Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SquallStrife

Trump: The third POTUS ever to be Impeached

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, chrisg said:

This is the bio of the author of the article on the Iranian inspections that appeared this week:

 

https://thebulletin.org/biography/abbas-milani/


“Abbas Milani is the Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford University and a co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. Till 1986 he taught at Tehran University’s Faculty of Law and Political Science. His last book is The Shah (Palgrave).”

 

So he’s not a scientist, not an engineer, isn’t linked to the military.

 

Tell me how this guy would know any more about Iran’s nuclear program than any lay person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is more that he is an expert on Iran who also happens to write for the Bulletin suggesting he is somewhat more than a lay person.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ?

 

They are not saying "we publish anything " they vet for credibility. I've been receiving the newsletter for a very long time, never seen any reason to disbelieve what they publish, disagree sometimes or wonder if they have not gone a bit to far but that is common in reading most anything.

 

In the end you have to, at least to some degree, trust what other people tell you, the IAEC in particular does a rather thankless, very demanding job with a pretty high burn-out rate. However they rarely miss much, especially when it is a possibly suspect installation which would be the way Iran would have to be categorised.

 

My point really is that whilst some of the things Iran does are an anathema their nuclear programme does still seem to be on the level.

 

Their missiles on the other hand are a very real concern and I would not put it past them to for example use them in an area-denial manner. An air-bust of some nasty radioactive material over any of the airbases within range, which is most all of the ones that matter, would not be nice at all to clean up.

 

Nothing suggests that they might be thinking that way but at the top of the theocracy you are not exactly dealing with level-headed people.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chrisg said:

They are not saying "we publish anything " they vet for credibility. I've been receiving the newsletter for a very long time, never seen any reason to disbelieve what they publish, disagree sometimes or wonder if they have not gone a bit to far but that is common in reading most anything.


What’s their vetting process?

 

How do they know this guy can vouch for Iran not developing nuclear weapons? My contacts in the CIA would like to know.

4 minutes ago, chrisg said:

In the end you have to, at least to some degree, trust what other people tell you


Not if they’re lying.

 

I know Soleimani has been travelling in contravention of the JCPOA. So when some muppet tells me Iran has been filling the JCPOA until Trump exited the deal, that muppet is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

 

 Like an other professional journal it would be peer review.The main contributors are in fact Atomic Scientists but over time they have expanded their brief to include broader concerns such as biochem warfare and climate change.

 

That's not actually what his article says at all, he simply says that Iran has not in any way impeded the IAEC inspectors - ever.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Like an other professional journal it would be peer review.


It’s not a peer reviewed journal.
 

“The Bulletin is not a peer-reviewed journal; however, we do send unsolicited articles to colleagues for outside review”

 

https://thebulletin.org/write-for-the-bulletin/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chrisg said:

That's not actually what his article says at all, he simply says that Iran has not in any way impeded the IAEC inspectors - ever.


They don’t need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

 Either way you are correct 🙂

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chrisg said:

Seems it remains a dispute in your mind.

 

It is very clear, Impeachment means "charged" not convicted.

 

The House of Reps has prepared and accepted by popular vote the articles of impeachment. At that point the idiot McConnell declared he would work with the White House and pretty much ensure that the articles would be dismissed in the Senate. In doing so he has basically said there will be no fair trial, in other words the jury is biased .

 

That is not the way the process of law operates.

 

Accordingly Pelosi is with-holding the articles until she is given an assurance of a fair trial, which she is perfectly entitled to do.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Sounds like quid pro quo to me too.

I reckon the POTUS is entitled to sue Pelosi for libel and general defemation of character.

 

She is entitled to follow the law of an action of impeachment. She's not doing that. Basically all that has happened is that there is now written proof of the Dems. libelous claims.

Sounds like a perfect time to sue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, eveln said:

Sounds like quid pro quo to me too.

I reckon the POTUS is entitled to sue Pelosi for libel and general defemation of character.

 

She is entitled to follow the law of an action of impeachment. She's not doing that. Basically all that has happened is that there is now written proof of the Dems. libelous claims.

Sounds like a perfect time to sue.

 

 

Heh,

 

 Not going to happen - difficult in the first place but given how many times Trump has lied you'd need to destroy a forest to get enough paper for all the documents.

