Durham’s probe into Russian investigation now a criminal investigation

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sedition - That is as scummy as questioning people's patriotism. How low will you go?

How is that not the correct descriptor of the actions of the "whistleblower" when he was working in the White House? He was actively plotting and working to disrupt and derail and destroy from within and implement an outside agenda that stood (stands) in opposition of the sitting President . . .

How low can you go defending and supporting anti-government actions? Elections have consequences and either be on the team or quit; staying on, just to work to disrupt and sabotage is sedition -- it is the very definition of the word.

• Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

How is that not the correct descriptor of the actions of the "whistleblower" when he was working in the White House? He was actively plotting and working to disrupt and derail and destroy from within and implement an outside agenda that stood (stands) in opposition of the sitting President . . . He was not going to stand for the Pres. trying to get a foreign power to interfere with our election - but you knew that.

How low can you go defending and supporting anti-government actions? [COLOR="red"[/COLOR] Elections have consequences and either be on the team or quit; staying on, just to work to disrupt and sabotage is sedition -- it is the very definition of the word.

• Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.

You're a joke. There is no need for anyone to waste any time on you.

[Pete F.]

I’ve long said (w/ others) that the WH and especially the president are astoundingly, even historically, weak in their ability to assert executive power to control what happens within the administration. The Executive branch response to the impeachment inquiry is revealing.
On 10-8, WHC Cipollone said that to avoid “lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of power, Trump *cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances*.”
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...10-08-2019.pdf
This was, like many Trumpian threats, empty. In the last few weeks we have seen former and, more amazingly, current officials of the Trump administration appearing before Congress to discuss intimate presidential conversations related to core presidential responsibilities.
Yovanovitch, Kent, Cooper, Taylor, and Sondland, all current executive officials, have testified to the president’s detriment on Ukraine matter and in defiance of WH instructions not to cooperate. I think Vidman defied the WH as well, but cannot confirm that.
This is a really remarkable breakdown of soft and hard presidential power. Congress might have legal authority to access some of this info. It’s a complicated question how much. But the WH isn't even putting up a fight.
The WH is asserting no legal authorities, and does not appear even to be trying to manage what executive officials can and cannot say. The WH has no juice, no tools. The Cipollone letter was pure bluster. In so, so many ways, Trump is a weak, not a strong, president.
Jack Goldsmith
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He was not going to stand for the Pres. trying to get a foreign power to interfere with our election - but you knew that.

He is a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, accusations of something that happened when he was no longer working in the White House.

It's interesting that Vindman admitted to sharing readouts of the call (which he did listen in on) without telling the committee who those people were, or at least stating if he knew those people possessed clearances at a level to read such a document. When questioned by a Republican about this point of interest, Schiff shut down the questioning and ordered Vindman to not answer the question.

Was the "whistleblower" one of the people Vindman gave a readout to? After quitting the White House in 2017, under suspicion of leaking, did the "whistleblower" possess a top secret clearance?

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're a joke. There is no need for anyone to waste any time on you.

At least I can make my posts readable by having the skills to use the quote tag properly. I don't read anything you write that's longer than a couple sentences, so feel free to ignore me to your heart's delight.

[Pete F.]

When Vindman was asked to go along with a transaction that had nothing to do with policy, but only the president's personal interests, he was taken aback.

Perhaps someone knows of any anti corruption agenda that this administration put forth other than ones that involve his political adversaries
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

At least I can make my posts readable by having the skills to use the quote tag properlyThat really hurts me.. I don't read anything you write that's longer than a couple sentences, so feel free to ignore me to your heart's delight.

Even Ingrahm got called out for her scumminess but you can continue bc it looks like it suits you.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The WH has no juice, no tools. The Cipollone letter was pure bluster. In so, so many ways, Trump is a weak, not a strong, president.

He doesn't need to "be strong", he doesn't need to keep people from testifying. He knows the House Dumbocrats will do what Democrats do and he will wear it as a badge of honor.

What the hell will the Democrats screaming "we impeached him" do, how will their "impeached" screeching and bleating be more damaging than what they are already screeching and bleating about? He is eager to see the 31 vulnerable,Trump won district Democrats act dumb and vote party and then many lose their seats next November.

