Are you serious? Almost everyone on the forum knows Obama was President every day in 2016. IMO, Obama should have rung the fire-bell at least a year prior to the 2016 election. He should have explained the problem to the American people, then proposed legislation to secure the ballot boxes--the physical vote--and proposed some measures to deal with fake news. He had a duty to the American people to tell them the truth. 'Voters may get the wrong idea,' you say? Well, they might, but so be it. We voters have a right to get any idea we want. But let's say we conclude Obama only realized the threat was serious six months before the election. IMO, he still should have said something. It might look like, Obama has said, he was trying to throw the election to Hillary? Yeah, well, It might.
I think the term is hacked. That would be Obama. Who has allowed it to continue for years. Same one word please.
In order to have an election you need candidates. No candidates, no election. Allowing for your strictly interpreted guidelines no President would ever be able to discuss much with foreign leaders for fear that it may be interpreted as a political donation even if it is one, two three or almost four years away? But what about actual political donations, as in the case of the Clintons or the Bidens?
Well regardless of either outcomes, Obama was the President when this happened. As pointed out (and I can cite the video from the 2012 election debates), Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. What did Obama do? Laugh and say "Hah, the cold war is over".
So what, says Fred in blasé mode. Over half of the citizens of the USA have lost confidence in POTUS and that amounts to......'so what.' Jayzuz.
Trump was operating from a minority base in American political culture to begin with, winning the electoral college (but not the popular vote) thanks mainly to an add which effectively targeted the "rust belt' with a message that resonated with certain swing voters who previously had voted for the Democrats in past elections. That add basically outlined Trump's message on immigration and trade and combined it with an anti-establishment message which drew on images of "foreign", "globalist", "Jewish bankers", controlling domestic and foreign affairs in America. Underneath these newer recruits, which interestingly are still going to vote for Trump, his own minority base -- consisting, on the grass routes level, of white nationalists, white evangelicals, and ultra Zionist Jews, and (as the Republican party nominee) the neocon apparatus of media, think tanks and other mouthpieces -- is largely fractured and is much more a minority now than before. The neocons, whose PNAC plans don't have room for any "Russian partnership", are neither fond of the 'isolationist' streak within the Trump fan base nor are they seriously interested in losing the Russian bogey as one of the more long-term tools to justify US defense expenditures and subsidies to US defense contractors and their spokesmen. After Bolton was booted out by Trump, when Trump appeared to almost begging to meet Iranian president Rouhani, and with Trump failing to take any military action against Iran, the neocons were already disillusioned with Trump enough to start speaking out against him publicly. Giving Syria basically to the Russians to sort out has ended any pretense of neocon support or alliance with Trump. The pro Israel lobby, whose main elements worked with the neocons, are equally disillusioned with Trump and many of those in America who take their cues from them will be equally disillusioned. Abandoning the Kurds (the favorite tool of the pro Israel lobby to sow discord among 'enemy and frenemy states alike) might be the straw that broke the camel's back for many of them, never mind the "Moscow Project" involves some minority elements from the pro Israel lobby as well. All in all, the pro Israel lobby is probably going to wish it hadn't attach itself so much to Trump. Trump's recent moves have also frayed his relationship with the Christian evangelicals. While he may still be the most obvious choice for them, giving how everyone else in American politics basically is running against everything they want, they will hardly be as enthusiastic about Trump as they once were. In this process, Trump being impeached (and then convicted) might -- on the surface at least -- look like the best of bad choices for many of the Republican party establishment too. Instead of a badly fractured and bruised Trump going into the general election, they will have a figure like Pence who can at least hold the special interest groups behind Trump's minority base together. Pence who is ultimately a representatives of the white Christian evangelical movement, and by extension the pro Israel lobby and by further extension, the PNAC project and the military industrial lobby, doesn't have the same infatuation with the isolationist/Moscow Project elements which have the most resonance with Trump. And that means he will be someone the neocons can work with quite easily. The problem facing Pence, however, is two-fold. First, Trump isn't going to let him get enough of the limelight to challenge him -- and Trump is already aware that some like to elevate Pence as their new spokesman, which means Trump will be doubly interested to make sure Pence is kept in line. Something that by virtue of both personality and position, Trump will be able to accomplish. Even more significantly, however, while Trump can certainly still deliver a rambling talk which nonetheless excites elements within his base, while entertaining many others, Pence is not going to be able to either excite or entertain anyone. He is ultimately as memorable as any of the countless figures in American politics no one remembers at all.
It would just be utterly pointless if they did eventually launch an official investigation after they started the investigation.
