Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 18:12:06 GMT
Time for a new thread..
Last night trump was booed and got the pleasure of hearing “lock him up”.
Today there are some, both Democrats and Republicans, who feel that the the folks at the ballpark shouldn’t have booed or chanted “lock him up”.
One reason is because it was disrespectful to The Office Of The President.
From Joe Scarborough “We are Americans and we do not do that. We do not want the world hearing us chant 'Lock him up' to this president or to any president." -- @joenbc”
trump is and has changed how a lot of us look at things. He does not have any qualms about ripping apart people he sees as his enemies at his rallies, in his comments to reporters outside The White House, or at his speeches at events.
A perfect example is trump is speaking at some law enforcement event in Chicago today. The Mayor and the head cop have chosen not to meet with trump. So what does he do in his remarks? He attacks the City of Chicago. I think he called it an embarrassment. I thought San Francisco was the #1 embarrassing city.
Anyway, yes Chicago has a crime problem and yes San Francisco has a homeless problem. Both of these issues are complex issues and try as you might, you just can’t take a magic wand and wish them away. Something simple minded trump either doesn’t understand or he does and doesn’t care if he thinks he can use these issues to “attack” those he sees as his enemies.
Problem with that is when he attacks Chicago or San Francisco or the FBI or the CIA he is attacking the people who are trying to their jobs. Ordinary citizens. How demoralizing is it for the folks in Chicago who are trying to make the city safer, or the folks in San Francisco who are trying to help the folks on the streets, or the men & women of the FBI & CIA who are trying to keep this country safe when their president systematically trashes their efforts so he can strike out at some perceived enemy?
While trump likes to dish out his digs and encourage his crowds to chant “lock her up” he has very deliberately isolated himself from the masses so he does not have to suffer the same fate. Until last night when he got a taste that he freely dishes out to others. A well deserved taste.
Probably the last taste he will get because he will isolate himself even more from the American People.
As to disrespecting The Office of the President, never has there been a more disrespectful person to The Office of the President than trump. He has very successfully drag the The Office of the President down to his level in the cesspool where he resides. So it’s a weak argument to say you shouldn’t say or do something to trump because it’s disrespectful to The Office of the President. That ship sailed when he took office.
The question is once we get rid of trump, how long will it take to restore the respect The Office of the President of the United States should have.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 18:14:41 GMT
Mehdi Hasan...
”Last week, the president's lawyer claimed in open court that Donald Trump could literally shoot someone and not be arrested or prosecuted because he is immune and above the law.
But yeah, let's spend a news cycle condemning (mostly ironic) "Lock him up" chants from Sunday.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 18:16:56 GMT
Rebecca Traister..
”I’m of the opinion that masses of people booing the president on one of the stupidly few occasions he’s ever been forced to interact with them is in fact an extremely valuable moment for our global standing & anyone who cares about America’s reputation should thank that crowd.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 18:18:23 GMT
John Hardwood...
”Trump’s abrupt withdrawal order 3 weeks ago disrupted planning underway and forced Pentagon officials to speed up the risky night raid, officials said.
“al-Baghdadi’s death,they said, occurred largely in spite of and not because of Trump’s actions”
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 28, 2019 18:19:04 GMT
While trump likes to dish out his digs and encourage his crowds to chant “lock her up” he has very deliberately isolated himself from the masses so he does not have to suffer the same fate. Until last night when he got a taste that he freely dishes out to others. A well deserved taste. Probably the last taste he will get because he will isolate himself even more from the American People. As to disrespecting The Office of the President, never has there been a more disrespectful person to The Office of the President than trump. He has very successfully drag the The Office of the President down to his level in the cesspool where he resides. So it’s a weak argument to say you shouldn’t say or do something to trump because it’s disrespectful to The Office of the President. That ship sailed when he took office. YUP. If we don't do things (protest, whatever) just because we need to respect the 'office of the President' --and he happens to be the dipsh!t who holds the office right now- then he really WILL be a dictator. He's already tried to say he can't be investigated, etc. while he holds office. If people can't even voice their dissent and protest because of his office, then that makes it even more like a dictatorship. ETA: it reminds me of the whole Democratic 'we'll take the high road' thing, while the Republicans play down and dirty in the gutter. It's NOT EFFECTIVE to do that. Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire- or in this case, insults with insults.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 18:22:25 GMT
Walter Shaub...
