# Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun



## IncredulousP (Nov 13, 2019)

Housing Intelligence Commitee has begun holding first public impeachment hearing regarding Trump at 10ET, -5 UTC.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/7782...ill-testify-and-how-the-questioning-will-work

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/i...rom-bill-taylor-george-kent-today-2019-11-13/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/impeachment-hearings.html


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 13, 2019)

*gets in seat and starts eating popcorn* Shit is going to be good.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 14, 2019)

Hmm...not to rain on anyone's parade, but thus far nothing really new is coming forward.

Sure, it's now broadcasted live. So what? Remember how the group that needed any convincing in the Mueller case first refused to read the full report because it was too long and then complained that the summaries were biased? It's this same group that first claimed these hearings were a sham because they were secret (they weren't) and then all voted against making them public. The irony is that they're trying to make it a sham by requesting Hunter Biden to testify (yes...because surely HE knows more about blocking US military aid ) and then downright violating whistle blower protection laws by insisting he (they?) should be testified(1).

So yeah...once again: "top diplomats testify that Trump cared more about a Biden investigation than about the state of the country". "by denying an ally military aid, Trump went directly against crucial policy regarding the safety of the US". I'm curious to see how it'll all affect the polls on Trump popularity, but what impact will it have on a larger scale?

Yes, he's now boo-ed at sports events and "IMPEACH" signs are put up wherever he goes. But that's not really the aim of the investigation. I'm all with Pelosi on this one: this is just about doing the right thing. The house shouldn't be about impeaching the president. It's not what they want to do or why they joined politics. It's just that push has come to stove; you can't just ignore a president committing crimes.



(1): to be fair: I would be able to understand this reasoning if (s)he was the sole voice complaining. but at this stage, there are so many confirmations of everything that there is literally no need for a public outing aside for political revenge (which is exactly what the law aims to prevent).


----------



## SG854 (Nov 15, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...not to rain on anyone's parade, but thus far nothing really new is coming forward.
> 
> Sure, it's now broadcasted live. So what? Remember how the group that needed any convincing in the Mueller case first refused to read the full report because it was too long and then complained that the summaries were biased? It's this same group that first claimed these hearings were a sham because they were secret (they weren't) and then all voted against making them public. The irony is that they're trying to make it a sham by requesting Hunter Biden to testify (yes...because surely HE knows more about blocking US military aid ) and then downright violating whistle blower protection laws by insisting he (they?) should be testified(1).
> 
> ...


Aid gets held up every so often. Trump could've with held aid to see what they were about since it was a new Ukraine administration, wait it out, spend some time talking to them, and if they were genuine then give them the aid.


Joe Biden getting a prosecutor fired. And the person being cleared of all charges. They are making a case that Biden was doing what Trump did before Trump and that an investigation into him was warranted.


Ukraine had no idea they were being extorted. Trump extorting them with out telling them? Implied extortion argument doesn't seem to go far either.

President Zelensky denied the Democrats characterization of the call, which is a big blow to the case since they relied on the extorted argument, how can one be extorted if they are unaware of it? Ukraine didn't know at the time that a temporary delay was put on them. Some of the witnesses were uninformed about the indications of Ukraine election meddling and what Trump was concerned.

It may have been inappropriate for Trump to call and say do me a favor, but it was in the interest of the country looking into election meddling. It was not just dig up dirt, it was more then that, its election meddling. And I'm sure they are not uptight people following the law exactly and exceptions can be made for Trumps case, that how all law cases work, they have to look at the circumstance of the situation.


Why give military aid for a country that was illegally meddling in our election?
Trump can argue his way out of any criminal charges based on the situation. He may get away with this case.



Then there's this, that just came up
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

So who are we suppose to believe? U.S. Democrats claiming Trump doing this and that? Or what the Ukraine officials themselves say?
Unless they go fucking psycho and say Trump is a criminal mastermind controlling the entire country of Ukraine and making them say stuff to protect Trump. Just like what they said for Russia, Trump in control of Russia.


Impeachment witnesses never met Trump ever, so it wasn't first hand witnesses. I was going through a bunch of articles that claim, damning evidence this and this is really bad, and some of those articles are not true, flat out lies or are just click bait. And people will believe those articles rather then what the Ukraine minister says. This case looks like its going the way of the Russia case. Especially when they make the argument that hearsay is much better evidence then direct evidence. You know they've gone crazy. The Democrats are creating this fake scandal to cover themselves.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Nov 15, 2019)

Imagine thinking this is anything more then political theater.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Aid gets held up every so often. Trump could've with held aid to see what they were about since it was a new Ukraine administration, wait it out, spend some time talking to them, and if they were genuine then give them the aid.


True. But never for personal political gain. There's a reason the diplomats claim Trump puts his personal agenda over the benefits of the USA.



SG854 said:


> (1)Joe Biden getting a prosecutor fired. (2)And the person being cleared of all charges. (3)They are making a case that Biden was doing what Trump did before Trump and that an investigation into him was warranted.


(1) Not quite. The EU and individual governments were equally pressuring onto Ukraine (as well as some instances within the country) to get Shokin removed. Joe Biden was just representing the US in this regard.
I'd also like to repeat what I said earlier: that Shokin _slowed down_ the investigation of Burisma (source).
(2) again: wrong. Shokin was never cleared of his charges. And in case you're referring to Hunter: he was never officially charged, for the simple reason he was just one of the many employees of Burisma. The investigation against Burisma just continued...and ended in an anticlimax (read: there was no evidence of corruption).
(3) yes...republicans are indeed wishing they could make that claim. Too bad that the differences aren't exactly details
-Trump doesn't have the backing of other countries or instances. Heck...he doesn't even have the backing of his own diplomats
-There was plenty of evidence against Shokin. Against Hunter, they've got nothing



SG854 said:


> Ukraine had no idea they were being extorted. Trump extorting them with out telling them? Implied extortion argument doesn't seem to go far either.


I beg to differ. When I'm suddenly getting promised money withheld from a country, and then shortly after get on the phone with the country's leader saying I need to do them a favor(1), I know what is implied. It doesn't make it less extortion.


(1): that's based on the publicly released transcript. The actual phone call had Trump insisting repeatedly that Zelensky start an investigation.




SG854 said:


> President Zelensky denied the Democrats characterization of the call, which is a big blow to the case since they relied on the extorted argument, how can one be extorted if they are unaware of it? Ukraine didn't know at the time that a temporary delay was put on them. Some of the witnesses were uninformed about the indications of Ukraine election meddling and what Trump was concerned.


...which further proves that there's something fishy going on. A delay of nearly 400 million dollar and republicans can't even produce a valid reason for it being withheld?



SG854 said:


> It may have been inappropriate for Trump to call and say do me a favor, but it was in the interest of the country looking into election meddling. It was not just dig up dirt, it was more then that, its election meddling. And I'm sure they are not uptight people following the law exactly and exceptions can be made for Trumps case, that how all law cases work, they have to look at the circumstance of the situation.


Inappropriate is pretty light. If diplomats call it "very disturbing", then I'm more inclined to go with that. Is it any less inappropriate to set up an entire alternative diplomatic entity for this job? C'mon...are you really expecting us to believe that a former hotelier (Sondland) and a NYC mayor (Giuliani) have better interests in the country than veteran diplomats?
Fuck...Ukraine isn't part of the EU, but I think that piece of trivia flew over the head of the guy interrogating Taylor (Steve Castor: "ok, so it's unusual <that EU diplomat Sondland schemes in Ukraine>...but it's not as outlandish as it could have be...correct?" Taylor: <*holds back laughter*>).




SG854 said:


> Why give military aid for a country that was illegally meddling in our election?


This isn't about Russia, dude. Crowdstrike is at best a hoax because Trump doesn't want to keep promises USA made to the world.



SG854 said:


> Trump can argue his way out of any criminal charges based on the situation. He may get away with this case.


Easy claims when he's hiding in the white house.



SG854 said:


> Then there's this, that just came up
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK
> 
> So who are we suppose to believe? U.S. Democrats claiming Trump doing this and that? Or what the Ukraine officials themselves say?


It's an interesting link, I'll give you that. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the main question I have: what explanation was given to Prystaiko for the delay?

It'd be nice to hear more about the Ukraine side of the story, but at this point I don't see much contradiction in either statements (remember: the charges are Trump requested president ZELENSKY to open an investigation).



SG854 said:


> Unless they go fucking psycho and say Trump is a criminal mastermind controlling the entire country of Ukraine and making them say stuff to protect Trump. Just like what they said for Russia, Trump in control of Russia.


Lol, what?  Seriously: Trump may be many things, but he's too incompetent to be a mastermind. I've seen him described as a puppet of Russia quite some times, but never in charge of it. 

So no...the USA isn't in charge of Ukraine. But again: the allegations are that Trump uses military funds for personal political gains. That's perfectly doable without being "a criminal mastermind controlling the entire country".




SG854 said:


> Impeachment witnesses never met Trump ever, so it wasn't first hand witnesses. I was going through a bunch of articles that claim, damning evidence this and this is really bad, and some of those articles are not true, flat out lies or are just click bait. And people will believe those articles rather then what the Ukraine minister says. This case looks like its going the way of the Russia case. Especially when they make the argument that hearsay is much better evidence then direct evidence. You know they've gone crazy. The Democrats are creating this fake scandal to cover themselves.


If they witnessed actions and conversations tracing back all the way, it's irrelevant whether or not they literally met Trump. Taylor claims, for example, that Trump shouted so hard that his employees on his side of the line could hear it. It doesn't somehow make them less a witness to the incident.

It goes without saying, but I don't share your opinion of democrats. If you ask me, it's the republicans going all sorts of nuts. Which is in and of itself amazing (yes, I've got a different world view than them...but even so I find it scary how blind they follow Donald Trump's opinion)


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 15, 2019)

So, today the former Ambassador for Ukraine, miss Yovanovich testified.

For clarity, she was removed in April from Ukraine and was replaced with Volker after Rudy "I'm not a part of Trump's administration but I act like it" Giuliani ran a smear campaign against her.

Notable things about the hearing:

Republicans didn't have much. Most wound up in two camps; either congtatulating the ambassador for her work or opting to attack the investigation rather than questioning the witness (also going here were a number that asked very misleading questions within regards to why she was there.)
The Republicans also seemed to violate their talking time extensively and interrupted the Ambassador repeatedly. There also is a rather strange kerfuffle they seem to be blowing up. Apparently there's a predetermined order but apparently Elise Stefanik had a minor habit of trying to cut in line to get more time out of another Republicans unused time.
And of course, Trump attempted to intimidate the Ambassador about an hour into the hearing by slandering her on Twitter.
Important to keep in mind is that this hearing is to set up the prologue of the Ukraine scandal, not the scandal itself, which Republicans consistently failed to grasp.


----------



## cots (Nov 16, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> So, today the former Ambassador for Ukraine, miss Yovanovich testified.
> 
> For clarity, she was removed in April from Ukraine and was replaced with Volker after Rudy "I'm not a part of Trump's administration but I act like it" Giuliani ran a smear campaign against her.
> 
> ...



Actually, when asked if she had any information that could prove quid pro quo (now being called bribery because the Liberals overused the original term) or if she had any evidence that Trump broke the law she said answered both times saying "no". Seeings as the impeachment inquiry is based on impeaching the president for quid pro quo (now being called bribery) and any criminal wrong doing I see this as a positive thing for the Republicans. The only relevant facts directly relate to what the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for and she admitted she has nothing that reflects that - she simply stated that she has no information that Trump committed an impeachable offense. Turns out that reality bit the Liberals in the ass so they tried to turn the attention to the fact they have ZERO evidence and focus on what Trump tweeted. What she does have, is that she's upset she was fired and that has no bearing on what the impeachment effort is about. It's Trump's job to fire people like her. He's the boss an within his rights to do so. Also about the intimidation accusations. It's funny that Yovanovich would have had no clue that Trump tweeted about her unless Shift for Brains would have brought it up. I mean, what are the Liberals doing checking their smart phones when they're supposed to be running an inquiry? I'd also like to point out that this isn't a criminal trial so Yovanovich isn't an actual witness that was in the position to be intimidated (even if Trump was directly doing so, which he wasn't). Besides, if you focus on the intimidation accusation you're doing exactly what the Liberals want you to do. They simply want to distract you from the fact that their witness had zero actual evidence of any quid pro quo or bribery.



> "As you sit here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?" asked Rep. Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican.
> 
> "No," Yovanovitch responded.
> 
> ...



Quote Source (Watch the Hearing or -> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/15/marie-yovanovitch-tells-chris-stewart-no-info-that/)

This (the quote) is the only information from the witness that matters.


----------



## notimp (Nov 16, 2019)

cots said:


> now being called bribery because the Liberals overused the original term


Different settings, different language. Quid pro quo is still the term for talkshows and so on and so forth.

But then dont separate the act from the intent. If act would have been bribery, so what - thats part of the job in some way I suppose. But bribery to get stuff on your political opponent, while harming national security (because Ukraine is kind of important geopolitically). Now thats something..  The word bribery somehow feels too small for that.


----------



## cots (Nov 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> Different settings, different language. Quid pro quo is still the term for talkshows and so on and so forth.
> 
> But then dont separate the act from the intent. If act would have been bribery, so what - thats part of the job in some way I suppose. But bribery to get stuff on your political opponent, while harming national security (because Ukraine is kind of important geopolitically). Now thats something..  The word bribery somehow feels too small for that.



Well, I do understand Liberals and their need to constantly redefine things or change names to suite their agenda. I wonder what actual linguist and other people that study the spoken word think about how the Liberals ignore years of history and simply redefine shit on the whim to fit stuff into their agenda (when in reality they're simply making this shit up most of the time from thin air). Though, I agree that both of these terms are interchangeable. At least they didn't have make up a completely fake defintion this time. Anyway, what they are doing are simple basic psychological tactics. I was just pointing out they're playing petty word games again. How do you feel about the quoted questions and answers that I just added to my original post? The questions that Yovanovich answered. Do you think these are the only relevant questions?


----------



## notimp (Nov 16, 2019)

This is something I really believe in:

"One cannot not communicate" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick )

The terms that get coined, or framed a certain way - arent that important themselves. A certain frame might stick, or not - sometimes its just pure luck. Even if you try your hardest - or even if you don't try at all, a frame (or a certain meaning of a word in context) usually will happen on its own. And when it does (Quid pro quo) you usually are better off driving that one (the one that develops) home, than to try sticking one yourself.

Quid pro quo was probably used in legal speak context, because - its common there, to express a distinct situation. Then it got picked up in a public context, and some people might not have known what it meant, and then they looked it up, and then they started using it boastingly, and all of a sudden it trended. That most likely was a natural process (because its so dumb), but if you pick up on people being interested in that little something they might not have heard in the past - you drive it home, by overusing - and it becomes more of a thing, if you do it correctly.

Designing memes, usually is much harder than going with whats already out there in some form. And framing in general has more to do with generating context. (Which sort of language to use, to generate certain associations.)

Its not a 'now, how do we twist words in public perception today' kind of situation. Never works that reliably.


----------



## cots (Nov 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> This is something I really believe in:
> 
> "One cannot not communicate" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick )
> 
> ...



Oh, and I know we're conversed about politics before I left. So if you're interested in why I left or why I'm back I've posted about this in my blog. Just in case you're wondering why I'm posting again.


----------



## notimp (Nov 16, 2019)

I'll look at it tomorrow. (Don't pull me too many people to the extreme edges of the political spectrum, in the meantime.. ) n8


----------



## SG854 (Nov 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> True. But never for personal political gain. There's a reason the diplomats claim Trump puts his personal agenda over the benefits of the USA.
> 
> 
> (1) Not quite. The EU and individual governments were equally pressuring onto Ukraine (as well as some instances within the country) to get Shokin removed. Joe Biden was just representing the US in this regard.
> ...


Crowdstrike may be a hoax and yet Russia got investigated. There was indications in the Russia case which not much came out of it just like there was in Ukraine. Trump can use this to his advantage. They shot themselves in the foot with Russia and it can back fire on this case. "Look at Russia hoax, you guys investigated that and you are not going to investigate Ukraine"



"I beg to differ. When I'm suddenly getting promised money withheld from a country, and then shortly after get on the phone with the country's leader saying I need to do them a favor(1), I know what is implied. It doesn't make it less extortion."

I beg the differ differ, because aid could've been with held for different reasons. The problem is implied. Anything could be implied, since it wasn't directly said they can make a case for a different implication, like new leadership are they worthy of military aid? Are they trust worthy? Lets withhold money and talk it over in the White house before making bad rash decisions. The withheld money was a coincidence in timing with the phone call.


We are basically arguing/debating over nothing said. Trump does this a lot. He's always very vague in what he says  and people give their opinions on what he implied which is influenced by their personally biases of what they already think about Trump.

Like when Trump says about Megyn Kelly on CNN that he doesn't respect her as a journalist and he said that you can see blood was coming out of her eyes and coming out of her wherever. People got mad and called him a sexist because they believed he implied that he was talking about her lady private parts, that she was menstruating and she couldn't do her job properly. But that statement is vague, people that already believed that Trump is sexist against women say we know what he meant, c'mon look at all the past sexist stuff Trump did, its as easy as putting two and two together. While his defenders say no he probably meant eyes or nose, he just said wherever because that was a quick response for the moment because he couldn't think of any other body part, how could he be talking about her lady parts if he couldn't think of that answer at the moment.


This is basically how many arguments of what Trump actually meant go down.Trump is so vague and people are basically arguing over nothing said. Implying what he meant based on their personal biases. Which is why many of these arguments lead to no where and nothing gets solved.


----------



## cots (Nov 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Like when Trump says about Megyn Kelly on CNN that he doesn't respect her as a journalist and he said that you can see blood was coming out of her eyes and coming out of her wherever. People got mad and called him a sexist because they believed he implied that he was talking about her lady private parts, that she was menstruating and she couldn't do her job properly. But that statement is vague, people that already believed that Trump is sexist against women say we know what he meant, c'mon look at all the past sexist stuff Trump did, its as easy as putting two and two together. While his defenders say no he probably meant eyes or nose, he just said wherever because that was a quick response for the moment because he couldn't think of any other body part, how could he be talking about her lady parts if he couldn't think of that answer at the moment.
> 
> This is basically how many arguments of what Trump actually meant go down. People are basically arguing over nothing said. Implying what he meant based on their personal biases.



Trump is also very good at using these vague statements to infuriate his critics. They get all outraged and spend a lot of time arguing with each other over what they are implying that Trump meant. When you hear Conservatives talking about how Trump plays Liberals like a musical instrument, this is one of his tactics they are referring to. Like I've always said and this is rooted in psychological fact - is that outrage (hatred) blinds you. The chemical reaction in your brain going on when you're outraged will influence your behavior and make you basically start making poor decisions. Trump knows exactly what's he's doing. Maybe it's not so much of what he's actually saying that matters, but how he says it and his intentions of saying it. If you're constantly outraged by what Trump says and spend all sorts of time obsessed with his Tweets then that's exactly what Trump wants. He's playing you. It's sort of like the Liberals trying to redefine words with no logical basis other then doing so to push their agenda. It's psychological warfare, except Trump is on a much higher level then the Liberals are. Renaming, outlawing or redefining words are like level 2 in world 1 when Trump's beaten the game twice and is replaying it currently on level 483.

You've also got to realize that Trump isn't a traditional politician. His tweets aren't edited by a team of 20 members or pre-written and read off of a teleprompter. It's unprofessional, but he's not part of the PC culture that requires people to edit whatever they say because they are dishonest and won't speak their mind and tell you how they really feel. So sometimes he says stupid shit and offends people. I rather have a President that's honest and makes mistakes them some plastic PC piece of shit. He's unique in that fashion. I'm sick of tired of being lied to by Liberals and rather have someone that makes honest mistakes in office. At least he's fighting for America and not trying to rip up the Constitution and turn us into Venezuela (or worse).

As per today's testimony. It really came down to these two questions. The impeachment is supposed to be for quid pro quo - does this witness do anything to prove the Liberals case?



> "As you sit here before us, very simply and directly, do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?" asked Rep. Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican.
> 
> "No," Yovanovitch responded.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 16, 2019)

cots said:


> Actually, when asked if she had any information that could prove quid pro quo (now being called bribery because the Liberals overused the original term) or if she had any evidence that Trump broke the law she said answered both times saying "no". Seeings as the impeachment inquiry is based on impeaching the president for quid pro quo (now being called bribery) and any criminal wrong doing I see this as a positive thing for the Republicans.


You fail to grasp the reasoning in the same way several Republicans during the hearing failed to.

Back in April, she was suddenly subjected to a smear campaign by Giuliani and two associates of his which resulted in her removal. Whilst it's not fully clear why this happened, during the hearing she made clear that the act of witholding funding in exchange for digging up dirt on Biden (which is what the investigation is about and what Volker, her successor, did do) is something she would refuse to do since it's illegal.

The reason she's being heard is because there's a not-insubstantial argument to be made that Giuliani ran the smear campaign so she could be replaced with a more Trump-sympathetic person (Volker although he also picked eggs for his money), to ensure that they could do the illegetimate acts that make up the impeachment hearing without her standing in the way as a roadblock.


----------



## cots (Nov 16, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> You fail to grasp the reasoning in the same way several Republicans during the hearing failed to.
> 
> Back in April, she was suddenly subjected to a smear campaign by Giuliani and two associates of his which resulted in her removal. Whilst it's not fully clear why this happened, during the hearing she made clear that the act of witholding funding in exchange for digging up dirt on Biden (which is what the investigation is about and what Volker, her successor, did do) is something she would refuse to do since it's illegal.
> 
> The reason she's being heard is because there's a not-insubstantial argument to be made that Giuliani ran the smear campaign so she could be replaced with a more Trump-sympathetic person (Volker although he also picked eggs for his money), to ensure that they could do the illegetimate acts that make up the impeachment hearing without her standing in the way as a roadblock.



That's her side of the story. Modern smear campaigns (aka "cancelling") by ignorant Liberals is more harsh and unfair (and publicly accepted) then being fired for not doing your job the way your boss wants you to. It also has zero relevance nor can prove there was any quid pro quo. It would be an entire different ball game if she had been fired for actually personally witnessing any actually illegal and impeachable offenses and then trying to expose the President. If that was the case I would have called her a good witness. What you're doing is stretching and reaching because you have no evidence of any actual impeachable offenses. Actually, both witnesses this week had no evidence of any. It's like basing your entire case on hearsay when you have no first hand knowledge of what happened - oh wait, that's what is actually happening. I've been to court many times over the years and I've never run into a Judge that would take "I overheard people talking about something they overheard" as credible evidence. So yes, since she had zero first hand knowledge of any quid pro quo - you know, the reason behind the 10th impeachment effort so far by the Liberals, I'd say she was a really useless witness. I also don't have it wrong. I understand exactly why she was called into the stage. She's more of a character witness that's there to gain sympathy and make Trump look bad. Looking bad doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything though.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 16, 2019)

cots said:


> It also has zero relevance nor can prove there was any quid pro quo.


The point is to establish the ambassador for Ukraine was systematically replaced by someone more pro-Trump. This entire incident took place before the phone call, she wasn't fired for "not doing her job". They probably replaced her because they knew she wouldn't stick to the withholding aid when it would come up and decided to plant someone who would there to make sure it wouldn't become an issue.



cots said:


> It's like basing your entire case on hearsay when you have no first hand knowledge of what happened - oh wait, that's what is actually happening. I've been to court many times over the years and I've never run into a Judge that would take "I overheard people talking about something they overheard" as credible evidence.


Hearsay is not relevant yet or here.

The current proceedings are investigation based, which means you're absolutely allowed to investigate on things originating from something that would be hearsay.

The actual articles of impeachment and the subsequent vote will use more concrete evidence (such as that gathered from witnesses in both open and closed hearings) rather than the original complaint.

To put it in another way; if I hear someone say "Bob is gonna murder his girlfriend tonight" and I out of concern call the cops on Bob to make sure his girlfriend is protected, the cops are essentially going on hearsay. That said, since the cops aren't in court at that point, they're just investigating a claim made by me, they're absolutely allowed to go and arrest and question Bob.

In this case, what we're seeing now is the investigative phase. Hearsay as a legal argument is not considered valid at this stage, since this is not the judgemental phase.


----------



## cots (Nov 16, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> The point is to establish the ambassador for Ukraine was systematically replaced by someone more pro-Trump. This entire incident took place before the phone call, she wasn't fired for "not doing her job". They probably replaced her because they knew she wouldn't stick to the withholding aid when it would come up and decided to plant someone who would there to make sure it wouldn't become an issue.



Which is pure speculation with no basis in reality. I personally support Trump replacing any diplomat that isn't loyal to him. Seeings as the two main people involved, both of which are Presidents of entire countries mutually agree there was no quid pro quo the entire 10th impeachment effort will end up like the previous 9. I don't care about speculative theory or how some people interpreted what they overheard. You're acting like it's some major conspiracy when it was a normal phone call between two Presidents. If there was any proof that Trump was planning on bribing the President and fired her because she expressed concern that would be an entirely separate issue that I would agree would make a good case against Trump, but she testified that she has zero evidence about any bribes or any illegal activity. So she has nothing to prove that Trump had her fired over the entire issue. She's simply pissed off because she got fired. You can continue to be fooled by the Liberals approach, which is fine, it just shows that you are making a poor decision as there's no basis in reality for it. There's no facts to support your speculation. If there were she would have put them on the table. It's pretty clear cut - she has zero evidence against Trump. So she turned out to be a bad witness for the Liberals and a good one for the people who don't support this current attempt.



> Hearsay is not relevant yet or here.
> 
> The current proceedings are investigation based, which means you're absolutely allowed to investigate on things originating from something that would be hearsay.
> 
> ...



Yet, if the police were to waste their time protecting Bob's girlfriend and investing him and there was no actual threat made because you don't like that Bob is dating your ex-girl friend and all of this is based on what you claimed you overheard someone else (not Bob himself saying) you'd be on the hook for filing a false report. There would also be no arrest unless the police could prove that Bob actually threatened your ex-girlfriend and could prove intent. So unless Bob confessed he threatened her and meant it, his girlfriend claimed he did or if there was a recording that clearly records saying "I'm going to murder her tonight" it would go nowhere. I'm pretty sure the police won't like the fact you lied to him and will probably treat you like the boy who cried wolf the next time you try to lie to them again. The funny part is the next time it might be your life on the line and since you tried to manipulate the system they might just simply ignore you and you'll end up dead.

I realize there is a transcript of the call, but the transcript isn't clear cut and the Liberals are twisting what the President said to make it look like there was quid pro quo. I read it with an open mind, because after all no one is perfect and Trump makes mistakes (I don't worship him, he doesn't fill my mind all day long, I don't blame him for everything in life that goes wrong, he's not God), but there was no clear cut evidence of bribery and thus far the only thing the Liberals have is "what some people overheard and how they interpreted it", which can easily be reputed by asking the actual two people involved (who happen to be Presidents) "what happened"? What other people think happened doesn't matter to me.

It's like back in High school when a friend of mine told me he overheard two girls saying that they overheard one of their friends saying she was into me. What did I do? I went up to the girl that might be into me and asked her if it was true. I don't really care what a bunch of gossiping morons have to say. Schiff and the Liberals are like the bully you used to play kick ball with as a 5 year old that would constantly change the rules of the game so they he would always win. Impeachment wasn't intended to be use a premeditated tactic to remove a President out of office based on the sole fact that your side lost the election and refuse to accept the results. When Obama won his election I simply told myself "I voted and my side lost, Obama is the new President of the USA and I'm going to respect him for that fact". I didn't go into denial and plan to overthrow him from the start by abusing a process meant for removing a President for actually doing something wrong. This entire 10th impeachment effort was planned from the begging because Liberals can't accept defeat and play by the rules of the game. If they tried this shit in a NFL Football Game they'd get their entire team kicked out of the organization.

I can't image playing against Liberal in Fortnite. Not only would they be using aimbots and still lose, but after the fact they'd try to claim there was a bug in the game and then spend the next 3 months trying to get me cancelled from social media and fired from my job.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 16, 2019)

cots said:


> I realize there is a transcript of the call, but the transcript isn't clear cut and the Liberals are twisting what the President said to make it look like there was quid pro quo. I read it with an open mind, because after all no one is perfect and Trump makes mistakes (I don't worship him, he doesn't fill my mind all day long, I don't blame him for everything in life that goes wrong, he's not God), but there was no clear cut evidence of bribery and thus far the only thing the Liberals have is "what some people overheard and how they interpreted it", which can easily be reputed by asking the actual two people involved (who happen to be Presidents) "what happened"? What other people think happened doesn't matter to me.


It's not clear cut, _only_ because Trump didn't outright say "investigate Biden or we don't give you money" on the call but sugar-coated it in a mob thread.

I've said it elsewhere, but Trump essentially made a very transparent mafia-esque threat. "I'd like you to do us a favor" is not a thing with much interpretation if you've read any mafia novels or seen mafia movies (and for Trump -> his family has ties to the mob) and then having several people send to Ukraine to ensure an investigation is started before the money gets handed over is a quid quo pro.

We don't just need to look at Trump here for the call. Giulianis, Sondland and all the others around him tell us _much_ more about what actually happened and how it was intended. The White House made an active effort to cover up the call itself, Giuliani has been involved in notorious shifty deals, Volker outright came clean in his hearing because he didn't want to get scapegoated by Trump et al., the White House is actively telling it's own administration members to not testify. 

They *know* they fucked up with this situation. Let me put it like this: The allegations made are really damn serious. Trump is facing impeachment charges. Now, the _best_ way to respond would be complete openness. If it's all as horseshit of an investigation as Republicans claim it is, then they should _show_ it. But instead, they're going on a full lockdown mode, not revealing anything and instead constantly complaining about non-existent procedural issues whilst telling everyone to shut the fuck up and not say anything.

Saying it's not a "quid pro quo" is incredibly disingenuous at this point.


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> It's not clear cut, _only_ because Trump didn't outright say "investigate Biden or we don't give you money" on the call but sugar-coated it in a mob thread.
> 
> I've said it elsewhere, but Trump essentially made a very transparent mafia-esque threat. "I'd like you to do us a favor" is not a thing with much interpretation if you've read any mafia novels or seen mafia movies (and for Trump -> his family has ties to the mob) and then having several people send to Ukraine to ensure an investigation is started before the money gets handed over is a quid quo pro.
> 
> ...



You're still caught up in specifics based on an entire farce. You're buying into the bullshit. You can argue speculative hearsay all day long, but the specifics in these instances don't jive with reality. I could address every single thing that Liberals bring up about the entire situation, but that's playing into their hand. It's like spending 7 hours of an inquiry looking into if the witness had any information pertaining to the fact that Trump was guilty of a crime and using all but 2 minutes to distract from the issue that the witness has zero evidence. This is how the entire thing has been played out. A bunch of hot air coming from the Liberals. So excuse me if I don't want to start pointing out about each claim you bring up and how each one is bullshit. It's a waste of my intelligence and time. I specifically addressed this witness to highlight the overall invalidity of the entire 10th impeachment effort. I'm really not interested in being distracted by the things you mentioned that don't show any proof of quid pro quo. When you've got some actually valid evidence get back to me.

Just because you're being accused of something doesn't mean you should provide unfettered access to your personal data/property, especially if the accusations are false. Who knows what else the Liberals will use and try to twist and use against Trump. If someone accuses me of something I will do whatever I can to prevent them from accessing any of my personal information. Just because you're doing nothing wrong doesn't give anyone a right to go through your stuff and nor does being accused of a crime. I love how people try to argue that if you're doing nothing wrong that you should just let anyone access your personal property or watch you on demand. Clearly, if I came to your house and asked to go through your entire house, including records like your bank accounts and to be given unfettered access to your email and browser history plus sit back and monitor and follow you around based on the fact that I claim that I overheard people saying you said something you'd be okay with that right? What about if I wanted to put cameras in your bathroom and watch your take a shower and go about your business on a daily basis. Surely, privacy doesn't matter nor should even be a thing. If that's the case, what's your gbatemp password? I accuse you of being a lying Liberal and want to make sure you're being honest.

I do agree with you that the allegations are serious, which is why I would support punishing the people responsible for making them up if they don't produce an actual impeachment. I mean, this is the 10th attempt? Should we sit back and allow another four of five attemps to go on at our expense? Clearly, Congress could be working on moderate solutions to our problems instead of pandering to the Far Left socialists because their user base can't get over the fact that they lost. It's just a shit show that goes to show what sort of people Liberals are. Most of the USA sees right through the Liberal minorities agenda. You realize, that most of the country aren't Twitter trolls nor succumb to fake news sites. They work for a living. I've never liked poor losers. When I lose at something I accept defeat, shake my opponents hand and work to make things better. This is why Liberals will always be on the losing side of history.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 17, 2019)

cots said:


> Just because you're being accused of something doesn't mean you should provide unfettered access to your personal data/property, especially if the accusations are false. Who knows what else the Liberals will use and try to twist and use against Trump. If someone accuses me of something I will do whatever I can to prevent them from accessing any of my personal information. Just because you're doing nothing wrong doesn't give anyone a right to go through your stuff and nor does being accused of a crime. I love how people try to argue that if you're doing nothing wrong that you should just let anyone access your personal property or watch you on demand. Clearly, if I came to your house and asked to go through your entire house, including records like your bank accounts and to be given unfettered access to your email and browser history plus sit back and monitor and follow you around based on the fact that I claim that I overheard people saying you said something you'd be okay with that right? What about if I wanted to put cameras in your bathroom and watch your take a shower and go about your business on a daily basis. Surely, privacy doesn't matter nor should even be a thing. If that's the case, what's your gbatemp password? I accuse you of being a lying Liberal and want to make sure you're being honest.


Except, we're not talking about personal affairs here. If it's with personal affairs, I agree with you. Without a legal subpoena, you're not obliged to anything. The thing is though... we're talking about political business, specifically the way an official of the public behaves on their job. They should be subjected to extreme scrutiny, because otherwise they can get away with criminal behavior unchecked.

If the government is thought to not be doing it's job properly, privacy *should not matter* when it comes to public business. We're not here to investigate whether Trump had sex with a porn star or not for example. That is a private matter and whilst it's fun gossip, it's by all accounts a private matter and nobody is expecting Trump to post dick pics to prove his dick doesn't look like Toad from Mario Bros.

Trumps actions within regards to Ukraine is by all accounts something he does as a public official, and that should be subjected to extreme scrutiny. So yes, the fact that the White House is attempting to stifle what is one of the cornerstones of a democratic government (namely the fact that elected officials can be subjected to scrutiny if they're thought to not do their job properly), is something that is highly concerning and is at least in a general sense almost an admission of guilt.

If you as a public official are going to be subjected to an investigation on your behavior as a public servant, you better damn well cooperate because that's in part the way you can *show to the people that elected you* that they made the right choice by electing you. Screaming and yelling like a toddler (which is what the administration has been doing aside from those who had some shred of moral value left and are cooperating with the investigation) isn't going to send that message.


----------



## Shenrai (Nov 17, 2019)

The amount of effort they spent on this impeachment could have been spent on actually making America better


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Shenrai said:


> The amount of effort they spent on this impeachment could have been spent on actually making America better



What about the previous 9 attempts? Or the collusion?


----------



## cots (Nov 17, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Except, we're not talking about personal affairs here. If it's with personal affairs, I agree with you. Without a legal subpoena, you're not obliged to anything. The thing is though... we're talking about political business, specifically the way an official of the public behaves on their job. They should be subjected to extreme scrutiny, because otherwise they can get away with criminal behavior unchecked.
> 
> If the government is thought to not be doing it's job properly, privacy *should not matter* when it comes to public business. We're not here to investigate whether Trump had sex with a porn star or not for example. That is a private matter and whilst it's fun gossip, it's by all accounts a private matter and nobody is expecting Trump to post dick pics to prove his dick doesn't look like Toad from Mario Bros.
> 
> ...



I do agree that public servants should be held to higher standards then the general public, but if the White House in the their legal right to protect information that will probably be used to attack them now or in the future I support them doing so. It would be a different story if when asked for the transcript of the call that Trump wiped the confidential servers and then destroyed the hardware (hmm, I wonder who actually did that), but he simply handed over the transcript. There's information that Congress just isn't privy to and Trump is doing whatever is in his legal right to not give it to them. Personally, you hand something over now to someone and years down the road the information may be used to hurt you when it's totally unrelated to what is happening now or even isn't considering "bad" at this point in time. So I don't see that giving Congress unfettered access to the White House Staff is a good thing for democracy. We have 3 entities set up to check and balance each other. I wonder how Congress would respond to having to hand over confidential information if they were being investigated based on something that is probably a lie.

I also wouldn't compare Trump with a toddler. The language he's using is meant to communicate with the illiterate Liberals that are attacking him. While some days I'm not sure if it's the best tactic to keep the babies outraged and distracted so you can run the White House, appoint Conservative justices, fix the economy, work on arresting illegal aliens, build a wall, etc ... but, it seems enough to keep them running around in circles to get stuff done. I do however find his distractions meant to manipulate his critics fucking hilarious. Liberals fall for it over and over. My cat is like 9 now and he's learned most of my tactics to get him to do things. Unlike my cat, which I have to constantly adapt to, Liberals are fooled by the same thing over and over again. So if anything Trump is simply communicating with them using their own language on their own level. However, I would make a shitty President because I'd just have the current laws enforced and arrest as many Liberals as I could for constantly breaking them. I guess Trump is a pretty good baby sitter in that fashion.

So like, these hearings. I'm open to watching them. I didn't really pay attention to the cherry picked results being sold to the public by bias tabloid media sites (like CNN) that were being presented from hearings behind closed doors nor do I put much stock into taking what other people overheard as clear and cut evidence. However, I'm willing to accept any actually damning evidence that is presented and don't need the main stream media to tell me it's damning. So far, after two couple of days of testimony the Liberals haven't presented any evidence of quid pro quo. I'm not sure what next week will bring, but so far anyone with half a brain would realize that now matter how much they hate Trump or try to make him look bad that doesn't actually mean he committed a crime. I mean, after the fact their witness on Friday had zero evidence of quid pro quo they turned their focus on something Trump tweeted, which had nothing to do with their inquiry nor would anyone be aware he even Tweeted it if Schiff didn't bring it up. Exactly, why was he on his smart phone? Oh wait, looking for a way to distract the fact his witness had zero evidence and try to turns the public focus on something unrelated. He's like a bad magician trying to distract your eye so he can pull a coin out of his cuff, but is so terrible at his trick that you notice what he's doing the entire time and then in turn are not impressed with his trick.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 18, 2019)

Focus group finds most Americans don't know or care what impeachment is about.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/focus-group-america-impeachment-process/

No one cares about this. I didn't care about this for a good while before I decided to look into it because you guys didn't shut up about it. 
Its about impeaching a guy who wanted to investigate Democrat-Ukraine corruption. No wonder people don't give a crap. No one wants to hear politicians bicker like husband and wife.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 18, 2019)

It's worth noting there are some developments since the hearings started last week. Most of the information contained in the recently released depositions corroborated information presented by earlier witnesses. While its not novel information, it still holds some significance.

I'd like to point out the most significant new information I read last week.

The July 26th call first mentioned by Bill Taylor between Gordon Sondland and President Trump which was overheard by three others at a restaurant. This is a major new development in the impeachment inquiry. 

Depending on Sondland's testimony we will likely see a roaring increase in impeachment proceedings or a dousing of the flame. (I expect him to just simply plead the fifth as his answer could be construed as a self-implication of attempted bribery- this path will not satisfy either side of course)

I was skeptical of this new development until I realized one of the individuals, David Holmes, was testifying under oath in a private deposition regarding his recollection of this call. 

Below is his opening statement. This is considered first-hand information for those who are concerned with the degree of information a witness is presenting. His statement of the call's occurrence was purportedly corroborated by three other individuals (one of the three were not at the restaurant to my understanding - perhaps a White House staffer at a switchboard, or bystander at the restaurant?).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/opening-statement-david-holmes-impeachment-inquiry

https://www.wymt.com/content/news/A...knew-of-Ukraines-Trump-anxiety-565100312.html

David Holmes, political counsel at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, has already detailed to House investigators what he overheard. (The two staffers) Suriya Jayanti and the third witness, Tara Maher, have not been interviewed by congress to my knowledge.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 18, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Focus group finds most Americans don't know or care what impeachment is about.
> https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/focus-group-america-impeachment-process/
> 
> No one cares about this. I didn't care about this for a good while before I decided to look into it because you guys didn't shut up about it.
> Its about impeaching a guy who wanted to investigate Democrat-Ukraine corruption. No wonder people don't give a crap. No one wants to hear politicians bicker like husband and wife.


Hey... I just got the opposite news : no less than 70% of Americans believe Trump was wrong (though only 51% think he should be impeached for his stupidity)
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/18/majority-support-removing-trump-071341

... There's going to be war, isn't it?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 18, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Focus group finds most Americans don't know or care what impeachment is about.


The Daily Caller is a conservative news site with a history of posting false and uncorroborated news and was started by a Fox News anchor.

It's also had writers who wrote white supremacist content on other websites.

With all due respect, I'm saying that source is completely dogshit and shouldn't be used as fact.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 18, 2019)

I got distracted from a call... I should add the significance of this call, as all I've discussed thus far is background. The claim is Gordon Sondland got on his cellphone, called President Trump to update him of his recent meeting. This occurs on page 6-7 of his opening statement that is linked above.

"
The President' s voice was very loud and recognizable , and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.

I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine and went on to state that President Zelenskyy " loves your ass ." I then heard President Trump ask , "he' s gonna do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that "he' s gonna do it," adding that President Zelenskyy will do "anything you ask him to." 
"

"
"After the call ended, Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President's views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not" give a shit about Ukraine." 

Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not "give a s--t about Ukraine." I asked why not, and Ambassador
Sondland stated that the President only cares about "big stuff." I noted that there was" big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant "big stuff" that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other topics.
"


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 18, 2019)

@SG845 you just cherrypick from an extreme right news site that spew utter horseshit you donm't go for neutral or even look at left leaning to verify you take trumps word like damn gold where i view it as the same value as shit in his personal toilet you are too blind to tell this is serious and it's republicans in the senate are traitorous fucks who only care about staying in power and nothing else hell i feel they maybe plotting to overthrow our government to remain in power


----------



## Xzi (Nov 18, 2019)

So other than the phone call between Trump and Sondland confirming that interest in investigating the Bidens superseded any interest in Ukraine or their internal corruption, there's been nothing new in these public hearings for anyone who has been paying attention.  That's fine though, as this is all about holding the president accountable for violations of his oath of office and violations of the constitution.  If a few fence-sitting voters who otherwise wouldn't have paid any attention learn something about the process or about how corrupt the Trump administration is along the way, that's just a bonus.

Perhaps a little more interesting have been the results of recent elections as a litmus test for how this is affecting Trump's popularity and credibility among voters.  Last year there were plenty of claims that the Mueller investigation would give Republicans a bump in the mid-term elections, and that was obviously proven false by the results.  This year, we've had several state-level elections occur _while_ impeachment proceedings have simultaneously been ongoing, and the results have been equally as bad for Republicans.  Of all states, Democrats won in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Virginia.  Republicans lost in spite of (or perhaps because of) Trump campaigning on behalf of the gubernatorial candidates in the Kentucky and Louisiana races.  In Virginia, Dems claimed a majority in both the state House and state Senate.  None of this bodes well for McConnell or the Republicans in 2020, and Trump's endorsement for down-ballot candidates is looking more and more like a kiss of death.


----------



## cots (Nov 18, 2019)

@chrisrlink @Ev1l0rd @Taleweaver

About posting polls. If you post a poll that agrees with your Conservative views the Liberals will find a reason why the site is bias (mainly based it has some ties to a Conservative group or person). If you post a poll that agrees with your Liberal views the Conservatives will find a reason why the site is bias (mainly based it has some ties to a Liberal group or person). 

[Removed]

 Oh back to polls, they're also usually wrong no matter the source. They're like trying to predict the next 24 hours of weather and claiming you're so good at it you can predict the next 12 years (when in reality, the 24 hour forecasts are always wrong). Basically, I do not put much stock into polls regardless if they align with my anti-Liberal views. I tend to avoid shit that is never accurate. Sort of like I rather listen to one honest Conservative telling the truth compared to 100,000 liberals spouting lies. I'll take the truth over a lie any day of the week and just because you have a minority of millions claiming something is true doesn't make it so. Ask yourself this "Is a poll ever accurate"? I think that would be enough to make you see why polls are useless.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 18, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> The Daily Caller is a conservative news site with a history of posting false and uncorroborated news and was started by a Fox News anchor.
> 
> It's also had writers who wrote white supremacist content on other websites.
> 
> With all due respect, I'm saying that source is completely dogshit and shouldn't be used as fact.


So does every other News site, remember the Covington case or the time Mueller had to come out and say the Buzzfeed article was false during the Russia investigation. Whats the difference? Basically nothing is trustworthy, you have to read with caution all the time. And Daily Caller doesn't fall into the questionable category when fact checking, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/.

What does them being white supremacist have to do with asking people a question if they care about the Ukraine case? And everyone gets called white supremacist nowadays so I don't take those claims seriously anymore till someone makes a good case for it. And how do you know the source is dog shit, they are the ones doing the survey.




chrisrlink said:


> @SG845 you just cherrypick from an extreme right news site that spew utter horseshit you donm't go for neutral or even look at left leaning to verify you take trumps word like damn gold where i view it as the same value as shit in his personal toilet you are too blind to tell this is serious and it's republicans in the senate are traitorous fucks who only care about staying in power and nothing else hell i feel they maybe plotting to overthrow our government to remain in power



What the fuck are you talking about? Its about a guy believing in a conspiracy theory and wanting Ukraine to investigate it. Everything you said about me is completely wrong. I said Trump will be the stupidest president ever if he gets impeached over a conspiracy theory he was obsessed with. So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about me following Trump's word like gold. Its a matter if people give a shit or not.


----------



## cots (Nov 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So does every other News site, remember the Covington case or the time Mueller had to come out and say the Buzzfeed article was false during the Russia investigation. Whats the difference? Basically nothing is trustworthy, you have to read with caution all the time. And Daily Caller doesn't fall into the questionable category when fact checking, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/.
> 
> What does them being white supremacist have to do with asking people a question if they care about the Ukraine case? And everyone gets called white supremacist nowadays so I don't take those claims seriously anymore till someone makes a good case for it. And how do you know the source is dog shit, they are the ones doing the survey.
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about? Its about a guy believing in a conspiracy theory and wanting Ukraine to investigate it. Everything you said about me is completely wrong. I said Trump will be the stupidest president ever if he gets impeached over a conspiracy theory he was obsessed with. So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about me following Trump's word like gold. Its a matter if people give a shit or not.



I know you weren't addressing me directly, but I'd like to comment about your last paragraph. If Trump does get impeached in the house and by some miracle the Senate does the same thing and he's removed from office then I'll support the decision. It's like these fucking idiots saying that Trump isn't their President. There's a system in place and it's currently at work. As usual the Democrats are obsessed with hatred and trying to control everyone.

[Removed]

Trump is smart, but he's not a political genius. We're sick of politicians running shit. That's why we voted for him. The Democrats chose right after he was elected to impeach him for basically anything they could come up with. That's not the way impeachment is supposed to happen. They lost the election and can't accept the results and are using the lack of education their voter base has about the way the Government works against Trump. Trump was using Ukraine to try to figure out who started the Russian Collusion Hoax. He may have been following a ghost, but at least he was trying to figure out who started the entire hoax, which wasted years of time and tax payer money. There was no fucking collusion (which, Democrats still won't openly admit). Trump is just a overall successful business man that isn't scared to play hard ball with moronic Liberals. He's not proper in any fashion. It seems American needed that. If per say in the highly unlikely outcome that he is removed from office then Pence will move in. I'm not sure if any of these Liberals actually realize how many of the positions Pence takes on things are far more extreme then Trump. However, they're so stupid they'll probably be celebrating Trump's removal and not realize that Pence would be bringing the country even more "far right". Hell, Trump has the liberals tripping over themselves by simply using Twitter while he is constantly firing dumb ass hate filled Democrats, replacing them with USA supporting Republicans and also while they're foaming at the mouth he's been appointing judges left and right. Plus, not the mention how he's been able to improve the economy.

So like, if he does get removed from office I'll support it, just like I'd support the next President regardless if they are Democrat or Republican. I just realize that no matter what the Liberal Democrats do that the Republicans will still be in office, I won't be voting for any of their candidates and if Trump goes then oh well. I don't worship the person. He's not God. He's just a man. However, so far the Liberals haven't really been able to produce anything tangible in this 10th impeachment attempt. So like I'm not really worried that it's going to get Trump removed from office nor would I really care too much if he is. The chances though, like in you look at it based on reality, is that Trump isn't going anywhere.

Sadly, when Obama won I had to basically explain to racist far righters that he was the actual President. Most radical (far left Liberals or far right neo nazi's) are out of touch with reality, but there's far more Liberals then there are actual far-right fuckers. I'd say the radical party with the most members is the more prominent danger, but I have no problem with treating both like the fucking idiots they are. And I'm talking about actual far right people - not white people that simply disagree with Liberals, but you do realize like you claimed about the Liberals misuse of labeling everyone white nationalists that these Liberals are the same people who claim anything they dislike is racist (including white milk). Yeah, well, sorry, I'm not going to even consider what these fucking idiots are saying as valid.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 19, 2019)

cots said:


> @chrisrlink @Ev1l0rd @Taleweaver
> 
> About posting polls...
> <stuff>
> Ask yourself this "Is a poll ever accurate"? I think that would be enough to make you see why polls are useless.


Okay... So you've never learned about statistics. That's your loss. If you're interested, you could do a course (it's not that hard, really). If you do, I'll gladly discuss the finer details of both these polls, and how both can actually be true. But shouting that everyone is biased and that therefore everybody cheats is simply not true.

...but I take it you agree with me saying there was going to be war (as in verbal dispute, obviously), right?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 19, 2019)

I'd accept some argument that a particular poll has a bad sampling or methodology but polls do serve a purpose as alot of our politics are conducted by measuring the political winds if you will.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Hey... I just got the opposite news : no less than 70% of Americans believe Trump was wrong (though only 51% think he should be impeached for his stupidity)
> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/18/majority-support-removing-trump-071341
> 
> ... There's going to be war, isn't it?


From your source

"A total of 42 percent of respondents say they followed last week’s testimony “not so closely” or “not closely at all.”"
"Despite the lack of enthusiasm for impeachment"

Kinda supports they don't care. They probably just found out about the impeachment when politico gave them the question and answered it on the spot.


----------



## osaka35 (Nov 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay... So you've never learned about statistics. That's your loss. If you're interested, you could do a course (it's not that hard, really). If you do, I'll gladly discuss the finer details of both these polls, and how both can actually be true. But shouting that everyone is biased and that therefore everybody cheats is simply not true.
> 
> ...but I take it you agree with me saying there was going to be war (as in verbal dispute, obviously), right?


Do you think the constant number-spoofing robo-calls is throwing off statistical models about phone-call based polls?




SG854 said:


> From your source
> 
> "A total of 42 percent of respondents say they followed last week’s testimony “not so closely” or “not closely at all.”"
> "Despite the lack of enthusiasm for impeachment"
> ...



Most folks aren't aware of the important things. My guess is they perceive this stuff as the process of figuring out what happened. They may not care about that too much, but they'll definitely be concerned with the results and what facts are discovered. Folks are busy and want the highlights.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 19, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Do you think the constant number-spoofing robo-calls is throwing off statistical models about phone-call based polls?


It's like one of those things where depending who's taking the poll and how its taken it goes back and forth. One shows support while another doesn't. That's what it looked liked when they asked if they think Trump will win 2020, it was all lot of back and forth from all the polls I've seen.


----------



## cots (Nov 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay... So you've never learned about statistics. That's your loss. If you're interested, you could do a course (it's not that hard, really). If you do, I'll gladly discuss the finer details of both these polls, and how both can actually be true. But shouting that everyone is biased and that therefore everybody cheats is simply not true.
> 
> ...but I take it you agree with me saying there was going to be war (as in verbal dispute, obviously), right?



My point was that it's pretty pointless to bring up statistics into a conversation as the focus will then turn into a verbal war about the validity of the statistics. Plus, a lot of the time, like ones that try to predict something, turn out to not predict anything.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> From your source
> 
> "A total of 42 percent of respondents say they followed last week’s testimony “not so closely” or “not closely at all.”"
> "Despite the lack of enthusiasm for impeachment"
> ...



A lot of people aren't involved in politics. A lot of people don't watch the news. Sure, they all hate Trump, but they aren't even sure why. I spent the first 30 years of my life ignoring them. If I ever picked up a news paper I'd turn directly to the comics. If the news came on I'd change the channel. If people tried to talk to me about issues I'd change the subject. So like I was surrounded by people that acted the same way I did. It's completely believable that most people don't know or don't care about the impeachment. I mean it's the 10th attempt and honestly I don't care how it turns out.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> From your source
> 
> "A total of 42 percent of respondents say they followed last week’s testimony “not so closely” or “not closely at all.”"
> "Despite the lack of enthusiasm for impeachment"
> ...


I've noticed that. And that's exactly why I told @cots why the two (seemingly contradicting) polls could both be true.

Look...you and me are on different sides of the argument (okay, perhaps I should put @Xzi in my spot, as I'm not an American citizen). And not without reason, as it's not that hard to see that Trump polarizes things. You're either in favor of impeachment or you're against it.

...except that, indeed, a (to me surprisingly) large group chooses NOT to have an outspoken opinion. That's of course an assumption, but not one without bias. This whole thing has been going on for well over a month, and you pretty much have to live under a rock not to have heard about the situation. But those 42% want to do exactly that. They don't want to be involved in whether or not he's done something wrong.

This is, however, a very different thing than "not caring". With seventy procent thinking he did it, at the very least 12% combine the "I think he did it" with "I don't follow the news closely". Sure, they might not have had much of an opinion before they were called by politico...but that doesn't invalidate it.


I can't say too much of your source, but I do notice that they're focussing on specific focus groups. More specifically, groups brought together by 'America First Policies'. I'm not too familiar with that either, but it seems to me that choosing to participate already diminishes the chances for objectivity (meaning: it only attracts those that have strong feelings toward that group). Furthermore, it doesn't so much question the participants individually as bring them in a talking panel of which a selection of soundbites are selected. Perhaps this selection is done on an objective basis, but even so this mostly reflects the view of the most informed and extravert people in the group. So...sorry, but I'm sure that this sort of checking yields different results depending on a variety of reasons (it's not even a poll).


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 19, 2019)

So if the impeachment fails (which is likely, I think), there's a good chance Americans will choose between corrupt creepy Joe and clumsy Trumpsy.
Democracy at its best.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 19, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> So if the impeachment fails (which is likely, I think), there's a good chance Americans will choose between corrupt creepy Joe and clumsy Trumpsy.
> Democracy at its best.


Well if you are registered republican you could gather others to fight to primary Trump. If you are a registered democrat you can gather others to support another democrat candidate. If you aren't registered to any party then perhaps consider changing that. Once we finish primaries your options indeed are vastly limited. That's how our political elections go. 

If you worry about politicians not representing their constituents properly then maybe overturn Citizens United, thus restricting the amount of money that wealthy corporations and lobbyist inject in our elections. I would anticipate our elected officials would be tightly beholden to constituent's interest not only to secure votes but to secure the funding to run in the first place. 

This would benefit both parties unless you are primarily concerned with policies that support corporate outsourcing, obscure and inflated medical costs, and other lobbied special interests that aren't backed by the majority of Americans.

*This is getting off-topic but this is solely in effort to point out what options are actually present to the American people vs the options people push upon us.*


----------



## Xzi (Nov 19, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> So if the impeachment fails (which is likely, I think), there's a good chance Americans will choose between corrupt creepy Joe and clumsy Trumpsy.
> Democracy at its best.


The polls are nowhere near that definitive right now.  Some say Biden leads nationally, others say it's Sanders, others say it's Warren.  There are also a number of corporate mega-donors starting to shift their support from Biden to Buttigieg.  It's going to be close right up to the final state's primary, and the first one hasn't even been held yet.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So does every other News site, remember the Covington case or the time Mueller had to come out and say the Buzzfeed article was false during the Russia investigation. Whats the difference? Basically nothing is trustworthy, you have to read with caution all the time. And Daily Caller doesn't fall into the questionable category when fact checking, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/.


Not sure what the hell you're looking at, but when I check mediabiasfactcheck for the daily caller, they put them under MIXED for factual reporting. and specifically state "A factual search reveals a very poor track record with fact checking. Here is a short list of some failed fact checks". The reason they're not placed in the questionable category is _solely_ because of the sheer quantity of articles they put out causing enough articles to not be factually wrong to put them in the questionable articles and it states its only _barely_ not questionable.



SG854 said:


> What does them being white supremacist have to do with asking people a question if they care about the Ukraine case? And everyone gets called white supremacist nowadays so I don't take those claims seriously anymore till someone makes a good case for it. And how do you know the source is dog shit, they are the ones doing the survey.


Trump actively panders to white supremacists. They clearly have a vested interest to keep them into power. Also "good case", how about them hosting articles written by Jason Kessler (Charlottesville organizer). Granted they did take those down but their editor defended Kessler anyway. Furthermore, Scott Greer was let go after it came to light that he wrote articles for Radix Journal (a biannual magazine published by self-identified neo-nazi Richard Spencer) under a pseudonym. Note however that he only was let go 2 years after it already was known that he was a white supremacist (through pictures on his Facebook page) and that the Caller only let him go after *the Atlantic* ran a piece on him writing for Radix.

This is just from the most cursory glance possible (aka "I look at Wikipedia").



cots said:


> About posting polls. If you post a poll that agrees with your Conservative views the Liberals will find a reason why the site is bias (mainly based it has some ties to a Conservative group or person). If you post a poll that agrees with your Liberal views the Conservatives will find a reason why the site is bias (mainly based it has some ties to a Liberal group or person). It's like LBGTQ people calling Christians biggots because they simply don't like gay sex (sex is not interchangeable with love) and using that to discriminate against the Christians due to their religious beliefs or calling LGBTQ biggots because they discriminate against you for being a Christian, yet you discriminate against them for being gay. Here's one for you - I'm a LGBTQ Christian and I reserve the right to discriminate against you for any reason I feel is necessary : ) Oh back to polls, they're also usually wrong no matter the source. They're like trying to predict the next 24 hours of weather and claiming you're so good at it you can predict the next 12 years (when in reality, the 24 hour forecasts are always wrong). Basically, I do not put much stock into polls regardless if they align with my anti-Liberal views. I tend to avoid shit that is never accurate. Sort of like I rather listen to one honest Conservative telling the truth compared to 100,000 liberals spouting lies. I'll take the truth over a lie any day of the week and just because you have a minority of millions claiming something is true doesn't make it so. Ask yourself this "Is a poll ever accurate"? I think that would be enough to make you see why polls are useless.


D-do I have to unpack that entire screed about LGBTQ stuff and religion?

Y'know what, screw it. I'm not going to. I'll just focus on the polls thing, just know that you're describing the paradox of tolerance. Look it up, it's something that's interesting and explains a lot as to why you shouldn't be tolerant to the intolerant.

Anyway, I don't put much value in the majority of polls, especially internet ones. Considering how easy it typically is to bombard them with fake information, there's often little value in them. I hold more value in polls made by mainstream organization or those conducted by organizations which make an effort to be nonpartisan, since those organizations have clearly put in the effort to go the extra mile to not just be a poll with a predetermined conclusion and skewering the stats one way or another.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> The polls are nowhere near that definitive right now. Some say Biden leads nationally, others say it's Sanders, others say it's Warren. There are also a number of corporate mega-donors starting to shift their support from Biden to Buttigieg. It's going to be close right up to the final state's primary, and the first one hasn't even been held yet.


My take? It's going to be Warren but it should be Sanders.

Biden is probably not gonna hold out and Buttigieg has zero appeal to voters.


----------



## cots (Nov 19, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Trump actively panders to white supremacists. They clearly have a vested interest to keep them into power. Also "good case", how about them hosting articles written by Jason Kessler (Charlottesville organizer). Granted they did take those down but their editor defended Kessler anyway. Furthermore, Scott Greer was let go after it came to light that he wrote articles for Radix Journal (a biannual magazine published by self-identified neo-nazi Richard Spencer) under a pseudonym. Note however that he only was let go 2 years after it already was known that he was a white supremacist (through pictures on his Facebook page) and that the Caller only let him go after *the Atlantic* ran a piece on him writing for Radix.



What makes someone a white supremacist? Once you learn exactly who they are and what they stand for you'll realize that the media has it all wrong. Then once you're able to identify actual members you'll realize they are such a small minority in the USA that their vote doesn't even matter. Every single one of them could not vote and it would have no real impact on the election. Sure, they have twisted views and such, but they don't represent shit when it comes to the American people. It's like saying 12 school shooters represent the views of millions of school children. It's completely bat shit insane that you would even consider that such a small group has any real influence over anything. They're just being used by the Liberal media as some sort of fake representation for the entire White race. Frankly, using them in such a manner is racist as fuck and the media is definitely generalizing about White people. Although, this is the same media that claims anything that they disagree with is racist and their users hear that word and default to accepting anything that comes after like little robots with 12 byte memory chips. I would suggest you look into how many people in the White race are actually white supremacist before you bring them up again. Maybe you'd realize they don't represent shit.


----------



## cots (Nov 19, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> @cots your whole view of the trans community seems to be entirely based on what you witness in your own country. There is a huge world outside the USA one that is very different from your own country. You go on about asking questions to gain knowledge ect. So please explain why America has a much higher rate of trans women being raped than any other country in the world (the figure stands currently at 48% of trans women being raped at some point in their life in America compared to the next nearest at 12%). Please explain why America has the highest rate of murderer's of trans people compared to any other country. Why is the suicide rate in the trans community in America 40% compared to the rest of the world which averages at 3%  which is equal to the gay community and just point five higher than the straight community.
> 
> Surely the above figures most show you there is something majorly wrong going on in your country at the moment.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I am basing my opinions of how I refer to the current trans movement because I'm referring to dealing with the current trans movement here in the country that I live in. I've tried to always make it clear that I'm not addressing "all trans" people. You see how when I replied to you I mentioned "American Liberals"? Look, I live in the inner city. I've been attacked twice in the last 8 years by drug addicts for no reason for simply walking up to the store to get a fucking coke. The LBGTQ people I deal with on a weekly basis are pretty shit. Not to mention then I see how the LGBTQ youth or the more mainstream ones treat people online who simply don't agree with them. Christians don't hate homosexuals, they think homosexuality is a sin. If you can differentiate between the two then you have no right to judge them of hatred. Everyone is a sinner. Christians don't deny they're just as a sinner as any LGBTQ member. Frankly, Christians are the subject to more actual hatred by LGBTQ people and society in general. You're right though. It's not all LGBTQ. I know because I'm very tolerant of people and their religious beliefs. I also don't get all triggered when someone actually is homophobic around me and I definitely don't lose my shit simply based on someone simply not agreeing with my lifestyle.

So like while I realize that there are perfectly upstanding people that you must understand I don't see many of them. It's natural for someone to deal with life based on what they experience and know. Maybe if I wouldn't have signed up to this forum and replied to a topic dealing with how I felt about trans people and then wouldn't have been subjected to being called transphobic or having my posts deleted because I simply disagree with cutting body parts off or the life style that the trans people I deal with usually lead then possibly I'd be less defensive about the issue on this site. I can understand being attacked by Liberals because I honesty fucking hate them, but to be discriminated against by fellow LGBTQ members is really shitty. I spent my entire childhood actually impacted by real homophobia. I was beat up in school while the teachers looked the other way for years. When I finally did stick up for myself I was expelled. My Dad told me when I was 12 and I came out "I don't want you anymore" and then he got rid of me. Back when I was growing up it was something you never talked about and if you did you would experience real phobic behavior. So then I spent years involved in educating the public about how their being wrong and after all of that work and how better I've made things for the next generation I am then subjected to the same type of behavior from the LGBTQ community that I was subjected to by the people back in the 80's. Everyone thinks they're so advanced and loving and tolerant, but at the end of the day they are full of shit.

So like, yeah I realize that there are good and bad people out there. I treat people like they treat me. If you're going to attack me I'm probably going to defend myself. Seeings as how I've been treated by my own fucking community I can understand the high assault rates, murder rates and suicide rates. It makes sense that if you're LGBTQ and go around trying to force your shit on other people that they're going to fight back. So you get all pissy that society isn't accepting you and get suicidal. Well, society would be more accepting if you weren't trying to force shit they don't agree with on them. I'm not saying that how society responds if the right thing to do, but like if you go around provoking people and then get hurt then maybe you should stop going around provoking people. Per say, if you're randomly attacked for being LGBTQ then that's an actual act of phobic behavior and also a hate crime. Those are the type of situations I would fully support the person being attacked. The youth today are lucky that if they are attacked for being LGBTQ that their attacker would get punished. That didn't happen when I was their age.

I do keep an open mind about things, but you're not here. You wouldn't expect a person who has washed dishes their entire life that has never owned a computer to know how to deal with programming native ASM code for the 3DS CPU. You get that right? You're not dealing with what I deal with and I'm not telling you how to deal with things in your own country. So in your country and you personally and your society in general is more tolerant of others. Maybe you should come over here and speak to the youth and teach them a thing or two about actual tolerance and acceptance. Although, I would expect if you tried that you'd run into the brick wall of hatred that I do or maybe you'd have better luck. All I know is that the LGBTQ people I often run into are fucking just as racist, bias, bigoted and full of hate as anyone else is.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 19, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah, I am basing my opinions of how I refer to the current trans movement because I'm referring to dealing with the current trans movement here in the country that I live in. I've tried to always make it clear that I'm not addressing "all trans" people. You see how when I replied to you I mentioned "American Liberals"? Look, I live in the inner city. I've been attacked twice in the last 8 years by drug addicts for no reason for simply walking up to the store to get a fucking coke. The LBGTQ people I deal with on a weekly basis are pretty shit. Not to mention then I see how the LGBTQ youth or the more mainstream ones treat people online who simply don't agree with them. Christians don't hate homosexuals, they think homosexuality is a sin. If you can differentiate between the two then you have no right to judge them of hatred. Everyone is a sinner. Christians don't deny they're just as a sinner as any LGBTQ member. Frankly, Christians are the subject to more actual hatred by LGBTQ people and society in general. You're right though. It's not all LGBTQ. I know because I'm very tolerant of people and their religious beliefs. I also don't get all triggered when someone actually is homophobic around me and I definitely don't lose my shit simply based on someone simply not agreeing with my lifestyle.
> 
> So like while I realize that there are perfectly upstanding people that you must understand I don't see many of them. It's natural for someone to deal with life based on what they experience and know. Maybe if I wouldn't have signed up to this forum and replied to a topic dealing with how I felt about trans people and then wouldn't have been subjected to being called transphobic or having my posts deleted because I simply disagree with cutting body parts off or the life style that the trans people I deal with usually lead then possibly I'd be less defensive about the issue on this site. I can understand being attacked by Liberals because I honesty fucking hate them, but to be discriminated against by fellow LGBTQ members is really shitty. I spent my entire childhood actually impacted by real homophobia. I was beat up in school while the teachers looked the other way for years. When I finally did stick up for myself I was expelled. My Dad told me when I was 12 and I came out "I don't want you anymore" and then he got rid of me. Back when I was growing up it was something you never talked about and if you did you would experience real phobic behavior. So then I spent years involved in educating the public about how their being wrong and after all of that work and how better I've made things for the next generation I am then subjected to the same type of behavior from the LGBTQ community that I was subjected to by the people back in the 80's. Everyone thinks they're so advanced and loving and tolerant, but at the end of the day they are full of shit.
> 
> ...


You have just pointed out something else that is totally different to here. We are accepted by the Catholic and protestant churches here and being gay/trans is not considered a sin by any means. I do feel sorry for you as America sure seems like one fucked up place to live.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 19, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> Imagine thinking this is anything more then political theater.


Yes because the gop is corrupt.
Why you wear it with a badge of honour I don't know...


----------



## notimp (Nov 19, 2019)

cots said:


> What makes someone a white supremacist? Once you learn exactly who they are and what they stand for you'll realize that the media has it all wrong. Then once you're able to identify actual members you'll realize they are such a small minority in the USA that their vote doesn't even matter.


Eh.. I tend to sympathize, but if they get into speaking in them townsquares again, they really have figured that part out..  (Germany just had a recent 'rebirth' of the movement which now seems to have somewhat petered out at 15%). Also I dont think 'tha media' blames white supremacists for todays problems, do they? Its more that you have to kind of keep saying that racism is bad, because there is always this underlying potential of that bubbling up again.

see: https://gbatemp.net/threads/fascism-a-primer.531696/

Also - it kind of is important, that you have lost the argument at - "What actually makes someone a white suppremacist - lets look into it..." It has to stay a taboo.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 19, 2019)

For those not aware, Kurt Volker testified today.  He was meant to be the big star witness chosen by Republicans to dispute the idea that Ukrainian aid was tied to investigations into the Bidens.  Well, surprise surprise, he changed his earlier testimony to reflect what all the other witnesses have been saying: there was definitely quid pro quo/bribery involved. 

I think that by now, the vast majority of the president's remaining defenders have given up on trying to claim that he didn't do it, and have instead switched to the argument that his actions "WeRen'T tHaT bAd."  This of course ignores the reality that parts of Ukraine are involved in a hot war with Russia, and ANY delay in releasing military aid means potentially hundreds dead.  Not to mention the fact that the Trump administration only released the aid at all _because_ they were caught in the act of withholding it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 20, 2019)

weeks you mean @cots wI'm not stupid that your basicly breaking the ban evasion rule or should i say billapong


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> weeks you mean @cots wI'm not stupid that your basicly breaking the ban evasion rule or should i say billapong



As far as I'm aware I'm not breaking any rules by posting what happened (like, why I left and all). I've been warned and suspended in the past (I posted a picture of what the results of an abortion look like), but I've never banned from this site. Though my ex created an account here to give the Staff shit after I left and without my consent (I think they confused him for me as this site does leech fingerprint data from the browser and OS and he was using my computer). I think it's been around 6 months since I last logged in, but it could have been less (it's definitely not weeks). Nor am I sure what a billapong is. Is that some sort of Liberal insult?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



AmandaRose said:


> You have just pointed out something else that is totally different to here. We are accepted by the Catholic and protestant churches here and being gay/trans is not considered a sin by any means. I do feel sorry for you as America sure seems like one fucked up place to live.



I'm sure there are places in the USA that are nice, but those are reserved for people that have money. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the inner city ghetto surrounded by warring gangs that peddle dope to the community that's mainly coming in illegally over the border. Non-citizens who break the law are treated better than I am. Oh well, what can you do? I decided to be a law abiding honest citizen and play by the rules and I don't do drugs. At least I'm not living under a bridge (but, that's a possibly as my "help" could end at any given time). Life is fucking wonderous like that.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 20, 2019)

Billapong is a site member who appeared right after you left and said a whole lot of stuff EXACTLY word for word the way you pharse things expecially about liberals and transgenders . Billapong then left the site and you popped back up right after. Which i am sure is all just a total coincidence.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Eh.. I tend to sympathize, but if they get into speaking in them townsquares again, they really have figured that part out..  (Germany just had a recent 'rebirth' of the movement which now seems to have somewhat petered out at 15%). Also I dont think 'tha media' blames white supremacists for todays problems, do they? Its more that you have to kind of keep saying that racism is bad, because there is always this underlying potential of that bubbling up again.
> 
> see: https://gbatemp.net/threads/fascism-a-primer.531696/
> 
> Also - it kind of is important, that you have lost the argument at - "What actually makes someone a white suppremacist - lets look into it..." It has to stay a taboo.