He doesn't need to play any game that the Democrats recognize as "powerful", he knows he isn't going to be convicted and removed by the Senate and he knows he will emerge stronger than ever in the eyes of sane citizens and he knows most of all, he will win a resounding victory in 2020.

When the IG report and Durham's indictments and Barr's prosecutions send Democrat favorites to prison, it will just make victory all the sweeter.

[Sea Dangles]

Guys like Pete and Paul would rather ignore the truth and continue to believe what the media feeds them. Liberal fools.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Even Ingrahm got called out for her scumminess but you can continue bc it looks like it suits you.

"Scumminess" is three pages of the loopyleftie posters here wondering in abject, purposeful, self-imposed ignorance about what Durham is investigating . . . And then, when I exactingly lay out plenty of Obama administration illegality that led directly to the Russian collusion hoax and the fake investigation into it, you ignore it.

Scumminess is ignoring facts you asked for and instead running back under your mommy's apron of another safe, mindless false narrative of the left, only peeking out enough to shake your fist and say orange man bad . . .

So pathetic and so predictable, keep parroting what you think is a cudgel until it is destroyed and then turn and shift to another BS cudgel.

Please, you said I wasn't worth your time, prove it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

"Scumminess" is three pages of the loopyleftie posters here wondering in abject ignorance about what Durham is investigating . . . t.

No, scumminess is saying these folks are guilty of sedition.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, scumminess is saying these folks are guilty of sedition.

you are sounding very cranky...open your mind and try to be civil

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, scumminess is saying these folks are guilty of sedition.

Why recoil from the label?

Isn't sedition the very mission statement of embedded Obama holdovers and members of "The Resistance"?

From holdovers in the White House and the State Department and the "intelligence Community" (and even the federal judiciary), "The Resistance" program has been to frustrate and delay and hobble the Trump "agenda" no matter what your actual job description is, or what your official duties are.

You admit as much, you hold the "whistleblower" in high regard because he was (as a analyst working deep in the bowels of Langly) driven to expose the President. What BS!

Same for Vindman, you say, "He was not going to stand for the Pres. trying to get a foreign power to interfere with our election" . . .

Well, first off, that's a characterization entirely driven by politics completely divorced from the fact that the power to drive foreign policy is exclusively the President's and Vindman's job, and the State Department's job is to implement the President's initiatives and agenda, not their own (or the previous administration's agenda).

Stop acting like you don't get this.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Why recoil from the label?

Isn't sedition the very mission statement of embedded Obama holdovers and members of "The Resistance"?

From holdovers in the White House and the State Department and the "intelligence Community" (and even the federal judiciary), "The Resistance" program has been to frustrate and delay and hobble the Trump "agenda" no matter what your actual job description is, or what your official duties are.

You admit as much, you hold the "whistleblower" in high regard because he was (as a analyst working deep in the bowels of Langly) driven to expose the President. What BS!So if the President is doing something illegal and someone comes forward w/that info. that is sedition?

Same for Vindman, you say, "He was not going to stand for the Pres. trying to get a foreign power to interfere with our election" . . .

Well, first off, that's a characterization entirely driven by politics completely divorced from the fact that the power to drive foreign policy is exclusively the President's and Vindman's job, and the State Department's job is to implement the President's initiatives and agenda, not their own (or the previous administration's agenda).Coming forward w/info. on the Pres. trying to get a foreign gov. to interfere w/our elections isn't driving foreign policy.

Stop acting like you don't get this.

I do get it and I think it is scummy to call war heroes guilty of sedition.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I do get it and I think it is scummy to call war heroes guilty of sedition.

While it wouldn't change my opinion of him, I have not heard any reporting that Eric Ciaramella, outed as the "whistleblower" was a war hero . . . My sedition comment was directed to him.

Reading comprehension, it isn't just for conservatives.

[scottw]

he's a little irrational right now...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

While it wouldn't change my opinion of him, I have not heard any reporting that Eric Ciaramella, outed as the "whistleblower" was a war hero . . . My sedition comment was directed to him.