”Those decrying the Nat's game chant draw yet another false equivalency. POTUS leading the cheer involves a government official, who has in several instances abused his power to target political rivals, seeking public support for further targeting those rivals. In contrast, /1”
”the Nat's game chant involves a public that wields no direct governmental power throwing Trump's words back at him and demanding that our derelict leaders, who jeopardize the republic itself, do their jobs and undertake lawful investigative and oversight activities. /2”
”Trump's chant, led for a mob that laughed when a member called for shooting migrant families, is an expression of fascism advocating selective prosecution & deprivation of due process. The Nat's chant was a rejection of that and consciously ironic plea for restoration of norms./3”
”So, please, enough with the kind of false equivalencies that got us into this mess in the first place. Just as fascism and democracy are not the same thing, these two chants are not the same thing. Context matters. /4”
”To be clear: I don't support "locking up" without due process, nor prosecution for political affiliation. I don't think the crowd advocated that, and my reaction would be different if it did. I took this as the crowd advocating investigation and opposing OLC's immunity opinion./5”
|
|
|
Post by kmcginn on Oct 28, 2019 18:29:05 GMT
I used to be of the school that thought even if I didn't like the president, I still had to respect the office - that is until DT took office.
I have never been more embarrassed than I am now to have such and A$$hole in the white house.
I wonder how long it will take before the world trusts us again. I hope once someone else is in office, they will realize it was always HIM and not US.
I say good for them - time he got a little of his own medicine.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 18:55:15 GMT
Donald Trump HIMSELF opened Pandora’s box. I have no feelings of sympathy. I don’t deny that a lot of the hate and division were already present prior to Donald Trump. BUT I hold him responsible for putting this lepeorcy on the Office of the President. Just disgusting.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Oct 28, 2019 19:10:26 GMT
Today there are some, both Democrats and Republicans, who feel that the the folks at the ballpark shouldn’t have booed or chanted “lock him up”. One reason is because it was disrespectful to The Office Of The President. From Joe Scarborough “We are Americans and we do not do that. We do not want the world hearing us chant 'Lock him up' to this president or to any president." -- @joenbc” Too bad. When we protest, they say that we "don't know what we're protesting about" or are "paid shills of George Soros." When we call our representatives and senators, they ignore us. When we leave the political party as a sign of discontent, we are told that we are just RINO's - not REAL Republicans. When we try to vote for the opposition - our right to vote is taken away by those who would disenfranchise us. When we DO show up to vote for the opposition, gerrymandering makes it impossible to win. When we DO win, the outgoing legislators vote to strip the incoming leaders of their power. When we take it to the courts, we win - but only until he is able to put enough of his sycophants in power that he will control the courts. Given all of that, I don't feel at all bad that the gross old pumpkin got his feelings hurt. Remember these people? (https://images.app.goo.gl/HfzhtyqJqeH9cpCn6 - I can't get the image to show up here)
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,036
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Oct 28, 2019 19:39:21 GMT
So the FLOTUS can thumb her nose at the American people (“I really don’t care, do you?”), but how dare people express free speech towards the POTUS who spends his day bullying all sorts of people on Twitter? We’re through the looking glass here. Be Best!
I think its of the utmost importance the POTUS step out of the bubble of Fox News and his adoring MAGA crowd rallies and realize he is also the “leader” of the rest of the country too.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Oct 28, 2019 21:26:07 GMT
I used to be of the school that thought even if I didn't like the president, I still had to respect the office - that is until DT took office. I have never been more embarrassed than I am now to have such and A$$hole in the white house. I wonder how long it will take before the world trusts us again. I hope once someone else is in office, they will realize it was always HIM and not US. I say good for them - time he got a little of his own medicine. But it’s NOT just him, or he wouldn’t still be there. He’s broken ethics rules, regulations & constitutional Clauses from day one. And those allowing it are complicit. How can the world trust ‘us’? We haven’t upheld even the smallest part of our supposed constitution in 3.5 years so why are ‘we’ to be trusted?