Yeah, heaven help us if the media had to actually lay out a valid definition and use it correctly for a group of people they're addressing. What sort of world would we be living if honesty would come first?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



AmandaRose said:


> Billapong is a site member who appeared right after you left and said a whole lot of stuff EXACTLY word for word the way you pharse things expecially about liberals and transgenders . Billapong then left the site and you popped back up right after. Which i am sure is all just a total coincidence.



Okay, so I just looked this user up. I don't have the time or desire to read hundreds of posts and their profile is private so I can't get a list of their posts, but from the thread I did find it seems he (or she?) shares a Conservative viewpoint (as he/she is defending Trump). If this person hates Liberals then that's not a bad thing. Conservatives usually share common values, but I'm not a Conservative anymore. I don't think this person speaks like I do, but maybe he/she was born and raised in the south? We tend to all talk alike. If you'll notice by reading ABC compared to Fox most people from either side of the issue just say the same shit over and over again. I dunno, hey @billapong , what's up? You're supposedly my second personality or something. ROFL.

Edit: Okay I couldn't help myself and read a thread he posted. He states he drives a car, which I haven't had a car for 20 years. He states he works. I'm disabled and can't work. He states he was alive in the 70's and I wasn't. Though, the subject matter was spot on and the "welcome to my ignore list" was classic (I don't ignore anyone I simply don't agree with. I think I've put like 1 or 2 people on ignore out since I joined back in 2014). I do agree with him that the kids should not go starving and that the schools should provide lunches and then charge the parents refusing to feed their own kids for them. That way the kids don't starve and the terrible parents get dealt with. It makes sense, but whatever, there's clearly major differences between what this person says and what I say.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's hearing.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."

U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., hit the same notes in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"

"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.

"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"

"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, this sums up today's testimony. Trump is being accused of quid pro quo / bribery and today's witnesses, just like last weeks, have no evidence any happened. I would agree in impeaching Trump if any of the witnesses actually could testify that they witnessed any actual crimes taking place and those crimes were impeachable offenses. *yawn* ... Another waste of a day of testimony. I wonder if any of the witnesses will have any actual evidence of the crimes the Democrats are accusing Trump of? If not maybe they'll have a witness tomorrow that can testify on the amount of time it takes to cook a 1/2 lb hamburger in an air fryer. I plan on buying some ground beef to cook after I watch the hearing.



> Democrats: We're going to throw Biden's election campaign under the bus to make a weak attempt to impeach Trump, knowing full well we have no evidence or witnesses. But, no fret, we have Warren to fall back on.
> Elizabeth Warren: Here's my Medicare for All program.
> Democrats: Help, Biden! We need you! Please, help! Help us!





> The dems have a solid three-point plan for America's future. Republicans will be weeping come voting day when the dems win in a landslide. After all, who wouldn't vote for this amazing platform.
> Here it is:
> Step 1: Get Trump
> Step 2: ???
> Step 3: What now?





> No crimes.
> No quid-pro-quo.
> No bribery.
> No extortion.
> ...


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

I haven't watched all of Morrison's testimony but it seems he had an axe to grind w/ Vindman. He explicitly claimed his predecessor, Dr. Hill, told him Vindman had "poor judgement" yet all of Dr. Hill's written evals were glowing in praise and even claimed he had "excellent judgement". I also took note on how many times specific contradictions in his testimony vs others such as Taylor were stated he would claim he simply couldn't remember but had a vivid memory in matters with Vindman, for example where he tried to argue against Vindman's decision of going to a lawyer instead of him as his superior, yet he himself went straight to the same lawyer. 

Morrison obviously felt there was some impropriety to request to the lawyer, John Eisenburg, that the call be restricted to a small number of people to prevent leaking in fear that it would stoke political fires. Yet Morrison disagreed that anything in the call was inappropriate. However, when people replaced biden's name w/ republican names (Kasich) he said that would be out of bounds and inappropriate. Nevertheless, it was interesting to see him pretzel around the July 25th call. 

I suspect Morrison, who resigned just prior to presenting his deposition, is expecting to leverage his government experience for a more profitable position, unlike Volker who refused to even take a paycheck. Volker seemed to have either one of the most naive minds in government or more likely he was apathetic to the unfolding situation but careful enough to use coded language to keep himself from self-incrimination. 

Finally, it is apparent that when Vindman passed information to a 'member of the intelligence community' this is potentially the individual who became the whistleblower. This individual had the appropriate clearance to know what was on the July 25th call. By the way, State is George Kent. 

"THEY DID NOT CIRCLE BACK AROUND AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS THAT IN THE COORDINATION ROLE I SPOKE TO STATE, AND A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL FROM ONE OF THE INTELLIGENCE BODIES NOTIFIED MR. EISENBERG THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION ON THE CALL, THE JULY 25th CALL,AND AT THAT POINT, MR. EISENBERG TOLD ME I SHOULD NOT TALK TO ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT IT."


----------



## WeedZ -- Notice (Nov 20, 2019)

This thread has nothing to do with the kkk, slave owners, Christians, gender, sexuality, or school shootings. If you guys cant stay focused on the topic at hand, and stop derailing with obvious flamebait, I'm just going to start reply banning.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 20, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I've noticed that. And that's exactly why I told @cots why the two (seemingly contradicting) polls could both be true.
> 
> Look...you and me are on different sides of the argument (okay, perhaps I should put @Xzi in my spot, as I'm not an American citizen). And not without reason, as it's not that hard to see that Trump polarizes things. You're either in favor of impeachment or you're against it.
> 
> ...


It could also be politics stresses them out. So maybe they care but avoid it because of the craziness so it's why they are not in the know. Usually the advice given to foreigners traveling to America is do not talk politics with Americans because they are very vocal and things get heated.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> For those not aware, Kurt Volker testified today.  He was meant to be the big star witness chosen by Republicans to dispute the idea that Ukrainian aid was tied to investigations into the Bidens.  *Well, surprise surprise, he changed his earlier testimony to reflect what all the other witnesses have been saying: there was definitely quid pro quo/bribery involved.*
> 
> ....



Really? (watch from 4:00)



And for that matter, watch from 0:58


Ambassador Taylor is asked about how he reached his "clear understanding"


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Really? (watch from 4:00)



I'd disagree that he's a star witness for republicans: 

He consented that the July 25th call's request to investigate the Bidens was inappropriate and disturbing. 
That Biden acted in good faith with no conflict of interest.
That Guiliani was an obstacle in executing foreign policy.
He also wasn't present on majority of instances that alleged quid-pro-quo was presented in the testimony of other officials.

Notice she only asked Volker of his opinion of the readout. That's not the same as the memorandum. The feedback of the call by Ukraine is again not the same as the memorandum. She specifically framed it to not have his opinion. This opinion was presented by Volker in other parts of the testimony. Its worth noting that she could have purposed that line of questioning to only obtain info that he had first-hand during the development of these events.

I guess I can concede that these are probably the two most supportive witnesses to Trump's defense that I am aware of, with reservation of Sondland as his testimony tomorrow is a tossup.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Really? (watch from 4:00)



Yes, really.  He didn't use the terms quid pro quo or bribery specifically, but that's exactly what he describes in his amended testimony.  He changed it to protect himself from being charged with perjury.



Hanafuda said:


> And for that matter, watch from 0:58



Pathetic soapboxing.  He already knew the answers to those questions, since Yovanovitch was ousted from her position beforehand to make room for Giuliani's ratfuckery.  Vindman is the guy with firsthand knowledge of the call, since he was personally on the line while it happened.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'd disagree that he's a star witness for republicans:
> 
> He consented that the July 25th call's request to investigate the Bidens was inappropriate and disturbing.
> That Biden acted in good faith with no conflict of interest.
> ...



I realize that the Democrats are trying to spin a tale, but I find the Republicans direct line of questioning more valuable then dancing around a subject. What do you think of the Republicans method of directly asking all of the witnesses thus far if they have any actual evidence of quid pro quo, collusion or crimes? They've all answered that they have no evidence. The Democrats are basing their house impeachment by claiming Trump is guilty of these things that their witnesses are saying they've never witnessed. If their witnesses openly admit to having no evidence because they've not witnessed anything that proves Trump did anything that they are claiming is impeachable then what use are they? I mean, what's the use of a witness to a crime if they didn't witness any crimes?

That's like I'm being accused of slandering someone using a racial slur, the prosecutor calls a witness that is supposed to testify they heard me using the racial slur, but then when my defense asks the witness if they heard me using the racial slur the witness says "no". Can you see how I am confused on how that would prove that I used a racial slur?


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Ambassador Taylor is asked about how he reached his "clear understanding"




The first two videos are exactly what I've posted about - the fact these witnesses have zero evidence of any quid pro quo or crimes. A witness that didn't witness anything is a pretty useless witness.

Taylor seems honest up until he's asked to clarify the multiparty conversation, but I think anyone would be confused on trying to juggle what multiple people were discussing in any situation like that. I believe everything he said up until being "clear" as he couldn't provide a reason what made it become "clear' to him. I'm a good judge of honesty especially if I see the face of the person talking and he seems honest enough and he's not lacking when it comes to the confidence department. He's the kind of guy that I would want working for me. The Congressman asking the questions seems a bit annoyed he's having to ask them and is confident in his line of questioning. He seems honest, but not too familiar with the facts (he has to keep reading them, but maybe this is because the facts are such complete nonsense he rather not memorize them?) He's also kinda pushy. Not sure if I'd want him as a team mate. Schiff is looking shifty like usual. He has the eyes of a pathetic coward and a scared look on his face 24/7. His lack of confidence is surely showing with his careful shaky body motions. I'd feel sorry for him and might think the stress and publicity is too much if he was honest, but since he's a liar it just makes sense that he's acting like he is. I can't blame him for being scared though. He's running a shit show and doesn't want it to blow up in his face. Cowards are all the same. I definitely wouldn't want to associate with someone like him. He's weak and frail and not because of age and illness - it's a reflection of his personality. He'd wouldn't last 10 minutes on the street.

Thanks for posting the videos. It's good for people to be able to see and Judge for themselves as opposed to simply reading interpretations on websites. This is why I ignored all of the cherry picked information being purposely leaked from the closed door sessions because then you don't only have liars like CNN twisting facts, but the original facts themselves are twisted and there's no proof to back any of it up. At least least I get the chance to see and judge for myself. I have an open mind. If the Democrats produce a witness that has actually witnesses a crime then I might support impeachment (if they look honest and all). So far that has yet to happen (and that's not my interpretation as the witnesses have been directly asked if they've witnessed any crimes and have answered that they have not).


----------



## notimp (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah, heaven help us if the media had to actually lay out a valid definition and use it correctly for a group of people they're addressing.


Tha media isnt a homogeneous body. And as with all things taboo, once you start to dissect them they stop working. Thats the whole thing behind the Pepe the frog meme, remember? Induce people to use taboo topics as if they were ironically deconstructing them - thereby disabling the taboo.

Once you come into 'but well there is an edge case' and 'what he actually meant' territory theres always room to push for a little more.

If you need specific definitions on white supremacy, law and a few scientifc fields should be able to provide them. But for the purpose of societal taboos - you don't need specific. You basically need everyone to have an unfaltering 'feel'. You want, that people can get into the vicinity of maybe even getting wrongly accused, so they dont get near even arguing in this matters. Thats how taboos work.

Thats also why we dont have many of them.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Tha media isnt a homogeneous body. And as with all things taboo, once you start to dissect them they stop working. Thats the whole thing behind the Pepe the frog meme, remember? Induce people to use taboo topics as if they were ironically deconstructing them - thereby disabling the taboo.
> 
> Once you come into 'but well there is an edge case' and 'what he actually meant' territory theres always room to push for a little more.
> 
> ...



I just wish people would stop overusing terms like racism, gas lighting and white supremacy. Heck, even the word socialism is applied broadly to things that aren't even considered under it's definition. Overusing/abusing words only allows you to manipulate the uneducated for so long and the result is that these words become background noise and thus allow for real racism, gas lighting and white supremacy to go unchecked. For someone who's supposedly against such things by manipulating the terms you're only causing the issues to backfire on you and thus allowing more of them to happen. After hearing you cry wolf for so long no one is going to take you seriously. Imagine the wisdom that is contained in that child's story is even valid to this day.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> What do you think of the Republicans method of directly asking all of the witnesses thus far if they have any actual evidence of quid pro quo, collusion or crimes? They've all answered that they have no evidence.


I'll admit I didn't get to hear Volkers hearing completely, but what stood out to me is that they only asked those questions to the secondary witnesses that were used to establish and get a grip on the background for the scandal.

They didn't ask those questions to Vindman from what I recall anyway, instead generally opting to cast doubt on his loyalty or just complain about the process again.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I'll admit I didn't get to hear Volkers hearing completely, but what stood out to me is that they only asked those questions to the secondary witnesses that were used to establish and get a grip on the background for the scandal.
> 
> They didn't ask those questions to Vindman from what I recall anyway, instead generally opting to cast doubt on his loyalty or just complain about the process again.



I understand the need to present what you're calling the background, but at some point in time you're going to have to present some actual proof otherwise you've set up the stage for nothing as you have no actual content to put on it. Seeings as these hearings are almost over I'd hope for the Democrats sake that if they want to make their case they have someone that has actually witnessed what they are claiming Trump is guilty of. A foundation for a house is useless unless you have an actual house to put on it. Though, what has been presented so far wouldn't really hold up anything you'd try to build on it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I'll admit I didn't get to hear Volkers hearing completely, but what stood out to me is that they only asked those questions to the secondary witnesses that were used to establish and get a grip on the background for the scandal.
> 
> They didn't ask those questions to Vindman from what I recall anyway, instead generally opting to cast doubt on his loyalty or just complain about the process again.


Precisely.  They only ask those questions when they already know the answers.  It's similar to how they criticized the witnesses early on for not being close with or having talked with the president directly, knowing full well that the White House had ordered everyone close to him to ignore subpoenas.  Unfortunately these types of underhanded tactics do work on low-information voters who have the attention span of gnats, but that's a group which was already largely cemented as part of the Republican base anyway.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> I understand the need to present what you're calling the background, but at some point in time you're going to have to present some actual proof otherwise you've set up the stage for nothing as you have no actual content to put on it. Seeings as these hearings are almost over I'd hope for the Democrats sake that if they want to make their case they have someone that has actually witnessed what they are claiming Trump is guilty of.


Uh... Did you watch yesterday's hearings?

I'm reading back summaries, but even without those, Vindman was a direct listener in on the call and to quote him directly: "That maybe, in certain regards, my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out was playing out, and how this was likely to have significant implications for U.S. national security." While Jeniffer Williams, an advisor to Pence who also listened in to the call (so someone who would be on the Republicans side here) described the call as "unusual and inappropriate", which is the closest you're ever going to get to a Republican who is active within the administration on such a close level to Trump to say "he's guilty".

The background has been set with Yovanovitch, Talor and Kent. Vindman and from what I am reading back Volker (who updated his testimony _again_ to explain that at the time he did not connect Burisma with Biden and only realised it after his second hearing) as well are direct witnesses to the entire incident and have claimed in all but an outright "he should be impeached" that Trump committed impeachable offenses and Vindman specifically noted that if Trump were a military officer, he'd be court martialed for a similar act.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Precisely.  They only ask those questions when they already know the answers.  It's similar to how they criticized the witnesses early on for not being close with or having talked with the president directly, knowing full well that the White House had ordered everyone close to him to ignore subpoenas.  Unfortunately these types of underhanded tactics do work on low-information voters who have the attention span of a gnat, but that's a group which was already cemented as part of the Republican base anyway.



So the Republicans know that the Democratic witnesses don't have any evidence and are asking them to testify as such. So you're right - the Republicans are only asking those questions when they already know the answers. Republicans know they don't have any evidence so having them admit by testifying seems to be a perfect way to show the public that they have no evidence. If there's no evidence then there's no case and no impeachment. Seems to be a very good way to go about doing things. I'm glad you're catching on.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ev1l0rd said:


> Uh... Did you watch yesterday's hearings?
> 
> I'm reading back summaries, but even without those, Vindman was a direct listener in on the call and to quote him directly: "That maybe, in certain regards, my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out was playing out, and how this was likely to have significant implications for U.S. national security." While Jeniffer Williams, an advisor to Pence who also listened in to the call (so someone who would be on the Republicans side here) described the call as "unusual and inappropriate", which is the closest you're ever going to get to a Republican who is active within the administration on such a close level to Trump to say "he's guilty".
> 
> The background has been set with Yovanovitch, Talor and Kent. Vindman and from what I am reading back Volker (who updated his testimony _again_ to explain that at the time he did not connect Burisma with Biden and only realised it after his second hearing) as well are direct witnesses to the entire incident and have claimed in all but an outright "he should be impeached" that Trump committed impeachable offenses and Vindman specifically noted that if Trump were a military officer, he'd be court martialed for a similar act.



Yes I did watch. Claiming something is "unusual and inappropriate" and then testifying you have no evidence of bribes or criminal activity is pretty self explanatory. So he thinks that the situation is "unusual and inappropriate". Okay, fine. He's entitled to think whatever he wants about it. Does he have any actual evidence of the crimes Trump is being accused of? No. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I could be called to court to testify that I witnessed a shooting. The prosecutor asks me what I think about the shooter. I say he's ugly and I'd never date him and he makes me feel scared. Then he asks me what happened during the shooting and I tell him I didn't see it. Well, I'm there to testify if I saw any actual crime not to testify what I think about something.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> So the Republicans know that the Democratic witnesses don't have any evidence and are asking them to testify as such.


They know the *second-hand* witnesses don't have any evidence beyond what they've heard from others.  As Ev1l0rd pointed out, they didn't ask such direct questions of Vindman, a *first-hand *witness, because they feared the answers would not be favorable to Trump.  Really though none of the testimony, when taken as a whole and not in cherry-picked five-minute segments, has been favorable to him.  Support for impeachment and removal from office has continued to rise steadily throughout the hearings.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Yes I did watch. Claiming something is "unusual and inappropriate" and then testifying you have no evidence of bribes or criminal activity is pretty self explanatory. So he thinks that the situation is "unusual and inappropriate". Okay, fine. He's entitled to think whatever he wants about it. Does he have any actual evidence of the crimes Trump is being accused of? No. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


That was Williams who has a vested interest in keeping her position in the White House and can't speak up too much, lest she gets sacked.

Vindman was much more vindicative (pun not intended) about Trumps actions on the call and the subsequent resulting actions. The evidence for Trumps actions is the phone call itself as well as the aid being cut.

To my knowledge no Republican this time went for the "do you have evidence for us" questioning line towards Vindman.

--

Completely unrelated -> what the fuck is wrong with Jim Jordan? It's almost like hearing a self-parody of a Trump supporter. I'll freely admit I look forward to his rambles in the hearings just because of how completely off-base it all is (call it a guilty pleasure) and how he barely questions the witnesses, but seriously, what the hell.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> To my knowledge no Republican this time went for the "do you have evidence for us" questioning line towards Vindman.



https://www.scribd.com/document/434064258/Vindman-pdf

He admits he wasn't sure if a crime had happened, but he thinks what happened wasn't right. So yeah, I think you're right. I couldn't find any direct question. I had it mixed up with the other two guys that got asked those questions. So I retract that point from my previous replies. He still however didn't claim straight out that Trump is guilty of anything, but I suppose what he had to say could be used to make the case that what Trump did was wrong. The Democrats still need to produce something more then "this is what I felt about it". It's too bad the Republicans didn't directly ask him for any evidence of Trump doing anything illegal. "How I feel about something" doesn't prove anything actually happened. 

I also still disagree that the phone call transcript proved anything. There's no direct evidence of Trump leveraging aid. There's no direct statement from Trump saying that. You can pick and chose words and stuff and put them together, but if you read it from start to finish there's no quid pro quo. Plus, you've got two Presidents, you know, the actual people involved saying there was no quid pro quo. You'd think if there was the person being pressured would say something and admit there was. Whatever some bystanders thought of the exchange doesn't reflect what actually took place. The people making the all and dealing with each other, who happen to be Presidents get to decide that. That's like me watching two people have sex and then claiming it wasn't consensual when both of them say it was.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

The thing is: it's not any one witness' job to define what does or doesn't constitute a crime committed by the president.  It's meant to be the Department of Justice's job, but since they as an institution full of sycophants decided to refuse to do their duties, it falls to Congress and the impeachment process to decide whether his actions were criminal.  That's what this whole thing is about, holding Trump accountable for those actions, regardless of whether they're ultimately deemed criminal or just plain unethical.

Probably needless to say, but I'm confident that any other president in history would've been removed from office for a lot less.  It really is insane to think about how much the bar has been lowered as a result of the nation's first (and hopefully only) reality TV presidency.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The thing is: it's not any one witness' job to define what does or doesn't constitute a crime committed by the president.  It's meant to be the Department of Justice's job, but since they as an institution full of sycophants decided to refuse to do their duties, it falls to Congress and the impeachment process to decide whether his actions were criminal.  That's what this whole thing is about, holding Trump accountable for those actions, regardless of whether they're ultimately deemed criminal or just plain unethical.
> 
> Probably needless to say, but I'm confident that any other president in history would've been removed from office for a lot less.  It really is insane to think about how much the bar has been lowered as a result of the nation's first (and hopefully only) reality TV presidency.



The first part would actually make sense and be believable if this wasn't the 10th attempt in a premeditated attack to oust Trump from office that was planned from the start because the Liberal Democrats refused to accept the election results. So yeah, I'm skeptical as fuck. If the Liberals wouldn't have stated that they were going to impeach Trump before he was even if office and then this was brought up after the fact I'd be more supportive. However, this has been their plan all along and it's the fucking 10th attempt. I'm not sure why the public is allowing them to abuse the impeachment process like this. I mean, there is a slim chance that this time it'll stick and this time they actually have a case, but the entire thing stinks. I'm just glad that no matter what happens that I have a higher chance of winning the lotto then the Senate impeaching Trump. Per say if I do win millions and he is removed Pence is pretty hard core on Conservative issues, way more then Trump is. So no matter what happens I win.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> The first part would actually make sense and be believable if this wasn't the 10th attempt in a premeditated attack to oust Trump from office that was planned from the start because the Liberal Democrats refused to accept the election results. So yeah, I'm skeptical as fuck. If the Liberals wouldn't have stated that they were going to impeach Trump before he was even if office and then this was brought up after the fact I'd be more supportive. However, this has been their plan all along and it's the fucking 10th attempt. I'm not sure why the public is allowing them to abuse the impeachment process like this.


There's been one, and only one impeachment inquiry.  Most Democratic voters believed it should've happened much sooner, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't.  It's happening now.  And sure, you can claim that Dems knew Trump would fuck up bad enough to qualify for impeachment, but nobody knew exactly when or how he would fuck up.  The fact that he proved them right in the end just goes to show how staggeringly incompetent the man is, not to mention the people he has chosen to surround himself with.



cots said:


> I'm just glad that no matter what happens that I have a higher chance of winning the lotto then the Senate impeaching Trump. Per say if I do win millions and he is removed Pence is pretty hard core on Conservative issues, way more then Trump is. So no matter what happens I win.


Indeed there's a very slim chance he's removed from office.  As some opinion pieces have pointed out, Nixon probably wouldn't have left office either if he had Fox News to defend and fellate him 24/7.  At the very least, however, several purple state Republican senators are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes time to vote.

On the off chance Trump is removed, Pence would be a lame duck for what little time he has left, and would be guaranteed to lose re-election without Trump's WWE-style personality to carry him.  I'd hardly call that a "win" for Republicans.  Rather it would be a massive national embarrassment which would stick in the minds of voters for decades.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It could also be politics stresses them out. So maybe they care but avoid it because of the craziness so it's why they are not in the know. Usually the advice given to foreigners traveling to America is do not talk politics with Americans because they are very vocal and things get heated.


Doesn't just sound like good advice but also a matter of etiquette/manners to me. I'm sure it'll get heated in the opposite way as well.

Tourist: hey...can I ask ya something?
Me: *uh oh* sure?
Tourist: so what's the deal with Wallonia? Is that, like...a region or something?
Me: erm...it's a "gewest". It's...yeah, it's a region. More or less.
Tourist: but they have their own government?
Me: erm...yes. So do we in Flanders.
Tourist: oh...so you're...different countries?
Tourist's wive: *makes  face as she knows her husband*
Me: yyyyy...nnn...somewhat. Depends. In some areas. *looks for something that can serve as an exit*
Tourist: is there a global Belgian government?
Me: ...there will be. hopefully. We're currently going for another shot at world record 'government forming'.
Tourist: what? You don't have a government?
Me: *slow* no. We have many. Just not a federal one. yet
Tourist: but...why?
Me: ...
Me: LOOK OVER THERE! IT'S A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!
Me: *runs for the hills*


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's been one, and only one impeachment inquiry.  Most Democratic voters believed it should've happened much sooner, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't.  It's happening now.  And sure, you can claim that Dems knew Trump would fuck up bad enough to qualify for impeachment, but nobody knew exactly when or how he would fuck up.  The fact that he proved them right in the end just goes to show how staggeringly incompetent the man is, not to mention the people he has chosen to surround himself with.
> 
> Indeed there's a very slim chance he's removed from office.  As some opinion pieces have pointed out, Nixon probably wouldn't have left office either if he had Fox News to defend and fellate him 24/7.  At the very least, however, several purple state Republican senators are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes time to vote.
> 
> On the off chance Trump is removed, Pence would be a lame duck for what little time he has left, and would be guaranteed to lose re-election without Trump's WWE-style personality to carry him.  I'd hardly call that a "win" for Republicans.  Rather it would be a massive national embarrassment which would stick in the minds of voters for decades.



This is the 10th impeachment attempt and the first impeachment inquiry. The previous 9 failed and didn't make it this far because they were just about as valid as the collusion hoax. No President should be subjected to premeditated impeachment efforts for simply winning an election. Pence is a lot more religious and has more solid faith based values and generally holds more Conservative views then Trump. Just like Reagan Trump used to be Democrat. Most honest people as they get older and start to think for themselves realize they've been lied to their entire life. Especially the ones that start making money to only find out the Liberals want to take it all away from them and then give it away to people that have no intention to contributing to society. Pence though, is a hard core Conservative.

I believe, like Obama, that the Liberal Democrats have gone too far left for their own good and that a more level headed Republican would have much more of a chance at winning in 2020 if Trump wasn't on the ballot. I mean, it's likely that Trump isn't going to get removed from office and will win again, that's unless the Democrats take Obama's advice and ditch the Liberal's that want to push extreme socialistic policies on a generally moderate leaning majority (who want nothing to do with socialism). I've read the communist manifesto. It's actually quiet entertaining because the Liberals are using it as playbook. Every one of the steps they are taking is clearly highlighted in it. Knowing their next move is beneficial as it gives us an advantage. Us being the actual Democrats, Republicans and Independents that love the USA and want to uphold the Constitution. We see through the Liberals trying to illegally import their ranks with people that could care less about our way of life.

So yeah, if for some highly unlikely reason Trump is removed from office Pence will make a good replacement. He'll honestly probably do a better job then Trump, but remember that his job will align with what the voters want and they don't want socialism. Another positive side effect of this 10th attempt that's likely to fail is that it's strengthening the support for Trump. Now, I don't care about polls that may or may not be accurate. I'm judging the response from the moderates and conservatives based on what I see and read and so far this 10th attempt has really helped Trump financially thus will allow him to fight the Democrats with more advertising for the 2020 election. I'm also an Independent and a lot of us are really upset about Congress playing these silly games. We actually gained a high ranking politician in the last week that WOKE up and left the Democratic party. Maybe someday we'll have a candidate in the primaries. A failed attempt will justify people who voted for him for doing so and just like the public backlash from the fact there was no collusion that turned voters on the edge towards Trump this attempt will likely have the same result. Either way it is a win for Republicans because no matter what happens they will still be in office until the 2020 election.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, really.  He didn't use the terms quid pro quo or bribery specifically, but that's exactly what he describes in his amended testimony.  He changed it to protect himself from being charged with perjury.




Bullshit. You're inferring what you want to get out of his expressions of opinion. But Stefanik asked, point blank: Do you have any evidence of quid pro quo? NO. Do you have any evidence of bribery? NO. Do you have any evidence of treason? NO.

They're just offended that the President cut through their gravy and exerted policy straight from the horse's mouth. But even Vindman yesterday acknowledged that the President makes foreign policy, not the procedures and not the advisors. And that the President has the authority to cut through the protocol and make policy on the fly, and even has the authority to request of a foreign power that an American suspected of wrongdoing in that nation be investigated. He complains the President should've followed the procedures they have for initiating such an investigation, but the authority is there. And he also acknowledged that the Biden situation at least has the potential of corruption worth investigating.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Bullshit. You're inferring what you want to get out of his expressions of opinion. But Stefanik asked, point blank: Do you have any evidence of quid pro quo? NO. Do you have any evidence of bribery? NO. Do you have any evidence of treason? NO.
> 
> They're just offended that the President cut through their gravy and exerted policy straight from the horse's mouth. But even Vindman yesterday acknowledged that the President makes foreign policy, not the procedures and not the advisors. And that the President has the authority to cut through the protocol and make policy on the fly, and even has the authority to request of a foreign power that an American suspected of wrongdoing in that nation be investigated. He complains the President should've followed the procedures they have for initiating such an investigation, but the authority is there. And he also acknowledged that the Biden situation at least has the potential of corruption worth investigating.



But, but, opinions about how you feel about the issue and second hand hearsay is much more valuable then any actual proof or solid evidence, especially after admitting you have no evidence /s


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> I realize that the Democrats are trying to spin a tale, but I find the Republicans direct line of questioning more valuable then dancing around a subject. What do you think of the Republicans method of directly asking all of the witnesses thus far if they have any actual evidence of quid pro quo, collusion or crimes? They've all answered that they have no evidence. The Democrats are basing their house impeachment by claiming Trump is guilty of these things that their witnesses are saying they've never witnessed. If their witnesses openly admit to having no evidence because they've not witnessed anything that proves Trump did anything that they are claiming is impeachable then what use are they? I mean, what's the use of a witness to a crime if they didn't witness any crimes?
> 
> That's like I'm being accused of slandering someone using a racial slur, the prosecutor calls a witness that is supposed to testify they heard me using the racial slur, but then when my defense asks the witness if they heard me using the racial slur the witness says "no". Can you see how I am confused on how that would prove that I used a racial slur?


Just FYI David Holmes testimony - First hand knowledge, Has President's own words. You can selectively ignore all the evidence presented thus far but there is a reason Whitehouse has stonewalled with producing any documents and no cabinet members have come forward. The reason is to allow this slim defense to stand despite the information that has already come out to the public.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

I think people are genuinely misunderstanding the impeachment hearing of presenting fact witness vs having them assert their own legal opinion. Our congressional officials are the ones who make the charge. Republicans or Democrats who ask legal defining terms will not be getting satisfactory answers from these witnesses. 

George Kent summed this up quite succinctly when he told Nunes, I'm here to present the facts and your job, congressman, is to interpret them.

Also, did anyone else notice that Lev Parnas was present in a meeting w/ Rudy and Volker per Volker's testimony? I sure did.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

So I'm watching it on ABC News. Kinda funny how they have all of these pre-setup info screens with pictures and charts for the Democrats testimony, but for some reason they forget to go all out and make any for the R-Nunes. Kinda shows where their priorities lie. I mean, everyone loves fancy looking infographics, yeah, not working on me. If it were fair they'd have created them for the Republicans.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think people are genuinely misunderstanding the impeachment hearing of presenting fact witness vs having them assert their own legal opinion. Our congressional officials are the ones who make the charge. Republicans or Democrats who ask legal defining terms will not be getting satisfactory answers from these witnesses.
> 
> George Kent summed this up quite succinctly when he told Nunes, I'm here to present the facts and your job, congressman, is to interpret them.
> 
> Also, did anyone else notice that Lev Parnas was present in a meeting w/ Rudy and Volker per Volker's testimony? I sure did.



I understand that Congress decides based on the testimony with a vote on what to do. So far the Democrats have no produced any evidence that would make me vote to impeach Trump if I were a member of Congress. Though, this guy testifying now has stated he believes there was quid pro quo. He's straight up said so twice so far. He also said he's still not sure to this day as to why the aid with withheld, just that he believes it was over Biden. He was never given an official reason.

Edit: Yeah, ABC has prior knowledge of what is being testified. They're syncing their infographics, pictures, etc ... straight with the testimony. So much for fairness. Shit is rigged.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 20, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Why give military aid for a country that was illegally meddling in our election?


How was Ukraine meddling in US elections?
Anyway the military aid is directed against Russia, therefore it is in the (perceived) US interest.


----------



## urherenow (Nov 20, 2019)

TL;DR
Some of you seem to be parroting what you hear on <pick your biased news source> without knowing what you're talking about. I'd personally like to see this law that states a whistle-blower has anonymity, because I have heard of no such law. A whistle-blower is protected against reprisal. But NO LAW can contradict the constitution. THAT requires an amendment, and the 6TH amendment GUARANTEES that you can FACE your accuser. How does that work with an anonymous whistle-blower? It doesn't. It CAN'T. So, no... shifty shiff is an idiot.

Not that it would really matter. Every single thing the whistle-blower has to say is hearsay. The only 2 ACTUAL witnesses so far don't prove anything criminal, whether you like it or not. At best, it's pure OPINION on their part that kicks any dirt Trump's way, and impeachment requires HIGH crimes and misdemeanors. The whole thing is indeed a political theater. Even the house democrats know that the Senate will never remove this president, so this whole thing is nothing but a waste of tax dollars, and further excuse not to do their jobs. If you're taking the side of attacking Trump, why the heck aren't you attacking the Congress? Many things people are calling Trump a liar over because he promised  things that haven't taken place... have already been taken care of on Trump's part AS PROMISED. The house dems focused on this crap is what's holding it all up. The deal with Mexico, that Canada also folded into? About to collapse. Because the congress is not voting on it. Trump already did the damn work.

Love him or hate him, he's the only person getting things done. I don't care for him as an individual, but I will vote for him next year.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

urherenow said:


> TL;DR
> Some of you seem to be parroting what you hear on <pick our biased news source> without knowing what you're talking about. I'd personally like to see this law that states a whistle-blower has anonymity, because I have heard of no such law. A whistle-blower is protected against reprisal. But NO LAW can contradict the constitution. THAT requires an amendment, and the 6TH amendment GUARANTEES that you can FACE your accuser. How does that work with an anonymous whistle-blower? It doesn't. It CAN'T. So, no... shifty shiff is an idiot.
> 
> Not that it would really matter. Every single thing the whistle-blower has to say is hearsay. The only 2 ACTUAL witnesses so far don't prove anything criminal, whether you like it or not. At best, it's pure OPINION on their part that kicks any dirt Trump's way, and impeachment requires HIGH crimes and misdemeanors. The whole thing is indeed a political theater. Even the house democrats know that the Senate will never remove this president, so this whole thing is nothing but a waste of tax dollars, and further excuse not to do their jobs. If you're taking the side of attacking Trump, why the heck aren't you attacking the Congress? Many things people are calling Trump a liar over because he promised  things that haven't taken place... have already been taken care of on Trump's part AS PROMISED. The house dems focused on this crap is what's holding it all up. The deal with Mexico, that Canada also folded into? About to collapse. Because the congress is not voting on it. Trump already did the damn work.
> ...


That's an interpretation to what you want 'done'. Others would like many house resolutions to go to the senate floor and hold a vote. But discussing this is getting off-topic.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> That's an interpretation to what you want 'done'. Others would like many house resolutions to go to the senate floor and hold a vote. But discussing this is getting off-topic.



Wanting to face your accuser is not off topic when you're dealing with an entire inquiry based on someone accusing you of something. It sounds fair to me. Though, this isn't technically a court case so I'm not sure if that law would apply in this situation. It's just kinda shady to start this entire thing based on something someone overheard, but then not give the opposition the ability to question the person who supposedly overheard the stuff.

As for the current testimony it's not looking good for Trump's defense. I do however wonder how much it's costing the Democrats to rent out ABC News.


----------



## WeedZ (Nov 20, 2019)

urherenow said:


> TL;DR
> Some of you seem to be parroting what you hear on <pick our biased news source> without knowing what you're talking about. I'd personally like to see this law that states a whistle-blower has anonymity, because I have heard of no such law. A whistle-blower is protected against reprisal. But NO LAW can contradict the constitution. THAT requires an amendment, and the 6TH amendment GUARANTEES that you can FACE your accuser. How does that work with an anonymous whistle-blower? It doesn't. It CAN'T. So, no... shifty shiff is an idiot.
> 
> Not that it would really matter. Every single thing the whistle-blower has to say is hearsay. The only 2 ACTUAL witnesses so far don't prove anything criminal, whether you like it or not. At best, it's pure OPINION on their part that kicks any dirt Trump's way, and impeachment requires HIGH crimes and misdemeanors. The whole thing is indeed a political theater. Even the house democrats know that the Senate will never remove this president, so this whole thing is nothing but a waste of tax dollars, and further excuse not to do their jobs. If you're taking the side of attacking Trump, why the heck aren't you attacking the Congress? Many things people are calling Trump a liar over because he promised  things that haven't taken place... have already been taken care of on Trump's part AS PROMISED. The house dems focused on this crap is what's holding it all up. The deal with Mexico, that Canada also folded into? About to collapse. Because the congress is not voting on it. Trump already did the damn work.
> ...



This isn't a trial. You face your accuser during a trial, not an investigation. As far as this being theater, it was the Republicans that were complaining that their investigations weren't public, that trump hasn't had the opportunity to see who outed him (which he shouldnt be able until a trial, because things like witness intimidation exists).

So, they put it to vote to have a _public_ inquiry. And every coward Republican voted against it. Because it's not about what's good for the American people, its what's good for your party, which can be completely contradictory from one moment to the next. None of these people have any integrity.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Wanting to face your accuser is not off topic when you're dealing with an entire inquiry based on someone accusing you of something. It sounds fair to me. Though, this isn't technically a court case so I'm not sure if that law would apply in this situation. It's just kinda shady to start this entire thing based on something someone overheard, but then not give the opposition the ability to question the person who supposedly overheard the stuff.
> 
> As for the current testimony it's not looking good for Trump's defense. I do however wonder how much it's costing the Democrats to rent out ABC News.


Please reread my response. I made no position on what you are discussing and haven't decided to do so.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Please reread my response. I made no position on what you are discussing and haven't decided to do so.



You claimed that what he posted was off-topic and it wasn't. It just makes sense to be able to question the person supposedly responsible for starting the entire thing. So it's not off topic regardless if you have a position on the issue or not. My position is it makes sense to question the person responsible for the original accusations. Oh well. Renting ABC News. An entire news channel and a live broadcast with fancy pre-rendered slides, infographics, pictures all synced and coordinated that goes on for hours on end. That must cost a lot of money. I wonder how many days of planning was put into this. I wonder how many days ABC has been sitting on what was going to be said.


----------



## WeedZ (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> You claimed that what he posted was off-topic and it wasn't. It just makes sense to be able to question the person supposedly responsible for starting the entire thing. So it's not off topic regardless if you have a position on the issue or not. My position is it makes sense to question the person responsible for the original accusations. Oh well. Renting ABC News. An entire news channel and a live broadcast with fancy pre-rendered slides, infographics, pictures all synced and coordinated that goes on for hours on end. That must cost a lot of money. I wonder how many days of planning was put into this. I wonder how many days ABC has been sitting on what was going to be said.


That's not what's happening. I checked 3 different networks hosting the stream. The graphics are being done before it reaches network.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> You claimed that what he posted was off-topic and it wasn't. It just makes sense to be able to question the person supposedly responsible for starting the entire thing. So it's not off topic regardless if you have a position on the issue or not. My position is it makes sense to question the person responsible for the original accusations. Oh well. Renting ABC News. An entire news channel and a live broadcast with fancy pre-rendered slides, infographics, pictures all synced and coordinated that goes on for hours on end. That must cost a lot of money. I wonder how many days of planning was put into this. I wonder how many days ABC has been sitting on what was going to be said.





RationalityIsLost101 said:


> That's an interpretation to what you want 'done'. Others would like many house resolutions to go to the senate floor and hold a vote. But discussing this is getting off-topic.



I will expand to help explain further, 'This' that I am referring to are specific policies or proposed bills. I'm saying that if I was to pursue further discussion by listing individual house resolutions I would be steering off topic and anyone who would engage with me would as well.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> That's not what's happening. I checked 3 different networks hosting the stream. The graphics are being done before it reaches network.



Okay, so the Democrats have had prior knowledge of everything and have the stuff ready to go. Same question though. I wonder how many days have they've known what was going to be said? I mean, it takes a little bit of time to get all of this setup. I guess it would be cheaper to produce it yourself. But like, they had all of the emails and texts ready to be put up so they had some prior knowledge of what he was going to answer meaning they also knew what was going to be asked. So it's rigged. The Republicans get their 45 mins next. I wonder if we'll see fancy pre-rendered stuff, pictures, charts, emails for their questions? This sucks. If everything was planned and setup then it's just a show. I kinda wasn't expecting that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I will expand to help explain further, 'This' that I am referring to are specific policies or proposed bills. I'm saying that if I was to pursue further discussion by listing individual house resolutions I would be steering off topic and anyone who would engage with me would as well.



Okay, sorry, I misunderstood you.

Edit: So far Sonland seems honest enough, but he really has a shit memory. He openly admits that he has no proof of "quid pro quo" and that's he's only speculating that there was. I'm not sure if I believe his educated guess just yet. I mean it's fits into the narrative, but he narrative is being created by the Democrats which apparently pre-planned the entire broadcast/testimony. "I do not recall" LOL.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> which apparently pre-planned the entire broadcast/testimony


Or maybe it's because this is the second time Sondland is testifying about these facts, except it's now open hearings because it's now an official impeachment hearing.


----------



## cots (Nov 20, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Or maybe it's because this is the second time Sondland is testifying about these facts, except it's now open hearings because it's now an official impeachment hearing.



Yeah I realize that so they planned out the testimony and prepared the material before hand. Meaning, they knew exactly what he was going to say. His testimony was planned. I mean, that's smart and all, but it kinda brings down the hole "answering questions on the spot" honestly factor. They had it all worked out before he even sat down.

Anyway, update to what's happening. Sonland is saying there is quid pro quo, but can't say for certain why the aid was being withheld and it's just his guess it was over Biden. So it's he has no proof, it's just what he thinks happened. Seeings how the MSM painted the narrative he could simply be buying into it. I guess the Democrats are preventing the person who handles the actual foreign aid money from publicly testifying. He's the only one that can say for certain why the money was being withheld as he was responsible for withholding it. The MSM also is running with his "everyone was in the loop" comment claiming that a lot of people were involved in the quid pro quo and knew about it including Pence, but that's a big misrepresentation of what he said. There was no one else "in the loop" that knew Sonland was assuming there was quid pro quo. He never voiced that to any of his colleagues. Nice to see the MSM spin-masters at work. Congress is taking a 30 minute break for now (peoples gotta eat). I guess if you trust Sonlands judgement you could claim there is quid pro quo, but I've made up my mind. If he has no idea why the money was being withheld there's no way he can prove his claims. It's just his guess. The only way I'd agree with him is if someone could tell us exactly why the aid was being withheld. If it was because of Biden then there is quid pro quo. If it was because of trust issues with the Ukraine Government or other legitimate issues then there was no quid pro quo.

So far I can see how the Liberals could use this to their advantage, but someones "best guess" isn't good enough for me. It might be for you, but the red herring is the fact he's got no idea why the money was being withheld. Anyway, I can't keep my eyes open any longer. I'll read the transcript of the rest of the testimony when I wake up.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah I realize that so they planned out the testimony and prepared the material before hand. Meaning, they knew exactly what he was going to say. His testimony was planned. I mean, that's smart and all, but it kinda brings down the hole "answering questions on the spot" honestly factor. They had it all worked out before he even sat down.


I mean, the only reason we're doing these hearings again is because Republicans kept publicly whining about them being initially private. Of course the Democrats are going to repeat the same questions as before, they know what they wanted to know and this is just to ensure the public knows as well.

For the Republicans the only reason these hearings are public is so they can publicly cry foul of the investigation or cast doubt on witnesses, I don't think I've seen any single one of them ask a single meaningful question so far to get information on the case (which makes sense since the party line rn is to downplay the incident.)


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

If congress gained access to relevant documents and had the involved senior staff along with the president testifying (even in writing), this would wrap up quite quickly. That's just my perspective. If he's innocent and as smart as he says he is, he should have no problem avoiding simple perjury traps and proving to the American people that there is nothing to be concerned with.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 20, 2019)

So... Sondland's testifying. Those claiming that democrats have nothing can now start undermining his credentials (despite his testification being backed up by the other ones).

Trump, meanwhile, tries distancing himself by saying he doesn't know Sondland (his own EU diplomat) that well. Anyone going to believe that statement?.... Anyone?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 20, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If congress gained access to relevant documents and had the involved senior staff along with the president testifying (even in writing), this would wrap up quite quickly. That's just my perspective. If he's innocent and as smart as he says he is, he should have no problem avoiding simple perjury traps and proving to the American people that there is nothing to be concerned with.




Nice try. Only an idiot would voluntarily subject himself to giving sworn testimony before a hostile adjudicator. The only things I've seen actually proven ... not "presumed" or guessed or opinion ... is that President Trump talks on the telephone, and certain partisan Democrat federal employees don't like him not following their protocols (and just don't like him).


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Bullshit. You're inferring what you want to get out of his expressions of opinion. But Stefanik asked, point blank: Do you have any evidence of quid pro quo? NO. Do you have any evidence of bribery? NO. Do you have any evidence of treason? NO.


As I explained to cots, he was a second-hand witness at best, which is why Republicans thought they could get him to testify in favor of Trump.  It didn't go down that way, but that doesn't mean he has any evidence himself.

Meanwhile, Sondland's testimony today was the most direct confirmation of quid pro quo that we've heard yet.  And he was one of the people directly involved with the entire thing.  Sondland DOES have evidence, and because of that, I don't think any Republicans asked him the same questions.



Hanafuda said:


> Nice try. Only an idiot would voluntarily subject himself to giving sworn testimony before a hostile adjudicator. The only things I've seen actually proven ... not "presumed" or guessed or opinion ... is that President Trump talks on the telephone, and certain partisan Democrat federal employees don't like him not following their protocols (and just don't like him).


I've already stated this in different terms, but the purpose of these hearings isn't to change the minds of people who had already chosen a side before they began.  The purpose is to hold the president accountable, and if a few truly independent voters learn something about his character and/or impeachment in the process, that's just a bonus.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 20, 2019)

urherenow said:


> Love him or hate him, he's the only person getting things done.



Like what exactly?


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 20, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Like what exactly?


Giving tax breaks to the rich.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Nice try. Only an idiot would voluntarily subject himself to giving sworn testimony before a hostile adjudicator. The only things I've seen actually proven ... not "presumed" or guessed or opinion ... is that President Trump talks on the telephone, and certain partisan Democrat federal employees don't like him not following their protocols (and just don't like him).


I stand by what I said. If he's as innocent and intelligent as he claims I believe the republican minority would easily demonstrate to the American public that this is a farce and Trump has been a victim of a political hackjob. If he did this he would easily secure 2020 by defending himself through transparency of documents and delivering his testimony.

I've seen a private lawyer dictate our foreign policy vis-a-vis President Trump. I've seen Trump request a foreign entity to investigate a political opponent (twice if you count China). Any dispute to that?

Just to be clear, he could have used the senate during the past 3 years in office to launch a bipartisan congressional committee to investigate whether there was wrongdoing w/ Biden. It's been discussed this would have been the most proper manner to move forward if he wanted to target perceived domestic corruption by a previous administration that as 2020 nears also now involves a political opponent. I think there is a reason this option was not pursued. I think this is the better question to ask: "why are we not launching a senate bipart committee investigation." If people are truly concerned about acts of impropriety by a previous administration it would be best to start there and to be clear, the senate could do that even now, why aren't they?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've already stated this in different terms, but the purpose of these hearings isn't to change the minds of people who had already chosen a side before they began.  The purpose is to hold the president accountable, and if a few truly independent voters learn something about his character and/or impeachment in the process, that's just a bonus.



The purpose of these hearings is to put a thumb on the scale of next year's election due to all the weak candidates in the Democrat clown car. It's a campaign event. They have no intent or concern about actually proving any wrongdoing. Having a bunch of witnesses say they _felt_ something the President did was wrong, or they _heard_ something the President did was wrong, is plenty fine with them. They're _using the process_ of impeachment, and taxpayer dollars, for campaigning purposes.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The purpose of these hearings is to put a thumb on the scale of next year's election due to all the weak candidates in the Democrat clown car. It's a campaign event. They have no intent or concern about actually proving any wrongdoing.


Horse shit.  Between Vindman and Sondland, both of whom were first-hand witnesses to the events in question, wrongdoing has already been proven.  Let alone all the other second-hand witnesses involved.  Whether you choose to leave your head in the sand or not is ultimately irrelevant, because again, you aren't being objective and you already had your mind made up before any public testimony occurred.

On a lighter note, Devin Nunes' face was absolutely priceless in the moments after Sondland confirmed quid pro quo:

https://i.imgur.com/rMmdB2k.mp4


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

The blaze is apparently interviewing Rudy. I'm interested as I haven't heard much from him lately.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 20, 2019)

So this was some free airtime to pitch his conspiracy theory I guess. I don't watch Blaze but the most notable thing in relation to the public hearings - Rudy insisted again that he worked at the direction of the President and the State dept was working to provide him access to Ukrainians to gain information that shows Biden committed bribery and Russia was not involved in 2016 election interference. 

*shrug* It could have been better. I guess its best to watch him interview with someone willing to ask questions who doesn't let him just have his own podcast, but that's my own fault at this point.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Horse shit.  Between Vindman and Sondland, both of whom were first-hand witnesses to the events in question, wrongdoing has already been proven.  Let alone all the other second-hand witnesses involved.  Whether you choose to leave your head in the sand or not is ultimately irrelevant, because again, you aren't being objective and you already had your mind made up before any public testimony occurred.
> 
> On a lighter note, Devin Nunes' face was absolutely priceless in the moments after Sondland confirmed quid pro quo:


After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?



Xzi said:


> https://i.imgur.com/rMmdB2k.mp4


Wasted.


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

So I'm awake. Nothing really damning was exposed after the rest of the testimony. Sonland never came up with any actual proof of quid pro quo. He is the Democrats most damning witness to Trump because he implicit states there was quid pro quo, but then when asked if he has proof he said he's just making an assumption. I understand the Liberal Democratic mindset, these are the same people that claimed second hand testimony is more valuable then first hand testimony (which is utter horse shit), so I know a lot of them think they've won already, which isn't the fact. Maybe because of "assumptions" they'll vote to impeach Trump, but then when the actual people familiar with fucking real law that act like adults (wtf is 2+2 = 4) the Senate will put this fucking pre-planned premeditated 10th impeachment attempt shit show to a rest. I was hoping for some actual evidence, but I'm not supporting this based on assumptive accusations. Historically speaking the Democrats have been consistent with at least one things - trying to fuck over the American public.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> So I'm awake. Nothing really damning was exposed after the rest of the testimony. Sonland never came up with any actual proof of quid pro quo. He is the Democrats most damning witness to Trump because he implicit states there was quid pro quo, but then when asked if he has proof he said he's just making an assumption. I understand the Liberal Democratic mindset, these are the same people that claimed second hand testimony is more valuable then first hand testimony (which is utter horse shit), so I know a lot of them think they've won already, which isn't the fact. Maybe because of "assumptions" they'll vote to impeach Trump, but then when the actual people familiar with fucking real law that act like adults (wtf is 2+2 = 4) the Senate will put this fucking pre-planned premeditated 10th impeachment attempt shit show to a rest. I was hoping for some actual evidence, but I'm not supporting this based on assumptive accusations. Historically speaking the Democrats have been consistent with at least one things - trying to fuck over the American public.


Sondland's testimony solidified the need to have Rudy testify something both republicans and democrats said in passing today which is an improvement and significant, albeit for different reasons. Democrats want to leverage Rudy against Trump and Republicans (specifically Castor among others on the intel committee) want to use Rudy as the convenient fall guy since Sondland evaded that fate. If anyone is desiring 'actual evidence' they will be waiting for DOD, State dept, OMB, etc to begin providing documents. In tonight's testimony it was shared that DOD started to have IT staff ensure retention of documents to prepare to provide such documents when approved.

Until then we will just be waiting until the courts entertain upholding a lawful congressional subpoena. The other two administrations, Nixon and Clinton, tried to block such efforts and failed. I can't see how Trump's administration has any legal ground to stand in blocking an impeachment inquiry. 'I don't like it and don't think its fair so I'm not going to comply' isn't grounds to defy congress' constitutional authority.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 21, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?




Because "all these people" haven't offered a single piece of direct, relevant, irrefutable and inculpating evidence yet.

Taylor: yes, my "clear understanding" about the aid was based on 4x hearsay, and nobody ever said anything about it ever in my presence

Yovanovitch: admitted no knowledge of any bribery, no knowledge of the President committing any crime whatsoever.

Volker: No evidence of quid pro quo, no evidence of bribery, no evidence of treason.

Morrison: Same questions asked as Volker's above, same answers.
               Testified to Vindman having history for not following chain of command, leaking classified information, complaining when he felt not being given respect he's due

Vindman: admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy
               admitted he never had any contact with President Trump, ever
               admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”
               admitted Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation
               admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented”
               admitted the Trump-Zelenksy call transcript was “very accurate”
               admitted he has never used the term “bribery” to describe the president’s actions
               said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigations
               said, "As far as I can tell," Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on Burisma’s board
               said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board
               said he never thought anything the President said was a crime or anything of that sort, but he thought (i.e. opinion) that it was wrong
               explained that he thought President Trump's request for a "favor" was a demand, based on his knowledge of military culture (neither Trump or Zelensky are military)

Sondland: "I know that members of this Committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question - was there a quid pro quo? As I testified                               previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is Yes."

                 BOOM! Sondland dropped the bomb, right?!? B'Golly, _Now_ we got him.

                 But later: Schiff: "Though President Trump claimed to you there was no quid pro quo, he also made it clear to you in that call that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things                                               up and do it in public.' You don't have any reason to dispute ..."

                                Sondland: I don't have any reason to dispute the 'clear things up and do it in public,' what I'm trying to be very clear about was President Trump never told me directly                                                 that the aid was tied to that statement.

                                Schiff: But in that same conversation you had with him about the aid, about the quid pro quo, he told you that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do                                            it in public,' correct? 

                                Sondland: I did not have a conversation with him about the aid. I had a conversation with him, as referenced in my texts, about quid pro quo. 

                                Schiff: Well the quid pro quo you were discussing was over the aid, correct?

                                Sondland: No. President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question, as I testified previously, "What do you want from Ukraine?" His answer was "I want                                                           nothing. I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing." That's all I got from President Trump.



so, itsfuckingnothing.gif


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Horse shit.  Between Vindman and Sondland, both of whom were first-hand witnesses to the events in question, wrongdoing has already been proven.  Let alone all the other second-hand witnesses involved.  Whether you choose to leave your head in the sand or not is ultimately irrelevant, because again, you aren't being objective and you already had your mind made up before any public testimony occurred.
> 
> On a lighter note, Devin Nunes' face was absolutely priceless in the moments after Sondland confirmed quid pro quo:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/rMmdB2k.mp4



He didn't confirm anything. He stated he's assuming there was quid pro quo. You can't expect anyone with an actual objective brain to go into this 10th attempt with no lack of skepticism. After years of bogus "collusion" claims and 9 previews impeachment attempts would you actually think that someone that doesn't have a blind hatred for our President would really think that this entire thing is legitimate? Unless you're part of the group that has been planning this before Trump was even in office it's easy to see exactly what is motivating these hearings. Luckily, the Liberals are a minority, very vocal, yes, but the majority of the country doesn't support this nonsense and most of them don't even care about the inquiry and have already made up their mind on the issue - one way or another. Luckily, the majority of the country isn't Liberal and sees right through your and your parties bullshit. I watched the hearings. The spin on "everyone was in the loop" is clear evidence on how the Liberal Media twists things that were never implied nor said. That alone, plus the entire fact his claims are simply assumptions aka a simple "guess" would make anyone that has any sort of critical thinking skills see right through the entire farse. Liberals aren't honest though, I'm sorry your TDS is getting to you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Because "all these people" haven't offered a single piece of direct, relevant, irrefutable and inculpating evidence yet.
> 
> Taylor: yes, my "clear understanding" about the aid was based on 4x hearsay, and nobody ever said anything about it ever in my presence
> 
> ...



You left out the fact that Sonlands claim that there was "quid pro quo" is based on an assumption and not any factual evidence. We all know the rules. We know what the Liberals are up to. They don't deny it and then try to distract us with this shit. They're not even good at distracting us though. I wonder why we even allow them to go about it seeings as they openly admit to planning this from the get go. "We plan to fuck you over no matter what regardless if there's any actual wrong doing". We should have arrested them for simply threatening us with impeachment before the fact Trump even did anything that could have been impeachable and I hope once they lose that Trump has the balls to fucking destroy these peoples lives in every way humanly possible. We do need to build more mental health hospitals and throw all of the lunatic Liberals in them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> You left out the fact that Sonlands claim that there was "quid pro quo" is based on an assumption and not any factual evidence.




Yeah, under cross examination by Turner:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or No?

Sondland: Yes.

Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?

Sondland: Other than my own presumptions.

Turner: Which is nothing!


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, under cross examination by Turner:
> 
> Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or No?
> 
> ...



I presume I'm going to win the $180 million Powerball Saturday. Since presumptions usurper reality where's my money?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

Actions shape reality as much if not more than words. Action of directing OMB to withhold aid and the appearance of only releasing this hold when congressional investigation is knocking isn't something that can be easily discounted when a significant percentage of those involved in Ukraine policy in multiple agencies drew similar conclusions based on the actions. The Trump administration could dispel this concern by providing the necessary documents and allowing those involved in the hold on aid to testify. The impeachment inquiry is an appropriate constitutional tool to use to bring the necessary facts before congress and the American people when a President conducts in behavior that crosses a line.

The line that was crossed was the President soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. I've outlined a proper manner of approaching a Biden investigation in prior comments on this thread. Ultimately, our President can't invite foreign powers to influence our election. Americans might disagree on many policies but we should hopefully come together to agree on that.


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Actions shape reality as much if not more than words. Action of directing OMB to withhold aid and the appearance of only releasing this hold when congressional investigation is knocking isn't something that can be easily discounted when a significant percentage of those involved in Ukraine policy in multiple agencies drew similar conclusions based on the actions. The Trump administration could dispel this concern by providing the necessary documents and allowing those involved in the hold on aid to testify. The impeachment inquiry is an appropriate constitutional tool to use to bring the necessary facts before congress and the American people when a President conducts in behavior that crosses a line.
> 
> The line that was crossed was the President soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. I've outlined a proper manner of approaching a Biden investigation in prior comments on this thread. Ultimately, our President can't invite foreign powers to influence our election. Americans might disagree on many policies but we should hopefully come together to agree on that.



Yeah, well, lots of things shape reality. Per say the Liberals premeditated impeachment attempts. They said they were going to do it, they've tried 9 previous times and they don't deny any of this (as they openly admit and brag about it). That's a clear and cut case. Right now, the Democrats only have testimony of what people overheard or assume based on some circumstantial evidence that can be proved (your actions). That's not clear cut evidence. If I thought this impeachment would have been fair and impartial what has been presented so far would point towards Trump's guilt. However, since this shit was setup from the start and is in no way fair or impartial the Liberal Democrats can fuck off.

I wonder what the 11th attempt will consist of? How about 25th? You'd figure after the 3rd attempt people would have WOKE the fuck up and told these Liberal scum where to shove their impeachment. It's no wonder 70% of the citizens have made up their mind and have no interest in watching this shit. I watched it and it's fucking a circus. Just look how the Liberals are spinning what was said. If they (the Liberal Media) can't accurately report on something that I witnessed first hand then they can fuck off too.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah, well, lots of things shape reality. Per say the Liberals premeditated impeachment attempts. The said they were going to do it, they've tried 9 previous times and they don't deny any of this (as they openly admit and brag about it). That's a clear and cut case. Right now, the Democrats only have testimony of what people overheard or assume based on some actual circumstantial evidence that can be proved (your actions). That's not clear cut evidence. If I thought this impeachment would have been fair and impartial what has been presented so far would point towards Trump's guilt. However, since this shit was setup from the start and is in no way fair or impartial the Liberal Democrats can fuck off.


You would find bad actors on either side of the political spectrum. I remember the birther movement with Obama (something that Trump himself was admonished for voicing). It would be folly and against the interest of our nation to remain partisan when we easily can see what precedent would have been set if we ignored what occurred and did not launch an impeachment inquiry.

Imagine 1-13 years from now, there is a democratic president that decides to go to China and request them to publicly launch an investigation into a political opponent allowing him to potentially shape the primaries of his opposing party to benefit the candidate that he knew he polled well against in the general election or it could just as easily occur in the general election. 

If that sounds disastrous and a threat to our republic, then you and I would agree and regardless of party I would expect an impeachment inquiry to be launched.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> He didn't confirm anything. He stated he's assuming there was quid pro quo.


I'm not going to continue to entertain these asinine denials of what was clearly stated in the testimony.  Neither Sondland nor Vindman minced their words or used any uncertain terms.  Just like Hanafuda, you already had your mind made up before the first word was spoken.





KingVamp said:


> After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?


When there is no logical defense left, all they can do is pick their favorite illogical defense and stick to it, regardless of how much contradictory evidence comes to light.  Trump supporters exhibit many of the same behaviors you see in cults, and with how thoroughly they've intertwined their egos with his success or failure, signs of Stockholm syndrome are starting to manifest themselves as well.  I'm just thankful that they don't really matter in the long run, as both polls and election results continue to reflect that the majority are fighting back against this insanity.  When even Kentucky and Louisiana are no longer considered safe red states, you know for certain that the Republican party has shot itself in the foot one too many times.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not going to continue to entertain these asinine denials of what was clearly stated in the testimony.  Neither Sondland nor Vindman minced their words or used any uncertain terms.  Just like Hanafuda, you already had your mind made up before the first word was spoken.





Sondland says the quid pro quo, to the extent it existed, was for Zelensky's desire for a call with the President and a White House meeting. Had nothing to do with the aid package. And what the US wanted was transparent, honest investigations into Burisma (which had been a known problem since the Obama admin, which Yovanovitch confirmed) and whether Ukraine took part in any effort to influence the 2016 election. No mention of aid being conditioned on this. And Sondland interrupted Schiff later to say so, and also to say that when he spoke to the President directly and asked what he wanted from Ukraine, the President said Nothing, no quid pro quo .. just tell Zelensky to do the right thing. i.e., follow through on the anti-corruption platform he ran on to get elected. Sondland flatly responded "NO" to Schiff that the quid pro quo he knew of was in regard to the aid, and acknowledged to Turner that he only presumed that possibility.

And yeah my mind was made up, because Sondland already said all this before.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Sondland says the quid pro quo, to the extent it existed, was for Zelensky's desire for a call with the President and a White House meeting.


Which is a necessary first step in legitimizing and showing support for a newly-elected Ukrainian president in the midst of a conflict with Russia.



Hanafuda said:


> Had nothing to do with the aid package.


In which case the aid wouldn't have been delayed at all, let alone delayed until after the whistleblower complaint had been filed.  That story doesn't jive with how things actually went down.



Hanafuda said:


> And what the US wanted was transparent, honest investigations into Burisma (which had been a known problem since the Obama admin, which Yovanovitch confirmed) and whether Ukraine took part in any effort to influence the 2016 election.


If the focus was general corruption in Ukraine, one company is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  Not to mention the president wouldn't have been satisfied with only the public announcement of an investigation being opened, he would've wanted to be shown actual results. 

Vindman confirmed that Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election was a baseless conspiracy theory.  Not that we needed his confirmation; if they had meddled in the election on Clinton's behalf she'd be president now.



Hanafuda said:


> Sondland flatly responded "NO" to Schiff that the quid pro quo he knew of was in regard to the aid, and acknowledged to Turner that he only presumed that possibility.


So get Giuliani under oath, or that presumption stands as correct.  Everybody already knows he was the "fixer" in this series of events, the guy who personally presented Ukraine with the conditions that had to be met before a meeting/phone call/release of aid would occur.  Yovanovitch was ousted specifically to pave the way for Giuliani to make those types of moves on Trump's behalf.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That story doesn't jive with how things actually went down.




You'll have to ask Sondland about that. I'm just repeating what he said today.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You'll have to ask Sondland about that. I'm just repeating what he said today.



He says in that clip he is presuming that the aid WAS part of the quid pro quo, which is a pretty obvious conclusion to come to when you look at the order in which events occurred.

Even if only the meeting and phone call hinged on the condition that Ukraine open an investigation into the Bidens, that wouldn't change the fact that such an arrangement would still be unlawful and/or unconstitutional.

I'm not sure how many people testifying to the same thing would be enough to cross the line into credible/believable for you, but we're up to seven already.  The hole can only get even deeper for Trump from here on out.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 21, 2019)

I read a local article today (source for Dutch speaking people (EDIT: clarified a bit) ) about Laura Cooper's testimony. It touches on something that somewhat went under the radar: how did the Ukranian system react to this situation?

A timeline (from last week) is interesting in this:

<early 2019>: the $391 million military aid to Ukraine is approved by congress
February 28 and May 23: officials are notified that the military aid will be released to Ukraine
July 3: Vindman finds out the money is actively withheld
July 10: meeting with Sondland, Mulvany and Bolton. The latter leaves the meeting furious, wanting "no part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up"
July 18: white house memo of a freeze on Ukraine military aid until further notice, based on presidential order
July 25: the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy
July 25 onward: worried Ukrainian calls to Cooper regarding the status of the aid
<somewhere in August>: a request by Ukrainians asking for the status
August 12: the formal whistleblower complaint is filed
August 28: politico publishes the freeze on the military aid
August  29: Ukrainian officials start banging on Taylor's door wanting to know details that Taylor at that point doesn't have
September 9: start of the democratic investigation
September 9: Trump/Sondland call wherein the former says he wants nothing from Ukraine ("no quid pro quo").
September 11: sudden release of the aid
(mail source)

It's interesting to put things in chronological order, to say the least. Trump and his fan club always touted that it was the whistleblower that put things into motion, but from this, it looks like it was at best only a matter of time before this'd be public. I mean...Bolton's currently writing a book about his time in office, multiple Ukrainian officials were reaching out to find out why allocated money wasn't set up and it's not a given that politico based their publication on the whistleblower's report.
Republicans also claim that nothing is out of the ordinary (apart from a witch hunt), but in total nearly 400 million dollars in military aid is delayed for over half a year. Any moron can see that it would just be further delayed if it wasn't for these events.


EDIT: also interesting: according to Sondland, both Pompeo and Pence were also in the know about this entire ordeal. As far as Pompeo goes, it doesn't surprise me (I'm fairly sure - but I could be mistaken - that Giuliani also told the news he got his orders from both Trump and Pompeo). But Pence? That's honestly the first time I hear him being involved. I'm not rooting for him, but up until this point I just assumed he was, in fact, innocent in this entire ordeal.


----------



## urherenow (Nov 21, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Like what exactly?



I can understand how hard it is to actually pay attention, or even research (especially research, in fact) when everything is spoon-fed by a biased media. Google "what has Trump Accomplished" and your top 5-10 hits are nothing but opinionated Trump-trashing pieces that do everything but actually answer the damn question that you just Googled. Stop and think about that for a second.  Then tell me I'm wrong. I asked some opposing questions to Never-Trumpers flooding his Twitter feed. I am permanently banned from Twitter, and I'm unable to make a new account. Any IP from any device I have ever used is flagged. The second I make a new account and check the feed without using a VPN, my account gets put on hold, pending Phone verification. Which, of course, is flagged. Free speech, right?

Back on track, I'll forgive the difficulty in finding the actual answers with internet searches. This article points out a few: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._has_accomplished_much_in_2_years_139402.html

Another article that lists a BUNCH, although it seems to me that much of the list should be consolidated, since several actions were toward a single goal: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

And I hope you read the list very carefully. Some things promised CANNOT come to fruition until/unless the CONGRESS signs off on it. But you are simply drowning in hatorade if you can't realize that Trump has actually at least tried to work towards every campaign promise he has made. Congress and other external forces working against him, does NOT make him a liar.



IncredulousP said:


> Giving tax breaks to the rich.


How old are you? Are you an American? I'm not rich. Not even close. MY taxes were lowered. The only idiots who state otherwise complained about getting lower tax returns, because they're idiots and didn't account for the less taxed being taken out every month.

I bet you're another one who likes to cling on to thoughts of Trump taking money from the military to build his wall. If that upsets you, then again, you don't even understand the context or the dynamics. Trump says 3 billion comes from <here>. Some other people decide which individual projects they take that money from, not the POTUS. So no, you can't blame him directly for "taking money from project X". With that 3billion in funds removed, he has STILL provided more funds to the military than Obama ever did, including giving the military a bigger raise than they've seen in at least 6 years.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 21, 2019)

urherenow said:


> How old are you? Are you an American? I'm not rich. Not even close. MY taxes were lowered. The only idiots who state otherwise complained about getting lower tax returns, because they're idiots and didn't account for the less taxed being taken out every month.


I can't argue with your tax returns, but that doesn't make the criticism go away. And that's not because of jealousy or not being American, but because it's the general consensus by economists. Here's a quick example by Joseph Stiglitz, but I can dig up quotes from Thomas Piketty as well if you like. Or more recent by Saez and Zucman. Since you're so opinionated, you undoubtedly heard their reasoning why the top 1% now pay LESS taxes than the average American. So no...calling @IncredulousP an idiot isn't going to win you the argument, buddy.


----------



## urherenow (Nov 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I can't argue with your tax returns, but that doesn't make the criticism go away. And that's not because of jealousy or not being American, but because it's the general consensus by economists. Here's a quick example by Joseph Stiglitz, but I can dig up quotes from Thomas Piketty as well if you like. Or more recent by Saez and Zucman. Since you're so opinionated, you undoubtedly heard their reasoning why the top 1% now pay LESS taxes than the average American. So no...calling @IncredulousP an idiot isn't going to win you the argument, buddy.


The top 1% employ people. It trickles down. You can deny it all you want, and get a million finacial 'experts' to disagree (or rather agree to the disagreement), but the numbers don't lie. The average income has raised far more than under the past administration, and unemployment IS at a record low. Any by the way... taxes have been tiered as long as I've been alive. Only people who make above a certain amount pay the top (36% at the moment?) tax against thier personal income. You might *think* they pay less because of deductions and such that they take advantage of. Some of which comes from employing people... who guess what? Pay taxes on those dollars they earn.

I know you'll want to point out that the national debt has risen another roughly 3 trillion dollars... yet fail to concede that somehow the Obama administration, by itself, accounted for nearly half of that debt by the time Trump took over. With that in mind, the rising of said debt has actually slowed under the current administration, even though it's still going up. There's also this pesky fact that the Democrats enjoyed bringing up in the current impeachment... it's THEM who "control the power of the purse". Heh. That was a joke. If only they'd actually do their jobs and make a budget instead of focusing all of their time (which us citizens are paying for) trying to take on the bad orange man...

The thought process that leads you to believe the top 1% pay less, is the very same that gives birth to socialistic ideas that have worked for NO country EVER. Venezuela as an example Ad nauseam...
Take away those tax deductions (that are presumably all made deductions for a good reason), and there will be no incentive for them to do what they do; employing people, making charitable donations, etc... all things that keep our economy strong, and does spread wealth without giving it all directly to the government. But I guess you'll be happy knowing that they're paying more taxes than you so that congress can be paid to NOT do their jobs...

