Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

[zsn]

Are you saying that the tweeter is mistaken? What’s your proof? She is ascribing nefarious motivation for the Republicans’ action. Do you have proof that it’s not? #MoscowMitch

[Deleted User 295]

Do you have proof that it is?

Does she?

Or did she leave out some important details so that her tweet was sexier and would get more clicks/generate more outrage?

Do you think the intention of her post was to inform or to incite?

[zsn]

You’re the one saying that Republicans have good reasons to have blocked these bills. What are those good reasons?

The tweeter says that there are no good reasons and that Republicans are acting in bad faith.

The burden of proof is on you.

[Deleted User 89]

crickets

[Deleted User 295]

You’re the one saying that Republicans have good reasons to have blocked these bills.

I actually didn't say that. Anywhere.

[ousdahl]

Okay.

...because you think we all can assume that there's more to the story than just that tweet, what more to the story is there? Who else is assuming that?

[Deleted User 295]

Okay.

...because you think we all can assume that there's more to the story than just that tweet, what more to the story is there? Who else is assuming that?

3 bills can't be summed up in 3 sentences like that tweet did.

Today, since it's a snow day and I'm not leaving my desk, I'll genuinely check them out.

Maybe each bill was only 1 sentence and simply said "stop election interference" and all the Republicans said "no we like election interference". If that's the case then I'll join in your outrage....but I highly doubt that was the case.

Some of you are very good at noticing/pointing out when the right leaning media or GOP politicians are using oversimplification to rally their base around election time. Many times I agree that's exactly what is happening....but the same people are also not as good at noticing when it's being done to them. Likely because the source knows their audience. When you agree with something right off the bat you're less likely to question it and truly search for the truth.

Like I said. I don't know the whole story with those 3 bills yet. I don't think that tweet gives enough info to draw any conclusions unless you're just using it to reinforce preconceived notions or validate your feelings/emotions about the GOP.

[Deleted User 62]

I find it hard to believe the totality of the 3 bills can be summed up in 1 sentence each on 1 single tweet...but that's the "news" consumed. Nobody cares about the details or takes the time. The tweeter knows their audience.

Is there a youtube on this?
That would settle all of it.

[defixione]

I find it hard to believe the totality of the 3 bills can be summed up in 1 sentence each on 1 single tweet...but that's the "news" consumed. Nobody cares about the details or takes the time. The tweeter knows their audience.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... /1540/text

[Shirley]

I find it hard to believe the totality of the 3 bills can be summed up in 1 sentence each on 1 single tweet...but that's the "news" consumed. Nobody cares about the details or takes the time. The tweeter knows their audience.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... /1540/text

Good luck with facts, defix. As Illi reminds us throughout every day, "Nobody cares about the details or takes the time", least of all, him.

But he won't let "details" like not knowing anything about the subject stop him from posting and posting about it.

[Deleted User 295]

80 pages?!?! (Tldr)....and I'm supposed to believe that 3 sentence tweet summed it all up in totality?

I'll just trust the GOP had good reasons, since the Dems will just trust that the did it because they're Russian Operatives.


(I'm kidding...I'll read it and try to find some comments by GOPers that voted against it).

[Deleted User 295]

They've been voting on variations of this thing for almost a year?

Each side just votes against the others proposals every single time?

Repubs introduce a bill trying to help this threat and Dems vote against it...then that scenario flip flops....then we get outraged?

Our politicians are worthless?

[Deleted User 295]

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) blocked its passage, arguing the bill had "more red flags than the Chinese Embassy."

He added that the level of funding was excessive when considering the $380 million appropriated to states last year for election security.

"They are attempting to bypass this body's Rules Committee on behalf of various bills that will seize control over elections from the states and take it from the states and where do they want to put it? They want it to rest in the hands of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats," she said.

Blackburn accused Democrats of trying to move the bills knowing that GOP lawmakers would block them and giving them fodder for fundraising efforts.

Congress passed a mammoth spending package late last year that included an additional $425 million in election security funding.

Ms. Blackburn suggested the move would be used to try to fundraise by Democrats.
“We are all against election interference. We are all against foreign interference in elections. We are all for free and fair elections and we are all for protecting the ballot box,” she added.

[zsn]

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) blocked its passage, arguing the bill had "more red flags than the Chinese Embassy."