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Oct 28, 2019 21:45:59 GMT
i have no sympathy for him. he has said worse about people. innocent people. he can go cry baby over that chant. i don't care.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 28, 2019 21:53:57 GMT
I think that what I liked best about last night was that there was no one person or group leading the booing or the “lock him up” chant. It was spontaneous and large. And it was satisfying to know that it was loud enough that Trump had to hear and experience it - he couldn’t/can’t simply ignore it or write it off as a few malcontents.
As some of the talking heads were discussing today, it is good for Trump to get a taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of the sentiments that he encourages his followers to direct at others. We all know that he is incapable of self-reflection leading to positive behavior change, so it will probably all be for naught, but a girl can dream.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Oct 28, 2019 22:13:37 GMT
I think that what I liked best about last night was that there was no one person or group leading the booing or the “lock him up” chant. It was spontaneous and large. And it was satisfying to know that it was loud enough that Trump had to hear and experience it - he couldn’t/can’t simply ignore it or write it off as a few malcontents. As some of the talking heads were discussing today, it is good for Trump to get a taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of the sentiments that he encourages his followers to direct at others. We all know that he is incapable of self-reflection leading to positive behavior change, so it will probably all be for naught, but a girl can dream. Sure he can. He is that delusional irl. I assure you he can ‘rationalize’ it away in his head how it wasn’t really what it was. He has no relationship with reality at all anymore. It was tenuous at best to begin with but I really don’t think he knows what’s real and what he makes up anymore. He decide it was a few people paid for by ‘left wing radicals’ and he will decide ‘many people’ agree with whatever delusion he decides it is.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2019 23:39:59 GMT
But those emails...
Kyle Griffin.
”A few of the details from Trump's al-Baghdadi presser were wrong. Many of the rest were either highly classified or tactically sensitive, and their disclosure by Trump made intelligence and military officials cringe, according to current and ex-officials.”
NBC News..
“Officials cringe as Trump spills sensitive details of al-Baghdadi raid”
“Some details the president has revealed are inaccurate, others are classified. Officials say they worry what to put in briefings for a man with no filter.
IRBIL, Iraq — President Donald Trump painted a vivid picture for the world of the deadly U.S. military raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a raid that only a small number of people witnessed in real time.
A "beautiful" and "talented" dog got injured. A robot had been on standby to aid in the hunt for al-Baghdadi if needed. U.S. Special Operations Forces arrived in eight helicopters and were on the ground for about two hours. They entered al-Baghdadi's compound within seconds by blowing holes in the side of the wall. They chased al-Baghdadi into a web of underground tunnels — many of them dead ends — that they already knew existed. Before the U.S. forces left for the 70-minute, "very low and very, very fast" helicopter ride back along the same route from which they arrived, they captured some of al-Baghdadi's henchmen and seized "highly sensitive material and information" outlining the origin of ISIS and plans for future plots.
A few of those colorful details were wrong. Many of the rest were either highly classified or tactically sensitive, and their disclosure by the president made intelligence and military officials cringe, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The al-Baghdadi raid is the most high-profile exhibit of a reality U.S. officials have had to contend with since Trump took office: a president with a background in show business who relishes delivering a compelling narrative and deals daily with the kind of covert, life-and-death sets of facts that inspire movie scripts.
The president, as the ultimate authority on classification, can declassify any piece of government information simply by releasing it publicly. And some top U.S. officials — including then-President Barack Obama, who signed a law to reduce the amount of classified material — have lamented the government's tendency to over-classify information. But current and former senior U.S. officials said from the earliest days of his presidency that Trump consistently wants to make public more than his advisers think is legally sound or wise for U.S national security.
"We agonized over what we would put in his briefings," one former senior White House official said, "because who knows if and when he's going to say something about it."
He has no filter," the official added. "But also if he knows something, and he thinks it's going to be good to say or make him appear smarter or stronger, he'll just blurt it out."
On Monday, Trump declassified a photo of the dog, revealing its breed, which was classified. But the dog’s name remains top secret. Inquiries about the dog flooded in after Trump disclosed that "the K-9 was hurt, went into the tunnel."