And final remark: I didn't call any individual an idiot. Don't put words in my mouth. I used generalizations. If any of my statements hit home in your mind (i.e. applies to the collective <you>), then I'm not going to apologize for <your> guilty conscious.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

urherenow said:


> I can understand how hard it is to actually pay attention, or even research (especially research, in fact) when everything is spoon-fed by a biased media. Google "what has Trump Accomplished" and your top 5-10 hits are nothing but opinionated Trump-trashing pieces that do everything but actually answer the damn question that you just Googled. Stop and think about that for a second.  Then tell me I'm wrong. I asked some opposing questions to Never-Trumpers flooding his Twitter feed. I am permanently banned from Twitter, and I'm unable to make a new account. Any IP from any device I have ever used is flagged. The second I make a new account and check the feed without using a VPN, my account gets put on hold, pending Phone verification. Which, of course, is flagged. Free speech, right?
> 
> Back on track, I'll forgive the difficulty in finding the actual answers with internet searches. This article points out a few: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._has_accomplished_much_in_2_years_139402.html
> 
> ...


Just FYI my taxes went up because I lost the ability to deduct my state taxes from my federal, but then again I also enjoy a home that generates property tax and hold other properties that are also taxed. I'm just saying people's taxes went up and I take notice when apple, fedex, amazon pay nothing in corporate taxes. When you think about the magnitude of how much money is exchanged and the amount of profit generated, that is a metric ton of taxable income that is lost. The reality, that money has to come from somewhere and the middle-uppermiddle class got to share that load. I must also mention the proportion of stock-buybacks that immediately occurred after corporate tax reduction vs 'trickle down' hopes that are disingenuously sold with every tax cut since Reagan (which I admit, when I was young and naive I aggressively supported).

Does it significantly impact my quality of life, no I pay my taxes and will continue to do so, I'm not going to discuss my finances further but only to serve as an example of the disparity of tax burden of the mega wealthy to the working class. It's intellectually dishonest to not recognize that the Trump Tax cut disproportionately benefited the rich and the working class got scraps in comparison. 

Just one of the huge boons that no one else benefited from except the rich, estate tax:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashlea...rich-the-22-4-million-exemption/#17a888ff1d54 

However, I've strayed off-topic enough in discussing this. If you want to discuss this further open a thread for Trump Tax Cut and I'll entertain economic discussion there.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

I know this is completely unrelated but I would like Bill Taylor and Fiona Hill dictate the audio book I'm currently enjoying. They would greatly improve my experience. Maybe this could be crowdfunded?


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not going to continue to entertain these asinine denials of what was clearly stated in the testimony.  Neither Sondland nor Vindman minced their words or used any uncertain terms.  Just like Hanafuda, you already had your mind made up before the first word was spoken.



No I didn't. You have no idea what I was thinking. If Sonland would have said "I know for a fact because I have evidence" as opposed to "I'm only assuming" then it would be clear and cut. You're only hearing what you want to hear and misinterpreting and misrepresenting facts while I'm just basing shit on reality. It's okay though, you're a Liberal so I understand your confusion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> EDIT: also interesting: according to Sondland, both Pompeo and Pence were also in the know about this entire ordeal. As far as Pompeo goes, it doesn't surprise me (I'm fairly sure - but I could be mistaken - that Giuliani also told the news he got his orders from both Trump and Pompeo). But Pence? That's honestly the first time I hear him being involved. I'm not rooting for him, but up until this point I just assumed he was, in fact, innocent in this entire ordeal.



I see you didn't watch the hearings. Pence was never informed or told by Sonald that Sonland thought there was quid pro quo. Pence never talked with Sonland before their pre-meeting and never spoke a word to him during it or after. Pence nodded to something Sonland said so Sonland assumed Pence knew exactly what he was thinking, but that's also another assumption. Sonland had no idea what Pence knows. This is coming from Sonlands account. It's been misrepresented and taken out of context to make it look like Pence was involved to the extent he knew there was quid pro quo. You can see how fucking stupid the Liberals are to try to twist and imply this. Seeings as this is how they go about things their entire operation should be under question.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> The top 1% employ people. It trickles down. You can deny it all you want, and get a million finacial 'experts' to disagree (or rather agree to the disagreement), but the numbers don't lie. The average income has raised far more than under the past administration, and unemployment IS at a record low. Any by the way... taxes have been tiered as long as I've been alive. Only people who make above a certain amount pay the top (36% at the moment?) tax against thier personal income. You might *think* they pay less because of deductions and such that they take advantage of. Some of which comes from employing people... who guess what? Pay taxes on those dollars they earn.
> 
> I know you'll want to point out that the national debt has risen another roughly 3 trillion dollars... yet fail to concede that somehow the Obama administration, by itself, accounted for nearly half of that debt by the time Trump took over. With that in mind, the rising of said debt has actually slowed under the current administration, even though it's still going up. There's also this pesky fact that the Democrats enjoyed bringing up in the current impeachment... it's THEM who "control the power of the purse". Heh. That was a joke. If only they'd actually do their jobs and make a budget instead of focusing all of their time (which us citizens are paying for) trying to take on the bad orange man...
> 
> ...



"Tax the rich, feed the poor Till there are no rich no more". What exactly happens after we run out of the rich peoples money? Who are the ones that will be wealthy and in power? It's not going to be the general public. We'll have created Government Lords at which point we'll have no way to control because they've taken our guns away. We'll all be poor and begging for scraps. The Government are our "servants". If I tell my Congress man to jump he better ask me how many times.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Just FYI my taxes went up because I lost the ability to deduct my state taxes from my federal, but then again I also enjoy a home that generates property tax and hold other properties that are also taxed. I'm just saying people's taxes went up and I take notice when apple, fedex, amazon pay nothing in corporate taxes. When you think about the magnitude of how much money is exchanged and the amount of profit generated, that is a metric ton of taxable income that is lost. The reality, that money has to come from somewhere and the middle-uppermiddle class got to share that load. I must also mention the proportion of stock-buybacks that immediately occurred after corporate tax reduction vs 'trickle down' hopes that are disingenuously sold with every tax cut since Reagan (which I admit, when I was young and naive I aggressively supported).
> 
> Does it significantly impact my quality of life, no I pay my taxes and will continue to do so, I'm not going to discuss my finances further but only to serve as an example of the disparity of tax burden of the mega wealthy to the working class. It's intellectually dishonest to not recognize that the Trump Tax cut disproportionately benefited the rich and the working class got scraps in comparison.
> 
> ...



Another Liberal hack job pretending to be rational and "I'm only here because it's entertaining". I see right through your political agenda. You're not fooling anyone with the position you've taken.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> Another Liberal hack job pretending to be rational and "I'm only here because it's entertaining". I see right through your political agenda. You're not fooling anyone with the position you've taken.



I'm here exactly for entertainment through discourse. I work in an industry and hold a position that doesn't allow me to be openly political without repercussion. Do you think an obscure hacking forum is really the most effective way for me to push a 'political agenda'? What on earth would I hope to accomplish? Swaying potentially what amounts to a handful of people to do what exactly?

Just as I directed to the other gentleman, you're welcome to open an economic thread and we can discuss Trump's Tax Cuts in detail there. I've said all I'm going to say in this thread though, the tax income bracket changes speak for themselves to support my statement among other changes already mentioned.


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm here exactly for entertainment through discourse. I work in an industry and hold a position that doesn't allow me to be openly political without repercussion. Do you think an obscure hacking forum is really the most effective way for me to push a 'political agenda'? What on earth would I hope to accomplish? Swaying potentially what amounts to a handful of people to do what exactly?
> 
> Just as I directed to the other gentleman, you're welcome to open an economic thread and we can discuss Trump's Tax Cuts in detail there. I've said all I'm going to say in this thread though, the tax income bracket changes speak for themselves to support my statement among other changes already mentioned.



Well, whatever your reasoning is or regardless your refusal to identify your political party your bias is leaking.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, whatever your reasoning is or regardless your refusal to identify your political party your bias is leaking.


I don't actually have a 'party'. I have a set of issues that I think are worth discussion and enjoy discussing them. Besides how would it satisfy you if I 'picked a team'? Is it because you've been conditioned to accept a tribal nature in politics? Would that provide anything of substance in discussing this topic? Or would my own statements be sufficient? I argue the latter hence why I don't think it's necessary.

I feel the real cause of your frustration is you wish to write off all disagreement as partisan. It allows a quick dispelling of discussion and doesn't require true discourse where sometimes hard questions are asked and concessions in beliefs have to be made. The world is very much in shades of grey. I'm done responding to this line of attack though. If you want to debate something I've stated that's been on topic (impeachment public hearings), I'm happy to oblige.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'd also add that holding a position is not equal to bias. Refusing to accept any information that has been corroborated that challenges that position, well that would indicate a bias.


----------



## cots (Nov 21, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I don't actually have a 'party'. I have a set of issues that I think are worth discussion and enjoy discussing them. Besides how would it satisfy you if I 'picked a team'? Is it because you've been conditioned to accept a tribal nature in politics? Would that provide anything of substance in discussing this topic? Or would my own statements be sufficient? I argue the latter hence why I don't think it's necessary.
> 
> I feel the real cause of your frustration is you wish to write off all disagreement as partisan. It allows a quick dispelling of discussion and doesn't require true discourse where sometimes hard questions are asked and concessions in beliefs have to be made. The world is very much in shades of grey. I'm done responding to this line of attack though. If you want to debate something I've stated that's been on topic (impeachment public hearings), I'm happy to oblige.
> 
> ...



Yeah, well, I'm still waiting for any information that has been corroborated that proves Trump is guilty of anything. You mentioned how actions define reality. You can say whatever you want, but if you look at this from the perspective of the fact it's the fucking 10th impeachment attempt, the fact it's premeditated after the fact of the entire "Trump was supposedly a Russian Agent" 2 year bullshit witch hunt you would realize how fucking stupid it would be to take any of what the Liberals say at face value, that is, unless your agenda has nothing to do with finding the actual truth and simply want to get rid of the President (which, if that's the case I understand). I really don't give a shit what party you identify as. I'm an independent, but not part of the independent party. I'm independent in the sense that I stand alone. I'm a one man party. You're supporting and going along with this charade so you clearly have the desire to see Trump canned. I don't care either way (if he's canned or not), but I think he deserves a fair inquiry and what is going on is no way in any shape or form fair.

Edit: And what happens after the inquiry if Trump isn't impeached? Will there be an 11th attempt? The Liberal agenda is to get rid of the President at all cost regardless if he's done anything wrong. I know this because that's what they say they are fucking doing. They've said it from the start. They've planned this before Trump was even elected. They can't accept the fact they lost. No matter what happens they won't admit to defeat after the fact they agreed to the rules of the game. If the roles were reversed and the Conservatives impeached a Liberal President do you think the Liberal President would give up his office? Hell no. They wouldn't accept the fact they lost by the rules of their own game and would probably try to take over the other two branches of Government. Luckily, we have guns and would fucking remove the piece of shit from office by force. Liberals are a fucking cancer.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> I see you didn't watch the hearings. Pence was never informed or told by Sonald that Sonland thought there was quid pro quo. Pence never talked with Sonland before their pre-meeting and never spoke a word to him during it or after. Pence nodded to something Sonland said so Sonland assumed Pence knew exactly what he was thinking, but that's also another assumption. Sonland had no idea what Pence knows. This is coming from Sonlands account. It's been misrepresented and taken out of context to make it look like Pence was involved to the extent he knew there was quid pro quo. You can see how fucking stupid the Liberals are to try to twist and imply this. Seeings as this is how they go about things their entire operation should be under question.


I didn't, indeed. They don't air those things at a convenient time for me.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> Yeah, well, I'm still waiting for any information that has been corroborated that proves Trump is guilty of anything. You mentioned how actions define reality. You can say whatever you want, but if you look at this from the perspective of the fact it's the fucking 10th impeachment attempt, the fact it's premeditated after the fact of the entire "Trump was supposedly a Russian Agent" 2 year bullshit witch hunt you would realize how fucking stupid it would be to take any of what the Liberals say at face value, that is, unless your agenda has nothing to do with finding the actual truth and simply want to get rid of the President (which, if that's the case I understand). I really don't give a shit what party you identify as. I'm an independent, but not part of the independent party. I'm independent in the sense that I stand alone. I'm a one man party. You're supporting and going along with this charade so you clearly have the desire to see Trump canned. I don't care either way (if he's canned or not), but I think he deserves a fair inquiry and what is going on is no way in any shape or form fair.
> 
> Edit: And what happens after the inquiry if Trump isn't impeached? Will there be an 11th attempt? The Liberal agenda is to get rid of the President at all cost regardless if he's done anything wrong. I know this because that's what they say they are fucking doing. They've said it from the start. They've planned this before Trump was even elected. They can't accept the fact they lost. No matter what happens they won't admit to defeat after the fact they agreed to the rules of the game. If the roles were reversed and the Conservatives impeached a Liberal President do you think the Liberal President would give up his office? Hell no. They wouldn't accept the fact they lost by the rules of their own game and would probably try to take over the other two branches of Government. Luckily, we have guns and would fucking remove the piece of shit from office by force. Liberals are a fucking cancer.


If the democrats continue to attempt to impeach Trump after the senate clears him then it falls to the public to make a decision whether they support or not support it. If it isn't warranted and desired then the public will likely not support that decision and they will face backlash at the polls, be it 2020 or 2022.

Inquiry isn't fair because he's not letting it be fair. If he wants to defend his innocence and produce/release a host of documents showing everything was above board then he would give his republican defenders something to work with. If he allowed senior officials to testify and they dispelled this whole thing as a lack of communication among peons then the public can see that as presented evidence in his favor. His biggest mistake, presuming his innocence in this entire situation, is tying the republican's hands behind their backs and asking them to fight a one-sided fight.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I read a local article today (source for Dutchies) about Laura Cooper's testimony. It touches on something that somewhat went under the radar: how did the Ukranian system react to this situation?


Pedant hat on: De standaard is Belgian, not Dutch.

Now, I must say that Sondland blew my expectations yesterday. He blew every single defense the Republicans were still using out of the water.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Just heard Schiffs speech. *Damn.* That's gonna be one for the books.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2019)

cots said:


> No I didn't. You have no idea what I was thinking.


Riiight, because your signature really screams "objective and non-partisan."  There's no point in denying that you're thoroughly indoctrinated into cult 45, you're free to have your opinions.  Just don't expect anybody to believe that you suddenly became an open-minded observer throughout a process that's been undeniably damaging to the king you've sworn fealty to.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not sure how many people testifying to the same thing would be enough to cross the line into credible/believable for you




How many people expressing the same belief/assumption without evidence would it take for me to join them in that belief?

Well, I'm not religious. Does that answer your question?



Are _you_ religious???


----------



## Xzi (Nov 21, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> How many people expressing the same belief/assumption without evidence would it take for me to join them in that belief?
> 
> Well, I'm not religious. Does that answer your question?
> 
> Are _you_ religious???


This has nothing to do with faith or belief.  These are all people who worked in or around the Trump administration and are witnesses to the same series of events.  You're trying to create obscurity where there is none.  At this point, you might as well be using the Chewbacca defense.  Matter of fact, I think I've heard a few Republican congressmen use some variation of it during the hearings already.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> These are all people who worked in or around the Trump administration and are witnesses to the same series of events.



Only a couple of them so far are genuine fact witnesses. You admitted as much yourself. And they didn't prove quid pro quo wrt: the aid, they only offered their "presumption" or personal assessment (mired with political bias) that something was wrong. The rest are just offering suppositions and hearsay. And that's with some conflict between witnesses about who said what to who.

I know the Democrats will all vote for the articles if a vote is taken, regardless of the record. The repercussions of bucking the party would be too great. (Like the threats and protests against Sondland on his family's business property by leftists to coerce his testimony.) But I have paid attention, and every person who has come in to blow up Schiff's balloon for him has eventually let the air out by the time cross examination was complete. Nobody has proof of what has been claimed.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But the cumulative weight of the evidence presented by the Schiff Show ain't a hill of beans. You want to unseat a duly elected President of the United States, on inferences and presumptions? Fortunately it will never get that far.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Only a couple of them so far are genuine fact witnesses. You admitted as much yourself.


And there's no reason to doubt those couple witnesses.  Or any of the second-hand witnesses for that matter.  Giuliani has not disputed their accounts, and I don't expect he will.  Nor do I expect the White House will allow him to testify under oath.  He'll probably be the guy to take the fall though, after which we might get more information from him.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

I wonder if anyone here would argue that the article of obstruction of justice will hold ground in a trial in the senate.

This can cover anything from Mueller's findings to this Ukraine scandal.

The current information we have in front of us is the white house has refused to comply to a lawful congressional impeachment inquiry. They have not provided requested documents and barred witnesses from participating, witnesses that would have direct knowledge to whether aid was withheld.

I ponder whether or not obstruction of justice and solicitation of a foreign government to investigate a political opponent alone would be enough to hold ground in an impeachment trial. 

I know President Trump met with Mitt Romney and Susan Collins today for lunch. I speculate this was to garner support to dismiss the trial and prevent it from moving forward. I feel if that was his purpose he will be sorely disappointed. If it was to try to measure whether republican senators like themselves would vote with the party or not, who knows?

Recent governor elections have shown Trump stumping to have marginal effect, which begs the question as who needs who more. For the past few years the narrative has been that republicans need to stay in line with Trump or else they will lose. I don't imagine most Trump supporters are going to hop over to the democratic party. I'm wondering how the dynamic of Trump-republican congressional officials will evolve as 2020 looms.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I wonder if anyone here would argue that the article of obstruction of justice will hold ground in a trial in the senate.
> 
> This can cover anything from Mueller's findings to this Ukraine scandal.


Nothing would hold ground in the Senate.  Trump could literally shoot and kill somebody on the Senate floor with cameras filming, and we'd still be lucky to get two votes to convict out of Republicans, and only because they represent purple states.  With so much of the base latched on to him, Trump *is* the Republican party now, and that's why every right-winger in government is too afraid to cross him.  They've voluntarily voided their oaths of office.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If the democrats continue to attempt to impeach Trump after the senate clears him then it falls to the public to make a decision whether they support or not support it. If it isn't warranted and desired then the public will likely not support that decision and they will face backlash at the polls, be it 2020 or 2022.
> 
> Inquiry isn't fair because he's not letting it be fair. If he wants to defend his innocence and produce/release a host of documents showing everything was above board then he would give his republican defenders something to work with. If he allowed senior officials to testify and they dispelled this whole thing as a lack of communication among peons then the public can see that as presented evidence in his favor. His biggest mistake, presuming his innocence in this entire situation, is tying the republican's hands behind their backs and asking them to fight a one-sided fight.



Okay let me recap what happened and why the inquiry is taking place. Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election. She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent. This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement. The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats. After her lost the Liberal Democrats swore to remove Trump from office because they wouldn't agree to the terms of the election and take their loss. They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket. Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?

I went into this thinking, "Well, it's setup, it's rigged, it won't be fair, they'll lie, they'll cheat and if they lose they'll refuse to accept the fact they lost, but maybe, just maybe Trump is actually guilty". You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit. The Liberal Democrats are so stupid they'll buy into whatever they're told to buy into. It doesn't take a genius to figure out most of their claims are complete utter fabrications. I support Trump not giving them shit. If someone had brought me to court and accused me 10 times of different crimes after spending 2 years trying to ruin my life I wouldn't cooperate with them either.

Again, I ask you. Does what I wrote in my first paragraph sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt? If you answer "yes" to either of them please do explain your position. I'm waiting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> How many people expressing the same belief/assumption without evidence would it take for me to join them in that belief?
> 
> Well, I'm not religious. Does that answer your question?
> 
> Are _you_ religious???



I'll take the word over one scientist that can produce accurate results and duplicate his or her results as opposed to 1,000,000 that simply assume they are correct. I'm not bias. I base things on if they are true or false. I base things on what's real and what's not. Liberals only hear what they want to hear and what they hear is only being heard by the people who pull their strings. They cannot think for themselves. Even their $2,000 course on Critical Thinking is useless because they stopped teaching Independent Thinking in grade school. They'd read this and only see what they want to see and ignore the fact that what they're doing is wrong, but these are the same people that claim that there is no right or wrong only what feels good or feels bad. I do agree with the Liberals on one thing; that we need more care for mentally ill people. I would fully support kicking out all of illegal immigrants we have now in the detention centers by sending them back to where they came from and turning them into mental health clinics and lock the mentally ill Liberal population in the cages Obama built.

I would never want to play a competitive video game against a Liberal. They'd agree to the rules, cheat in the game and then refuse to accept the rules they agreed to when they lost. After that they would spend years obsessed with their loss and try to ruin any further game I tried to play by claiming I'm cheating based on no credible evidence. Not only are Liberals liars and cheats, but they are also pathetic sore losers. If they had a team in the NFL they would have been kicked out after their first game.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> I support Trump not giving them shit. If someone had brought me to court and accused me 10 times of different crimes after spending 2 years trying to ruin my life I wouldn't cooperate with them either.



I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.

I'd re-frame this again that at this point Trump's administration has allowed the Democrats to run a narrative over the entire impeachment hearing. They should have hand selected senior officials to systematically refute claims that were presented and provide the appropriate documentation that would support his innocence.

The perceived issue that the Trump administration is having is he can't, so the only thing left is to obstruct and distract.



cots said:


> If that's so maybe he should start with the Liberals on this board. I've already reported one mod for encouraging people to assassinate the President. Seeings as the secret service is legally required to investigate all threats and the moderator is from the USA I'm sure this site is least now on their radar.



Advocating the murder of those who disagree with you is simply childish behavior. I've ran into another on a prior thread who seemed to believe when backed into a wall in a debate that threatening violence is acceptable discourse. It simply is unproductive and unwelcome.

I was about to address your first paragraph as requested earnestly but I'm going to refrain. If you wish to recant that statement and offer an apology I'll continue.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.
> 
> I'd re-frame this again that at this point Trump's administration has allowed the Democrats to run a narrative over the entire impeachment hearing. They should have hand selected senior officials to systematically refute claims that were presented and provide the appropriate documentation that would support his innocence.
> 
> ...



How convenient. You reply with something that backs up your agenda and then suddenly stop replying when it comes to having to expose said agenda. After watching what you've been doing for the last few months you're not fooling me anymore. You are just as crooked as the rest of the Liberals on this board. The thing is they have enough balls to not hide behind some fake sense of being rational. I'm also not advocating murder. No one backed me into any walls. It was a joke and I'm not apologizing especially to you who has zero voice in telling me what I can or cannot do. Violence is a totally acceptable outcome to situations. However, I have not personally threatened anyone with violence nor am I advocating for it. The facts are it is a last resort to real life situations where you would need to protect yourself, your property or your family. No one should be silenced for claiming that they would defend their own life against an attacking force. Seeings as the moderators can suggest to the forum users that someone should assassinate Trump I see where your priorities lie. I also see you found a reason to dance around the subject and not answer my questions. I assume you'd be answering "yes" both of them. I assume it would be too hard to come up with any justification for taking the Liberals side. Hey, assumptions trump reality, right? Traitor.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.
> 
> I'd re-frame this again that at this point Trump's administration has allowed the Democrats to run a narrative over the entire impeachment hearing. They should have hand selected senior officials to systematically refute claims that were presented and provide the appropriate documentation that would support his innocence.
> 
> ...



Actually I do apologize. The joke only addressed a small group of people. I rephrased it. Sorry I wasn't more specific. It must be nice to sit on your high horse, refuse to admit your true intentions then avoid questions that would shine light on your actual motivations. You're not really that smart, but go ahead, cry about claims of violence to try to get me silenced. Liberals are great at lying and twisting facts, especially when the attention is on them. I'll take my ban or whatever, even though I'm not threatening anyone. This site is full of immature lying, thieving, immoral, sinning, miserable Liberal children that are constantly involved in a circle jerk attacking and advocating violence against the President of the USA. Most of the members on this site make me sick to my stomach. Most of you deserve each other.  You're all definitely going to hell. Enjoy that eternal damnation in trade for selling your souls for a short 30-80 year miserable lifespan.

The rephrased quote is below.



Xzi said:


> Nothing would hold ground in the Senate. Trump could literally shoot and kill somebody on the Senate floor with cameras filming, and we'd still be lucky to get two votes to convict out of Republicans, and only because they represent purple states.  With so much of the base latched on to him, Trump *is* the Republican party now, and that's why every right-winger in government is too afraid to cross him.  They've voluntarily voided their oaths of office.



Be careful for what you wish for because maybe he might start with the Liberal population (insert sarcasm / joke disclaimer here). I've already reported one mod for encouraging people to assassinate the President (insert not sarcasm / not a joke disclaimer here). Seeings as the Secret Service is legally required to investigate all threats related to harming the United States President and the moderator is from the USA and over the age of 18 I'm sure this site is least now on their radar.


----------



## urherenow (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I guess this might be the best point to start from. If you could produce relevant documents that would dispute their claims as frivolous and have witnesses that would corroborate the same you would withhold it due to an opposing side's persistence. Interesting.


Do you even pay attention, or just like to stir the pot? We have the whole transcript. We have the Ukraine President himself saying there was no pressure/blackmail/whatever word the Dems feel like switching to today. Witholding evidence? That is ALL of the evidence. The only 2 witnesses so far that have any first-hand knowledge, couldn't pinpoint any of the things Trump is accused of as a "high crime and misdemeanor" as is the requirement to impeach a sitting President. 100% of the testimony thus far is opinionated, except for the facts you can read on the transcript. Withholding witnesses? Hahahahaha! Shiff has not let a SINGLE witness the REPUBLICANS ask for, to testify. Just like all the Dems and leftists, you are guilty of the accusations you're slinging at Trump. Congrats. The 2 names that appeared at the Republican's request came from Shiff's list, not the Republican's list. Let's be very clear about that, since you obviously don't have a clue what's going on (and admit yourself that you haven't even been watching the proceedings).

Another funny thing... the person who started it all, is 100% undisputed across the board as having ZERO first-hand knowledge. And Shiff refuses to let him/her testify, and pretends that the whistle blower "has a statutory right to anonymity". Nope. No he doesn't. In fact, the 6th amendment demands that he appear.

The entire thing is based off hearsay and individual opinions about what is on the transcript, when the only opinion that even counts, is that of the Ukraine President. He was the one being addressed.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

urherenow said:


> Do you even pay attention, or just like to stir the pot? We have the whole transcript. We have the Ukraine President himself saying there was no pressure/blackmail/whatever word the Dems feel like switching to today. Witholding evidence? That is ALL of the evidence. The only 2 witnesses so far that have any first-hand knowledge, couldn't pinpoint any of the things Trump is accused of as a "high crime and misdemeanor" as is the requirement to impeach a sitting President. 100% of the testimony thus far is opinionated, except for the facts you can read on the transcript. Withholding witnesses? Hahahahaha! Shiff has not let a SINGLE witness the REPUBLICANS ask for, to testify. Just like all the Dems and leftists, you are guilty of the accusations you're slinging at Trump. Congrats. The 2 names that appeared at the Republican's request came from Shiff's list, not the Republican's list. Let's be very clear about that, since you obviously don't have a clue what's going on (and admit yourself that you haven't even been watching the proceedings).
> 
> Another funny thing... the person who started it all, is 100% undisputed across the board as having ZERO first-hand knowledge. And Shiff refuses to let him/her testify, and pretends that the whistle blower "has a statutory right to anonymity". Nope. No he doesn't. In fact, the 6th amendment demands that he appear.
> 
> The entire thing is based off hearsay and individual opinions about what is on the transcript, when the only opinion that even counts, is that of the Ukraine President. He was the one being addressed.



You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Actually I do apologize. The joke only addressed a small group of people. I rephrased it. Sorry I wasn't more specific. It must be nice to sit on your high horse, refuse to admit your true intentions then avoid questions that would shine light on your actual motivations. You're not really that smart, but go ahead, cry about claims of violence to try to get me silenced. Liberals are great at lying and twisting facts, especially when the attention is on them.


I'm quite comfortable where I stand as I've been explicit and transparent. I'm also a person of my word so enjoy.  



cots said:


> Okay let me recap what happened and why the inquiry is taking place. Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election. She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent. This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement. The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats. After her lost the Liberal Democrats swore to remove Trump from office because they wouldn't agree to the terms of the election and take their loss. They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket. Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?





cots said:


> Again, I ask you. Does what I wrote in my first paragraph sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt? If you answer "yes" to either of them please do explain your position. I'm waiting.





cots said:


> Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election.


Yes, that sounds fair and accurate. Case closed! (I kid, I understand what your questions are. I'm going through sentence by sentence to ensure I give a proper assessment.)



cots said:


> She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent.


Do we have sufficient evidence to support your claim of colluding with foreign governments? Has she been charged/sentenced or is under any active investigation? 

I had a thread that discussed the legality of the Steele Dossier and how it differs. I would refer you to it. I'm presuming this is what you are referring to, if not then please let me know.

The TLDR: Oppo Research is part of our elections. Foreign nationals (Steele) who work as informants for our FBI and/or our US based research firms appears to give them a pass. Maybe it is open to interpretation as to whether or not this should be an appropriate loophole. I feel like our law is ambiguous on this matter. I can't say if that ambiguity is intentional but I can say that Trump's case is far more straightforward. I don't know if I agree with this on a personal level but DOJ and FEC seemed to not raise any objections and I can't find any direct statute that would prohibit a US based company from being prohibited to hire foreign nationals.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/legality-of-steele-dossier-in-terms-of-influencing-us-election.549535/

In case you are curious as I've had time to give this more thought; I'm not agreeable to foreign nationals influencing our elections, but it is unfathomable to allow government to restrict who a private company can hire. As long as the company is based in the US I think it can do whatever it damn well pleases despite the loophole this creates.



cots said:


> This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement.


Let's start with what is easy. She did not start the Birther movement but she did have supporters who perpetrate it. Trump has supporters who are white nationalists but I... ok questionable example as some debate on that point. Let's just move on to say that out of the two candidates one actually did support the Birther movement even as late as 2011 and got publicly roasted for it at a White House correspondence diner by Obama himself. The comedian that followed Obama then continued to roast Trump in a manner that irked him more than we will ever know. It was first discovered around 2004 apparently.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304



cots said:


> The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats.


I argue that the main stream media includes anything that is pro-corporate anti-union, so that includes both right and left leaning networks. Now, while we might disagree on who owns the media due to my definition of main stream media, I think I can still give some insight. Trump had a narrow victory in a few crucial battleground states and won the election. 

Now if the mainstream media was only owned and operated by the pro-corporate individuals, why would they give Trump so much free air-time during the republican primary? Ratings, which translates into corporate profits. Why would they latch on to anything controversial? Same reason. During that point in time, I don't think they anticipated Trump would win, however, it wouldn't hurt their corporate earnings either way - refer back to Trump Tax Cut). Therefore, they had no financial disincentive for Trump to win. 

If you are referring to smear campaigns, Clinton was the subject of many for over two decades. I don't think Trump received anymore negative coverage during the general election than Clinton.

As far as the democrats cheating. Well I don't know was there gerrymandering or election fraud on behalf of the democrats that you can bring to my attention? Trump's own administration cleared doubts that illegal voters were voting in a post-election investigation.



cots said:


> They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket.


I've seen the multiple year old tweet of some obscure lawyer that now represents the whistle-blower. I'm sure there were people who would have been ready to call foul if Clinton won and those same people will do so if a Democrat won 2020. There are always going to be bad actors on both sides. The investigation into 2016 election meddling was required. We as a nation had to ensure our elections matter, and that they are not under any foreign influence. Trump had a Republican special counsel that worked in a professional manner. He didn't engage in political theater and did his job in a non-partisan approach. I don't know how much more you could ask for if you were an innocent man/woman. It's the ideal situation if you needed to clear your name.

That investigation wasn't fruitless btw, compared to the bengahzi and email scandal investigations for Clinton which produced not one indictment, the Mueller investigation led to multiple arrests and convictions. 

As far as democrats or special interest spending in our media, this is done on both sides so I'm not sure how that would be unfair.



cots said:


> Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?


All this for the TLDR: based on all the points you have raised that I have provided my analysis - yes it sounds balanced - but I think the reason I will come to that conclusion and you will not is because we define mainstream media differently.

As far as whether or not Republicans should go along with the impeachment inquiry? If they have the evidence to refute any wrongdoing then, yes, absolutely. If they do not then I guess fight like hell and hope no other witnesses come forward and pray the courts somehow rule in your favor to not produce any related documents to an impeachment inquiry. I don't think democrats will wait for the courts to finish a ruling as it will just be appealed and hung up in courts for months. They will just move to serve an article of impeachment of obstruction of justice.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?


It took time to ensure I gave a thorough answer. Patience is a virtue.


----------



## urherenow (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> You're pissing in the wind brother (trying to talk sense into a closet Liberal). May I ask you though since you're awake and before I potentially lose the ability to reply, what do you think about the questions I asked of the user you're replying to (see this post)? Could you answer them yourself and then what do you think about Mr. Rational's avoidance of said questions? Also, do you think my assessment of what is happening is accurate?


More or less, you're on track. I personally don't recall Hillary being a birther (but Trump certainly was... although he was neither in office nor a candidate at that time). Don't get me started on her though... I could go on for days. I only retired last year from the military, so that BS with Benghazi still gets my blood boiling. I blame her for deaths of friends, and will never forgive or forget.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm quite comfortable where I stand as I've been explicit and transparent. I'm also a person of my word so enjoy.
> 
> Yes, that sounds fair and accurate. Case closed! (I kid, I understand what your questions are. I'm going through sentence by sentence to ensure I give a proper assessment.)
> 
> ...



She used foreign nationals to investigate and smear Trump using falsified/fake information thus resulting in a 2 year investigation that turned out to not implicate him in any collusion. The data was also used to smear Trump during the campaign. This is just fine and dandy when Hillary does it? Why, because of some legality? Yet, it's not okay for Trump to request actual valid evidence of any wrong doing from a foreign Government that could be used in his upcoming election (that's if Biden is ends up his actual opponent). If per say the cooked up evidence Hilliary paid for was legit I could see it being valuable, but it wasn't. Yet we should hold Trump guilty of simply requesting something that may have turned out to be valid and also could have possibly shed light onto who was behind the fake collusion accusation. So the nasty bitch gets a pass because there's no specific law about it?



> Let's start with what is easy. She did not start the Birther movement but she did have supporters who perpetrate it. Trump has supporters who are white nationalists but I... ok questionable example as some debate on that point. Let's just move on to say that out of the two candidates one actually did support the Birther movement even as late as 2011 and got publicly roasted for it at a White House correspondence diner by Obama himself. The comedian that followed Obama then continued to roast Trump in a manner that irked him more than we will ever know. It was first discovered around 2004 apparently.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304



Okay, fair enough, but she used it to attack Obama and brought attention to it on a national scale.



> I argue that the main stream media includes anything that is pro-corporate anti-union, so that includes both right and left leaning networks. Now, while we might disagree on who owns the media due to my definition of main stream media, I think I can still give some insight. Trump had a narrow victory in a few crucial battleground states and won the election.
> 
> Now if the mainstream media was only owned and operated by the pro-corporate individuals, why would they give Trump so much free air-time during the republican primary? Ratings, which translates into corporate profits. Why would they latch on to anything controversial? Same reason. During that point in time, I don't think they anticipated Trump would win, however, it wouldn't hurt their corporate earnings either way - refer back to Trump Tax Cut). Therefore, they had no financial disincentive for Trump to win.
> 
> If you are referring to smear campaigns, Clinton was the subject of many for over two decades. I don't think Trump received anymore negative coverage during the general election than Clinton.



I'm referring to the Liberal leaning media news sites. If you follow the money trail (who owns them) they all fall back on old rich white men pulling the nations strings. If you actually aren't blind enough and have an open mind and visit sites you don't agree with you'll see that CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC push a Liberal agenda, Fox pushes a Conservative and sites like BBC and PBS are much more balanced in nature. Sufficient to say the Liberals own most of the media that is consumed by the USA population on a daily basis - and it shows.



> As far as the democrats cheating. Well I don't know was there gerrymandering or election fraud on behalf of the democrats that you can bring to my attention? Trump's own administration cleared doubts that illegal voters were voting in a post-election investigation.



I'm not talking about the normal dead people voting, the fact illegal aliens voted or the other various stuff that usually goes on. I was referring to Hillary's collusion with foreign nationals combined with the main stream media's smear campaigns which was using the falsified information. When you have the majority of the media posting bias material because they don't want you elected and a lot of it was based on a conspiracy theory obtained by collusion that is clear and cut evidence of having the deck stacked against you.



> I've seen the multiple year old tweet of some obscure lawyer that now represents the whistle-blower. I'm sure there were people who would have been ready to call foul if Clinton won and those same people will do so if a Democrat won 2020. There are always going to be bad actors on both sides. The investigation into 2016 election meddling was required. We as a nation had to ensure our elections matter, and that they are not under any foreign influence. Trump had a Republican special counsel that worked in a professional manner. He didn't engage in political theater and did his job in a non-partisan approach. I don't know how much more you could ask for if you were an innocent man/woman. It's the ideal situation if you needed to clear your name.
> 
> That investigation wasn't fruitless btw, compared to the bengahzi and email scandal investigations for Clinton which produced not one indictment, the Mueller investigation led to multiple arrests and convictions.
> 
> ...



Foxi (the moderator) posted a link to a Wikipedia page that contains an overview of the impeachment attempts. All 10 are listed along with a history of the Democratic parties pledge to do so, which was being spouted about even before Trump won the election. I'm too lazy to look up the link, but there's far more than the lawyer that's representing the whisterblower tweeting that he was going to try to overthrow the current Government (which, by the way is exactly what's he's trying to do with his whisterblower).



> As far as whether or not Republicans should go along with the impeachment inquiry? If they have the evidence to refute any wrongdoing then, yes, absolutely. If they do not then I guess fight like hell and hope no other witnesses come forward and pray the courts somehow rule in your favor to not produce any related documents to an impeachment inquiry. I don't think democrats will wait for the courts to finish a ruling as it will just be appealed and hung up in courts for months. They will just move to serve an article of impeachment of obstruction of justice.



I'd agree if this was the first attempt, but it's the 10th. If someone hated me and tried to have me arrested 9 times by filing false police reports do you really think the police or even myself would take them seriously on the 10th attempt? Do you really think I'd willingly cooperate when they'd simply try to use whatever I handed over them in their 11th attempt? I don't think Trump's hiding anything. I think he's refusing to allow this shit show to go on any longer.



> It took time to ensure I gave a thorough answer. Patience is a virtue.



You didn't address the Democrats refusal to accept the election results nor did you give your opinion on whether or not if this 10th premeditated impeachment attempt is okay (especially considering there's been 9 previous attempts). Remember, the Democrats pledged to remove Trump from office regardless if he does anything wrong. Isn't 10 attempts a bit obsessive? Shouldn't impeachment be reserved for the very bad occasion if a President does something really bad? I mean, they're abusing the process. Would it be too hard to accept your party lost and actually do your job instead of trying to oust the President for any reason possible?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> More or less, you're on track. I personally don't recall Hillary being a birther (but Trump certainly was... although he was neither in office nor a candidate at that time). Don't get me started on her though... I could go on for days. I only retired last year from the military, so that BS with Benghazi still gets my blood boiling. I blame her for deaths of friends, and will never forgive or forget.



Okay, thanks. I just recall Hillary going around back in 2008 spouting the nonsense that Obama wasn't born in the USA. I wasn't aware she just latched onto a previous conspiracy theory, but she did bring it to national attention. I also wasn't aware you served our great country. Thank you for your service.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

urherenow said:


> Do you even pay attention, or just like to stir the pot? We have the whole transcript. We have the Ukraine President himself saying there was no pressure/blackmail/whatever word the Dems feel like switching to today. Witholding evidence? That is ALL of the evidence. The only 2 witnesses so far that have any first-hand knowledge, couldn't pinpoint any of the things Trump is accused of as a "high crime and misdemeanor" as is the requirement to impeach a sitting President. 100% of the testimony thus far is opinionated, except for the facts you can read on the transcript. Withholding witnesses? Hahahahaha! Shiff has not let a SINGLE witness the REPUBLICANS ask for, to testify. Just like all the Dems and leftists, you are guilty of the accusations you're slinging at Trump. Congrats. The 2 names that appeared at the Republican's request came from Shiff's list, not the Republican's list. Let's be very clear about that, since you obviously don't have a clue what's going on (and admit yourself that you haven't even been watching the proceedings).
> 
> Another funny thing... the person who started it all, is 100% undisputed across the board as having ZERO first-hand knowledge. And Shiff refuses to let him/her testify, and pretends that the whistle blower "has a statutory right to anonymity". Nope. No he doesn't. In fact, the 6th amendment demands that he appear.
> 
> The entire thing is based off hearsay and individual opinions about what is on the transcript, when the only opinion that even counts, is that of the Ukraine President. He was the one being addressed.


I've not only watched this entire hearing process from start to finish but read every publicly released deposition. I'm probably the only person on this thread to do so, which isn't something to really brag about as I have invested alot of time recently into this hobby, but as long as I find it entertaining I'll continue.

Now lets see... We have a memorandum of the call, not the whole transcript. Zelensky is being asked a favor in that memorandum by President Trump. To put in perspective of the imbalance of power between the two leaders, Trump has everything Zelensky needs to ensure Ukraine can fend off Russia aggression. Trump could win in 2020 and they would still need to renew aid yearly so just next year they will need Trump to not block aid. Yea, I'm not able to take anything Zelensky says seriously, at this point I'd treat him as a hostage in a hostage negotiation.

The witnesses republicans want to call are not pertaining to whether or not aid was withheld but are trying to sway public opinion through validating the two requests Trump made to Zelensky in the July 25th call. I believe the logic is that if the public thought nothing was wrong in requesting those items and supported those investigations by having additional information then they would absolve Trump or at the very least suffer no blowback for acquitting him in the senate.

Let's return back to the memorandum to look at potential wrongdoing. No one addressed what I said on page 4 so I'll just quote myself below as it sums it up enough. You can add obstruction of justice to that as well. 



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I stand by what I said. If he's as innocent and intelligent as he claims I believe the republican minority would easily demonstrate to the American public that this is a farce and Trump has been a victim of a political hackjob. If he did this he would easily secure 2020 by defending himself through transparency of documents and delivering his testimony.
> 
> I've seen a private lawyer dictate our foreign policy vis-a-vis President Trump. I've seen Trump request a foreign entity to investigate a political opponent (twice if you count China). Any dispute to that?
> 
> Just to be clear, he could have used the senate during the past 3 years in office to launch a bipartisan congressional committee to investigate whether there was wrongdoing w/ Biden. It's been discussed this would have been the most proper manner to move forward if he wanted to target perceived domestic corruption by a previous administration that as 2020 nears also now involves a political opponent. I think there is a reason this option was not pursued. I think this is the better question to ask: "why are we not launching a senate bipart committee investigation." If people are truly concerned about acts of impropriety by a previous administration it would be best to start there and to be clear, the senate could do that even now, why aren't they?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

Ben Ghazi!  Buttery Males!

I don't care much for Hillary Clinton, but it always gives me a laugh to be reminded that she'll forever live in Republicans' heads rent-free.  Fox News really did a number on your programming.  Y'all gonna be ranting about her on your death beds.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ben Ghazi!  Buttery Males!
> 
> I don't care much for Hillary Clinton, but it always gives me a laugh to be reminded that she'll forever live in Republicans' heads rent-free.  Fox News really did a number on your programming.  Y'all gonna be ranting about her on your death beds.



Not me. I'm not even sure what the entire issue was about nor do I care. I do know a lot of time was wasted and the results turned out that whatever happened she wasn't charged with a crime. It's the same deal with the Russian collusion. I do however see some Conservatives still bringing it up. Unless you were personally involved you should just agree with the investigation and move on. This is the same thing the Liberals need to do with the collusion. This the same thing the Liberals need to do if Trump is not impeached. This is the same thing the Liberals should have done after Trump won the election. Take your loss and move on. You agree to the rules and lose then that's it. No bitching. I'm the type of person that'll take a loss and shake my opponents hand. Liberals will refuse to admit they lost and then stab the winner in the back.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I've not only watched this entire hearing process from start to finish but read every publicly released deposition. I'm probably the only person on this thread to do so, which isn't something to really brag about as I have invested alot of time recently into this hobby, but as long as I find it entertaining I'll continue.
> 
> Now lets see... We have a memorandum of the call, not the whole transcript. Zelensky is being asked a favor in that memorandum by President Trump. To put in perspective of the imbalance of power between the two leaders, Trump has everything Zelensky needs to ensure Ukraine can fend off Russia aggression. Trump could win in 2020 and they would still need to renew aid yearly so just next year they will need Trump to not block aid. Yea, I'm not able to take anything Zelensky says seriously, at this point I'd treat him as a hostage in a hostage negotiation.
> 
> ...



See you think that Zelensky is being pressured to not implicate Trump. What you think has no bearing on the issue at hand. It's like my previous example, you witness two people having sex and then assume because it was rough sex that one of the partners was being forced to have sex. You report the crime and both parties claim it was consensual. No matter how violent the sex was unless there was a video of one party refusing and clear cut abuse no one is going to consider what some bystander thinks about it over the word of the actual two people involved, especially if the bystander is involved with people who have filed 9 previous false reports. Now consider it's not even the bystander who saying this took place, but the person who is going to cops to report a crime is someone that overheard what the bystander claimed he saw. So the entire case against the two people involved is based on second hand testimony and assumptions. This is exactly why it's going to go nowhere in the Senate. It's not because the Republicans are in Trump's pocket. It's the 10th attempt. No one is taking the Democrats seriously anymore. They've cried wolf too many times. The only people taking this seriously are the Liberals who can't think for themselves. They're being told what to think.

Heaven forbid they start asking their masters questions that their masters have told them not to ask. Imagine what were to happen if the Liberals started to think things that they aren't allowed to think or say things they aren't allowed to say. As a Liberal you have to vote for who the Liberals tell you to vote for. You can't vote for you who want to vote for as you must vote for who they tell you to vote for. You have to pledge your hate for whomever they tell you to hate. You have to accept what they tell you to accept without question. You can't utter certain simple words or phrases. You have to accept any position your party takes and can't have your own opinions on them. You should also not ever publicly state that your opinion differs from your masters. You have to change your moral stance on issues at a whim to appease any new agenda. You have to abandon any previous stances or views based on these new agendas. All the while you must pay them for all of this. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. I suppose you could change and try to reject the other Liberals and start thinking for yourself, but you'll soon find yourself rejected and abandoned. Liberals will simply use you and have no desire to hear what you think ,they only want to hear what they think coming out of your mouth. Just try one time to say something that goes against their hive mind and just watch how fast they hang you out to dry. I guess this is what Liberals are scared of. Having to fend for themselves and be rejected. I'm not sure why being rejected from a group of people that simply want to control every aspect of your life, don't really care about you and would turn on you in a second for thinking on your own would be a bad thing. I guess independent thought would take effort. Imagine not being scared and having to do things for yourself. Oh my, the agony and responsibility of freedom.

Case in point. If you're a Liberal simply ask your Liberal buddies any of these questions "What do you guys think? Do you think that climate change could be caused by more than CO2? What if humans can't control the climate?" or "What would you guys think if I voted for a Republican Candidate. Would you still like me?". It's okay. After their reaction you can tell them "You're only kidding". Just don't tell them why you asked them in the first place (the fact you're questioning if they'd reject you). That's something you aren't allowed to do.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> She used foreign nationals to investigate and smear Trump using falsified/fake information thus resulting in a 2 year investigation that turned out to not implicate him in any collusion. The data was also used to smear Trump during the campaign. This is just fine and dandy when Hillary does it? Why, because of some legality? Yet, it's not okay for Trump to request actual valid evidence of any wrong doing from a foreign Government that could be used in his upcoming election (that's if Biden is ends up his actual opponent). If per say the cooked up evidence Hilliary paid for was legit I could see it being valuable, but it wasn't. Yet we should hold Trump guilty of simply requesting something that may have turned out to be valid and also could have possibly shed light onto who was behind the fake collusion accusation. So the nasty bitch gets a pass because there's no specific law about it?



So I can see how it may be unfair and slanderous but politicians get a pass because of free speech which is protected by the first amendment and cases like the McLibel case. I'm not versed enough in defamation or libel laws to explain in more detail. I could read and offer a guess but it would just be an assumption. 

Trump's case wasn't spelled out clearly in that other thread because that thread was an offshoot from another thread. Historical references aside, hmm...

Ok so Trump's main sin, if you will, is that he requested a foreign national that represents first and foremost a foreign government - President Zelensky

Clinton paid for Fusion GPS which contracted Steele who happens to be a foreign national for oppo research. Steele represented a US based company that is providing a good or service and to my knowledge we don't allow the government to regulate that.
**I think she ended up getting in trouble by trying to claim her paid oppo research as legal advice and had to pay a fine. I can't recall and its getting late. **

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'd also like to add that it is up to the US government to validate someone's oppo research before launching an investigation but would again point out that there was legitimate interference in our 2016 election by the Russians.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'd also like to add that it is up to the US government to validate someone's oppo research before launching an investigation but would again point out that there was legitimate interference in our 2016 election by the Russians.



Yes, which Trump had nothing to do with. You didn't answer my others questions. Specifically;



			
				cots said:
			
		

> You didn't address the Democrats refusal to accept the election results nor did you give your opinion on whether or not if this 10th premeditated impeachment attempt is okay (especially considering there's been 9 previous attempts). Remember, the Democrats pledged to remove Trump from office regardless if he does anything wrong. Isn't 10 attempts a bit obsessive? Shouldn't impeachment be reserved for the very bad occasion if a President does something really bad? I mean, they're abusing the process. Would it be too hard to accept your party lost and actually do your job instead of trying to oust the President for any reason possible?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Unless you were personally involved you should just agree with the investigation and move on. This is the same thing the Liberals need to do with the collusion. This the same thing the Liberals need to do if Trump is not impeached. This is the same thing the Liberals should have done after Trump won the election. Take your loss and move on. You agree to the rules and lose then that's it. No bitching. I'm the type of person that'll take a loss and shake my opponents hand. Liberals will refuse to admit they lost and then stab the winner in the back.


"Collusion" is not a legal term, volume one of the Mueller report was about a potential conspiracy, and it was inconclusive.  Though now that Roger Stone has been found guilty of all seven counts of crimes he was charged with, we do have evidence that Trump lied to Mueller in parts of his written testimony.  Should be interesting to see how all that develops.  As the saying goes, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

As for the election, nobody contested the results.  There were no recounts.  Trump was sworn in as normal.  You're playing the victim on his behalf, and for no reason.  If you think the purpose of impeachment is to "overturn elections," you're entirely mistaken.  That's like suggesting that kicking a college kid out for cheating on his exams is the same thing as overturning his admission.

We agree on the "moving on" bit though.  Trump had two years in which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and got very little accomplished.  Then Republicans lost the 2018 mid-terms badly, and they've since refused to take action on any bi-partisan legislation whatsoever.  If Trump and McConnell think they can refuse to do their jobs while siphoning taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts without any consequences, they're sorely mistaken.  Both the 2018 and 2019 elections have shown that the American people won't stand for it.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> See you think that Zelensky is being pressured to not implicate Trump. What you think has no bearing on the issue at hand. It's like my previous example, you witness two people having sex and then assume because it was rough sex that one of the partners was being forced to have sex. You report the crime and both parties claim it was consensual. No matter how violent the sex was unless there was a video of one party refusing and clear cut abuse no one is going to consider what some bystander thinks about it over the word of the actual two people involved, especially if the bystander is involved with people who have filed 9 previous false reports. Now consider it's not even the bystander who saying this took place, but the person who is going to cops to report a crime is someone that overheard what the bystander claimed he saw. So the entire case against the two people involved is based on second hand testimony and assumptions. This is exactly why it's going to go nowhere in the Senate. It's not because the Republicans are in Trump's pocket. It's the 10th attempt. No one is taking the Democrats seriously anymore. They've cried wolf too many times. The only people taking this seriously are the Liberals who can't think for themselves. They're being told what to think. Heaven forbid they start asking their masters questions that their masters have told them not to ask. Imagine what were to happen if the Liberals started to think things that they aren't allowed to think or say things they aren't allowed to say.



Ok your example doesn't inject an appropriate power dynamic that is reflective of the situation. Imagine you walk into a room with your boss and a fellow coworker and the coworker appeared to be sexually harassed. While the coworker denies it, you also know that the coworker is dependent on this job for income to feed their family.  

But I digress, this is getting silly to have to explain. Has no one ever worked for large corporations before? Where are the ethics / HR people when you finally need them.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "Collusion" is not a legal term, volume one of the Mueller report was about a potential conspiracy, and it was inconclusive.  Though now that Roger Stone has been found guilty of all seven counts of crimes he was charged with, we do have evidence that Trump lied to Mueller in parts of his written testimony.  Should be interesting to see how all that develops.  As the saying goes, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.
> 
> As for the election, nobody contested the results.  There were no recounts.  Trump was sworn in as normal.  You're playing the victim on his behalf, and for no reason.  If you think the purpose of impeachment is to "overturn elections," you're entirely mistaken.  That's like suggesting that kicking a college kid out for cheating on his exams is the same thing as overturning his admission.
> 
> We agree on the "moving on" bit though.  Trump had two years in which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and got very little accomplished.  Then Republicans lost the 2018 mid-terms badly, and they've since refused to take action on any bi-partisan legislation whatsoever.  If Trump and McConnell think they can refuse to do their jobs while siphoning taxpayer dollars into their bank accounts without any consequences, they're sorely mistaken.  Both the 2018 and 2019 elections have shown that the American people won't stand for it.



See, exactly what I'm talking about. You won't admit defeat and continue with the collusion related garbage. You're quiet pathetic.

So planning to remove Trump of out the White House before he was in office for any reason necessary by abusing the impeachment process and then after the fact of spouting a failed conspiracy theory and doing so 10 times is in no way representative of the fact that the Liberals won't accept the results. I guess you haven't been on any Liberal forums lately and have read how their plan might actually work this time or the thousands of posts simply declaring Trump didn't win because the electoral college doesn't matter and this is the main reason why the impeachment process should be abused.

You're not fooling anyone. Maybe you should check with your masters on how to counter all of this because your obsessiveness based lies are pretty apparent.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Yes, which Trump had nothing to do with. You didn't answer my others questions. Specifically;
> 
> You didn't address the Democrats refusal to accept the election results nor did you give your opinion on whether or not if this 10th premeditated impeachment attempt is okay (especially considering there's been 9 previous attempts). Remember, the Democrats pledged to remove Trump from office regardless if he does anything wrong. Isn't 10 attempts a bit obsessive? Shouldn't impeachment be reserved for the very bad occasion if a President does something really bad? I mean, they're abusing the process. Would it be too hard to accept your party lost and actually do your job instead of trying to oust the President for any reason possible?



There's much discussion to be had and little time. Ok, to address this without looking I'd argue we are at our first Impeachment Inquiry and by law that is what truly counts. 

I think of it as calling the cops 9-10 times but when asked do you want to press charges you say no. And now you say yes press charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

I presume this is what you keep referring to? I haven't read it so let me review and I'll respond, maybe I'll change my perspective on this.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think of it as calling the cops 9-10 times but when asked do you want to press charges you say no. And now you say yes press charges.



Seeings as the first 9 attempts were bogus the cops would have refused to allow you to file a report after the 3rd attempt and arrested you after the 8th for abusing the system.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> See, exactly what I'm talking about. You won't admit defeat and continue with the collusion related garbage. You're quiet pathetic.


What defeat am I meant to be admitting to?  We're talking about the justice system here, and I'm neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney.  Roger Stone's defense was defeated, and in case you weren't aware, he's been close with Trump for quite a long time.



cots said:


> So planning to remove Trump of out the White House before he was in office for any reason necessary by abusing the impeachment process and then after the fact of spouting a failed conspiracy theory and doing so 10 times is in no way representative of the fact that the Liberals won't accept the results.


This whole "ten times" bullshit is itself a conspiracy theory.  Impeachment has been initiated *ONCE *and only once.  Get that through your skull.  The reason for initiating the process is also perfectly valid, and there will be any number of valid articles of impeachment included.


----------



## urherenow (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I've not only watched this entire hearing process from start to finish.


Was confusing posts together... it was Taleweaver that said he didn't watch. My apologies. I'm fairly certain that if the Democrats COULD reasonably charge him with obstruction, they would. In a heartbeat. 
But it's still laughable that you're clinging on to that, while the chairman himself is obstructing (allowing not a single witness requested by the Republicans and, in fact, FABRICATING a non-existant law to keep the whistle blower out of it), and NOTHING about this process thus far (forget that it's not in a court of law, or even an actual trial) even closely resembles "justice".


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What defeat am I meant to be admitting to?  We're talking about the justice system here, and I'm neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney.  Roger Stone's defense was defeated, and in case you weren't aware, he's been close with Trump for quite a long time.
> 
> This whole "ten times" bullshit is itself a conspiracy theory.  Impeachment has been initiated *ONCE *and only once.  Get that through your skull.  The reason for initiating the process is also perfectly valid, and there will be any number of valid articles of impeachment included.



Trying to deflect on your personal involvement doesn't change the fact that you've repeatedly take the position that collusion happened and refuse to admit Trump is not guilty. Your previous comments on the subject along with your avoidance of admitting that you lost in this instance clearly highlight the fact you won't accept the rules of the game and those rules dictate that your party was wrong and was defeated. Trump is not guilty of what you claim he was guilty of. Time to move on.

There's been 9 previous attempts at impeachment. Congress has brought the issue up for the 10th time. This the first one to get an official inquiry. The previous 9 were based on thin air - just like the collusion with Russia. Sorry bud, your party is probably going to have to try for the 11th time after this attempt fails. Seeings as your party refuses to accept the fact Trump won the election and all.

If you don't like facts and all maybe you should load up your Wikipedia account, you know the one you use to edit and remove things you don't like from the site. This page may be an interesting target. You got a lot of work to do. Maybe you can hire some of the folks that are behind creating Wiki entries about false phobias to give you a hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Seeings as the first 9 attempts were bogus the cops would have refused to allow you to file a report after the 3rd attempt and arrested you after the 8th for abusing the system.


That's not true. If each call was rooted and validated in good faith you would not be able to be culpable. We could argue what is or is not in good faith.. I'm failing to see your 10 attempts thus far.
---
"accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin"
---
That is one, and one I wasn't aware of. This is noted.
---
On January 17, 2019, new accusations involving Trump surfaced, claiming he instructed his long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie under oath surrounding Trump's involvement with the Russian government to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow.[19] This also sparked calls for an investigation and for the president to "resign or be impeached" should such claims be proven genuine.[20] The Mueller Report was released on April 18, 2019, and Robert Mueller himself made follow-up comments on May 29. The report reached no conclusion about whether Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice.[21] Mueller strongly hinted that it was up to Congress to make such a determination. Congressional support for an impeachment inquiry increased as a result.[22]
---
The criminal obstruction of justice w/ Mueller's report will likely be in the articles of impeachment that will be voted on. I don't expect Cohen's pornstar payments to impact individual 1 until he leaves office. He also will be unable to receive a pardon for that crime.

---
A formal impeachment inquiry was launched on September 24, 2019, as a response to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, in which Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government repeatedly since at least May 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.[23][24][25][26][27] The purpose of the requested investigation was alleged to be to hurt Biden's campaign for President.[28][29] In July Trump issued a hold on military aid scheduled to sent to Ukraine, releasing it in September after controversy arose. There was widespread speculation that the withholding of the aid was intended to force Ukraine to investigate Biden; both Trump and Giuliani seemed to confirm that there was such a connection.[30]

In an October 8, 2019 letter to House Democratic leaders, the White House stated it would not cooperate with "your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances."[31] The eight-page letter was widely interpreted by legal analysts as containing political rather than legal arguments.[32][33][34][35][36]
---
Ok let's discuss this further because I'm not seeing what you are claiming. Just because some left leaning individual declares a travesty has happened and it deserves impeachment isn't equivalent to holding a vote on an actual resolution of impeachment.

I completely agree we are at the count of 2 formal votes (three if you count Mueller obstruction - I know a vote was held under the House Judiciary Committee but I'd defer that it is going to be lumped w/ the Ukraine scandal as both have Obstruction of Justice and that will only be served under a single article of impeachment.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> Was confusing posts together... it was Taleweaver that said he didn't watch. My apologies. I'm fairly certain that if the Democrats COULD reasonably charge him with obstruction, they would. In a heartbeat.
> But it's still laughable that you're clinging on to that, while the chairman himself is obstructing (allowing not a single witness requested by the Republicans and, in fact, FABRICATING a non-existant law to keep the whistle blower out of it), and NOTHING about this process thus far (forget that it's not in a court of law, or even an actual trial) even closely resembles "justice".


Well we will agree to disagree. Obstruction of justice is pretty cut and dry for the Ukraine Scandal. Feel free to discuss with any attorneys you know.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Trying to deflect on your personal involvement doesn't change the fact that you've repeatedly take the position that collusion happened and refuse to admit Trump is not guilty.


I don't enjoy having to repeat myself, but since you apparently have a very low level of reading comprehension, let me say it again: collusion is not a legal term.  I'll gladly admit that Trump's not guilty of it, because that's a meaningless admission.  The investigation into whether he committed CONSPIRACY is still ongoing in that the outcome of the Roger Stone trial was tied to that investigation in a number of ways.  I couldn't possibly care less if the idea that it's still ongoing triggers you, there will be more developments to come, that's just the reality of the situation.



cots said:


> There's been 9 previous attempts at impeachment.


I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but statements don't get much more moronic than this.  If Democrats wanted to initiate impeachment sooner, they would have.  They have the majority in the House, so they don't need to "attempt" anything.

If you want to suggest that the Mueller investigation was somehow an attempt to impeach, that's fine, but it just so happens that investigation was both started by a Republican and led by a Republican.  Feel free to criticize your own party for once and maybe gain a little self-awareness in the process.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> That's not true. If each call was rooted and validated in good faith you would not be able to be culpable. We could argue what is or is not in good faith.. I'm failing to see your 10 attempts thus far.
> ---
> "accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. Since the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during 2017 and 2018, the likelihood of impeachment during that period was considered by all to be low.[8][9] A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the House by a 58–364 margin"
> ---
> ...



Here's a few more. I read a list some days back that was linked from the Fox News Comment Forums pertaining to every time Congress has brought it up on the floor (as related to separate causes). I should have bookmarked it. Basically, the Democratic Congress has brought it up 9 previous times based on 9 different reasons in one form or another. To what extent it was discussed or how far they got I don't recall. I'll try to go back and find the source. Though, as you can see from the link below there's more than the 2 you found. I guess it's a numbers game based on what you consider an "attempt", but I would agree that bringing up the subject in Congress with an unique reason would count as 1 attempt.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/09/8472438/president-trump-impeachment-history

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I don't enjoy having to repeat myself, but since you apparently have a very low level of reading comprehension, let me say it again: collusion is not a legal term.  I'll gladly admit that Trump's not guilty of it, because that's a meaningless admission.  The investigation into whether he committed CONSPIRACY is still ongoing in that the outcome of the Roger Stone trial was tied to that investigation in a number of ways.  I couldn't possibly care less if the idea that it's still ongoing triggers you, there will be more developments to come, that's just the reality of the situation.



Oh, so now it's a CONSPIRACY. I almost forgot how the Liberals like to play word games. I mean, this current impeachment effort has gone through how many different words as reasons? Did your parties focus group help you come up with the word CONSPIRACY or did you learn how to substitute that on your own? The thing is, you can rename it to anything you want. You can rename an apple to a pear and then claim you're not holding an apple, but I'm not a 5 year old. Repeat after me "Trump .... isn't .... guilty." I understand, you're not allowed to utter those words. It's okay. I know the truth and since I'm the adult that's all that matters.



> I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but statements don't get much more moronic than this.  If Democrats wanted to initiate impeachment sooner, they would have.  They have the majority in the House, so they don't need to "attempt" anything.
> 
> If you want to suggest that the Mueller investigation was somehow an attempt to impeach, that's fine, but it just so happens that investigation was both started by a Republican and led by a Republican.



They needed cooperation from the majority of their own party. Bringing it up the 9 previous times didn't garnish enough support from their in house focus groups. They kept discussing stuff until they found something they thought would actually work out for them. Seeings as I've now listed 2 sources with various attempts your denial is showing. Seek help immediately.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

I guess in the end I have to say my view of the whole impeachment attempt has to be something concrete, not a news report, not a stump speech. Vote or no dice because talk is cheap. 

But I did learn something and that is the house voted 58–364 margin in December of 2017. Now if Democrats just were out to impeach the president without any recourse I'm surprised that number was so low. Most either did not want to face backlash from constituents or they genuinely didn't support impeachment.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll658.xml

So that link you posted has references to dates where it's discussed but yea I'm only seeing # actual votes being 3 (again only 3 if you count judiciary committee vote- that didn't go to the house if I understand), I'm curious though if you end up finding that other link let me know.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Oh, so now it's a CONSPIRACY. I almost forgot how the Liberals like to play word games. I mean, this current impeachment effort has gone through how many different words as reasons? Did your one man focus group help you come up with the word CONSPIRACY or did you learn how to substitute that on your own?


It's the exact same legal term that was used in reference to the Mueller investigation from beginning to end.  It's not my fault if you're years behind on the basic facts.  It's no wonder you can't process what's happening in the impeachment inquiry now.



cots said:


> They needed cooperation from the majority of their own party. Bringing it up the 9 previous times didn't garnish enough support from their in house focus groups. They kept discussing stuff until they found something they thought would actually work out for them. Seeings as I've now listed 2 sources with various attempts your denial is showing. Seek help immediately.


Oh I see, so it's your ridiculous bias which has lead you to believe that even mentioning the word impeachment is the same thing as attempting to initiate the process.  How very childish.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I guess in the end I have to say my view of the whole impeachment attempt has to be something concrete, not a news report, not a stump speech. Vote or no dice because talk is cheap.
> 
> But I did learn something and that is the house voted 58–364 margin in December of 2017. Now if Democrats just were out to impeach the president without any recourse I'm surprised that number was so low. Most either did not want to face backlash from constituents or they genuinely didn't support impeachment.
> 
> ...



I'll look, but I read hundreds of news articles per day between the 20 or so news sites I read, out of those maybe 10 are on Fox. I'll have to see if there's a way to index and search the forums or something. I'll try that and my google'fo. What the page considered attempts was Congress discussing impeachment based on separate reasons. The simple act of bringing up "do you think we can impeach Trump for X" regardless of how far it got was considered an attempt. Like I replied to @Xzi the Democrats were looking for a reason they could sell to the public in this entire premeditated effort. The first 9 reasons didn't garnish enough support to pursue. I wouldn't consider the ones they voted on the only attempts. As they their agenda has been to attempt to impeach Trump at any cost each reason they would bring up regardless of how far it went I would consider an attempt.

"Hello my fellow Congressmen. I got a new reason to try to impeach Trump. X is the reason. Let's spend time looking into if we can sell it to the public to fulfill our promise of impeaching Trump".

That sounds like an attempt to me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> It's the exact same legal term that was used in reference to the Mueller investigation from beginning to end.  It's not my fault if you're years behind on the basic facts.  It's no wonder you can't process what's happening in the impeachment inquiry now.
> 
> 
> Oh I see, so it's your ridiculous bias which has lead you to believe that even mentioning the word impeachment is the same thing as attempting to initiate the process.  How very childish.



"Trump .... isn't .... guilty." Say it 3 times in a row.

Now go to bed.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> "Trump .... isn't .... guilty." Say it 3 times in a row.
> 
> Now go to bed.


I'll take your pathetic attempt at deflection as a concession.  If we're just making up our own facts now like you have with the "ten impeachment attempts" horse shit, then as far as I'm concerned, Trump was found guilty of incest and pedophilia long ago.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'll take your pathetic attempt at deflection as a concession.  If we're just making up our own facts now like you have with the "ten impeachment attempts" horse shit, then as far as I'm concerned, Trump was found guilty of incest and pedophilia long ago.



Well, I'm still assuming I won the Powerball Lotto Wednesday, but for some reason the Jackpot is still at $90 million. I tried calling them 9 times to tell them that since I assumed I've won they need to immediately transfer the funds to my bank account in the Cayman Islands. You know, so when I board the Luxury Yacht that I randomly pick from the Boca Raton Inlet and assume is mine and travel there I'll have enough money to buy a house that I overheard from two other people that they said is on sale. Though, they didn't listen and I'm going to have to call back a 10th time.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I'm still assuming I won the Powerball Lotto Wednesday, but for some reason the Jackpot is still at $90 million. I tried calling them 9 times to tell them that since I assumed I've won they need to immediately transfer the funds to my bank account in the Cayman Islands. You know, so when I board the Luxury Yacht that I randomly pick from the Boca Raton Inlet and assume is mine and travel there I'll have enough money to buy a house that I overheard from two other people that they said is on sale. Though, they didn't listen and I'm going to have to call back a 10th time.


That's nice, I'm sure they'll cave eventually.  Then you'll have enough money to have anyone who has dirt on you suicided, just like Trump ordered Barr to suicide Epstein.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> I'll look, but I read hundreds of news articles per day between the 20 or so news sites I read, out of those maybe 10 are on Fox. I'll have to see if there's a way to index and search the forums or something. I'll try that and my google'fo. What the page considered attempts was Congress discussing impeachment based on separate reasons. The simple act of bringing up "do you think we can impeach Trump for X" regardless of how far it got was considered an attempt. Like I replied to @Xzi the Democrats were looking for a reason they could sell to the public in this entire premeditated effort. The first 9 reasons didn't garnish enough support to pursue. I wouldn't consider the ones they voted on the only attempts. As they their agenda has been to attempt to impeach Trump at any cost each reason they would bring up regardless of how far it went I would consider an attempt.



Just to be fair and balanced I decided to google and found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama I wasn't aware of any of these which is kind of an embarrassment as I thought I followed politics pretty well. But during the Obama years I still held a high-stress job so I was mainly looking at highlights. It is noteworthy that there were no votes held or at least from what I found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

Bush had a handful of votes in the house for impeachment, they occurred near the end of his term, two by the same individual. 

"The most significant of these efforts occurred on June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment[1] against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives.[2] The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on June 11, where no further action was taken on it.[3] Bush's presidency ended on January 20, 2009, with the completion of his second term in office, rendering impeachment efforts moot."

I couldn't find anything on Bill Clinton due to him actually getting impeached, I presume this was his only instance of impeachment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Just to be fair and balanced I decided to google and found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama I wasn't aware of any of these which is kind of an embarrassment as I thought I followed politics pretty well. But during the Obama years I still held a high-stress job so I was mainly looking at highlights. It is noteworthy that there were no votes held or at least from what I found.



The thing about Obama is that when he won even after some fringe elements of the Republican Party were all about the Birther crap the majority of the party accepted defeat and didn't conspire to abuse the impeachment process to remove him from office. I fear now that the Democrats have opened this can of worms if one of their candidates win the Presidential Election in 2020 the Republicans will immediately try to impeach the winner and the Democrats would be forced to go along with it. Though, Republicans usually agree to the rules and then accept they lost and move on, but if for some reason they did want to get rid of the Democratic winner they'd have precedent to abuse the system. Seeings as how Liberal the Liberals are being with it I think maybe some new rules should be created to limit abuse. It's too bad the Democrats couldn't play by the rules and accept they lost, but as usual they're causing a mess that the Republicans will be left to clean up.

Personally, if one of the Democratic candidates win I'll accept he or she is the new President and give them the benefit of the doubt and the respect that should be given to any President. I didn't discriminate against Obama. I didn't agree with a lot of the things he did, but I'm really glad I have my health care right now and it's thanks to him. Luckily, I'm not a Liberal so I can deal with reality in a proper fashion. I'm glad to say no matter who wins I'm not going to be living a miserable life. Since being full of hatred and intolerance are Liberal traits I'm glad I broke free from the party. I just need to work on forgiving them for lying to me for 16 years and throwing me to the curb when I started to ask questions and think for myself. Of course I wouldn't expect the pre-school Liberals on this forum to even comprehend what I have to say. They'd read a few key words that trigger them and then totally miss the point because they're so focused on their hatred, compiled with their bias and of course the fact they aren't allowed to have a different perspective on things other than what they're told to have on issues. It's pretty sad when you think about it. I go from hating them, to feeling sorry for them, to laughing at them then back to hating them.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 22, 2019)

cots said:


> You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit.


