LIVE THREAD: Impeachment Trial Day 2

[Victoria33]

@libertybele

You said: "I find it difficult to understand how it seems Clinton comes out of all of this completely innocent in your eyes and Trump is guilty without any proof.  Allegations, accusations, and assumptions don't equal fact.  President Donald J. Trump is innocent until he is proven guilty; he is not guilty until he is proven innocent."

I stated what happened; there is no judgement to be made.  Clinton did what she did and Putin did what he did.  Their feud had nothing to do with Trump, except Putin would rather have Trump as President, than Clinton, since Putin hated her for what she did when Secretary of State.  Anyone who upsets Putin is in his cross-hairs from then on, and more especially when it is a woman.  If I were she, I would not accept a cake sent to me from Putin.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The only thing Putin did that mattered was (allegedly) expose the DNC's corruption to everyone in the country.  That's it, and it's the kind of things Democrats would have been applauding had something equivalent happened to embarrass the RNC.  I find it laughable for Democrats to argue the election would somehow have been more fair or honest if the complete truth -- the actual facts and documents of the kind about which Democrats speak so highly now -- had been concealed from voters rather than exposed.  "You told the voters what we really thought about them, and how we rigged the primary!  That's just wrong!"

What a joke.

[Victoria33]

@Hoodat

Read my post 144 for further information about the relationship between Putin and Clinton.  That post spells out why Putin hated Clinton and did not want her to be President.

Another subject: The Uranium One deal took six (I think it was six, have to look it up again) departments of our government to approve that deal.  She was one vote of the group so she could not do it alone.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Hoodat


Another subject: The Uranium One deal took six (I think it was six, have to look it up again) departments of our government to approve that deal.  She was one vote of the group so she could not do it alone.

Wow -- it's not enough to go full anti-Trump.  You're now carrying water for Hillary.  Anyway....

The fact that it took six departments is irrelevant.  They're departments all headed up by Obama appointees, all part of the same club, going to the same cocktail parties, etc..  If they know it is something the very powerful and connected Secretary of State really wanted, they'd have gone along to get along because that's how things are done in Washington.  Maybe they'd have gone along honestly because they trusted her judgement, or maybe they just didn't want to cross the person who they all believed was likely to be the next President of the United States.  So even if they thought it was skeevy...they weren't going to make waves, so they just went along with her approval.

Those are things that are impossible to know, because they're not the type of things on which people are going to want to make waves if they generally support their party and/or the Administration.  So all we're left with is a massive appearance of impropriety, and the Sec State getting a whole bunch of money put into her back pocket.

[libertybele]

@Hoodat

Read my post 144 for further information about the relationship between Putin and Clinton.  That post spells out why Putin hated Clinton and did not want her to be President.

Another subject: The Uranium One deal took six (I think it was six, have to look it up again) departments of our government to approve that deal.  She was one vote of the group so she could not do it alone.

??? What ???  Here I thought "Uranium One" was nothing more than a conspiracy theory.  Putin would never dabble in Uranium nor would he contribute to the Clinton Foundation!   

[240B]

Hillary, John Kerry, and Obama, one at a time or sometimes all together, were giving Putin daily BJs.
Anything he wanted from them, he got and more.
These are old radical (Jane Fonda/Bernie Sanders type) hippies from the 60s, who were steeped in the idea that Communism and in particular the U.S.S.R. was the epitome of social political development. They would have done anything and given anything to Putin.

The very idea that Putin would favor a business tycoon billionaire capitalist, over declared communist sycophants who literally adored him, is nonsensical in the extreme. If Putin did anything to favor Trump, and there is certainly no proof of that whatsoever, then he would have done so simply to sow chaos in the election, not because he supported Trump and not because he thought Trump had any prayer to actually win the election.

If he did help Trump, which I doubt, then he was simply doing what he always does all over the world. He was playing games to sow discord and confusion.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The very idea that Putin would favor a business tycoon billionaire capitalist, over declared communist sycophants who literally adored him, is nonsensical in the extreme.