Trump also said Monday that he is considering releasing footage of the al-Baghdadi raid, and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the military is working on declassifying some images.
"We have video and photos," Milley said.
A couple of the president's statements on Sunday were inaccurate or left U.S. officials wondering where he got his information, officials said. The president said when U.S. officials notified Russia it would be entering airspace in western Syria, they told the Russians, "We think you're going to be very happy." But that phrase was not said on the call with the Russians, a U.S. official said. Trump also said al-Baghdadi was "crying and screaming" as U.S. forces chased him down, but U.S. officials said they didn't hear those sounds, and Milley told reporters he doesn't know the source of the president's information on that.
The overarching concern about Trump's disclosures on the al-Baghdadi raid, officials said, is that he gave America's enemies details that could make intelligence gathering and similar military operations more difficult and more dangerous to pull off.
Revealing that the U.S. possesses documents about future ISIS plans hurts the military's ability to use that information for quick follow-on operations, officials said. The president's disclosure that the U.S. had taken ISIS fighters from the compound complicated efforts to try to keep ISIS from knowing who is alive or dead for as long as possible while they interrogate them, officials said.
Some of the president's comments could complicate the intelligence gathering that leads to such raids because they revealed sources and methods the U.S. uses, officials said. They pointed to his saying that the U.S. knew of al-Baghdadi's whereabouts via technology, and also knew of the underground tunnels at his compound, which suggests the U.S. has infrared abilities to locate caves and tunnels.
"We knew it had tunnels. The tunnels were a dead end, for the most part. There was one, we think, that wasn't. But we had that covered, too, just in case," Trump said.
Other information Trump discussed provided America's enemies with tactical details on how the military carries out a raid like the one on al-Baghdadi, officials said, including the robot, the helicopter flight patterns and how U.S. forces entered the compound.
Some of the information, while not overly damaging, is just more than the military would like disclosed, officials said, such as that al-Baghdadi "had a lot of cash" and the president saying he was able to view the raid remotely "as though you were watching a movie."
Officials said the first major battle over disclosing details of military operations was in 2017 when Trump ordered airstrikes on areas controlled by the Assad regime in Syria.
The arguments against disclosures are usually based on concerns about revealing sources and methods or the idea that the more the president releases publicly, the weaker his argument about exerting executive privilege becomes. Sometimes he overrules them, while other times he simply says things publicly that they weren't expecting him to disclose.
Trump has since pushed the boundaries on a myriad of topics, officials said, and they don't expect that to be curtailed.
He's talked publicly about deploying a nuclear submarine in Asia, and more recently about nuclear weapons the U.S. never acknowledges it keeps in Turkey. Early in his presidency, Trump's disclosure of specific intelligence to Russian officials raised alarms among administration officials. After Trump wrote on Twitter in August that the U.S. was learning a lot about a mysterious explosion in Russia, a senior administration official told NBC News an aide would have to inform him his disclosure risked revealing sources and methods.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 28, 2019 23:40:44 GMT
These special people?!?!? pyccku
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 28, 2019 23:52:37 GMT
Officials said the first major battle over disclosing details of military operations was in 2017 when Trump ordered airstrikes on areas controlled by the Assad regime in Syria. The arguments against disclosures are usually based on concerns about revealing sources and methods or the idea that the more the president releases publicly, the weaker his argument about exerting executive privilege becomes. Sometimes he overrules them, while other times he simply says things publicly that they weren't expecting him to disclose.Trump has since pushed the boundaries on a myriad of topics, officials said, and they don't expect that to be curtailed. He's talked publicly about deploying a nuclear submarine in Asia, and more recently about nuclear weapons the U.S. never acknowledges it keeps in Turkey. Early in his presidency, Trump's disclosure of specific intelligence to Russian officials raised alarms among administration officials. After Trump wrote on Twitter in August that the U.S. was learning a lot about a mysterious explosion in Russia, a senior administration official told NBC News an aide would have to inform him his disclosure risked revealing sources and methods.And Jared has access to all this too to pass onto MSB, right there in Saudi Arabia. We are sending them millions in arms and troops too!! As I read the whole thing you posted I felt it in the pit of my stomach. Painful, terrifying! But moreso, he is going to take this all with him to wherever he goes...if he goes, right to Putin, KJU and/or Xi......... Remember his first thanks was for Russia, who was informed in advance of the raid, but not Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Does he realize she is second to Pence in line for President?!?!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 0:07:09 GMT
We are waaay past the “respect the office” and other bullcrap put out by the talking heads. Voldemort does not respect the Office of the President, the Office of the Speaker of the House, Committee Chairs, US Senators, US Representatives, the PM of England, the Mayor of London, the President of France or any other person beside himself!
