IMPEACHMENT | The Sequel?

Smedley said:

Paul separately, I saw you won your age group in the Newstead 5k, congrats!

Keep running Paul!

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.

Putting words in someone else’s mouth aside, I wonder how foreign policy* (“if you do or don’t do that, we won’t or will do this”) works without “extortion.”

* I also wonder how foreign policy works without “meddling,” but that’s another thread.

 I think my paraphrasing was accurate:

drummerboy said:

He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

Smedley said:

Paul separately, I saw you won your age group in the Newstead 5k, congrats!

 Thanks, I did better than I expected. Getting ready for the Maplewood 5K on Oct 20.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

Perhaps there is a difference between an elected official doing something for the good of the country versus his own personal benefit? Just a thought.

"Ukraine's former Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin has categorically rejected claims by Donald Trump concerning Mr Trump's Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Mr Trump has alleged, without evidence, that Mr Biden pressed for the sacking of a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect a business that employed his son.

Mr Klimkin told the BBC that the prosecutor was sacked for corruption.

A number of Western bodies, including the EU, had pushed for the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to be sacked, he said."

...........

Mr Klimkin, who was serving as foreign minister when Mr Shokin was sacked in 2016, said there was "definitely" no evidence that his removal was for anything other than corruption.

"The whole sense of this push was to sort out, to deliver on reforms in Ukraine," he said. "It was not about the prosecutor general. It was about prosecutor offices which were systemically corrupt."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856788

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.

Putting words in someone else’s mouth aside, I wonder how foreign policy* (“if you do or don’t do that, we won’t or will do this”) works without “extortion.”

* I also wonder how foreign policy works without “meddling,” but that’s another thread.

 I think my paraphrasing was accurate:

drummerboy said:

He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

horsesh!t - the point is that you are distorting what happened in order to make it seem that there is some kind of equivalence between Trump and Biden.

And only God knows why you would choose this dishonest approach, which only serves to help Trump.

basil said:

paulsurovell said:

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

Perhaps there is a difference between an elected official doing something for the good of the country versus his own personal benefit? Just a thought.

Right. The operative words that go along with “extortion” are “foreign policy.”

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.

Putting words in someone else’s mouth aside, I wonder how foreign policy* (“if you do or don’t do that, we won’t or will do this”) works without “extortion.”

* I also wonder how foreign policy works without “meddling,” but that’s another thread.

 I think my paraphrasing was accurate:

drummerboy said:

He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

horsesh!t - the point is that you are distorting what happened in order to make it seem that there is some kind of equivalence between Trump and Biden.

And only God knows why you would choose this dishonest approach, which only serves to help Trump.

 Bingo !

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

 It's understandable.  Several of us have pointed to various sources with the actual facts - all of which show that the Trump narrative about Biden, which Paul keeps repeating, is a lie.  But Paul's response is basically -

paulsurovell said:

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. 

Poroshenko couldn’t do it alone. The removal of Viktor Shokin as prosecutor general (technically a forced resignation) required the approval of the Ukrainian Parliament. A majority of 289 deputies, or 64 percent of the 450 seats, voted in favor.

ETA: Should anybody wonder, Poroshenko’s party accounted for 114 of those votes.

paulsurovell said:

 That is correct. We have killed millions of innocent civilians over those years, overthrown progressive foreign governments in the interest of right-wing oligarchies, supported right-wing death squads in secrecy and waged numerous undeclared wars -- all of which were/are unconstitutional.

Yes. All of those actions are/were impeachable offenses.

https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

Here's a glimpse of what we did in North Korea (from "Napalm" by Robert Neer)

Thank you for bringing up North Korea in 1951. 

Idiocy.

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

I get that Paul and nan think mainstream Democrats are terrible in a lot of ways.  In fact, I don't disagree with them on a lot of those points.  I've posted in the past about the assaults on civil liberties, the warmongering, the failures of neoliberalism to address the needs of the middle class, and on and on.

But hating Democrats is no excuse for lying, and for spreading kooky conspiracy theories to discredit them.  There's enough obvious and truthful things to criticize the DNC and "third way" Democrats for without resorting to parroting false right wing talking points.

