Imagine

Trump supporters, take your blinders off. It’s easy. Here’s how. Take ANY story about ANY of Trump’s many scandals and simply imagine that it is not Trump whose behavior is questioned, but President Obama’s. Just imagine. It is easy if you try.

For example, imagine that it was reported that a Whistleblower had filed a formal complaint about very serious misbehavior by President Obama and that the Inspector General – appointed by Obama – had agreed that the matter should be reported to Congress as the law requires BUT that he was overruled by Eric Holder. Further imagine that the IG was so concerned that he went public with a letter to Congress revealing that his decision had been over-ridden and that – in the aftermath of that revelation – the President simply ignored subpoena’s from Congress demanding the whistleblower complaint that they are entitled to by law. How many of you would NOT demand Impeachment for such behavior?

Or, let’s imagine that President Obama owned a fabulous but financially struggling golf resort in an out-of-the-way place and it was disclosed that military flights had been diverted there from their normal routes for expensive fuel and expensive lodgings. Would you just shrug?

Take any of the “fake news” in our leading newspapers of record about Trump and imagine that it was Obama who had behaved that way. Maybe then you will see the light? Or not.

32 thoughts on “Imagine

  1. In an episode of The Jim Bakker Show, Robert Henderson said that he had a prophetic dream in March 2016 in which Trump asked him to promote his presidential campaign in heaven.

    He added the divine support means any detractors trying to get Trump removed stood no chance. They are “fighting against God”.

    “And he said to me, ‘Here’s what I want you to do, as you stand here, I want you to decree that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is as grass and that she is as the flower of the grass, and the burning, searing, exposing heat of God will come and bring exposure, and she will wither away and Donald Trump will be the president of the United States,'” Newsweek 5/29/19

    https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cannot-be-removed-because-he-gods-choice-claims-pastor-who-says-1437943

    So move on, nothing more to see here.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Such delusional comments from those that lead the trump “base” demonstrate the level of ignorance and outright insanity that led to a buffoon like trump being elected.

      The deplorables (evangelicals) vote in-mass in the name of “their” lord.

      Liked by 4 people

  2. Without speaking as to whether the substance of President Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian President, I disagree with the criticism of the DNI and AG in denying the Whistleblower’s communications with Congress.

    The Intelligence Community’s policies on whistleblowing serve a good purpose. There are internal channels to be followed to protect Intelligence and Diplomatic privacy. Exceptions allowing bypassing those channels and going directly to Congress are specific. In this case, the alleged whistleblower claims his actions are justified by urgency.

    That is what the DNI and AG ruled against, that the criteria for urgency were not met, They did not rule on the substance of the claim, that can still be pursued through the internal channels under the supervision if the IG

    So, with the election over a year away, what was the urgency?

    Could it be that the ‘whistleblower’ is in jeopardy oh indictment by another IG on actions in the FISA court fraud, and he urgently seeks whistleblower protections?

    We don’t know, at this point, his motives or identity.

    Like

      1. I have read both letters. Neither in any way justifies the IG or the whistleblower claim of urgency, to the contrary, the IG concedes the claim may not meet the urgency claim but is otherwise important.

        Like

        1. As you know, the letters can only by law divulge limited justification because of the inability to get into the details.. But, at least you now recognize the IG was on-board with the “urgency” designation.

          Liked by 3 people

    1. @Tabor

      Your attempting to impugn the motives of the Whistleblower is just plain pathetic. You can throw all the brickbats you want. You just embarrass yourself by doing so.

      And, for some reason, you seem to have left out of your “analysis” the role of the Trump-appointed IG, Michael Atkinson. Was he also involved in something nefarious? Are HIS motives suspect too?

      The first letter the Atkinson wrote to Congress defined “urgent concern.” It has NOTHING to do with any election. He wrote . . .

      “The term ‘urgent concern’ is defined, in relevant part, as:

      A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive
      order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration. or operation of
      an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the
      Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does
      not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.”

      Read for yourself what Atkinson wrote. It is chilling. He is basically calling bullshit on a cover-up of something of “urgent concern.”

      https://www.axios.com/whistleblower-complaint-intelligence-community-letter-adc5e389-af93-4dc7-ab21-91c9f2d3d2b0.html

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Congress can hold a closed door session with proper security clearances.

    Already Trump has confirmed that Biden was a topic. Giuliani has also done so.

    The Biden issue was put to bed 2 years ago. But he is the front runner for now so there is motivation for Trump to pressure Ukraine.

    This whole thing reeks of misuse of office.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Again, not speaking to the underlying issue, releasing information to Adam Schiff, no matter what controls you impose, is tantamount to publishing it in WAPO.

      Some nameless underling would leak it within hours and there would be no real investigation as to who it was.

      AS for misuse of office, probably so, though not unlawfully. Pretty much equivalent to seeking an embarrassing dosier on an opponent from a foreign agent, using foreign sources, except that in this case, true information is being sought.

      The truth of the matter, one way or the other, should be before the voters a year from now but there is no urgency. beyond that created by the IG himself, who has put the Biden family issues before the primaries.

