House Leadership Is Looking Flakey

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
House Democrats—and just about everyone else—were rightfully disturbed by President Donald Trump’s admission earlier this week that he would once again accept “foreign dirt” in the 2020 contest. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that “Everybody in the country should be totally appalled by what the president said last night…. He has a habit of making appalling statements. This one borders on so totally unethical but he doesn’t even realize it.” Representative Hakeem Jeffries, recognized by many as Pelosi’s heir apparent, went even further. He told MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle that “accepting assistance from a hostile foreign power like Russia is treasonous behavior.

Appalling, unethical, treasonous. These are serious charges. But Pelosi and Jeffries have developed a kind of bait-and-switch. They make a bombastic claim, and then back away from it. Immediately after calling the president “appalling” and “unethical,” Pelosi continued, “However, what we want to do is have a methodical approach to the path we’re on and this will be included in that. But not any one issue is going to trigger, oh now we’re going to go do this.” Jeffries, meanwhile, told Ruhle that the House was doing everything it could to hold the president accountable. “I think we have to move forward and stay the course in terms of following the facts, applying the law, and being guided by the United States Constitution,” he said, touting recent, incremental court victories.





https://newrepublic.com/article/154217/house-leadership-looking-flakey

:killingme
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Nancy Pelosi states: This one borders on so totally unethical but he doesn’t even realize it.”

Is she so stupid that she doesn't realize what the Democrats did with a Dossier they bought from a Brit, and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on a Presidential candidate.
How fuggin stupid can she get?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
House Democrats—and just about everyone else not on SoMD Forums—were rightfully disturbed by President Donald Trump’s admission earlier this week that he would once again accept “foreign dirt” in the 2020 contest.
FIFY. :yay:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Many people are familiar with the story where Jesus confronted the crowd about to stone the adulterous woman and asked that the first one without sin should cast the first stone. The Bible then says something -- mysterious. It says he began to write in the sand.

Some stories say he was writing the Ten Commandments. One story I read years ago conjectured - he was writing the SPECIFIC sins of some in the crowd, something in keeping with his divine nature. The story goes on to say, people started to drop their rocks and leave. They didn't want to be found guilty of the very trap they'd set for Jesus.

And that's what we're seeing here - members of Congress are seeing their reflection in their righteous pronouncement of guilt.
They'd rather shrug than see their own sins exposed. It's why we no longer have any moral outrage over sexual indiscretions anymore.
They KNOW they're guilty.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Notice how they don't make these statements on a real show with real journalists who are there to do more than nod and agree? Their claims don't stand up to scrutiny, so they just preach to the choir on MSNBC.

Barring any major developments, Trump is assured re-election in 2020.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why a person would not listen to what someone had to say.
The second line is funny, I'll give you that, but your answer rests with the FBI and FEC.


When Trump Jr. accepted a meeting with Russians under the premise they had dirt on Clinton, Trump's own appointed FBI head, Chris Wray, said Trump Jr. should have reached out to the FBI.

Not to mention the slew of other "reasonable answers".
  • Open invitation for other countries to meddle in elections.
  • We literally just finished a 2 year investigation into meddling in our elections based on dirt provided by another country. (For some reason that's bad, but Trump's response is okay?)
  • The country will do this for free, wanting nothing in return? Yea, sure.
  • Let's say a President is in office who isn't honest. We are to leave the decision to go to the FBI up to that person? Not a good idea, IMO.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Notice how they don't make these statements on a real show with real journalists who are there to do more than nod and agree? Their claims don't stand up to scrutiny, so they just preach to the choir on MSNBC.

Barring any major developments, Trump is assured re-election in 2020.
I was sitting in a doctor's office last week and they have MSNBC on, some show about the stock market. After discussing Disney's new streaming service and tech companies entering the media market (Amazon with Prime, Netflix making their own shows, etc.) the host said "could you imagine a tech company like Google buying an actual television network?". Again, this was on MICROSOFT NBC.

Just thought that was funny.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why a person would not listen to what someone had to say.
Some day I'll be a crusty old retired lady corralling people at the doctor's office and various park benches, telling them all my health woes and listening to them blather on about theirs. Until then, I'm a busy person and only have so much interest in what "someone has to say". That's why I have the ranter Leftist bots on ignore: they are boring, a waste of time, and not saying anything I haven't already heard from their hivemind compatriots. If they ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness because 99% of the time they're repeating talking points I'd already heard from their masters the day before.

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but there's my answer.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Unless you offer to 'pay' to get something or someone says PAY ME FOR THIS FILE .... free is free

ANYTHING else is Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and ASSUMPTION
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The second line is funny, I'll give you that, but your answer rests with the FBI and FEC.