Reading comprehension, it isn't just for conservatives.

What is the difference bt the whistleblower and Vindman (or all the others who are coming forward now). Nothing - so I'm guessing that they are as guilty of sedition in your mind.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is the difference bt the whistleblower and Vindman (or all the others who are coming forward now). Nothing - so I'm guessing that they are as guilty of sedition in your mind.

That you distort, misrepresent and mischaracterize what was actually said and find it so easy to mistakenly assign a mind-set / belief to another person, explains completely why you are what you are and why you do what you do.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

That you distort, misrepresent and mischaracterize what was actually said and find it so easy to mistakenly assign a mind-set / belief to another person, explains completely why you are what you are and why you do what you do.

I thank God I am who I am and not you.

Sedition = scummy.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

That you distort, misrepresent and mischaracterize what was actually said and find it so easy to mistakenly assign a mind-set / belief to another person,

.

they do that a lot here...

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I thank God I am who I am and not you.

Sedition = scummy.

This folks, is the face of the Democratic Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

No more proof is needed that they exist within an information bubble that they rigidly maintain. They find it impossible to reply in the context of what they quote or even make any attempt to actually rebut it.

My use of "sedition" was specifically assigned to a person who uses his position to purposefully disrupt and sabotage the administration he works for.

I did not assign or associate that term with anyone but the whistleleaker and the last posts saying I did, (or that was what was in my mind), are only the pitiful mutterings of a useless leftist partisan who can only misrepresent and lie.

[PaulS]

The whistleblower knew what Trump did was wrong and went up the chain of command to inform people of it. His actions where not sedition and to call him that is dishonest and scummy.

Embrace your scumminess.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This folks, is the face of the Democratic Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are your constant childish insults that show no intelligence the face of the Repub. party.

[scottw]

paul is on a roll....good grief...talk about struggling with reality

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

paul is on a roll....good grief...talk about struggling with reality

So you agree that it was sedition because that is so beyond the pale that I haven't seen anyone else stupe that low
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So you agree that it was sedition?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think, based on what I know about him, it was his goal to undermine this president in any possible way.... I believe he was part of a coordinated effort to undermine this president which has been ongoing since his election, you'd have to be incredibly blind not to see it.....so by definition and with the help of Schiff...yes...this is as poorly executed as the Kavanaugh hearings debacle and embarrassment and the democrats will again get bit in the butt

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think, based on what I know about him it was his goal to undermine this president in any possible way.... I believe he was part of a coordinated effort to undermine this president which has been ongoing since his election, you'd have to be incredibly blind not to see it.....so by definition and with the help of Schiff...yes...this is as poorly executed as the Kavanaugh hearings debacle and embarrassment and the democrats will again bet bit in the butt

so what do you know about him (both the WB and Vidman) that implies it was their goal to undermine the president? And what was the coordinated effort? Why does the transcript not accurately reflect what Trump said if the call was perfect. Why was the tape of the call moved to lessen the amount of people who can listen to it.?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so what do you know about him (both the WB and Vidman) that implies it was their goal to undermine the president? And what was the coordinated effort? Why does the transcript not accurately reflect what Trump said if the call was perfect. Why was the tape of the call moved to lessen the amount of people who can listen to it.?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are having a tough day huh?...go trick or treating and get some free candy

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are having a tough day huh?...go trick or treating and get some free candy

It's a great question. You really don't know much about the whistle blower at all. The IG said he was credible. We've seen now about a dozen career and well respected members of the Govt validate not just the whistle blower but validate the bigger story of a shadow conspiracy involving multiple members of Trump's inner circle to shake down a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. Oh, and lie about all of it.

If this isn't impeachable nothing is, and the GOP is freaking out.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a great question. You really don't know much about the whistle blower at all. The IG said he was credible. We've seen now about a dozen career and well respected members of the Govt validate not just the whistle blower but validate the bigger story of a shadow conspiracy involving multiple members of Trump's inner circle to shake down a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. Oh, and lie about all of it.

If this isn't impeachable nothing is, and the GOP is freaking out.

This is hilarious. I love that you’ve found your sense of humor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device