And as I wrote earlier, yes the Democrats are bad, but Trump is far, far, far worse.   The abuses of power that are being wielded against his enemies is banana republic type ****.  And we need to roll back the worst of it before we can start addressing the failures of the Democratic Party.  One step at a time.  And one step at a time without being dishonest.

and now back to our discussion of the whistleblower complaint --

I haven't seen or heard anything about what the complaint suggests about Trump's state of mind.  But it really raises some 25th Amendment issues in my mind.  The complaint describes what was supposed to be a routine congratulatory call to Zelensky that then went sideways when Trump brought up his "favor."  It describes what to me implies a panic among those listening in when Trump started talking about an investigation of Biden, who then had to figure out how to bury the record of the call.  This suggests a president who is either mentally impaired, just plain stupid, or too reckless and/or arrogant to know or care what he was doing on a call with a host of witnesses.  A person like that really isn't fit for the office he holds.  We always pretty much knew that, but the complaint brings Trump's unfitness for office into pretty stark relief.  

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

I am sorry to bring this to you, but paul is not on your side any more than nan is 

basil said:

I am sorry to bring this to you, but paul is not on your side any more than nan is 

I used to think Paul and I were on the same side.  Now I'm leaning toward believing he's a nihilist who just wants to tear the whole thing down, by any means necessary.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.

Putting words in someone else’s mouth aside, I wonder how foreign policy* (“if you do or don’t do that, we won’t or will do this”) works without “extortion.”

* I also wonder how foreign policy works without “meddling,” but that’s another thread.

 I think my paraphrasing was accurate:

drummerboy said:

He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

horsesh!t - the point is that you are distorting what happened in order to make it seem that there is some kind of equivalence between Trump and Biden.

And only God knows why you would choose this dishonest approach, which only serves to help Trump.

 The equivalence is not between Trump and Biden. it is between the actions of Trump and Biden.

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

 You are obstreperous because (a) you are defending the indefensible and (b) you have an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that you have become irrational.

paulsurovell said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 So you're saying that Biden extorted Poroshenko on behalf of Obama. OK, I'll stipulate to that.

Putting words in someone else’s mouth aside, I wonder how foreign policy* (“if you do or don’t do that, we won’t or will do this”) works without “extortion.”

* I also wonder how foreign policy works without “meddling,” but that’s another thread.

 I think my paraphrasing was accurate:

drummerboy said:

He was a messenger for Obama and all of our allies who all wanted the guy out.

Biden literally threatened to withhold money if Poroshenko didn't fire the AG. That's extortion. Not sure how often that happens in foreign policy, but this example is unambiguous.

horsesh!t - the point is that you are distorting what happened in order to make it seem that there is some kind of equivalence between Trump and Biden.

And only God knows why you would choose this dishonest approach, which only serves to help Trump.

 The equivalence is not between Trump and Biden. it is between the actions of Trump and Biden.

oh. ok then. (as if that wasn't what I was talking about in the first place.)

still not true. the actions are not even remotely close.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

 You are obstreperous because (a) you are defending the indefensible and (b) you have an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that you have become irrational.

lol

also, it's not even possible to hate or despise Trump to excess, (either personally or 99.9% of his official actions), as TDS implies.

eta: and what exactly am I defending that is indefensible? an effort to remove a corrupt government official?

ml1 said:

and now back to our discussion of the whistleblower complaint --

I haven't seen or heard anything about what the complaint suggests about Trump's state of mind.  But it really raises some 25th Amendment issues in my mind.  The complaint describes what was supposed to be a routine congratulatory call to Zelensky that then went sideways when Trump brought up his "favor."  It describes what to me implies a panic among those listening in when Trump started talking about an investigation of Biden, who then had to figure out how to bury the record of the call.  This suggests a president who is either mentally impaired, just plain stupid, or too reckless and/or arrogant to know or care what he was doing on a call with a host of witnesses.  A person like that really isn't fit for the office he holds.  We always pretty much knew that, but the complaint brings Trump's unfitness for office into pretty stark relief.  

 Which is why any impeachment inquiry should target Pence. His failure to invoke the 25th Amendment is a monumental neglect of his responsibilities and oath of office.

As to the criteria for impeachment I profoundly disagree with Paul. A President should not be impeached for reasons of that President's policies. Elections are the antidote to bad policy. Otherwise anytime the House of Representatives in controlled by the opposite Party to that of the President they would move to impeach.