Peaceful Protest whenever/wherever you can! He asked for it. He got it. (Toyota 😃)
Oh and BS on Joe Scarborough and his opinions. Never does a Morning Joe show end without Joe saying “when I was in Congress....blah blah blah.”
|
|
|
Post by imkat on Oct 29, 2019 0:26:57 GMT
From Joe Scarborough “We are Americans and we do not do that. We do not want the world hearing us chant 'Lock him up' to this president or to any president." -- @joenbc”
It's sad that we are at a place in history where this actually happened. However, sociopaths rely on other people following social norms, while they flout them themselves.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 0:33:26 GMT
The more we know............. No pressure on the Ukraine dt says The White House was alerted by at least mid-May that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had concerns about President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his pressure campaign, NBC News reported Monday.Two people with knowledge of the matter told NBC News that the National Security Council was informed of Giuliani's efforts to push for a change in leadership at the state-owned energy company Naftogaz and for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son. Fiona Hill, a former top aide to Trump on European and Russian affairs, told then-national security adviser John Bolton of Ukraine’s concerns after finding out that Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were involved in the attorney’s efforts in Ukraine. Hill also was informed that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was providing advice to the incoming Ukrainian president during the week of May 20 about who should hold leadership positions in his administration, which a source told NBC News the Ukrainians perceived as “inappropriate.” Ukraine is not part of the EU.
Former U.S. diplomat Amos Hochstein told Hill that he had talked with Zelensky and his advisers about the pressure from Giuliani and Sondland, and they shared how they did not want to be involved in domestic U.S. politics, according to the network. NBC News’s report clarifies that the White House National Security Council knew the pressure campaign worried Ukraine before Zelensky had been sworn in as president. * thehill.com/policy/international/europe/467777-white-house-alerted-in-may-of-ukraines-concerns-with-giulianiZelensky was sworn in May 19, 2019, and he was worried then about the pressure from 'US'/Giulanni/dt!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 0:39:03 GMT
Our Coast Guard has done it again...... and the WH thinks it is a good idea to cut their funding!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 3:21:16 GMT
linkSomeone isn’t going to be happy.. Talking Points Meno. “READ: Prepared Testimony Of NSC Official Who Listened To Trump’s Ukraine Call”“A White House official who listened to President Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky will tell House investigators on Tuesday that he was so alarmed by the Ukraine pressure campaign that he twice alerted a top White House lawyer. Lt Col. Alexander Vindman, who has served on the National Security Council since 2018, will recount overhearing U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland — a key player in the pressure campaign — discuss with Ukrainian officials the need for the country to launch investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens in order to secure a Zelensky meeting with Trump. Vindman’s account, laid out in prepared remarks obtained by TPM, confirms the July 10 conversation that another witness in the inquiry relayed to investigators. The conversation, according to the testimony, happened after a White House meeting with the Ukrainians had already been cut short by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton when Sondland brought up the request for the investigations. “Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” Vindman’s prepared remarks said. “I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.” Vindman reported the incident to the top lawyer on NSC. He also reported Trump’s July 25 call, in which he requested the investigations, to the lawyer, John Eisenberg. The conversation, according to the testimony, happened after a White House meeting with the Ukrainians had already been cut short by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton when Sondland brought up the request for the investigations. “Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma,” Vindman’s prepared remarks said. “I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.” Vindman reported the incident to the top lawyer on NSC. He also reported Trump’s July 25 call, in which he requested the investigations, to the lawyer, John Eisenberg. Vindman plans on telling House investigators that in spring 2019, he “became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine” that was “harmful” to U.S. policy. His testimony recounts two episodes of the pressure campaign on Kyiv to which he bore direct witness in his testimony. The first focuses on the July 10 visit by Ukraine’s then-National Security Adviser Oleksandr Danylyuk to the White House for meeting attended by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Bolton and Sondland. After Danylyuk asked about arranging a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the statement reads, Sondland started to talk “about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President.” Bolton then “cut the meeting short,” the statement says, apparently corroborating testimony from fellow national security staffer Fiona Hill. Vindman also listened in on the now-infamous July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky, in which the President asked the Ukrainian leader for a “favor.” “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,” Vindman plans on saying. The statement goes on to say that were Ukraine to investigate the Biden family or Burisma — the gas firm on whose board Hunter Biden sat — “it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.” “This would all undermine U.S. national security,” the statement reads. Read the full opening statement below:” The statement is in the linked article above.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 3:57:09 GMT
The Washington Post...
