https://nypost.com/2019/10/30/pompe...kraine-phone-call-takes-shot-at-hunter-biden/
Interesting to read his take on things.
Interesting to read his take on things.
Pompeo steps forward
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Nothing to read there but a bunch of self-serving bullsh*t.
This quote of Pompeo's about impeachment is priceless: "This is politics. It’s unfortunate. It shouldn’t happen in the national security space. President Trump would never connect that kind of politics to foreign policy. “
Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
i love how obama drew a line in syria and then again in crimea and then again in ukraine. the us only helped in those areas once trump was elected. but somehow trump was a russian puppet.
First line of this article: "Irony isn't just dead, it's currently spinning in its grave."
https://mashable.com/article/donald-trump-jr-hunter-biden-nepotism/
I think this highlights the massive gaping hole in what could be a great argument from Trump's side. Trump simply lacks credibility in having some deep conviction to root out corruption. I completely believe him when he says he wanted other European nations to pitch in more with Ukraine defense. That's totally consistent with what we know of Trump. A passionate desire to root out corruption is not consistent with what we know of Trump.
Someone passionate about ending corruption doesn't try to reward their own resort with a government contract.
At the same time he could also make the argument that his entire presidency was based on "draining the swamp"
If that’s the case then DC is a quiet place on both sides of the aisle
Yep, and trump has proven to be no different than anyone else. His credibility on this won't really matter though because the naysayers will maintain their position and his sycophants will maintain theirs.
Honestly, I think what we are looking at right now is both sides taking the position of "if I'm going down, you're going with me", which I absolutely love. I think the dem side is based on panic and the trump side is based on anger/revenge.
Damn I have to question your judgement. Credible? Did you know that the “whistleblower” worked with two current staffers on Adam Schiff’s staff?
Whether he worked with Schiff is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that this guy has ties to 4 or 5 people who could potentially be implicated in the criminal investigations that both the US and Ukraine are performing. The impeachment inquiry is valid on the surface. The question is whether or not trump and barr are correct in looking into corruption between ukraine, the state dept, the justice dept, and elected officials.
This is an interesting angle. I've done my own deep dive and I don't think there's any grand plan that's going to fall out of this. Various process crimes? Yea probably. But the level of conspiracy this requires is insanely hard to pull off. As an example, look how many career staffers were apparently disturbed by Rudy's shadow foreign policy and Trump's Ukraine dealings. It's really hard, when you have a face and resume in front of you, to accuse Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor, Col. Vindman etc of being bad actors. You might disagree with their conclusions, but you also recognize they've devoted their lives to serving the country the best they know how.
In order to buy the "deep state" conspiracy theory that all these Obama era officials were pulling off this massive disinformation campaign, requires that you not only believe Clapper, Comey, Brennan, etc were in on it. But it also requires you believe that a HUGE number of career staffers would have to be complicit as well. The Ukraine story only took a few months from Yavanovitch being fired through the phone call in July to blow up internally (Bolton's hand grenade analogy is a great one) then eventually spill publicly.
There would be massive internal dissent and strife in these agencies if there was something at that scale going on and it would have blown up a long time ago.
I'm not suggesting a ridiculously vast conspiracy, and I think Taylor and Vindman are good actors who saw something that didn't seem right. I also think Comey isn't the villain that people make him out to be. What I see is mostly based on DNC actors and a few CIA officials (including Brennan) who used illegal tactics in an attempt to undermine Trump. There are just too many connections between the CIA, the DNC, the Clinton Campaign, and the state dept in general to not raise my eyebrows a little bit. Throw in the FBI agents who actively worked to keep trump from being elected and you have a web that is pretty hard not to question. Then add in those peoples connection to Ukrainian officials and Burismas owner and things get even more sketchy. Is it possible that none of those factors are related to one another? Yep. But as we find more connections to one another its starting to paint a picture of the kind of corruption that Trump was accused of, only on a much larger scale.