Given how you seem to desire to call me out here as being "stupid", I just want to say this:

In an ideal situation *I'd want to see the White House be able to properly refute this impeachment effort*. If, as you keep constantly claiming this entire thing is just a political game by the Democrats to get rid of Trump, then that would mean the case itself is going to be trash too, would it not? Unfortunately, it would appear that the evidence does not side with the White House here, so instead of being able to properly refute the accusations leveled against the White House, House Republicans and the administration would rather complain about the investigation efforts themselves and attempt to downplay the incidents or exclude Trump from them.

I'm not a clever person by any means, never claimed to be. That said, if I look at this from a rational point of view (which generally speaking I try to do in these cases), all I see is the Republicans constantly complain about the investigation itself being a whole bunch of horseshit whereas Democrats seem to have turned every stone to find the truth. If I look at which "side" (although I personally despise the fact that the Republicans are trying to paint this as a "sides" issue) is being more involved with actually attempting to figure out what happened and what the truth is, the Democrats are more involved as opposed to the Republicans who keep complaining about the process rather than the actual results.


----------



## cots (Nov 22, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Given how you seem to desire to call me out here as being "stupid", I just want to say this:
> 
> In an ideal situation *I'd want to see the White House be able to properly refute this impeachment effort*. If, as you keep constantly claiming this entire thing is just a political game by the Democrats to get rid of Trump, then that would mean the case itself is going to be trash too, would it not? Unfortunately, it would appear that the evidence does not side with the White House here, so instead of being able to properly refute the accusations leveled against the White House, House Republicans and the administration would rather complain about the investigation efforts themselves and attempt to downplay the incidents or exclude Trump from them.
> 
> I'm not a clever person by any means, never claimed to be. That said, if I look at this from a rational point of view (which generally speaking I try to do in these cases), all I see is the Republicans constantly complain about the investigation itself being a whole bunch of horseshit whereas Democrats seem to have turned every stone to find the truth. If I look at which "side" (although I personally despise the fact that the Republicans are trying to paint this as a "sides" issue) is being more involved with actually attempting to figure out what happened and what the truth is, the Democrats are more involved as opposed to the Republicans who keep complaining about the process rather than the actual results.



That would be believable and actually rational if the entire thing wasn't planned before Trump took office. You're simply ignoring the history behind the current situation and the motivation behind it. Taken out of context anything can be made to look legitimate. They're turning over every stone they can find looking for reasons to impeach him and have been for years. Seeings as this was setup and planned from the start I support Trump not giving them anything unless he's legally forced to by the courts. I'm pretty sure that whatever he hands over will then be used against him (even if it's unrelated to whatever the Liberals rename the charges to this time). They're simply following him around waiting for him to make a mistake they can sell to the public for impeachment. If you follow a driver around for 400 miles you're bound to witness them violating a traffic law. No one deserves to be followed around for 400 miles just because they won a competition against you and you can't get over the fact you lost. That's akin to stalking and harassment. I wonder after the Senate clears him if there will be another attempt. After all, the goal is to remove him from office by any means necessary regardless of the reason (as opposed to accepting you lost and working with him).


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

Lindsey Graham is finally committing to investigating State dept communications with Bidens. Biden had a terrible performance in the debate this week. He is eroding the up-swell of support that was gained during the impeachment probe. Sanders and Warren have increased further.

I guess if I was to consider the state of the others:

I haven't understood the allure or reason of Pete Buttigieg. People will be better to back someone who has more experience than just a mayor. The only reason he's done well is because he's unknown, but the small amount of digging already has shown he's not going to garner African American support. Klobachar or Harris will be a better moderate candidate choice. Booker is likely not going to make it to the next debate as he's capped out in funding and narrowly squeezed through. Yang may stay in the race until the spring but there are already two far left candidates who haven't lost any support thus far.

So now to bring things back into focus:

I am looking at how the impeachment inquiry would impact the democratic primary. Klobachar, Harris, Booker, Sanders, Warren (I'll add Biden as he's going to take a harder hit once a trial spends enormous effort doing political damage to distract people from the actual subject of the trial - unless Justice Roberts is given enough power to steer this trial away from becoming a circus where Russian propaganda will be aired openly and we start scrutinizing previous administration under the guise that Trump is 'concerned with corruption' defense. I can't see how that can be avoided as the cornerstone to his defense of 'perfect call' requires him to validate why it is legitimate for him to seek those investigations in the manner shown in the July 25th memorandum)

The impact of this senate impeachment trial may come down to how much grassroots support do the senators listed above have that will go out and campaign on their behalf, in their absence, in the early battleground states and primarily in the south. I'd expect the trial to be over sometime after super Tuesday. I'd expect republicans purposefully draw it out until then. If small dollar donations are any indication, Sanders and Warren will fare the best.

The only wildcard in this entire process is funnily enough, Trump. His erratic nature doesn't make it easy to speculate. If the democrats were able to produce documents and testimony from senior staff or Rudy Giuliani then it would be over quickly (either the evidence would support or refute the current narrative).

Perhaps it would behoove us to gain the testimony of Lev Parnas? I'd like to see Nunes question him under oath. I wonder if he has anything of substance to provide...


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 22, 2019)

Also in news: a wild Bolton emerges - https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton

Presumably to sell his book before he may be forced to testify?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

The inquiry hearings may not be over just yet, unless Chairman Schiff and other Democrats on the Intel Committee choose to ignore the general House rules. Apparently H.R. 660 establishing the special rules for the impeachment inquiry did not displace a general House rule regarding the rights of the minority party to present witnesses. The general House rules were written and adopted by the Democrats earlier this year when they took the majority. 











 111111


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The inquiry hearings may not be over just yet, unless Chairman Schiff and other Democrats on the Intel Committee choose to ignore the general House rules. Apparently H.R. 660 establishing the special rules for the impeachment inquiry did not displace a general House rule regarding the rights of the minority party to present witnesses. The general House rules were written and adopted by the Democrats earlier this year when they took the majority.


A number of the witnesses that have already testified were requested by Republicans.  Though I agree that this should be far from over, as the testimony from several people implicates Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, among others in the scandal.

It's not surprising that requests to hear from the initial whistleblower have been denied, AFAIK they're under federal witness protection and their complaint has been corroborated multiple times anyway.  The request to have Hunter Biden testify is completely asinine, just as a request to have Trump Jr testify would be.  There's nothing relevant to this process that either of them could tell us.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A number of the witnesses that have already testified were requested by Republicans.  Though I agree that this should be far from over, as the testimony from several people implicates Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, among others in the scandal.
> 
> It's not surprising that requests to hear from the initial whistleblower have been denied, AFAIK they're under federal witness protection and their complaint has been corroborated multiple times anyway.  The request to have Hunter Biden testify is completely asinine, just as a request to have Trump Jr testify would be.  There's nothing relevant to this process that either of them could tell us.




I agree Hunter Biden as a witness is stupid. But he wasn't even on the Republicans' witness request list. The so-called 'initial whistleblower' may not have followed the requirements for protection under the act (by meeting and coordinating with Schiff's staff first). If witnesses can be called to establish that, then the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower at all, and isn't protected.

We can only rely on what gets reported in the press, but afaik this was the witness list the Republicans submitted. Of course according to the rule cited in the letter, which was from yesterday before the last hearing ended, they can submit more. They should add Keith Kellogg, who just issued a public letter 3 days ago, at the least. Obviously some of these did testify as you said, but the others were presumably denied by Schiff.


Devon Archer, the longtime business partner of Hunter Biden
U.S Ambassador Kurt Volker
Nellie Ohr, a former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS
Tim Morrison, the former top presidential advisor on Russia and Europe on the National Security Council
David Hale, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer
The anonymous "whistleblower"
"All individuals" whom the whistleblower "relied upon" in drafting "his or her secondhand complaint"


As for implicating Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, others, I guess you are speaking of Sondland's statement that they were in the loop and there was a quid pro quo. But he clarified, repeatedly, that the quid pro quo he was confident existed was with respect to Zelensky's desire for a direct call with the President, and an eventual meeting at the White House. Sondland made it clear as he could that the quid pro quo he knew of did not involve the defense aid. There's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo where foreign aid is concerned - that's standard. The Democrats have alleged all along that the _impeachable _quid pro quo was withholding the defense aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden. No witness established that beyond the level of assumption or belief.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 23, 2019)

cots said:


> Okay let me recap what happened and why the inquiry is taking place. Back in 2016 Hillary Clinton ran against Donald Trump for the Presidential Election. She hired, paid and colluded with foreign Governments to dig up dirt and used it against her political opponent. This is the same women who ran against Obama in the Democrat Primaries in 2008 and claimed he wasn't a USA citizen starting the birther movement. The Democrats agreed to the terms of the election and their candidate rigged the deck, cheated and still lost. Trump defeated her against all odds and polls including a smear campaigns from the the majority of the main stream media who are owned by the Democrats. After her lost the Liberal Democrats swore to remove Trump from office because they wouldn't agree to the terms of the election and take their loss. They planned to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office regardless if he did anything wrong. This is in fact the 10th impeachment attempt. Not only did the Democrats spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars accusing and investigating Trump for being a Russian Agent only to be proved wrong they also have the entire main stream media in their pocket. Now I ask you this? Does that sound fair? Do you really think that the Republicans should go along with this premeditated attempt?
> 
> I went into this thinking, "Well, it's setup, it's rigged, it won't be fair, they'll lie, they'll cheat and if they lose they'll refuse to accept the fact they lost, but maybe, just maybe Trump is actually guilty". You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit. The Liberal Democrats are so stupid they'll buy into whatever they're told to buy into. It doesn't take a genius to figure out most of their claims are complete utter fabrications. I support Trump not giving them shit. If someone had brought me to court and accused me 10 times of different crimes after spending 2 years trying to ruin my life I wouldn't cooperate with them either.
> 
> ...


First off pargraph 1.
Good job on spinning the story. Impeachment inquiry is happening specifically because of the whistle blower leak.
Second off
Good job on reading the Muller report, because you didn't. As a fyi to everyone, Robert Muller is not a Democrat, he is Republican. third issue, you claim (I say claim because, I don't know) Hillary colluded with foreign governments, (this I do know) while also ignoring Trump done the same. Why? because one of his pundents had asked for dirt on the DNC. Which implicates trump in the matter. Especially with his most recent saying that he would accept help from a foreign country, even by potentially illegal means.  My source is the Muller Report, which if you haven't actually read the document, or at least skimmed it, you really lack context. Next point
"I went into this thinking, "Well, it's setup, it's rigged, it won't be fair, they'll lie, they'll cheat and if they lose they'll refuse to accept the fact they lost, but maybe, just maybe Trump is actually guilty". You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit."
this has a absurd amount of logical fallacies. last line is ad hominem, or attacking the person rather than the argument.
Second piece. "So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions."
this is a gross generalization, another logical fallacy, as you generalize them again.. And you've ignored any facts they have supplied, and nor have you properly argued against those facts. Often using a straw man or  red hearing fallacy argument.
Third point you lack understanding of how hers say works, and even then, this is a inquiry, not a court. Which inquiry have a different stature that courts. Hence why often both sides are grand standing in the inqury.
third paragraph. Is red haring, you separate from your original argument, and use that as your conclusion.
four paragraph, uses another fallacy, hasty generalization. Claiming every liberal is a cheat, sore loser, and a liar. While there can be one or two that do such things, not all do.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I agree Hunter Biden as a witness is stupid. But he wasn't even on the Republicans' witness request list. The so-called 'initial whistleblower' may not have followed the requirements for protection under the act (by meeting and coordinating with Schiff's staff first). If witnesses can be called to establish that, then the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower at all, and isn't protected.
> 
> We can only rely on what gets reported in the press, but afaik this was the witness list the Republicans submitted. Of course according to the rule cited in the letter, which was from yesterday before the last hearing ended, they can submit more. They should add Keith Kellogg, who just issued a public letter 3 days ago, at the least. Obviously some of these did testify as you said, but the others were presumably denied by Schiff.
> 
> ...


I think the best method for republicans to pursue this (aside from the whistleblower witness) is actually via Senate Judiciary Committee. Otherwise I don't know how much traction their defense will gain until this goes to the senate.

Unrelated:

I marvel at Lindsey Graham's then/now. This was something from his campaign trail from the last republican primary.

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think the best method for republicans to pursue this (aside from the whistleblower witness) is actually via Senate Judiciary Committee. Otherwise I don't know how much traction their defense will gain until this goes to the senate.



They can call any witness they like if it gets to the Senate. This is about their right, per the rules, to present witnesses _now_.

If you're suggesting that House Dems will vote yes on articles of impeachment regardless of the evidence, you may be right. If you're suggesting the Democrats have already made an ironclad case that can't be touched ... you seriously aren't suggesting _that_ are you?


Even Jonathan Turley, the _very_ liberal Constitutional Law expert, Georgetown Law School Professor, etc., said this morning on CBS that the Democrats did NOT make a case to justify articles of impeachment and maybe this whole thing was intentionally designed to fail (which would mean it was only done for political effect). I don't agree with his analysis, but I do agree with his conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
https://www.youtube.  com/watch?v=TLbCmFtYOsc




> Unrelated:
> 
> I marvel at Lindsey Graham's then/now. This was something from his campaign trail from the last republican primary.
> 
> https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040




John McCain died. I don't know how true it may be, but I've heard for years that McCain had Graham's balls in a vise.





monkeyman4412 said:


> you lack understanding of how hers say works



tell us then, how does it work?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The inquiry hearings may not be over just yet, unless Chairman Schiff and other Democrats on the Intel Committee choose to ignore the general House rules. Apparently H.R. 660 establishing the special rules for the impeachment inquiry did not displace a general House rule regarding the rights of the minority party to present witnesses. The general House rules were written and adopted by the Democrats earlier this year when they took the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


source?
because
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...osponsors?q={"search":["H.Res.+660"]}&r=1&s=8
I am not finding that document.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> source?
> because
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/cosponsors?q={"search":["H.Res.+660"]}&r=1&s=8
> I am not finding that document.




wut?

What exactly are you asking?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> wut?
> 
> What exactly are you asking?


https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text Is the source I think we are discussing? I have something I'm almost done writing but I'm verifying atm before submission as I'm not well versed with this document yet.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> wut?
> 
> What exactly are you asking?


I am asking about your source, as what I linked was what you claimed as H.R. 660
But the paper says it's H.Res. Which is a house resolution, different from a H.R
And I checked under H.R 660 and it was a similar issue. What you claim that paper is, does not match at all to what the papers are on the site.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text Is the source I think we are discussing? I have something I'm almost done writing but I'm verifying atm before submission as I'm not well versed with this document yet.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/cosponsors it doesn't match with the signed page.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text Is the source I think we are discussing? I have something I'm almost done writing but I'm verifying atm before submission as I'm not well versed with this document yet.


Nor does the date for that matter.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text Is the source I think we are discussing? I have something I'm almost done writing but I'm verifying atm before submission as I'm not well versed with this document yet.



660 is just the procedural rules the House passed for the inquiry. But there are general rules of the House which supersede and control over all Committee hearings. I'm not sure exactly how or whether special rules like 660 can 'opt out' of the general rules, but apparently since 660 doesn't specifically displace the general rule about the right of the minority party to present witnesses of their choosing, the general rule controls.

In other words, Schiff's rules have a hole in them.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> 660 is just the procedural rules the Intel Committee passed for the inquiry. But there are general rules of the House which supersede and control over all Committee hearings. I'm not sure exactly how or whether special rules like 660 can 'opt out' of the general rules, but apparently since 660 doesn't specifically displace the general rule about the right of the minority party to present witnesses of their choosing, the general rule controls.
> 
> In other words, Schiff's rules have a hole in them.


My point I'm making is the signed page, and the date, to what you claim that paper is, does not match up.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> My point I'm making is the signed page, and the date, to what you claim that paper is, does not match up.




Well the source for the images I posted are Rep. Kevin McCarthy's twitter.

https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1197542482927636483


When did I "claim it" to be anything?? It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Well the source for the images I posted are Rep. Kevin McCarthy's twitter.
> 
> https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1197542482927636483


..... I have... MANY questions. Because all of them are.
Is this fake?
No seriously.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

I think @Hanafuda was presenting that letter and then referring to HR660 to open up discourse about the letter as it is referenced in that letter.

However, I'm going to stop butting in as I may be misunderstanding this entirely.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think @Hanafuda was presenting that letter and then referring to HR660 to open up discourse about the letter as it is referenced in that letter.
> 
> However, I'm going to stop butting in as I may be misunderstanding this entirely.




My brain's starting to hurt a bit now.

Yeah, I never said the jpg images I posted up there was HR660. It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff, informing him that HR660 as written does not 'displace' the general House rule guaranteeing the minority party the right to present witnesses of their choosing. I suppose that's something that could've been written into HR660, but they didn't. And the letter was presented to the Chair (Schiff) before the end of yesterday's hearing, so their request to call additional witnesses is timely.

Nifty. Now let's see if Schiff follows the Rules, or violates them.




monkeyman4412 said:


> ..... I have... MANY questions. Because all of them are.
> Is this fake?
> No seriously.



How does hers say work?


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> As for implicating Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, others, I guess you are speaking of Sondland's statement that they were in the loop and there was a quid pro quo. But he clarified, repeatedly, that the quid pro quo he was confident existed was with respect to Zelensky's desire for a direct call with the President, and an eventual meeting at the White House. Sondland made it clear as he could that the quid pro quo he knew of did not involve the defense aid. There's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo where foreign aid is concerned - that's standard. The Democrats have alleged all along that the _impeachable _quid pro quo was withholding the defense aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden. No witness established that beyond the level of assumption or belief.



Sonland never talked to Pence about the issue before the meeting he attended that Pence was present in, during the meeting or after the meeting. He simply said something to Pence and Pence nodded. He never mentioned quid pro joe in front of Pence. Seeings as Pence never said a word to the assumptive idiot there's no proof what so ever Pence had any idea about any sort of quid pro quo. The Democrats are really desperate and their party members are fucking dumb, blind and deaf sheep. Of course this is @Xzi we're talking about. So you're really wasting your time trying to talk any logic into his hate filled pee brain.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> First off pargraph 1.
> Good job on spinning the story. Impeachment inquiry is happening specifically because of the whistle blower leak.
> Second off
> Good job on reading the Muller report, because you didn't. As a fyi to everyone, Robert Muller is not a Democrat, he is Republican. third issue, you claim (I say claim because, I don't know) Hillary colluded with foreign governments, (this I do know) while also ignoring Trump done the same. Why? because one of his pundents had asked for dirt on the DNC. Which implicates trump in the matter. Especially with his most recent saying that he would accept help from a foreign country, even by potentially illegal means.  My source is the Muller Report, which if you haven't actually read the document, or at least skimmed it, you really lack context. Next point
> ...



*yawn*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> My brain's starting to hurt a bit now.
> 
> Yeah, I never said the jpg images I posted up there was HR660. It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff, informing him that HR660 as written does not 'displace' the general House rule guaranteeing the minority party the right to present witnesses of their choosing. I suppose that's something that could've been written into HR660, but they didn't. And the letter was presented to the Chair (Schiff) before the end of yesterday's hearing, so their request to call additional witnesses is timely.
> 
> ...



The Democrats run the house. They make up their own rules as they go along. The question is if they'll follow their own rules they've made. Which is easy to answer. When they lose the bitch about the rules they agreed to, won't admit or accept defeat and then try to have the rules changed. So it's simple. They're not going to play by the rules. They never have and never will. It'll take the Republicans to bitch slap them back into reality. Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was planned from the get go I'm not really sure if evidence matters to them. Not to say any of the evidence presented clearly implicates Trump's guilt. Seeings as how Sonland can simply state something and people take it as fact after he admits he's just making assumptions I have a real lack of faith in the people involved in this process.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

Well @cots, I'll pass on the personal vitriol. I disagree with @Xzi on political issues, but there's more to life. Really. And we're just people at home on Friday night at a keyboard instead of somewhere better. I'm a middle-aged dude with a teenaged daughter out on a date, waiting up till she gets home, so at least I have an excuse lol. But we all here get our one measly vote, and I expect everyone to cast it. (Just one each though, you wascally Democrats  )

Point being, we're all just venting thoughts here, debating if you will ... but it doesn't matter for shit. What will happen will happen, regardless of what we say to each other here on a vidya board of ill repute.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Well @cots, I'll pass on the personal vitriol. I disagree with @Xzi on political issues, but there's more to life. Really. And we're just people at home on Friday night at a keyboard instead of somewhere better. I'm a middle-aged dude with a teenaged daughter out on a date, waiting up till she gets home, so at least I have an excuse lol. But we all here get our one measly vote, and I expect everyone to cast it. (Just one each though, you wascally Democrats  )
> 
> Point being, we're all just venting thoughts here, debating if you will ... but it doesn't matter for shit. What will happen will happen, regardless of what we say to each other here on a vidya board of ill repute.



That's fine. You don't have to agree with my viewpoints on his lack of intelligence. That's not going the change how I feel. And according to the Liberals my feelings define reality. Who needs those pesky facts. I'm just saying you're wasting your time debating with someone who won't admit he's wrong regardless of what is proven otherwise. I had him on ignore because he refuses to admit he's even wrong about anything and is constantly filled with hatred for Trump. He's never wrong so what's the point? (Though, I'm just suggesting you don't address him. I'm in no way in a position to demand you do anything nor would I listen personally to anyone who demanded anything from me).


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2019)

cots said:


> That's fine. You don't have to agree with my viewpoints on his lack of intelligence. That's not going the change how I feel. And according to the Liberals, my feelings define reality. Who needs those pesky facts.


I seriously doubt you watched a single minute of public testimony this week.  You're such a disingenuous dipshit.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Well @cots, I'll pass on the personal vitriol. I disagree with @Xzi on political issues, but there's more to life. Really. And we're just people at home on Friday night at a keyboard instead of somewhere better. I'm a middle-aged dude with a teenaged daughter out on a date, waiting up till she gets home, so at least I have an excuse lol. But we all here get our one measly vote, and I expect everyone to cast it. (Just one each though, you wascally Democrats  )
> 
> Point being, we're all just venting thoughts here, debating if you will ... but it doesn't matter for shit. What will happen will happen, regardless of what we say to each other here on a vidya board of ill repute.




While I'm at it, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a Republican, never have been. Used to be registered Democrat, now the dreaded (I)ndependent. I like the libertarian platform if I have to sign on to something, but I never seem to like Libertarian candidates.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I seriously doubt you watched a single minute of public testimony this week.  You're such a disingenuous dipshit.



I watched Sonland's entire testimony. Explain to me genius how Pence was aware of quid pro joe if he never said a word to Sonland prior the meeting he attended, during the meeting and after the meeting (remember, it wasn't a meeting between Sonland and Pence. Pence just happened to be in a meeting that contained a lot of other people). Does Sonland's abilities now include not only creating facts out of assumptions, but also telepathy? Maybe I should just whip out the magic 8 ball and create my viewpoint on it's results.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> My brain's starting to hurt a bit now.
> 
> Yeah, I never said the jpg images I posted up there was HR660. It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff, informing him that HR660 as written does not 'displace' the general House rule guaranteeing the minority party the right to present witnesses of their choosing. I suppose that's something that could've been written into HR660, but they didn't. And the letter was presented to the Chair (Schiff) before the end of yesterday's hearing, so their request to call additional witnesses is timely.
> 
> Nifty. Now let's see if Schiff follows the Rules, or violates them.


Ok, moving on.

From HR660:
---
"3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution."


B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.

(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision, subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.

----
TLDR: If minority wants a witness, and that witness is submitted to the chair accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness to the investigation described in the first section of this resolution but the chair declines the motion then the minority can refer to the committee to overrule the chair. If that fails then no dice.

This is how I read this set of rules. Feel free to break this document down yourself.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text/eh

TLDRx2:
https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1197542482927636483

All that letter is doing is providing the request. If the chair (Schiff) denies the motion - which I don't see this letter "accompanied by a detailed written justification of the relevance of the testimony of each requested witness". If this wasn't provided then this is just a political stunt. If this was provided but just not presented on twitter then the Chairman will make a ruling based on the justification of the relevance of the testimony. If the chairman declines then the minority can appeal to the entire committee, if the committee votes against it then they will not have that witness brought forward.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ok, moving on.
> 
> From HR660:
> ---
> ...




The letter is not citing HR660 as the basis of their right to present the witnesses they choose. The letter cites House Rule XI, which guarantees the right of the minority party to present witnesses. HR660 doesn't contain an exclusion for House Rule XI, so House Rule XI still applies. And according to House Rule XI, invoking that right only requires notice to the Chair from a majority of the members of the minority party members before the end of the hearing, which is what the letter is.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> While I'm at it, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a Republican, never have been. Used to be registered Democrat, now the dreaded (I)ndependent. I like the libertarian platform if I have to sign on to something, but I never seem to like Libertarian candidates.



I was a Liberal fresh out of high school. They rejected me when I started asking questions I wasn't allowed to ask. So I told them to get fucked. I was then a Republican for a while, but I also found issues with them. While they do encourage you to ask questions and won't try to ruin your life for uttering simple phrases I found a lot of them very intolerant for my personal life style. I'm now an Independent, but not part of the Independent party. Fuck parties. I'll make up my own mind on what I want to say, what questions I'll ask and who I'll vote for.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

cots said:


> I was a Liberal fresh out of high school. They rejected me when I started asking questions I wasn't allowed to ask. So I told them to get fucked. I was then a Republican for a while, but I also found issues with them. While they do encourage you to ask questions and won't try to ruin your life for uttering simple phrases I found a lot of them very intolerant for my personal life style. I'm now an Independent, but not part of the Independent party. Fuck parties. I'll make up my own mind on what I want to say, what questions I'll ask and who I'll vote for.




Well, this I'll agree with you on.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The letter is not citing HR660 as the basis of their right to present the witnesses they choose. The letter cites House Rule XI, which guarantees the right of the minority party to present witnesses. HR660 doesn't contain an exclusion for House Rule XI, so House Rule XI still applies. And according to House Rule XI, invoking that right only requires notice to the Chair from a majority of the members of the minority party members before the end of the hearing, which is what the letter is.



What the House maketh the House can taketh.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

cots said:


> What the House maketh the House can taketh.




I don't think they can make changes to HR660 now.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, this I'll agree with you on.



It's pretty easy to detect bullshit. My parents taught me to trust by verification and to always ask questions. You can learn a lot about a person by questioning what they're demanding of you. Anyone that would prevent you from asking certain questions or speaking your mind should not be trusted.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

I haven't finished, I probably should have waited, but for now... In addition, the presented letter makes a claim in the 2nd paragraph that:
---
House rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A) states that "The Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable. House Rule XI, Clause 2(j)(1) provides that "the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify....." Notably, this rule was not displaced by H. Res. 660 and, therefore, under House Rule XI, Clause 1(a)(1)(A), it applies to the Democrats' "impeachment inquiry."
---

I'm not versed enough to dispute this assertion on congressional rules and procedures. If this is true then maybe? Although I don't see how this would not be covered under HR660 as it seems to be quite clear on how impeachment witnesses may be called forth.

I have reservations that this is just a political stunt, since this was posted on twitter with the subtext: 

"Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment. RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying."


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2019)

Uh Oh, if the documents release then Trump was right all along and will be freed from all this, and Biden will need to be looked into.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> "Chairman Adam Schiff has repeatedly denied fundamental fairness and due process throughout the course of this sham impeachment. RT if you agree that he should stop blocking important witnesses from testifying."



I don't agree with all of this because it's the Houses inquiry and they make the rules. Seeings as they are Democrats there's a good chance they'll just ignore any current rules that gets them into trouble  and make new ones. If they lose according to their rules they won't admit defeat and just make up more rules. There's not going to be any "fundamental fairness" in a process controlled by Democrats. How could you expect fairness from people who refuse to accept defeat even after they agreed to the rules?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

cots said:


> I don't agree with all of this because it's the Houses inquiry and they make the rules. Seeings as they are Democrats there's a good chance they'll just ignore any current rules that gets them into trouble  and make new ones. If they lose according to their rules they won't admit defeat and just make up more rules. There's not going to be any "fundamental fairness" in a process controlled by Democrats. How could you expect fairness from people who refuse to accept defeat even after they agreed to the rules?


I have to ask... you make so many assertions on unfairness of rules, have you even read HR660 or House rule XI? You say trust but verify but I'm not seeing much verification on your part when it comes to republican narratives. Just pointing that out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

For reference 

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/02/13/house-section/article/H1572-4

I'm reading this now. I'd like to better understand this. I'm not going to flay others on this thread over rule interpretation but do want us to be able to understand what the rules are before we state the process is unfair or assert the minority is entitled to witnesses without approval of either the majority of the committee or the chairman.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/02/13/house-section/article/H1572-4
> 
> I'm reading this now. I'd like to better understand this. I'm not going to flay others on this thread over rule interpretation but do want us to be able to understand what the rules are before we state the process is unfair or assert the minority is entitled to witnesses without approval of either the majority of the committee or the chairman.




These are the House Rules.

http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

Ok final thoughts: The letter is correct, there is a rule called the minority witness rule.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11

---
Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI—known as the “minority witness rule”—states: Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
---

This is what can be invoked and what was served on the last hearing. 

Something that I found noteworthy under the Majority Prerogatives and Minority Witnesses section:

---
It is up to the chairman of the committee to set the day and location of the requested hearing “under a reasonable schedule.” 9 While the committee majority must invite the witnesses chosen by the minority, they are not precluded from inviting additional witnesses of their own choosing. The chairman maintains control over the logistics of how the minority witnesses will testify (i.e., individually or in panels) and also determines whether to administer the oath to the witnesses.10 

As is the case with other witnesses, a minority witness may decline an invitation to testify. The committee can elect to issue a subpoena for testimony under the normal procedures of the House and the committee but is not required to do so. 

The scope of an additional day of hearings under the minority witness rule is generally limited by the subject of the hearing. A committee is not required to permit testimony by minority witnesses or questioning by committee members or staff that strays from the announced subject of the hearing.11 Of course, if the committee chooses, it may broaden the scope of its inquiry as it sees fit. 

Notwithstanding the rights afforded the minority party under the minority witness rule, under clause 2(k)(8) of House Rule XI, a committee is “the sole judge of the pertinence of the testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.” As such, a committee majority, applying a “reasonableness test,” retains the right to determine the relevance of testimony and the appropriate length of a Rule XI minority day of witnesses.
---
TLDR: If the witnesses chosen through a committee vote does not pass a "reasonableness test" and determines that the relevance of testimony isn't subject of the announced hearing then I think it can still be declined. I'm not 100% sure on this.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ok final thoughts: The letter is correct, there is a rule called the minority witness rule.
> 
> https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22637/11
> 
> ...





Yep. 2(j)(1) of Rule 11 is never mentioned in HR660. So it still applies.


----------



## cots (Nov 23, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I have to ask... you make so many assertions on unfairness of rules, have you even read HR660 or House rule XI? You say trust but verify but I'm not seeing much verification on your part when it comes to republican narratives. Just pointing that out.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I've been watching how Democrats go about business for decades. If and when an orange tree starts to produce cherries I'd change my mind about the tree.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Uh Oh, if the documents release then Trump was right all along and will be freed from all this, and Biden will need to be looked into.
> 
> https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html


I tried to find some more information and found these articles which I am linking below. I have a host of reservations when it comes to any Ukrainian involvement in our politics. I think for those who are concerned w/ the Biden's involvement in Ukraine will gain the appropriate insight from our own senate investigation. 

BTW, I don't disagree with Lindsey's decision as we can either put out our own information from our own government to the American public or other governments/foreign nationals who may not be working in our interests will fill the void. I think it is a pretty sensitive matter though, and I don't believe he's the most suited member to helm this investigation but he's who we have and my reservations are irrelevant.

I would hesitate to give much credence behind anything asserted by two members Ukrainian Parliament, but if they were to produce some hard evidence it would increase their credibility. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/there...laying-games-with-impeachment-info?ref=scroll

https://www.bigiftrue.org/2019/10/1...that-burisma-paid-joe-biden-almost-1-million/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/intern...ead-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2019)

A Ukrainian gas company's CEO now appears willing to testify against Rudy Giuliani, while one of Giuliani's associates is prepared to implicate Devin Nunes in the scandal.  Rather than abandon the sinking ship that is Donald Trump, it seems as though all the rats are beginning to cannibalize each other.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A Ukrainian gas company's CEO now appears willing to testify against Rudy Giuliani, while one of Giuliani's associates is prepared to implicate Devin Nunes in the scandal.  Rather than abandon the sinking ship that is Donald Trump, it seems as though all the rats are beginning to cannibalize each other.


Nunes' case seems one of sheer stupidity to me. While reading, I initially thought it was fairly logical that he met Shokin. I mean... Republicans go with the narrative that Joe Biden helped firing a (by them presumed non - corrupt) Ukrainian official. It's only a matter of decency that you don't go on blind faith on that but check with the guy himself.

... But instead of just admitting that and explaining why they met, Nunes wants to sue cnn and daily beast for breaking that story.

Giuliani is also being fun. Of course all sorts of speculation gets going when he says live on air that he has insurance should Trump decides to distantiate himself from him. Jeez... Apparently Sondland 's testimony wasn't damning enough?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

I am re-posting a portion of something I stated in another thread as it was off-topic there and it actually is pertinent in this topic.

I am in complete agreement with Dr. Fiona hill in one aspect that republicans refuse to address due to cowardice or due to an effort to influence domestic politics. We have a president that still believes a Russian birthed narrative that Ukraine was solely behind election interference not the Russian government, that Ukraine gave the dnc server to crowdstrike. I find that a travesty, but no one speaks of it because doing so would show how little judgement is being exercised by the President regarding this matter. Just watch his latest fox -n- friends interview. It is appalling.

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

Donald Trump: (06:02)
It’s very interesting. They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee-

Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
Who has the server?

Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-

Steve Doocy: (06:31)
Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
*Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption. And I also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money? All the European nations, why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union, and they’re benefited a lot more by the Ukraine than we are.

TLDR: Our president is either a fool or a liar. You pick. July 25th call nor the first call on April 12th have the word corruption in it. His own words Trump is looking for 'corruption' of a political opponent and he's asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden on the south lawn in front of reporters. It is the only corruption he is looking for per his own words to Zelensky and is the reason he resisted giving the aid. He is his own worst enemy, trailing closely by only his own lawyer. Ah the best people.

Further explanation of my logic: I will note for clarity that he is discussing corruption in his interview of the DNC server and both the DNC server and Biden were his topics raised in the july 25th call. To dissociate the two would require to say that both weren't topics of corruption which would be equally damning as it would say the Biden investigation is for pure political purposes. If both are under the topics of corruption as Trump asserts then they are in fact the reason he held up the aid by his own admission.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 25, 2019)

A federal judge on Monday ordered Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the Trump WH's top lawyer, a ruling that will add pressure on other Trump officials tied to the impeachment probe. Decision here:  http://ow.ly/g7TL50xkrnj 

I'm not sure if he is going to seek an appeal or not. If all he was wanting to do is cover his ass and not obstruct then I wouldn't see the need to pursue an appeal.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

In part of that decision, rational was given in the quote below:
“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires," Judge says

Other news of FOIA working to give public transparency on this issue:
Judge orders release of documents of communications between the Pentagon’s comptroller, DOD and White House OMB over the delay in stalled Ukraine aid. Must turn over 106 pages to Center for Public Integrity by Dec. 12. Another 100 by Dec. 20 in FOIA suit https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv3265-17 …

In addition to the above, on Friday:
https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

*disclaimer: left leaning source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/* However, I believe the documents that are produced from FOIA can be independently verified and read for own interpretation.

"On Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.

American Oversight is reviewing the production to assess whether the State Department has fully complied with the court’s order."

----
TLDR: This is strong evidence that Trump's administration is abusing executive privilege and is blocking a formalized congressional impeachment inquiry. If normal citizens through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) can have the courts force the Executive branch to produce documents then congress is certainly entitled to them via an impeachment inquiry.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> A federal judge on Monday ordered Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the Trump WH's top lawyer, a ruling that will add pressure on other Trump officials tied to the impeachment probe. Decision here:  http://ow.ly/g7TL50xkrnj
> 
> I'm not sure if he is going to seek an appeal or not. If all he was wanting to do is cover his ass and not obstruct then I wouldn't see the need to pursue an appeal.
> 
> ...



The first part of your post is interesting because as far I as know there's only 1 court in this entire country that can force The White House to comply with this lower courts order. However, no one is forcing these witnesses not to testify. They are doing so on their own. Sonland chose to break from the group and testified. It's just too bad for the Democrats all he had to present was his personal assumptions. Don McGahn can now chose to comply with the order or not. I wonder if the White House would defend him if he continues to refuse? If so, like I said, there's only 1 court that can actually tell The White House what to do. I'd understand if Don McGahn does comply, but I'd support him if he doesn't. Either way it's not like anything he says is going to be fairly by the Democrats, which is why I support him refusing to testify. Anything he says is going to be used to attack the President by it being taken out of context or misrepresented. You know, the same thing the Democrats did with a majority of Sonland's testimony that wasn't pure "I assume this happened, but don't have any proof".

The second part of what you posted doesn't even sound like news to me "Someone turned over 100 pages of records that show some various people met with each other". Yeah, well, until someone goes through those 100 pages and finds any actual evidence of any crimes there is no news. However, since the Democrats are running a political trial that doesn't require any actual evidence, but only the "impression of guilt" combined with how they've been handling this shit show I'm sure they'll find something to use to smear Trump with. That's the goal. Smear and ruin him at all costs. It's not about fairness or what's right, it's about destroying his life and removing him from office, regardless of guilt.

Edit:

About this witness. He's been in the White House for less than a year. He wasn't there for the Ukraine call and he also testified in the Mueller investigation (you know the conspiracy that turned up jack shit). Another "bombshell" testimony, right? Like the "Sonland" testimony that produced "I assume he's guilty, but have no proof". Plus, if you read the ruling he has to show up in person, but he can still refuse to answer any questions he doesn't want to. So this "hype" is another Democratic "bunch of nothing" loss for them. I do however expect the Democrats to twist whatever he has to say. Just like "Pence is guilty of quid pro quo because he nodded to Sonland" when Pence never spoke directly to Sonland before, during or after the meeting they both happened to end up in. So this guy  shows up and can refuse to answer any questions Congress asks him and yet this is some "big win" for the Democrats. Well, that's if he does show up. The DOJ filed an appeal hours after the Judge's ruling. So as of right now it's looking like he's not going to show up nor is legally required to at this point in time. Seems to have worked out just fine. I wonder if any Liberals were outraged in the process. Liberal outrage makes me smile.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A Ukrainian gas company's CEO now appears willing to testify against Rudy Giuliani, while one of Giuliani's associates is prepared to implicate Devin Nunes in the scandal.  Rather than abandon the sinking ship that is Donald Trump, it seems as though all the rats are beginning to cannibalize each other.



Giuliani's dealing (the ones you're specifically referring to) have nothing to do with this quid pro quo nonsense. If you read between the lines Nunes has also been falsely accused (for simply wanting to investigate some things on his own) and it's been blown up by the slanted Liberal media. Yawn, nothing of substance in either of your links. The only thing that is sinking is your IQ level.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Nunes' case seems one of sheer stupidity to me. While reading, I initially thought it was fairly logical that he met Shokin. I mean... Republicans go with the narrative that Joe Biden helped firing a (by them presumed non - corrupt) Ukrainian official. It's only a matter of decency that you don't go on blind faith on that but check with the guy himself.
> 
> ... But instead of just admitting that and explaining why they met, Nunes wants to sue cnn and daily beast for breaking that story.



Maybe because the CNN story included 1 fact "That he met with Shokin" and then fabricated the rest of the story? A story that's being used to smear him. Seeings as a trans person can sue you for accidentally misgendering them on a single occasion I think he's more than in his right to sue those bastards into oblivion. I hope he uses the money he's going to win to put a stop to something the Liberals value.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Maybe because the CNN story included 1 fact "That he met with Shokin" and then fabricated the rest of the story? A story that's being used to smear him. Seeings as a trans person can sue you for accidentally misgendering them on a single occasion I think he's more than in his right to sue those bastards into oblivion. I hope he uses the money he's going to win to put a stop to something the Liberals value.


Wrong. Have you even read the article? It claims that Parnas is accusing Nunes, that's all. Nunes could simply deny this to CNN and daily beast, or, like I said, illustrate the reason for that meeting (if it took place). He did neither. That's the entire point: your 'one fact' is just wishful thinking on a hypothetical explanation I brought up.

Get your fucking facts straight, man. Your 'it' s all a conspiracy by liberal media' paranoia is getting out of hand.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 26, 2019)

We now have e-mails available which show the extent to which White House staff were fully aware that Trump was using military aid to extort Ukraine, and also what efforts they made to justify it after the fact.  Apologies if this was already covered as part of RationalityIsLost101's post.

And oh lordy, there are video and audio recordings which have been given to Congress by Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who now appears to be fully cooperating with the impeachment inquiry.  It's unclear at this time what exactly these recordings depict, but we can probably rule out discussions over where to hold the next Boy Scouts meeting.

By the end of all this it seems likely these will go down in history as the most well-documented crimes ever.  Not that it will change the minds of anyone in the Faux News bubble, of course.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Wrong. Have you even read the article? It claims that Parnas is accusing Nunes, that's all. Nunes could simply deny this to CNN and daily beast, or, like I said, illustrate the reason for that meeting (if it took place). He did neither. That's the entire point: your 'one fact' is just wishful thinking on a hypothetical explanation I brought up.
> 
> Get your fucking facts straight, man. Your 'it' s all a conspiracy by liberal media' paranoia is getting out of hand.



LOL. Have I ever read the article? You want to distract me by playing Liberal games like "let's discuss these lies in detail". Sorry bud, I don't have time to dissect fantasies published by delusional madmen. Let's see, this is the same CNN that just attacked Tom Hank's new Mr. Roger's film because Mr. Roger's was a Christian? The same CNN that posts weekly articles on how it's okay and perfectly healthy to be obese? The same CNN attacking private schools for trying to prevent their school children from becoming addicted to deadly drugs? The same CNN that spent 2 years spouting the Russian Collusion Hoax posting hundreds of articles with no factual basis? The same CNN owned by an old rich white socialism supporting billionaire named George Soros? Yeah, unless I want to laugh my ass off with some late night fictional tabloid reading I don't care what those fucking idiots made up this time. For all I know these corrupt Ukraine officials got paid off for whatever lies they're selling, but I'm not going to do what the Liberals want and be distracted by a bunch of gibberish they're trying to pass as news.

What I am willing to  do is when Nunes wins the lawsuit is to write him a letter suggesting he uses parts of the funds to defund and put Planned Parenthood out of business. Oh, and before you say "We'll if you don't read it then (blah) (blah) (blah)" I've got too much time on my hands involving myself in watching this current premeditated  shit show take place. With all of the lies and bullshit coming from the Democrats and watching the nonsense being spewed out on various forums I've got no more time to make to entertain myself (as reading how you fools here go about your support for this nonsense has me ROFL every time you morons post).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> We now have e-mails available which show the extent to which White House staff were fully aware that Trump was using military aid to extort Ukraine, and also what efforts they made to justify it after the fact.  Apologies if this was already covered as part of RationalityIsLost101's post.
> 
> And oh lordy, there are video and audio recordings which have been given to Congress by Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who now appears to be fully cooperating with the impeachment inquiry.  It's unclear at this time what exactly these recordings depict, but we can probably rule out discussions over where to hold the next Boy Scouts meeting.
> 
> By the end of all this it seems likely these will go down in history as the most well-documented crimes ever.  Not that it will change the minds of anyone in the Faux News bubble, of course.



... and which crime are we now on? Do you need to hire another focus group to come up with some more popular verbage to sell your lies with? The original charge was quid pro quo due to requesting dirt on Biden who you claim is his political opponent. You've still got no proof that happened. Hell, Biden is still not his opponent nor ever was. So you might have proof Trump was withholding aid for various reasons, but that's perfectly legal and fine. The White House openly admits they were doing so. It happens all of the time and there's many valid reasons on why it happens. It's actually part of his job to negotiate with foreign Governments. So, what's the latest impeachment reason? Are you guys going to change it again?

inb4 - "Trump sneezed. Impeach!!!!"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Get your fucking facts straight, man. Your 'it' s all a conspiracy by liberal media' paranoia is getting out of hand.



Well, it's technically not a conspiracy because they openly admit to wanting to get rid of the President at all costs no matter the circumstance regardless of guilt, which has been their public plan since before he took office. It would be a conspiracy if this was a hidden agenda with shadow players, but it's simply all out in the open for anyone to look up. I'm not paranoid about the Liberal media. They openly admit their agenda is to push socialism on the country and they openly have supported this premeditated shit show since before it happened and openly support it now. What's funny is that even though you've got the entire main stream Liberal media against Trump and the fact the Democrats have planned this from the start they're still going to fail. It's just what happens when you can't accept you loss and let blind hatred motivate you. Evil always loses in the end.  The Democrats have historically embraced evil and have always been on the losing side of things. I don't see that changing anytime soon (now or in the future). Racism and hatred runs deep in their party and they openly embrace everything that is wrong in society. The strong will prevail and the weak shall die (as it should be).

@Xzi is that you? TDS is more contagious then HIV (and in this case will probably lead to catching a STD)!


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> LOL. Have I ever read the article? You want to distract me by playing Liberal games like "let's discuss these lies in detail". Sorry bud, I don't have time to dissect fantasies published by delusional madmen.


Yeah... I don't have time to dissect fantasies published by one either...


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

@cots I noticed you had nothing to say about Trump's own words I provided yesterday in post #223

Also, the information I listed today is to inform those on this thread of additional developments related to impeachment. If you think something is not a valid source please explain in detail to me so that I may ensure I bring information that is appropriate.

https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

To my understanding Americanoversight is a non-partisan, nonprofit ethics watchdog group who filed requests for documents from the Trump Administration under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).

*disclaimer: left leaning source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/* However, I believe the documents that are produced from FOIA can be independently verified and read for own interpretation.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> @cots I noticed you had nothing to say about Trump's own words I provided yesterday in post #223
> 
> Also, the information I listed today is to inform those on this thread of additional developments related to impeachment. If you think something is not a valid source please explain in detail to me so that I may ensure I bring information that is appropriate.
> 
> ...



If Trump was withholding the funds due to corruption then that not only proves there was no quid pro quo over Biden, but only cements that nothing illegal was done. Though, he only asked "why should we give them funds" and never stated "I'm going to withhold these funds because". So is the latest impeachment reasoning now "He threatened to withhold funds that he ended up giving them?". Seeings as he's doing his job by negotiating with foreign governments and doing so to make sure there was no corruption involved it seems to me you're all making a fuss about nothing. How do you think foreign aid works? Do we just hand out aid without any conditions applied to it? Rofl ....


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 26, 2019)

It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Let's see, this is the same CNN that just attacked Tom Hank's new Mr. Roger's film because Mr. Roger's was a Christian?



I've personally met Mr. Rogers with my kids decades ago. I know this will get off topic but I want something to be clear:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/23/entertainment/mister-rogers-faith-religion/index.html

This is not an attack on Mr. Rogers. If you knew the man you would know he was previously an ordained minister. To say he was a televangelist for toddlers isn't a negative thing to him if you knew him because he wanted to emulate Christ that he followed in the best manner he saw fit in an inclusive manner.

I'm not saying anything else but let's not disrespect a very respectable man to try to prove some point of 'media bias'. I'm sure there are some shabby cnn opinion pieces out there you could point at, and I could do the same with fox. This is just uncouth behavior.

Don't bother responding on this as I won't continue to derail this thread further.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joe88 said:


> It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/


I'll note that in my post then and edit it appropriately. Thanks.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I've personally met Mr. Rogers with my kids decades ago. I know this will get off topic but I want something to be clear:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/23/entertainment/mister-rogers-faith-religion/index.html
> 
> ...



Don't reply, but the CNN was attacking Christians in the article, have a user base that hates Christians and the entire article is about how Mr. Roger's is a Christian. Seeings as you like to take things out of context I could possibly understand your defense, but it's the reasoning behind the article is apparent. CNN and Liberals hate Christians. I think you'd understand more if you would have read the responses to this article from Liberals on various forums (you won't find any on CNN because they don't allow comments). Liberals openly admit to hating Christians and will discriminate against them, which is totally acceptable in their eyes. I mean, bringing up about how his last words before he died on how he questioned his faith was enjoyable to the Liberals. They ended the article off with a bang that justifies slandering the man based on his last words while he was on his death bed. Yeah, totally supportive of him they were. I wasn't disrespecting him you tool. I was slandering CNN for disrespecting him. You have to be a real man to attack someone that's dead solely based on their faith that spent their entire life trying to make the world a better place for children. Fucking pathetic beta males.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> Let's see, this is the same CNN that just attacked Tom Hank's new Mr. Roger's film because Mr. Roger's was a Christian?





cots said:


> Don't reply, but the CNN was attacking Christians in the article, have a user base that hates Christians and the entire article is about how Mr. Roger's is a Christian. Seeings as you like to take things out of context I could possibly understand your defense, but it's the reasoning behind the article is apparent. CNN and Liberals hate Christians. I think you'd understand more if you would have read the responses to this article from Liberals on various forums (you won't find any on CNN because they don't allow comments). I mean, bringing up about how his last words before he died on how he questioned his faith was enjoyable to the Liberals. They ended the article off with a bang that justifies slandering the man on his death bed. Yeah, totally supportive of him they were.


Wrong, make a thread and ill discuss it there. It was showing his humanity. You can continue your innane ranting in efforts to warp reality but it is apparent for any non partisan that understood his history to know the article wasn't disrespectful. CNN BAD is not valid logic on this one, sorry.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> CNN BAD is not valid logic on this one, sorry.



* CNN mostly bad.
** Given article attacking Mr. Roger's over his faith prime example.
*** Me smash Libtards


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

cots said:


> If Trump was withholding the funds due to corruption then that not only proves there was no quid pro quo over Biden, but only cements that nothing illegal was done. Though, he only asked "why should we give them funds" and never stated "I'm going to withhold these funds because". So is the latest impeachment reasoning now "He threatened to withhold funds that he ended up giving them?". Seeings as he's doing his job by negotiating with foreign governments and doing so to make sure there was no corruption involved it seems to me you're all making a fuss about nothing. How do you think foreign aid works? Do we just hand out aid without any conditions applied to it? Rofl ....


Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with. Answer this, did Trump lie and mislead the american public on Fox? Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
*Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

---
Brian Kilmeade: (17:07)
So Mr. President [crosstalk 00:17:08] … the accusation is this, that you’re using aid, taxpayer dollars, to attack a political opponent in Joe Biden. And you do say, I wanted to hold up that aid because of corruption, but you also in that phone call-

Donald Trump: (17:25)
[crosstalk 00:17:25] No, no. Two reasons. *For corruption, because it’s known. I want to make sure the money is going to be spent properly, but there’s another reason that is maybe to me the most important.*

Brian Kilmeade: (17:35)
Which is?

Donald Trump: (17:36)
*Why isn’t Germany, France, the European union, why aren’t all those countries in Europe, why aren’t they paying?
---*
Ignore this part for now. I'm putting this here for reference for later. Its more important to address the question I posed above before we begin discussing this interview further.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 26, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/




Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## cots (Nov 26, 2019)

I wonder who fact checks https://mediabiasfactcheck.com


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 26, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/


Should probably point out that American Oversight is mainly considered biased left wing due to their story selection and choices in headlines. They don't report inaccurate facts according to mediabiasfactcheck but aren't open about how they're funded.

Basically, yes they're biased but it probably doesn't impact the report in question.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> I wonder who fact checks https://mediabiasfactcheck.com


According to it's about page, the site is made by a guy called Dave van Zandt who studied Communications and has done extensive research on media biases and the role of media in politics. If you want to know where he leans politically, the about page says he's registered as non-affiliated.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


I apologize I wasn't familiar with that outlet and apparently their about page is what I cited.

While I updated and edited my posts pertaining the linked website's as a left leaning source in their presentation of news articles, the big takeaway is still documents that were produced from the FOIA. These documents are now available to the general public and this shows Trump is currently obstructing congress as they are refusing to provide to congress documents and records that can be obtained by the general public through FOIA. These documents can be viewed independent of their leaning analysis for those who enjoy reading that sort of material.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I apologize I wasn't familiar with that outlet and apparently their about page is what I cited.
> 
> While I updated and edited my posts pertaining the linked website's as a left leaning source in their presentation of news articles, *the big takeaway is still documents that were produced from the FOIA. These documents are now available to the general public and this shows Trump is currently obstructing congress as they are refusing to provide to congress documents and records that can be obtained by the general public through FOIA. These documents can be viewed independent of their leaning analysis for those who enjoy reading that sort of material.*



Not even gonna dispute that's going on, because it's standard fucking practice for the executive branch and has always been. Do you not remember Obama's administration blocking witnesses from testifying, ignoring subpoenas, refusing to provide records/documents?????? There's nothing specifically "Trump" about this ... it's just how they handle their shit. When someone says your ass is probably dirty, you either deny it, admit it, or try not to respond at all. You don't bend over and spread your cheeks for inspection.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Not even gonna dispute that's going on, because it's standard fucking practice for the executive branch and has always been. Do you not remember Obama's administration blocking witnesses from testifying, ignoring subpoenas, refusing to provide records/documents?????? There's nothing specifically "Trump" about this ... it's just how they handle their shit. When someone says your ass is probably dirty, you either deny it, admit it, or try not to respond at all. You don't bend over and spread your cheeks for inspection.


Yet you presume that I don't also take issue with it when it was in the Obama Administration? I want more government transparency. Although, there is that other qualifier that Obama wasn't facing an impeachment inquiry. Which makes it all the more dire to take such a policy when dealing w/ congressional oversight.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Perhaps ill-advised is a more appropriate word rather than dire.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Yet you presume that I don't also take issue with it when it was in the Obama Administration?



Were you posting here back then to criticize the Obama administration for it?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 27, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Were you posting here back then to criticize the Obama administration for it?


His account wasn't registered during the Obama administration.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 27, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> His account wasn't registered during the Obama administration.




Welp, ya got me there.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 27, 2019)

Heh... I predicted earlier that Trump would distantiate himself from Giuliani. Trump now claimed that the guy was in Ukraine doing his own thing rather than doing the president's bidding. 

Stay tuned for irrefutable evidence from Giuliani...
(what? It's not like Trump is doing loyalty. You didn't think Giuliani hasn't learned anything from the Cohen affaire?)


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Heh... I predicted earlier that Trump would distantiate himself from Giuliani. Trump now claimed that the guy was in Ukraine doing his own thing rather than doing the president's bidding.
> 
> Stay tuned for irrefutable evidence from Giuliani...
> (what? It's not like Trump is doing loyalty. You didn't think Giuliani hasn't learned anything from the Cohen affaire?)



Yes this is what Trump is claiming and Giuliani isn't disagreeing. Seeings as they're the only two people involved in that decision or could state for a fact it's either one way or another why would I trust some random reporter with an axe to grind? Because "Sonland assumed"? Give me a break. It's like taking the word of someone who overheard two people talking about something and not believing the two people who were actually talking about the subject. The Liberal Democrats are really desperate and think the general public is really stupid. That'll be their downfall come 2020.


----------



## cots (Nov 29, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> According to it's about page, the site is made by a guy called Dave van Zandt who studied Communications and has done extensive research on media biases and the role of media in politics. If you want to know where he leans politically, the about page says he's registered as non-affiliated.



That seems to be a pretty convenient party registration for someone running a political bias fact checking page. Not that doesn't mean he's lying. I read some of the bias checks and they seem pretty accurate. Although, they're just pretty much generic overviews. It doesn't seem like much time was put into some of the entries, especially CNN.com. I have some basic understanding of proper journalism and CNN has a pretty bad past at following it. If you're interested in what CNN is constantly doing wrong just look at this site https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines and also recall your basic grade school lessons of "you need to include who, what, when, where and why" in your reports and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe this guy who runs the site should spend more time investigating the bias of each site? Because the CNN overview is only semi-accurate.

Edit: You might want to search this site https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/exposing-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers for his name. Who do you trust? WHO DO YOU TRUST?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 30, 2019)

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/heres-the-proof-that-trumps-no-quid-pro-quo-call-never-happened/

This was an interesting read into the analysis of Sondland's testimony, specifically his call with the President. This is the most intriguing thing I've read since the public hearings and think it deserves to be highlighted.

The major issue most people have had so far, in my opinion, is they are looking at these testimonies/hearings as separate entities rather than coalescing the information together to reproduce an accurate timeline of events.

The TLDR is that Sondland has a range of dates for his infamous call with the president. The timing of the call is significant to context regarding Tim Morrison's testimony and paints a different picture than the President presented with his sharpie notes in front of the press.

"Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it."

I had initial reservations whether or not enough information is available to corroborate the assertion presented in this analysis but I was able to follow along with this line of thought and it could be easily verified with phone records as well as the complaint lodged by Mr. Morrison to the NSC lawyers. I imagine as more documents come forward due to FOIA suits that are barraging the Trump Administration we would be able to pinpoint the date of the call thus allowing the proper context to be applied.

---
"By erroneously placing the call on September 9th, Sondland helped obscure these omissions from his testimony, by divorcing the call from its actual context in the ongoing negotiations with Ukraine over what form of quid pro quo would be acceptable. More importantly, it also gave the appearance that the call Sondland was describing was somehow different from the call that was described by two other witnesses – both of whom testified that the call included an explicit demand by Trump for a quid pro quo."
---
---
"In fact, there does exist a detailed, contemporaneous record of what exactly Sondland said on that call with Trump. Because on September 7th, after his call with Sondland, Morrison immediately went to the NSC lawyers to report what had happened, because “[he] was concerned about what Ambassador Sondland was saying were requirements” for the release of the security assistance. (Morrison Depo. at 145) That is, Morrison went to the NSC lawyers to report Sondland’s claim that President Trump was involved in making an explicit quid pro quo demand to Ukraine."
---

There were main five bolded points raised in this article, I'll past them below but encourage people to read this analysis because I missed this conflict in testimony entirely during my read of the depositions.

I. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call (Background of the call and its contents that is being referenced in this article)
II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9
III. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was in Response to Negotiations That Occurred in Warsaw, Not Bill Taylor’s Text
IV. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was In Fact a Demand for Quid Pro Quo
V. The White House Has Contemporaneous Written Records of the “No Quid Pro Quo” Call

---

At this point if these things can be confirmed as this article suggests, if the american public doesn't think that Trump is guilty of Quid Pro Quo (Attempted Bribery) by with holding security assistance, then it is the fault of the democrats for not making use of the public hearings to appropriately present the facts before the public just as much as it would be for the republicans for attempting to obfuscate the facts.


----------



## cots (Nov 30, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> At this point if these things can be confirmed as this article suggests, if the american public doesn't think that Trump is guilty of Quid Pro Quo (Attempted Bribery) by with holding security assistance, then it is the fault of the democrats for not making use of the public hearings to appropriately present the facts before the public just as much as it would be for the republicans for attempting to obfuscate the facts.



He is only guilty of doing his job. Holding up foreign aid is not a crime. What's he's accused of his holding up foreign aid for dirt on Biden. The Liberals can't prove this so now; are they changing their basis for impeachment again? By the way, foreign aid is held up all of the time for various reasons and it always comes with conditions. We just don't hand out money to anyone who asks and then allow them to spend it any way they like. Of course, all of this is being somehow *confirmed by assumption*. Bleh, more mindless Liberal dribble. Nothing new, nothing damning. Move along.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 30, 2019)

cots said:


> He is only guilty of doing his job. Holding up foreign aid is not a crime. What's he's accused of his holding up foreign aid for dirt on Biden. The Liberals can't prove this so now; are they changing their basis for impeachment again? By the way, foreign aid is held up all of the time for various reasons and it always comes with conditions. We just don't hand out money to anyone who asks and then allow them to spend it any way they like. Of course, all of this is being somehow *confirmed by assumption*. Bleh, more mindless Liberal dribble. Nothing new, nothing damning. Move along.


It is apparent you didn't read the article so there isn't much point conversing with you, but for others who have some appetite to actually READ and DISCUSS on this thread, well those are the ones this is targeted towards. You have proven time and time again to assert into a discussion with nothing substantive. If you quote something from the article you don't agree with then that would be appropriate. At this point, all you have provided is equivalent to a shit post.

It is apparent in multiple witness testimonies, even quoted within the article provided, that was linked that the aid was conditioned on investigations into a political opponent. Your refusal to address substance says everything anyone needs to hear.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@cots You also never addressed my question on this thread in post #238.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 30, 2019)

I... Honestly don't see much relevance in a mix up dates (all me whom I called 2 months ago and I could easily be wrong two days as well).
It would have been an important point for Republicans because it could show that Trump didn't make that call in _response_ to democrats starting an investigation... But it has since been revealed that he knew about the whistle blower rapport 'earlier'.

I was also familiar with the context. Trump didn't so much say "I want no qui pro quo" but "I don't want a quid pro quo... I just want to do the ukranians to do the right thing".
Which is like saying "I don't want to commit a crime... I just want the bank employees to hand me their money in order not to get shot by me".


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 30, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I... Honestly don't see much relevance in a mix up dates (all me whom I called 2 months ago and I could easily be wrong two days as well).
> It would have been an important point for Republicans because it could show that Trump didn't make that call in _response_ to democrats starting an investigation... But it has since been revealed that he knew about the whistle blower rapport 'earlier'.
> 
> I was also familiar with the context. Trump didn't so much say "I want no qui pro quo" but "I don't want a quid pro quo... I just want to do the ukranians to do the right thing".
> Which is like saying "I don't want to commit a crime... I just want the bank employees to hand me their money in order not to get shot by me".


I'm not asserting that Sondland did it on purpose, I can't prove that. But it is curious that Castor began to assert it was definitively sept 9 in his questioning of Sondland despite Sondland continuing to give disclaim I can't recall the date exactly. The republicans were likely aware of how this call could be used to assist in incriminating trump and wanted to get in front of it by reframing to dissociate the correct context of when the call occurred. Without me copy/pasting large swaths of the article (which I admit takes approx 10min to read so there is a time investment required) context of what the date of the call can be applied is entirely different and torpedoes Trump's paper defense surrounding the call. It switches from a weak defense to an incriminating piece of evidence. I'll reread and try to excerpt a few more pieces if desired but its really best to read it in its entirety. (I'm not sure if you personally have read it, but I'm trying to speak generally to anyone on this thread).


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 30, 2019)

---
Because in reality, as *shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th*. What’s more, the *call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. *And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about *the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.*
*---
*
I admit I may not of given a summary in my first post but this excerpt from the article attempts to show the significance in the timing (before the only thing democrats were saying in giving context of the call is The whistleblower blew the whistle already). I argue the whistleblower is minimally important to the aid getting released. He/She may have started the snowball effect but the 'avalanche' which Trump responded to was the commencement of a congressional investigation to determine what is going on with the aid on sept 9th. He released the aid within two days of that specific event.


----------



## cots (Dec 2, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> @cots You also never addressed my question on this thread in post #238.



There's nothing illegal with Trump withholding aid from Ukraine based on certain factors that don't include quid pro joe. Unless the Libtards can prove that Trump without aid for getting dirt on Biden they have no case. Withholding aid or "quid pro quo" for other reasons is perfectly legal. So yeah, there could be quid pro quo, but no proof of it was in anything that's been disclosed or testified yet. Assumptions aren't facts - assumptions don't shape reality. Even if Trump did withhold aid for "reasons" if those reasons weren't related to going after Biden, who remember, isn't even his fucking opponent, then good. It's how it should be, but there's no "quid pro joe" over Biden. That's the charge. Stick with what the Democrats are charging Trump of. Try to stay on topic. Seeings as the Libtards can't even figure out what they're accusing Trump of and there's no proof the aid was withheld over Biden you lost. Pack up and go home.

I'm going to fucking enjoy watching you backstabbing cowards try to play all of your hatred off when YOU LOSE AND TRUMP IS STILL IN OFFICE AND IS NOT IMPEACHED. You'll still deny you lost. Just like you attack him for every single thing he does. You're not fooling anyone. Pathetic losers. You lost in 2016. Why not accept this and work for the common good? Instead you plan impeachments and use the FBI to go after Trump based on conspiracy theories. Our President is a Russian agent? ROFL ... I wonder if there's a Liberal "gene" and if we can cleanse the world of it.

Trump will never win the primary.
Trump will never beat Hillary.
The Electoral College will never certify Trump.
The House will never certify Trump.
Trump will never get inaugurated.
The world economy will collapse if Trump is elected.
Trump will never last through 2017.
Trump will never get Gorsuch confirmed.
Trump will never last through 2018.
Trump will never get Kavanaugh confirmed.
Trump will never survive the Mueller investigation.
Trump will never last through 2019.
*Trump will never beat the impeachment.

1 out of 13? Anyone want to bet with those odds?
*
Everything that liberals touch begins to corrode.


----------



## cots (Dec 2, 2019)

*PHASE 2*
_(epic failure in the making)_

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro Saturday, that phase two of the impeachment hearings will start this week with Chairman Jerrold Nadler who will deliberate on the constitutionality of impeachment.

Devin Nunes, on_ Justice with Judge Jeanine_.

“*Jerry Nadler has been in the witness protection program for several months after he botched the (Robert) Mueller probe. *We’re going to see how this goes supposedly they’re going to talk about the constitutionality of impeachment,” said Nunes.

So far the Democrats have not been able to show any evidence that President Donald Trump withheld any aid from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. In fact, Office of Management and Budget Mark Sandy told lawmakers during Schiff’s hearing that the only reason the money was held up for a short period of time was Trump’s concern that other “countries were not contributing more to Ukraine.

The controversy surrounds questionable actions around Hunter Biden’s paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.  His firm Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, “received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia,” according to reports.

*No Evidence For Trump Impeachment*

Nunes added, “during the (President Richard) Nixon impeachment hearings you had an actual break in – you knew what the crime was. During the (President Bill) Clinton impeachment you knew that he had lied to a grand jury. I think for two weeks one of the  things we were able to expose is that not only did they not have a quid pro quo,* they actually had to change quid pro quo to bribery until John Ratcliff had to pointed out that the only person ever accused of bribery in Adam Schiff’s star basement down in the capital is Hunter Biden.*”


----------



## SG854 (Dec 2, 2019)

cots said:


> *PHASE 2*
> _(epic failure in the making)_
> 
> House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro Saturday, that phase two of the impeachment hearings will start this week with Chairman Jerrold Nadler who will deliberate on the constitutionality of impeachment.
> ...


It's not within Trumps power to withhold aid. The problem is he's over stepping his bounds as president. The are certain legal code guidelines for how to do this, getting more people involved so that presidents don't have too much power and abuse that power. It has to go through a process before its decided to withhold aid. Trump is not honoring the laws he vowed to withhold and not respecting what our founding fathers and us the people that make these laws. That is not a very patriotic thing to do and its basically giving kings power to a country that's suppose limit power of a single person, and all of us are suppose to be the ones involved in the decision making process.


----------



## cots (Dec 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It's not within Trumps power to withhold aid. The problem is he's over stepping his bounds as president. The are certain legal code guidelines for how to do this, getting more people involved so that presidents don't have too much power and abuse that power. It has to go through a process before its decided to withhold aid. Trump is not honoring the laws he vowed to withhold and not respecting what our founding fathers and us the people that make these laws. That is not a very patriotic thing to do and its basically giving kings power to a country that's suppose limit power of a single person, and all of us are suppose to be the ones involved in the decision making process.



He was in his right to negotiate directly with the Ukraine and to set conditions and temporarily withhold the aid. It's done a lot. Yes, he didn't follow protocol and do it like it's normally done, but there's no law stating he has to follow proper procedures. The aid was eventually delivered after additional negotiations took place. Other then Trump not following protocol (which isn't illegal) this sort of thing happens all of the time. We just don't hand out money without certain requirements and those requirements sometimes need to be renegotiated and aid often does get held up. Sometimes it's not even delivered at all.

*Source: I called the Government and asked.* Want to verify my claims. Pick one and make a call*. 

_* (If you're Liberal and need help PM me and I'll explain how to use your phones touch pad to dial a number with. I know these things can get complicated.)_


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 2, 2019)

cots said:


> _* (If you're Liberal and need help PM me and I'll explain how to use your phones touch pad to dial a number with. I know these things can get complicated.)_



That for one is outright bate and secondly you are basically trying to claim liberals are less intelligent when in fact scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite take this for example.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp


----------



## SG854 (Dec 2, 2019)

cots said:


> He was in his right to negotiate directly with the Ukraine and to set conditions and temporarily withhold the aid. It's done a lot. Yes, he didn't follow protocol and do it like it's normally done, but there's no law stating he has to follow proper procedures. The aid was eventually delivered after additional negotiations took place. Other then Trump not following protocol (which isn't illegal) this sort of thing happens all of the time. We just don't hand out money without certain requirements and those requirements sometimes need to be renegotiated and aid often does get held up. Sometimes it's not even delivered at all.
> 
> *Source: I called the Government and asked.* Want to verify my claims. Pick one and make a call*.
> 
> _* (If you're Liberal and need help PM me and I'll explain how to use your phones touch pad to dial a number with. I know these things can get complicated.)_


lol, you have a hard on for Liberals. You apparently can't have a conversation without mentioning the word liberal.



My source is a lawyer. And it is in the law books. 1974 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act, 31 U.S. Code 1512.  President doesn't have authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. A President can only withhold funds under limited circumstances and only for 45 days. It's congress that has the power of the purse, Trump has spending power though OMB. But need to go through a process to withhold it.

September 2018 Federal Budget Passed.
Feb 2019 Administration says it will release aid to Ukraine.
Sept 2019 Funds are barely finally released, a whole year after the Federal Budget Passed, and far longer then the 45 days in the Impoundment Control Act.
The aid would've expired at the end of Sept if it wasn't released based on the congressional budgetary rules. So yes Trump not following the rules is bad.




He released aid after news was published about him withholding it and way after the house started investigating the whistle blower. So that defense is not a solid defense. You're claim is the same possibility I said a few posts back so you're not telling me anything new. The problem is that has it been confirmed to be true? There has been not strong counter evidence so far as to why aid was withheld. Everything you said is what other people are saying what might've happened. But not proven. Just speculation.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2019)

So after all the bitching and moaning about how he "isn't allowed to defend himself," neither Trump nor the White House will be sending their lawyers to the judiciary hearings despite being invited.  Seems they're aware that Republicans' half-assed excuses for the president's behavior have no substantive backing within the law.  The sudden shift in strategy is quite telling.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 3, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> That for one is outright bate and secondly you are basically trying to claim liberals are less intelligent when in fact scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite take this for example.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp


It's also worth mentioning that people in general get more liberal as they age. The somewhat recent observation of what seemed like the opposite was due to the once young conservative wave of youth replacing the once alive elderly liberals.
https://www.livescience.com/2360-busting-myth-people-turn-liberal-age.html

It seems people keep learning as they age.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> That for one is outright bate and secondly you are basically trying to claim liberals are less intelligent when in fact scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite take this for example.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives?amp



I'm not even going to bother to read the study. It's probably based on book knowledge or memorization skills and seeings as the kids are being fed propaganda disguised as facts in the schools they can learn and remember all they want to, but an high score on an IQ test - that tests for your knowledge of propaganda doesn't make you smart. Hell, IQ tests in general aren't even a valid method of testing intelligence (I've know some autistic people who scored much lower then me yet are much smarter than I am and most of the general population, including you). An IQ test that tests you for "Liberal knowledge" is completely bias horse shit. LOL.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



IncredulousP said:


> It's also worth mentioning that people in general get more liberal as they age. The somewhat recent observation of what seemed like the opposite was due to the once young conservative wave of youth replacing the once alive elderly liberals.
> https://www.livescience.com/2360-busting-myth-people-turn-liberal-age.html
> 
> It seems people keep learning as they age.



