• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump threatens more war crimes.

That's on Moscow Mitch and the Republicans.

Under the Senate rules House Managers can call witnesses. The Chief as presiding officer would rule on this. MM would have to get the rules changed to negate this, or call a vote to override a ruling by the Chief MM doesn't approve of, ne c'est pas.

Pelosi will anyhow continue to run the show by her grandfather clock.

Thanks, I didn't know that.
 
I really hope you're joking. Say that Bolton "has done a service" is a slap in the face to every diplomat and career official who put their careers on the line to testify in the House.

And a blight on his honor. But in the past. Stepping up now is better than not at all and it comes at a critical time for McConnell.
 
And a blight on his honor. But in the past. Stepping up now is better than not at all and it comes at a critical time for McConnell.

Bolton isn't a good person, and I have no reason to assume he's going to do something noble now.
 
The Pentagon Chief of Staff just resigned.

Competent government officials resigning/being fired from the Trump government is just another routine day in this hellish government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You see this Twitter thread?

https://mobile.twitter.com/rezamarashi/status/1214031169173348352?s=19


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm reading the statements to the resigned guy Eric Chewning by Pentagon officials posting to Twitter by name and with their permission and it's devastating stuff to the national security and peace. It's an open verbal revolt in the Pentagon against Trump and his gang led by Pompeo and Esper who graduated in the same class from West Point. Thanks much for the lead and links that I recommend as awesome stuff.

Here's one such:

Reza Marashi
@rezamarashi
·
14h
"So many of Trump's top advisors on Iran are military vets who served multiple tours of duty in our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They believe to their core that Iran is the reason why they lost those wars, and they're dead set on payback - no matter what it takes."


"They've been pushing to kill Soleimani for years, and they finally baited Trump into it. They think war with Iran is long overdue, so for them, this was a means to an end. When Iran responds, they'll tell Trump to hit the Iranians harder. You see where this could go."


Reza Marashi
@rezamarashi
·
14h
"They know the Iraqis are gonna kick them out now, so they're gonna try to kill as many as possible on their way out. Iranians, Iraqis, whoever. Some of them are advising Trump to tell the Iraqi government to **** off and dare them to make us leave. I **** you not. Insanity."
 
Last edited:
Bolton isn't a good person, and I have no reason to assume he's going to do something noble now.

Stalin was a rat**** yet together with him as an ally the allies led by USA won World War II. So it's about common cause and the urgency of the moment. Bolton was after all against Trump's extortion of Ukraine military assistance money approved and directed to Ukraine by Congress.
 
Stalin was a rat**** yet together with him as an ally the allies led by USA won World War II. So it's about common cause and the urgency of the moment. Bolton was after all against Trump's extortion of Ukraine military assistance money approved and directed to Ukraine by Congress.

Don't assume you know Bolton's true motives. Only Bolton knows what he plans on doing.
 
And a blight on his honor. But in the past. Stepping up now is better than not at all and it comes at a critical time for McConnell.

Indeed and Pelosi and Schiff could call Bolton on his statement and have him testify in the House, in either open or closed session before Schiff's committee. Pelosi wants instead to pass on it for the moment to put the heat on McConnell and the few Senate Republicans to come forward and get McConnell to call Bolton. Do it to McConnell by either pressure or an open vote to reach 51 Senators to call Bolton.

Pelosi continues to stare McConnell back into a corner.
 
Don't assume you know Bolton's true motives. Only Bolton knows what he plans on doing.

I'm saying what I figure and nothing more.

Bolton's got a book coming out at some point soon so he's unlikely to want to tell all before it comes out. Or to tell some. If he want to do kiss and tell at all.

Bolton may say some stuff and release excerpts of the book with his statements or shortly after any statements he might make. Even if Bolton let it all hang out in testimony a lot of people would buy that book whether their regard of Bolton is high or low based on his history in politics and government policy. You and I being too cheap to do it notwithstanding ha.
 
That's on Moscow Mitch and the Republicans.

Under the Senate rules House Managers can call witnesses. The Chief as presiding officer would rule on this. MM would have to get the rules changed to negate this, or call a vote to override a ruling by the Chief MM doesn't approve of, ne c'est pas.

Pelosi will anyhow continue to run the show by her grandfather clock.

Do you have a link. I can't find one and this version of the rule doesn't jibe with the present discussion on MM's grip on the procedure.
 
I’d wait until he actually commits a war crime before complaining about “more” of them being committed.

The armed attack by the U.S. military on foreign soil against a foreign military leader that killed him and others was an illegal act of war under the Geneva Convention.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3d8de8-2ff2-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html


Why stop at cultural sites when you can find easy targets in hospitals and day care centers?

In my opinion this OP shows the extreme level of partisan hate for a sitting president. Not highlighted was the (direct) threats to our cultural sites, the White House being one along with countless other threats. Let’s also mention the bounty for the chopped off head of our president.