When you get some time, map out your big picture for me. I agree with you on Comey BTW. When both side try make you a villain at various points, it's probably because you're actually trying to act in a nonpartisan manner.
Your FBI situation for example. Clinton had elements of the FBI working against her also. It was the NY field office that was pretty obviously leaking to Rudy back in the day, and forced Comey's hand to announce the whole Weiner laptop thing because he knew it was going to leak anyway.
If Hillary was prez, I wouldn't be happy knowing she was personally driving her AG to go down that rabbit hole either. The president has to put aside personal things when it comes to criminal investigation. Let DOJ work and FBI handle those matters without making it political by getting involved.
95% of federal employees who donated to the last Presidential campaign gave to Hillary Clinton. The Federal government is littered through and through with people that hated Trump before he ever took office. It doesn’t take a huge amount of people, just a number of people in the right places and a larger amount that are sympathetic enough not to say anything.
There have also been people from the various departments that have called out systemic anti-Trump behavior but their stories are either not covered or they are dismissed as being lunatics. Regardless, hopefully a thorough investigation is performed in all accounts and the appropriate charges are actually filed and pursued.
Your #s arent really accurate, certainly for the civil service positions that arent remotely partisan. But sure, 95% of State Department donors gave to Clinton. But, the State Department, and other Departments, are filled with jobs appointed by the president and Hillary was formerly the head of the state Dept, so it makes sense that most of the Democrat appointed workers and their aides are going to support the Democrat. And of course Trump has replaced many of those positions so the state Dept of today doesnt consist of all the same people as it did in 2016 so it is also an irrelevant point.
Last edited:
My numbers were perfectly accurate.
“Of the roughly $2 million that federal workers from 14 agencies spent on presidential politics by the end of September, about $1.9 million, or 95 percent, went to the Democratic nominee's campaign, according to an analysis by The Hill. ”
The article breaks it down. State was 99%. It shows a bias existed as of the election and a lot of those workers are still in place. You can bring up the irrelevant point about where they may donate in the future all you want. The point is that, of the politically active federal employees, there was a near unanimous bias towards a Democrat candidate.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign
You said 95% of Federal workers, that article is with regards to 14 specific agencies, it isnt that high when looking at federal workers as a whole. Regardless, I dont understand your argument about "bias". Federal workers are citiziens just like you and me and have a right to donate who they wish to donate to. Are you "biased" with who you donate to or vote for? Or is it your preference? Secondly, a lot of workers at these agencies were staffed by the Obama administration, so it makes sense they would support the Democratic candidate.
It isnt an irrelevant point in the slightest. The people in many of these jobs who donated in 2016 are no longer in these positions. You are only bringing this point up to try to make it out like the Federal Government is against Trump based on 2016 campaign dollars. But the government consists of people, so unless you are saying Trump hasnt replaced any of these people, which is obviously not true, then it is not a relevant point in 2019.
When you say you’re going to drain the swamp, most government employees won’t like that kind of talk. Fact is the government is bloated, slow, inefficient and corrupt. That is what 75% of Americans outside the Washington beltway want changed.
Yes because it doesnt fit your fairy tale narrative he must be lying. Don Lemon’s low rated show comes on in an hour, make sure you see it to grab your next set of marching ordersNothing to read there but a bunch of self-serving bullsh*t.
This quote of Pompeo's about impeachment is priceless: "This is politics. It’s unfortunate. It shouldn’t happen in the national security space. President Trump would never connect that kind of politics to foreign policy. “
Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I don’t think that you understand how those government agencies work. They don’t wholesale switch out from administration to administration. Many of them are lifers in whatever agency they’re in. Even the ones that aren’t can take years to replace. Furthermore, Trump hasn’t really been proactive in rooting out Obama appointees from the DC agencies. So there are a good number of them still working in place.
As for bias, the evidence that there are very politically active Democrats in the Government is overwhelming. Prior to being a “whistleblower,” Ciaramella was a source of a number of leaks designed to subvert the Trump administration. We deserve to know who else has been leaking for their own political bias.