 

Basically any action to sue under parliamentary privilige is so difficult that it is simply not worth pursing not even for a sue-happy creature like Trump.

 

It is tempting to wonder if Trump has ever read the Constitution or whether the long words were too much for him or whether he wipes his fat arse with it but Nacy Pelosi has read and understands the Consitution.  There is no time limit of note on when she has to send the articles to Senate and her defense courtesy of Idiot Mitch is solid. At the moment there is no way any trial in the Senate would be fair- everyone knows that.  She only has to hold the line and, given his progressively more erratic acts, wait to see if his support in the Senate wavers.

 

It would be an interesting conundrum to sue or attempt to sue Trump, he's been libeling and slandering his opponents at every pass for over three years and that even includes those nominally in his party.

 

Open that floodgate and we'd wash him out to sea but it just does not happen in the fairy land of politics otherwise the writs would be continuous - even they are not that stupid.

 

Currently the State of New York is siting on several significant writs against Trump that courtesy of Executive Privilige they have not enacted and will not until he is out of office.

 

No wonder he is so keen to win this year, if he doesn't and I fully agree the Dems are not exactly firing on all cylinders, he will be embroiled in suits for years and either die or end up in jail.

 

Given the number of persons loyal to him whom he has thrown under the bus and who ARE in jail I rather hope it is the latter - dying is too good for him.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

 Either way you are correct 🙂

 

I'm just pointing out that Iran does not need to inhibit the IAEA to be developing nuclear weapons.

It has so much leeway under the JCPOA thanks to Droney McPeaceprize and the European weaklings, that a non-peer-reviewed article in a non-peer-reviewed journal by a nobody author of no consequence or knowledge above the layman - is a funny thing for a self-flagged ex-military analyst/spy/Israeli pilot to rely on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

I'm not relying on it at all, just suggesting that the are other perspectives. Btw, I have never been a spy, you have me confused with someone else 🙂

 

The IAEA/IEA, sort of interchangeable, are not infallible but they are the frontline in keeping proliferation in check.

 

It's rather frustrating isn't it ?

 

There is a state one-step removed from Israel that has a continuous history similar to Israel apart from in historical terms a disruption that was for a brief period perfectly ok with the existence of Israel and now is not because nutcases are in charge there.

 

Most anything that anyone can do will only make it worse - ideas thrive on adversity but the Iranians are not stupid, if not pressured and that unfortunately is what America is currently doing, I rather think they will find a sensible path. They most certainly are not on one at the moment.

 

Patience does have its virtues.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

Open that floodgate and we'd wash him out to sea

Ahhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha * break for air * ahhhahahahahahahahahaha  .... hahahhaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, eveln said:

Ahhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha * break for air * ahhhahahahahahahahahaha  .... hahahhaa

they can't even manage a simple impeachment ....they haven't got a hope in hell of doing anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

 Since when was there anything simple about impeachment ?  It was not designed to be easy, it was designed to be thorough.

 

I utterly agree the Dems are very sub par, but they are nowhere near the depths Trump has descended to.

 

There is not much chance of a truly impressive President for the next term but Trump will simply take us into another round of war, for all his claims...

 

All that he is doing right now is what he has always done - survive at the expense of others - just the odds keep getting bigger.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chrisg said:

The IAEA/IEA, sort of interchangeable, are not infallible but they are the frontline in keeping proliferation in check.

 

They're toothless and utterly dependent on foreign intelligence - as was the case when "surprise" - an Iran with an NPT treaty was found with weapons-targeted underground nuclear weapons reactors

1 hour ago, chrisg said:

There is not much chance of a truly impressive President for the next term but Trump will simply take us into another round of war, for all his claims...

 

 

He hasn't yet. Longest run of not expanding a war or starting a new one since Carter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a matter of opinion...

 

He has not succeeded in any of his bold claims to get out of anywhere. The coalition remains bogged down in Afghanistan, embroiled in Syria, has 5,000 troops in Iraq and right now that "yet" looks like just a matter of time.

 

The first is plain stupid, even Russia had the good sense to simply pull out and stop wasting lives, Syria he obviously does not have a clue on and Iraq he has now so angered them with this foolish assassination that they unanimously vote to ask America to leave then some clod releases a "draft' that suggests they are going to leave that then he and his not terribly bright JCS have to scrabble around making awkward retractions over.