I'm old. Most old people realize the Liberal fantasy was horse shit and either turn Conservative or Independent. There's a reason most "old" people voted for Trump. If you make it as far as I have you'll likely wise up a bit. I mean, half of what the Liberals in the USA teach you is okay will get you killed at an early age. Clearly, if you make it as far I have you would have had to ignore half the shit they teach you is healthy or never live the life style they're selling.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> So after all the bitching and moaning about how he "isn't allowed to defend himself," neither Trump nor the White House will be sending their lawyers to the judiciary hearings despite being invited.  Seems they're aware that Republicans' half-assed excuses for the president's behavior have no substantive backing within the law.  The sudden shift in strategy is quite telling.



The "isn't allowed to defend himself" wasn't applied to Trump being able to show up - it was being applied to the entire farce. If you took a step back and exposed yourself to Conservative media like Fox News you'd realize that your quote was being applied to the entire impeachment process. This is what you get for only reading what's spoon fed to you - you're only getting half of the story. I'm sorry, but I read both Liberal and Conservative news so I get as much information I can to make an educated decision. You couldn't program a Switch homebrew if you ignored learning 50% of the C programming language because "it makes you feel bad". Fuck, the entire sham was rigged. There's no way if Trump showed up and played by their rules he would have gotten fair treatment. He'll show up in the Senate where it counts. There's no point in showing up and discussing anything with the traitors who pre-planned his impeachment and then looked for guilt. You know how fake scientists decide something is fact and then look for evidence. Kinda not how reality works kids.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> lol, you have a hard on for Liberals. You apparently can't have a conversation without mentioning the word liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll trust our Government and the aid to the ambassador I spoke to over some crummy lawyers interpretation of some old ass law. The wording you used isn't even proper English so I'm not going to bother watching the video you linked to. Plus, the Republican's in Congress filed some 100+ page report today basically stating what I've been saying on this forum for the entire duration I've been posting about this issue. I suggest if you want to understand your opponents defense you spend a little time and read over it. Clearly, if the majority of Republican's are claiming what he did is legit there's going to be some legal backing behind it. You do also realize that lawyers can say whatever the fuck they want to say and usually will say anything you pay them to say.


----------



## ut2k4master (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not even going to bother to read the study. It's probably based on book knowledge or memorization skills and seeings as the kids are being fed propaganda disguised as facts in the schools they can learn and remember all they want to, but an high score on an IQ test - that tests for your knowledge of propaganda doesn't make you smart. Hell, IQ tests in general aren't even a valid method of testing intelligence (I've know some autistic people who scored much lower then me yet are much smarter than I am and most of the general population, including you). An IQ test that tests you for "Liberal knowledge" is completely bias horse shit. LOL.



i take it youve never even seen what an iq test looks like


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2019)

@cots you should read it as it was based on numerous tests including IQ scores ect ect. The liberals all scored much higher than Conservatives both in the USA and Great Britain. There are a huge number of other tests that have been done by different scientists over the last few years all with similar results. But hey its cool if you want to ignore the facts and continue to throw out immature insults like continuously saying libtards ect and making out Liberals are dumb when the facts say something entirely different. All your name calling is doing is making you look a tad ridiculous to be honest.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> There's nothing illegal with Trump withholding aid from Ukraine based on certain factors that don't include quid pro joe. Unless the Libtards can prove that Trump without aid for getting dirt on Biden they have no case. Withholding aid or "quid pro quo" for other reasons is perfectly legal. So yeah, there could be quid pro quo, but no proof of it was in anything that's been disclosed or testified yet. Assumptions aren't facts - assumptions don't shape reality. Even if Trump did withhold aid for "reasons" if those reasons weren't related to going after Biden, who remember, isn't even his fucking opponent, then good. It's how it should be, but there's no "quid pro joe" over Biden. That's the charge. Stick with what the Democrats are charging Trump of. Try to stay on topic. Seeings as the Libtards can't even figure out what they're accusing Trump of and there's no proof the aid was withheld over Biden you lost. Pack up and go home.
> 
> I'm going to fucking enjoy watching you backstabbing cowards try to play all of your hatred off when YOU LOSE AND TRUMP IS STILL IN OFFICE AND IS NOT IMPEACHED. You'll still deny you lost. Just like you attack him for every single thing he does. You're not fooling anyone. Pathetic losers. You lost in 2016. Why not accept this and work for the common good? Instead you plan impeachments and use the FBI to go after Trump based on conspiracy theories. Our President is a Russian agent? ROFL ... I wonder if there's a Liberal "gene" and if we can cleanse the world of it.
> 
> ...


Cool story. 

While yes, you could try to argue Biden isn't a political rival but that would end in failure on your part. Biden has publicly announced to run as a democratic candidate in the 2020 election. He is the national front-runner to this date in the democratic primary. He could potentially be a VP if he didn't secure the nomination of the democratic primary. That defense you tried to use isn't seen in any current republican talking point because it isn't even valid. Try again.

Attempted Bribery is a crime and there is ample evidence in witness testimony (even more so now that we know there was no record of a September 9th call - remember that article you ignored, maybe you should actually read it and the evidence that is within the witness testimony supporting the claim). 

Soliciting a foreign government to meddle in a domestic election occurred in the transcript and is supported by witness testimony. Trump then solicited (Both Ukraine and China) on a nationally televised press gaggle on the white house lawn. 

But let's go back to what I asked you about a week ago as you avoided that conversation for the 2nd time now. For us to discuss the predicament our President is truly in it is imperative that we start there.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with. Answer this, did Trump lie and mislead the american public on Fox? Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?
> 
> Donald Trump: (06:35)
> *Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.



Did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 3, 2019)

@cots I sense that your going to say "it's not bribery if it didn't happen"
which to I reply, should attempted murder not be counted as murder because it was not successful?


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

ut2k4master said:


> i take it youve never even seen what an iq test looks like



I had to take multiple ones throughout my life time. The last one was 15 some years ago for a tech related job. I rated slightly above average according to whatever was required for the job. I'm not sure what it was nor do I care. It's like Reddit karma. The shit has no basis in reality. I've met plenty of honest hard working people that might not be book smart, but what you do with your knowledge makes you what you are. You can be the smartest person in the world, but if you value things that American Liberals do all you end up using all those smarts for is to destroy yourself and others. That makes you pretty stupid in the long run.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> I'll trust our Government and the aid to the ambassador I spoke to over some crummy lawyers interpretation of some old ass law. The wording you used isn't even proper English so I'm not going to bother watching the video you linked to. Plus, the Republican's in Congress filed some 100+ page report today basically stating what I've been saying on this forum for the entire duration I've been posting about this issue. I suggest if you want to understand your opponents defense you spend a little time and read over it. Clearly, if the majority of Republican's are claiming what he did is legit there's going to be some legal backing behind it. You do also realize that lawyers can say whatever the fuck they want to say and usually will say anything you pay them to say.


Um what kind of rationale is, the law is old (its about 45 years old) - so therefore it's archaic and not applicable for our government to follow it as written? An aid to an ambassador, Which one? I'll call them tomorrow and verify whether or not this law applies. Certainly you have a name for which person you spoke with that provided such information, right?

---
"The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after _Train v. City of New York_ (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment."
---

The majority of republican house members haven't argued much on substance. I only hear process and how its not fair. If you could give them a hand and link actual exculpatory evidence, I'm waiting. Heck a republican on the judicial committee will be waiting too as he wants senior members (former and current) to testify, I presume so he can get something to actually use for a proper defense for the White House. 

---
Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California appeared on ABC's _This Week _Sunday and said that acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton should testify. That's whether or not federal courts rule that the White House can't squelch subpoenas and they are compelled to testify. "And in fact, yeah," McClintock said, "it would be to the President's advantage to have them testify now."
---


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> @cots you should read it as it was based on numerous tests including IQ scores ect ect. The liberals all scored much higher than Conservatives both in the USA and Great Britain. There are a huge number of other tests that have been done by different scientists over the last few years all with similar results. But hey its cool if you want to ignore the facts and continue to throw out immature insults like continuously saying libtards ect and making out Liberals are dumb when the facts say something entirely different. All your name calling is doing is making you look a tad ridiculous to be honest.



Read what I just wrote to @ut2k4master TL;RD - IQ points don't mean you're smarter than other people. The choices in life define who you are. Thinking a simple number can represent the value of a person is pretty fucking juvenile. (Read what I wrote to him above)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> @cots I sense that your going to say "it's not bribery if it didn't happen"
> which to I reply, should attempted murder not be counted as murder because it was not successful?



Well, according to the ambassadors office I called and over a hundred GOP Congress members this method you're labeling bribery is a normal way of going about negotiating foreign aid. Something that's done so many times there's no official record of how much it happens. I mean, I guess you could take one random lawyers interpretation of some old law that may have been superseded, but lawyers are paid to lie for a living. As per the circumstances around this entire premeditated impeachment effort that was started without reason but to look for any reason, which the reason keeps changing I think you could understand my skepticism and will be questioning everything that the Liberals bring up (well, anything appearing to have substantial value). I watched 5 or 6 hours of the testimony and how the Liberals were handling the inquiry. Seeings as their star witness best case was "I assume quid pro joe" you can see how this is going to end up. What I saw didn't leave a positive impression nor gave them any credibility in what they were doing. Trump is innocent until he's removed from office - if he's never removed from office then he's not impeached.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not even going to bother to read the study. It's probably based on book knowledge or memorization skills and seeings as the kids are being fed propaganda disguised as facts in the schools they can learn and remember all they want to, but an high score on an IQ test - that tests for your knowledge of propaganda doesn't make you smart. Hell, IQ tests in general aren't even a valid method of testing intelligence (I've know some autistic people who scored much lower then me yet are much smarter than I am and most of the general population, including you). An IQ test that tests you for "Liberal knowledge" is completely bias horse shit. LOL.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


lol, nice dodge. Maybe you should take your own advice and understand your opponents defense and spend a little time to read over it an look into it.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Um what kind of rationale is, the law is old (its about 45 years old) - so therefore it's archaic and not applicable for our government to follow it as written? An aid to an ambassador, Which one? I'll call them tomorrow and verify whether or not this law applies. Certainly you have a name for which person you spoke with that provided such information, right?
> 
> ---
> "The Act was passed in response to feelings in Congress that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The Act, especially after _Train v. City of New York_ (1975), effectively removed the presidential power of impoundment."
> ...



I dunno, why don't you track down some of the ambassadors from that site and call them? They were happy to talk to me. Maybe they can explain the details to you. I wasn't writing a story - I just wanted to hear what the actual people who do this stuff all of the time had to say about it. Like, I'm going to trust the Liberal media to tell me how ambassadors go about their bushiness when I can just ask one myself. You realize these are the same people that claim White Milk is racist and that being obese is healthy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> lol, nice dodge. Maybe you should take your own advice and understand your opponents defense and spend a little time to read over it an look into it.



On you issue. No thanks. Not interested.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> I dunno, why don't you track down some of the ambassadors from that site and call them? They were happy to talk to me. Maybe they can explain the details to you. I wasn't writing a story - I just wanted to hear what the actual people who do this stuff all of the time had to say about it. Like, I'm going to trust the Liberal media to tell me how ambassadors go about their bushiness when I can just ask one myself.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


On you issue? 

The word you used in not a proper English therefore what you post is invalid.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> On you issue?
> 
> The word you used in not a proper English therefore what you post is invalid.



You're catching on skippy. Want a treat?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> I dunno, why don't you track down some of the ambassadors from that site and call them? They were happy to talk to me. Maybe they can explain the details to you. I wasn't writing a story - I just wanted to hear what the actual people who do this stuff all of the time had to say about it. Like, I'm going to trust the Liberal media to tell me how ambassadors go about their bushiness when I can just ask one myself.



That's really odd. You are someone who states they want information from actual people who do this stuff all the time but can't even recall a name or anything for me to use to call to validate this claim? How about caller-id in your phone? Can you provide the number you dialed? Was the aid a man/woman? Do you at least remember a given title when the individual answered the phone?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> You're catching on skippy. Want a treat?


What the fuck is skippy? Speak English.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> That's really odd. You are someone who states they want information from actual people who do this stuff all the time but can't even recall a name or anything for me to use to call to validate this claim? How about caller-id in your phone? Can you provide the number you dialed? Was the aid a man/woman? Do you at least remember a given title when the individual answered the phone?



Due to the entire (this info could be used to identify me with unspoken rule) I won't be providing specifics. There's a list. Hit up the embassy website of the random person you chose. Make the call. She said she was a top aid. It was maybe 1 or 2 weeks ago?!? I've had some sleeping problems for the last few months and time gets fussy when you never know how long you're going to be awake or how long you're going to be asleep. I can tell you it's going to bring up a rather large charge on my cell because it wasn't in the USA. I mean, if you don't believe me then it wouldn't hurt to call a couple to verify I'm full of shit, would it? While you're at it don't forget about asking the actual question regarding how basic aid works. I did however not mention Trump by name. I figured there was a 50/50 chance she would have been biased if I mentioned him directly, but figured she pretty much knew why I was asking to begin with. Just saying "Trump" in front of someone with TDS makes them go all batshit stupid. I'll also at least remove one embassy from your list - I didn't call Ukraine.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> What the fuck is skippy? Speak English.



See definition #2

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skippy

*Skippy *

Any misguided individual who is in blatant denial and/or so completely deluded as to be completely beyond reasoning with. 

Sometimes used to address just any hapless individual. 

_Statement: "I don't care what anyone says! I'm still right!"  

Response: "Yeah... You just keep telling yourself that, Skippy_."


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2019)

@cots I gave you the damn U.S. Code
1974 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act, 31 U.S. Code 1512

And instead of reading it yourself, and learning about the 45 day limit, you instead avoid it entirely by coming up with a stupid excuse about my English which isn't even bad. I like to simplify things to get to the point and not make an extremely long paragrah, and leave it up to the person take the things I said here and there to get the meaning. The code I gave enough is for you to look it up, what a complete dodge.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> He'll show up in the Senate where it counts.


"Where it counts?"  The Senate will vote in his favor regardless of whether he mounts any defense there or not.  I'd argue the judiciary hearings definitely "count" more in terms of influencing public perceptions, because it's obvious that the Senate is going to be divided straight down party lines.  _Maybe _one or two purple state Republican Senators will vote their conscience, but that'd be it.

I will grant that the strategy makes sense from the standpoint of providing the Republican base with short and simple soundbites though, as Trump knows they won't be able to follow the complexities of the judiciary's legal proceedings and terminology.  The long game of slowly sabotaging America's public education system pays off yet again.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> @cots I gave you the damn U.S. Code
> 1974 Congressional and Impoundment Control Act, 31 U.S. Code 1512
> 
> And instead of reading it yourself, and learning about the 45 day limit, you instead avoid it entirely by coming up with a stupid excuse about my English which isn't even bad. I like to simplify things to get to the point and not make an extremely long paragrah, and leave it up to the person take the things I said here and there to get the meaning. The code I gave enough is for you to look it up, what a complete dodge.



I read it, but that doesn't explain why the majority of the GOP Congress members and the ambassadors office I called disagree with it. I guess I could call them back and ask them again, but like, it's not that important. I can wait to see this fall apart for the Liberals. I'm satisfied with what I was told. If you're not I that's fine. People who hate Trump think everything he does is wrong. He gives his entire $250,000 3rd quarter pay to disabled veterans and gets hate. You can't please your kind so why bother?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> "Where it counts?"  The Senate will vote in his favor regardless of whether he mounts any defense there or not.  I'd argue the judiciary hearings definitely "count" more in terms of influencing public perceptions, because it's obvious that the Senate is going to be divided straight down party lines.  _Maybe _one or two purple state Republican Senators will vote their conscience, but that'd be it.
> 
> I will grant that the strategy makes sense from the standpoint of providing the Republican base with short and simple soundbites though, as Trump knows they won't be able to follow the complexities of the judiciary's legal proceedings and terminology.  The long game of slowly sabotaging America's public education system pays off yet again.



Well, I guess if you agree you're going to lose then I'd hold you to being able to admit defeat once it happens.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> Due to the entire (this info could be used to identify me with unspoken rule) I won't be providing specifics. There's a list. Hit up the embassy website of the random person you chose. Make the call. She said she was a top aid. It was maybe 1 or 2 weeks ago?!? I've had some sleeping problems for the last few months and time gets fussy when you never know how long you're going to be awake or how long you're going to be asleep. I can tell you it's going to bring up a rather large charge on my cell because it wasn't in the USA. I mean, if you don't believe me then it wouldn't hurt to call a couple to verify I'm full of shit, would it?


I can't really prove that you are full of shit. Furthermore, I lack any desire to know who you are. I only desired to validate information. You claim information from some source no one can access, even if I call multiple places and have each one argue against your claim you can still hide behind the anonymity of your call and knowing you, will stand behind it's validity despite evidence because its not like you've let facts deter you in the previous discourse. I presume if you called outside of US the logical place to target would be Ukraine? I would be able to remember every detail on something I personally sought out, but I have benefited a lifetime of a good working memory and I understand some don't. I'll just stop derailing this thread and say sure, 'your uncle works at Nintendo' and leave it at that : )


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I can't really prove that you are full of shit. Furthermore, I lack any desire to know who you are. I only desired to validate information. You claim information from some source no one can access, even if I call multiple places and have each one argue against your claim you can still hide behind the anonymity of your call and knowing you, will stand behind it's validity despite evidence because its not like you've let facts deter you in the previous discourse. I presume if you called outside of US the logical place to target would be Ukraine? I would be able to remember every detail on something I personally sought out, but I have benefited a lifetime of a good working memory and I understand some don't. I'll just stop derailing this thread and say sure, 'your uncle works at Nintendo' and leave it at that : )



Okay, but if you decide to spend $10 on a phone call I'd like to know what they tell you.

Edit: No I didn't call Ukraine (too bias) nor did I mention Trump (instant TDS trigger) by name. Sorry, I just updated my last post to you. Please read it if you get the chance. (No need to respond, your response is good enough).


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> I read it, but that doesn't explain why the GOP and the ambassadors office I called disagree with it. I guess I could call them back and ask them again, but like, it's not that important. I can wait to see this fall apart for the Liberals. I'm satisfied with what I was told. If you're not I that's fine. People who hate Trump think everything he does is wrong. He gives his $250,000 3rd quarter pay to disabled veterans and gets hate. You can't please your kind so why bother?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Hate Trump? What the Fuck are you talking about. You have a real problem with assumptions. I don't give a damn about Trump or if he turns out innocent or not. I'm just following information as it comes out.


Also what government or aid are you talking about? I don't know if you been paying attention to politics, but people in government are split on this issue. Democrats and Republicans will give you different answers, and been arguing non stop. You spoke to a GOP. Speak to a Democrat in government and they'll give you a different answer. I'm not going to get a straight answer from them so that's why I went to a lawyer that studies these laws. You're satisfied with what you're told because it satisfies your bias towards Trump. You proven that because you wont look into what a lawyer has to say.

And why do you keep on bringing irrelevant points to this topic? $250,000 is irrelevant towards this impeachment stuff. He's not getting hate for that, he's getting hate for maybe money being withheld. That's what mob bosses do, they commit crime, kill people, but give some of the money they stole to donations so that they can get on peoples good side. Its manipulation. The $250,000 is irrelevant.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Hate Trump? What the Fuck are you talking about. You have a real problem with assumptions. I don't give a damn about Trump or if he turns out innocent or not. I'm just following information as it comes out.
> 
> Also what government or aid are you talking about? I don't know if you been paying attention to politics, but people in government are split on this issue. Democrats and Republicans will give you different answers, and been arguing non stop. You spoke to a GOP. Speak to a Democrat in government and they'll give you a different answer. I'm not going to get a straight answer from them so that's why I went to a lawyer that studies these laws. You're satisfied with what you're told because it satisfies you're bias towards Trump. You proven that because you wont look into what a lawyer has to say.
> 
> And why do you keep on bringing irrelevant points to this topic? $250,000 is irrelevant towards this impeachment stuff. He's not getting hate for that, he's getting hate for maybe money being withheld. That's what mob bosses do, they commit crime, kill people, but give some of the money they stole to donations so that they can get on peoples good side. Its manipulation. The $250,000 is irrelevant.



Okay, I'll watch the video of some random lawyer claiming Trump is guilty and try to forget that he was probably paid to post the video. Then I'll keep in mind what I've seen from the Liberals, the fact it was premeditated and they simply kept looking for a reason, then keep changing the reason, the fact that what I saw during 5 to 6 hours of hearings was akin to an actual circus, the fact their best evidence is "assumptions" and the fact that what the GOP congress are saying and what I've personally been told disputes what you're claiming this random lawyer is saying. However, I'm tired. I'll watch it tomorrow.

The $250,000 is very relevant. It shows the type of people we're dealing with. Trump has done a lot of good and some bad. He promised to donate his entire salary to charity. I know Liberals hate veterans because they are dirty murders that fought with their lives to defend the Liberals ability to hate on them and that while veterans go homeless due to the fact they can't get disability or services fast enough because illegal aliens are given priority in line and then handed out many more benefits then our actual citizens get. I'm trying to put the Liberals hate into perspective for anyone that is not aware that whatever Trump does will be looked down on upon these people. He could rescue a drowning kitten and return it to it's mother and I'm sure the Liberal media would run a full page article on how that was animal abuse.

Anyway, I'm off to try to sleep again. I hope I'm not up 3 days like I again (and I only got 4 hours of sleep after that that I'm going on). I mainly wanted to address @AmandaRose as she and others are basing ones worth on a number produced by inaccurate tests. Guess I got caught up in the rest of it. I might be back in 2-3 hours if sleep attempt #2 is futile. Night.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> Okay, I'll watch the video of some random lawyer claiming Trump is guilty and try to forget that he was probably paid to post the video. Then I'll keep in mind what I've seen from the Liberals, the fact it was premeditated and they simply kept looking for a reason, then keep changing the reason, the fact that what I saw during 5 to 6 hours of hearings was akin to an actual circus, the fact their best evidence is "assumptions" and the fact that what the GOP congress are saying and what I've personally been told disputes what you're claiming this random lawyer is saying. However, I'm tired. I'll watch it tomorrow.
> 
> The $250,000 is very relevant. It shows the type of people we're dealing with. Trump has done a lot of good and some bad. He promised to donate his entire salary to charity. I know Liberals hate veterans because they are dirty murders that fought with their lives to defend the Liberals ability to hate on them and that while veterans go homeless due to the fact they can't get disability or services fast enough because illegal aliens are given priority in line and then handed out many more benefits then our actual citizens get. I'm trying to put the Liberals hate into perspective for anyone that is not aware that whatever Trump does will be looked down on upon these people. He could rescue a drowning kitten and return it to it's mother and I'm sure the Liberal media would run a full page article on how that was animal abuse.
> 
> Anyway, I'm off to try to sleep again. I hope I'm not up 3 days like I again (and I only got 4 hours of sleep after that that I'm going on). I mainly wanted to address @AmandaRose as she and others are basing ones worth on a number produced by inaccurate tests. Guess I got caught up in the rest of it. I might be back in 2-3 hours if sleep attempt #2 is futile. Night.


That's you're damn problem, assuming a video without watching it. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, it's just a lawyer telling you about the law and what can and can't be done. 

The rest is just blah blah blah blah liberal this liberal that. I don't give a shit. You say it a billion times on every post something about liberals. We know. Its the same damn post too just l slightly dressed up in a different way. We don't need to hear it a billion times more. You're are just like the Liberals you don't like so much that are screeching about Trump, except you are screeching about liberals on every post. You're just like them.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I guess if you agree you'e going to lose then I'd hold you to being able to admit defeat once it happens.


As ridiculous as your sports-minded analogies continue to be, if a "loss" is what it takes to expose Senate Republicans as having abandoned their constitutional duty, that's something I'll gladly accept.  Hopefully it won't completely shatter your ego when that exposure in turn leads to a cascade of election losses for Republicans in 2020, just as their sycophancy did this year and in 2018.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

Actually, there's no fucking way in hell I can sleep. It's funny how Liberals want to legalize drugs, yet I'm disabled because of them. And before "Oh you got holes in your brain", no I wasn't using meth or ecstasy, I was using trippy trippy and my thyroid paid the price. A side effect from the thyroid meds is this fucked up sleep disorder they don't even have a name for. My brain is just fine. I've had a couple MRI and a cat-scan and other mental tests. I don't take antidepressants, anti-anxiety, mood or anti psychotics, nor do I smoke weed or drink so I'm not impaired. I just never know when I'm going to sleep or how long I'm going to sleep. So like, working is pretty much not an option (hence the disability). It sucks because I live off of scraps and it was even worse some years back, but I had to wait in line for a long time with other veterans who actually should have been placed in front of me because they fought for the country and come back and then have Liberals throw acid on them when they waiting to get benefits while they are homeless in the streets. (Yes, I've been homeless). At the same time illegal aliens get more benefits and get them in 2-3 months while people like me wait 4-6 years and then still depend on scraps. Every month I run out of food around the 15th and have to go to the salvation army for handouts, yet the Liberals are attacking and trying to defund them because they are a Christian organization, but I'm LGBTQ and they don't turn anyone down that's hungry. If they have food you're welcome to it. Seeings as there are no Liberal organizations that run food banks that sorta sucks, especially considering there are liberal organizations that hand out free heroin needles - sorry, I don't plan on dying in 6 months or having limbs amputated. So let's just legalize drugs. Yeah, good fucking idea you idiots. Well, I do post typos after around 24 hours of being up. I'm not young and can't pull 3 day smoke fests anymore. After around 24 hours I'm tired and after 48 I'm useless.



SG854 said:


> That's you're damn problem, assuming a video without watching it. It has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, it's just a lawyer telling you about the law and what can and can't be done.
> 
> The rest is just blah blah blah blah liberal this liberal that. I don't give a shit. You say it a billion times on every post something about liberals. We know. Its the same damn post too just l slightly dressed up in a different way. We don't need to hear it a billion times more. You're are just like the Liberals you don't like so much that are screeching about Trump, except you are screeching about liberals on every post. You're just like them.



Dude, you're talking about a lawyer. You realize that these people don't do anything for free, right? Sure, there are pro-Bono, but you've got like a 1 in 300 chance of getting a lawyer that works for free and that's with a potential settlement involved. If there's no settlement your chances are fucked. Don't even mention public defenders. Not only are they paid a salary for their pathetic defense they usually have 100 people on their case load. You're lucky to get 10 minutes with one before your trial. Basically, if you get one you're fucked. What I did reply wasn't "blah blah blah". I stated why some random lawyer that's getting paid for his time, regardless of what he has to say (you basically told me what he had to say anyway) has a lot of opposition going against him. Okay, now I'll watch the video. Unless it's like 15 minutes. Fuck that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> As ridiculous as your sports-minded analogies continue to be, if a "loss" is what it takes to expose Senate Republicans as having abandoned their constitutional duty, that's something I'll gladly accept.  Hopefully it won't completely shatter your ego when that exposure in turn leads to a cascade of election losses for Republicans in 2020, just as their sycophancy did this year and in 2018.



So you're going to hold onto your optimism and still won't admit defeat in this impeachment attempt if you lose? Why are you even trying if you're going to lose? Oh wait, it's to make Trump look bad because you think that'll help your chances in 2020. That might work, it might not. Using the impeachment attempt for election purposes is pretty fucked up, especially considering you guys planned to impeach and then look for a reason and all you've come up with so far is "Well, I assume he's guilty of quid pro quo" and then you conveniently change what you're charging him of. Maybe after this is all said and done Trump needs to get some laws passed preventing such blatant abuse in the future. Too bad you can't retroactively charge people with crimes when it comes to planning a coup.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@SG854

Okay, 40 minutes. Can you point me to the time stamp where he talks about the law you're referring to? I rather not listen to someone who's being paid and working for a legal firm profiting off of internet videos that are mostly related to bashing Trump, including the debunked Russian hoax. I'm not interested in singing up for their classes and would be weary of any business that bases most of their online content around hating Trump. Clearly no bias. Anyway, I don't want to hear the Liberal talking points repeated over and over again for 40 minutes. I know most of them and have to read about the same ones over and over again on a daily basis. So, can you point me to the time offset the discussion you want me to listen to takes place? Thanks.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> Oh wait, it's to make Trump look bad because you think that'll help your chances in 2020.


Trump made himself look bad, Democrats are just airing out his dirty laundry on TV.



cots said:


> Using the impeachment attempt for election purposes is pretty fucked up


Oh, but Trump bribing a foreign country for election purposes is okay with you?


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, but Trump bribing a foreign country for election purposes is okay with you?



Seeings as what you're calling a bribe is a normal negotiating tactic that has been going on for decades yeah I'm pretty chill with it. Unless you want to go back and charge every elected official that's done so and is still alive with the same crime - that is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Trump made himself look bad, Democrats are just airing out his dirty laundry on TV.



Seeings as they were trying to make him look bad for donating $250,000 (his entire 3rd quarter income) to disabled vets claiming this was also dirty laundry I question their intentions.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> Seeings as what you're calling a bribe is a normal negotiating tactic that has been going on for decades


Normal for Bill Barr who was involved with the Iran-Contra scandal?  Sure.  Doesn't make it legal or constitutional just because similar corruption has gone on unchecked in the past.



cots said:


> Seeings as they were trying to make him look bad for donating $250,000 (his entire 3rd quarter income) to disabled vets claiming this was also dirty laundry I question their intentions.


ROFL you still believe anything Trump says about donations?  After the fraudulent college and fraudulent charity in his name were shut down?


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> ROFL you still believe anything Trump says about donations?  After the fraudulent college and fraudulent charity in his name were shut down?



All of the money the charity raised went to where it was supposed to go to. His crime was using the charity for campaign purposes, which was illegal. He didn't pocket the money. I mean, if you follow a driver around for 1,200 miles you're bound to catch him committing an offense. It would have been really fucked up if he took the charities money and used it for his campaign, but that's not what happened.

Just like how people call him "Mr. Bone Spurs the Draft Dodger". The armed forces isn't going to let someone in who can't walk or run correctly. They'll also reject you for having flat feet. At least he showed up and didn't avoid the draft by leaving the country (I wonder who did that?). Do you have any idea what bone spurs are or how they effect your ability to walk or run? Are the trans that get rejected now also dodgers?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> His crime was using the charity for campaign purposes, which was illegal. He didn't pocket the money.


Holy hell are you ever delusional.  He used his charity like a personal expense account.  No president is worth worshiping or making excuses for, but this one is particularly undeserving of that treatment.


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy hell are you ever delusional.  He used his charity like a personal expense account.  No president is worth worshiping or making excuses for, but this one is particularly undeserving of that treatment.



Ah, you're right. I guess the other article I read about it was fake tabloid shit. I should have read more than one source. Guess being so used to fake shit coming from the Left I should have paid more attention to this claim. He misused some funds and had to pay it all back and then the charity was shut down.

Though, he used like what, less than $30,000 on stuff he wasn't supposed to, yet the Trump Foundation lawyer Alan Futerfas said the nonprofit has distributed approximately $19 million over the past decade, including $8.25 million of the president’s own money, to hundreds of charitable organizations. I mean, yeah, it's wrong, like giving someone two pennies less change then you owe them from a cash register or being off $15 on your tax $1,232,000 claims in your tax returns because you misplaced a couple of check stubs.

Oh well, he lost the case. People lose parking ticket cases too.


----------



## AmandaRose (Dec 3, 2019)

cots said:


> Are the trans that get rejected now also dodgers?


You know fine well that is a dumb argument due to the fact that  since April 12, 2019, Directive-type Memorandum-19-004 took effect and transgenders are baned from applying. They don't get rejected they legally can't apply.


Also why do you REPEATEDLY feel the need to keep bringing the trans community into every single bloody thread you argue in??


----------



## cots (Dec 3, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> You know fine well that is a dumb argument due to the fact that  since April 12, 2019, Directive-type Memorandum-19-004 took effect and transgenders are baned from applying. They don't get rejected they legally can't apply.
> 
> Also why do you REPEATEDLY feel the need to keep bringing the trans community into every single bloody thread you argue in??



I was trying to point out that if someone were to attack a trans person because they were trying to join the armed forces for any reason and got denied thus calling them a dodger that it would be the same as calling anyone else a dodger due to other armed forces policies that would reject a person. I was stating how they are very intolerant to certain things. Were you concerned that what I was stating the armed forces are doing was okay by any means? Drafts usually effect anyone with a selective service registration which all citizens are required to get when they turn 18 years old.

Trump got banned because he has bone spurs and he couldn't run with a heavy backpack.

Trans got banned because it would hurt morale.

People with low IQ scores get banned too.

Edit: It now seems transgender people are not required to register for the draft (they still can - it's now optional) so I'm not sure how they would handle them when they get drafted (called to report for duty in wartime). Your link doesn't provide an answer to that issue.

Though, we're veering way off topic. I shouldn't have been baited by @Xzi's inability to admit his team is going to lose and that he's going to refuse to admit to defeat afterwards.


----------



## notimp (Dec 3, 2019)

*DEFEAT! We'll defeat them! And then they will refuse to acknowledge DEFEAT!*

The mental landscape of cots (subsection 'the promised land')).

Everything has to be subordinated to reach that goal.


Lets say Trump wins the next elections. For how long will this satisfy your emotional needs? For as long until some radio shock jocks drum up the next common goal to defeat the infidels?

What made you cots. How can you hate those gosh darn liberals so much? Why is everything "they" do bad. And everything your side does good, righteous, measured, intelligent, ...

And also - when you are insisting on that kind of language (war talk, basically), you are ruining more factual discussion (exploration of issues.).

Currently we are oscillating between you taking over threads by shere volume of arguments (dont have to be factual) and with alienating others. This ends in less engagement, and less people wanting to participate in here - and then you've won?

What is this need? I mean, its almost religious fervor on your part.

And how was your path into this reality? What made you believe in 'your' political pundits (radio or TV commentators, mostly?) so much? Whats that unifying factor - that makes you so absolutely positive, that anything the other side might have going for it is so utterly and definitively wrong - just on the basis of a political label?


----------



## omgcat (Dec 7, 2019)

honestly as a long time lurker it's very obvious cots is just using the truth-bullshit asymmetry theorem to full effect. He doesn't care about America, he cares about tribalism and "I WON/I LOST" bullshit. Also taking into consideration that extended lack of sleep is know to cause massive mental degradation I'm not sure I am surprised at how he acts or thinks. It's pretty pitiful.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 7, 2019)

I found this from buisness insider but there wasn't much info that I was satisfied with so I pushed further to the primary source quoted to find more info.

https://www.businessinsider.com/35-million-pentagon-aid-ukraine-not-released-2019-11

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...ne-aid-delayed-despite-white-house-assurances

---
More than $35 million of the roughly $400 million in aid to Ukraine that President Trump delayed, sparking the impeachment inquiry, has not been released to the country, according to a Pentagon spending document obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Instead, the defense funding for Ukraine remains in U.S. accounts, according to the document. It’s not clear why the money hasn’t been released, and members of Congress are demanding answers.

Congress had approved the one-year funds — $250 million in military aid from the Pentagon and an additional $141 million in assistance from the State Department — with bipartisan support last fall. Because of a congressionally mandated 15-day waiting period, the administration’s delay left lawmakers less than a week to secure the money before the legal authority to spend it expired at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Knowing that the hundreds of millions couldn’t all be allocated in such a short time, Congress gave the Pentagon an additional year to spend its share.

Pentagon officials said then that the spending would be disbursed within weeks. But $35.2 million — earmarked for grenade launchers, secure communications and naval combat craft — has not left the U.S. Treasury, according to lawmakers and the Pentagon document tracking spending.

Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Carla Gleason confirmed that $36 million had yet to be provided to Ukraine but declined to say why, instead reiterating that the aid would be obligated “over the next several weeks.”

The continued holdup of a portion of the assistance could undermine a key Republican argument throughout the impeachment inquiry. The president’s defenders have downplayed the effects of the delay in aid by noting that the funds were ultimately released without Ukraine committing to the investigations Trump wanted. A strategy memo circulated Monday night by Republican committee staff urged them to make that case in public hearings Tuesday.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said Tuesday during a hearing that two key facts had not changed throughout the inquiry: “Ukraine in fact received the aid and there was no investigation into the Bidens.”

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham made the same point in dismissing the inquiry in a Fox News interview Nov. 1. “The president did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said. “We released the transcript weeks ago for everybody to see. There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian government said they felt absolutely no pressure. Aid was eventually released to the Ukraine.”

Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon as to why the aid for Ukraine has not yet been spent, nearly two months after the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

California Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s readiness subcommittee, said the Pentagon had not been responsive about the reason.

“We’ve raised the question and we have not received an answer,” Garamendi said. “We’re going to have to find out why.”

Senate Democrats on defense committees wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Monday, emphasizing the importance of the aid reaching Ukraine in the aftermath of the controversy over the assistance.

“Speeding the delivery of this critical aid, which Congress specifically appropriated to improve the security of Ukraine, is important to affirm our commitment to Ukraine in the wake of the chaotic, undisciplined, and deeply concerning approach the administration has taken toward our important partner,” the letter said.
---

A few important facts to consider:
More than $35 million of the roughly $400 million in aid to Ukraine that President Trump delayed, sparking the impeachment inquiry, has not been released to the country, according to a Pentagon spending document obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Knowing that the hundreds of millions couldn’t all be allocated in such a short time, Congress gave the Pentagon an additional year to spend its share.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers from the Pentagon as to why the aid for Ukraine has not yet been spent, nearly two months after the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
California Rep. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s readiness subcommittee, said the Pentagon had not been responsive about the reason.

“We’ve raised the question and we have not received an answer,” Garamendi said. “We’re going to have to find out why.”

Senate Democrats on defense committees wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Monday, emphasizing the importance of the aid reaching Ukraine in the aftermath of the controversy over the assistance.

With all this taken into account, if there lies any evidence that this portion of funds is being held once again by the order from Trump, how do you all think this will play in his defense as articles of impeachment are supposedly being drawn as we speak? Trump has gone on public record multiple times stating ALL of the aid was released, is this another example of him misleading the public for personal political gain? Just as I shown could have been the case when he stated that he used the word corruption in both calls w/ Zelensky?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with. Answer this, did Trump lie and mislead the american public on Fox? Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?
> 
> Donald Trump: (06:35)
> *Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.


----------



## cots (Dec 8, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I found this from buisness insider but there wasn't much info that I was satisfied with so I pushed further to the primary source quoted to find more info.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/35-million-pentagon-aid-ukraine-not-released-2019-11
> 
> ...



This all amounts to nothing more than additional smoke and mirrors. The withholding of the small amount of aid from the total that was sent will probably turn out to be just another normal thing that happens to aid - just like setting terms and holding up aid to renegotiating the terms turned out to be normal business (what the Democrats are calling quid pro quo now - as opposed to the original quid pro joe they can't prove). So this is just more filler to keep their user base foaming at the mouth. Before you reply "What proof do you have that this is normal?" ask yourself "What proof do you have that it isn't normal?". If your proof is the fact that the Democrats in Congress are "demanding answers" then that's not proof. At this point in the circus they perpetrated Democrats in Congress "demanding" anything is akin to a 3 year old child that is still feeding from a nipple that's demanding a second bottle at lunch. So again, nothing to see here folks.

It's also a pity that their entire last week of "expert testimony" from self proclaimed constitutions experts fell flat on its face. I mean; we're talking about people that probably couldn't even tell you the type of paper the Constitution was written on. Hey - at least it makes for a lot of ROFL during dinner dates.


----------



## notimp (Dec 8, 2019)

cots said:


> This all amounts to nothing more than additional smoke and mirrors. The withholding of the small amount of aid from the total that was sent will probably turn out to be just another normal thing that happens to aid - just like setting terms and holding up aid to renegotiating the terms turned out to be normal business (what the Democrats are calling quid pro quo now - as opposed to the original quid pro joe they can't prove). So this is just more filler to keep their user base foaming at the mouth. Before you reply "What proof do you have that this is normal?" ask yourself "What proof do you have that it isn't normal?".


Not untrue. Withholding military aid is not impeachable.

Currently there are two things the impeachment actions footing is based upon. One is - was its done for personal instead of 'state gains'? Answer yes. Second is, has Trump 'illegitimately profited' (or tried to) from it?

And the second one is also a yes, but less clear. (Because he didn't profit financially, f.e..)

Weve heard most legal interpretations coming out on the side of - direct financial motive isnt needed, but its hard to proove 'tried to run out political opponent' as a profit motive 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

So still enough ambiguity for republicans to not move, which is what we are currently seeing.

Everything else should be circumstantial, because there is no dispute on what happened (not much at least), but more so on interpretation. Looking at what conspired here, I'd say they are poppycock, but still enough to politically argue, that there is ambiguity. Remember, this is not a legal case.


----------



## cots (Dec 8, 2019)

notimp said:


> Not untrue. Withholding military aid is not impeachable.
> 
> Currently there are two things the impeachment actions footing is based upon. One is - was its done for personal instead of 'state gains'? Answer yes. Second is, has Trump 'illegitimately profited' (or tried to) from it?
> 
> ...



The original charge was he did it to dig up dirt on Joe Biden who is said to be his political opponent. Regardless of the fact he's only Trump's potential political opponent the only thing the Democrats have that they say can prove this is Sonland's "assumptions". Seeings as assumptions are not valid evidence they can no longer prove there was "quid pro joe" (which is the joke going around stating that there was quid pro quo over Joe Biden). As this happens to be the fact they took the focus off of that initial charge and are now trying to charge Trump with other crimes. Seeings as withholding aid for a short time to renegotiate terms on the aid is a common practice quid pro quo is shouldn't be an impeachable offense. However, the Democrats in Congress can impeach Trump for whatever they like and seeings as this is not the first time they've tried and the fact they planned to impeach Trump before he even took office regardless of no wrong doing anyone who puts stock into anything "the Democrats in Congress are demanding" is not in touch with what's going on.

I mean, the impeachment evidence so far is a bunch of witnesses saying they have no evidence of any illegal activity and then one witness with "assumptions". In a court of law evidence like "I heard my best friend say he was going to kill his wife" is very admissible, but saying "I overheard Trump ask about the aid, but never heard him mention Joe Biden, I just assumed that's what he meant" is not admissible. Assumptions aren't valid evidence. If there was something concrete to tie Trump to actually investigating Biden directly for quid pro joe then then Sonland's "assumption" would help, but seeings as all of the previous witnesses claimed they have no evidence and Sonland only "assumes" something the Democrats really don't have much of a case (when it comes to their original charge of quid pro joe).

Anyway, I'm pretty sure there's some normal reason why 100% of the aid hasn't been delivered. I could be wrong, but "the Democrats in Congress are demanding something" doesn't mean anything illegal happened.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 8, 2019)

cots said:


> This all amounts to nothing more than additional smoke and mirrors. The withholding of the small amount of aid from the total that was sent will probably turn out to be just *another normal thing *that happens to aid - *just like setting terms and holding up aid to renegotiating the terms turned out to be normal business* (what the Democrats are calling quid pro quo now - as opposed to the original quid pro joe they can't prove). So this is just more filler to keep their user base foaming at the mouth. Before you reply "What proof do you have that this is normal?" ask yourself "What proof do you have that it isn't normal?". If your proof is the fact that the Democrats in Congress are "demanding answers" then that's not proof. At this point in the circus they perpetrated Democrats in Congress "demanding" anything is akin to a 3 year old child that is still feeding from a nipple that's demanding a second bottle at lunch. So again, nothing to see here folks.
> 
> It's also a pity that their entire last week of "expert testimony" from self proclaimed constitutions experts fell flat on its face. I mean; we're talking about people that probably couldn't even tell you the type of paper the Constitution was written on. Hey - at least it makes for a lot of ROFL during dinner dates.



So lets take what I actually stated and compare to your response shall we.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> With all this taken into account, if there lies any evidence that this portion of funds is being held once again by the order from Trump, how do you all think this will play in his defense as articles of impeachment are supposedly being drawn as we speak? Trump has gone on public record multiple times stating ALL of the aid was released, is this another example of him misleading the public for personal political gain? Just as I shown could have been the case when he stated that he used the word corruption in both calls w/ Zelensky?



I haven't stated that this normal or abnormal, however, I believe in time as more information is released we will be able to make that determination. I noted the public statement of our president to the American Public was that *ALL of the aid has been released* (If I need to provide the video evidence let me know. I can supply it.). I noted that this statement misleads the American public to believe something that isn't accurate. I went on to INQUIRE how will Trump's defense play out if evidence is shown that this portion of funds is being held once again by the order of the President.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...ukraine-still-missing-key-funding-74673733887 timestamp 0.37sec-0.41sec - Trump says funds fully paid.

I see how you conveniently ignored to address that point and question that I raised, as you have the habit of doing. You also never addressed the question I posed on post #238 on this thread. I believe this is the fourth time I'll ask but if you think withholding congressional approved aid like Trump has done with Ukraine isn't abnormal then you will have to start at post #238 and answer the question that I posed. I can provide evidence that it is abnormal, and that Trump committed a constitutional definition of bribery. I am able to assert that thanks to the, as you said 'pitiful' "expert testimony" of constitutional experts. Before you attempt to discredit the constitutional scholars that were providing testimony, I'm curious, where is your doctorate in constitutional law? I don't have any so I can defer to their expertise, all four of them.

To be clear, I also defer to Turley's expertise that was given in the Clinton impeachment (yes precedence matters, so former testimony is valid when appropriate) as he had interesting points that were raised that seemed to conflict with his recent statements. You probably were too disingenuous to even look those up but if you want to have discourse all will come with time, for now if you start back at post #238 we will have a proper discussion on the topic.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with. Answer this, did Trump lie and mislead the american public on Fox? Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?
> 
> Donald Trump: (06:35)
> *Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.



Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?

*bonus* Did Trump say, "As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid?" YES OR NO?


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So lets take what I actually stated and compare to your response shall we.
> 
> https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with...ukraine-still-missing-key-funding-74673733887 timestamp 0.37sec-0.41sec - Trump says funds fully paid.
> 
> ...



To your second question "yes". So what? Maybe Trump wasn't aware that $35 million of the aid got held up in some probably normal process. Can you prove he knew a little bit got held up at the time he made those comments? He said "yes". Let's throw him out of office because he could have made a simple mistake! The irony! You really keep thinking you have "something" when you're holding onto thin air. It's rather ammusing.

To your first question I answer "yes". Seeings as Trump was looking for corruption who cares what he said. He was in his right to hold up aid and set new conditions on it. If one of those conditions was to look for corruption good. That's great. If there was any hopefully they find out punish whomever was involved. Again, you think you have some smoking gun because Trump was withholding aid, a normal thing to do, because he was wanting something in return for the aid, which is also normal. Seeings as there was no "quid pro joe" - the original charge, whatever else he held it up for is perfectly fine. As per what Trump said. Maybe he messed up with a one word statement; seeings as how your Sonland guy "couldn't recall" over 50 different things he was asked maybe whatever you're claiming Trump said was a simple lapse in memory or mistake. The Liberals are failing miserably to convince anyone with an objective brain that there was any wrong doing and your tactic you're taking with me now clearly shows how desperate you guys are. Trump says stupid shit all of the time. So what? Are are the impeachment charges now going to include "stupid shit Trump said once"? I also stand by my original post you quoted - Trump never demanded Quid Pro Joe in the phone transcript.

You happy now that I answered your questions, which are completely oblivious to the facts nor matter in the end? Got what you wanted?

He's also not stating he got elected due to the help from corruption that he used for his personal gain. He got elected when he was faced with corruption coming from the opposing party that was used against him. Hillary colluded with foreign agents to run a smear campaign on Trump. Hillary was a sure fire bet. Trump wasn't even supposed to win the Republican Primary. There was no possible way Trump could have beat her. Jokes you on you. Trump beat all the odds and the whiny Liberal losers can't admit they lost.

Hell, the corruption he's looking for is about who started the Mueller investigation crap. Our President is a Russian agent. What a pathetic grasp at shit that's not even in the realm of being possible. You people can't take your loss and work for the common good. Clearly a pathetic existence - spend your days plotting revenge for losing in a contest you tried to cheat in. So maybe Ukraine was a dead end? So what. Doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried to look at get to the bottom of who started such nonsense that wasted millions of dollars and helped divide the country. Was he looking for corruption? Yes he was! As he should be! Whomever started the Mueller hoax should be tried for treason! Treason has a certain and very specific consequence. Isn't Trump the leader of the greatest military force in the world? Maybe he could earn some points with the Liberals by finally serving the armed forces in an official capacity by carrying out the punishment by himself.

Trump will never win the primary.
Trump will never beat Hillary.
The Electoral College will never certify Trump.
The House will never certify Trump.
Trump will never get inaugurated.
The world economy will collapse if Trump is elected.
Trump will never last through 2017.
Trump will never get Gorsuch confirmed.
Trump will never last through 2018.
Trump will never get Kavanaugh confirmed.
Trump will never survive the Mueller investigation.
Trump will never last through 2019.
*Trump will never beat the impeachment.*

When it comes to quid pro joe Democrats are clearly implementing Marx’s tactic in dealing with one’s opponent: Turn and accuse your opponent of EXACTLY what you are doing to cause confusion.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 9, 2019)

@cots 
still ignoring post#238


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> @cots
> still ignoring post#238



@monkeyman4412 keeps thinking those questions have any sort of relevance. I played you guys by avoiding them to see how you'd react. The actual questions have no bearing on anything. Now that you got all fired up because you thought you had some sort of smoking gun because I was "refusing to answer as it would prove me wrong" (this is what I wanted you to think) so you've lost again I've got an even larger smile on my face. I think I could start Tweeting for Trump using his account (if he would let me). Playing Tetris is more complicated then playing Liberals. By the way, I guess you missed the fact that I answered his questions. I even went back to satisfy MrLiberalRationality's deliberate and bound to fail controlling tactics of demanding a "yes" or "no" like either would have any bearing on the circumstances involved.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> @monkeyman4412 *keeps thinking those questions have any sort of relevance. I played you guys by avoiding them to see how you'd react. The actual questions have no bearing on anything. Now that you got all fired up because you thought you had some sort of smoking gun because I was "refusing to answer as it would prove me wrong" (this is what I wanted you to think) so you've lost again I've got an even larger smile on my face.* I think I could start Tweeting for Trump using his account (if he would let me). Playing Tetris is more complicated then playing Liberals. By the way, I guess you missed the fact that I answered his questions. I even went back to satisfy MrLiberalRationality's deliberate and bound to fail controlling tactics of demanding a "yes" or "no" like either would have any bearing on the circumstances involved.


Well you just proved everyone that you don't care about facts. All you care is about being right.
You played yourself.
You just proved to everyone, that you don't care. The only thing you care is "destroying" liberals.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> What post is that? If it's the "Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with." crap he keeps bringing up - I just humored MrLiberalRationality and answered it. If you don't like that I'm not falling into his controlling tactic of demanding "yes" or "no" then tough shit. I gave my answer.
> 
> Edit: Yeah, I just noticed each post has a # assigned to it. I just answered the question. Reading comprehension required.



You might think you addressed it sufficiently, however, you completely misunderstood the context of the quote which came from Donald Trump's interview on Fox and Friends. I'll try again with more context since I think you deserve another shot.

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

----
Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
Who has the server?

Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is *a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian.* And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. *Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?* Why-

Steve Doocy: (06:31)
Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
*Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption* … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.
---
You might have misread the last part (I underlined this last portion for clarity). You are thinking Trump is talking about himself being elected on the basis of corruption in this underlined portion. That person is actually Zelinsky which Trump is referring to, not himself. If my snarky, sarcastic nature took over I'd quote you about 'Reading comprehension required' but I'll take this as an honest mistake and do no such thing.



cots said:


> maybe whatever you're claiming Trump said was a simple lapse in memory or mistake





cots said:


> Trump says stupid shit all of the time. So what? Are are the impeachment charges now going to include "stupid shit Trump said once"?



People are afforded honest mistakes, but when something is repeated to the public its no longer a mistake but a false narrative. Trump has claimed multiple times in front of the press his calls with Zelensky are only about corruption and 'READ THE TRANSCRIPT'. This was a significant example where he embellished beyond reality and claimed he in fact said the word corruption in the call itself.. I can't count how many times on fox, cnn, msnbc, any media outlet really where it is observed and noted over the past few months that the word corruption did not appear in the call, once the first call memorandum was released, it was then noted again that it was not in either call.

 (For someone who asks the american public to 'read the transcript' he sure would benefit to read it himself as he invents words to exist in it that in fact do not.)

Why this matters - I'll tell you, once you look up and believe the word corruption is not in the transcript - The purpose will be to provide evidence of his state of mind and intent. This is paramount in making the case that this is not for the interest of the nation but for a personal political benefit. I'm using primary source of information, his own words. *If you are going to continue to dispute primary source information as 'Trump says stupid shit' let me know now. If you actually care about the reality of the situation then I'll continue.* I'm not biased on this. I've made a logical deduction with all the facts provided that he has committed the constitutional definition of bribery which is a reason for impeachment of a president. This is something that is stated directly in our constitution not something that has to be deduced like high crimes or high misdemeanors. Were you paying enough attention during the last hearing? Maybe you should take some time to watch it like I did, take note of the definitions provided by the witnesses. It is critical to understanding the articles of impeachment that are being drawn, one of which will be constitutionally backed 100%.



cots said:


> Maybe Trump wasn't aware that $35 million of the aid got held up in some probably normal process. Can you prove he knew a little bit got held up at the time he made those comments?



I would find it utterly irresponsible to speak to the american public without knowing something for sure, especially when what I would speak ("As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid") is considered one of the cornerstone defenses against my own impeachment from public office. But hey, maybe we shouldn't hold the President to the same standard of people with sound ethics in public relations. After all 'owning the libs' appears to matter more to @cots. Do the ends justify the means? Should our President ensure he is speaking the truth to the American public?

(If he said I presume all the aid is in the process of being released or even 'to my knowledge all the aid has been released') That would be at least acceptable because the public would not be asked to take his word as fact. He holds much power and authority but doesn't seem to wield it with much responsibility. Words matter whether you agree or not. It lowers my confidence in our nation's leader when he addresses our public without knowing the correct information. If it is shown that he is behind this subsequent hold then it makes it even worse and would show he is openly misleading the public.

---
Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is *a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian.* And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. *Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?* Why-
---

By the way, there are many other instances of him grossly misleading the public (he might be misleading himself as well, that part is hard to discern). Just in the quote above (I bolded the relevant parts), I could point out that Crowdstrike, a company I'm quite familiar with, is a California-based company that since this summer is now a publicly traded company. But even before it went public - George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch, both ex-McAfee executives, founded the company in 2011. Alperovitch, a Russian expatriot, is CrowdStrike’s chief technology officer. Dmitri born/lived in Moscow in the USSR until the age of 14 when he relocated to Canada and a year later moved to America with his family.

Before you state, well he just didn't know about it at that time, this 'mistake' is repeated in the actual transcript of the July 25th call w/ Zelensky. This is because this is part of a debunked conspiracy theory. A theory he continues to push to this day, much like his obsession over Obama birther conspiracy.

TLDR: *If you are going to continue to dispute primary source information as 'Trump says stupid shit' let me know now. If you actually care about the reality of the situation then I'll continue.*


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You might think you addressed it sufficiently, however, you completely misunderstood the context of the quote which came from Donald Trump's interview on Fox and Friends. I'll try again with more context since I think you deserve another shot.
> 
> https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings
> 
> ...



Yawn .... Trump was looking for corruption in Ukraine. He held up aid asking Zelensky to look into matters (renegotiated the terms, which is normal). Do you think repeating yourself over and over again is going to make any difference? I know that's a tactic Liberals use especially in the media, but you can tell me all day long that fire isn't hot and I'm never going to believe you. I'm not your normal party member (sheep) that you're used to dealing with. So in the end nothing has changed ... Still no quid pro joe.

As per the $35 million. You can't prove that Trump lied to the public. Until you can prove he knew $35 million was withheld by the Pentagon you've only got lame stream media speculation. Lt. Col. Carla Gleason from the agency said it's going to be paid within a few weeks. There's no given reason why it hasn't been delivered, which could have been some normal thing or something abnormal, but there's also no proof that Trump knew about it at the time he said all of the aid had been delivered. Seeings as Trump isn't the person who was reposibile for sending the money. Whatever turns up it's probably going to be some error or routine holdup and the agency who was responsible will be held so, that's if anything is abnormal to begin with. Good luck nailing Trump, which is what you're after anyway. You're looking for guilt - you're not being objective, but that's understandable considering impeachment was planned before guilt was established.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Well you just proved everyone that you don't care about facts. All you care is about being right.
> You played yourself.
> You just proved to everyone, that you don't care. The only thing you care is "destroying" liberals.



What facts? The false narrative the Liberals are pushing? Yawn x2 ... I enjoy watching the Liberals "destroy" themselves. I want what's best for the country and Liberalism / socialism isn't it. It's just a bonus that's what good for the country is bad for Liberals. You know, the group of people telling me what I can or cannot say or do, what I can or cannot believe in, who I can or cannot vote for or telling me I need the Government to control every aspect of my life. Why would I not enjoy watching such cowardly beings destroy themselves? Maybe if they would leave well enough alone, but it's in their nature to try to control and thus ruin everything they touch. The facts of the case are simple - so far all of their witnesses except one openly admit they have no evidence of any crimes, be it bribery or quid pro joe and then there's Sonland, who "assumes" there's "quid pro joe". The only thing the Democrats have that is solid is the White Houses refusal to honor the Democrats in Congress subpoenas, which I'm sure the Senate will overlook because the entire basis for the subpoenas was cooked up in a scheme to oust the President before he even took office regardless of any wrong doing. Seeings as these are the actual facts not complying with an entity hell bent on destroying you for any reason they can find shouldn't be considered impeachable. Sorry bud - your lack of evidence and facts thus justify my responses.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Hell, the corruption he's looking for is about who started the Mueller investigation crap.





cots said:


> Was he looking for corruption? Yes he was! As he should be! Whomever started the Mueller hoax should be tried for treason! Treason has a certain and very specific consequence.



Just curious, did you find that the IG report into the FBI, the one lead by Durham was another bust. In the course of Horowitz’s investigation, Durham declined to endorse one key Republican talking point: that one witness, Joseph Mifsud, was actually a CIA or FBI agent deployed to undermine and defeat Trump’s presidential bid.

Durham, according to the Post, has “said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence.”

There was genuine concern within the intelligence agencies that Trump's campaign was working w/ Russians or at least being exploited by them. I don't think you even have a solid grasp on what started the Special counsel investigation. Just parroting what you've heard in your bias bubble.



cots said:


> Yawn .... Trump was looking for corruption in Ukraine. He held up aid asking Zelensky to look into matters (renegotiated the terms, which is normal). Do you think repeating yourself over and over again is going to make any difference? Nothing has changed ... Still no quid pro joe.
> 
> As per the $35 million. You can't prove that Trump lied to the public. Until you can prove he knew $35 million was withheld by the Pentagon you've only got lame stream media speculation. Lt. Col. Carla Gleason from the agency said it's going to be paid within a few weeks. There's no given reason why it hasn't been delivered, which could have been some normal thing or something abnormal, but there's also no proof that Trump knew about at the time he said all of the aid had been delivered.



He didn't renegotiate the terms, something he doesn't have the power to do by the way in this instance, because that would require him to have the power to impound funds. Congress already approved the aid under the conditions. He intervened outside of his power to block that aid by forcing the OMB to perform a hold based on 'corruption' despite every other branch, pentagon included, having already cleared Ukraine for passing the requirements set to receive the aid. Maybe I need to make my posts shorter as your attention span has begun to shrink now once you began to detach further from reality. Also, we already discussed this on this thread but incase your 'lack of sleep' has 'impaired your memory' once again:
---
Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which created the House and Senate budget committees, established the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and limited the president’s ability to control federal spending.

Now, whenever presidents want to rescind or freeze congressionally appropriated funds, they must first notify Congress by sending a "special message" that details the amount of money involved and the reasons to rescind or withhold it.

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

If the president is only asking to temporarily delay spending, then congressional approval is not required. But the president still has to send Congress a "special message" to let it know. There are other requirements, too.
---
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...05/did-trump-violate-impoundment-control-act/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-34.pdf


----------



## wartutor (Dec 9, 2019)

Thats whats wrong with this country. There is people getting paid big money sitting in a room arguing about this. Talking about why $400m was held up when the real question is why the fuck are we giving them it in the first place. Theres people homeless and starving in our streats and so many other things that money could go for. To hell with giving it to the *Ukrainian government*


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

wartutor said:


> Thats whats wrong with this country. There is people getting paid big money sitting in a room arguing about this. Talking about why $400m was held up when the real question is why the fuck are we giving them it in the first place. Theres people homeless and starving in our streats and so many other things that money could go for. To hell with giving it to the *Ukrainian government*


Foreign aid is given because it is arguably cheaper to use our tax dollars to give them aid, that they then turn around and buy from our Military industrial complex and fight against what we perceive as our adversary, than us intervene with a formal, direct military response.

Is it effective? I'm not sure. I've been given scenarios that would say the absence of aid would be detrimental to our stability and national security. Its hard to prove as we often don't let other superpowers annex parts of other nations and perform a hostile invasion. I'm not versed enough to really say much more.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Just curious, did you find that the IG report into the FBI, the one lead by Durham was another bust. In the course of Horowitz’s investigation, Durham declined to endorse one key Republican talking point: that one witness, Joseph Mifsud, was actually a CIA or FBI agent deployed to undermine and defeat Trump’s presidential bid.
> 
> Durham, according to the Post, has “said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence.”
> 
> There was genuine concern within the intelligence agencies that Trump's campaign was working w/ Russians or at least being exploited by them. I don't think you even have a solid grasp on what started the Special counsel investigation. Just parroting what you've heard in your bias bubble.



I never said nor implied Ukraine was involved. I said Trump was well within his rights to seek out the cause of the failed Muller report. If Ukraine turned out to be a dud then Trump needs to move onto his next lead. If there's still investigation needed into Ukraine then let's keep investigating. Who decides that? The people doing the investigation - not the liberal media. If that ones turns out to be a dud then move on to the next. He can stop once he finds out who was responsible and they are dealt with.



> He didn't renegotiate the terms, something he doesn't have the power to do by the way in this instance, because that would require him to have the power to impound funds. Congress already approved the aid under the conditions. He intervened outside of his power to block that aid by forcing the OMB to perform a hold based on 'corruption' despite every other branch, pentagon included, having already cleared Ukraine for passing the requirements set to receive the aid. Maybe I need to make my posts shorter as your attention span has begun to shrink now once you began to detach further from reality. Also, we already discussed this on this thread but incase your 'lack of sleep' has 'impaired your memory' once again:
> ---
> Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which created the House and Senate budget committees, established the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and limited the president’s ability to control federal spending.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to pretend to be a law expert and use my or your lack of experience interpreting something meant for Ambassadors and Judges to figure out nor will I take the liberal media's interpretation of the law as any sort of valid evidence that Trump wasn't within his rights to renegotiate a trade deal. I already told you - the aid to the ambassador I called stated that renegotiating trade deals was normal and so was withholding aid. If it turns out Trump did indeed break some laws then you're also going to have to realize that the original charge was "quid pro joe" and not Trump mishandling a normal process. So possibly he did overstep his bounds, but seeings as the aid is being delivered not much actual harm was done. This is also something the Senate will have to decide if it's worth impeachment. The Liberals should have really held off until they found something better to nail Trump with in their pre-planned latest  impeachment attempt. You do remember the original reason was "quid pro joe"? Right? "March Satan's soldiers - erect the next goal post!"


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I never said nor implied Ukraine was involved. I said Trump was well within his rights to seek out the cause of the failed Muller report. If Ukraine turned out to be a dud then Trump needs to move onto his next lead. If there's still investigation needed into Ukraine then let's keep investigating. Who decides that? The people doing the investigation - not the liberal media. If that ones turns out to be a dud then move on to the next. He can stop once he finds out who was responsible and they are dealt with.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to pretend to be a law expert and use my or your lack of experience interpreting something meant for Ambassadors and Judges to figure out nor will I take the liberal media's interpretation of the law as any sort of valid evidence that Trump wasn't within his rights to renegotiate a trade deal. I already told you - the aid to the ambassador I called stated that renegotiating trade deals was normal and so was withholding aid. If it turns out Trump did indeed break some laws then you're also going to have to realize that the original charge was "quid pro joe" and not Trump mishandling a normal process. So possibly he did overstep his bounds, but seeings as the aid is being delivered not much actual harm was done. This is also something the Senate will have to decide is worth impeachment. The Liberals should have really held off until they found something better to nail Trump with in their pre-planned latest  impeachment attempt. You do remember the original reason was "quid pro joe"? Right? "March Satan's soldiers - erect the next goal post!"


Goal posts aren't being moved, you just aren't even attempting to walk on the field. It is again another demostrated act of laziness, cowardice, or just partisanship. I'll let you pick.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

wartutor said:


> Thats whats wrong with this country. There is people getting paid big money sitting in a room arguing about this. Talking about why $400m was held up when the real question is why the fuck are we giving them it in the first place. Theres people homeless and starving in our streats and so many other things that money could go for. To hell with giving it to the *Ukrainian government*



Sadly, it has nothing to do with the aid or Ukraine. The Democrats could care less about the money or the foreign country. They simply want to oust Trump from office - by any means necessary. This has been their plan before Trump even was sworn into office. The Democrats could also care less about the homeless people starving on our streets. Don't believe me? Go look into how many Food Pantries or Homeless Shelters are run by Liberal organizations.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

Furthermore, chasing down already debunked conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike/Ukraine isn't the most effective use of money or resources yet you bash the Mueller investigation which had multiple indictments as a waste of money? Seems consistent for @cots because it is completely colored on partisan lines instead of rooted in reality.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> I already told you - the aid to the ambassador I called stated that renegotiating trade deals was normal and so was withholding aid.


Oh yea, that's the 'my uncle works for nintendo' - don't ask about it because I don't know who i talked to, don't remember the number i called, I can't tell you anything else because my identity would be found, and even if someone else says something different, I was still told X and will believe that over anything else provided - that call. How could we forget about that indisputable evidence!


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Furthermore, chasing down already debunked conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike/Ukraine isn't the most effective use of money or resources yet you bash the Mueller investigation which had multiple indictments as a waste of money? Seems consistent for @cots because it is completely colored on partisan lines instead of rooted in reality.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Oh yea, that's the 'my uncle works for nintendo' - don't ask about it because I don't know who i talked to, don't remember the number i called, I can't tell you anything else because my identity would be found, and even if someone else says something different, I was still told X and will believe that over anything else provided - that call. How could we forget about that indisputable evidence!



There's rampant fraud within the Government wherever you look. The fuckers rip me off on a monthly basis. I would have been surprised if the investigation didn't result in any arrests. However, the Congressional Democrats target was Trump and they couldn't muster up enough evidence to impeach him, which was their goal. We're simply on their next impeachment attempt.

Feel free to pickup a phone and call one. Maybe since you're a more detailed orientated person why not takes notes and ask for specifics, seeings as when I called my questions didn't deal with specific laws that have been brought to attention after the fact. Simple "Is withholding aid normal", "Do we give out money without terms" or "Do we ever renegotiate those terms before sending the aid" type questions were enough to satisfy me. if you're forgotten already all of that stuff is completely normal. So sorry if I don't trust the Liberal media's interpretation of the law and as opposed to the people who do this sort of stuff for a living (seeings as the Liberals dishonest agenda is to oust the President at all costs - with assistance from the main stream media, who are mostly owned by old rich Democrats).


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> There's rampant fraud within the Government wherever you look. The fuckers rip me off on a monthly basis. I would have been surprised if the investigation didn't result in any arrests. However, the Congressional Democrats target was Trump and they couldn't muster up enough evidence to impeach him, which was their goal. We're simply on their next impeachment attempt.
> 
> Feel free to pickup a phone and call one. Maybe since you're a more detailed orientated person so why not takes notes and ask for specifics, seeings as when I called my questions didn't deal with specific laws that have been brought to attention after the fact. Simple "Is withholding aid normal", "Do we give out money without terms" or "Do we ever renegotiate those terms before sending the aid" type questions were enough to satisfy me.


This matters actually, as you didn't pose that if aid is already approved to be dispersed by congress, it is likely that there is a misunderstanding to believe that you were provided answers that only reinforced a preconceived notion. We are also at the mercy that this aid even is knowledgeable enough to provide these responses accurately. 

"Is withholding aid normal"
Withholding aid by whom matters. Under what circumstances matter. I imagine aid is held for a variety of reasons as conditions are met, but given witness testimony of multiple witnesses, this hold defied normalcy. 

"Do we give out money without terms" or
Who is we? United states, congress, executive branch? Also, I presume this is probably a no? It looks like a loaded question that would prompt job justification answers from someone who is asked, but I guess it depends who is asked. 

"Do we ever renegotiate those terms before sending the aid"
Again, Who is we? An ambassador, the President, Congress? This can happen by the President, with notification to congress and congress will have to approve, without approval (even if a vote is never held) the aid is supposed to be dispensed. 

Just to re-clarify, this isn't a trade agreement, but foreign aid with bipartisan approval by congress with pre-defined conditions (the anti-corruption efforts) that were approved by the pentagon. Yet the President attempted to subvert his restriction on aid impoundment that would require congressional notification and subsequent congressional approval and forced OMB to perform a hold under the guise of 'corruption' in-spite of the pentagon's findings. This isn't an impeachable offense, or at least I wouldn't dare think anyone in congress would assert that, but when taken in context with the requests made to Zelensky, and if one believes that dealing with 'corruption' in fact isn't the purpose of Trump's request (this provides context to prove state of mind and intent) then you have a case of solicitation of a foreign power to investigate into a political opponent (or merely even just announce investigations via cnn interview) which would influence an upcoming US election, you also have the constitutional definition of bribery. A definition provided by the most recent hearing, that definition (not the criminal definition) is derived by what is known as bribery during the time that article II was written in our constitution. 

Criminal bribery - The federal *bribery* statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official's duty.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Constitutional bribery - "the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits… in return for an official act, or someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=219&v=ba-PJ6CYbKs&feature=emb_logo
https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-1
---
What they were thinking about was bribery, as it was understood in the 18th century, based on the common law up until that point. That understanding was an understanding that someone, and generally even then, it was mostly talking about a judge. It wasn’t talking about a President because there was no President before that, and wasn’t talking about the King, because the King could do no wrong. What they were understanding then was *the idea that when you took private benefits, or when you asked for private benefits in return for an official act, or somebody gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.*
---
the 1792 version of Johnson’s dictionary. I don’t have the initial one and there he defines bribery as *the crime of giving or taking rewards for bad practices.* 
---
This seems to be an immensely broad definition of bribery in relation to the more narrowed criminal definition of bribery and the reason is likely again that impeachment was never designed to be a criminal trial but a political one. The framers of the constitution decided if congress who represent the people believed that the President has committed bribery then he is able to be subject to impeachment. That is not to say that Criminal bribery wouldn't also apply, but this is to show the threshold for constitutional bribery (what bribery was understood by common law at the time of the constitution) is able to be reached.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

----
Ted Lieu: (01:57:57)
I’m also a former prosecutor. I believe the record and that evidence would also meet the standards for criminal bribery. The Supreme Court’s decision in McDonnell was primarily about what constitutes an official act. Their key finding was an official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official. Pretty clearly got that here. We have hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that Congress specifically appropriated. The freezing and unfreezing of that aid is a formal exercise of governmental power.

