GOP's Jim Jordan moved to intelligence panel for public impeachment hearings

I was such a rabid Democrat that when I switched parties, I truly had guilt until I saw the fine job done by Reagan. That cured my remorse.

 

It's the 2nd credible accusation that he knew of abuse that objectively did happen. Whether he knew or not, it's a distraction at a very poor time for him.

 

Nobody is mentioning what Durham is doing but how about what Barr is doing as well?

 

It will come out the abuser was a homosexual member of the Democratic party. I very much believe this.

 

I have won lawsuits. Have you? I speak of filed against me by a politician.

 

The "If X had done Y, you would have said Z" is a weak argument.

When Trump threatened to close the US-Mexico border unless Mexico did more on illegal immigration, I did not claim that was a crime nor did I claim it was an abuse of power. He was not seeking a personal political benefit.

 

And the people can vote their asses out for engaging in such stupid crap.

This is the basis for this whole farce. They conduct secret hearings, leak out whatever bits that they can spin to their advantage, and thus shape the public opinion.

 

It's not a distraction at all, though the Democrats certainly intend it to be.

Democrats crying wolf may have had some success at one time but is now recognized for being the political sleaze it is. You want to ruin the life and reputation of a good man because he's a member of an opposing political party. It's disgusting and, what's worse, you don't even know it's disgusting.

 

And what’s that have to do with Biden?

 

That won't work for long. The truth is that Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are just not that bright. The big guns are waiting on the other side.

 

Is ot that something pompous self righteous do?

 

Cool! Let's revisit the Kavanaugh hearings.

Is there any way for Lefty to be less imaginative?

 

For a fee, I will coach you! Deal?

 

Jordan will not face a hearing on the issue, but he will face a lawsuit and a bunch of questions specifically at the point where he will want the focus to be on Schiff or the whistleblower.

 

Notice by speaking of Jordan, it amounts to a deflection from who got sued. Ohio State was sued, not Jordan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...im-jordan-about-sexual-misconduct-ohio-state/

A referee who is a witness declares he did not report it to officials, he tried to pass it off on some assistant coach to do.

"Congressman Jordan never saw or heard of any kind of sexual abuse, and if he had he would’ve dealt with it,” said Jordan spokesman Ian Fury. “Multiple investigations have confirmed this simple fact.”

 

Exactly. Let's get it all out.

 

Why? Jordan was not the head coach. And the Referee should have told authorities. Ohio State is who got sued. But you wanted to try to pull a stunt and make it seem it was Jordan being sued.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...im-jordan-about-sexual-misconduct-ohio-state/

 

I think it began with Page, Flynn, and Manafort coming on board the Trump campaign, all of whom were already involved in investigations on their Russian or foreign links. Page had lived in Moscow for a number of years and apparently used occasionally by the FBI themselves. Flynn attended the Russian News Agency dinner, sitting at the table with Putin, and was apparently in the employment of Turkey as a foreign agent (without declaring himself as such). Manafort was under investigation for a variety of charges connected with laundering money through his work in Ukraine with the pro-Russian faction.

IOW, there were several varying concerns sufficient to justify a counter-intelligence investigation into the activities of these people and how they were interfacing with the campaign. There was NO criminal investigation until the firing of Comey and the appointment of Mueller.

But, I have no problem in Barr/Durham/Horowitz and whoever, digging deeper into its origins. IMO, Barr may find that by the time of the 2016 campaign, there was an "establishment consensus," in favor of Ukrainian independence and anti-Russian because of their seizure of the Crimea and the civil war in the eastern Ukrainian provinces (plus the various assassinations of Putin political enemies). I think Trump, for whatever reasons, advanced an incomprehensible shift in U.S. policy from that consensus to a pro-Putin policy (possibly because of some prior IOU or to form a new alliance to oppose Chinese expansion or both). That shift created suspicions in the establishment, which led to a counter-intelligence investigation. Rather than explain his policy shift coherently and cooperate with the establishment, he chose to oppose them (probably to avoid losing his political base). In turn, that only increased the suspicions, with the critical juncture being the appointment of the Special Counsel.

Barr may get into this. He MAY find that in the wake of 9/11 and in the effort to eliminate the theretofore "stovepipe relationships" between our intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and FBI, we allowed the line between counter-intelligence investigations and criminal investigations to become blurred. How did that impact the Russian interference investigation? I suspect because the standards for launching a counter-intelligence investigation are much lower than those required to launch a criminal investigation. IOW, the Barr Report may be far less sensational than you suspect. It may focus on the organizational side of our reaction to 9/11.

 

It takes a weak argument to counter your argument. I was not bringing up issues over Mexico.

Try this. When Sondland confessed, you still blamed Trump. Sondland self confessed. He did not reach Trump. It is is pure conjecture in any court. Hearsay evidence. Trump issued explicit instructions to actual officials. NO Quid Pro quo.

 

You're objecting to an expansion of the investigations?

 

What makes it credible?

 

The hearings were kept confidential in an attempt to prevent the witnesses from coordinating their testimonies. Even Trey Gowdy agreed that it was a good procedure. Nor, were Committee Republicans excluded from the meetings or from asking questions with equal time. The "secret hearings" is a farcical attempt to discredit the impeachment inquiry. Most of the full transcripts have already been released. What is it you want to complain about?

 

Funny way to explain a distraction from Schiff and the so-called whistleblower.

 

Splain yourself?

 

Er... the selective leaking which was aimed at shaping public opinion.