there wasn't any crime to sic the FBI onto.

Ask any bigoted Republican and they'd say the same thing. Ask the FBI why t hey haven't prosecuted, and you will get a different story.

That Ukrainian Prosecutor General was fired for the prosecutions he hadn't launched. Nobody sane has ever suggested that he was "hot on Biden's tail", and other people, including the International Monetary Fund were pushing t o have the Ukrainian Prosecutor fired at the time.

Trump risked exposure with his numerous plots against the public interest - and now at least one of them has been exposed. He'd like his supporters to think that this is a witch-hunt being prosecuted in a kangaroo court - nob ody else is going to be silly enough to swallow that line.

James Arthur should have enough sense to see that, but his opinions are pre scribed by his political affiliations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bill Sloman

He's not immune from US law, so why didn't Trump get the FBI to go after him under US law? Mueller nailed a bunch of Trump's associates for that sort of crime, so Trump should have been aware that it was possible.

Trump hasn't been prosecuted for his attempted obstruction of office precisely because his office makes it difficult.

They did well out of the deal. If it actually was profiteering Trump would have been able to get them prosecuted under US law.

Donald Trump claims to want a Senate Impeachment - he's convinced that the Republicans will support him no matter how damning the evidence turns out to be.

James Arthur is demonstrating how that would work. The risk is that some of the Republicans can think for themselves, and they may well think committing themselves to Trump is a little too transparently crooked to be a practical option.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

On the one hand,

(1) That's a line of reasoning that reminds me, you might have sold your soul and become a witch. Why shouldn't we investigate that?

alternatively

(2) OK, hire a private investigator. This sort of 'opposition research' is not news. It's also not what happened.

Reply to
whit3rd

Because it's not illegal.

The Clinton campaign was hardly squeaky clean. Nor was the FBI.

As I said, people investigating their enemies exposes corruption.

If the Bidens are blameless, DT will be embarassed. Let's see.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin

Didn't I say the right thing to do, was hire PRIVATE investigators?

No embarrassment required, but you'd only do that if you half-believed the story.

The Donald is shameless, will more likely spin new yarns into his tapestry of lies.

Reply to
whit3rd

You are just being emotional. There are bigger things at stake than who likes who.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The blantantly, abjectly criminal: Donald J. Trump would not know how to run things if his life depended on it.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

On the other hand, neither of those organisations had the Russians putting fake news on social media to help them.

If there's corruption to expose. If there had been any evidence of corruption, the Bidens could have been prosecuted under US law, but Trump didn't have any levers to pull to get US law enforcement to follow up his baseless hunch.

John Larkin is deluded. Donald Trump doesn't get embarrassed by anything.

His point of view seems to be that if he does it, it's right thing to do, even if other people don't share this opinion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

The people who like Donald Trump seem to be able to tolerate his criminal irresponsibility. The rest of the world worries about the consequences of his criminal irresponsibility. Liking him doesn't come into it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

On a sunny day (Wed, 27 Nov 2019 21:43:00 -0800) it happened snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in :

Seems you are the emotional one. That DT just keeps making more noise every time he gets into more trouble.

I would like to see him do anything useful apart from babble.

At least N. Korea told him to get stuffed as he does not negotiate but just holds a gun to peoples head, plays foul play, is a pawn of israel. Remember that show he did on the Korean border?

Now he wants to invade Mexico to stop drugs trafficking it seems. Big words for a clown The more he gets cornered the crazier the proposals he launches, he just cut US contribution to NATO. I agree with president Macron from France that NATO is a joke, or (my view) more a US controlled war machine not used for defense of Europe and his members but for aggression facilitating US imperialism. We need a strong European nuclear army, and work together with Russia especially now the US imperium falls apart. Few more moths and California will declare independence, the rest will follow ;-)

Obama, his background community coordinator, did just that when in power, bring people together, countries together,

Republicans, remember Bush Jr. seem to be more interested in diversity more a tool of the weapon lobby.

That said DT just pissed of the Pentagon in an attempt to manipulate the chain of command if I did understand it right,

To build a wall to keep the 'merricans leaving to a free Mexico, what a silly idea. Berlin wall, Then you babble about old women talking politics not 'tronics and do one bigger yourself. Hey ;-) I'd say Trump is a negative regulator.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

'just... emotional' ? Nope, you've got a bad analysis there.

'bigger things' ? True. But, Trump as king is less likely to improve our climate change performance than Pence as president, so the bigger things are pro-impeachment.

Reply to
whit3rd

Small biz tax cut. Build a wall. Make NATO pay for itself. Make China pay for shipping. Make hospitals publish price lists. Supreme Court and district court appointments Reality about climate Reality about forest fires

and tons more.

He wrote a book on negotiating. He's a billionare, and the President, and you're not.

That's great. Make them fund their own defense.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin

There are analysies about why the Dems may not want to follow through and actually impeach in the House. I think it is already a big loser for them and there is no good exit strategy. They are riding on the back of a hungry tiger and can't get off. What fun.