 

The entire administration has been and remains nothing but a joke, one in very bad taste.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, chrisg said:

He has not succeeded in any of his bold claims to get out of anywhere. The coalition remains bogged down in Afghanistan, embroiled in Syria, has 5,000 troops in Iraq and right now that "yet" looks like just a matter of time.


That promises is rated as “in progress” by political fact checking sites.

Just because he hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean he hasn’t decreased numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, chrisg said:

The first is plain stupid, even Russia had the good sense to simply pull out and stop wasting lives, Syria he obviously does not have a clue on and Iraq he has now so angered them with this foolish assassination that they unanimously vote to ask America to leave then some clod releases a "draft' that suggests they are going to leave that then he and his not terribly bright JCS have to scrabble around making awkward retractions over.


They didn’t “unanimously vote to ask America to leave”. Out of 328 lawmakers only 170 showed up to vote - all Shias. All Kurds and Sunnis who supported the killing of Suleimani simply didn’t bother showing given the sectarian vote.

 

The Iraqi government is caretaker - there’s possibly no legal right for it to ask the Americans to leave and finally - the vote was for a timetable of troops leaving. Lebanon voted for a timetable of Syrian troops leaving - took 29 years!

 

Dont make the vote something it’s not. Americans will leave Iraq on their own terms.

50 minutes ago, chrisg said:

The entire administration has been and remains nothing but a joke, one in very bad taste.


I think you meant to say that your analysis is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leonid said:


That promises is rated as “in progress” by political fact checking sites.

Just because he hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean he hasn’t decreased numbers.

 

hang on, didn't you recently post about all the troops moving into the region ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the administration is a joke headed by a clown who can't lie straight in bed who sails off on bizarre rants about windmills, toilets and land purchases like Greenland. He is forever making grandiose claims either about himself or how wonderful his presidency has been when reality tells a very different story.

 

I was not aware of the exact voting in the Iraqi parliament but I do agree that it is in caretaker mode, regardless it reflects a mood within the country that is for America to leave. It somewhat bemuses me why they are even still there, they are patently not welcome and still lose troops to death and injury regularly.

 

Afghanistan is and always has been ridiculous, it is not a country where invaders ever win wars, the best anyone can do with the place is throttle the export of opium and divert as much as possible to morphine production. We'll probably end up with too much morphine but that is better than too much heroin.

 

Do-gooders have been trying to tame the place for centuries, America is just the latest to fail.

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, scruffy1 said:

 

hang on, didn't you recently post about all the troops moving into the region ?


The 82nd is a rapid deployment force. They’re not permanents as they’re the DoD’s crisis force.

They’ll be out ASAP.

If they’re replaced by a more permanent force, then yeah - promise broken.

1 hour ago, chrisg said:

No, the administration is a joke headed by a clown who can't lie straight in bed who sails off on bizarre rants about windmills, toilets and land purchases like Greenland. He is forever making grandiose claims either about himself or how wonderful his presidency has been when reality tells a very different story.


I know someone else who makes grandiose claims and can’t lie straight in bed.

 

The difference is Trump has a few years of military experience.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

I was not aware of the exact voting in the Iraqi parliament


The fact that you’re not really well aware of what’s going on in the Middle East fits a general pattern. You know enough that shows you read a few news stories.

 

It also shows that you’ve put no effort into any discovery of depth or analysis to the situation.

 

From your question re Soleimani’s presence in Iraq, to assertion that Russia would be drawn in, to claims that Trump invented the target rather than the Pentagon, to claims this is unprecedented, to claims of a unanimous vote in the Iraqi Parliament to claims of expertise in a non peer-reviewed journal article from a nobody. Then to your claims that Iran was complying with the JCPOA.

 

All of this shows grandstanding. You don’t actually know enough about the situation or the geopolitics. You are merely continuing your schtick whereby you claim/imply to have some kind of insight because you’re Mr He-Man.

 

I’ve explained this to you before and I’ll do it again: you don’t need to pretend to be something you’re not to win respect on this forum. You just need to not get caught on basic things someone with your supposed background would be expected to know.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×