Ted Lieu: (01:58:33)
But we don’t even have to talk about the crime of bribery. There’s another crime here, which is the solicitation of assistance of a foreign government in a federal election campaign. That straight up violates the Federal Election Campaign Act at 52 USC 30101. And oh, by the way, that act is also one reason Michael Cohen is sitting in prison right now. I yield back.
----


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This matters actually, as you didn't pose that if aid is already approved to be dispersed by congress, it is likely that there is a misunderstanding to believe that you were provided answers that only reinforced a preconceived notion. We are also at the mercy that this aid even is knowledgeable enough to provide these responses accurately.
> 
> "Is withholding aid normal"
> Withholding aid by whom matters. Under what circumstances matter. I imagine aid is held for a variety of reasons as conditions are met, but given witness testimony of multiple witnesses, this hold defied normalcy.
> ...



Regardless of how you attempt you go about repeating yourself that's all you're doing. If you're not satisfied that I'm satisfied with the questions I asked and the answers I got then by all means make a call or two (although, seeings as I'm satisfied whatever happens would only impact you). Your repeated attempts (keep saying it until the weak minded believe it - works all the time on Liberals) are nice and all (lots of fluff), but seeings as political opinions can be passed off as real facts these days by anyone with an Internet connection I'll wait to see what the Senate decides (seeings that the original charge of "quid pro joe" hasn't been proven at all - so none of your private benefits ever took place (private benefits would not be Trump looking into who started the fake Russian agent hoax - as that would benefit society over what little it would benefit Trump) - Whomever started the conspiracy to get him impeached should be punished as it cost everyone a lot of money and time plus helped divide the nation when there was no need for division - as it was a fucking hoax).

You accuse Trump of division when the fault lies on the people attacking Trump with fake accusations. Trump never stoked the race wars, Trump isn't using identify politics to divide with the intention on forcing socialism on the nation and unlike previous Presidents Trump isn't encouraging citizens to attack the police, armed forces and veterans. Trump is fighting evil and this entire impeachment attempt that was planned before he took office is just another way evil is trying to take over this country. He's going to beat it - just like he won against unfair odds in an election rigged against him in 2016 - the same reason why the impeachment process is being abused. Jokes on the Liberals. It's just a pity that there's so many people in the USA that can't think for themselves and simply believe that "under socialism the Government would know best and would have our best interests at heart". They're clearly not paying attention to how fucked up people are right now. Implementing socialism isn't going to change human nature. We'll just be giving up our rights and allowing the fucked up people to do whatever they want to us.

Trump is going to beat the Liberals. Good usually does prevail over evil in the end. While he's by far not the ideal warrior he'll get the job done. He's got my vote in 2020.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Regardless of how you attempt you go about repeating yourself that's all you're doing. If you're not satisfied that I'm satisfied with the questions I asked and the answers I got then by all means make a call or two (although, seeings as I'm satisfied whatever happens would only impact you). Your repeated attempts (keep saying it until the weak minded believe it - works all the time on Liberals) are nice and all (lots of fluff), but seeings as political opinions can be passed off as real facts these days by anyone with an Internet connection I'll wait to see what the Senate decides (seeings that the original charge of "quid pro joe" hasn't been proven at all).


I'm not asserting anything about conviction/acquital decision in the senate. I think you misunderstand my purpose for continuing to engage in this discussion. I just laid down the rationale for articles of impeachment being served and which ones I can follow the logic in an unbiased manner and found that I reached the conclusions listed in previous posts. I've long since made predictions about what I believe will happen in the senate months ago and stand by those predictions. 

Whatever decision the senate makes is what I will accept obviously. Your idea of 'no quid pro joe' requires you to believe Trump is after corruption and not after political dirt on Biden.

///
Despite him never using the word corruption in either call with Zelensky? 

Despite Trump never withholding aid from any other country for corruption during his presidency?

Despite Trump never discussing one other person or company w/ Zelensky that involved anti-corruption, only things that coincidentally would benefit him politically if Zelensky complied? 

Despite that Trump waited until a year before the election to commence looking into Biden and his son which appeared to ramp up in intensity after head-head national polling showed Trump loosing by a wide margin (I don't take those polls seriously, but it gave Trump alot of negative coverage which he obviously cared about - given how much he complained on tv or twitter.)? When he could have easily investigated this when he controlled both the house and the senate?

Despite all the Guiliani interviews focused on Burisma and Biden's son? That he is took a trip to Ukraine this week and stated it is to find dirt on Biden? That his 2nd lawyer is now under investigation by the southern district of new york?

Despite Sondland's testimony about 'how Zelensky only had to announce on the planned CNN interview (that was immediately canceled when aid was unfreezed) about the investigations he didn't have to do them'?

Despite the fact there was never even a record of a Sept 9th call that Trump claimed was where he said he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo? 

Despite the fact that Trump call w/ sondland actually occurred on Sept 6-7th and sondland immediately texted Volker and Taylor about how aid being released would be at a 'stalemate' unless the public announcement of investigations by Zelensky took place? (I had a full article detailing this and went on at great length about this bombshell, but you never even read it.)
///

I've laid out plenty of things that should raise concern, I could go on with more but if you understand all those things are true (or at least have strong supporting evidence with no evidence to say the contrary) and if you have no concern then there's no further discourse to be had. I just hope you don't get in a tizzy when both republican and democrat presidents start getting foreign governments to interfere in our elections openly due to precedent that will be set at the acquital, that all the incumbents will need to do is fight congress by not releasing any records and testimony and there is absolutely no oversight, no accountability that can be done by congress.

But if my hunch is correct, you'll have a thread open on this forum, if it is a democrat complaining about some unfairness, along with how you will continue to assert absurdities about how democratic leadership openly wants to rip our constitution and replace our democratic republic with socialism.


----------



## notimp (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Despite Trump never withholding aid from any other country for corruption during his presidency?


Here is the thing though - to restrict aid, or trade - is used in foreign policy all the time. As a pressure tool. Thats  hardly corruption. Or to put it differently, the Ukraine has no 'legal right' to receive US aid money.

But.

Hes done it for personal gains. Meaning 'fuck US interests, I do what I want".

Dumb americans still have not clued in, that military aid is what keeps Ukraine (at least partly) away from russias sphere of influence.

I'm sure 90% of americans could be convinced, that Trump might have withheld aid for national strategic reasons. But thats not the case. He withheld aid, to increase pressure to get dirt on Biden.

Thats undisputed. Thats horrendous.

Now PR spin doctors want you to discuss the concept, if that constituted something that would fall under acceptance of benefits. Or solicitation rather.

So what is not disputed. Why is not disputed. Its just 'is it really something that would have been of worth for the president in a matter that it would fall under abusing the power of the office - for personal gains, because' and I semi-quote, would that really have been of personal benefit to the president?

I mean, maybe he just wanted to know... It would have just been information right? Maybe he would have kept it a secret?

And that silly nancy game is whats currently tried to be pushed as the republican position. Gaining information (that might not even have existed) is too little of an offense to constitute 'trying to solicit benefits'.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> Here is the thing though - to restrict aid, or trade - is used in foreign policy all the time. As a pressure tool. Thats  hardly corruption. Or to put it differently, the Ukraine has no 'legal right' to receive US aid money.
> 
> But.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't be information.
It wasn't even asking for a proper investigation.
It was asking for a announcement of an investigation into Biden.
That was why the Ukraine president was coming over the states. So he could announce that he was looking into Biden, so trump would release the foreign aid.


----------



## notimp (Dec 9, 2019)

Thanks. The point is, that people try to spin, that thats not (unlawful) acceptance of a benefit by a public official, because - what would have been the benefit.

So the law (which is much more a 'guidance on behavior', because there is no judicial process here (as in court of laws involved in speaking law on this)) - some argue, was actually meant to punish people soliciting money, or money equivalent favors, abusing their position.

Now a PR-Hit campaign, would have been a money equivalent favor, but in Ukraine? So the argument for it becoming actionable in the US would follow through quite some points of interpretation (so: media attention, public interest, failure of rebuttle for a sustained period, Biden becoming the democratic forerunner in the first place, ..) - until the 'money equivalent value' would be reached.

Now of course we know that Trump is no stranger to 'creative thinking', and that his reason for him asking, very likely was very straight forward and nefarious - but then, the defense in part has always been - the president is too stupid, to have realized. Which is why it was not mallace, and probably just some spleen.

Now thats not a good argument (its basically introducing FUD ((fear (this time no fear)) uncertainty, doubt). But apparently it is good enough for repiblican leadership not to be too worried.

Remember - if it sounds complicated, and people have heard and partly believed FUD - people will loose interest. And without public scrutiny - politicians will act opportunistically. So you make this a party issue, say that their carreers are over, if they vote against the POTUS, hire a few cots, that shout how unfair this is, and what smoke screens are used - and thats enough to take away politicians 'fear' that they are expected to vote for that in a certain way, based on a higher principal.

So its interpretation thats targeted by PR.  The facts are largely undisputed.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> I'm sure 90% of americans could be convinced, that Trump might have withheld aid for national strategic reasons. But thats not the case. He withheld aid, to increase pressure to get dirt on Biden.
> 
> Thats undisputed. Thats horrendous.





monkeyman4412 said:


> It wouldn't be information.
> It wasn't even asking for a proper investigation.
> It was asking for a announcement of an investigation into Biden.
> That was why the Ukraine president was coming over the states. So he could announce that he was looking into Biden, so trump would release the foreign aid.



That's only the Democrats and Liberals side of the story (that Biden was the target), in which since that's what they're claiming happened, there's no concrete evidence that Trump was solely going after Biden for political dirt - not to mention Biden hasn't even won the Democratic 2020 primaries so he's not even Trump's direct political opponent. Which is why the Democrats in Congress have focusing on the charge of "quid pro joe" and simply moved onto bribery (in which case these "bribes" are normal day to day business practices). It is undisputed as it's currently being disputed and only one of the testified conditions was to announce that an investigation was taking place (which is only a minor part of the entire deal). You are both acting just like the rest of the Liberals - that Trump is guilty before being found guilty of anything. Refusing to even consider the other sides argument as it's some Liberal sin to visit websites with opposing views only shows how single minded you guys are on the issue. Sorry, but I'll visit and read news from any website I like - my so called friends don't get to dictate what I can or cannot do. Seeings as you both have been only exposed to one side of the issue this is to be expected. I however, believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty and seeings as the "evidence" is various people testifying that  "we have no evidence of any bribery or quid pro joe" and the single testimony of "I assume there was quid pro joe, but don't have any evidence" you've got a poor case on your hands.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> That's only the Democrats and Liberals side of the story (that Biden was the target), in which since that's what they're claiming happened, there's no concrete evidence that Trump was solely going after Biden for political dirt - not to mention Biden hasn't even won the Democratic 2020 primaries so he's not even Trump's direct political opponent. Which is why the Democrats in Congress have dropped the charge of "quid pro joe" and simply moved onto bribery (in which case these "bribes" are normal day to day business practices). It is undisputed as it's currently being disputed and only one of the testified conditions was to announce that an investigation was taking place (which is only a minor part of the entire deal). You are both acting just like the rest of the Liberals - that Trump is guilty before being found guilty of anything. Seeings as you both have been only exposed to one side of the issue this is to be expected. I however, believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty and seeings as the "evidence" is various people testifying that  "we have no evidence of any bribery or quid pro joe" and the single testimony of "I assume there was quid pro joe, but don't have any evidence" you've got a poor case on your hands.


Evidence is brought forth on what is available to support an article of impeachment from a public office, determination of criminal guilty/not guilty isn't something that can be determined without a court of peers and I wouldn't presume such without a court ruling.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

There is ample evidence, which i stated above - nothing that you actually disputed (just ignored), that shows state of mind would argue that Trump sought dirt on Biden. Quid pro Quo is just 'this for that'. 

---
Sondland's testimony about 'how Zelensky only had to announce on the planned CNN interview (that was immediately canceled when aid was unfreezed) about the investigations he didn't have to do them'?
---

That is very interesting that you choose to downplay something that provides evidence of President's intent and in the same breath argue there is nothing that shows:



cots said:


> there's no concrete evidence that Trump was solely going after Biden for political dirt



Its not liberals, its from witness testimony. I think you may want to rethink that failed re-framing of that information in effort to discount it.

Go back above to my entire list and rule on each one individually why it is not cause of concern, how it does not lend to an understanding of the state of mind or intent in seeking dirt on Biden.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> There is ample evidence, which i stated above - nothing that you actually disputed (just ignored), that shows state of mind would argue that Trump sought dirt on Biden. Quid pro Quo is just 'this for that'.
> 
> ---
> Sondland's testimony about 'how Zelensky only had to announce on the planned CNN interview (that was immediately canceled when aid was unfreezed) about the investigations he didn't have to do them'?
> ...



Sonland said something so it must be true. Let's base our entire case on someone who can't remember most of what happened and "assumes" shit. He recalls things that the other witnesses don't recall. He's only a single witness and a pretty bad one at that. He doesn't "make or break" the case, especially considering "I presume" or "I assume" as the basis of his testimony. So now, what Sonland assumed or said happened doesn't dictate what happened. If Sonland's point of view is all you have then that's why your side is losing. It's very interesting you chose to upplay something of little relevance. I know what the testimony contained, a bunch of people saying "we have no evidence of bribery or quid pro joe" and a bunch of Sonland's "assumptions". Your list sucks. Go read it to yourself a hundred times over and maybe you'll convince yourself you believe the horse shit. I'm busy watching Castor testifying to Counsel in Congress in today's broadcast "clown show" about how rigged this partisan bullshit is - this happened after Schiff refused to show up and testify and sent his lackey who refused to answer direction questions that Schiff should have been answering. Finally the "other side" gets some air time. So far in this entire impeachment "process" the Democrats have refused to give them the floor. Actually, the last 10 minutes has been based on the fact on how shit Sonland's testimony was and the Republican's are totally tearing his credibility apart.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Sonland said something so it must be true. Let's base our entire case on someone who can't remember most of what happened and "assumes" shit. So now, what Sonland assumed or said happened doesn't dictate what happened. If Sonland's point of view is all you have then that's why your side is losing. It's very interesting you chose to upplay something of little relevance. I know what the testimony contained, a bunch of people saying "we have no evidence of bribery or quid pro joe" and a bunch of Sonland's "assumptions". You list sucks. Go read it to yourself a hundred times over and maybe you'll convince yourself you believe the horse shit. I'm busy watching Castor testifying to Counsel in Congress in today's broadcast "clown show" about how rigged this partisan bullshit is - this happened after Schiff refused to show up and testify and sent his lackey who refused to answer direction questions that Schiff should have been answering. Finally the "other side" gets some air time. So far the Democrats have refused to give them the floor.


I take note your lack of response. Thanks.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

Today's testimony (what I watched) totally nailed Sonland's testimony to the wall. It's nice to see the Republicans actually getting time to testify and ask questions. Seeings as the Democrats are running the show and keep refusing to let the Republican's take a defensive position and all. Yeah, this stuff totally isn't in any way not bias or setup. Though, what was funny was how ABC News handled the coverage. It completely deviated from their previous broadcasts.

Unlike the previous hearings on ABC News the coverage didn't stop with "This is a summary of what happened so far today and how we're going to screw Trump" ... it didn't even end with a "summary" of what happened what so ever. They stopped with "breaking news" that was completely unrelated to today's impeachment. Nice play to try to distract the public from what was happened today and what has been testified. I guess broadcasting something unrelated was the best thing the Liberal run ABC News had going for them as they got completely shut down today by the Republicans. (ABC News has been running a Live Broadcasts on their TV network during the entire public shit show and every other one was followed up by a bunch of Liberals analysing what happened and how damning it was to the President. You can clearly see how "not analysing" today's testimony was in their favor). *Yawn* ... another example of the fact this shit is rigged against Trump. I'd honestly be expecting the Liberals to even try to do something that works at this point in time - seeings as how desperate they are.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I know what the testimony contained, a bunch of people saying "we have no evidence of bribery or quid pro joe" and a bunch of Sonland's "assumptions"



So you have shown over time to have no detail oriented posts regarding the substance of this hearing. This is yet again another time where you will be corrected in misrepresenting testimony. Those were fact witnesses, you may not understand this but it was consistently relayed that direct fact witnesses do not provide legal conclusions when their sole job is to provide witness testimony. Expert witnesses can, there is a difference.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So you have shown over time to have no detail oriented posts regarding the substance of this hearing. This is yet again another time where you will be corrected in misrepresenting testimony. Those were fact witnesses, you may not understand this but it was consistently relayed that direct fact witnesses do not provide legal conclusions when their sole job is to provide witness testimony. Expert witnesses can, there is a difference.



Expert witness? Someone who mentioned "I can't recall" so many times I lost count. Someone who bases his entire testimony on "I presume" or "I assume". Someone that turns out had complete access to his computer and his records, yet lied to Congress saying he's being denied access to them from the State Department. Someone who contradicts the other witnesses. Yeah, expert moron is more like it.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Expert witness? Someone who mentioned "I can't recall" so many times I lost count. Someone who bases his entire testimony on "I presume" or "I assume". Someone that turns out had complete access to his computer and his records, yet lied to Congress. Yeah, expert moron is more like good.


Again you are failing at basic understanding. I wasn't asserting that Sondland was an expert witness, he is a yet another fact witness. The expert witnesses were the 4 law professors.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 9, 2019)

Corruption affects us all. THEY ALL ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED 100 PERCENT. NONE OF THEM! THEY ARE THE CORRUPTED! *SHOUT*.

The future is never getting better at all. It is only getting worse.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Again you are failing at basic understanding. I wasn't asserting that Sondland was an expert witness, he is a yet another fact witness. The expert witnesses were the 4 law professors.



That is disputable. Seeings as they all had no problem with the latest impeachment attempt being partisan, which the original founding fathers never intended (nor did they intend it to be used as a tool to remove a President simply because he won an election and the other side is refusing the accept the results and pre-planned the impeachment regardless of guilt). Whatever, you put stock in them - I don't (nor does anyone with a brain that sees through this shit show). Liberals, always on the losing end of things.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



azoreseuropa said:


> Corruption affects us all. THEY ALL ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED 100 PERCENT. NONE OF THEM! THEY ARE THE CORRUPTED! *SHOUT*.
> 
> The future is never getting better at all. It is only getting worse.



Damn straight. Human nature can't be changed. Giving complete control to these corrupt assholes by adopting socialism would be self inflicted suicide.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> That is disputable. Seeings as they all had no problem with the latest impeachment attempt being partisan, which the original founding fathers never intended (nor did they intend it to be used as a tool to remove a President simply because he won an election regardless of guilt). Whatever, you put stock in them - I don't (nor does anyone with a brain that sees through this shit show). Liberals, always on the losing end of things.


What is disputable? You may not agree with an expert witness's testimony but the point is you were incorrect and bought into the republican talking point to discredit witness testimony of the fact witnesses because they refused to give legal conclusions when asked.



cots said:


> Damn straight. Human nature can't be changed. Giving complete control to these corrupt assholes by adopting socialism would be self inflicted suicide.


 No one involved in this hearing is attempting to adopt socialism. This is another one of your delusions seeping into this thread without any proof. While asking for said proof upset you so much that you refused to participate in further discussion on another thread, I consistently will ask for proof if you make baseless assertions. If you cannot provide any then perhaps stay on topic.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Giving complete control to these corrupt assholes by adopting socialism would be self inflicted suicide.


You're unintentionally correct for once, in that we already have a system of socialism which benefits the rich exclusively, and it's slowly killing this country.  The working class and poor cannot continue to foot the tax bill for Amazon and/or Trump's businesses.  Worthless yuppies like Ivanka and Jared cannot continue to siphon millions of dollars from government offices they aren't qualified to hold.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ussia-probe-was-justified-not-biased-n1098161

This is some of the fruit of the 'the investigate the investigators'. This is a two year investigation that found one instance of a lawyer misfiling paperwork. No charges were filed to anyone. Durham hasn't completed his investigation yet and I like many am looking forward to see what is released.

Let's take a step back, I want to make known once again that Biden's activity can be investigated. Trump just isn't the person to do it, and certainly shouldn't solicit such from another foreign leader. AG Barr or better yet Bipart congressional committee is the proper channel with respect to Ukraine.

Lindsey Graham finally opened such a thing this past month. This isn't because of any light to new information which will hurt his inquiry's credibility to appear impartial and objective but regardless this is the best method to look at oversight of the prior activity of the former executive branch. I'm a huge supporter of congressional oversight because that allows transparency of our government.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ussia-probe-was-justified-not-biased-n1098161
> 
> This is some of the fruit of the 'the investigate the investigators'. This is a two year investigation that found one instance of a lawyer misfiling paperwork. No charges were filed to anyone. Durham hasn't completed his investigation yet and I like many am looking forward to see what is released.
> 
> ...



So the Republicans thought they had a smoking gun when they found out that people in the FBI intenionall lied andocuments used to investigate Trump with and now the Democrats think they have a smoking gun because it didn't turn up any corruption at the top. Both were and are wrong. The DOJ Inspector General couldn't find any high level abuse and the FBI agents involved in the crimes have either been fired or quit (and are now facing possible prosecution). Now the DOJ is requesting the FBI to change the way it handles FISA requests (as their punishment). This doesn't prove much when it comes to Trump's claims about foreign corruption as it was dealing with corrupt FBI agents. Even if this report was an "end all" that doesn't make it retroactive therefor Trump was still in his right to investigate Ukraine (and would have been regardless of any reports - the man can investigate whatever wants to). Furthermore, the Republicans are running their own investigation related to the entire situation, which I remind you isn't limited to internal FBI issues. So you're saying there's no reason for the investigation because some squabble between inner agencies turned up only a few corrupt assholes in the FBI that happened to forge papers to speed up the investigation into Trump? Sorry, not going to fly with most of the voters. Yes, a lot of hype over the report and the results turned up much of nothing (so the Liberals can have their pound of flesh from the Conservatives that claimed this report would have top officials jailed) - just like the Mueller report turned up nothing, except this report was an inner agency issue that didn't accuse the President of being an Russian agent. This pales to comparison to the Mueller hoax. Know what else is included in this DOJ report? The fact that there's no proof Trump was involved in any election meddling. Bite on that.

Anyway, back to your expert witnesses. The three hand picked Constitutional Experts were the Democrats witnesses. I'm not saying they don't know about the Constitution, but the clear fact most of them have documented past histories of slandering the President they're helping impeach and the fact that they are in fact only the Democrats witnesses and most likely were educated in Liberal colleges make them by far not credible witnesses )as they are clearly bias). Now maybe if the Republicans could have called 3 of their own Constitutional Experts that would have been fair. Seeings as the Democrats are controlling the entire circus I've already accepted the fact it's going to be unfair to Trump and he's not going to get any sort of actual justice from these people.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> No one involved in this hearing is attempting to adopt socialism. This is another one of your delusions seeping into this thread without any proof. While asking for said proof upset you so much that you refused to participate in further discussion on another thread, I consistently will ask for proof if you make baseless assertions. If you cannot provide any then perhaps stay on topic.



I stopped wasting my time with you because it's the Liberals end game. Just ask one. There's nothing to debate. It's like saying that fire isn't hot.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Anyway, back to your expert witnesses. The three hand picked Constitutional Experts were the Democrats witnesses. I'm not saying they don't know about the Constitution, but the clear fact most of them have documented past histories of slandering the President they're helping impeach and the fact that they are in fact only the Democrats witnesses and most likely were educated in Liberal colleges make them by far not credible witnesses )as they are clearly bias). Now maybe if the Republicans could have called 3 of their own Constitutional Experts that would have been fair. Seeings as the Democrats are controlling the entire circus I've already accepted the fact it's going to be unfair to Trump and he's not going to get any sort of actual justice from these people.


So, one of the three democrat expert witnesses was the sole bipart expert witness of the last impeachment. Majority and minority have representation, last impeachment didn't have equal representation either when the party representation was flipped.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I stopped wasting my time with you because it's the Liberals end game. Just ask one. There's nothing to debate. It's like saying that fire isn't hot.


Socialist ideals run contrary to what neoliberals and neoconservatives both want to achieve.  That's why both Biden and Trump, CNN and Fox are all united in their disdain for Bernie Sanders.  They can't very well have the balance of power shifting back toward the workers in any small measure, otherwise billionaires might have to make due with four yachts each instead of five. 



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So, one of the three democrat expert witnesses was the sole bipart expert witness of the last impeachment. Majority and minority have representation, last impeachment didn't have equal representation either when the party representation was flipped.


Not to mention the one witness the Republicans called had previously defended a judge against impeachment who was clearly guilty of what he was being accused of.  The judge was then overwhelmingly convicted in a bipartisan vote.


----------



## notimp (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> That's only the Democrats and Liberals side of the story (that Biden was the target), in which since that's what they're claiming happened, there's no concrete evidence that Trump was solely going after Biden for political dirt - not to mention Biden hasn't even won the Democratic 2020 primaries so he's not even Trump's direct political opponent.


What I said. Thats the spin trying to be applied. But then we all kind of can imagine, that Trump would be irratic and idiotic enough to make this a priority regardless, and risk the entire hey, you trying to win the next presidency by extortion? question Regardless.

We have even more circumstantial evidence, since apparently the institutional representatives (swamp in your parlance), have adviced against it, were shocked, that that incidence happened, and immediately filed a motion to hide the protocol of the conversation away on a classified server as to not damage the reputation of the office in public. That was before the whistleblower spoke out.

So all of this seems perfectly in line with Trumps a moron, that people let play president within limited risk profile activities, just so that he can stroke his ego, while still acting as a draw for really dumb people, that vote based on the funcies of acting like a schoolyard bully - because its so 'like the people', while conveniently attributing all bullying parts to 'thats what a good dictator has to do'. Hey, if he keeps away from more important stuff and keeps playing sockpuppet, on more important issues hes advised on, who cares.

Then you spread a little uncertainty and doubt (which version of transcript?! But was he really that dumb, that he done did this based on 'possibility space' (and yes, I think I know the answer)), confuse people in regards to what happened here - and get away with republicans not moving on this being an impeachment class issue (which it likely is), which is all that is needed.

Lets not be naive here. There is no other case to be made, why that investigation would have been of national, even on the ukraine side, importance. The freaking looser son of an acting societal figure does not interest anyone - unless when you need to broker access. And access isnt the same as corruption per se.

Also, this isnt a dig on Biden necessarily, because people will hire his idiot son based on name alone - without him brokering or promising anything. Thats stuff that then gets layerd in afterwards (hey, you wont refuse important meeting to your son, right?). And you cant really say - hey - no good son, dont take the opportunity I imagine you have not realized on your own, because it might cause me reputation damage in the future. You dont expect that from Trump either btw.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Socialist ideals run contrary to what neoliberals and neoconservatives both want to achieve.  That's why both Biden and Trump, CNN and Fox are all united in their disdain for Bernie Sanders.  They can't very well have the balance of power shifting back toward the workers in any small measure, otherwise billionaires might have to make due with four yachts each instead of five.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the one witness the Republicans called had previously defended a judge against impeachment who was clearly guilty of what he was being accused of.  The judge was then overwhelmingly convicted in a bipartisan vote.



Bernie simply repackaged and is reselling socialism under his own brand name - what is is this year? Identifying as a socialist Democrat? At least he's been consistent with his efforts and platforms and is simply using his ticket as a Democratic nominee to his advantage. Running without a party would have been a bad idea. I'm impressed with his consistency as the other socialist sellouts simply run with whatever is popular among their Liberal voters this year. "Who here supports open borders"? That sellout stance wouldn't have worked in 2008 or 2016. Plus the rest of the candidates are simply running on what they're going to do with the money they'll steal from the middle class and rich people. Either way you try to rebrand socialism it's all the same, just like shades of the color blue.

The constitutional witnesses were more credible than the others, but they're basing the validity of the impeachment based on what those others had testified and the others testimony was far from damming. So in the end they are trying to justify preplanned impeachment on a foundation built out of sand.

Another problem with the Liberals is that they have already made up their mind that Trump is guilty before the verdict has been reached. Just like the reaction from CNN reporters who freaked out when Mueller found no collusion or how the Republicans thought that the FBI corruption would implicate high up officials. The takeaway is don't count your chickens before they hatch. Trump should be given the presumption of innocence before the verdict, but seeings as the Liberals have been brainwashed to attack everything he does their failings are understandable.


----------



## notimp (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> socialist sellouts


Who is paying a socialist? If he wants to sell out?

We've learned that it certainly isnt billionair doners, the likes of which cots could be payed by - if he just tried. 

We know that its certainly not big companies.

Wait socialists are selling out to the notion, that they actually want to matter more politically themselves - you know, take responsibility, be judged by people rather than elites, become an elite the old fashioned way basically.

I'm not getting the sellout angle here. 

Cots randomly putting together emotionally activating words to put people in the 'thats not what you want to vote for camp' - this is how idiots work by the way, always trying to find the shortcut ("Whats best?") so they dont have to actually learn up on the issue. So you manipulate them by giving them emotions instead of facts, and ensuring them over and over again, that this is how the majority thinks.

Thats what certain billionairs and media channels (establishment) already did in this (Bernie) case. Multiple times. Republicans and democrats alike.
-

The invented sellout angle comes from scottish actor films of the era when Hollywood still produced better movies. Of "we against the commies" - which is idiotic, because what Bernie wants, people in canada already have. Damn commies.

Cots often shows you a masterclass in popular manipulation. Hes interesting like that. 

Also democratic socialism kind of isnt a word the Bernie campaign invented, its the political system 80% of the west is run on. Anywhere other than the US and GB basically (which are more free market capitalist in orientation) (F*ck the poor, dont pay for the ill, ...). Gives you more of an economic edge.

Because people are more 'forced' to take any job opportunities that are out there, so its easier to start and maintain businesses.


----------



## cots (Dec 9, 2019)

notimp said:


> What I said. Thats the spin trying to be applied. But then we all kind of can imagine, that Trump would be irratic and idiotic enough to make this a priority regardless, and risk the entire hey, you trying to win the next presidency by extortion? question Regardless.
> 
> We have even more circumstantial evidence, since apparently the institutional representatives (swamp in your parlance), have adviced against it, were shocked, that that incidence happened, and immediately filed a motion to hide the protocol of the conversation away on a classified server as to not damage the reputation of the office in public. That was before the whistleblower spoke out.
> 
> ...



I agree that Trump has an inflated ego as about as much as Obama had, but the entire world view that Trump is a blabbering moron is very inaccurate. He purposely uses Twitter to fuck with his opponents and the dumb people are the one's that constantly fall for it (not to mention anyone using modern social media are suffering from mental health issues). He's an overall successful business owner and won the freaking Presidential election by overcoming all sorts of odds. He's by far dumb. He's also got the support from honest hard working citizens who the Liberals plan to plunder to support the real dumb and useless people in the USA.

You also just touched on the fact that what Biden did - his admitted quid pro quo is not worth all the fuss and neither is what Trump is accused of. While Biden is on record bragging about it there's still no credible evidence proving Trump was after Biden. While it's more believable than being a Russian agent it's still coming from the same morons who came up with that BS to begin with.


----------



## notimp (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I agree that Trump has an inflated ego as about as much as Obama had,


Oh f*ck off, this isnt a cattle show, where you compare price bulls all the time.

The notion behind this argument alsways has been. Obama is a black. Liberal dems sold us out by making possible the first black president of the US, never forget that - we will shove that image in your face to trigger your subconscious fears at any point we deem beneficial.

That comparison in this case is nonsense.

We are not comparing character flaws here, but likelyhoods, of an idiot doing stuff he actually can be impeached for - on terms of 'abusing the office for personal gains'. Obama was so straight laced, ... As a character study he is the antithesis of what Trump likely did in this case. But both showed ambition? Well string them up...

The 'but Obama' defense is basically racism as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 9, 2019)

cots said:


> Bernie simply repackaged and is reselling socialism under his own brand name - what is is this year? Identifying as a socialist Democrat? At least he's been consistent with his efforts and platforms and is simply using his ticket as a Democratic nominee to his advantage. Running without a party would have been a bad idea. I'm impressed with his consistency as the other socialist sellouts simply run with whatever is popular among their Liberal voters this year.


Bernie is the only candidate in the race with any sort of socialist inclinations, even Warren self-identifies as 100% capitalist.  The only reason the rest of the candidates have adopted any semblance of his policies is because they're undeniably popular, but most of them can't be trusted to not pivot away from those policies once they've secured the nomination.



cots said:


> Plus the rest of the candidates are simply running on what they're going to do with the money they'll steal from the middle class and rich people.


As opposed to stealing tax money from the lower classes to pay for golf carts for Trump's fat ass?  I'd take it.  The middle class is basically non-existent in this country at this point, and what little of it is left would benefit greatly from medicare for all, tuition-free college, etc.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not to mention the one witness the Republicans called had previously defended a judge against impeachment who was clearly guilty of what he was being accused of.  The judge was then overwhelmingly convicted in a bipartisan vote.



I've been staying out of this recently and intend to keep on doing so ... but you're talking about a lawyer representing a client. That's what lawyers do. It's not a basis for criticism.  

That witness btw, Jonathan Turley, may have been called by the Republicans, but he is liberal/progressive. He just doesn't slant politically when it comes to reading the Constitution. He was in favor of Clinton's impeachment because Clinton did commit perjury. He advocated for criminal prosecutions for GWBush admin officials for war crimes and torture. I'd love to see him on the Supreme Court someday, because he actually expresses his opinion of what the law is, not just his opinion.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I've been staying out of this recently and intend to keep on doing so ... but you're talking about a lawyer representing a client. That's what lawyers do. It's not a basis for criticism.


Correction: he's a law professor, not a lawyer.  He picks and chooses which cases he takes on out of personal interest.



Hanafuda said:


> He was in favor of Clinton's impeachment because Clinton did commit perjury.


And here I was gonna say at least I can respect his consistency in his stance against impeachment in general, but clearly he hasn't been consistent about it.  Perjury isn't even the tip of the iceberg where Trump is concerned, remember that he perjured himself (likely multiple times) in his written answers to Mueller's questions.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Bernie is the only candidate in the race with any sort of socialist inclinations, even Warren self-identifies as 100% capitalist.  The only reason the rest of the candidates have adopted any semblance of his policies is because they're undeniably popular, but most of them can't be trusted to not pivot away from those policies once they've secured the nomination.
> 
> 
> As opposed to stealing tax money from the lower classes to pay for golf carts for Trump's fat ass?  I'd take it.  The middle class is basically non-existent in this country at this point, and what little of it is left would benefit greatly from medicare for all, tuition-free college, etc.



The people who would benefit most are the one's that don't work to begin with. Sure they pay taxes with the handouts they're already getting. Just like you claimed every Trump voter is racist. There's still a middle class. Have you not been in the suburbs lately? Although the middle class is under attack by the Liberals who think everyone should be on the same pay level regardless of their contributions. Well everyone except the people in power. They get to be rich while after the rest of us run out of the rich people's money we don't deserve will be left fighting over scraps.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> Oh f*ck off, this isnt a cattle show, where you compare price bulls all the time.
> 
> The notion behind this argument alsways has been. Obama is a black. Liberal dems sold us out by making possible the first black president of the US, never forget that - we will shove that image in your face to trigger your subconscious fears at any point we deem beneficial.
> 
> ...




My point was that most Presidents by nature have inflated egos and are control freaks. It's part of the job. Obama was passive aggressive, but he was just as much power hungry as Trump. His snarky "I know best" and "trust me" were just as dishonest as the next politician. Seems I hit a nerve. Good. Now you know how I feel when people constantly complain about the President of the USA regardless of who they may be. Show some respect.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Correction: he's a law professor, not a lawyer.  He picks and chooses which cases he takes on out of personal interest.
> 
> 
> And here I was gonna say at least I can respect his consistency in his stance against impeachment in general, but clearly he hasn't been consistent about it.  Perjury isn't even the tip of the iceberg where Trump is concerned, remember that he perjured himself (likely multiple times) in his written answers to Mueller's questions.



When he takes a case as a lawyer on the team he becomes a lawyer that happens to also have other credentials. Sort of like how a baseball player might moonlight as a prison guard. I'd say you were simply not thinking when you wrote that, but then again you're dishonest and cannot admit you are ever wrong. Common Liberal traits.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And here I was gonna say at least I can respect his consistency in his stance against impeachment in general, but clearly he hasn't been consistent about it.  Perjury isn't even the tip of the iceberg where Trump is concerned, remember that he perjured himself (likely multiple times) in his written answers to Mueller's questions.



Even if that were true, is it one of the articles the Democrats prepared? no. Is it something they attempted to prove in their investigation? no. Maybe that's what Turley meant when he said they fucked it all up and haven't proven any impeachable offenses because they rushed the job.


----------



## ut2k4master (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Show some respect.


respect is earned, not given


----------



## notimp (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> My point was that most Presidents by nature have inflated egos and are control freaks. It's part of the job. Obama was passive aggressive, but he was just as much power hungry as Trump. His snarky "I know best" and "trust me" were just as dishonest as the next politician. Seems I hit a nerve. Good. Now you know how I feel when people constantly complain about the President of the USA regardless of who they may be. Show some respect.



I'm fine with the characterization, as I dont have a thing against ambitioned (power hungry) people, and dont know them personally. 

There is a thing with risk taking though, that if you are in that high of a 'managerial' position, you can rely on people giving you risk profiles (not always accurate, not always available); that allow you to not take stupid risk. Obama was very prone to doing that.

Talking about stupid risk - trying to lowball blackmail a leader of a foreign nation thats on your allies list, for that small (?) of (ultimately pretty personal) benefit spells stupid risk to me. (Nevermind damagin americas reputation in country, what about the reputation to your status around the world...) If it was necessary I cant say - because in the end, anything (within legal parameters) that gets you elected again goes, right? Those are the rules.

(Although normally - acting like a 'statesmen' gives you more accolades, if you've already been president once - because people are suckers for candidate perceived as 'pragmatic power figures'. So any move that paints you as a hail marry risk taker, normally is not the way  to go.. (so you would have had to keep it on a down low))


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Even if that were true, is it one of the articles the Democrats prepared? no. Is it something they attempted to prove in their investigation? no. Maybe that's what Turley meant when he said they fucked it all up and haven't proven any impeachable offenses because they rushed the job.


And there's a reason the other three law experts disagreed with him on that.  This case couldn't possibly be any more straightforward, unlike the Mueller report which was too much for the general public to digest.  There's also a big difference between "rushing" it and not allowing Republicans to stonewall the process well past November 2020, especially considering that the fairness and trustworthiness of all our future elections is what's at stake here.



cots said:


> The people who would benefit most are the one's that don't work to begin with.


Think again.  There are a ton of people who work and still can't afford college tuition or decent healthcare insurance.



cots said:


> There's still a middle class. Have you not been in the suburbs lately?


Most of suburbia is working class and drowning in debt.  I think you're lowering the bar for what's truly considered middle class.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

ut2k4master said:


> respect is earned, not given



The respect for our country has been earned by the people who fought and died for it. You should respect the flag, our history, our great leaders, the fact our country was built around faith in God, the laws and the three branches of Government. Only little entitled Liberal brats who are allowed to say and act like they do because of the people who shed blood for them would turn around and disrespect them and our great nation. The respect has been earned - so show it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

*IMPEACHMENT UPDATE 12/09/2019*

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-unveil-articles-impeachment-president-trump-tuesday-sources/story?id=67614092

Seems the Democrats are finalizing their charges.

"The charges are expected to focus on obstruction and abuse of power."

If unless they can get "abuse of power" to stick then there's no reason why the "obstruction" charge would be valid. Good luck trying to convince the Senate that not caving into the Democrats demands was obstruction (considering the entire fact the impeachment was pre-planned to happen regardless of any wrong doing and this isn't their first attempt). I see no reason why "abuse of power" would stick anyway as the entire situation surrounding Ukraine was business as usual. If you understand why this latest impeachment attempt is happening, how it's been handled so far and the actual evidence the Democrats have you can see how this is probably going to fall flat on its face. I hope the Chinese food the Judiciary Committee staff consumed tonight contained 90% rat meat and 10% human waste.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Good luck trying to convince the Senate


Of anything based in reality.  Everybody is already perfectly aware that the Senate cannot be expected to hold an objective, fact-based trial.  I'd honestly be surprised if McConnell lets it go on even two days before holding a vote, he's never been concerned about the appearance of impropriety before.

That said, whether the charges "stick" with Trump is an issue entirely separate from Senate Republicans wiping their asses with the constitution and the rule of law.  The Mueller report certainly stuck with voters long enough to hand Democrats a sweeping victory in the 2018 mid-term elections, and the impeachment inquiry also seemed to move the needle in their favor for 2019 state-level elections.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> The respect for our country has been earned by the people who fought and died for it. You should respect the flag, our history, our great leaders, the fact our country was built around faith in God, the laws and the three branches of Government. Only little entitled Liberal brats who are allowed to say and act like they do because of the people who shed blood for them would turn around and disrespect them and our great nation. The respect has been earned - so show it.


No. People do not have to respect all of those things. People should respect the flag, what our democracy means, and the constitution. History is not to be respected. it is to be learned from, if you fail to learn the mistakes of the past they are doomed to repeat. There is no need to respect leaders as the states is supposed to be a democratic republic the people we choose is meant to represent us (therefore, that respect is earned through trust). Not the other way around. We aren't meant to pick people for us to represent them. It is meant for them to represent us. Something I take great issue with is a lot of people think you have to conform to what  party you consider yourself in says. To agree with their ideals, when really it should be the people, the majority. Most of the time, it doesn't. And worst of all. Partisanship.
You've demonstrated your lines clearly. I must ask, do you think attacking a group of people are going to make them less secure with their position and to some, a identification marker as a liberal?
By personally attacking them, you are damning your own chances to convince them.
People latch onto their beliefs harder when you come out throwing a fist.
"Only little entitled Liberal brats"
This line alone, makes everyone discredit you. It could be anything replacing liberals, and you will still be discredited. Insert any noun into that subject, and you will most likely guarantees to get a negative response to it forcing everyone to move closer into their corners. You lack professionalism in your statements above. Now let me make clear. What I've said applies to what you said. Not who you are.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Of anything based in reality.  Everybody is already perfectly aware that the Senate cannot be expected to hold an objective, fact-based trial.  I'd honestly be surprised if McConnell lets it go on even two days before holding a vote, he's never been concerned about the appearance of impropriety before.
> 
> That said, whether the charges "stick" with Trump is an issue entirely separate from Senate Republicans wiping their asses with the constitution and the rule of law.  The Mueller report certainly stuck with voters long enough to hand Democrats a sweeping victory in the 2018 mid-term elections, and the impeachment inquiry also seemed to move the needle in their favor for 2019 state-level elections.



Even the limited wins at the polls in 2018 don't indicate what the voters will do in 2020 and there was no "sweeping victory". If anything there's going to be some backlash over the premeditated impeachment and you do realize that the Independents don't support it. Trump also has a majority of Latino and Blacks on his side. Though, I understand that the impeachment process is not only being abused by the Democrats as it premeditated, but by your own admission (which most Conservatives see right through regardless of expressed guilt) it's also being abused to try to influence an election. I guess hiring foreign government spies to slander your opponent didn't work out for you in 2016 so you've stepped up your game. What'll be funny is if Trump wins again even though your side is already trying to stack the deck. Regardless, if he's cleared in the Senate (which, you don't know that will happen or not) then he'll be cleared of any wrong doing, thus your latest impeachment attempt would be a failed and you would have lost again. Hopefully that happens because not only would that be fair, just and right for the country, but it would cause the TDS morons to go even further into denial, as "we accept the loss" and "we'll move on for the betterment of society" seems to have been removed from their vocabulary.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Even the limited wins at the polls in 2018 don't indicate what the voters will do in 2020 and there was no "sweeping victory". If anything there's going to be some backlash over the premeditated impeachment and you do realize that the Independents don't support it.


Support for impeachment and removal hit as high as 55%, which is well above its highest point during the process for either the Nixon or Clinton.  Any notable "backlash" certainly would've affected the state-level elections in Kentucky, Louisiana, and elsewhere, but Dems won those races _while_ the impeachment inquiry was ongoing.  So at best you're speculating wildly here, there's no evidence to back what you're saying.  2018's House Democrats were elected because people wanted oversight and accountability for the executive branch, and that's exactly what they've delivered.



cots said:


> by your own admission (which most Conservatives see right through regardless of expressed guilt) it's also being abused to try to influence an election


Trump abused his power out of fear for one of the weakest Democratic candidates, so yes, in a way this has always been about the election, and Trump is the one that made it so.  When the Senate acquits him, they'll be signaling that foreign influence in US elections is welcome, and it'll be sure to turn the 2020 cycle into even more of a shitshow than it would've been anyway.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No. People do not have to respect all of those things. People should respect the flag, what our democracy means, and the constitution. History is not to be respected. it is to be learned from, if you fail to learn the mistakes of the past they are doomed to repeat. There is no need to respect leaders as the states is supposed to be a democratic republic the people we choose is meant to represent us (therefore, that respect is earned through trust). Not the other way around. We aren't meant to pick people for us to represent them. It is meant for them to represent us. Something I take great issue with is a lot of people think you have to conform to what  party you consider yourself in says. To agree with their ideals, when really it should be the people, the majority. Most of the time, it doesn't. And worst of all. Partisanship.



Talking about learning from History is pretty comical coming from someone who agrees with Liberals, seeings as they take any chance they get to hide, destroy, alter and rewrite it. You're also wrong about not respecting who we are and where we came from and making excuses for people that are spitting on people who fought and died for you including our great founders graves is pretty below the belt. People selflessly sacrificed more than you ever could image so you can sit on your computer and talk shit about them. You should be ashamed of yourself.



> You've demonstrated your lines clearly. I must ask, do you think attacking a group of people are going to make them less secure with their position and to some, a identification marker as a liberal?
> By personally attacking them, you are damning your own chances to convince them.
> People latch onto their beliefs harder when you come out throwing a fist.
> "Only little entitled Liberal brats"
> This line alone, makes everyone discredit you. It could be anything replacing liberals, and you will still be discredited. Insert any noun into that subject, and you will most likely guarantees to get a negative response to it forcing everyone to move closer into their corners. You lack professionalism in your statements above. Now let me make clear. What I've said applies to what you said. Not who you are.



I have a better chance of teaching a 3 legged cat how to do back flips than to make a Liberal realize that they are destroying themselves and society along with it. The only people discrediting me are the intolerant people who wouldn't allow me to think for myself or make my own choices and are hell bent on controlling everyone else. You do realize that anyone who says certain things is automatically attacked? Imagine if you started asking your own friends questions you're not allowed to or making comments that they disagree with. You'll find out very quickly that they aren't your friends. I don't care what they say or do and I can't be discredited by them. It's like a rapist trying to talk shit about someone that helps disabled kids cross the street. One thing I learned a long time ago that has helped me greatly is that you cannot control other people. You can't reform them. You can't help them. That is, unless they want to be helped. Frankly, it's not my job to help others and I'm sure as not going to waste time putting myself out there to help a Liberal destroy themselves.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Support for impeachment and removal hit as high as 55%, which is well above its highest point during the process for either the Nixon or Clinton.  Any notable "backlash" certainly would've affected the state-level elections in Kentucky, Louisiana, and elsewhere, but Dems won those races _while_ the impeachment inquiry was ongoing.  So at best you're speculating here, there's no evidence to back what you're saying.



The percentages don't matter. Those were different President at different times with different members of society. Democrats and Republicans lose and win all sorts of elections all over the country all of the time. That doesn't represent what the voters will do in 2020.



> Trump abused his power out of fear for one of the weakest Democratic candidates, so yes, in a way this has always been about the election, and Trump is the one that made it so.  When the Senate acquits him, they'll be signaling that foreign influence in US elections is welcome, and it's sure to turn the 2020 cycle into even more of a shitshow than it would've been anyway.



Still no proof of "quid pro joe" and the charge isn't even going to be included in the official impeachment anymore. That angle is a lost cause.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> The percentages don't matter. Those were different President at different times with different members of society. Democrats and Republicans lose and win all sorts of elections all over the country all of the time. That doesn't represent what the voters will do in 2020.


The 2018 and 2019 elections included a lot of candidates who Trump personally endorsed and campaigned for.  Ignoring the results of those elections as if they don't point to any sort of trend is foolish, but you do you.



cots said:


> Still no proof of "quid pro joe" and the charge isn't even going to be included in the official impeachment anymore. That angle is a lost cause.


Extortion and/or quid pro quo are covered by abuse of power in the articles being drafted.  If you had read the news article you posted in its entirety you'd know that.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The 2018 and 2019 elections included a lot of candidates who Trump personally endorsed and campaigned for.  Ignoring the results of those elections as if they don't point to any sort of trend is foolish, but you do you.



I'm not ignoring anything. Endorsements alone don't win you elections (at least they shouldn't).



> Extortion and/or quid pro quo are covered by abuse of power in the articles being drafted.  If you had read the news article you posted in its entirety you'd know that.



Yeah, I linked to an article I didn't read. Sure. Seeings as there was no quid pro joe and no extortion Trump should be okay then.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Endorsements alone don't win you elections (at least they shouldn't).


They shouldn't, but individual Republicans have proven over the last few years to have no spines or free wills of their own.  Trump _is_ the party now, for better or worse.  Libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc have all bent the knee, and as a result, Trump has staked his own reputation on the outcome of a number of these elections.  And ultimately lost.



cots said:


> Yeah, I linked to an article I didn't read.


I figured as much.



cots said:


> Seeings as there was no quid pro joe and no extortion Trump should be okay then.


Oh Trump will be fine.  He's a millionaire in a country where the only true god is money, and people like you are all too willing to worship him for that reason alone. 

It's the rest of us who will have to deal with an uncertain future in a banana republic where foreign countries get to pick our leadership for us.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I figured as much.



Clearly you're on a level of a 12 year old that needs a /s inserted into my text. Oh wait, you excluded the "sure" comment after my text. Typical Liberal excluding the full quote to push a fake narrative.

Remind me again of the Liberal motive for the impeachment? It's to remove Trump from office because he won the 2016 election and it's to prevent him from winning the 2020 election. You do realize that the motive speaks volumes about what's actually taking place.



(Make sure to read the Youtube video comments)


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 10, 2019)

This thread is pretty hard to follow if everyone's replying to what someone I'm ignoring has said. 


But if you ask me, that's also something that could be said for the democrats and even the media in general. After Sondland's testimony, all new information was just cementing what was clear from the beginning (okay, okay: the fact that not all of the assigned money was assigned also sank the already halfbaked "what's the problem if Ukraine got the money in the end?" argument some more).
But Trump is good at having people outraged, and republicans follow that plan very well (printing Shiff's head on a milk carton and implying that you can't impeach Trump because it's just his first term come to mind). When it's a given that that isn't going to stop - and that is very much a given - then why hesitate? What's with all the "release the articles of impeachment"? Why have a vote on that next week? Just do that all in a day and have it voted on in the senate an hour later, the next day at the most. Face it: nobody's going to change their minds here. Trump will be impeached (the first vote) but not removed from office (republicans hold the majority in the senate). It's a pipe dream to think enough republicans will vote against their leader in a month from now, so you might as well get it over with.

Why? Because Trump NEEDS this polarisation. News papers only have one front page, and as long as he can fill it with meaningless words or hypocrisy (admit it: you're outraged by the thought that you gave him a shred of benefit of the doubt when he said he'd defend himself legally when he could...he was setting YOU up for being enraged) that front page isn't filled with some alarm bells.


Remember the Kavanaugh situation? Half the country was up in arms with the other half because he might or might not have sexually harassed someone a couple decades ago. Remember? Yeah...now Donnie nominated a judge (Pitlyk) with zero legal experience.

Remember this: sooner or later Trump is not going to be president any more. It's only then that you'll learn what it has cost you...


----------



## notimp (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> I have a better chance of teaching a 3 legged cat how to do back flips than to make a Liberal realize that they are destroying themselves and society along with it.


Yeah, not a healthy attitude.  Think of it like a spectrum. 

And btw, civilizations that got flattened because of a certain political believe prior to engaging in violent confrontation has to be almost none. (Once we got past famines.)

We have to talk about democracy at some point. So basically how its supposed to work is, that everyone can try to talk openly about political convictions, then you hold open elections and power shifts over a spectrum, over time. Basically like a pendulum.

For it to work though - everyone should be able to have the feeling, that things will turn out ok, even if the other side is in power for a while. Thats kind of important.

Because what democracy allows in principal is nonviolent transition of power. Thats pretty much the whole concept.


So the entire 'holy war against unjustness' (of the opposing political fraction) thing some people might try to pull actually isnt necessary or even wanted.

And you have another out, and that is, that regardless of what you might believe - societies as a whole don't change as fast as you seem to fear on a regular basis. There will always be trendsetters, and followers, and laggards, and subgroups and...

So there is no need to actually extinguish other believe systems.

Thats something that basically everyone agrees on (- in the west). You should too at some point. Would make you less radicalized. And again, that judgement of yours seems to be an emotional certainty on your part, if you can dial in emotional response a little to those things annoying you, it helps.

The way much of the conversation currently is going is, that you can accept or agree to certain logic you might not agree with in principal. But at the point where someone might say - now put yourselves in the shoes of your 'opponents' for a minute - you freak, and resort to the the 'but if not confronted, they will destroy' pattern of thought.

Democracy has many flaws - one of which is it being fairly slow moving on structural change - if a majority is still somewhat ok with the status quo. But on the other hand - that thing, that one fraction will outright destroy society - because of lack of information, also doesnt really happen.

In case this wasnt just hyperbole. 

Also at some point, shift to happier topics as well - we are talking about politicians screwing over parts of society in one way or another in here mostly again. There is the possibility to not focus on that as a pattern, because despite this probably being a historical contingency - humanity always has grown, evolved, and had fun doing it..  Never forget that. Even if currently resorting back to doomsday prophecy is on trend again (climate).  (And for all we know the real big systemic risk during our lifetime should still be manageable - looked at it pragmatically.)


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Why? Because Trump NEEDS this polarisation. News papers only have one front page, and as long as he can fill it with meaningless words or hypocrisy (admit it: you're outraged by the thought that you gave him a shred of benefit of the doubt when he said he'd defend himself legally when he could...he was setting YOU up for being enraged) that front page isn't filled with some alarm bells.



I've thought about what you've said and actually found it really profound. When we think about how a candidate like Trump even became viable, like it or not, he's not a popular leader. Most who I've come to understand to support him do so because of alternative rather than agree in his leadership.

If there isn't strong partisanship, us vs them, its like a fire w/out oxygen. We don't have many republicans who speak against Trump, they quietly say, yea he is wrong, I ignore his tweets, I just want fair trade (these are the same people who I've come to know in my life that were for Trade without governmental influence and thought tariffs were abominations), or point to some other policy that happened to align with their short-term goals but they are resigned that this is what the party has chosen and don't see anyone else stepping up to move the party in a sustainable direction yet. So they sit silently and wait.

What we hear from the vacuum are people like @cots (while he/she claims to be an independent), people who parrot every conspiracy theory that reinforces their bias. They built a mindset of us vs them so they can conquer 'evil' and 'bad', that dissociation allows them to openly resist attempts to compromise, after all, why should you compromise with 'evil'. That partisanship is something that is dangerous and destructive, they claim the other side is trying to destroy america and they are claiming to save it. 

But at what cost will people like @cots be willing to 'save' America. By torching every moderate who so happens to disagree with them and their partisanship? 

It isn't sustainable. The majority of people do not think like that, despite the bias that has deepened into politics. The majority will have to find a way to move the country forward. I think that will be the big decision of 2020. We'll see.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> This thread is pretty hard to follow if everyone's replying to what someone I'm ignoring has said.
> 
> But if you ask me, that's also something that could be said for the democrats and even the media in general. After Sondland's testimony, all new information was just cementing what was clear from the beginning (okay, okay: the fact that not all of the assigned money was assigned also sank the already halfbaked "what's the problem if Ukraine got the money in the end?" argument some more).
> But Trump is good at having people outraged, and republicans follow that plan very well (printing Shiff's head on a milk carton and implying that you can't impeach Trump because it's just his first term come to mind). When it's a given that that isn't going to stop - and that is very much a given - then why hesitate? What's with all the "release the articles of impeachment"? Why have a vote on that next week? Just do that all in a day and have it voted on in the senate an hour later, the next day at the most. Face it: nobody's going to change their minds here. Trump will be impeached (the first vote) but not removed from office (republicans hold the majority in the senate). It's a pipe dream to think enough republicans will vote against their leader in a month from now, so you might as well get it over with.
> ...



Sonland testified under oath to Congress that the main reason he couldn't remember things, put things together or give more precise testimony was because the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records. The State Department claimed he was lying and always had access to his own records thus giving any less credibility to the already completely uncredible list of "assumptions" or "presumptions" he made. If he lied about his primary source of knowledge that what good is any testimony based on any of that knowledge? Even if he wasn't lying what good are "assumptions" or "presumptions"  you can't prove to begin with?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I've thought about what you've said and actually found it really profound. When we think about how a candidate like Trump even became viable, like it or not, he's not a popular leader. Most who I've come to understand to support him do so because of alternative rather than agree in his leadership.
> 
> If there isn't strong partisanship, us vs them, its like a fire w/out oxygen. We don't have many republicans who speak against Trump, they quietly say, yea he is wrong, I ignore his tweets, I just want fair trade (these are the same people who I've come to know in my life that were for Trade without governmental influence and thought tariffs were abominations), or point to some other policy that happened to align with their short-term goals but they are resigned that this is what the party has chosen and don't see anyone else stepping up to move the party in a sustainable direction yet. So they sit silently and wait.
> 
> ...



Blah, blah, blah. Evil is just fine. We should overlook and allow it. Screw the country. Let's ruin it with socialism by electing a lying sellout in 2020. Bias against evil is wrong. Partisanship is bad unless you're on a certain side. Something about rules and going offtopic. Blah. Blah. Blah.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Sonland testified under oath to Congress that the main reason he couldn't remember things, put things together or give more precise testimony was because the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records. The State Department claimed he was lying and always had access to his own records thus giving any less credibility to the already completely uncredible list of "assumptions" or "presumptions" he made. If he lied about his primary source of knowledge that was good is any testimony based on any of that knowledge?


I think the biggest mistake people could make is to think Sondland isn't on the President's defense team. He was and is a clear supporter of the President. Despite that, in fear of perjery, he has given information that supports the case given before us. This view is clearly supported if you read his deposition, then watch his public testimony. One without the other it would not be as clear.

Few pieces of information were given uniquely by Sondland that some other witness didn't implicate him a part of already. He was forced to clarify his view, 'to the best of his recollection'. Those few pieces if separated were given in a light that attempts to downplay the case by providing the best light possible for a situation. I have essays of material with him and the testimony that he provided but definitely do not have that amount of time as it would be a nearly complete retelling of the entire testimony.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> Blah, blah, blah. Evil is just fine. We should overlook and allow it. Screw the country. Let's ruin it with socialism by electing a lying sellout in 2020. Bias against evil is wrong. Partisanship is bad unless you're on a certain side. Blah. Blah. Blah.


Articulate arguments are much easier to dismiss than refute. @cots 2019.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think the biggest mistake people could make is to think Sondland isn't on the President's defense team. He was and is a clear supporter of the President. Despite that, in fear of perjery, he has given information that supports the case given before us. This view is clearly supported if you read his deposition, then watch his public testimony. One without the other it would not be as clear.
> 
> Few pieces of information were given uniquely by Sondland that some other witness didn't implicate him a part of already. He was forced to clarify his view, 'to the best of his recollection'. Those few pieces if separated were given in a light that attempts to downplay the case by providing the best light possible for a situation. I have essays of material with him and the testimony that he provided but definitely do not have that amount of time as it would be a nearly complete retelling of the entire testimony.



Nice play, prop up the man and his testimony until you find out he lied about it and then try to downplay your failure. So now you're trying to tell someone who watched the entire length on Sonland's testimony, in which he clearly stated he couldn't recall things or give an accurate deposition because he was being denied access to his records and then continued to answer "I don't recall", "I assume" and "I presume" based on his lack of access to his records and his poor memory while the entire time he had access to those records. The only thing remotely honest about this entire thing was the testimony from the other witnesses (excluding this liar, anything he said that can actually be considered evidence is based on a lie and should be questioned). Do you remember what the other witnesses testified when asked "Do you have any information/evidence about Trump doing anything illegal? Quid pro joe? Bribery?" and they all answered "No". Those witnesses were by far more honest than this entire proceeding has been.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Nice play, prop up the man and his testimony until you find out he lied about it and then try to downplay your failure. So now you're trying to tell someone who watched the entire length on Sonland's testimony, in which he clearly stated he couldn't recall things or give an accurate deposition because he was being denied access to his records and then contained to answer "I don't recall", "I assume" and "I presume" based on his lack of access to his records and his poor memory while the entire time he had access to those records. The only thing remotely honest about this entire thing was the testimony from the other witnesses (excluding this liar, anything he said that can actually be considered evidence is based on a lie). Do you remember what the other witnesses testified when asked "Do you have any information/evidence about Trump doing anything illegal? Quid pro joe? Bribery?" and they all answered "No". Those witnesses were by far more honest than this entire proceeding has been.


You forget you are speaking to someone who has both read his deposition and watched his public testimony?



cots said:


> Do you remember what the other witnesses testified when asked "Do you have any information/evidence about Trump doing anything illegal? Quid pro joe? Bribery?" and they all answered "No". Those witnesses were by far more honest than this entire proceeding has been.


Those were fact witnesses. We discussed the difference between fact and expert witness already but your memory is failing again @cots. Please go get some rest.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You forget you are speaking to someone who has both read his deposition and watched his public testimony?
> 
> Those were fact witnesses. We discussed the difference between fact and expert witness already but your memory is failing again @cots. Please go get some rest.



Good. Since you watched it you heard him say he was being denied access to his records and that his entire testimony that was based on "assumptions" and "presumptions" because of the fact he was being denied those records. Now you know he wasn't being denied access to his records. Trying to deflect with bringing up the "experts" who used to reinforce the case the *facts* from "fact" witnesses previously made? I shouldn't bite, but your choice in tactic was lousy. Seeings as the *facts* coming from all of the witnesses other than Sonland were *"We have no evidence of any corruption, bribery or quid pro joe"* and since *Sonland was full of shit* exactly what good were the "expert witnesses"? What are they solidifying? "We're justifying impeachment based on the facts that don't implicate the President". Yeah, good move. Besides the deflection your propped up smoking gun has failed you. Remember the almost daily coverage of Sonland and the value of his testimony for almost a week in the Liberal media? Now where's the coverage and apologies for misleading the public because that he was lying? So what do the Liberals do? The normal thing they do. Their solution, which is the common Liberal solution, once something or someone is no longer any use to you then it's proper to throw it or them under the bus. Their solution never admits to being wrong. You'll never hear a Liberal apologizing or admitting they made a mistake. That would require taking personal responsibility for their actions. That'll never ever happen.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> Something about rules and going offtopic.



Nice edit, What I stated is ontopic in relation to how aspects of the impeachment attempts to polarize the public further. Partisanship has pushed people into silence because they think if I support policies of a party I have to support everything even if I think it is wrong.

I went on to describe how Trump needs this polarization to survive because he isn't a moderate, he has a small base of republicans who are highly vocal, he doesn't have the majority of the country behind him. Without an us vs them.

To go further:
He wouldn't have the support needed to survive impeachment given this evidence as if enough republicans pressured his administration to send related documents and witnesses of cabinet officials and if congress wasn't obstructed we would have had that to the public. They choose party over country, that will be the statement used against them 2020. The public should know what the full account of this situation is before they vote in 2020. It is concerning that the public was denied that from Trump's administration. Perhaps we will get more information in the trial but given the activity of republicans in the house, I don't expect that to be the case.

I shudder at the precedent that this makes because the appearance of impropriety of the president despite a formal impeachment inquiry wasn't enough to overcome partisan politics to ensure the public had access to the full truth.



cots said:


> Good. Since you watched it you heard him say he was being denied access to his records and that his entire testimony that was based on "assumptions" and "presumptions" because of the fact he was being denied those records. Now you know he wasn't being denied access to his records. Trying to deflect with bringing up the "experts" who used to reinforce the case the *facts* from "fact" witnesses previously made? I shouldn't bite, but your choice in tactic was lousy. Seeings as the *facts* coming from all of the witnesses other than Sonland were *"We have no evidence of any corruption, bribery or quid pro joe"* and since *Sonland was full of shit* exactly what good were the "expert witnesses"? What are they solidifying? "We're justifying impeachment based on the facts that don't implicate the President". Yeah, good move. Besides the deflection your propped up smoking gun has failed you. Remember the almost daily coverage of Sonland and the value of his testimony for almost a week in the Liberal media? Now where's the coverage and apologies for misleading the public because that he was lying? So what do the Liberals do. The normal thing they do. Their solution, which is the common Liberal solution, once something or someone is no longer any use to you then it's proper to throw it or them under the bus.



I never said he directly lied. His entire testimony isn't based on assumptions or presumptions either, but if you are satisfied with a republican talking point then I'm not going to continue to debate it. Especially not with someone who doesn't even read his deposition when I was demonstrating a point when the two are viewed together.

I also was stating that expert witnesses can give opinions on legal conclusions (ie bribery) and it will hold weight, fact witnesses can not. If they did it wouldn't matter for much because they are fact witnesses. They risk appearing biased if they did and they aren't there to give conclusions, only facts. You don't look up terminology and persist in your ignorance. This is problematic when having a discussion.


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

If anyone is interested in the actual articles of impeachment Congress came up with you can find them on the site below (no watching the Democratic grandstanding and showboating while stating how "sad" this is the nation required).

"Do what we say not what we do".

https://www.scribd.com/document/439195910/Articles-of-Impeachment#download&from_embed



			
				Democrats said:
			
		

> *“The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power” *by trying to get Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden,” said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary Democrats.
> 
> He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.





			
				Republicans said:
			
		

> The panel’s Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the president that’s been put forward by Trump allies: *"The impeachment inquiry’s record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."*
> 
> He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump’s before the Christmas holiday.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> If anyone is interested in the actual articles of impeachment Congress came up with you can find them on the site below (no watching the Democratic grandstanding and showboating while stating how "sad" this is the nation required).
> 
> "Do what we say not what we do".
> 
> https://www.scribd.com/document/439195910/Articles-of-Impeachment#download&from_embed


I don't actually agree with serving the articles of impeachment yet but I also understand the politics involved. I also agree with the logic of both articles. I've predicted the Senate will not convict and stand by that prediction.

Democrats have two choices, let the courts fight it out, mcgahn took 8 months and is being appealed. Let that sink in. We wouldn't have this information before 2020 election anyways as Trump's administration would appeal all the way to the supreme court to ensure the public can't see for themselves the evidence.

It's an arguable 'they picked their battles' and I'm a purist for public transparency of our government. I think the people should be informed to make the best decision, others disagree.

Let's say they did, Trump won the 2020 elections. Can the actions of one term impeach another? I don't even know? It could be argued that the people have already spoken, whether or not full evidence was presented?


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I don't actually agree with serving the articles of impeachment yet but I also understand the politics involved. I also agree with the logic of both articles. I've predicted the Senate will not convict and stand by that prediction.
> 
> Democrats have two choices, let the courts fight it out, mcgahn took 8 months and is being appealed. Let that sink in. We wouldn't have this information before 2020 election anyways as Trump's administration would appeal all the way to the supreme court to ensure the public can't see for themselves the evidence.
> 
> ...



I think it would make sense to allow a President to be impeached regardless of what term they are in.

What doesn't make sense is of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump solely on the fact the other side refused to accept the results of an election. Seeings as after Mueller’s investigation didn’t deliver the results they wanted the Democrats now are focusing on Trump’s interactions with Ukraine.

So after this attempt what'll be the next reason to impeach Trump? Is that why you're asking if it would be legal to try again?

Cannot you just accept you lost and work for the betterment of the country?

What happens if the Democrats win in 2020 and the Republicans impeach based solely on the fact they won't accept they lost?


----------



## arcanine (Dec 10, 2019)

If you honestly believe that trump is being impeached purely because the democrats lost the election then you are completely delusional.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> annot you just accept you lost and work for the betterment of the country?


Stop projecting your 'us' vs 'them' on me @cots, I work for the betterment of my country either financially via my wages from employment, through my own time in volunteering, and through the legacy of my children. I've never had issue accepting the results of any US election. Even 2000 which was by far much more conflicted than 2016 ever could be but people all but forgotten history of that election over the years.

The democrats have bills in the house that that senate needs to take up, USMCA needs to be finalized and I understand democrats will be pushing to do that in the house before the end of the year. The country has continued to be governed in the house. Go talk to the senate if you have issues. I have many there.



cots said:


> What happens if the Democrats win in 2020 and the Republicans impeach based solely on the fact they won't accept they lost?


I've answered this before. If the public believes there is abuse by congress in impeachment then the public will vote to rectify it. You really have a memory issue, do you need to get more sleep?



cots said:


> What does make sense is of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump solely on the fact the other side refused to accept the results of an election. Seeings as after Mueller’s investigation didn’t deliver the results they wanted the Democrats now are focusing on Trump’s interactions with Ukraine.


Republican narrative does not equal reality. It can be argued that they are providing public transparency and there was sufficient cause for both inquiries. I support public transparency. As long as an investigation can be presented and supported with enough basis then I'll support it for public transparency. That IG report released yesterday supported such as well, until something said otherwise, I don't know why you assert false narratives of the Mueller investigation.

I've been consistent in my position for public transparency. Refer to my comments about Biden's bipart senate investigation if needed.


----------



## notimp (Dec 10, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Let's say they did, Trump won the 2020 elections. Can the actions of one term impeach another? I don't even know? It could be argued that the people have already spoken, whether or not full evidence was presented?


Full evidence having to be present is a theoretical, right? I mean, have you read up on what hoops Daniel Ellsberg had to jump through to get imformation published? Have you heard the methods of retaliation used on William Binney? Chelsea Manning ring a bell?

Ehm. All for what? To present that information to a public that then shrugs and finds rationalizations on why - oh well, we live in totalitarian times then? (Scroll, scroll, facebook feed, scroll, scroll -) Or the new hottness, what do I care what happens in a foreign country. You see I'm firmly in the 'an informed public making rational choices is an illusion' camp then. I believe that whistleblowing still very much is needed to create an aura of accountability, even though any need for reform will entirely be spun away in any context anyhow.

I mean - have you heard fox news?

"Isnt it odd, that one of the consultants in this case spoke mainly ukranian" fed to the public as a factoid it eats up with the religious certainty of a cots, because the program host is female and blonde?

Do you still think, that public discussion cancels out misinformation? Because I dont.

Not sure on the initial question either - btw. (Impeachability of past (election cycle) administration, if reelected.)


----------



## cots (Dec 10, 2019)

arcanine said:


> If you honestly believe that trump is being impeached purely because the democrats lost the election then you are completely delusional.



The Liberals were asking how they could remove Trump from office if he wins and came up with the idea to use impeachment. Once he won they vowed to remove him from office at all costs as soon as they could find something to impeach him with. This is not their first attempt. This is just their first attempt that's gotten this far. It is all based on the fact they won't accept they lost in 2016. Just go ask a Liberal if they think Trump won in 2016 or search or ask around about how this was planned since before Trump took office.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 10, 2019)

notimp said:


> Full evidence having to be present is a theoretical, right? I mean, have you read up on what hoops Daniel Ellsberg had to jump through to get imformation published? Have you heard the methods of retaliation used on William Binney? Chelsea Manning ring a bell?
> 
> Ehm. All for what? To present that information to a public that then shrugs and finds rationalizations on why - oh well, we live in totalitarian times then? (Scroll, scroll, facebook feed, scroll, scroll -) You see I'm firmly in the 'an informed public making rational choices is an illusion' camp then. I believe that whistleblowing still very much is needed to create an aura of accountability, even though any need for reform will entirely be spun away in any context anyhow.
> 
> ...