“It feels like a horror movie’: Republicans feel anxious and adrift defending Trump”
“Republican senators are lost and adrift as the impeachment inquiry enters its second month, navigating the grave threat to President Trump largely in the dark, frustrated by the absence of a credible case to defend his conduct and anxious about the historic reckoning that probably awaits them.
Recent days have delivered the most damaging testimony yet about Trump and his advisers commandeering Ukraine policy for the president’s personal political goals, which his allies on Capitol Hill sought to undermine by storming the deposition room and condemning the inquiry as secretive and corrupt.
Those theatrics belie the deepening unease many Republicans now say they feel — particularly those in the Senate who are dreading having to weigh their conscience against their political calculations in deciding whether to convict or acquit Trump should the Democratic-controlled House impeach the president.
In hushed conversations over the past week, GOP senators lamented that the fast-expanding probe is fraying their party, which remains completely in Trump’s grip. They voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted, with neither convincing arguments from the White House nor confidence that something worse won’t soon be discovered.
“It feels like a horror movie,” said one veteran Republican senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe the consensus. What you missed this week in the impeachment inquiry
The Republican Party’s strategy is being directed almost entirely by the frenzied impulses of Trump, who has exhibited fits of rage over the Democrats’ drive to remove him from office for abuse of power.
“I did nothing wrong,” Trump told reporters Friday. “This is a takedown of the Republican Party.”
Although Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) has been a loud dissenter, he has been speaking for himself as opposed to acting as a frontman for some silent caucus of like-minded Republicans, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Most GOP senators have been taking cues from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose paramount concern has been maintaining his party’s control of the chamber in next year’s election.
They’ve decided that they’re going to take it all grudgingly — and privately, perhaps, in disgust — but they’re not going to give up the farm,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the American Conservative Union. But, he added, “It’s been piling on, piling on, piling on, and I see defense fatigue on behalf of the Republicans in the Congress.”
Trump and his allies have strained to focus the debate on the process, but Republican officials have struggled to answer for the substance of the startling statements made by the growing list of credible witnesses from the national security and diplomatic realms.
“There’s frustration. It feels to everyone like they’re just digging a hole and making it worse. It just never ends. . . . It’s a total [expletive] show,” said one Republican strategist who has been advising a number of top senators and who, like several others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.
McConnell, who has shared related concerns in private conversations with other senators, has been preparing for a possible Senate impeachment trial. This month he showed a dry PowerPoint presentation to Republican senators explaining how one might unfold.
McConnell remains engaged with Trump but has a mixed view of the president’s advisers, several Republicans said, noting that he misses his productive working relationship with former White House counsel Donald McGahn and is “less enamored” with his successor, Pat Cipollone, according to a McConnell ally. A Senate GOP aide said McConnell and Cipollone have a good working relationship.
As they went about their work at the Capitol this past week, many Senate Republicans were all but mute when reporters asked questions about impeachment — a stark snapshot of a party rattled not only by the House inquiry but also by Trump’s removal of U.S. troops from northern Syria; his decision, later retracted, to host next year’s Group of Seven summit at his Florida golf resort; and his claim that the investigation into him amounted to a “lynching.”