I don't agree.  Trump was actually very open in wanting to cooperate more with Russia to defeat ISIS, which I believe was the right course.  Hillary and Obama weren't nearly as keen on that.  Russia may have believed that Trump would be more open to putting other issues on the back burner to concentrate on defeating ISIS.

So sure, I think Putin preferring Trump is plausible, and I also think Trump's policy of prioritizing defeating ISIS was the correct one, even if it meant a short-term accommodation with Russia.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm amazed at how folks give that much of a crap about who Putin liked and wanted to be President.  So.  What?  All that does is make one wonder about Putin's motive, and whatever it might turn out be, it's to bring down the US.  Why is it important to know who he favored for President, anyway?

[240B]

I don't agree.  Trump was actually very open in wanting to cooperate more with Russia to defeat ISIS, which I believe was the right course.  Hillary and Obama weren't nearly as keen on that.  Russia may have believed that Trump would be more open to putting other issues on the back burner to concentrate on defeating ISIS.

So sure, I think Putin preferring Trump is plausible, and I also think Trump's policy of prioritizing defeating ISIS was the correct one, even if it meant a short-term accommodation with Russia.

Sure. All that is true. But a Hillary/Kerry administration would have pulled all troops out of the M.E., essentially giving Putin a 'free hand' to do whatever he wanted to do. Would Putin prefer to cooperate with Trump, or would they prefer to have everything, including all the oil fields, to themselves? It is hard for me to grasp the idea that Putin would prefer to deal with a savvy sober strategist, rather than a group of idealist ideologues who would give him everything.

[sneakypete]

Trump was actually very open in wanting to cooperate more with Russia to defeat ISIS, which I believe was the right course.  Hillary and Obama weren't nearly as keen on that.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Of course they weren't.  They are both 60's Communist sympathizers/wannabes,and international chaos is the Mothers Milk of Revolution to them. The LAST thing they wanted was world peace because people at peace NEVER want communism.

 

Russia may have believed that Trump would be more open to putting other issues on the back burner to concentrate on defeating ISIS.

I can see where the would believe that. Trump is a businessman,and businessmen focus  on "the deal of the day",and in this case it was "the deal of the day" for both Russia and the US.

[sneakypete]

I'm amazed at how folks give that much of a crap about who Putin liked and wanted to be President.  So.  What?  All that does is make one wonder about Putin's motive, and whatever it might turn out be, it's to bring down the US.  Why is it important to know who he favored for President, anyway?

@Cyber Liberty

Putin has no interest in bringing down the west. He NEEDS the west. Without the west as allies,Putin and Russia are facing the world-wide Islamic revolution by themselves.

You can ALWAYS count on selfish-self interest floating to the top. ALWAYS.

[EdinVA]

We have been, and still do, interfere in elections all around the world, and everyone around the world has either tried to or actually has interfered in our elections.

This hand wringing over Russia/Ukraine is just liberal whining over losing in 2016.
We are wasting time, money and energy over this stupid impeachment junk.

[sneakypete]

Sure. All that is true. But a Hillary/Kerry administration would have pulled all troops out of the M.E., essentially giving Putin a 'free hand' to do whatever he wanted to do. Would Putin prefer to cooperate with Trump, or would they prefer to have everything, including all the oil fields, to themselves? It is hard for me to grasp the idea that Putin would prefer to deal with a savvy sober strategist, rather than a group of idealist ideologues who would give him everything.

@240B

Russia is big,but that does not mean they have a population large enough to make her profitable. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to facing down Islam by herself. Don't forget,she has Islamic Republics within her borders,and still has flare up fights with them. Who better to try to gain for an ally than the US?

Putin is many things,but "fool" isn't one of them. He already has a plateful,and doesn't need to add to it.

[240B]

@240B

Russia is big,but that does not mean they have a population large enough to make her profitable. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to facing down Islam by herself. Don't forget,she has Islamic Republics within her borders,and still has flare up fights with them. Who better to try to gain for an ally than the US?

Putin is many things,but "fool" isn't one of them. He already has a plateful,and doesn't need to add to it.