I think entertainment news has taken over most of that network and people can retreat to any corner of the internet to reinforce whatever bias they want. But I've spoken with people who change their mind and have an inherent sense of right and wrong. I also think if given enough evidence, people's bias can be pierced as long as they do not openly embrace it and ignore reality. This is just from my personal experience. Sure bad actors have no intention of yielding on anything in a topic because they are pushing an agenda. I believe most people just aren't. The problem is if no one brings up an issue and they only hear one side. I guess they will only believe one side.

I mean, like him, hate him, Chris Wallace is a guy I've enjoyed reporting news for the past few years. I think he's the last bastion of Fox news from being entirely entertainment news but I'm ok if others disagree with me. Its just my opinion. There's also the huge can of worms of how more people get their news entirely from facebook, I'm not going down that hole though.

I'll return when the hearing starts I guess. There's not much else to say. Anything else I want to say isn't on topic.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 10, 2019)

cots said:


> The Liberals were asking how they could remove Trump from office if he wins and came up with the idea to use impeachment. Once he won they vowed to remove him from office at all costs as soon as they could find something to impeach him with.


Because he is a fucking criminal. The evidence is there, it is obvious. I’m not american and don’t live in america, I don’t give a shit who is president there. It’s not my problem. But the evidence is uncontested.


----------



## notimp (Dec 11, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I think entertainment news has taken over most of that network and people can retreat to any corner of the internet to reinforce whatever bias they want. But I've spoken with people who change their mind and have an inherent sense of right and wrong. I also think if given enough evidence, people's bias can be pierced as long as they do not openly embrace it and ignore reality. This is just from my personal experience. Sure bad actors have no intention of yielding on anything in a topic because they are pushing an agenda. I believe most people just aren't. The problem is if no one brings up an issue and they only hear one side. I guess they will only believe one side.
> 
> I mean, like him, hate him, Chris Wallace is a guy I've enjoyed reporting news for the past few years. I think he's the last bastion of Fox news from being entirely entertainment news but I'm ok if others disagree with me. Its just my opinion. There's also the huge can of worms of how more people get their news entirely from facebook, I'm not going down that hole though.
> 
> I'll return when the hearing starts I guess. There's not much else to say. Anything else I want to say isn't on topic.


Quote:


> A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinable.



This kind of transparency, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

And no, its not 'tha medias' fault. Its literally the public that doesnt want to care - and would rather go with spin if it doesnt fit into their believe systems.

Watch this news item. NOTHING will happen.

And the logic they (the pubic) are following is Disney level good / bad. Because its most easy. Because of this Propaganda principle:
https://citatis.com/a4017/3f32/

I'm not ranting about this in here - Ive conceptionalized this long ago. But transparency as a 'cleansing tool' in the age of PR at least partly controlling public opinion - is a laughing stock. Public will always side with the perceived 'winner' in any debate. Public will never care about learning details. Public on average will never make an informed decision, and always rely on opinion leaders to do the thinking for them. (Think youtubers).

Back to the Ellsberg case. That was 'won' because the NYT and then other papers (i think it was the NYT first), would go against their legal advisers and publish the material, after a philibuster in congress, reading it out loud, to make it part of the public record. The material had been published and in their hands for months at that point. And they were financially incentiviced to do so. And they did nothing even after Ellsberg had to go into hiding after publishing. Simply because of their political contacts warning them not to. When they flipped, it at least partly also was for a financial motive, that today doesnt exist anymore - because the public is too dumb to finance independent journalism. Do you think facebook cares if it feeds them Breitbart?

See that WP story above? Thats Bezos playing out the conflict, that Microsoft got those billion dollar defense agency contracts, that made Bill Gates the richest man on earth again - in public. At least partly. Thats your 'transparency' function of a working checks and balances system of power  in your democracy. A billionaire with a hurt ego.

The world where the public gets, or even wants to decide based on 'all the facts' does not exist (ask Snowden). (And didnt in the past is my point here, I guess.)

Also this: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/australia-s-democracy-has-been-downgraded-from-open-to-narrowed
Transparency is not a principal set in stone. 'Just believing' that it will set you free, ... well. Someones got to act as well, right? And all your recent heroes now either live in russia (not by choice) or in prison.

Does the public care?


----------



## cots (Dec 11, 2019)

arcanine said:


> Because he is a fucking criminal. The evidence is there, it is obvious. I’m not american and don’t live in america, I don’t give a shit who is president there. It’s not my problem. But the evidence is uncontested.



All of the witnesses other than Sonland testified they don't have any evidence of any crimes Trump committed. Sonland testified he "assumes" there was a crime committed, but then lied about other things (hint - an assumption no matter how educated is not proof of anything). So what evidence are we talking about?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> Quote:
> This kind of transparency, right?
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
> 
> Does the public care?



Have you not seen this thread? It covers the issue you just brought up. And no, the public doesn't care. They have their wide screen tv's, carbon producing cars, smart phones, nike shoes, fast food, happy pills and illegal drugs. Most people could care less where any of that comes from or the prices the rest of the world has to pay for it. What some moron is only allowed to post on Twitter is more important to people than some war they aren't subjected to because their main stream media pushes a pro-Muslim agenda (to purposely keep the subject buried). Anyway, please don't respond to what I typed here. I've repeated myself in that other thread dealing directly with this subject.


----------



## notimp (Dec 11, 2019)

I've not seen it prior to posting no. But I used it to make the argument in here - I'll now stop the discussion on that (unrelated) matter in here though. 

You can continue the 'liberals will destroy themselves and the world' line of logic again.  (I'd still consider myself a liberal. (Just FYI for the lurkers))).

Rant was to confront the notion of 'transparency' and public opinion (after informed debate) will set us free. Because - no. Probably not.  All things considered. But it helps.


----------



## arcanine (Dec 11, 2019)

cots said:


> what evidence are we talking about?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 11, 2019)

cots said:


> The Liberals were asking how they could remove Trump from office if he wins and came up with the idea to use impeachment. Once he won they vowed to remove him from office at all costs as soon as they could find something to impeach him with. This is not their first attempt. This is just their first attempt that's gotten this far. It is all based on the fact they won't accept they lost in 2016. Just go ask a Liberal if they think Trump won in 2016 or search or ask around about how this was planned since before Trump took office.


So I decided to look at the mindset of republicans back before the election was called.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/02/michael-mccaul-floats-impeaching-hillary-clinton/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how...o-impeach-hillary-clinton-if-she-wins-2016-11


Just stop. This isn't 'republicans would never do that, they would accept the election results, unlike democrats'! They discussed it and dropped it because they won the 2016 election. It didn't stop them from vilifying her and pretending she was guilty despite no indictment given at the time or in the completion of any investigation ever done to her (so much for republicans believe in 'presumption of innocence' defense too). I'm not saying she's without flaws but your narrative is so flawed, so partisan and often a complete derailment from reality.

If Clinton won she would have been investigated for 3+ years, the moment anything surfaced she would have been impeached, I can see the entertainment section of fox news headlines now : Any Clinton is destined for impeachment

This isn't a defense otherwise you have to acknowledge the republican party is guilty of the same thing you've been whining about for the past month. 


If you had any shred of self respect you would at least spend time learning about what the party you defends says before you keep putting your foot in your mouth. But history is showing you don't @cots.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 11, 2019)

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

This excerpt of exchange between a former judge, Ms. Garcia, is over direct evidence. It also discusses that the evidence provided below is not hearsay and *would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence.* 

Furthermore it discusses another piece that was called hearsay and correctly labeled it as *That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible.*

Please review the entire exchange, source is linked above. I'll take a former judge's description of evidence over a lawyer and she made very succinct important remarks below that are worth reading in full. 

Sylvia Garcia: (02:31:48)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the President and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the President’s conduct. Now, I’m a former judge and you, Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my Republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:15)
No. There’s a lot of direct evidence, and *a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay*.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:32:22)
Indeed, it is not true. Now, I don’t want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, I’d like to go over some examples with you, and *please tell me if they are direct or indirect evidence.* Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Volker both testified that on May 23rd, 2019, *President Trump told him to, “Talk to Rudy about Ukraine.” Is that direct evidence?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:48)
Yes, technically. Well, not technically, but *yes.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:32:51)
Okay. Thank you. And then we have *the memorandum of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Is that direct evidence?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:01)
*Yes. That is.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:33:02)
So there is *direct evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both President Zelensky and US officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. Correct?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:18)
*Yes.* And if I could just jump in here on the July 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are, three of them are completely wrong. So one of them happens to be that there’s no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th call. *There is absolutely a quid pro quo when President Zelensky says, “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington, DC, and then he says, “On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.” That is the quid pro quo that President Zelensky was informed of before the call. So that’s wrong. It’s also wrong that no Ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call, even though that doesn’t even matter.*

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:03)
And then finally, *there was no White House meeting ever provided*, so the third or fourth fact, so I do think that that just needs to be clarified, particularly as we’re focusing on what direct evidence is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:15)
Well, let’s give some more examples. *We also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July 25 call. Is there testimony, direct evidence of what happened during that call?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:27)
*Yes*, although I would say, the call record is better evidence than their…

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:31)
And the day after that call, *David Holmes testified that on July 26th, he overheard the President ask Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was, “going to do the investigation.” Is that direct evidence?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:43)
*That is direct evidence.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:45)
And after the July 25 call record was released, *the President got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent’s family, the Bidens. Is that direct evidence?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:59)
*Yes, it is.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:59)
*His own words. Now, that seems to me like that’s a lot of direct evidence.* Mr. Goldman-

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:03)
Now that seems to be like that’s a lot of direct evidence. *Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:08)
Well, *there’s a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because it’s not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other, and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible. *So let’s not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:32)
We don’t want to relive that evidence class.

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:33)
I understand, but it is very important because *anything Mr. Giuliani says, anything Ambassador Sondland says, anything any of these people say is not hearsay, and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of course, we don’t follow the federal rules of evidence here. It’s even more lenient, but that’s an important point.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:50)
Right. Well, is there anything wrong, *Mr. Goldman, with drawing inferences from circumstances?*

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:55)
*Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when Ambassador Sondland draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid, the fact that the White House meeting has already been held up because of the investigations, and determines that that’s the reason why the security assistance is also held up, that is a natural, logical inference that every jury draws across the country.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:25)
Well, I agree with you. *I’m just disappointed that rather than to respond to this serious, factual, direct, and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process.* What President Trump did here was wrong. It’s unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be held accountable.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:43)
I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our Constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that *no one, not even the President, is above the law.*

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:55)
I yield back.


----------



## notimp (Dec 11, 2019)

(The law of their peers in this case..  - so not "law" law.)


----------



## leon315 (Dec 11, 2019)

very probably there will be a NEW president to discuss the trade deal with China soon


----------



## cots (Dec 12, 2019)

arcanine said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf



Yeah, I've read it plenty of times. There's no evidence Trump committed quid pro joe in that transcript. If you selectively take certain parts and link them together, sure, but that's not how it works. Sorta of like how the Liberals will selectively leave out 2/3 of the information when reporting on something to twist it to make it look like something happened when it didn't. That transcript doesn't prove any wrong doing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So I decided to look at the mindset of republicans back before the election was called.
> 
> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton
> 
> ...



Sorry bud, but the basis for the very limited number of Republican's floating the idea of impeaching her was based on that if it turns out she was guilty of using foreign governments to interfere with the election and her email mishap. There wasn't "plans" to impeach her solely on the fact she won the election, but because she was fucking with the election and the entire using a private email server illegally and then wiped and physically destroyed it before the feds could get their hands on it. If you had a brain you'd also realize the impeachment would only have happened if she was found guilty of these things (as covered in the articles you link to). They weren't planning on impeaching her for "any reason they could find with or without guilt" (regardless of Obama's interpretation of the issue). It also was only suggested by like 3 or 4 Republicans and dropped. Three links to news articles about the same story don't justify the entire Liberal left discussing and plotting the impeachment of Trump or the countless other Democratic officials that supported it.

Even if the the majority of the Republicans planned it, which they didn't then I guess the Liberals should take Obama's words to heart. 3 or 4 Republicans is nothing compared to millions of Liberals and the entire Democratic Congress going after Trump.



			
				President Obama said:
			
		

> “You've got some Republicans in Congress who are already suggesting they will impeach Hillary,” Obama added, his voice rising. “She hasn't even been elected yet. And it doesn't matter what evidence they just — they'll find something. That's what they’re saying already.”
> 
> “How can — how does our democracy function like that?” he demanded.



So apply that to the Democrats premeditated impeachment on Trump (remember, this isn't the first attempt). *Thanks for making the point I've been making this entire time for me.*

Nice try, but if your goal was to justify what the Liberals are doing then *you just epically failed*.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2
> 
> This excerpt of exchange between a former judge, Ms. Garcia, is over direct evidence. It also discusses that the evidence provided below is not hearsay and *would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence.*
> 
> ...



So some ex-Judge is discussing her opinion on the legality of heresy and if it's permissible in court. Who gives a shit. I could care less if it's brought up in the Senate. It's already been brought up on Congress. Even if her word was stone it's only heresy - it's about as valid as "assumptions". Since she's just some person stating what she thinks that's fine - it's not like her word means much. So according to her it could get mentioned in court. Well, this isn't a court and it's already been mentioned in Congress. So go ahead, bring it up again in the Senate. So now the Liberals are labeling the heresy "Direct evidence" - okay, but it's "direct evidence based on heresy". So go play word games. Doesn't change anything. Did she explain how Sonland's testimony would be treated seeings as he stated his entire testimony was limited and based on assumptions or presumptions because he testified under oath that the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records, except the State Department said that never happened and he was lying? So did this expert ex-Judge explain how his entire testimony could be thrown out in an actual court of law and the jurors instructed to ignore it because it was all based on a lie? It's too bad Sonland didn't get caught lying to a Judge under oath in a major criminal case that wasn't in some Democratic controlled circus. He'd be in jail for perjury right now.

*Sonland is lying piece of shit. His testimony was based on lies. "The best they got" ... No wonder this Schitt show is doomed ....*





https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...e-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087656#liveBlogHeader
*
State Department contradicts Sondland, says he has 'full access' to his records*
_
The State Department is disputing Sondland’s sworn testimony from Wednesday morning that he could not access records, such as emails, relevant to the impeachment inquiry. 

“Ambassador Sondland, like every current Department of State employee called before Congress in this matter, retained at all times, and continues to retain, full access to his State Department documentary records and his State Department e-mail account, which he has always been fully free to access and review at will,” a State Department official said Wednesday evening. 

But that is not what Sondland said just a few hours earlier. 

“I have not had access to all of my phone records," Sondland said in his opening statement. "State Department emails, and other State Department documents. And I was told I could not work with my EU Staff to pull together the relevant files. Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, and what was said.” 

Hahaha.. Dumb ass Liberals ...._


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 12, 2019)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...skipping-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial

Strange, I thought Republicans would rather have witnesses that exonerate the President. To not have witnesses at all would be an odd decision.


cots said:


> Yeah, I've read it plenty of times. There's no evidence Trump committed quid pro joe in that transcript. If you selectively take certain parts and link them together, sure, but that's not how it works. Sorta of like how the Liberals will selectively leave out 2/3 of the information when reporting on something to twist it to make it look like something happened when it didn't. That transcript doesn't prove any wrong doing.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


This was a bunch of I don't like the evidence because it goes against how I feel so I'm ignoring it. Try again cots.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If you actually read his deposition and then compared it to the public hearing it would show how Sondland is only admitting the bare minimum, he is still a protector of the president. I don't know why you think someone who donated a million dollars to a republican campaign would suddenly work against the interest of the administration he is a part of.


----------



## cots (Dec 12, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...skipping-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial
> 
> Strange, I thought Republicans would rather have witnesses that exonerate the President. To not have witnesses at all would be an odd decision.
> 
> This was a bunch of I don't like the evidence because it goes against how I feel so I'm ignoring it. Try again cots.



What evidence? The heresy - okay, I've heard it. None of it proves quid pro joe. The transcript? No quid pro joe. All of the other witnesses than Sonland stated "We have no evidence of any bribery, corruption of quid pro joe". So again, no quid pro joe. The Democrats star witness Sonland said "he assumes" and those assumptions were all based on lying under oath. Still no quid pro joe. So, again, what evidence are we talking about?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 12, 2019)

An ex judge has a better understanding of what is permissible evidence than you ever will. If she's wrong go get legal textbooks and prove it @cots

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> What evidence? The heresy - okay, I've heard it. None of it proves quid pro joe. The transcript? No quid pro joe. All of the other witnesses than Sonland stated "We have no evidence of any bribery, corruption of quid pro joe". So again, no quid pro joe. The Democrats star witness Sonland said "he assumes" and those assumptions were all based on lying under oath. Still no quid pro joe. So, again, what evidence are we talking about?


You seemed to miss the bolded part that was excerpts from the transcript that shows Zelensky acknowledged the request for investigations for a whitehouse meeting, seems like you just are ignoring evidence rather than it not being present.


----------



## cots (Dec 12, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> An ex judge has a better understanding of what is permissible evidence than you ever will. If she's wrong go get legal textbooks and prove it @cots
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> You seemed to miss the bolded part that was excerpts from the transcript that shows Zelensky acknowledged the request for investigations for a whitehouse meeting, seems like you just are ignoring evidence rather than it not being present.



You're going on ignore. I'll take you off after Trump is cleared and beats this impeachment so I can let you apologize to me.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 12, 2019)

@cots I'm sorry that facts hurt your feelings and its not what you want to hear? That's fine, you can retreat to whatever biased right-wing talking points you want to believe. When you are ready for the truth feel free to return.


----------



## sl0ps (Dec 12, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> @cots I'm sorry that facts hurt your feelings and its not what you want to hear? That's fine, you can retreat to whatever biased right-wing talking points you want to believe. When you are ready for the truth feel free to return.


I don't think you're sorry, I think you're just being passive aggressive.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 12, 2019)

sl0ps said:


> I don't think you're sorry, I think you're just being passive aggressive.


I found a way to apologize with some truth behind my statement, its about the only apology I can give to @cots. You are welcome to your opinion as anyone else is on this forum.


----------



## cots (Dec 12, 2019)

I've been watching today's hearings (Wednesday, December 12th, 2019). Seems The White House handed over hundreds of thousands of pages of files per Congress requests yet the Democrats are still accusing Trump of not handing over anything they requested. Then the Democrats are stating that the call Trump made was all about him because he said "Do us a favor" and then purposely left out the next thing Trump said which was "Our Nation/Country" (as in who the favor was for). Sure, the second one is not a completely big deal, but seeings as the Democrats are accusing Trump of not renegotiating the Trade Deal because he didn't say "corruption" in his phone calls you can understand how a couple of words mean a lot to the Democrats (and it's really convenient to leave out the rest of what he said). How would you feel if you ordered a Double Whopper with Cheese, large Fries and Large Coke and all you got was the Large Coke because the clerk left out the rest of your order and then claimed it was your fault? The Republicans then brought up dates and times that the corruption was being investigated (to prove it was being investigated). It's just unfortunate that for whatever reason when pointing out how bad of a witness Sonland was no one brought up how he lied about a very major thing under oath. That's in addition to the hundreds of times he said "I can't recall" or the many times he said "I assume" or "I presume" yet "I have no proof". I emailed a certain Congress person a minute ago and gave them the URL to the story about how Sonland lied.

Anyway, it's still a Schitt show, but without the beta male in charge. Congress may vote on impeachment this afternoon. They're on break right now. The Republican *minority* made a good case as they were finally after all of this time given an equal voice in the matter (of course it's not rigged, right?). Aren't Liberal all about the *minorities*? Where's the love? 

Edit: "Before the end of the day, the Democrats on the committee would almost certainly vote to send articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the House floor." - So not a vote for impeachment, just a vote to move the process along.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 12, 2019)

cots said:


> The White House handed over hundreds of thousands of pages of files per Congress requests yet the Democrats are still accusing Trump of not handing over anything they requested.



Were they handed by the white house to congress as part of the impeachment inquiry? Care to show evidence of this?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> Then the Democrats are stating that the call Trump made was all about him because he said "Do us a favor" and then purposely left out the next thing Trump said which was "Our Nation/Country" (as in who the favor was for).



How does a proven debunked conspiracy theory for Ukraine holding the DNC server play into our national interest?

Multiple intelligence agencies debunked this long ago yet we still have our president push a false narrative. 

Can you prove that this serves a purpose more than his own political interest when there is no basis to his claim?

To use that as a defense it has to have some ground. I don't see any there. If you can prove otherwise then perhaps it could stand as a defense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> It's just unfortunate that for whatever reason when pointing out how bad of a witness Sonland was no one brought up how he lied about a very major thing under oath. That's in addition to the hundreds of times he said "I can't recall" or the many times he said "I assume" or "I presume" yet "I have no proof". I emailed a certain Congress person a minute ago and gave them the URL to the story about how Sonland lied.


The number of times someone draws an inference doesn't dispute direct evidence that is presented. For more information on what direct evidence is presented that was previously ignored by people like @cots see excerpt from Ms. Garcia. I'm awaiting legal textbook references of direct evidence that would dispute the former judge, otherwise will hold her standard to be an accurate portrayal.

As far as Sondland having access to records or not, the amount of information he provides and how it is presented. It would be necessary to review his deposition and hearing to gain a better view of his actual stance and motivation as a witness.

This would be something a Jury would have to take into account when looking at inconsistencies in any testimony.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Dec 12, 2019)

cots said:


> What evidence? The heresy - okay, I've heard it. None of it proves quid pro joe. The transcript? _*No quid pro joe.*_



Damnit, Joe!!


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2019)

In case anyone missed it, here's the full text of the resolution to impeach:



			
				congress.gov said:
			
		

> 116th CONGRESS
> 1st Session
> 
> 
> ...


https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text

And we got a surprise double whammy last night, with a resolution calling for the resignation and disbarment of William Barr:



			
				congress.gov said:
			
		

> 116th CONGRESS
> 1st Session
> 
> 
> ...


https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/757/text?r=18


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

The hearing is still going strong. I guess @Xzi missed the link to the original PDF Congress released regarding the impeachment. It was much longer than whatever the fuck he just posted. I suggest if you want to read the the official charges to refer to the actual official charges. So now we need to get rid of Barr? Well, why not? I mean, seeing as you don't need any particular reason to impeach a President firing the attorney general for no reason should be a trivial matter.

So far the Democrats are echoing each other in a real life chamber. Lots of whining about losing in 2016 election and complaining about Constitutional abuses, which is funny considering the premeditated impeachment is abuse of the Constitution or the fact Liberals who want to rip up the Constitution are bitching about it how they are defending it. LOL! So far other than the whining they've not presented anything new and as we all know what's been presented so far during this schitt shot has no substance. While it's live on TV and has been going on all day it seems every hour they bring up the same shit. Probably for people who will only tune in for an hour or so. It's just good to finally hear the Republicans side as this entire time the Democrats wouldn't let them call their own witnesses.

They're also antagonizing the Democrats about Trump denying to give a shit about the supeanas - the shit is funny. I didn't know the Democrats threatened to take away the paychecks from any witnesses who wanted legal representation with them during testimony. I guess  if you want legal representation they'll make sure you're not paid for a while. Blackmail is fine when Congress is threatening witnesses. Not that suprising considering the context surrounding the impeachment. Democrats also refused to accept some new Republican information claiming it was fabricated because they didn't like it, with no proof it was fabricated. Then they're still floating the Russian conspiracy hoax and openly admit they're doing it so he won't win in 2020 regardlessof how it turns out. Yeah, so not much new so far. Not sure how much longer it'll last. The Republican goal for today was to get as much air time as possible so they're intentionally dragging it out. I'm on day #2 of being awake and I still gotta go do stuff once this is over ...


----------



## Fugelmir (Dec 13, 2019)

Trump looks so good right now.  He even has the Democrats saying that Zelinski is being held hostage or being dishonest -- which justifies any withholding.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Trump looks so good right now.  He even has the Democrats saying that Zelinski is being held hostage or being dishonest -- which justifies any withholding.


It would be politically disadvantageous for the president of Ukraine to confirm to his nation that he was pressured to announce an investigation at behest of the US President for a variety of reasons. Three of which I list below.

1. It could damage his reputation as a anti-corruption reformer and would embolden his political opponents to pounce on hypocrisy.

2. It could endanger continuation of aid in future budget years. Trump already proposed to cut the aid sent for anti-corruption reform to Ukraine already but it was struck down due to bi-part opposition in congress. Just FYI at a minimum they need to secure 2020 aid before we hold presidential elections and it is a tossup as to which party will secure the next election cycle.

3. It could endanger the supportive foreign policy if Ukraine is re-framed as politically biased towards one US political party over another. We could turn a deaf ear and just decide to let other nations deal with Russian's aggression towards Ukraine. 

There is no political benefit for Zelensky to come out and claim Trump pressured him. Democrats will still support Ukraine as they are framed as the 'victim'. Republicans would still vote to acquit Trump because they have no other leadership ready to transition off to yet and view it far more politically damaging to concede to any reality that would have Trump guilty.


----------



## Fugelmir (Dec 13, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> It would be politically disadvantageous for the president of Ukraine to confirm to his nation that he was pressured to announce an investigation at behest of the US President for a variety of reasons. Three of which I list below.
> 
> 1. It could damage his reputation as a anti-corruption reformer and would embolden his political opponents to pounce on hypocrisy.
> 
> ...




Yeah, it's such an advantageous situation for Trump.   It totally calls for more skepticism on foreign aid in the future!  Brilliant, wonderful performance.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> I didn't know the Democrats threatened to take away the paychecks from any witnesses who wanted legal representation with them during testimony. I guess if you want legal representation they'll make sure you're not paid for a while. Blackmail is fine when Congress is threatening witnesses. Not that suprising considering the context surrounding the impeachment.



Its not blackmail. That's just not what blackmail means. Sigh...

If @cots read any of the white house letter I attached in our discussion on the thread of whether or not executive privilege is valid in a formalized congressional impeachment inquiry he would have been aware of this almost a month ago. He persisted in arguing about white-house exerting absolute immunity during that entire latter half of the thread without ever looking at the document.

It just validates how useless discussions w/ hyper-partisans are when they refuse to even read any source that they perceive will conflict with their views.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/questio...ed-impeachment-inquiry-subpoena.552832/page-4

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...te-House-Letter-to-Speaker-Pelosi-Et-Al-10-08


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Yeah, it's such an advantageous situation for Trump.   It totally calls for more skepticism on foreign aid in the future!  Brilliant, wonderful performance.


So you're admitting that what is advantageous to Russia is also advantageous to Trump?  He's sure as shit not calling for a review of the foreign aid we provide to Saudi Arabia or Israel (both very corrupt governments in their own right), this is exclusively about limiting US support of Ukraine.


----------



## Fugelmir (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So you're admitting that what is advantageous to Russia is also advantageous to Trump?  He's sure as shit not calling for a review of the foreign aid we provide to Saudi Arabia or Israel, this is exclusively about limiting US support of Ukraine.



It could be.  Israel is a technological mastermind factory and should probably be supported.   Saudi Arabia, aside from material resources, doesn't have much to offer.  All countries suffer from government corruption.  Hopefully a lot more aid gets cut as a result.  

It's a nice thing to help a country achieve a free democracy; but if it just doesn't happen for decades, what's the point, really?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Yeah, it's such an advantageous situation for Trump.   It totally calls for more skepticism on foreign aid in the future!  Brilliant, wonderful performance.


The skepticism for foreign aid is already present in American politics. This does little to move the needle for or against support. It just polarizes the topic to a democrat vs republican rather than fiscal vs not. I'm sure there are other subcamps that would describe pro foreign aid vs against.

Foreign aid has many uses as it is a type of influence that US can use as part of its foreign policy to push pro american agenda/interest. For the past few decades it hasn't always been used properly and is prone to corruption from corporate influence that aims to personally profit on political leverage applied to other countries.

You also have examples where politicians also seek kickbacks as well for enacting our foreign policy with other countries, often via those same exploitative corporations. Something I think most Americans do not support but has been rampant on both sides and persists even to this day in our current administration.

Until we overturn citizens united I don't see this changing no matter who we elect.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fugelmir said:


> It could be.  Israel is a technological mastermind factory and should probably be supported.   Saudi Arabia, aside from material resources, doesn't have much to offer.  All countries suffer from government corruption.  Hopefully a lot more aid gets cut as a result.
> 
> It's a nice thing to help a country achieve a free democracy; but if it just doesn't happen for decades, what's the point, really?


Uhh, Saudis buy a ton from our military industrial complex.

Israel is a technological mastermind factory? I'm sorry can you explain this further I'm lost as to what you are asserting.

One of the primary reasons we want to promote 'democracy' (I believe regime change is more accurate a term) imo is due to ensuring trade that benefits our interests, or what I believe more accurately whoever's interests the party in power serve, which for the past few decades have been corporate interests first, american public second.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

America's backed coup in Iran in 1953  is a good historical example of us toppling a democracy because they had the audacity to assert unfavorable trade conditions to us. At least this is my best understanding of that situation.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> It could be.  Israel is a technological mastermind factory and should probably be supported.   Saudi Arabia, aside from material resources, doesn't have much to offer.  All countries suffer from government corruption.  Hopefully a lot more aid gets cut as a result.


Israeli technology and weapons would be shit without everything the US provides for them, we should be spending that money on the betterment of our own country rather than using it to enable Palestinian genocide.  Saudi Arabia has demonstrated that they have nothing but hatred for America and our people time and time again.  In neither case is there any chance of Trump or the Republicans distancing themselves from these countries, because the relationships remain profitable for our military industrial complex.



Fugelmir said:


> It's a nice thing to help a country achieve a free democracy; but if it just doesn't happen for decades, what's the point, really?


The point is that Ukraine is a firewall preventing Russia from staging an even larger-scale invasion of other countries, as well as waging a new form Cold War against Western democracies the world over.  If a majority of people in free nations remain ignorant and apathetic, history is doomed to repeat itself.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> In case anyone missed it, here's the full text of the resolution to impeach:
> 
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text
> ...


Yay, thanks Santa! What a beautiful gift to hang on the fridge!  And even a bonus resolution in the stocking!



> Impeaching Donald John Trump


Huh, never really thought about it but I didn't know his middle name.


----------



## Glyptofane (Dec 13, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Huh, never really thought about it but I didn't know his middle name.


You know he's in trouble when they use his middle name.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

Damn they are still at it. I'm on some other forums and we've started a pool on who in this session will fall asleep first. I bet $50. The Democrats want to know what Rudy Giuliani is doing in Ukraine this week. He's still digging up dirt on them. I wonder how many more ammendment propositions the Republicans have planned? This shit is epic. 12 hours straight and still no actual evidence has been presented by the Democrats. No fact witnesses - only assumptions. The Senate is now trying to talk Trump out of a witnesses trial as they want to take care of the matter in less than a week. I wonder if Trump wins if the Liberals will finally admit they lost in 2016 and cut the shit?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> I wonder if Trump wins if the Liberals will finally admit they lost in 2016 and cut the shit?


You're the one that needs to cut the shit.  Impeachment is in no way, shape, or form a means to overturn elections.  Anybody who believes that garbage needs to re-take middle school civics/government classes, assuming they've ever taken one to begin with.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> Damn they are still at it. I'm on some other forums and we've started a pool on who in this session will fall asleep first. I bet $50. The Democrats want to know what Rudy Giuliani is doing in Ukraine this week. He's still digging up dirt on them. I wonder how many more ammendment propositions the Republicans have planned? This shit is epic. 12 hours straight and still no actual evidence has been presented by the Democrats. No fact witnesses - only assumptions. The Senate is now trying to talk Trump out of a witnesses trial as they want to take care of the matter in less than a week. I wonder if Trump wins if the Liberals will finally admit they lost in 2016 and cut the shit?


Hyper-partisan view from @cots. It can equally be argued that republicans refuse to even acknowledge direct evidence presented by either witness testimony, call memorandum, or Giuliani's interviews vs a preferred right-wing narrative that there lies 'no evidence whatsoever'. 

@cots also demonstrates once again he doesn't understand what an actual fact witness is despite people bringing it to his attention multiple times in this thread.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're the one that needs to cut the shit.  Impeachment is in no way, shape, or form a means to overturn elections.  Anybody who believes that garbage needs to re-take middle school civics/government classes, assuming they've ever taken one to begin with.



I agree with you, which is why it's a shame the Liberals planned to use it to oust Trump since before he took office. I do wonder though, seeings as the Liberals now claim to support the Constitution if when Trump beats this if they'll admit defeat. You'll have the 3 branches working things out. If you only take the Congress side and continue to harass Trump with impeachment then you're not going by the separation of powers. You know what else is unconstitutional? Rejecting the results of an election due to the fact you don't like the electoral college. Though, the Liberals claiming they support the Constitution had me laughing for like 2 minutes straight. I had tears in my eyes as they're so full of shit I couldn't stop laughing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

*21:30 Mountain Time (USA) - Wednesday, December 12th, 2019*

Well, it looks like it's over. The Republicans didn't want it to end, but they weren't given much choice in the matter (actually, they were given no choice). I guess I won't be losing or winning that $50. I still don't know why the other day Republicans brought up the fact Sonland lied that he didn't have access to his State Dept records when he testified under oath to Congress, but not bring it up today. I wonder how much attention will be given to the Republicans testimony by the main stream media. Some funny shit did happen! Biden's son was a crack head at one point in his life. Not only does crack dependence greatly reduce your cognitive skills for years, but crack addicts will do whatever it takes to get more drugs, including stealing and sex acts. I wonder if daddy bailed him out on a daily basis and bought him his dope so he didn't have to go suck a fat drug dealers dick to get his fix. I understand that this had nothing to do with the impeachment, but it fucking *cracked* me up. To be fair the Democrats kept bringing up totally unrelated shit to the impeachment today, like the new Canada and Mexico trade agreement they were bragging about (yet, they forget to inform the public Trump was behind it). Trump's such a danger to the free world, yet we have the best economy in 50 years ... If that's a threat I'll take two more orders. Let's clone him.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> I agree with you, which is why it's a shame the Liberals planned to use it to oust Trump since before he took office.


This is an equally moronic argument.  It's like suggesting Republicans planned, before he was elected, to impeach Clinton for a blowjob by using Lewinsky as an undercover agent.  It's impossible to know ahead of time whether or not a president will commit impeachable offenses.  The best anyone can do is guess and/or use past behavior to predict future behavior.



cots said:


> I do wonder though, seeings as the Liberals now claim to support the Constitution if when Trump beats this if they'll admit defeat.


Will you admit defeat when impeachment passes the House?  Didn't think so.  How is it any more significant that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote not to remove him from office?  It isn't.  Your childish obsession with "winning" and "losing" borders on a psychological disorder, and it's that type of simplistic understanding of how the world works which is going to cause the downfall of this country.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is an equally moronic argument.  It's like suggesting Republicans planned, before he was elected, to impeach Clinton for a blowjob by using Lewinsky as an undercover agent.  It's impossible to know ahead of time whether or not a president will commit impeachable offenses.  The best anyone can do is guess and/or use past behavior to predict future behavior.
> 
> 
> Will you admit defeat when impeachment passes the House?  Didn't think so.  How is it any more significant that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote not to remove him from office?  It isn't.  Your childish obsession with "winning" and "losing" borders on a psychological disorder, and it's that type of simplistic understanding of how the world works which is going to cause the downfall of this country.


You're fighting an up-hill battle my friend. The politically-ignorant don't concede, nor do they listen to logic. They've got blinders up and just want to "stick it to the libtards". You won't change his mind. He's too held back by his own delusions, bias, and hatred for the other party. He's part of a cult. You can't change somebody who's part of a cult...


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Will you admit defeat when impeachment passes the House?  Didn't think so.  How is it any more significant that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote not to remove him from office?  It isn't.  Your childish obsession with "winning" and "losing" borders on a psychological disorder, and it's that type of simplistic understanding of how the world works which is going to cause the downfall of this country.



There's a reason almost every Republican Congress person brought up the fact impeachment was premeditated and this wasn't the first attempt. They clearly outlined 3 previous attempts. So it's not debatable. It's just fact.

I will accept Trump was impeached in Congress and then if he's cleared in the Senate I'll accept the 3 branches of the Government did their respective jobs and that Trump was cleared and can stay in office. Just like how I accepted when Obama won the election and that was based on the electoral college (same with the two Presidents before him, which I never tried to reject). Where was the outcry when the previous Presidents won via the electoral college? Someone with TDS shouldn't be accusing others of psychological disorders.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Josshy0125 said:


> You're fighting an up-hill battle my friend. The politically-ignorant don't concede, nor do they listen to logic. They've got blinders up and just want to "stick it to the libtards". You won't change his mind. He's too held back by his own delusions, bias, and hatred for the other party. He's part of a cult. You can't change somebody who's part of a cult...



What cult is that? I'm not a Republican. The cult of people who stand up against tyranny and injustice by immoral lying sinning thieving racist bigots trying to push socialism on the country? Then I'm guilty as charged.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> There's a reason almost every Republican Congress person brought up the fact impeachment was premeditated and this wasn't the first attempt. They clearly outlined 3 previous attempts. So it's not debatable. It's just fact.
> 
> I will accept Trump was impeached in Congress and then if he's cleared in the Senate I'll accept the 3 branches of the Government did their respective jobs and that Trump was cleared and can stay in office. Just like how I accepted when Obama won and that was based on the electoral college (same with the two Presidents before him, which I never tried to reject). Someone with TDS shouldn't be accusing others of psychological disorders.
> 
> ...



_Clearly_


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> You're fighting an up-hill battle my friend. The politically-ignorant don't concede, nor do they listen to logic. They've got blinders up and just want to "stick it to the libtards". You won't change his mind. He's too held back by his own delusions, bias, and hatred for the other party. He's part of a cult. You can't change somebody who's part of a cult...


Yeah I know, it's a waste of my time.  Though if the 2020s and 2030s are going to be a repeat of the 1920s and 1930s, with the Axis and Allies reversed, at least I can say I made a fuss about it.  For all the potential the internet had in the beginning, it feels like all it ended up doing was making people even more susceptible to propaganda than they were before.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah I know, it's a waste of my time.  Though if the 2020s and 2030s are going to be a repeat of the 1920s and 1930s, with the Axis and Allies reversed, at least I can say I made a fuss about it.  For all the potential the internet had in the beginning, it feels like all it ended up doing was making people even more susceptible to propaganda than they were before.



There was no party switch. It's a fallacy. What happened was that a handful of Democrats rejected their party and changed their belief system and became Republicans. It also didn't happen until much later. Back in the 1920s and 1930s and up until the 1960s the Democratic's platform on various racial issues didn't change and up until 2010 they still had a member of the triple letter group in Congress. Sorry bud, but your fallacies are a reason why I rejected your party. Just ask Leon Dunson (he knows his shit - make sure to read the video comments). So I'm wondering. If Trump is cleared in the Sentate will you accept your side lost the impeachment attempt and give up and work with Trump and the Republicans to better society or will you disrespect our 3 branches of Government and continue to try to impeach Trump? Will you admit you lost? How about today's testimony? Did you watch any of it? Can you refute any of the things that the Republican's brought up?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> There was no party switch. It's a fallacy.


How full of shit can you possibly be?  Republicans still fly the confederate flag for fuck's sake.  I've never claimed that the Democratic establishment doesn't have its problems, but continuing to side with the KKK is not one of them.  David Duke expressly endorsed Donald Trump.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> How full of shit can you possibly be?  Republicans still fly the confederate flag for fuck's sake.



Watch the video. Don't selectively leave out what I typed to you. You're also baiting me to derail the topic, which is against the rules. I addressed your concern now stay on topic and address mine.

I'll ask you again - If Trump is cleared in the Sentate will you accept your side lost the impeachment attempt and give up and work with Trump and the Republicans to better society or will you disrespect our 3 branches of Government and continue to try to impeach Trump? Will you admit you lost? How about today's testimony? Did you watch any of it? Can you refute any of the things that the Republican's brought up?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> I'll ask you again - If Trump is cleared in the Sentate will you accept your side lost the impeachment attempt and give up and work with Trump and the Republicans to better society or will you disrespect our 3 branches of Government and continue to try to impeach Trump?


There's not going to be a second resolution to impeach, just as there were no resolutions to impeach put forward before this one.  Impeachment will pass with a majority in the House, removal from office will fail to gain a majority in the Senate.  That leaves us right back where we started, with a high likelihood that Trump will seek foreign assistance in his 2020 election bid.  By and large, Americans will have a hard time trusting election results from here on out, and with good reason.

That's all the more that I can possibly infer at the moment, and all the more that I care to.  Democracy seems to be waning the world over, with authoritarianism gaining momentum.


----------



## cots (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's not going to be a second resolution to impeach, just as there were no resolutions to impeach put forward before this one.  Impeachment will pass with a majority in the House, removal from office will fail to gain a majority in the Senate.  That leaves us right back where we started, with a high likelihood that Trump will seek foreign assistance in his 2020 election bid.  By and large, Americans will have a hard time trusting election results from here on out, and with good reason.
> 
> That's all the more that I can possibly infer at the moment, and all the more that I care to.  Democracy seems to be waning the world over, with authoritarianism gaining momentum.



Seeings as it was Hillary with support from foreign agents and our FBI who helped meddle in the 2016 election I think we're safe from interference from Trump. Unless you still believe after years of service and how great of a leader he's been that he's an actual Russian agent. If that's the case then you're clearly in need of some meds for that TDS. I think Biden's son might have some for you.


----------



## notimp (Dec 13, 2019)

Did she tell you?



Thats even a little more insane than liberal elites holding fake workshops on how to prevent russian election interference hacking, while at the same time not wanting to do anything about microtargeting, or the entire lack of regulation of social media.

Because that, of course, comes from our good friends the US, which we share our values with.

The russians are comin, the russians are coming...!
Hilary is coming, with her foreign agents, and the FBI..!

As far as I'm concerned, the end of democracy is 30 different pitches - all lies, reaching 30 different targeted demographics on social media.
(See: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500 )

Yours is Hillary with them foreign agents and the FBI?
-

So if this were trolling I'd say we've reached the stages, where cots is only interfering to destroy all ongoing conversation.

Because no sane individual can assume, that they post highly disturbing imagery - so 'the liberals can see, that theay are killing babies', and then proclaim Hillary and the foreign agents together with the FBI is stealing the vote - and then imagine, that he/she has all eyes on them - now just listening to their gospel.

Go get help. You tick all the boxes. (You are not looking for knowledge here.)


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> Biden's son was a crack head at one point in his life. Not only does crack dependence greatly reduce your cognitive skills for years, but crack addicts will do whatever it takes to get more drugs, including stealing and sex acts. I wonder if daddy bailed him out on a daily basis and bought him his dope so he didn't have to go suck a fat drug dealers dick to get his fix. I understand that this had nothing to do with the impeachment, but it fucking *cracked* me up.


Its entirely comical that the Floridan representative that brought that up, he himself struggles with alcohol and had his dad use his political influence to bail himself out of multiple dwi's. Whether or not that allegation brought forth today is true or not. No one has asserted Biden's son earned that job on his own merit. It doesn't excuse Trump's behavior. Just a simple distraction from the conversation at hand.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

A hyper-partisan like @cots (the same one who I presume blocked me due to me pointing out his inconsistencies on this thread and others) insists that democrats exclusively pre-planned impeachment. That narrative was disproven earlier in this thread as multiple republican congressmen pledged to investigate and impeach Clinton if she won in 2016.

I'd argue that if bad actors are ignored then the best point of view is that the majority of either party would not support impeachment without sufficient cause. I pointed evidence of this earlier in this thread by a prior impeachment vote in December 2017 (Regarding Charlottesville). Where only a small minority of democrats even supported the article. But those facts are inconvenient to a hyper-partisan narrative.

He further asserts FBI supported Hillary Clinton while ignoring those that also were pro-trump and pushed to reopen the email investigation right before the election.

I support public transparency so be damned if that was inconvenient to one party or another as long as there was sufficient information to launch an investigation. @cots who appears to only view in a 'us' vs 'them' would be incapable of holding such a rational view.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 13, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Its entirely comical that the Floridan representative that brought that up, he himself struggles with alcohol and had his dad use his political influence to bail himself out of *multiple dwi's*. Whether or not that allegation brought forth today is true or not. No one has asserted Biden's son earned that job on his own merit. It doesn't excuse Trump's behavior. Just a simple distraction from the conversation at hand.




Gaetz had ONE arrest for DUI, the case was dismissed. I agree with you that his daddy's influence probably helped make that happen, even if that just means daddy could get sonny the best connected lawyer in town, and even if the article I'm linking below says they couldn't find evidence of it. But the dismissal rate for DUI arrests nationwide is pretty high anyway, there's nothing especially special that Gaetz got popped when he was 25yo, nor that the case was dropped. But anyway, just saying it was one arrest, ever. Not "multiple."

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-po...-says-matt-gaetz-has-numerous-duis-its-wrong/


----------



## Glyptofane (Dec 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> How full of shit can you possibly be?  Republicans still fly the confederate flag for fuck's sake.


I don't fly it, but do have one. I collect certain flags and have some other cool ones, Hezbollah being my personal favorite.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Gaetz had ONE arrest for DUI, the case was dismissed. I agree with you that his daddy's influence probably helped make that happen, even if that just means daddy could get sonny the best connected lawyer in town, and even if the article I'm linking below says they couldn't find evidence of it. But the dismissal rate for DUI arrests nationwide is pretty high anyway, there's nothing especially special that Gaetz got popped when he was 25yo, nor that the case was dropped. But anyway, just saying it was one arrest, ever. Not "multiple."



Noted, I remember reading about a juvenile dui as well that his dad helped seal but that may have been taken out of context, this was a while ago during his campaign for office. If I can produce it I will, otherwise I'll agree it was the one. As far as pushing influence. DUI's are often disputed and if someone is knowledgeable of the law enough to abstain from any cooperation can be difficult to prove.

https://www.politifact.com/facebook...-says-rep-matt-gaetz-has-numerous-duis-wrong/
---
When Gaetz was 26, he was driving back from a nightclub on Okaloosa Island in a BMW registered to his father, then-Florida Sen. Don Gaetz. Okaloosa County Deputy Chris Anglin clocked Gaetz traveling 48 mph in a 35 mph.

Anglin reported that Gaetz’s eyes were watery and bloodshot, and he swayed and staggered when he got out of the car and smelled of alcohol.

Gaetz, a lawyer, admitted he had consumed two beers but declined field sobriety tests. He was arrested and refused the breath test.
---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz#cite_note-tampaarrest-95
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...ot-raises-questions-about-dui-arrest/2166023/
Another source says the following:
---
Police recorded Gaetz driving 13 mph over that area's speed limit.[94] Police noted that Gaetz had shown physical signs of intoxication, initially denied that he had drunk alcohol, but later admitted to drinking two beers. Gaetz failed an eye test twice, then declined field sobriety tests. After Gaetz was arrested, he refused to take a breathalyzer test.
---

Its clear on the presentation of evidence from the arresting officer that Gaetz has been drinking, its not clear if it was over the legal limit since he denied to cooperate with officers of any further sobriety tests after he failed the eye test twice, but enough evidence was presented to indict him for it because of the arresting officer's evidence.

I'm familiar with politics of law enforcement enough to stand behind what I stated. The original prosecutor who presided over the case before it went to court was known by the defendant. It wasn't until later that it was given to another county.

Something that was peculiar in this dui case was the following, this is why people presume his dad's connections influenced the case:

---
An officer for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles declared there was no evidence that Gaetz refused a breathalyzer test, despite the arresting police officer having documented it in an affidavit and Gaetz's arrest report, and Gaetz's own attorney also documenting it.
---


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 13, 2019)

Final note of potential Daddy's influence for Gaetz and ill stop derailing:
https://miamiherald.typepad.com/nak...k-about-his-mug-shot-but-not-his-arrest-.html
---
He didn't have his license suspended for a year when he refused the breath test — as Florida law dictates. And he didn't have that refusal used against him in a criminal proceeding. Charges against Gaetz were dismissed after events that included, among other things, the forced resignation of the arresting officer.
---


----------



## tinkle (Dec 13, 2019)

I'm looking forward for the impeachment to follow through into charges of treason - for both Trump, and his supporters. The influx of racist, homophobic, transphobic, radicals into our prison system might actually see it get some of the funding it needs.


----------



## tinkle (Dec 13, 2019)

cots said:


> Are you going to come with the police when they come to my house to arrest me because your fascist Liberal ass can't handle shit?


Based on your post history, I'll get to gleefully see the news reports about the psycho who tried to start a shootout with law enforcement and got gunned down by the police he so vehemently defended as not being corrupt at all as per the republican narrative.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 13, 2019)

I leave for 5 goddamn minutes...


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2019)

SCOTUS just granted cert to Trump's challenge of the House's subpoenas to produce his financial records. Whether SCOTUS eventually rules for or against him, just that they granted certiorari means the President is entitled to judicial review of his opposition of Congressional committee subpoenas.

The 2nd article of impeachment alleges the President "obstructed Congress" by refusing to immediately comply with House subpoenas for certain persons to testify and instead put it to the Supreme Court whether he had to comply (nevermind that Obama also refused to allow certain persons to testify, and never even sought to make sure he was in the right). But that's dead in the water now. SCOTUS says the President can validly dispute Congressional subpoenas. Trump might lose, Trump might win ... but the point is there's nothing wrong with the President referring the matter for resolution to the Courts.


This is what Turley was talking about here:


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> SCOTUS says this is a valid dispute.


SCOTUS is wrong.  There is no debate about what the word "shall" means.  This is an attempt to subvert and re-write the Constitution by obviously partisan justices, for obviously partisan purposes.  There's a lot at stake here, and if they're successful, it will be the clearest signal yet that America is losing its place as a world power, and losing its strength as a democratic republic.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Dec 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> SCOTUS just granted cert to Trump's challenge of the House's subpoenas to produce his financial records. Whether SCOTUS eventually rules for or against him, just that they granted certiorari means the President is entitled to judicial review of his opposition of Congressional committee subpoenas.
> 
> The 2nd article of impeachment alleges the President "obstructed Congress" by refusing to immediately comply with House subpoenas for certain persons to testify and instead put it to the Supreme Court whether he had to comply (nevermind that Obama also refused to allow certain persons to testify, and never even sought to make sure he was in the right). But that's dead in the water now. SCOTUS says the President can validly dispute Congressional subpoenas. Trump might lose, Trump might win ... but the point is there's nothing wrong with the President referring the matter for resolution to the Courts.
> 
> ...





SCOTUS hearing those cases in my understanding are because of a variety of different reasons due to each case having a different set of arguments for seeking the information and the white-house refusing while seeking an appeal to a higher court. Not all of the are congress seeking information. One in particular involves a criminal trial in Southern district of NY. I believe they are grouping them together.

These are subpoenas for private financial information (federal or business tax records).

I argue that this isn't the same as refusing subpoenas of government officials and government documents from a formal impeachment inquiry that have direct knowledge of matters involving the inquiry. Precedent of past court decisions speak to support the house in this area.

I'll do some more reading on each case as I haven't dissected them in detail, only been following the occasional news report as I knew they were going to be appealed to supreme court eventually.


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 19, 2019)

Next stop is jail!


----------



## TheCasketMan (Dec 19, 2019)

Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.  In other words, this impeachment is a waste of time for the Democrats and landslide 2020/22 win for Trump & Republicans.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2019)

Both articles of impeachment have now passed in the House, meaning Trump is officially the third* president in history to be impeached.



TheCasketMan said:


> Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.  In other words, this impeachment is a waste of time for the Democrats


Protecting the integrity of our elections is the last thing I'd call a waste of time.  Though I'm sure the Senate won't even attempt to make the trial look legitimate, and Trump will view acquittal as a free pass to again seek foreign interference in 2020.  I wouldn't bet against him being stupid enough to get caught a second time, either.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2019)

As much as I would like to see that goofball to be prosecuted. Trump is the Republicans best Candidate for Election 2020. 
I can´t see them abandon him anytime soon.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2019)

Dodain47 said:


> As much as I would like to see that goofball to be prosecuted. Trump is the Republicans best Candidate for Election 2020.
> I can´t see them abandon him anytime soon.


He does have several primary challengers who have already declared they're running against him, but yes, Republicans will do whatever they can to protect king mierdas.  The party has canceled primary votes in a few states ahead of time.


----------



## Armadillo (Dec 19, 2019)

So quick question from someone outside the US.

So impeachment is basically just giving it the ok to go to "trial"? And then the senate is basically the jury? Except in this case the jury is made up of people on Trump's side?

So what's the point?


----------



## TheCasketMan (Dec 19, 2019)

Armadillo said:


> So quick question from someone outside the US.
> 
> So impeachment is basically just giving it the ok to go to "trial"? And then the senate is basically the jury? Except in this case the jury is made up of people on Trump's side?
> 
> So what's the point?



Just to waste people's time on this sham impeachment, same with the Russian collusion hoax from the past few years.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2019)

Can they put him on trial after his term is over? I mean take the Mueller report and investigate again?


----------



## TheCasketMan (Dec 19, 2019)

Dodain47 said:


> Can they put him on trial after his term is over? I mean take the Mueller report and investigate again?



If they don't put him on trial now, then that proves how weak and partisan the Democrats impeachment case is. 
If Trump loses re-election (which is now very very unlikely) then there's no point in convicting him in the Senate since the punishment for a Senate impeachment is just being removed from office, not jail time.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 19, 2019)

After rereading this article from the rolling stone about the Muelle report is was thinking that maybe there is a chance in 10 Years or so to put him on trial:

“You could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller responded, matter of fact.

_JACKSON LEE: Does a conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of — a lot of years of time in jail?_

_MUELLER: Yes. Well, can you repeat the question just to make certain I have it accurate?_

_JACKSON LEE: Does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in jail if you were convicted?_

_MUELLER: Yes.
_


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Trump is officially the fourth president in history to be impeached.


The third . Nixon resigned before the impeachment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GhostLatte said:


> Next stop is jail!


Or the van


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 19, 2019)

Obviously won't pass senate as they don't care about laws or morals, just about winning. And the VP is just as devoid of moral integrity, so it wouldn't even change much if he was replaced. 

But when it comes to deciding whether you do the morally right thing, or the easy thing, you should always try and do the right thing. And in this case, the democrats have done this. Kudos on them. Now let's hope they don't mess with the primary again.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Though I'm sure the Senate won't even attempt to make the trial look legitimate




Well the House majority sure didn't bother with that much during their part of the game. They're sending less than probable cause to the Senate. If reduced only to admissible evidence (no hearsay, no presumptions, no opinions) it's fucking nothing. A faulty indictment.

When Bill Clinton was impeached, Sen. Robert Byrd introduced a motion to dismiss before the trial and all but one Democrat voted in favor. Including Schumer, Feinstein, and Biden. Even though Clinton's perjury was explicitly plain to everyone. The Republicans held the majority at the time, so that motion failed. But Democrats would have been more than happy to see that impeachment dismissed without trial.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> The third . Nixon resigned before the impeachment.


I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974.  Two others were rejected.  Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).

The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.



Hanafuda said:


> Well the House majority sure didn't bother with that much during their part of the game. They're sending less than probable cause to the Senate. If reduced only to admissible evidence (no hearsay, no presumptions, no opinions) it's fucking nothing. A faulty indictment.


What it boils down to is this: everybody willing to testify under oath, including a number of Trump's own appointees, say he did it.  Among all those yelling that he's innocent, none of them are willing to testify under oath.  If the American people in the majority are too stupid to understand which of these groups is more trustworthy, then our country deserves to crumble from within, and that's very likely to be its fate.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974.  Two others were rejected.  Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).
> 
> The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.




Articles were adopted in Committee, but were not voted on by the full House. Nixon wasn't impeached, but only because his resignation made it moot.


----------



## IncredulousP (Dec 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I had to look it up, but there were three articles of impeachment adopted against Nixon between July 27 and July 30, 1974.  Two others were rejected.  Nixon started notifying people of his intent to resign on August 8, so it was the Senate trial which was never completed (and it looked as though Nixon would be removed if it had been).
> 
> The articles approved against Nixon were eerily similar to the ones approved against Trump, though obviously the content therein is quite dissimilar.


"The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a vote the House." - WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/

But yeah, the articles look similar because Trump and Nixon are/were crooked bastards that manipulate the less-abled populous into handing them unchecked power. Still can't believe how far this corruption has gotten and we still have morons defending this disgusting shit.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Articles were adopted in Committee, but were not voted on by the full House. Nixon wasn't impeached, but only because his resignation made it moot.





IncredulousP said:


> "The House Judiciary Committee, in July 1974, approved three articles of impeachment (see below) and sent them to the full House. But Nixon resigned before there was a vote the House." - WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-despite-what-hillary-clinton-and-others-say/
> 
> But yeah, the articles look similar because Trump and Nixon are/were crooked bastards that manipulate the less-abled populous into handing them unchecked power. Still can't believe how far this corruption has gotten and we still have morons defending this disgusting shit.


Ah that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What it boils down to is this: *everybody willing to testify under oath*, including a number of Trump's own appointees, *say he did it*.  Among all those yelling that he's innocent, none of them are willing to testify under oath.  If the American people in the majority are too stupid to understand which of these groups is more trustworthy, then our country deserves to crumble from within, and that's very likely to be its fate.



They said they THINK he did. Big difference. And nobody's ever established that it would be an impeachable offense if they were correct. That question aside, those witnesses all got asked if they had any direct evidence, and direct eyewitness proof that this was bribery or quid pro quo, whatever, and they said no. Sondland did acknowledge that he thought there was definitely a quid pro quo, but about Zelensky getting a meeting. Not about the aid being held up until there was an investigation of Biden. That he could only presume ... same as the other witnesses who were there to say what Schiff needed said.


Anyway, I hope they just quit wasting time, money, and effort that could be spent on something productive, since we know this is going nowhere anyway. Instead of more hot air just agree to adopt the same exact procedural rules as the Clinton impeachment (they were approved unanimously) and get it over with.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> They said they THINK he did. Big difference. And nobody's ever established that it would be an impeachable offense if they were correct. That question aside, those witnesses all got asked if they had any direct evidence, and actual showing that this was bribery or quid pro quo, whatever, and they said no. Sondland did acknowledge that he thought there was definitely a quid pro quo, but about Zelensky getting a meeting. Not about the aid being held up until there was an investigation of Biden.


The semantics of whether to call it a quid pro quo, or bribery, or something else are not important, as that was all wrapped up into one big abuse of power article.  And the question of whether or not this conduct is impeachable was largely put to rest when three of four constitutional scholars testified that it is.  One went so far as to say, "if this isn't impeachable, nothing is."  OTOH, if only one of the four had declared that this conduct was impeachable, I seriously doubt Democrats would have proceeded.

Where the aid is concerned, the timeline speaks for itself.  It wasn't released until both a whistleblower complaint was filed and the impeachment inquiry had already begun.  There is no assurance it would've been released at all if there was no outcry and/or no repercussions.  The administration was quite literally caught in the act.



Hanafuda said:


> Anyway, I hope they just quit wasting time, money, and effort that could be spent on something productive, since we know this is going nowhere anyway.


The legislative process was in gridlock before impeachment, and it'll be in gridlock after impeachment.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of bills sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk, dead on arrival.  So unfortunately no, there is nothing more productive that could be happening right now.  The Democrats won the House in 2018 with the expectation that they'd provide some level of accountability, and that's exactly what they've done.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So unfortunately no, there is nothing more productive that could be happening right now.




Confirming more judges, baby!!


----------



## Xzi (Dec 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Confirming more judges, baby!!


That's wholly expected of any president, though I wouldn't consider it particularly productive.  Judges can't solve any of our problems on a national level, they can only contribute to (or aid in the corruption of) our justice system.

Also, that's obviously a satirical article, but the House has no say in confirming those judges regardless.


----------



## Ericzander (Dec 19, 2019)

Hey look, Trump finally won the popular vote in something.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 19, 2019)

Regardless of whether he's removed from office or not further in the process, this is a VERY significant moment in US history, and something that Trump will carry with him for the rest of his life.

I'm glad to see that house Democrats looked past all of the "it's a waste of time, waste of taxpayer money, it's a sham, it's a travesty, fake news, kangaroo court" etc and upheld the constitutional processes as they see appropriate.



Spoiler: Shitpost


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Dec 19, 2019)

And so Trump joins the ranks of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as the presidents who have been impeached (Nixon was never impeached, he resigned before the vote went through the House).

Honestly, I think this is _probably_ as far as it goes. While Mitch McConnell has stated he wants to make it a serious trial because he's confident nothing goes wrong, Republicans will probably vote along party lines. That _said_ there's a possible chance that it could go through. It honestly depends on how many Republicans will vote out of line. The margins are relatively small (53-45 and 2 independent seats and who knows how those will vote), so you need at least 4 to vote out of line in addition to the independent seats.

For the record, during the House vote to adopt the impeachment articles, 1 republican voted yes whilst 3 democrats voted no.

This could be interesting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also for the sake of clarity, Tulsi Gabbard is the only one who voted present (aka neither for nor against) and released this statement afterwards explaining why:



			
				Tulsi Gabbard said:
			
		

> "After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no," Gabbard, who declined to talk with reporters following her votes, said in a statement soon afterward.
> She added that she could not oppose impeachment "because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing," nor could she back it "because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
> Gabbard accused Republicans of having "abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party's leader." She also had harsh words for her fellow Democrats, arguing that their "extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process."


Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/tulsi-gabbard-present-impeachment/index.html

--

Personal opinion: This is a tone argument fallacy. Whilst I know that a tone argument is sometimes warranted, in this case it really is not. This is just wishy-washing the waters. The task should have just been to determine whether Trump is guilty of what he is accused of or not. She says she thinks he is, so she should have voted yes, but she didn't. This I would say is a very dissapointing thing for anyone who supports her.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 19, 2019)

Trump is impeached now. What does that mean ? That mean he will no longer to be elect for 4 more years next year. This year will be his last president due that he abused the power?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Dec 19, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Trump is impeached now. What does that mean ? That mean he will no longer to be elect for 4 more years next year. This year will be his last president due that he abused the power?


Right now, it means he will be put on a trial where the Senate acts as the jury. Do not confuse this for any actual legal proceedings and regulations that apply for a normal trial, even if they are similar. There are no rules within regards to how the jury forms their decision. The House acts as prosecution and both the House and Senate can call witnesses.

As for Trump, this is mostly just a rather big blemish on him for now. He can still run in 2020 and still holds office unless the Senate deems him guilty.

Note that the Senate does _not_ actually deem him guilty, that is a separate trial that would come afterwards which would determine punishment and the like. This is just to remove the man from office.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 19, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Right now, it means he will be put on a trial where the Senate acts as the jury. Do not confuse this for any actual legal proceedings and regulations that apply for a normal trial, even if they are similar. There are no rules within regards to how the jury forms their decision. The House acts as prosecution and both the House and Senate can call witnesses.
> 
> As for Trump, this is mostly just a rather big blemish on him for now. He can still run in 2020 and still holds office unless the Senate deems him guilty.
> 
> Note that the Senate does _not_ actually deem him guilty, that is a separate trial that would come afterwards which would determine punishment and the like. This is just to remove the man from office.



I thank you and I hope that he found guilty and if he isn't then I hope that he will not be elect next years due that people are open their eyes but I know Trump supporters are the rotten who doesn't care. 

We shall wait and see. Hopefully that he is guilty and no longer to be president.


----------



## Joe88 (Dec 19, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> The margins are relatively small (53-45 and 2 independent seats and who knows how those will vote), so you need at least 4 to vote out of line in addition to the independent seats.
> 
> For the record, during the House vote to adopt the impeachment articles, 1 republican voted yes whilst 3 democrats voted no.


You need 2/3 majority (67 votes) to impeach, its not a simple majority of 51 votes.
Not a single republican voted yes on impeachment on both articles in the house:






In the senate there is pretty much 0 chance of getting 20 defections (assuming both I's vote yes), the only defections I might see is susan colins (she will probably vote in party lines though) and mitt romney (who seems to have a hate boner for trump)


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Dec 19, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> You need 2/3 majority (67 votes) to impeach, its not a simple majority of 51 votes.


Oh. Nevermind then. Guess I was misinformed.

Welp, that's where it probably ends then unless some miracle happens.

Also, I guess the statistic image I was shown rolled the independent vote into the republican vote so that explains that.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 19, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Oh. Nevermind then. Guess I was misinformed.
> 
> Welp, that's where it probably ends then unless some miracle happens.
> 
> Also, I guess the statistic image I was shown rolled the independent vote into the republican vote so that explains that.



While votes were being taken for the first article, there was one Republican vote for some amount of time that was in favor, but eventually went to against. I'm imagining that was just a fat finger.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2019)

So this is weird. A lot of people are saying the President hasn't actually been impeached until the House delivers jurisdiction of the articles over to the Senate. Even one of the Professors who testified for Democrats during the Judiciary Committee hearings says this. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Right now, since Pelosi isn't sending them to the Senate and the House is in recess till next year ... well, I couldn't put it any better than this dude:


----------



## omgcat (Dec 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> So this is weird. A lot of people are saying the President hasn't actually been impeached until the House delivers jurisdiction of the articles over to the Senate. Even one of the Professors who testified for Democrats during the Judiciary Committee hearings says this.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
> 
> ...



It does not need to be sent to the senate for the impeachment to be valid. the house has the sole power over impeachment. The senate can vote to convict or exonerate, that is there powers. Even if the senate does exonerate, it will still not remove the impeachment, it will just not result in the removal of the president. However it has never been held up like this before, but then again the holding up of a supreme court justice pick by the senate majority leader has never been done before until recently(Merrick garland's vote being held up by Mitch Mcconnell).

See the constitutional provisions below:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 20, 2019)

omgcat said:


> It does not need to be sent to the senate for the impeachment to be valid.




Tell that to Professor Feldman. You know, the one the Judiciary Committee Democrats called as an expert witness on the law of impeachment.

Or are you saying Professor Feldman's opinion on impeachment law is no good?



I guess the flipside to that ... if you're right and Professor Feldman is wrong ... is that the Senate can go ahead and get on with it then. The President has been impeached, no need to wait for the House. Because as you pointed out above, the House has the sole power of impeachment. But once the elected official is impeached, the House is done with it. All the power over the rest of it is with the Senate.


Which is it then?


----------



## omgcat (Dec 20, 2019)

i'd like to see which part of the constitution or previous case law he is basing his idea from. So far i haven't been able to dig up any constitutional legalities.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Dec 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Tell that to Professor Feldman. You know, the one the Judiciary Committee Democrats called as an expert witness on the law of impeachment.
> 
> Or are you saying Professor Feldman's opinion on impeachment law is no good?
> 
> ...



It now goes to trial on the Senate. Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed. it could easily be the same situation here. Impeachment being "valid or not" is irrelevant(Since that can be subjective). It now goes to trial in the senate and what happens next gets determined there.


----------



## Sizednochi (Dec 20, 2019)

Nevermind the fact Trump has been using the Impeachment heavily as ammunition in all of his rallies - and that his approval ratings are increasing for it. The narrative being he will win in 2020 and a "bogus impeachment" is the only way the dems can make him lose. Also, it does bring the matter of Joe Biden's son suspicious business in Ukraine, and Trump can now safely use that as well. This impeachment is all a ploy by him and the dems fell right in.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 20, 2019)

Sizednochi said:


> Nevermind the fact Trump has been using the Impeachment heavily as ammunition in all of his rallies


He did the same with the Mueller investigation, and Democrats won in 2018 by a large margin.  They also won several state races this year while the impeachment inquiry was ongoing.  The idea that he's playing to some grand strategy is bull.  He's just another rich dipshit who has never in his life faced any consequences for his actions and thus believes himself to be above the law.  His "brand" becomes more toxic by the day, and his presidency is now forever stained, regardless of what happens in the Senate.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 6, 2020)

I hope this attack carried out by trump's orders shifts things in the republican senate i feel he just signed his own political suicide note with that stunt now let's see if the senate wakesa up and hands down a favorable sentance AND start criminal proceedings remember JFK was the only other person to order a (failed) assassination on fidel castro that was state sponsered this was not Trump just took his first step into warcrimes I knew shit like this would start if trump was elected he basicly started WW3


----------



## notimp (Jan 6, 2020)

Oh no, three photoshopped faces of people pointing fingers in a photo!

(Meanwhile a new US war is starting to develop, but don't ask gamers to notice..  )


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 6, 2020)

`i think Pelosi should slap every person in the senate's faces and say WAKE THE HELL UP our president just committed a war crime let alone he bypassed congress about the assassination (a common therme for GOP presidents now it seems) not to mention an iraqi died as collateral damage (which is why iraq is pissed off)


----------



## sl0ps (Jan 6, 2020)

Imagining that only one side has dabbled their hands in targeted hits is not only uninformed, but *patently false.
*
You can argue against this, but it only serves to mar your credibility.


----------



## Condarkness_XY (Jan 6, 2020)

We have a warmongering buffoon who can't speak or read and has now committed a war crime. If we get into another war, its because republicans are god damn corrupt scum who doomed this country.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 7, 2020)

i fear this coming up war will doom more than the US.....all humankind may go extinct by years end if we get dragged in a thermonuclear war


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 7, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> i fear this coming up war will doom more than the US.....all humankind may go extinct by years end if we get dragged in a thermonuclear war



I'll bet you a million dollars that you're wrong. Loser pays on Jan 1, 2021.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 11, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> i fear this coming up war will doom more than the US.....all humankind may go extinct by years end if we get dragged in a thermonuclear war


If the people voted for this to happen, then the people reap what they sow.


Spoiler: Trump won 2016 presidency



Guess I'll die.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 17, 2020)

odd how they haven't killed the impeachment yet seem to be hearing both sides (think they're doing it to save their asses er seats for the 2020 election still having no intent to remove him just pretending)


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 18, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> odd how they haven't killed the impeachment yet seem to be hearing both sides (think they're doing it to save their asses er seats for the 2020 election still having no intent to remove him just pretending)




Every Senator WILL get their TV face time. And Susan Collins wants twice as much.


----------



## notimp (Jan 19, 2020)

What a character defect. Someone should tell the president.


----------



## notimp (Jan 19, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> i fear this coming up war will doom more than the US.....all humankind may go extinct by years end if we get dragged in a thermonuclear war


Oh wow. You noticed! 

So did Donald Brennan in 1962.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

You are only 58 years late.  57, maybe.. But any day now...*tapping on my imagined watch* ... any day now... 

(Key words: Nash equilibrium, game theory, nuclear winter ..  )


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 19, 2020)

I hope he found guilt and removed from the office. Not only him but every corrupted as well. I don't vote nobody and no one. They are all corrupted.. Always was and always will be. The politics are disgusting human being ever and always failed forever!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 22, 2020)

I've only glimpsed at US politics, but it seems like the pig circus is in full swing now.

-Mitch McConnel claimed it was only fair that Trump got a process on the same rules as Clinton, which certainly sounds fair if you neglect the fact that these are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CASES
-...and he then proceeded to break similarities with that case with other rules
-democrats and republicans are more divided than ever. Or more united in their group, if that's your fancy: every amendment brought up got shot down because republicans don't want it (and they hold a - very tight - majority). Including witnesses.

Okay, the source is from a local newspaper, but could it be that up to 69% of Americans actually _want_ witnesses to be heard in this process? It certainly makes sense, because...well...it's a public trial, right? It's not like you or me can decide not to have witnesses involved whenever we get busted on committing crimes. But Mitch isn't even pretending to be unbiased in this matter, so it's not like this is a coincidence in any way...


----------



## seany1990 (Jan 23, 2020)

This trial is exactly what I would expect to see from a country claiming to be the leader of the free world


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 27, 2020)

More (IMO) interesting tidbits:

- Lev Parnas leaked a video online from a meeting with Trump. It clearly has him saying to get rid of Marie Yovanovitch (after hearing that she was badmouthing him(1) ). His advocate says there are more recordings, among which about the withholding of government funds
- Fox news doesn't cover the impeachment process because they deem it boring
-John Bolton may not testify, but parts of his book have leaked online. Meaning: yes, Trump explicitly withheld the money until they announced the investigation into the Bidens.