He has already improved our climate change performance, by injecting some sanity.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
jlarkin

On a sunny day (Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:38:25 -0800) it happened snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in :

And then t his:

formatting link

I do not want to be president, If I REALLY wanted I would be. What the future holds, I have already started a fight against climate hoax here,

DEFENSE.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

So you believe the President is required to just mindlessly hand out U.S. money to foreign countries, even if questions arise? That doesn't make sense. And it's not true.

is authorized to furnish military assistance ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS HE MAY DETERMINE, to any friendly country or international organization, the assisting of which the President finds will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace and which is otherwise eligible to receive such assistance[.] (emphasis added)

The statute is loaded with presidential discretion -- he's charged with administering aid according to whether, in HIS judgement, the aid serves the interest of the United States, and meets manifold requirements imposed by Congress.

So, your theory doesn't make practical sense, and it's not what the laws say.

o replace it

Reviewing aid is not outrageous in the slightest, it's entirely ordinary. Obama did the same lots of times. The president is in charge of administering the money prudently, and making sure all is proper.

All this faux drama over the supposedly dire effect of a short delay seems misplaced -- Trump delivered military aid. But there was no condemnation when Obama denied military aid entirely, and just sat and watched as Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed their territory.

zen of

The president asked a foreign country to cooperate with the United States' Attorney General conducting a legal U.S. criminal investigation. We have a treaty with the Ukraine for exactly that purpose.

There's nothing wrong or even unusual about that.

in' that claim is.

There's plenty of evidence, including $3 million dollars in payments received by the vice president's son for zero services, and attempts by the vice president to intercede in Ukrainian affairs in ways inconsistent with the interest of the United States, but consistent with the interests of the people paying $85,000 a month to the vice president's crack-using son.

Of course the Washington Post isn't interested, but it has been extensively reported and discussed elsewhere.

Then there's the video of Biden boasting how he personally threatened the President of Ukraine, that he, Joe Biden, would withhold $1.4 billion in U.S. aid, unless the Ukraine fired their Prosecutor General within the next six hours.

That seems like perfectly reasonable grounds for an investigation.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

-- that's a bribe, that JL took, so HE likes it. Our national deficit doesn't

-- started long ago, getting some additions, but no known effect except on the deficit

--an interesting notion, but it's unclear why those numbers matter; NATO worked, and still does

--nah, just a postal renegotiation... routine stuff

--hardly a Presidential initiative; he just sat in a chair while it happened

-- but lots of unfilled positions, too; and, high turnover. Besides, what's noteworthy about those appointments? Friends of yours?

-yeah, he really flunks that one

Huh? Forest fires are, and always have been, real. How does this fit into a 'do anything useful' list?

Reply to
whit3rd

t is authorized to

Nice try, but it was money from Congress, not an infantry brigade, and that's not the applicable statute.

Spin isn't enough, you need logic.

Reply to
whit3rd

ggestion that the Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

No it wasn't -- the Ukrainians didn't think their aid was contingent on them cooperating with A.G. Barr's Biden investigation. They didn't even know their aid was being reviewed until Politico published an article, later.

But it would've been entirely lawful & appropriate for The Donald to hold up their aid, if he'd seen fit, until the Ukraine cooperated with a criminal corruption investigation being conducted by the Attorney General of the United States. We have a treaty that requires it.

formatting link

So it would've been fine even if he did it. But The Donald did not make Ukrainian aid contingent on cooperation, as evidenced by the fact that they got their aid, and did nothing for it.

Joe Biden acted corruptly, and Nancy Pelosi thinks that's apparently fine. When the president wants to look into corruption, that's impeachable?

No, sorry, that's his JOB.

It's historical fact. Obama denied military aid entirely. Did nothing I'm aware of when Putin invaded. And Obama was caught on an open mike, infamously offered Putin 'more flexibility' on missile defense if he, Obama, were re-elected. 'Flexibility' which, shortly after his re-election, Obama delivered.

March 16, 2013

MOSCOW ? The United States has effectively canceled the final pha se of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues.

formatting link

The Russians apparently 'meddled' in the 2016 election by taking out some handful of pointless Facebook ads that no one noticed.

Who do you think Russia supported in 2012? Mitt Romney, arguing Russia was our principal adversary in the presidential debates? Or Barack Obama, who snarked that the 1980's were calling and wanted their foreign policy back?

(Here's a one-minute reminder of Obama lecturing candidate Romney "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for twenty years."

formatting link
)

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

Wow! JL was *bribed* with his own money. That's rich!

The deficit has nothing to do with the tax cuts. Tax receipts are at record levels, yet the deficit grows. How does that happen? I'm sure you're not as stupid as AlwaysWrong (but maybe).

Wrong again (the AlwaysWrong similarity is growing)

NATO doesn't work. That's the problem. It's not been necessary for at least thirty years.

With no incentive to negotiate. (there's that AW stuff again)

More AW class nonsense. Obama didn't do it.

The Senate takes time vetting nominations. But I'm sure (actually not) you know that.

Are you really AlwaysWrong's sock puppet?

Apparently so.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.