Assuming that one could show her opinion there to be factual, I presume she is investigating Mrs. Clinton for the Steele Dossier, which was Clinton's campaign paying foreign government officials (in Russia :jameo:) for "dirt" on Mr. Trump. I presume she is also investigating Mr. Biden, who claimed to have received endorsements from unnamed foreign leaders - but, surely the investigation would include pulling Mr. Biden's phone records to determine exactly who that was.

Or, it's bunk that is not and never will be enforced.

Which of those two things do you believe is more likely to be true?

When Trump Jr. accepted a meeting with Russians under the premise they had dirt on Clinton, Trump's own appointed FBI head, Chris Wray, said Trump Jr. should have reached out to the FBI.
I saw that word "should" both in your and your Twitter friend's posts. "Should" implies "we think it's a good idea, but not required". I presume this is how you (and she) mean it?

Not to mention the slew of other "reasonable answers".
  • Open invitation for other countries to meddle in elections.
  • We literally just finished a 2 year investigation into meddling in our elections based on dirt provided by another country. (For some reason that's bad, but Trump's response is okay?)
  • The country will do this for free, wanting nothing in return? Yea, sure.
  • Let's say a President is in office who isn't honest. We are to leave the decision to go to the FBI up to that person? Not a good idea, IMO.
"Meddle"? How are they "meddling"? Is "factual information made public" "meddling", or "transparency"?

I didn't see a single thing about "dirt provided by another country" as a driving force behind the investigation. Can you tell me what dirt was provided, and by whom?

Regardless of what the other country wants, that does not imply a need to provide what the other country wants.

Well, we're leaving the ORIGINAL decision to go to the FBI up to the person, so I'm not seeing a real difference here. What is the difference between choosing whether to go to the FBI or choosing whether to go to the FBI?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Some day I'll be a crusty old retired lady corralling people at the doctor's office and various park benches, telling them all my health woes and listening to them blather on about theirs. Until then, I'm a busy person and only have so much interest in what "someone has to say". That's why I have the ranter Leftist bots on ignore: they are boring, a waste of time, and not saying anything I haven't already heard from their hivemind compatriots. If they ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness because 99% of the time they're repeating talking points I'd already heard from their masters the day before.

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but there's my answer.
Ok, but let's assume someone called you up and said, "hey, you're biggest competitor is not doing something that their customers will like. Want me to tell you what it is?", do you feel your reasonable response is a choice between "yes" and "no", or, that you are unethical to the point of illegality if you don't go to the police immediately without even knowing what the person knows about your competitor that their customers may not like?
 

Toxick

Splat
House Democrats—and just about everyone else—were rightfully disturbed by President Donald Trump’s admission earlier this week that he would once again accept “foreign dirt” in the 2020 contest. Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that “Everybody in the country should be totally appalled by what the president said last night…. He has a habit of making appalling statements. This one borders on so totally unethical but he doesn’t even realize it.”
I was appalled and disturbed by this admission by the president, regardless of legal implications, the ethical lapse is blindingly clear, and I would hope for better from any executive.

I sure as hell, didn't need Nancy ****ing Pelosi to tell me what to feel, though.



But what has yet to be explained to me, to my satisfaction - and what really bakes my noodle - is how everyone who is "rightfully disturbed" and "totally appalled" at President Trump saying what he WOULD do, is not inconsolably OUTRAGED by the involvement in the Steele Dossier by Clinton and Obama and scads of FBI personnel, etc.

On account'a that's like actual (as opposed to hypothetical) foreign dirt (true or not) in the 2016 contest.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I was appalled and disturbed by this admission by the president, regardless of legal implications, the ethical lapse is blindingly clear, and I would hope for better from any executive.

I sure as hell, didn't need Nancy ****ing Pelosi to tell me what to feel, though.



But what has yet to be explained to me, to my satisfaction - and what really bakes my noodle - is how everyone who is "rightfully disturbed" and "totally appalled" at President Trump saying what he WOULD do, is not inconsolably OUTRAGED by the involvement in the Steele Dossier by Clinton and Obama and scads of FBI personnel, etc.

On account'a that's like actual (as opposed to hypothetical) foreign dirt (true or not) in the 2016 contest.
Well, Mrs. Clinton sought that information out and paid for it - it wasn't offered up in an entirely unsolicited manner. That makes it so much......um, "better", I guess.
 

Toxick

Splat
Well, Mrs. Clinton sought that information out and paid for it - it wasn't offered up in an entirely unsolicited manner. That makes it so much......um, "better", I guess.

Oh I see... so the unethical part is the "campaign contribution", not the "foreign involvement in our election processes".



My bad.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Oh I see... so the unethical part is the "campaign contribution", not the "foreign involvement in our election processes".



My bad.
NO, you misunderstand COMPLETELY!!