@sneakypete
OK.
Russia, China, and Iran, recently conducted joint ops in the Persian Gulf.
My opinion is that Putin would get along just fine in the M.E. without U.S. involvement,
especially with Turkey leading the way.
Syria is a Russian ally and is armed with Chinese missiles.
Really man, if Russia was serious about ending ISIS, they could make all the disputed areas a parking lot if they wanted to.
There would literally be no one left alive to fight.
They have conventional bombs close to nuclear levels which are a nightmare.
I am not sure what is holding them back, but without U.S., NATO, or UN presence, who knows what Russia would do?

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

OK.
Russia, China, and Iran, recently conducted joint ops in the Persian Gulf.
My opinion is that Putin would get along just fine in the M.E. without U.S. involvement,

@240B  I see their voluntary involvement in the Muddle East as a defensive move,not an aggressive one. MUCH cheaper and easier to keep a potential enemy as a semi-ally than an actual enemy.

Russia's prime concern with Muslims are those inside Russia herself. For this reason they want to have their own contacts with the fundie Muslim leadership in the Muddle East,and maybe try to influence the non-Russian Muslims their time would be better spent in Africa,for example.

especially with Turkey leading the way.

Well,they do have more than a little history with Turkey.

Syria is a Russian ally and is armed with Chinese missiles.
Really man, if Russia was serious about ending ISIS, they could make all the disputed areas a parking lot if they wanted to.

So could we. We don't for the same reasons the Russians don't.

 
 
 

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

Read my post 144 for further information about the relationship between Putin and Clinton.  That post spells out why Putin hated Clinton and did not want her to be President.

I read it.  It comes from a Politico article written in July 2016.  Keep in mind that this over three months before the November election.  This isn't some surprise story that caught Clinton off guard.  To the contrary, Clinton actually used this information to her political advantage.

And while Clintonites realize that few Americans typically pay close attention to the state of U.S.-Russia relations, there are two important caveats. One is the presence of large Polish, Ukrainian and other eastern European populations in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, where the Clinton campaign plans to flag stories about Trump and Putin for ethnic media outlets. The other is that voters of all stripes will surely pay attention to serious talk of foreign influence in the election.

As far as the DNC server goes, a fifth grader could have hacked their server.  The Dems were so stupid, that after finding out their server had been compromised, they changed the password and then emailed the new password to their entire staff.  Within an hour, their server was compromised again.  So for the second time in a single day, they reset their password, and then again emailed the new password to their entire staff.

Of course none of this has a single thing to do with Hillary losing the election.  There was nothing leaked from the DNC server that cost Hillary votes.  Instead, it was the illegal server in her residence that cost her votes.  Because the mere existence of that server proved before the entire country that Hillary Clinton committed a FELONY by violating her non-disclosure agreement as Secretary of State.

[Victoria33]

@Maj. Bill Martin

I said: "Another subject: The Uranium One deal took six (I think it was six, have to look it up again) departments of our government to approve that deal.  She was one vote of the group so she could not do it alone."

You said: "Wow -- it's not enough to go full anti-Trump.  You're now carrying water for Hillary.  Anyway...."

I am saying to you:  No, I am not a Clinton person - someone on this thread brought up Uranium One as though she did it by herself and I stated what the process is.  Since it takes a number of federal departments to approve such a deal, and Clinton had one vote, the others could have kept the deal from happening.

When I write what happened with any subject, I am writing truth, not siding with anyone, it is "just the facts, Mam".  I do not love or hate any person, I try to stick with the truth of a subject and I research before I write.

[Chosen Daughter]

I think it's genius to have Chris Wallace do this on FOX.

What better way to prove to people that "FAIR & BALANCED" is much better for them than 100% U.S.A. Certified Bullshit they're getting everywhere else?

When I 'see' Chris Wallace, I see Bill Kristol.....I see @roamer_1 ...I see @Chosen Daughter

 The 6th Sense.   

We are absolutely genius!  Yes, fair and balanced.   Right!!!!!  I remember when everyone loved Bill Kristol on FOX.  Blah, blah, blah.

[Hoodat]

I am saying to you:  No, I am not a Clinton person - someone on this thread brought up Uranium One as though she did it by herself and I stated what the process is.  Since it takes a number of federal departments to approve such a deal, and Clinton had one vote, the others could have kept the deal from happening.