Connecting what Trump stated in a tweet to hospitals and daycare centers being targeted is so far removed that it’s just ridicules for one to even type out. The bias media and then (gullible fools) then focused on one word “cultural” as if spelling out was a war crime when the whole existence of Iran’s policies with terrorist proxies is an actual war crime.. That twisted theocracy with kidnapping, hostage taking and death to any who disagree and oppose in their own county comes with the ultimate price of death, that is also covered in the war crimes act.

For any American with even the slightest sense of country and patriotism to suggest, what the OP has suggested, so saddens me. To champion the true enemy of world peace and the real criminals because of partisan hate shows a level ugliness rarely seen but is now the new norm with liberals in government and opinions of the (gullible fools).
 
I’d wait until he actually commits a war crime before complaining about “more” of them being committed.

So he can't accurately post that Trump threatened war crimes (he did)? And what "more" of them did he complain about?
 
Do you have a link. I can't find one and this version of the rule doesn't jibe with the present discussion on MM's grip on the procedure.

I take it you're referring to possible witnesses at the Senate "trial." House Managers can move to call a witness(s). It goes to the Chief Justice for a ruling. The Chief can be overruled by a vote of the Senate, or the Chief can turn the question over to the Senate directly and without a ruling, as I understand the process from the lay point of view.


“The Senate is not in an advocacy role, but acts as a judge and jury,” Jipping said. “The House managers and [the] president’s lawyers will likely make motions procedurally to benefit them, and the Senate will vote on how it wants to proceed with the trial.”

After establishing a date, the Senate orders the House managers—members of the House acting as prosecutors—or their counsel to provide the Senate’s sergeant of arms with information about potential witnesses and other evidence to be subpoenaed for presentation during the trial.

“The Senate will determine questions of competency, relevancy, and materiality,” the Congressional Research Service report says. House managers, or prosecutors, are the first to make opening arguments and—if needed—examine witnesses. The president’s counsel then has the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Stewart said he has serious doubts witnesses would be called in any Senate trial of Trump over the Ukraine controversy.

“At the end of the day, the goal of the House managers and president’s lawyers will be to sway public opinion to drive the vote,” Stewart said. The House managers and the president’s counsel may make motions or objections during the trial.

However, the presiding officer at the trial “may choose to put any such issues to a vote before the Senate,” the report by the Congressional Research Service says, and any senator “may request that a formal vote be taken on a particular question.” Short of a rules change—itself requiring a two-thirds vote—a trial of Trump would follow the precedent of the Johnson and Clinton trials, both held before the full Senate.

4 Keys to Understanding a Trump Impeachment Trial in the Senate
 
I’d wait until he actually commits a war crime before complaining about “more” of them being committed.

Trump spoke openly previously about having Army Soldiers to include Marines shooting unarmed civilians at the southern border who might be near a rock. The unlawful and violent rhetoric of this Potus is brazenly contemptuous of the laws governing troops on the ground and unarmed civilians to include proportionality. The Pentagon had to back Trump down on this and it did so successfully.

Accordingly, this Potus needs to read two works by Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment and The Idiot.
 
The armed attack by the U.S. military on foreign soil against a foreign military leader that killed him and others was an illegal act of war under the Geneva Convention.

Planning terrorist attacks which have killed hundreds if not thousands of civilians is also against the laws of war.

I have no sympathy for the Republican Guard psycho.
 
Trump spoke openly previously about having Army Soldiers to include Marines shooting unarmed civilians at the southern border who might be near a rock. The unlawful and violent rhetoric of this Potus is brazenly contemptuous of the laws governing troops on the ground and unarmed civilians to include proportionality. The Pentagon had to back Trump down on this and it did so successfully.

Accordingly, this Potus needs to read two works by Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment and The Idiot.

So in other words meaningless bluster from an idiot, not a war crime.
 
So he can't accurately post that Trump threatened war crimes (he did)? And what "more" of them did he complain about?

He said “more war crimes”

“More” would imply previous war crimes had been committed, which they haven’t.
 
He said “more war crimes”

“More” would imply previous war crimes had been committed, which they haven’t.

Okay, I missed that in his OP. I see it in the subject line now.

He is threatening war crimes. He hasn't committed them.

Yet.
 
I hope he does it. This normalizing of behavior is insane.

"BUT HE DIDN'T DO IT, HE JUST SAID HE'D DO IT!"

This is unacceptable rhetoric that is designed explicitly to normalize the president acting in a manner that would have ended the political career of literally anyone else.

And anyone who defends this with the grotesque commentary above, is complicit in these war crimes if comitted, and complicit in desensitizing the public to this grotesque, sickening, and horrific rhetoric.

The right, as a conned cult, just can't see trump for what he is. It's like if the girlfriend who was blinded by her attraction to a guy who went around punching black people yelling 'I HATE ALL N-WORDS' at them, said "I hate racism, but he's not racist, he just has a bit of a temper, and I'm sure they deserved it."
 
Back
Top Bottom