“I’m a juror and I’m comfortable not speaking,” Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho) said. Pressed again for comment, he reiterated, “I said I’m comfortable not speaking.”
“I’d be a juror, so I have no comment,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said.
“I don’t need a strategy for impeachment because I may be a juror someday,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said.
Even as they withheld judgment of Trump’s conduct, Republican senators were quick to try to exploit vulnerabilities in the process being run by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).
“To be honest, I don’t follow any of it because that’s not due process,” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said. “Secret hearings, selective leaks. And that’s due process? In my America, that’s not due process.”
For Republicans, the political conundrum is a problem of their own making, argued William A. Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution. “They normalized a president whose conduct they are now being asked to judge as so abnormal as to warrant his removal from office,” he said.
“To the extent that they quietly harbor conscientious objections to what the president is doing — or, even more spectacularly, how he’s doing it — they have to weigh the calling of conscience against political considerations,” Galston added. “There’s a reason why ‘Profiles in Courage’ is a very short book. Courage is not the norm. It’s the exception.”
Trump was buoyed last week by a resolution introduced by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) condemning the House’s impeachment inquiry as “illegitimate.” But eight Republican senators did not initially sign onto what Graham conceived of as a show of support for the president; five of them later did, leaving only Romney and Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska as the holdouts.
Trump was given another lift in Republican enthusiasm Sunday when he announced that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the elusive Islamic State leader, died during an American military operation in Syria. Top Republicans hailed the news as a significant victory in the fight against terrorism and praised Trump.
At the White House last week, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway chided the media for what she characterized as a rush to judgment about Trump’s conduct. “Let’s take a deep breath and stop pretending we know what’s in somebody else’s heart, mind or soul, and just wait to see where the facts take us,” she told reporters.
Republicans have been grousing in private about the lack of a clear strategy at the White House and their limited grasp of the full set of facts and how officials are prepared to explain them.
What’s causing the most pause is, what else is out there? What is around the corner?” said a second Republican strategist in regular contact with congressional leaders. “If they say something in defense of the president or against the impeachment inquiry now, will they be pouring cement around their ankles?”
White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, a former House member, has been a constant target of behind-the-scenes ire from GOP lawmakers. Talk about potential replacements for Mulvaney has become a parlor game on Capitol Hill, where Republicans have noted his inability to constrain Trump or build a political and messaging operation dedicated to countering the impeachment inquiry.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a conservative hard-liner, has been a fixture at the White House, talking to Trump “more than Mulvaney,” in the estimation of one Trump adviser who was not authorized to speak publicly. “Every time you look over toward the Oval, there is Mark Meadows,” this adviser said.
There are some signs that the White House is moving to do more to deal with the fraying among congressional Republicans, with Trump reaching out to more members by phone and discussions about bringing in a high-profile lawyer to deal directly with impeachment, as well as new communication aides.
The usual chorus of support for Trump from conservative media figures remains active but scattered. Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon has launched a podcast that he calls an outside “war room” for the president, broadcasting from the basement of his home on Capitol Hill. Meadows appeared on Bannon’s program last week, calling out House Democrats for “information warfare” and said it is “imperative that our team” counters with “real facts.”
But in the biggest blow yet to Trump, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. testified last week that the president had personally intervened in a quid pro quo for U.S. military aid to be contingent upon Ukrainian investigations into Democrats. Some Republicans have tried to dismiss his account, arguing it is based on secondhand information, but many lawmakers have found it hard to defend Trump in the wake of that testimony. AD
“The picture coming out of it based on the reporting we’ve seen I would say is not a good one, but I would say also, until we have a process that allows for everybody to see this in full transparency, it’s pretty hard to draw any hard-and-fast conclusions,” Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), another member of leadership, said, “To some extent, we need to be thoughtful about waiting for the House and whatever conclusions they reach. For us to express concerns about process is totally appropriate. But reaching conclusions based on anybody’s select information at this point probably isn’t a helpful place for us to be.”
The GOP majority is in play in 2020, with Collins, Joni Ernst (Iowa), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) each facing tough campaigns and grappling with polls in their states showing independent voters souring on Trump and open to impeachment.