No they DON'T all refer to Biden! Not in the instances in your extract which refer to Crowdstrike and the prosecutor! There is only ONE SINGLE mention of Biden and you didn't include it in your extract! And yes, it refers to investigating Biden, and to get Zelensky to agree to work with Barr and Giuliani. Everything else that you're talking about refers to investigating Crowdstrike and the prosecutor and to get Zelensky to agree to work with Barr and Giuliani. This is NOT difficult!
Trump will behave in the exact same manner regardless of who his opponent is. He will try to involve foreign aid in his campaign against his political opponent, whether it's Eliz. Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamalah Harris, Pete Buttigieg, or anyone else. Trump feels rules are for others, not himself. He ignores them in his perverted, insane drive for winning. Trump is good at winning, but knows nothing whatever about governing. Trump is a mental case, & a danger to the nation as long as he welds the power of the Presidency. He must be impeached, convicted by the Senate, & removed from office, ASAP, for the safety & security of this nation, & the world.
No. If Biden wasn't running, Trump wouldn't have given it a second thought. But he'd have tried investigating the leading Democrat(s) he felt most challenged by. And it wouldn't be limited to asking Ukraine, but would also include Russia & any other country where he felt he could find dirt.
Second response to your post. . .Keep in mind Trump kept saying he was working to decrease corruption in Ukraine with his weapons controls. But State Dept professionals who tried to work with Trump in Ukraine are testifying in Congress that Trump fired ambassadors who tried to address Ukrainian corruption, because Trump & his sycophants wanted to use that corruption for Trump's political benefit. Trump wasn't decreasing Ukraine's corruption. He was using it for himself thru the efforts of Giuliani & other of his personal appointees. And, Trump isn't decreasing the "swamp," he's the leader of the swamp.
You don't think that Trump would want to go after Biden even if Biden wasn't running for 2020? Biden hasn't exactly said nice things about Trump. And plus, Trump hates the Democrats, so if he was able to get Biden investigated leading to dirt being uncovered, that would be a nice way to get back at the Dems.
You don't think that Trump would want to go after Biden even if Biden wasn't running for 2020? Biden hasn't exactly said nice things about Trump. And plus, Trump hates the Democrats, so if he was able to get Biden investigated leading to dirt being uncovered, that would be a nice way to get back at the Dems. If the Russia investigation was launched corruptly under false pretenses, don't you think that would be in the national interest?
I believe investigations into corruption are a good thing, regardless of who initiates them. You & other Trump supporters are upset about the Mueller investigation, which ultimately failed to charge Trump with anything. But the investigation itself was both warranted & worthwhile. Hunter Biden has already been investigated by professionals in the Ukraine government, who were far more motivated to find criminal activity than you or any American political party is now. Yet, they found nothing wrong with Hunter in that inquiry. So, you want us Trump opponents to accept the results of the Mueller report, while you reject the results of the Ukraine investigation involving Hunter Biden? That sounds just like Trump--wanting it all his way. It won't happen.
Actually, I'm not upset at all! I'm not American OR a Trump supporter, but shouldn't you be upset about a waste of tax payer money spent on that investigation? How the hell do you know that? Hunter, but not Joe, right?
I agree, but don't you think that Trump would want to go after Biden even if Biden wasn't running for 2020?
1. I don't regard money spent on investigations, regardless of their outcomes or conclusions, as wasted taxpayer monies. 2. The Mueller Report found a lot of wrong doing, & sent several close associates of Trump to jail or prison. It also offered substantial evidence tying Russia to the 2016 election hacking, as well as Trump & his associates to Russia. 3. That's true, but I've seen no evidence yet tying Joe to any wrong doing. Trump has a habit of trying to shift wrongdoing from himself to others who oppose him, & he's been doing that a lot with Joe Biden lately. If Trump had shown himself to be trustworthy over the past three years, I'd be more concerned about his allegations toward Joe. But Trump has demonstrated a proficiency for lying beyond any American leader I've ever known, & I truly don't trust him--on ANY topic. On the other hand, I have no objection to an investigation into Joe Biden either, IF someone submits evidence it is warranted.
Since Trump suffers from some kind of mental anguish toward Obama, & literally hates everything & everyone in any way connected to Obama, I can see how he could continue his sick attacks on Joe because of Joe's position in Obama's administration. So, although I don't see any reason for Trump's continued anguish toward Joe, I don't pretend to think like, or understand Trump's mental workings. If I were in Trump's position, & Joe wasn't running against me, I wouldn't give Joe a second thought. But with Trump, who knows?