He added that the level of funding was excessive when considering the $380 million appropriated to states last year for election security.

"They are attempting to bypass this body's Rules Committee on behalf of various bills that will seize control over elections from the states and take it from the states and where do they want to put it? They want it to rest in the hands of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats," she said.

Blackburn accused Democrats of trying to move the bills knowing that GOP lawmakers would block them and giving them fodder for fundraising efforts.

Congress passed a mammoth spending package late last year that included an additional $425 million in election security funding.

Ms. Blackburn suggested the move would be used to try to fundraise by Democrats.
“We are all against election interference. We are all against foreign interference in elections. We are all for free and fair elections and we are all for protecting the ballot box,” she added.

I wrote this yesterday evening in my first response to your post: "Alright then, find out one GOOD reason why Republicans would vote against each of these three bills ("it costs money" is not a good reason - if that's the reason roll back the f##$ing tax cuts and pay for this)." - in other words, lame excuses.

If Ms. Blackburn and the rest of the Republicans were really serious they would just introduce a clean legislation stating exactly that. She could spend some time and read the f%#(%& bill - THAT'S HER FU&#$ING JOB. You should know by now that defending Republicans' motives is a lost cause.

[Shirley]

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) blocked its passage, arguing the bill had "more red flags than the Chinese Embassy."

He added that the level of funding was excessive when considering the $380 million appropriated to states last year for election security.

"They are attempting to bypass this body's Rules Committee on behalf of various bills that will seize control over elections from the states and take it from the states and where do they want to put it? They want it to rest in the hands of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats," she said.

Blackburn accused Democrats of trying to move the bills knowing that GOP lawmakers would block them and giving them fodder for fundraising efforts.

Congress passed a mammoth spending package late last year that included an additional $425 million in election security funding.

Ms. Blackburn suggested the move would be used to try to fundraise by Democrats.
“We are all against election interference. We are all against foreign interference in elections. We are all for free and fair elections and we are all for protecting the ballot box,” she added.

I wrote this yesterday evening in my first response to your post: "Alright then, find out one GOOD reason why Republicans would vote against each of these three bills ("it costs money" is not a good reason - if that's the reason roll back the f##$ing tax cuts and pay for this)." - in other words, lame excuses.

If Ms. Blackburn and the rest of the Republicans were really serious they would just introduce a clean legislation stating exactly that. She could spend some time and read the f%#(%& bill - THAT'S HER FU&#$ING JOB. You should know by now that defending Republicans' motives is a lost cause.

WRONG!

I don't think you're giving republicans enough credit for all the times they've been willing to cut taxes on the already rich in order to "lift all boats", and stimulate the economy to the point where the "tax cuts pay for themselves", and reduce income inequality.

[seahawk]

As James Carville pointed out in a video that was posted on this forum, even in a red state like Louisiana, a Democrat was re-elected as governor. No wonder John Kennedy is so upset with a bill to fund election security.

[ousdahl]

Wasn’t there a time in politics when “optics” mattered?

cuz they sure don’t seem to no more.

[Shirley]

Wasn’t there a time in politics when “optics” mattered?
cuz they sure don’t seem to no more.

How's this for "optics"?

John Kelly says Vindman was right to report Trump's call with Zelensky

Former White House chief of staff John Kelly said Wednesday that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in President Donald Trump's impeachment inquiry, was right to raise concerns about Trump's July call to Ukraine's president, The Atlantic reported.

Kelly also believes that Vindman, who was fired from White House last week, told the truth during testimony before House investigators last fall.

"Having seen something 'questionable (in the call),' Vindman properly notified his superiors," Kelly said at an event at Drew University, according to the magazine. "When subpoenaed by Congress in the House impeachment hearings, Vindman complied and told the truth."

"He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave," he said, according to the magazine. "He went and told his boss what he just heard."

Kelly said that when Vindman heard Trump tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he wanted the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, the ask was for the aide "tantamount to hearing 'an illegal order,'" The Atlantic reported. Trump and his allies have repeatedly made unfounded and false claims to allege that the Bidens acted corruptly in Ukraine.

"We teach them, 'Don't follow an illegal order. And if you're ever given one, you'll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss,'" Kelly said, according to the magazine.

[...]

[Shirley]

[ousdahl]

Whoa whoa whoa!

I’m reporting this post to the mods!

There’s no place for respectful dialogue on the pols bored.