Clinton would have been impeached not for lying about sex but for NAFTA or involvement in the war in Bosnia. Obama would have been impeached for Obamacare which the entire Republican Party believed was totally evil. 

ml1 said:

basil said:

I am sorry to bring this to you, but paul is not on your side any more than nan is 

I used to think Paul and I were on the same side.  Now I'm leaning toward believing he's a nihilist who just wants to tear the whole thing down, by any means necessary.

 Your concept of "the same side" needs further elaboration. If it's just group-think that forbids differences of opinion, count me out.

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

 You are obstreperous because (a) you are defending the indefensible and (b) you have an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that you have become irrational.

lol

also, it's not even possible to hate or despise Trump to excess, (either personally or 99.9% of his official actions), as TDS implies.

When it clouds your thinking, as it does in your case, it's excessive.

drummerboy said:

eta: and what exactly am I defending that is indefensible? an effort to remove a corrupt government official?

 You are defending Biden's extortion of Poroshenko as being something other than extortion.

STANV said:

ml1 said:

and now back to our discussion of the whistleblower complaint --

I haven't seen or heard anything about what the complaint suggests about Trump's state of mind.  But it really raises some 25th Amendment issues in my mind.  The complaint describes what was supposed to be a routine congratulatory call to Zelensky that then went sideways when Trump brought up his "favor."  It describes what to me implies a panic among those listening in when Trump started talking about an investigation of Biden, who then had to figure out how to bury the record of the call.  This suggests a president who is either mentally impaired, just plain stupid, or too reckless and/or arrogant to know or care what he was doing on a call with a host of witnesses.  A person like that really isn't fit for the office he holds.  We always pretty much knew that, but the complaint brings Trump's unfitness for office into pretty stark relief.  

 Which is why any impeachment inquiry should target Pence. His failure to invoke the 25th Amendment is a monumental neglect of his responsibilities and oath of office.

As to the criteria for impeachment I profoundly disagree with Paul. A President should not be impeached for reasons of that President's policies. Elections are the antidote to bad policy. Otherwise anytime the House of Representatives in controlled by the opposite Party to that of the President they would move to impeach.

Clinton would have been impeached not for lying about sex but for NAFTA or involvement in the war in Bosnia. Obama would have been impeached for Obamacare which the entire Republican Party believed was totally evil. 

 I agree that any serious attempt to impeach Trump should also impeach Pence because if successful, Pence might be worse than Trump.

ml1 said:

But hating Democrats is no excuse for lying, and for spreading kooky conspiracy theories to discredit them.

Personal attack which is truly laughable after three and a half years of a kooky conspiracy theory promoted by the Democratic establishment.

ml1 said:

And as I wrote earlier, yes the Democrats are bad, but Trump is far, far, far worse.   The abuses of power that are being wielded against his enemies is banana republic type ****.  And we need to roll back the worst of it before we can start addressing the failures of the Democratic Party.  One step at a time.  And one step at a time without being dishonest.

 Duh.

I think its fair to say that I hate Biden as much as anyone here but there is a fundamental difference between actions taken by a government official in pursuit of the stated foreign policy of the United States and actions taken by a government official in pursuit of a personal vendetta against a political rival.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

to other posters -

sorry for my obstreperous tone, but I just find this kind of dishonesty galling.  paul is representative of large swath of political thought that just serves to muddy the waters of our discourse. It's bad enough when you have the likes of Fox News peddling this crap, but when people who are ostensibly on your side do it, it's just despicable.

 You are obstreperous because (a) you are defending the indefensible and (b) you have an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that you have become irrational.

lol

also, it's not even possible to hate or despise Trump to excess, (either personally or 99.9% of his official actions), as TDS implies.

When it clouds your thinking, as it does in your case, it's excessive.

drummerboy said:

eta: and what exactly am I defending that is indefensible? an effort to remove a corrupt government official?

 You are defending Biden's extortion of Poroshenko as being something other than extortion.

yet again - not "Biden's".

stop lying.

and are you saying that every time a condition is placed on foreign aid, it's extortion?

ok

paul - is BDS extortion?

drummerboy said:

and are you saying that every time a condition is placed on foreign aid, it's extortion?

 I think it's a case-by-case question. In this case it was extortion.

paulsurovell said:

 I agree that any serious attempt to impeach Trump should also impeach Pence because if successful, Pence might be worse than Trump.

 That is not my reasoning. 

How could Pence possibly be worse than Trump? You can call it "derangement" but I do not see one redeeming quality in Trump.