(1): in truth, this wasn't true. What was true, however, was that Lutsenko wanted Yvanovitch out as a favor of him providing dirt on the Bidens


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 27, 2020)

WORST OFF HE'S REGAINING GROUND so yeah we're f*cked


----------



## Joe88 (Jan 27, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> - Fox news doesn't cover the impeachment process because they deem it boring


Neither did any of the non-cable public channels https://apnews.com/49beb52117d6f248be88c23d780348fc
i'm sure fox saw their viewership dropping after it became apparent they were just repeating the same exact things known for months now just out of different mouths
Edit, they did the same thing for trumps defense, they stopped airing it at 7PM est (when they started back up after their dinner break) and went with their regular programming


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 29, 2020)

Politics are already a circus as it is, but this has only made it even more of a reality television show. I honestly don't have the patience to watch or bother reading it.

I mean, I see glimpses on YT and that's enough for me and what politicians decide ultimately affect our daily lives, but I just can't care less now.


----------



## notimp (Jan 31, 2020)

The circus part is 'garnering public support', there also should be a non circus part.. If you are mostly interested in the circus part, you are maybe more interested in PR (from a consumer perspective) than in politics.. 

The principle goes something like this. The one with most votes (electoral delegates in the US  ) gets deciding power. To get votes, pretty much anything goes.

But then, this is not so much politics, as it is the prerequisites for politics.

Everyone still very much interested in campaign pledges and the song and dance, but nothing else? And that face said, that to the other face... 


I've recently watched and linked that Noam Chomsky (not a) documentary. He talkes about people like you as the 80% that dont matter politically. That politics for the most part was garnering the consent of the 20% that are actually somewhat informed (beyond the circus part) - now granted, that changed with populist movements becoming more important - but in principal, ...


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> Politics are already a circus as it is, but this has only made it even more of a reality television show. I honestly don't have the patience to watch or bother reading it.
> 
> I mean, I see glimpses on YT and that's enough for me and what politicians decide ultimately affect our daily lives, but I just can't care less now.


besides we all know the elections are rigged to the point where middle class/poverty has no power at all


----------



## notimp (Feb 2, 2020)

Best defense speeches for Trump not to be impeached, that I've seen. 

(It helps, that the contrarian at the table also is against it..  )

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

The Hover institution is largely financed by corporate donors like JP Morgan, General Motors, Exxon or Procter & Gamble. 

edit: Uh, and german publisher Josef Joffe is a visiting fellow as well.  (Amongst a few other famous names.)


----------



## Viri (Feb 2, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> i fear this coming up war will doom more than the US.....all humankind may go extinct by years end if we get dragged in a thermonuclear war


Wanna put your money where your mouth is? Wanna bet 100 dollars on it? I'm serious, lol.


----------



## notimp (Feb 3, 2020)

Viri drags out a one month old emotionally agitated reply from someone whose headspace clearly wasnt analytic - but dreary emotional, makes fun of them, and indicates that he even wants to make money off of their momentary laps of judgement.

Why?


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 4, 2020)

So in the House Managers’ big closing argument, Schiff said Trump must be stopped or he might sell Alaska to Russia in exchange for help in the 2020 election.

It was hyperbole, but still still just bizarre. 

I’m glad this will be over soon.


----------



## GhostLatte (Feb 5, 2020)

Why block witnesses if they have nothing to hide?


----------



## morvoran (Feb 5, 2020)

Woo hoo!!!  Donald J Trump is still our president, and the sham impeachment was proven to be nothing but a fantasy of the evil Dems to overrule our 2016 election results.  

Sorry to all the liberals who were hoping for a miracle that the House dems' lies and mockery of our Constitution would result in an innocent president being removed.  Better luck next time (which most likely will be very soon due to the democrats addiction to impeachment hearings).


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 5, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Why block witnesses if they have nothing to hide?



First and obvious answer:  innocent until proven guilty. When a person stands accused in the United States, they have the right not to cooperate with or contribute to an investigation seeking to prove their guilt.

Slightly longer, more practical answer: The Democrats had the opportunity to call those witnesses before voting on articles of impeachment. The White House took them to Court over the validity of the subpoenas, and instead of waiting on a Court ruling the Democrats dropped their attempt to get all the witnesses they wanted. It was more important to them, apparently, to get everything done by a certain date, so as to minimally affect the Democrat primary and simultaneously get maximum damage on the President. So tough luck. They had 17 witnesses testify (18, if you count the one Schiff sealed so nobody would ever know what was said) and thousands of pages of documents in the record in the House, and Republicans weren't allowed to call anyone. The House Democrats gave the Senate Republicans a rotten apple, and you want to know why they didn't eat it?


Anyway, it's over now. Let's try to be decent to each other and stuff again, at least until the next big Orange Man Bad Takedown begins.


----------



## Viri (Feb 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Viri drags out a one month old emotionally agitated reply from someone whose headspace clearly wasnt analytic - but dreary emotional, makes fun of them, and indicates that he even wants to make money off of their momentary laps of judgement.
> 
> Why?


Damn right I wanna make money off of it! And why did I respond to a post made a month ago? Because this thread is still relevant, it's not like I necro posted a 3 year old thread. Also, I didn't read the dates the post were made, because this thread is still relevant.

Also, he was acquitted. I didn't even pay attention to the news of the whole fiasco, because I knew the outcome at the end.


----------



## GhostLatte (Feb 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> First and obvious answer:  innocent until proven guilty. When a person stands accused in the United States, they have the right not to cooperate with or contribute to an investigation seeking to prove their guilt.
> 
> Slightly longer, more practical answer: The Democrats had the opportunity to call those witnesses before voting on articles of impeachment. The White House took them to Court over the validity of the subpoenas, and instead of waiting on a Court ruling the Democrats dropped their attempt to get all the witnesses they wanted. It was more important to them, apparently, to get everything done by a certain date, so as to minimally affect the Democrat primary and simultaneously get maximum damage on the President. So tough luck. They had 17 witnesses testify (18, if you count the one Schiff sealed so nobody would ever know what was said) and thousands of pages of documents in the record in the House, and Republicans weren't allowed to call anyone. The House Democrats gave the Senate Republicans a rotten apple, and you want to know why they didn't eat it?
> 
> ...


I don't know still was super suspicious.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 6, 2020)

welp time for plan B get the f*ck out of the USA


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 6, 2020)

Boy, what a nice waste of taxpayer money this was


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Woo hoo!!!  Donald J Trump is still our president, and the sham impeachment was proven to be nothing but a fantasy of the evil Dems to overrule our 2016 election results.
> 
> Sorry to all the liberals who were hoping for a miracle that the House dems' lies and mockery of our Constitution would result in an innocent president being removed.  Better luck next time (which most likely will be very soon due to the democrats addiction to impeachment hearings).



Uh. Yeah. Except you forgot the part where he was also impeached. He was impeached every bit as much as he was acquitted. You have zero bragging rights, but whatever floats your boat. As usual.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Uh. Yeah. Except you forgot the part where he was also impeached. He was impeached every bit as much as he was acquitted. You have zero bragging rights, but whatever floats your boat. As usual.



Impeached simply means accused. It was a partisan political attack, it failed.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 6, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Why block witnesses if they have nothing to hide?


Generally it was trying to delay the trial more than anything else, witnesses might have delayed the trial months, they were doing the same during the kavanaugh hearings.
It's just never ending, on to the next "this time trump is finished, its over for him" bombshell.


----------



## Juggalo Debo (Feb 6, 2020)

this whole discussion has been great but "cant we all just get along"


----------



## morvoran (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Uh. Yeah. Except you forgot the part where he was also impeached. He was impeached every bit as much as he was acquitted. You have zero bragging rights, but whatever floats your boat. As usual.


Oh, Trump (including I) have plenty of bragging rights.  The House Dums tried to remove a legitimate president from office by making up false accusations and then making the Senate do all the work just because they hate him and the people who voted for him.  The Senate Republicans(true American heroes in my book) were able to toss out all this BS back into the Dems face and told them to try again (in which they will also fail).  

I hope the House and Senate Dums (including Mitt Romney's treacherous ass) look back at themselves to see how wrong they were to waste everyone's time and tax money on such a sorry piece of Schiff fiasco and put some real effort into helping Make America Great Again!!!


----------



## Juggalo Debo (Feb 6, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Oh, Trump (including I) have plenty of bragging rights.  The House Dums tried to remove a legitimate president from office by making up false accusations and then making the Senate do all the work just because they hate him and the people who voted for him.  The Senate Republicans(true American heroes in my book) were able to toss out all this BS back into the Dems face and told them to try again (in which they will also fail).
> 
> I hope the House and Senate Dums (including Mitt Romney's treacherous ass) look back at themselves to see how wrong they were to waste everyone's time and tax money on such a sorry piece of Schiff fiasco and put some real effort into helping Make America Great Again!!!



woohoo "KEEP AMERICA GREAT"


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Feb 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> The White House took them to Court over the validity of the subpoenas, and instead of waiting on a Court ruling the Democrats dropped their attempt to get all the witnesses they wanted. It was more important to them, apparently, to get everything done by a certain date, so as to minimally affect the Democrat primary and simultaneously get maximum damage on the President. So tough luck.


Actually this was covered in the proceedings. They went ahead because if they had to work through the courts, Trump's lawyers could attempt to strand the proceedings in endless legal challenges (which isn't too unlikely, since that was pretty much what the White House spelled out they would do if they took it to court), effectively making impeachment useless if they engaged it in court.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

I must say this has been an entertaining farce. Party politics are absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Impeached simply means accused. It was a partisan political attack, it failed.



Uh. No. It failed in Senate. It did not fail in house. Still impeached. FACT. The partisan acquittal was every bit as partisan as you claim the accusations were. See how that works? Didn't think so.



morvoran said:


> Oh, Trump (including I) have plenty of bragging rights.  The House Dums tried to remove a legitimate president from office by making up false accusations and then making the Senate do all the work just because they hate him and the people who voted for him.  The Senate Republicans(true American heroes in my book) were able to toss out all this BS back into the Dems face and told them to try again (in which they will also fail).
> 
> I hope the House and Senate Dums (including Mitt Romney's treacherous ass) look back at themselves to see how wrong they were to waste everyone's time and tax money on such a sorry piece of Schiff fiasco and put some real effort into helping Make America Great Again!!!



The ONLY thing I will EVER agree with you on, is that it was a complete waste of time and resources. But only because they were incredibly foolish to think for one second that Senate was going to also impeach. The rest of what you have to say is complete far right, fascist, bullshit. But that's nothing new. Everyone here just expects it out of you at this point. Laughable.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> The ONLY thing I will EVER agree with you on, is that it was a complete waste of time and resources. But only because they were incredibly foolish to think for one second that Senate was going to also impeach.


Oh, I'm sure there's plenty more that you agree with me on as you can't be as unreasonable and completely blinded by the BS coming from the mouths of Democrats.



D34DL1N3R said:


> The rest of what you have to say is complete far right, fascist, bullshit. But that's nothing new. Everyone here just expects it out of you at this point. Laughable.


Come on now.  I've never said anything that is "far right, fascist, or bullshit." Don't be a piece of Schiff. You're better than that.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

I've come to conclusion that most people using the terms right and left don't really understand what they represent.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 6, 2020)

People who make claims about "Trump's corruption" don't seem to really recognize the history of American politics.  I know that some of you aren't a fan of it, but his administration is relatively tougher on pedophile-related crime and I personally adore that.  Remember when Obama promised transparency and hope?  I really wonder if people believed that, or if it was just the TV.  It seemed like Obama was ending the political season with a very dull finale, and American politics needed someone like Trump to regenerate interest.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 6, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I've come to conclusion that most people using the terms right and left don't really understand what they represent.


It doesn't really matter, either way. One side blames the other and vice-versa.

Politics gain supporters, but they don't necessarily care about them, rather their support (voting/money).


----------



## Marcsoup (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Uh. No. It failed in Senate. It did not fail in house. Still impeached. FACT. The partisan acquittal was every bit as partisan as you claim the accusations were. See how that works? Didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY thing I will EVER agree with you on, is that it was a complete waste of time and resources. But only because they were incredibly foolish to think for one second that Senate was going to also impeach. The rest of what you have to say is complete far right, fascist, bullshit. But that's nothing new. Everyone here just expects it out of you at this point. Laughable.



Technically, the acquittal was not as partisan as the impeachment. Multiple republicans explicitly and publicly stated that they believed he was guilty of the crimes, but decided it wasn't grounds for removal from office. Joni Ernst, Lamar Alexander, Roger Wicker, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, and many more. Go google each one of those senators and their views on Trump's actions as I'm too lazy to go grab links (but not too lazy to type up a response apparently...) The official position of the White House was "He did it. so what? It's not impeachable. The president can do anything including murder and he's immune from everything." 

As Mitt Romney was the only republican with a spine, there was technically more republican support in favor of removal from office than there was in the house for impeaching him. The house had 0.7% of democrats breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. The senate had 1% of republicans breaking ranks to vote in favor of removal.

I agree with you on everything EXCEPT that it was a waste of time and resources. It accomplished a lot more than what would be happening in the senate without impeachment, with Moscow Mitch blocking essentially every bill from the house, even those with bipartisan support. Would you rather the senate sit around and do absolutely nothing while Mcconnell sucks off Trump with every bipartisan bill he refuses to bring to the senate floor, or would you want the evidence of Trump's crimes out in the public, with the knowledge that with every fact that comes out, Trump gets just a little more pissed and throws another tantrum? 
I know I'm willing to have my tax dollars spent on pissing him off rofl


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

Boesy said:


> It doesn't really matter, either way. One side blames the other and vice-versa.
> 
> Politics gain supporters, but they don't necessarily care about them, rather their support (voting/money).


I sort of agree. There are genuine politicians that exist, but party politics is generally cancer.

One day I'm going to put this in a frame, title it "Politics" and submit it to the tate modern.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

Marcsoup said:


> Would you rather the senate sit around and do absolutely nothing while Mcconnell sucks off Trump with every bipartisan bill he refuses to bring to the senate floor, or would you want the evidence of Trump's crimes out in the public, with the knowledge that with every fact that comes out, Trump gets just a little more pissed and throws another tantrum?l



Yet in doing so, do you think his base feels one single bit differently? Do you think they now believe all of the accusations against Trump? Do you honestly think it has changed ANYTHING for either them or for Dems? Nothing has changed. Back at square one. Waste of time. The evidence of his crimes out in public is only evidence to those that believe he is guilty. No ones minds are being changed here, and if they are, it's a VERY small amount of people. I could agree with you if suddenly a large portion of his base started changing their mind, but the fact is that the majority of them are EXACTLY like mororvan. So yes, like I said. A waste of time.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

The problem you are having is that the evidence isn't evidence. They are accusations with the promise of evidence. Unfortunately the democratic party considered a show trial in time for election season more important than actually gathering tangible evidence and doing the job properly.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 6, 2020)

Marcsoup said:


> or would you want the evidence of Trump's crimes out in the public, with the knowledge that with every fact that comes out, Trump gets just a little more pissed and throws another tantrum?
> I know I'm willing to have my tax dollars spent on pissing him off rofl


Yes very good use of tax payer dollars
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/trump-job-approval-personal-best.aspx


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

tabzer said:


> People who make claims about "Trump's corruption" don't seem to really recognize the history of American politics.  I know that some of you aren't a fan of it, but his administration is relatively tougher on pedophile-related crime and I personally adore that.  Remember when Obama promised transparency and hope?  I really wonder if people believed that, or if it was just the TV.  It seemed like Obama was ending the political season with a very dull finale, and American politics needed someone like Trump to regenerate interest.



Okay buddy. LOLOL!!!! And there are more where these came from. Let's not forget how he said he would be dating her if she were not his daughter, saying it's okay to call her a piece of ass, pictures of him with Epstein & a convicted pedophile, etc. etc. But whatever floats your boat I guess. I mean, there's just SO much proof out there of what an outstanding great & morally sound guy he is. Right?


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 6, 2020)

Marcsoup said:


> Technically, the acquittal was not as partisan as the impeachment. Multiple republicans explicitly and publicly stated that they believed he was guilty of the crimes, but decided it wasn't grounds for removal from office.




This is what much of the Senate said about Clinton as well, i.e. yes he committed perjury, no doubt. But it wasn't an egregious case sufficient to warrant removing him from office, i.e. not a 'high crime' I guess. Quite a few Republicans and some Democrats expressed this position wrt: Clinton, IIRC.

I don't see a proven impeachable offense with Trump. Maybe some do, but I don't know how you get there without some long stretch inferences and relying on hearsay evidence, which shouldn't be part of the record. 

And, it's over now anyway. The Democrats in the House knew this would be the end when they started, so you can blame them for your stress and angst if it still bothers you.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> The problem you are having is that the evidence isn't evidence



Jesus. Hypocrite much? I can every bit as easily say you're the one with the "problem" by denying crystal clear evidence as "fake news" or whatever you'd like to call it. Shit man, let's forget about everything else for a second and focus on obstruction alone. If you or anyone else believes for a single second that he is NOT guilty of obstruction left and right... there is no hope for you at all. None. Lost cause and I'm wasting my time on you.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

"Hypocrite?" I'm starting to think you don't understand what words mean.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> relying on hearsay evidence



You mean like the people that testified that were actually listening in on the call as it took place? Just because your idiot "President" claims it was all 3rd party hearsay, doesn't make it so. Facts are facts, and the entire "hearsay" thing is a complete load of bullshit. It's a downright LIE.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FGFlann said:


> "Hypocrite?" I'm starting to think you don't understand what words mean.



Quite the opposite. If I need to point out exactly how you are being hypocritical, then the meaning of the term is completely lost on you. Not me. Nice deflection attempt though, but it's expected from you lot. It's all you can ever do.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

Actually, pointing it out would be considered evidence, therefore proving your accusation. I don't wish to be smug, but it's the same problem.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 6, 2020)

@D34DL1N3R , it's OVER. You get it?? OVER.

Best of luck in November. With the candidates the Democrats have available for nomination, you're gonna need it.


----------



## GBAer (Feb 6, 2020)

It would have been fun to see the corrupt Bidens called to answered for their crimes


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 6, 2020)

let me spell it out my BIGGEST FEAR is Civil war2 breaking out when trump does leave mind you for anyone who even thinks about doing so would be charged with high treason and that carries a mandatory death sentance so if you value your lives and trump does call for a treasonous act to rebel don't fall for it unless your willing to be put to death


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

I hope I can assuage your fear by pointing out that the odds of armed conflict breaking out because of Trump losing an election are remote.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> @D34DL1N3R , it's OVER. You get it?? OVER.
> 
> Best of luck in November. With the candidates the Democrats have available for nomination, you're gonna need it.


Except you're pretending to know something about me. I didn't vote for Obama, I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Trump. I am also not voting for a single one of the Dems in the running because I don't like a single one of them. You also seem to think there will be some sort of tears if he is re-elected. Honestly I don't care. Four more years then he's out and there's nothing you can do about it. Then we will see where the tears come from.

So whatever. Keep acting like you know me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GBAer said:


> It would have been fun to see the corrupt Bidens called to answered for their crimes


 
Oh please. What is stopping them from making them "answer for their crimes"? I'll tell you what is stopping them. A big fat nothing burger. Why is it that the Trumpers scream up and down about how the evidence against him is not evidence at all,l yet all of the evidence against Biden is clear, cut, and dry? Keep trying. STILL doing it wrong. STILL the largest group of pathological hypocrites on the face of the planet.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 6, 2020)

To be honest, I thought that Biden being thrown under the bus by his own party for the sake of nearly identical accusations was delicious irony.


----------



## Marcsoup (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Yet in doing so, do you think his base feels one single bit differently? Do you think they now believe all of the accusations against Trump? Do you honestly think it has changed ANYTHING for either them or for Dems? Nothing has changed. Back at square one. Waste of time. The evidence of his crimes out in public is only evidence to those that believe he is guilty. No ones minds are being changed here, and if they are, it's a VERY small amount of people. I could agree with you if suddenly a large portion of his base started changing their mind, but the fact is that the majority of them are EXACTLY like mororvan. So yes, like I said. A waste of time.



All I was saying was that at the end of the day, the Senate is still doing nothing, so they might as well do nothing AND piss off Trump and his worthless brain dead base at the same time.
Does it accomplish anything of any value? Not really, but I still think it's relatively funny.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Okay buddy. LOLOL!!!! And there are more where these came from. Let's not forget how he said he would be dating her if she were not his daughter, saying it's okay to call her a piece of ass, pictures of him with Epstein & a convicted pedophile, etc. etc. But whatever floats your boat I guess. I mean, there's just SO much proof out there of what an outstanding great & morally sound guy he is. Right?



Everything you said is circumstantial, but what I said is factually accurate.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 6, 2020)

I just heard some great news today that everyone should be happy about.  
Next year after the Republicans retake the house, they will nullify the baseless partisan articles of impeachment which will expunge the crooked demonrats impeachment of Trump off his record and removing this stain and bastardization of our constitution from our republic.
This means everything the Dems did this past year were for nothing other than costing them the House.

I just can't wait for next year when Congress will get back to working for everyone instead of just trying to remove a duly elected president.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Except you're pretending to know something about me. I didn't vote for Obama, I didn't vote for Hillary, and I didn't vote for Trump. I am also not voting for a single one of the Dems in the running because I don't like a single one of them. You also seem to think there will be some sort of tears if he is re-elected. Honestly I don't care. Four more years then he's out and there's nothing you can do about it. Then we will see where the tears come from.
> 
> So whatever. Keep acting like you know me.



Fair enough. But you've done the same, i.e. assuming there'll be 'tears' when Trump leaves office. He'll be what, 78 years old then? I think he's got some excellent constitutional fortitude for his age, but 78? Time to hang it up.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You also seem to think there will be some sort of tears if he is re-elected. Honestly I don't care.



Honestly.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 7, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Everything you said is circumstantial, but what I said is factually accurate.


 Factually accurate.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 7, 2020)

The entire thing went exactly as predicted.  No documents and no witnesses allowed into the Senate "trial."  Hell, Republicans barely even bothered to mount a defense.  "He did it, doesn't matter."  There are certainly any number of other articles of impeachment that could've been added, but things would've gone the same in the Senate either way.

Fuck 'em, purple state Republicans will suffer for it in November.  Speaking of which, I've been more glued to the results of the Democratic primary race.  Bernie now projected to win all but two states, with a 49% chance of winning the nomination in round one (according to 538).


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Factually accurate.



What I said about his administration's actions is true and backed by numbers.  If you want to refute what I said, be my guest.

If you want to hypothesize how he is just trying to get rid of the competition, you can do that too.

Your response to me had nothing to do with what I actually said.  You want to make Trump look bad in response to an actual point I made, as if that changed something.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 7, 2020)

tabzer said:


> What I said about his administration's actions is true and backed by numbers.  If you want to refute what I said, be my guest.
> 
> If you want to hypothesize how he is just trying to get rid of the competition, you can do that too.
> 
> Your response to me had nothing to do with what I actually said.  You want to make Trump look bad in response to an actual point I made, as if that changed something.



You rattled off some garbage about Trump being tougher on Pedophiles. I posted pictures that show Trump as a pedophile himself, including towards his own daughter. There's a picture of him with Epstein. There's a picture of him with a convicted Pedophile. It had everything to do with what you actually said. You can post all of the numbers you want buddy. Just because you believe it to be factual, does not make it so. But go ahead and post them. Prove me wrong.

And hypothesize about getting rid of the competition? WTF are you even talking about? You pulled that straight out of your ass.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 7, 2020)

all his base is now are racist neo nazi's and every other lifeform crawling out of the sewer,the middle class republicans are idiots i mean the trickle down effect for tax breaks for the rich are total BS


----------



## morvoran (Feb 7, 2020)

Xzi said:


> No documents and no witnesses allowed into the Senate "trial." Hell, Republicans barely even bothered to mount a defense. "He did it, doesn't matter." There are certainly any number of other articles of impeachment that could've been added, but things would've gone the same in the Senate either way.


  You must not be remembering the testimony of the 17 (+1) witnesses and the thousands of pages of documents from the house.  The house managers even said multiple times that their case was solid and proven without any doubts that Trump was guilty.  How could more witnesses make him any more guilty? SMH



Xzi said:


> Speaking of which, I've been more glued to the results of the Democratic primary race. Bernie now projected to win all but two states, with a 49% chance of winning the n


. Oh, so sorry to tell you this but the DNC is going to screw good ole socialist comrade Bernie again and give the nomination to Bloomberg (or rather, sell it to him).   You might as well give up your dream of a socialist America.  It isn't going to happen.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 7, 2020)

morvoran said:


> How could more witnesses make him any more guilty?


You're right, his guilt was already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, but there was still new evidence and testimony which came to light between the House proceedings and the Senate trial.  And 80% of the American public still wanted a trial with witnesses and documents.



morvoran said:


> Oh, so sorry to tell you this but the DNC is going to screw good ole socialist comrade Bernie again and give the nomination to Bloomberg (or rather, sell it to him).


Bootyjudge is the corporate shill which Bernie will ultimately have to overcome, not Bloomberg.  If Bernie wins 51% of delegates in the first round, there's nothing superdelegates or the DNC can do about it except whine.



morvoran said:


> You might as well give up your dream of a socialist America. It isn't going to happen.


We already live in a socialist America, it's just the type of socialism that benefits the rich exclusively.  A trickle-up economy, if you will.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 7, 2020)

Xzi said:


> his guilt was already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, but there was still new evidence and testimony which came to light between the House proceedings and the Senate trial.


  The Dum's could not prove he was guilty in the House and Senate.  Unfortunately, in Congress, it doesn't matter how guilty or innocent you are, it all depends on if your party holds the majority.  Not one demonrat called for judgement on Trump based on the evidence provided (except for the 3 in the house).  In the Senate, they had one traitor who is a never Trumper because he wasn't made Secretary of State.



Xzi said:


> Bootyjudge is the corporate shill which Bernie will ultimately have to overcome, not Bloomberg. If Bernie wins 51% of delegates in the first round, there's nothing superdelegates or the DNC can do about it except whine.


  Just like how Bootyjudge won Iowa, he contributed cash to the voter app they used that screwed up the results.  Bloomberg will win the nomination in a similar manner.



Xzi said:


> We already live in a socialist America, it's just the type of socialism that benefits the rich exclusively. A trickle-up economy, if you will.


  Good thing that this "socialist" America we live in today, you can become rich if you work hard enough.  In Bernie's and the radical dum's vision of America, only the Demonrat politicians can get rich.  Enjoy your free healthcare (if you manage to get care after waiting for all the illegals that get to skip you in line).  Too bad you won't be able to afford anything else.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You rattled off some garbage about Trump being tougher on Pedophiles. I posted pictures that show Trump as a pedophile himself, including towards his own daughter. There's a picture of him with Epstein. There's a picture of him with a convicted Pedophile. It had everything to do with what you actually said. You can post all of the numbers you want buddy. Just because you believe it to be factual, does not make it so. But go ahead and post them. Prove me wrong.



First, the pictures don't prove he's a pedophile.  Second, Epstein has his picture with a lot of famous rich people who are probably not all pedophiles.  If you can get a picture of Trump and Epstein with underage prostitutes, like there is of Clinton, then maybe I can start believing a little in your "good faith" points.  If you want to believe Trump's administration is not busting pedophile rings and saving children on a level that causes one to scratch their head in regards to previous administrations, more power to you.  I personally think you will be caught.




D34DL1N3R said:


> And hypothesize about getting rid of the competition? WTF are you even talking about? You pulled that straight out of your ass.



Please study what I have said.  The busts and prosecutions are a real thing.  The only reasons you would attempt to discredit those efforts are if 1)you think Trump is only doing it to monopolize the market of underage sex-trafficking *OR *2)you are an advocate of pedophilia.

Since it is clear that you have no clue about the primary, it's safe to assume the latter about you and end the conversation there.

To the others:  The thing about @Xzi is that it is personally invested in Trump being guilty/evil, so it never really mattered if there is "more" or "even more" evidence.  Every single thing, no matter what happens, will serve as further confirmation of what @Xzi already "knows".  Enlightenment into any greater truth of the matter cannot happen without a complete mental breakdown/identity crisis.


----------



## Juggalo Debo (Feb 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I've come to conclusion that most people using the terms right and left don't really understand what they represent.


I completely agree with you 100%

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

wow.... good god fucking close this thread lol Its over..... that's all we have to worry about now...


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Woo hoo!!!  Donald J Trump is still our president, and the sham impeachment was proven to be nothing but a fantasy of the evil Dems to overrule our 2016 election results.
> 
> Sorry to all the liberals who were hoping for a miracle that the House dems' lies and mockery of our Constitution would result in an innocent president being removed.  Better luck next time (which most likely will be very soon due to the democrats addiction to impeachment hearings).



You realize, that we told you a year ago, that this would be the outcome, when you and two of your far right 'like' supporters, where trying to convince people in here, that you had the fear of god put into you, that someone tried to put your minority (popular vote) racist president away, before the end of the term.

We always told you this was a political process, you had the votes, it was not likely to succeed, it was mainly done for PR reasons (you are now btw. trying actively to control the message of the outcome for), but that yet it wasnt unfair - because what your president did, qualified for at least trying to get him out of office.

The story - that people in here tried to put forward the idea, that this was a legal process or a moral one - and that it would show once and for all 'who is right' - simply isnt true at all. And yet, this is what you are selling here today.

It was actually the entire opposite of what you are claiming.

We told you a year ago, this would be the likely outcome. You ignored everyone, posted thread after thread of emotional agitation, that this was a personal attack on you, that guy, and it had you so much worried.

When we asked why - because you always had the votes - you stopped the dialog.

You are manipulating again.

You are the person, that wouldnt listen, and that was inexplicably worried beyond believe and reason, that this was a conspiracy against democracy - simply because your guy was involved. You told everyone, that the process was unfair, and that they (?) would try to circumvent constitution and the electoral collage, a few months beore the next election. Now that none of this turned out true - you are effing trying to surf high on a 'justice prevailed' message - because the process was politically turned off, just like we always told you that it would.

Now that the result is to your liking, the process all of a sudden isnt the issue anymore, and shouldnt be looked at too closely.

We told you from day one, that this had a low chance of succeeding, and that it was employed for PR in pre election season. Now you have the nerve to tell us, that you were right - because 'you won'.

You are a liar. You are not as dumb as you are playing to be, you are malicious, always trying to sell people emotional truths.You are more than a troll, you are a propagandist.

(Constitution, constitution. Evil democrats. Signaling, signaling.)

You never looked for knowledge or education, you looked to spread prepackaged messaging you got from outlets like 4chan.

You are not the underdog, you never were. Although you always claimed, that you were the suppressed silent majority, and unjustly treated. We always tried to help you understand, you always broke contact.

Now you are making up enemy stories, that never were true for how you were communicated to in this forum. You are an opportunistic liar, misrepresenting our intentions, and what happened in here in the past.

If I were your boss, I would fire you based on your performance this week. (But then you would probably just look around for whos paying top dollar for you to lie for them professionally. Change your avatar and account. Sleep like a baby.)


----------



## omgcat (Feb 7, 2020)

@morvoran He will remain an impeached president forever, and is so far the only president to EVER have a senator of his own party vote for his conviction in the 243 years of the united states.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> @morvoran He will remain an impeached president forever, and is so far the only president to EVER have a senator of his own party vote for his conviction in the 243 years of the united states.


But none of that matters.

It would only matter if you'd give your vote away based on appearences. And even then 'he is the only president ever to have a senator vote against him..' is neither logical (so what?) nor will it be something even half a percent of voters would ever worry about.

All of that is made up as well, just to claim a moral victory. If you are debating, prop up the quality of your arguments. Otherwise anyone - with even half decent debating skills will make you look bad.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> But none of that matters.
> 
> It would only matter if you'd give your vote away based on appearences. And even then 'he is the only president ever to have a senator vote against him..' is neither logical (so what?) nor will it be something even half a percent of voters would ever worry about.
> 
> All of that is made up as well, just to claim a moral victory. If you are debating, prop up the quality of your arguments. Otherwise anyone - with even half decent debating skills will make you look bad.



good to know religious conviction and morals don't matter anymore in 2020 America. Kinda makes sense with how things are going though.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Anyway, it's over now. Let's try to be decent to each other and stuff again, at least until the next big Orange Man Bad Takedown begins.


Just for the record: you do mean "until Trump does more unconstitutional things", right? 

I mean...I've heard from at least three republican senators claim that they don't doubt the facts but didn't consider it relevant enough to remove him from office.



Hanafuda said:


> Impeached simply means accused. It was a partisan political attack, it failed.


I beg to disagree. From my perspective, it was a partisan political defense. Which worked fine (go Mitch!!!). 



FGFlann said:


> I sort of agree. There are genuine politicians that exist, but party politics is generally cancer.
> 
> One day I'm going to put this in a frame, title it "Politics" and submit it to the tate modern.


Okay...not to sound offensive, but at this point it's just your ignorance at work. Take notice: up until Obama, it would've been a valid criticism: democrats and republicans claimed to be different but executed roughly the same agenda.

Nowadays the parties are so far apart that I can't rule out a civil war. This is all but a "we might disagree publicly but just get along fine when no camera's rolling" situation.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

Morals as set by 'one senator voted out of order' is bad? 

Just playing. Public perception matters. But it doesnt mean, that you should claim a moral victory with poor arguments. 

The better argument here is, that they won by not letting whitnesses give their accounts.

But then if roles were reversed, the other side wouldnt have either..

In politics morals dont matter so much, aside from gaining votes. And thats largely a good thing (so you can make compromises, and not have to always vote alongside party lines (morals are different than convictions f.e.)) And thats in the same instance also, why we all love to hate politics so much. Its largely amoral.

For voters they also seem to matter less, in the past years, but in the end always more so than for the people in deciding roles.

Trust me the last person you want there is a moral hardliner. 

(Pence anyone?  He and his wife whom he calls 'Mother'? ))

A 'good' politician should be informed by morals, but not always act because of them. Thats kind of a conundrum.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...not to sound offensive, but at this point it's just your ignorance at work. Take notice: up until Obama, it would've been a valid criticism: democrats and republicans claimed to be different but executed roughly the same agenda.
> 
> Nowadays the parties are so far apart that I can't rule out a civil war. This is all but a "we might disagree publicly but just get along fine when no camera's rolling" situation.


You've completely missed the point. It is not to imply that the parties have the same agenda but exhibit the same behaviour. It is a circular game of lies and fingerpointing that ultimately leads nowhere.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> You've completely missed the point. It is not to imply that the parties have the same agenda but exhibit the same behaviour. It is a circular game of lies and fingerpointing that ultimately leads nowhere.



except both parties don't exhibit the same behaviors. one party systematically builds services and improves the country, and the other party systematically dismantles systems and then claims that they never worked after hamstringing them. I'll leave which party does what to your imagination.


----------



## nero99 (Feb 7, 2020)

ALL PRAISE LORD TRUMP!


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> except both parties don't exhibit the same behaviors. one party systematically builds services and improves the country, and the other party systematically dismantles systems and then claims that they never worked after hamstringing them. I'll leave which party does what to your imagination.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not involve my heavy suspicion of bias, lol. But, again, the difference between behaviour and agenda is stark enough that we can put this into the latter column. Conservatives, as their name implies, should strive to minimize the effect of government on the public purse, this does unfortunately often mean that public services get removed. Whether this is good or bad is down to the wants and biases of the observer, but it is still their agenda. The general behaviour of political parties *toward each other* is a circular game of jeering, and neither will acknowledge anything good that the other does.


----------



## omgcat (Feb 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not involve my heavy suspicion of bias, lol. But, again, the difference between behaviour and agenda is stark enough that we can put this into the latter column. Conservatives, as their name implies, should strive to minimize the effect of government on the public purse, this does unfortunately often mean that public services get removed. Whether this is good or bad is down to the wants and biases of the observer, but it is still their agenda. The general behaviour of political parties *toward each other* is a circular game of jeering, and neither will acknowledge anything good that the other does.



If conservatives really wanted to "tighten the purse" of the nation, we wouldn't be passing tax cuts to the rich while increasing spending at the same time on programs that are not logical or data driven.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

Okay, but that would be the topic of bad policy and is getting us further off point. And I can't just take your word for it. A thread about the effects of policy could always be made for that specific discussion. It's bad enough already that I have to defend a meme of spiderman pointing at spiderman.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> @morvoran He will remain an impeached president forever, and is so far the only president to EVER have a senator of his own party vote for his conviction in the 243 years of the united states.


 You must have missed my post above where I already talked about this.  I don't blame you since there's so much liberal BS to skim through.  
Next year, the Republicans will be the House majority and will expunge the articles of impeachment from the records of Congress making this stain on Trump's presidency null and void.  In other words, he'll only impeached* for a year, not forever.  You're welcome.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> You've completely missed the point. It is not to imply that the parties have the same agenda but exhibit the same behaviour. It is a circular game of lies and fingerpointing that ultimately leads nowhere.


Ah, ok. Fair enough. You might want to pick a picture where the two characters aren't identical, but I certainly see what you're trying to say. 

I don't agree with it, though. Unless you can point out a source where democrats are debunked on their claims based on facts somewhere. Bcause thus far, I've seen one side bring paper trails, (admittedly: circumstancial) evidence, (interpretations of) the constitution and witnesses to back up their claim. The other side does minimizing, lies, finger pointing and deflection tactics.

Both sides are about the same size, so the "it leads nowhere" is something I can certainly agree to. But the same behavior? No. I honestly can't think of anything even remotely similar.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Everybody lies and there are no innocent people, that includes US democrats. Not that I was targetting the United States in particular but the nature of party politics in general.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

Taleweaver is weaving a tale to fit a narrative of good vs evil.  It's a pipe-dream.  I would say that you could say the opposite is true, but I don't believe the Republicans had their own witnesses in roster, so they had to use the ones chosen by the house to get their satisfaction.  To me, it looks like the whole thing was an attempt to convince people that the fog was smoke but there was no gun, or even the threat of one.  It seems like you have to align yourself, entirely, with the Democratic party in order to claim what Trump did was wrong and what Biden did was not.  It's crazy, and clearly closer to being the other way around.  How this isn't clear as day to some people is so strange, especially considering that they aren't being rewarded for their efforts.  There would have to be incentive somewhere, right?

On a side not, good god, these ads on this site are becoming atrocious.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

The entire process was fraught with irregularities. From both sides denying the other access to witnesses and documentation to misuse of legal statutes. It's been a gigantic farce through and through and I don't expect the situation to improve any time soon.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

It's the new era of reality tv that Trump seems to be hosting.  Is he a puppet master or are the clowns all in on it?


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 7, 2020)

"Its all just political theater, it's a sham to keep people distracted. Both sides have misused legal statute and are corrupt. The government is a woven hand and glove system of career politicians that use the same unethical methods to meet their own ends."

Tabzer- "and trump must be the master mind behind it playing all these clowns like puppets."

I think I sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

In this instance Trump is more like Mr. Magoo.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> "Its all just political theater, it's a sham to keep people distracted. Both sides have misused legal statute and are corrupt. The government is a woven hand and glove system of career politicians that use the same unethical methods to meet their own ends."
> 
> Tabzer- "and trump must be the master mind behind it playing all these clowns like puppets."
> 
> I think I sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard.



Look man, can you quote me, or at least make it look like you are trying?  It's a shame that a moderator would succumb to being fake as hell.  You have to be illiterate to think that's the actual insinuation; completely ignoring the context and destroying the rhetoric like that.  Maybe you feel like being a jerk.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 7, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Look man, can you quote me, or at least make it look like you are trying.  It's a shame that a moderator would succumb to being fake as hell.  You have to be illiterate to think that's the actual insinuation; completely ignoring the context and destroying the rhetoric like that.  Maybe you are just a jerk.





FGFlann said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree. Everybody lies and there are no innocent people, that includes US democrats. Not that I was targetting the United States in particular but the nature of party politics in general.





FGFlann said:


> The entire process was fraught with irregularities. From both sides denying the other access to witnesses and documentation to misuse of legal statutes. It's been a gigantic farce through and through and I don't expect the situation to improve any time soon.





tabzer said:


> It's the new era of reality tv that Trump seems to be hosting.  Is he a puppet master or are the clowns all in on it?





WeedZ said:


> I think I sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

I don't know if I'm supposed to take something from this myself but if you have an issue with anything I've said in particular we can address it.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

tabzer said:


> It's the new era of reality tv that Trump seems to be hosting. Is he a puppet master or are the clowns all in on it?





WeedZ said:


> I think I sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard.



So, do you you disagree with something that's been said, or are you having trouble understanding the reason I polarized two extremes like that?


----------



## g00s3y (Feb 7, 2020)

I just want to say, Fuck trump.

Sanders 2020

Back to arguing.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 7, 2020)

tabzer said:


> So, do you you disagree with something that's been said, or are you having trouble understanding the reason I polarized two extremes like that?


I'm pointing out the fanboyism. It's always trump vs dems. But someone comes forward to say the whole process is a sham, that everyone lies and is corrupt (which is true, we shouldnt trust the government at all) and its "trump must be pulling the strings".

They've been doing this for decades. Reps and dems and their political theater. Hes not the host, hes not in control. Hes barely finished his first term, one man among intelligence agents, politicians, generals that have 50+ years experience and have seen presidents come and go. If anything, hes the puppet in the spotlight.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Feb 7, 2020)

honestly it all felt like some really low budget badly directed politic soap opera, you have one side knowing they have no chance of winning the impeachment trial so they are effectively wasting tax payers money to have a pointless trial just so they can grandstand and say "neh neh we threw poop at you" how about you focus on winning the next election its this year show your abilities to be positive and effective leaders with plans to improve things instead of acting like a children throwing tantrums and running around gossiping like a bunch of teenage girls

if you genuinely think what trump said/did was so bad, it was already public, its going to be down to the voters to decide if they think its the worst thing ever and trump was scared of loosing to Biden or believe trumps telling the truth that he wanted to make sure a corrupt politician who was taking backhanders and using their previous position of power to line their sons pockets wasn't allowed to have it all swept under the rug


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 7, 2020)

What people should be concerned with is, what did they do while everyone was distracted by this nonsense? Just from poking around I see they removed the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> I'm pointing out the fanboyism. It's always trump vs dems. But someone comes forward to say the whole process is a sham, that everyone lies and is corrupt (which is true, we shouldnt trust the government at all) and its "trump must be pulling the strings".
> 
> They've been doing this for decades. Reps and dems and their political theater. Hes not the host, hes not in control. Hes barely finished his first term, one man among intelligence agents, politicians, generals that have 50+ years experience and have seen presidents come and go. If anything, hes the puppet in the spotlight.



While I believe Trump has more leverage than Nancy Pelosi in getting what he wants out of his political career, I polarized the two extremes to lay out the point that they are all working in concert, and that the "who is in charge" question isn't as important as the realization that it is a big show (for ratings).  People believe Trump is pulling the strings, playing 4d chess.  Others believe that Democrats are trying to be good people and are a victim of their own good nature in a horrible world.

As Obama's hope message was dying down in a hopeless outcome, American politics was losing its relevance and risking an uncontrollable populace as an outcome.  Trump was/is necessary for the political machine and that does give him leverage.

Also, calling someone a host doesn't mean they are a god.  I can think of so many situations were the host is just the featured face. Think television.

LOL @ Bernie.  It would be interesting to see what happened with him as president, but we know that won't happen.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

Everyone loves the 4D chess meme, but I think his ability to succeed is more through everyone else hampering themselves with completely irrational hate. It's been said so many times but "Orange Man Bad" is not a political platform.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

I don't think all the irrational hate that's giving power/success to Trump's efforts is all that authentic.  Maybe it's real for the Democratic base, but I am not so sure it is for the politicians that lead them.  For example, Bernie is just controlled opposition.  That's just the reality.  The question I have is:  "Did he ever intend on winning?"  I'm not convinced that he ever did.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

If the question is did Trump think he could possibly win? I don't know what he thought personally but very few people thought he could.

Similarly, I don't think you should count Bernie out. He's in the unenviable position of being an independent in a world controlled by two large powers that both hate him, but his support base is actually quite large and fanatical. Remember, nobody thought Trump would win in 2016 and equally I believe it would be folly to discount Bernie's chances.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

I was referring to Bernie's intentions.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

gamesquest1 said:


> honestly it all felt like some really low budget badly directed politic soap opera, you have one side knowing they have no chance of winning the impeachment trial so they are effectively wasting tax payers money to have a pointless trial just so they can grandstand and say "neh neh we threw poop at you" how about you focus on winning the next election its this year show your abilities to be positive and effective leaders with plans to improve things instead of acting like a children throwing tantrums and running around gossiping like a bunch of teenage girls


Iowa app was designed by a studio with non professional (family, friends) ties to both Buttigieg and senior republican functionaries, edit: as well as (Democracy Now reports) senior officials of both the H. Clinton and Obama campaigns (thats what happens when you do a relationship search). 
It was never tested, poorly designed and failed in action. 

As a backup - phone lines should serve their purpose, but where reportedly overflown by 4chan activists, after their numbers were posted on the message board.

At the same time, counties that positively got their results through within the first hour, where not reported in the results for the first two days, and then misreported in their results. At which point the Iowa democratic party stopped calling them back. They then posted images holding papers with the results on twitter (was a Sanders win).

Statistical and logical anomalies are all over the place. More votes on a second round of voting where new entries were barred. Candidates changing elected status on second rounds where their elected function should have stayed fixed after the first, and you only voted on follow up candidates, stuff like that.

Then the national democratic party tweets "results sheets should be reevaluated (rechecked)", two days into the disaster - which was a Homer Simpson type statement, because - what were they doing before, and then used formalistic language on twitter - so they had to post a followup posting explaining the words they used.

Meanwhile, the republicans rally voices to make fun of the proceedings.

While everyone is arguing over a percentage number, differing by 0.1% after 97% are counted, that doesnt represent actual votes, but freaking delegate percentages based on non 1:1 vote weighing. (Why? Stuff like that can be explained in the national context, it can not be explained in "a state".) Where 'sattelite caucuses' (think mail vote) is likely to alter the results even after the official winner is announced.

But then because of that percentage representing delegate acquisition rights, and not votes, its actually a tie (Because of an even number of delegates and the small difference).

And the person with 6000+ more votes actually lost again.

And the national democratic comite intervened publicly (dont do a recount, do a reevaluation), without it being their responsibility or jurisdiction.


What likely happened here is the following. Incompetence, paired off with malice, paired with misplaced obedience, influenced by preselection bias.

That or the world worst attempt to openly manipulate an election just publicly backfired. Meets a gloatfest of the opposing party.

Also why the app was even commissioned (bad idea entirely) nobody knows.

No european that has seen this in action could even argue anymore, that america is still a democracy. You let your systems be undermined long ago. Anyone with half an education in applied statistics, shoots themselves, when they see this.

src:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbwGuyPBaY
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-KPPNwh6FM

For those who dont know - Iowa is important, because its still fairly 'open' in terms of campaigning actually being able to influence outcomes, and its the first prevotes results you are getting, so who won there influences the publics idea of who might be a candidate, and who seems 'a viable political candidate' for them.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

tabzer said:


> I was referring to Bernie's intentions.


I don't doubt that Bernie's wish to win is genuine, no. But he has many hurdles to overcome to make that wish a reality, both political and personal.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

Personal?

He won.

6000 more votes, wins you a state.

You cant have weighted votes on the state level, and then report a 'eligibility' percentages for 'dudes who vote for you' based on a different weighing. In the same state. What kind of democracy is this?

Slaves still get votes, that only count half, or what? People deemed too dumb, only get votes that count a third?

We (european) got taught in school, that this is a thing on your nationwide elections, where you could still argue that a weighing factor is needed or else the states in the middle of your country always get shafted. But in the same state? Are you kidding?

What kind of racket are you running over there?

For democracies, none of that is normal. One person, one vote.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

Yes, personal. We are talking about two different issues, notimp. We are referring to the presidential race overall, you are talking about the Iowa caucus. Nobody of any merit is going to dispute with you that Bernie was the winner there.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

I know.  I just wanted to know what personal issues.  Then continued my wtf posting on Iowa.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 7, 2020)

He seems to be too much of a pushover, and I don't understand how he is able to be so wealthy considering the platform he's pushing.  He has made more obvious profits working in politics than Trump has.  That's my two cents.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

Eesh, I don't want Sanders supporters to be mad at me but I guess I gotta do it.

Bernie is a weak willed individual who does not inspire confidence. He has a tendency to let others run roughshod over him to the point of embarrassment. Bernie looks like a toad next to the more cut-throat candidates and he needs the balls to stand up to people who are doing him wrong.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Feb 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Eesh, I don't want Sanders supporters to be mad at me but I guess I gotta do it.
> 
> Bernie is a weak willed individual who does not inspire confidence. He has a tendency to let others run roughshod over him to the point of embarrassment. Bernie looks like a toad next to the more cut-throat candidates and he needs the balls to stand up to people who are doing him wrong.


to be fair nobody on the democratic side comes across particularly steadfast....more of a knife you in the back while you sleep kinda vibes


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 7, 2020)

It's been a bad year on the donkey farm.

My wife voted for Tulsi but fat chance of that ever happening.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Feb 7, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> It's been a bad year on the donkey farm.
> 
> My wife voted for Tulsi but fat chance of that ever happening.


tbf tulsi seemed like the only one gearing up for an actual fight instead of a pantomime , but it seems thats out of tune now with the Democratic Party, its more a competition of who will lick the most boots wins


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Feb 7, 2020)

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-impeachment-witness-alexander-vindman-111997

Vindman got fired from his position at the white house for simply obeying his subpoena.

I should ask of course: Isn't this like, blatant abuse of power?

I guess according to the GOP it isn't.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 7, 2020)

Ev1l0rd said:


> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-impeachment-witness-alexander-vindman-111997
> 
> Vindman got fired from his position at the white house for simply obeying his subpoena.
> 
> ...




You've never worked in politics, I'm guessing? I don't think Vindland was actually fired - he got moved. He'll still be getting a paycheck, just a different job description. Working directly on the staff (in this case, White House staff) of an elected official is pretty much an "at-will" job, i.e. you can be fired at any time, for any reason or no reason, just not an "illegal" reason. But lack of trust would be a legal reason. So would Vindman's failing to follow procedure in not reporting information to his superior, which he admitted to during his testimony during the House hearings. But he's still a hotshot in the bureaucracy, still holds his rank, and a job to return to at the Pentagon. Just not that job.


----------



## Fugelmir (Feb 7, 2020)

"I never knew a single word could sound so sweet: total acquittal."

What a fucking genius troll.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 8, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> "Its all just political theater, it's a sham to keep people distracted. Both sides have misused legal statute and are corrupt. The government is a woven hand and glove system of career politicians that use the same unethical methods to meet their own ends."
> 
> Tabzer- "and trump must be the master mind behind it playing all these clowns like puppets."
> 
> I think I sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard.


Democrats just lost their emoluments lawsuit case against Trump.

They couldn't get him on Russia Collusion, couldn't get him on the Ukraine Case, couldn't get him on Emoluments case. Not even Nixon would've avoided all these lawsuits. And they are trying to get rid of his forever impeachment status which I have no doubt they'll be successful if they been so successful in the past for all the other cases.

For the stupidest president ever, he is the most successful at avoiding all the things thrown at him. Either Dems are crazy and Trump is innocent. Or he is the most powerful successful corrupt president ever. All the power coming from all the people that work for him that help him avoid all the lawsuits.

Maybe all the Dems anger shouldn't be directed at Trump, he may be a puppet and the masters pulling the strings are what people should be worried about. Trump and his craziness is exactly what they needed to have people distracted and focus only on him and ignore the actual owners of this country behind the scenes controlling everything.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 8, 2020)

Look @WeedZ, now @SG854 quoting your fake quote of me.   I should sue you for libel.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 8, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Taleweaver is weaving a tale to fit a narrative of good vs evil.  It's a pipe-dream.  I would say that you could say the opposite is true, but I don't believe the Republicans had their own witnesses in roster, so they had to use the ones chosen by the house to get their satisfaction.  To me, it looks like the whole thing was an attempt to convince people that the fog was smoke but there was no gun, or even the threat of one.  It seems like you have to align yourself, entirely, with the Democratic party in order to claim what Trump did was wrong and what Biden did was not.  It's crazy, and clearly closer to being the other way around.  How this isn't clear as day to some people is so strange, especially considering that they aren't being rewarded for their efforts.  There would have to be incentive somewhere, right?
> 
> On a side not, good god, these ads on this site are becoming atrocious.


No gun? You just choose to ignore Sondland's testimony, or Vindman's. That neither Parnas nor Bolton were allowed to tell the truth about what happened doesn't change that.

And I take offense with that 'you have to align yourself with the democrats'. It's not my fault that the US is piss poor when it comes to political parties. Believe me : if there were 100 active political parties instead of just two, it wouldn't be a 'democrats vs the rest' but a 'Republicans vs the rest ' at this point.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 8, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Look @WeedZ, now @SG854 quoting your fake quote of me.   I should sue you for libel.


What? I didn't even quote you. I have no idea what you said.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 8, 2020)

SG854 said:


> What? I didn't even quote you. I have no idea what you said.



You quoted @WeedZ, where the text itself was a misappropriated comment that I never said.  



Taleweaver said:


> No gun? You just choose to ignore Sondland's testimony, or Vindman's. That neither Parnas nor Bolton were allowed to tell the truth about what happened doesn't change that.
> 
> And I take offense with that 'you have to align yourself with the democrats'. It's not my fault that the US is piss poor when it comes to political parties. Believe me : if there were 100 active political parties instead of just two, it wouldn't be a 'democrats vs the rest' but a 'Republicans vs the rest ' at this point.



Testimony isn't a gun.  At best, it's smoke.  A testimony about someone's feelings about something, instead of an actual event, is the kind of distortion that I am talking about.  An actual threat is a weapon.  We have video confession of a weapon existing on Biden in regards to getting the prosecutor investigating his son's workplace fired.  He literally bragged about witholding funding in order to get someone fired.  Be offended if you want.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 8, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> No gun? You just choose to ignore Sondland's testimony, or Vindman's. That neither Parnas nor Bolton were allowed to tell the truth about what happened doesn't change that.


 Sondland's and *Lt Col*. Vindman's (thank you) testimony were nothing but presumption and policy disputes.  The only "gun" in the impeachment was the actual transcript of the call.  It was all the evidence needed to debunk another failed attempt to impeach the president.  The only reason he was impeached was due to the dumbocrats having the majority in the House.
Even that piece of Schiff, Adam Schiff (who watched the minority report way too much) started pushing "what if"s and "he needs to be removed because he 'might' do something." SMH to all the liberals who bought into that crap.  Parnas and Bolton would only have added to the presumptions and policy disputes (such as Bolton being fired).



tabzer said:


> We have video confession of a weapon existing on Biden in regards to getting the prosecutor investigating his son's workplace fired. He literally bragged about witholding funding in order to get someone fired. Be offended if you want.


Oh, but the Biden conspiracy was already "debunked" remember?  No investigation or anything to debunk it, but it was somehow proven wrong.  We need people with hearsay and presumptions in order to bring Biden's corruption to justice as that video of him admitting it was apparently not enough.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 8, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Testimony isn't a gun.  At best, it's smoke.  A testimony about someone's feelings about something, instead of an actual event, is the kind of distortion that I am talking about.  An actual threat is a weapon.  We have video confession of a weapon existing on Biden in regards to getting the prosecutor investigating his son's workplace fired.  He literally bragged about witholding funding in order to get someone fired.  Be offended if you want.


The testimonies weren't about their feelings but about their events with either the president or the ones directly dealing in name of the president. If you don't want distortion, I suggest you start with... Well... Not distorting the truth. 

Okay... I'll play along : prove to me that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine into firing a corrupt official to help his son.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 8, 2020)

morvoran said:


> The only reason he was impeached was due to the dumbocrats having the majority in the House.



Is THAT all it takes? Okay. The only reason he was acquitted was due to the republicons having the majority in the Senate.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 8, 2020)

morvoran said:


> The only reason he was impeached was due to the dumbocrats having the majority in the House.





D34DL1N3R said:


> Is THAT all it takes? Okay. The only reason he was acquitted was due to the republicons having the majority in the Senate.


I feel like we're on the verge of everyone realizing the pursuit of truth is just a means to an end, and nobody really cares what it actually is.


----------



## tabzer (Feb 8, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> The testimonies weren't about their feelings but about their events with either the president or the ones directly dealing in name of the president. If you don't want distortion, I suggest you start with... Well... Not distorting the truth.
> 
> Okay... I'll play along : prove to me that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine into firing a corrupt official to help his son.



Lol.  Wtf is this?  Someone like you is going to tell the truth?  It's obvious that you are in the camp of "in the end what prevails is the truth" and not "the truth will prevail."  I'm not so interested in playing word games with you.  At this point, even deadliner is closer to grasping reality, and that's saying something.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 8, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Is THAT all it takes? Okay. The only reason he was acquitted was due to the republicons having the majority in the Senate.


That's all it takes for the corrupt, racist, and fascist demonrats to get their way or to stop them from using their numbers to pursue their deep state agendas.

Trump was acquitted due to the Republican's majority in the senate, but also due to the Republicans being righteous and using the facts to persuade their judgement.

If Trump was such a bad president and committed crimes that were worthy of impeachment, it would have been more bipartisan.  
Unfortunately, the dumbocrats didn't care about the truth.  If they did, then Schiff wouldn't have made up a fake version of the phone call, he wouldn't have brought up "what if" crimes that were never committed, they wouldn't have had secret hearings in the basement of Congress, and they would have allowed the president to participate by having a fair hearing before they already made their decision.
This impeachment fiasco has been in the works since before Trump was elected.  They only went with the two faulty articles because they were running out of time as they wanted to impeach Trump before Christmas.
Thank the Lord above that the Republicans still have control over the senate or else an innocent man would have been removed from office and our country would have suffered for it.  We have a booming economy like we have now all due to Trump.


----------



## notimp (Feb 8, 2020)

Truth is subjective as well (think "who was responsible for your last breakup" and then extrapolate). It is not 'the truth' because most often there are several.

But - there also is such a thing as perception management (PR), and there are lies.

One such lie is, that you shouldnt hear witnesses in a case, because the case is deemed political.

Now thats a lie.

Also what most people in here are engaged in is building disillusionment again, but not to further thinking about processes - but to actually drive others away from politics - because 'nothing good can come from it'.

Thats the targeted PR that was spread before the last election, because conservatives had the more dedicated (radical) voter base. 

If you hear 'I begin to believe, that none of it was about tha truth' kind of messaging, think - someone is actively driving you into inaction. 

Because - thats not a thing someone voting for a political candidate because of ideology cares about. (Their politicians can lie all day, for as much as they care - if they only drive through the political actions they like.) And Trump supporters are more ideologically driven.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> That's all it takes for the corrupt, racist, and fascist demonrats to get their way or to stop them from using their numbers to pursue their deep state agendas.


Insane Trump supporter.

Trying to pull up ideological walls of good vs evil to destroy democracy (which is about acknowledging, that whoever gets more votes, will do an OK job at least - as an advancement in trust you have to give before knowing what they'll do).

morvoran has to leave this forum one way or another.

We told him that time after time.  His reaction is always to live 5 minutes of bliss, when someone on the other side fails - and then promote - tha system trys to destroy his loved one illegally, evil-ly, hiddenly and covertly-ly.

A truly insane person. We've lived through this 10 times by now - and it becomes jarring to deal with that mental state. It never changes. You can bank on it being here to destroy active participation on issues 10/10 times when the Trump camp calls their 4chan trolls to manage perception of outcomes again.

morvoran is here - so you don't read up on details or specifics.

Dont fall for organized disillusionment merchants that tell you democracy only is the deepstate, if its not Trump at the top.

What is the deepstate?​Bureaucrats working for institutions, regardless of whos in power. They hold institutional knowledge. So basically they are there to facilitate transition of power, without the entire societal systems having to be built up starting from nothing, when a new party wins. Whoever gets into power politically gets to 'steer the ship' but not replace the entire crew at once. Only slowly over time - when they get elected for longer periods of time. So 'deepstate' are institutional careerists, that know how the institutions work from an organizational perspective, that have seperate career ladders, and that act as 'moderators' to change - so it doesnt get too radical (Bureaucrats usually cant get fired that easily, ...). But the name is so much more impressively sounding right? 

That terrorists and tha deep state, and that agents of HIllary, and the pizza bakers.. 

The truth is, there is no democracy without the institutional state. When america 'brought democracy' to europe, they developed institutions first. Only then educated the public on tools like 'open public debate, ...' - democracy is about managing transition of power adequatly. And transitions in power are messy - so you need some 'self organizing' element that can function even without someone telling them what to do - f.e. if a gouvernment becomes inactive. And you need someone - that doesnt just take all the 'institutional knowledge away with them' everytime the other party comes into power.

Talking about taking knowledge away. Trump government is currently, illegally, shredding records/files on an unpresidented scale. Librarians of congress talk about 'not since Nixon' have there been such efforts. Those librarians? Also 'deepstate'.
src: (for the 'not since NIxon' part) h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csMc6DS54wU

Those guys, Trump just fired?
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFGErNy6wIw

Also deepstate. According to morvoran. (Actually they are not, because they were part of his administration.  )


----------



## morvoran (Feb 8, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay... I'll play along : prove to me that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine into firing a corrupt official to help his son.


If you believe that Trump should have been impeached for those extremely flimsy articles the dim-ocrats impeached him for, you must have an extremely strong belief that Biden blackmailed Ukraine to fire their prosecutor looking into Burisma to protect his son.

Hunter had, just months before, been discharged from the military for drug use.
Hunter gets hired onto the board of Burisma with no experience or knowledge of natural gas while Vice President Biden was in charge of looking into corruption in Ukraine (which even the Obama administration said was a conflict of interest).
 A prosecutor starts looking into corruption from Burisma. 
Joe threatens to withhold $1billion dollars of aide if that prosecutor isn't fired.
Ukraine officials claim prosecutor was fired for not doing his job.
A new prosecutor immediately drops all charges on Burisma due to lack of evidence of corruption meaning the investigation stopped as soon as the old prosecutor was fired.

I don't have direct evidence showing Biden did the bribery/quid-pro-quo/ blackmail of Ukraine for Hunter, but you have to admit, this all seems quite sketchy and was a lot worse than anything Trump did as Biden admitted on video that he used foreign aide to get his way.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 8, 2020)

If truth is subjective then there would be no sense in pursuing it at all. We shouldn't conflate multiple factors with there being "multiple truths", there are events that take place and those that don't.

It's extremely difficult to decipher what you're saying most of the time because your syntax is quite strange, but I take umbrage with the suggestion that pointing out the rotten state of the political game is meant to "drive people away" from politics. In this one's humble opinion the effect should be the opposite, the more people who are wise to the current state of affairs should involve themselves even more.

We need more, a lot more, people with integrity standing up for themselves and everyone else.


----------



## notimp (Feb 8, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> If truth is subjective then there would be no sense in pursuing it at all. We shouldn't conflate multiple factors with there being "multiple truths"


I agree that its worth pursuing. 

But as a journalist 'there are multiple truths' is one of the first things you learn.

Has to do with how human memory works. (Emotions playing a part in recollection, details getting created to fill in gaps after the fact, and context creating meaning.)

I didn't mean to argue, that there is no sense in trying - there is. 

(Its just not payed very well..  )


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 8, 2020)

I cannot get on board with this notion at all. That there would be a school of thought teaching the idea of subjective truth leaves me bewildered. At best I'd consider it a misnomer, at worst an excuse for spin. In journalism this is especially worrying.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 8, 2020)

morvoran said:


> We have a booming economy like we have now all due to Trump.


 BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Booming Economy AND due to Trump? Both in the same sentence? HAHA!!! You're just flat out one of the most incredibly STUPID people on the face of the planet. Is that you Donald?


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 8, 2020)

Be fair, like him or not, he has the numbers. All the goal post shifting in the world won't change that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 8, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Booming Economy AND due to Trump? Both in the same sentence? HAHA!!! You're just flat out one of the most incredibly STUPID people on the face of the planet. Is that you Donald?




The red circle on each graph approximately marks the time of the election, 2016.

Obviously stock market numbers aren't the only measure of the economy (though, they are the standard ones used by the media every day). But these 5 year graphs definitely DO show a marked change in growth rate after Trump took office.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 8, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Booming Economy AND due to Trump? Both in the same sentence? HAHA!!! You're just flat out one of the most incredibly STUPID people on the face of the planet. Is that you Donald?


 Yeah, it's me Donald J Trump.  When I'm not in Twitter, I come to the greatest, most huuuugest gaming related website on the net to trigger pieces of Schiff like you.  
Other than that, you must be getting your info about the economy from MSDNC or you follow the democrat debates a little too closely where you have began to lose touch with reality.  Maybe get out of your mom's basement (or attic) and go out and see how great the economy is for yourself.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 8, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, it's me Donald J Trump.  When I'm not in Twitter, I come to the greatest, most huuuugest gaming related website on the net to trigger pieces of Schiff like you.
> .



dudesweet.gif

I knew it!


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 8, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> The red circle on each graph approximately marks the time of the election, 2016.
> 
> Obviously stock market numbers aren't the only measure of the economy (though, they are the standard ones used by the media every day). But these 5 year graphs definitely DO show a marked change in growth rate after Trump took office.




Lmao. Okay. Sure. Whatever. You said it yourself. Do you think most American's judge the economy by what Wall Street says? Get fucking real, bub. Smh. You DO realize right, that myself and anyone else can also post links to "proof" that those numbers mean jack shit? Why don't you just go away? No one outside of maybe 2 or three people here even like you. You're the laughing joke around here. You're pretty much hated. I can't see you having many friends outside of the internet.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 8, 2020)

C'mon, this level of hostility isn't necessary. Especially for us mere mortals. Presidents come and go and it's not worth working yourself up into a frothing lather.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 8, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Lmao. Okay. Sure. Whatever. You said it yourself. *Do you think most American's judge the economy* by what Wall Street says? Get fucking real, bub. Smh. You DO realize right, that myself and anyone else can also post links to "proof" that those numbers mean jack shit? Why don't you just go away? No one outside of maybe 2 or three people here even like you. You're the laughing joke around here. You're pretty much hated. I can't see you having many friends outside of the internet.




"Most Americans" have only their personal, subjective experience to go by, which isn't reliable or meaningful for anyone else. Stock market activity, employment numbers, and a few other statistics are the standard measures. The stock markets are booming, already showed that. Unemployment numbers are super good now, best they've been in decades, best they've _ever_ been for certain demographics. But unemployment is not a super-reliable statistic since it only counts the willing workforce, and excludes those who aren't looking for work, so I didn't cite those numbers to show 'it's a strong economy.'  

I'll ignore the rest of your post, don't know if others will though. Not my problem.


----------



## notimp (Feb 8, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> I cannot get on board with this notion at all. That there would be a school of thought teaching the idea of subjective truth leaves me bewildered. At best I'd consider it a misnomer, at worst an excuse for spin. In journalism this is especially worrying.


https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_objective_truth_exist


Both are true.

There is objectifiable truth (note - I didn't call it objective  ).
And there are many subjective truths.

(That we both call them truth, might be a language issue. )

All the time, at the same time.

Here is how 'you learn it as a journalist' (even as a police officer), if you ask any person to tell you 'the truth' about a situation or about a personal conviction - you usually get an emotionally informed recollection of events.

(This issue: https://www.lexipol.com/resources/b...y-impacts-police-use-of-force-investigations/ (What is memory. In policework.) Just the first result I found on google.)

So thats most of the truth thats out there.

We are trying to get to objectifyable truth, mostly through processes (filtering that other truth above). So if you are talking about scientific truth, f.e. it is 'what cannot be refuted' in the light of informed opinion, and open discussion, using very exact language. As viewed through the lense of something called scientific canon.

From a psychology angle the main issue might be, that truth gets formed 'post facto' (after the fact), and humans have all kinds of biases, in forming believes/assessments that help them 'exist'.

If you are talking about 'legal truth' - well we can bring both forms of truth (subjective and objectified) together here using a simple analogy.

Prisons are full of innocent people. (Both in their subjective truths, as well as objectifiably). (Might not always be the same people.)

All that you are promised is a fair trial, not one where the truth comes out, ey? 

The notion is everywhere in society, btw. So ask yourself why lawyers are legal, or why there is such a thing as 'the secret of confession'. 

If there were one truth, those would be highly amoral concepts. 

That we feel very strongly, that there is something like THE truth, and that it is out there (Fox Mulder  ) is more of an emotional truth ('we feel it is there') and a story telling trope ('this society is just', 'truth prevails').

Also, we have formalized rituals around it. ('Do you swear to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth..')

Mind blown? 

Now pursuing truth is still an important and valuable thing for society (its not at all 'useless'), but you should at least have an idea what it is (or what its limits are...  ) while you are looking for it.  (Otherwise Fox Mulder - which also might have its charm, and be important..  )

edit: For easier use in real life. We usually call objectifyable truths - facts. 

edit2: To be a little less 'big wordy' - it helps to have an idea, how human minds consistently fail (not as in bad) in doing some stuff, to not always go for highly emotional tropes (or when to go for them while arguing  ), and it also helps to know - that you can not be objectively right on most of your convictions. (In society this is f.e. encapsulated in the 'children have to make their own experiences' trope (context creates meaning).)

You can also look at this as a deeply positive thing, because if life were a series of objective truths, progress would be darn hard, and it would be pretty boring.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Feb 8, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Stock market activity, employment numbers, and a few other statistics are the standard measures. The stock markets are booming, already showed that. Unemployment numbers are super good now, best they've been in decades, best they've _ever_ been for certain demographics. But unemployment is not a super-reliable statistic since it only counts the willing workforce, and excludes those who aren't looking for work, so I didn't cite those numbers to show 'it's a strong economy.'.



The problem with you and the rest of the Trump losers is that you think all of your graphs, numbers, links, websites, facts, etc etc are all factual... while everyone else's are everything but. You believe a reality tv star who tells you moon is part of mars & that the noise from wind turbines causes ear cancer... over doctors, teachers, highly decorated military personnel, scholars, professors, etc. jokes on you sonny boy. As I've pointed out perfectly clear before. I can play the EXACT same game. I can post links, graphs, stats, polls, blah blah blah blah blah blah that would prove the oppositions to be wrong. But you wouldn't believe them anyway. You would only say yours are right and mine are wrong.

You just don't get it & never will.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 8, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> The problem with you and the rest of the Trump losers is that you think all of your graphs, numbers, links, websites, facts, etc etc are all factual... while everyone else's are everything but. You believe a reality tv star who tells you moon is part of mars & that the noise from wind turbines causes ear cancer... over doctors, teachers, highly decorated military personnel, scholars, professors, etc. jokes on you sonny boy. As I've pointed out perfectly clear before. I can play the EXACT same game. I can post links, graphs, stats, polls, blah blah blah blah blah blah that would prove the oppositions to be wrong. But you wouldn't believe them anyway. You would only say yours are right and mine are wrong.
> 
> You just don't get it & never will.




Those graphs are straight off CNBC dot com, hotshot. You can go right over there and check it yourself. But you're right, CNBC is probably controlled by Trump and it's all lies. The US economy isn't really booming and there weren't really 225,000 new jobs last month and the price of gas isn't expected to drop under $2 a gal in some places next week ... that is all a fictional constructed reality that doesn't really exist. It's not real life ... it's just what Trump has fooled me into believing is real. Because he's everywhere. He's a reality TV star ignoramus, but he's also a dastardly evil criminal mastermind! 


And, I changed my mind about ignoring your last post.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 9, 2020)

The whole thing is over. Theres really nothing more to discuss and things are starting to get out of hand. I think this thread has jumped the sharks.


----------