@Victoria33

The Secretary of State position is in essence an extension of the President's foreign policy.  Of all the cabinet positions, it offers the least independence among them.  Having said that, the official foreign policy under the Obama Administration was to appease Russia by:

1) Selling them a quarter of our entire uranium reserve
2) Giving them an arms deal allowing them to increase their number of nuclear warheads while we decrease ours
3) Standing by and doing nothing while Russian annexed Crimea from Ukraine
4) Refusing to sell arms to Ukraine to defend themselves (effectively siding with Russia)
5) Ridiculed Republicans for stating that Russia is our enemy.

So knowing all that, wouldn't it be in Russia's  best interest to ensure that Democrats retained power?

[Victoria33]

@Hoodat


You said, "So knowing all that, wouldn't it be in Russia's  best interest to ensure that Democrats retained power?"

Not in this case - it comes down to personalities: Putin hated Clinton due to what she did to him when SOS - no way did he want her President.  When Trump came along, you bet Putin wanted him, especially since Trump idolizes him - yes, Putin wanted him President. Trump is not a Republican nor a Democrat, he is whatever he needs to be every day to get praise.  Putin uses Trump.  Putin is the one man Trump never criticises.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I am saying to you:  No, I am not a Clinton person - someone on this thread brought up Uranium One as though she did it by herself and I stated what the process is.  Since it takes a number of federal departments to approve such a deal, and Clinton had one vote, the others could have kept the deal from happening.

@Victoria33

...and I mentioned in response to your point why the "six departments had to approve the deal" doesn't adequately refute the allegations against Clinton.  If a very powerful Secretary of State with the inside track to be the next President pushes for something, it is very likely that other much less powerful/influential Democrat political appointees will simply rubber-stamp her recommendation/sign-off.  We saw that exact phenomenon with her bogus private server.  A few people questioned it, but everyone else just disregarded that because nobody wanted to stand up to her. 

Here's what's going on:  you simply are not applying the same level of scrutiny/skepticism to the things Democrats are doing as you apply to Trump.  You are accepting their explanations/excuses at face value without any real skepticism or analysis, while doing the exact opposite with anything Trump does.  That's why people are calling you out on that apparent bias.

It remains corrupt as hell.

[mystery-ak]

'Good job’: Lindsey Graham congratulates Adam Schiff on impeachment trial performance



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/good-job-lindsey-graham-congratulates-adam-schiff-on-impeachment-trial-performance

[Victoria33]

@Maj. Bill Martin
@mystery-ak

Martin, you said: "Here's what's going on:  you simply are not applying the same level of scrutiny/skepticism to the things Democrats are doing as you apply to Trump.  You are accepting their explanations/excuses at face value without any real skepticism or analysis, while doing the exact opposite with anything Trump does.  That's why people are calling you out on that apparent bias."

You are incorrect.  I accept nothing at face value; I study what is going on in politics every single day, my TV stays on constantly on Fox and CNN, and I research everyday.  I do that because I worked in Republican politics for over 10 years.  I have a framed Certificate of Appreciation from the National Republican Committee for the work I did.

My opposition to Trump is ONE REASON -   In my professional opinion he has a severe Personality Disorder and should not be president.

None of the Democrats running should be President, however I have studied each one's behavior, Biden, Bernie, Warren, from their childhood up just as I did with Trump, and none of them have behavior suggesting a dangerous Personality Disorder as Trump's behavior does every single day.   

[mystery-ak]

Ranking Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein Left Senate During Schiff Testimony – Said “Goodnight” and Went Home…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/22/ranking-democrat-senator-dianne-feinstein-left-senate-during-schiff-testimony-said-goodnight-and-went-home/

[EdinVA]

'Good job’: Lindsey Graham congratulates Adam Schiff on impeachment trial performance



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/good-job-lindsey-graham-congratulates-adam-schiff-on-impeachment-trial-performance

Well, Graham is a gentleman and that is what you do.Schiff worked hard and did a good job... I just happen to disagree 100%.
Maybe Graham should have decked him as he walked by?