The "unethical" part is "Trump said it." Otherwise, it's perfectly fine to do - and even solicit.

If you read Ms. Weintraub's Tweet, she specifically says (it's the first on her list) "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive...." Clearly, she is saying that Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton are in direct violation of law.

But, that's fine. It's only unethical because TRUMP.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Assuming that one could show her opinion there to be factual, I presume she is investigating Mrs. Clinton for the Steele Dossier, which was Clinton's campaign paying foreign government officials (in Russia :jameo:) for "dirt" on Mr. Trump. I presume she is also investigating Mr. Biden, who claimed to have received endorsements from unnamed foreign leaders - but, surely the investigation would include pulling Mr. Biden's phone records to determine exactly who that was.

Or, it's bunk that is not and never will be enforced.

Which of those two things do you believe is more likely to be true?

I can't presume about your presumptions. I hope they investigate her as well, and Biden, and anyone else.

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right...right? Because someone else did it, it's okay? Because no one else was charged or investigated, no big deal? Meanwhile, we wonder why Washington is so corrupt (while we look the other way for some folks, but not others).


I saw that word "should" both in your and your Twitter friend's posts. "Should" implies "we think it's a good idea, but not required". I presume this is how you (and she) mean it?

"Should" implies past tense because, you know, it already happened and Wray, when asked about what Trump Jr. should have done, he told them what they should have done.

"Should" does not imply it's not required. "You should drive the speed limit." Does that imply that driving the speed limit isn;t a requirement of the law?


"Meddle"? How are they "meddling"? Is "factual information made public" "meddling", or "transparency"?

"med·dle
verb
interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern."

Another country is contacting the Presidnet (or any elected official) with information on an opponent. This is our election and not their concern.

No clue what your second sentence is about.


I didn't see a single thing about "dirt provided by another country" as a driving force behind the investigation. Can you tell me what dirt was provided, and by whom?

Oh, you didn't just type out something about the Steele dossier? Okay.

Regardless, since the Mueller report did identify actual things another country tried to do in relation to our elections, you don't think it's a good idea for our President to categorically deny "looking at" anything from another country?


Regardless of what the other country wants, that does not imply a need to provide what the other country wants.

But you can't see the obvious conflict here? You're assuming that anyone who gets that info simply won't help that country out in any way because of the kindness of their hearts?

Well, we're leaving the ORIGINAL decision to go to the FBI up to the person, so I'm not seeing a real difference here. What is the difference between choosing whether to go to the FBI or choosing whether to go to the FBI?

That's certainly a good point. I personally would want someone who gets contacted to go to the FBI simply for integrity reasons.
So, it's not that no one has provided "reasonable responses", it's just that you don't feel they are good enough.

A reasonable response should be "because you shouldn't accept information on an opponent during our elections". Apparently not.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So, it's not that no one has provided "reasonable responses", it's just that you don't feel they are good enough.
If they are "not good enough", they are "not reasonable". It is not reasonable to expect someone in a fight to turn down potential tools to help them in that fight.

I ask you again - is it "meddling", or "transparency"?

A reasonable response should be "because you shouldn't accept information on an opponent during our elections". Apparently not.
So, Mrs. Clinton should have immediately called for Access Hollywood to stop releasing the tape of Mr. Trump - in what he undoubtedly thought was a private moment - acting in a disreputable way in his speech towards women in general? Mr. Obama should have called for censoring the Romney tape where he spoke of the 40% thing? Mr. McCain should have called on all news organizations to STOP, CEASE and DESIST in running any of the footage of Mr. Obama saying "spread the wealth around"? Mrs. Clinton should have gone to Phil Berg and told him to stop going after Mr. Obama's birth certificate, because it was only going to raise issues?

This is the world you think is "reasonable"?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
If they are "not good enough", they are "not reasonable". It is not reasonable to expect someone in a fight to turn down potential tools to help them in that fight.

I ask you again - is it "meddling", or "transparency"?


So, Mrs. Clinton should have immediately called for Access Hollywood to stop releasing the tape of Mr. Trump - in what he undoubtedly thought was a private moment - acting in a disreputable way in his speech towards women in general? Mr. Obama should have called for censoring the Romney tape where he spoke of the 40% thing? Mr. McCain should have called on all news organizations to STOP, CEASE and DESIST in running any of the footage of Mr. Obama saying "spread the wealth around"? Mrs. Clinton should have gone to Phil Berg and told him to stop going after Mr. Obama's birth certificate, because it was only going to raise issues?

This is the world you think is "reasonable"?
It's not reasonable to hope that elected officials don't receive info on opponents from other countries? We simply disagree on what actions we consider reasonable by our elected officials.

None of your hypotheticals remotely relate to this scenario.
 
Top