      Like

      1. @Tabor
        So, your essential argument is that “misuse of office” by Mr. Trump is something that should be kept from the public. And that is why it is okay to keep the whistle blower complaint away from Congress because, gosh, the public might find out what he did.

        Credibility is a terrible thing to waste.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Whether there was misuse of office is yet to be determined.

          Some things are are important regardless of who is President. One of those is the privacy of the President’s discussions with other leaders. They will not speak frankly if they do not believe their privacy was protected.

          The Dept of Justice has internal procedures by career professionals for evaluating these discussions and determining if they are unlawful and should be reported to Congress. There are good reasons to not bypass those procedures.

          Like

          1. @Tabor
            Baloney.

            The DOJ has nothing to do with the whistleblower process within the intelligence agencies. The LAW stipulates that the DNI forward ANY formal complaint to the Intelligence Committees of Congress within seven days along with any comments he may have. If he disagrees he may say so. The DNI did NOT follow the law. Instead he brought in the DOJ to provide air cover for his failing to follow the law. And since the DOJ is under Mr. Barr it has ZERO credibility on anything.

            Clearly Mr. Trump has done something that is either illegal or, at a minimum, embarrassing. Otherwise, this would not be in the middle of an illegal cover-up. Read again the actual definition of “urgent concern” to get a feel for what kind of serious breach has been committed.

            BTW, privacy of communications is a complete red herring. This was a phone call where neither participant had any realistic expectation of privacy.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “The LAW stipulates that the DNI forward ANY formal complaint to the Intelligence Committees of Congress within seven days along with any comments he may have.”

            Not exactly, the law stipulates that the complaint must originate “within the responsibility and authority” of the DNI. So far, there is no evidence that the complaint originated within the DNI’s chain of command. In fact, if the complaint applies to the president, it is likely exempt from the Section 3033 requirement.

            Like

          3. @Roberts

            The formal whistle blower complaint was filed with the IG responsible for the intelligence community, you know, those agencies under the DNI. There is no sensible reason to even speculate that the whistleblower is not a member of the intelligence community. None. Unless one is tying oneself in knots to think of reasons why even more egregious flaunting of the law by Trump is okay.

            “… the President . . . exempt from the Section 3033 requirement?”
            The very idea that a whistleblower is not permitted to blow the whistle on the President’s unlawful behavior is just one more sign of the Stalinist tendencies so obvious among Trump supporters.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “There is no sensible reason to even speculate that the whistleblower is not a member of the intelligence community.”

            There is no sensible reason to speculate that he is, either, since we don’t know who the whistleblower is.

            RE: “The very idea that a whistleblower is not permitted to blow the whistle on the President’s unlawful behavior is just one more sign of the Stalinist tendencies so obvious among Trump supporters.”

            The idea that a whistleblower can initiate a witch hunt against the president is just one more sign that the anti-Trumpers are Jacobins.

            Like

          5. @Roberts

            Every time I think you’ve stretched your credibility to the max, you surprise me.

            When you start channeling Clinton (“depends on what the definition of is, is”) , you’ve really outdone yourself.

            Very impressive.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. @Roberts
            Again and again you demonstrate how all common sense must be abandoned if you are going to offer continuing support to the criminal in the White House.

            For example, “There is no sensible reason to speculate that he is [a member of the Intelligence Community].”

            Now that is just plain stupid. He filed his formal whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community who is a direct report of the DNI. THAT alone is plenty of reason to think that he works in that community.

            As for the categorizing of the right and THE DUTY of government employees to report criminal behavior by the President as “initiating a witch hunt”, that opinion is self-evidently laughable.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. RE: “THAT alone is plenty of reason to think that he works in that community.”

            Not really. The DNI didn’t think the whistleblower’s complaint met the legal definition. Neither did the DOJ. So, basically, you’re making assumptions that participants rejected.

            RE: “As for the categorizing of the right and THE DUTY of government employees to report criminal behavior by the President as ‘initiating a witch hunt’, that opinion is self-evidently laughable.”

            What’s truly laughable is the assumption that anyone, including the president broke the law. None of the facts publicly known support that view.

            Like

          8. @Roberts

            What a joke!

            We are debating WHO the whistleblower works for when it is obvious that he works in the Intelligence Community. Whether the Trump shielders at the top forwarded his complaint has NOTHING to do with who he works for. Duh.

            As for assuming that Trump broke the law, it is hardly an assumption. It is a reasonable conclusion based on (1) we are talking about Trump who brags about breaking the law, (2) two professionals and one a Trump appointee working at a very high level say he did and (3) SOMETHING is being covered up. And (4) not turning over the complaint to the Congress is itself breaking the law.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. …”releasing information to Adam Schiff”… One thing that can be said about Adam Schiff: He is doing the job that the GOP Intel committee head ignored for 2 years.

        The lack of loyalty to the Constitution in its entirety shown by Congressional Republicans in loyalty to the temporary CinC is reason enough to vote them all out.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. “Take any of the “fake news” in our leading newspapers of record about Trump and imagine that it was Obama who had behaved that way.”

    There was PLENTY of fake news in our leading newspapers about Obama. Of course, it had the same source as the fake news about Trump,… Trump.

    Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s