“At some point, McConnell is going to have to perform triage to save the majority,” said Rick Wilson, a longtime GOP consultant and Trump critic. “How the Senate Republicans handle everything is all going to come down to how threatened Mitch feels and how worried he is about losing Colorado, North Carolina and a few other states. And if Trump’s numbers keep dropping, that decision is going to come sooner than later for him.”
For now, Trump’s near-absolute control over his party’s base makes it difficult for Republicans to do anything but cheer him or be uneasy in the shadows, even though polls show that a majority of Americans disapprove of his job performance.
“Everybody in their heart is nervous,” said former senator Rick Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania. “During the Clinton impeachment, he tried to endear himself to the public as much as possible. But this is the opposite. The base loves him but the president isn’t doing anything to win [other] people over, and that troubles Republicans who have to win support next year from people beyond the base.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 4:17:07 GMT
Monday night rant by a faithful Fox News viewer...
”Americans know by now that the Impeachment inquiry is just another hoax and silent coup to remove the President from office.” J.J. Crovatto Don’t worry J.J., Schiff is a leaker & corrupt politician who made up what I said on the call in order to hurt the Republican Party & me!”
”There is no underlying crime in that transcript.” @ingrahamangle 100% correct, and the Whistleblower disappeared after I released the transcript of the call. Where is the Whistleblower? That is why this is now called the Impeachment Hoax! The Do Nothing Dems are Doing Nothing!”
The only crimes in the Impeachment Hoax were committed by Shifty Adam Schiff, when he totally made up my phone conversation with the Ukrainian President and read it to Congress, together with numerous others on Shifty’s side. Schiff should be Impeached, and worse!“
”This is a big win for America, and also for President Trump.” @nypost”
Man I wouldn’t want a peak into that big 🧠 of his.
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Oct 29, 2019 11:27:51 GMT
I find it so ironic, as I listen to CNN almost all day, that when Dems appear to discuss this impeachment, they are measured and logical describing the allegations, and the process they are following.
Yet the republicans that appear are ranting, raving lunatics, always trying to turn the table on the alleged and unproven allegations against Biden, and usually mentioning Obama and Hillary also. Gaslighting at its best. The Gaetz's', Meadows, McCarthy, Jordans' of the Republican party are hardly the examples of the statesmen that represent the best of America. I try to remember that they are not the true example of all republicans, but the lack of stones on the part of most Republican officials to stand up and challenge 'dimwit donnie's' destruction of the Republican party is frustrating.
What happened to the the concept that serving ones' country for the greater good was the requirement or standard for members of Congress? When did the concept that "I got mine, to hell with the rest of America" become the standard for these representatives? How easy was it for them to sell their souls to tie themselves to the pathetic standard of the presidency that we now have.
I hope to live long enough to see the history books interpretation of this presidency.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,036
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Oct 29, 2019 12:28:43 GMT
Pretty sure respecting the office of the President went out the window when a member of congress yelled “You Lie!” while the POTUS was speaking...
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Oct 29, 2019 12:41:50 GMT
On one hand, I do agree that it is embarrassing that this is where we are at with respect for the president. I don’t want booing and chanting things like “lock him (the president) up” to become the norm. But on the other hand I think it is important to show that we do not agree with him and all that @pccku said above.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Oct 29, 2019 13:27:04 GMT
The question is once we get rid of trump, how long will it take to restore the respect The Office of the President of the United States should have. Well, I am going to take a step right back in time and say when Obama was depicted being lynched. That's when decorum went right out the door.
|
|
|
Post by artgirl1 on Oct 29, 2019 13:33:05 GMT
Well, I am going to take a step right back in time and say when Obama was depicted being lynched. That's when decorum went right out the door. This, and Obama didn't whine, and call those that disagreed with him 'Never Obamers', and claim that those people were not patriots, etc...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 10, 2024 10:37:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 15:21:39 GMT
MSNBC...
”While speaking in Chicago to a gathering of international police chiefs Monday, President Trump tore into the host city, saying Afghanistan is a safer place than Chicago.”
The mark of a true leader.
|
|