1. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    rickwj324 likes this.
  2. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  3. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,114
    Country:
    United States
    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'.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  4. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,655
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  5. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,114
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  6. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  7. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  8. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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:

    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.
     
  9. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  10. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    I take note your lack of response. Thanks.
     
  11. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  12. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  13. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  14. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  15. azoreseuropa

    azoreseuropa GBAtemp Guru
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,885
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  16. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Damn straight. Human nature can't be changed. Giving complete control to these corrupt assholes by adopting socialism would be self inflicted suicide.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    azoreseuropa likes this.
  17. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    Ev1l0rd, IncredulousP and Xzi like this.
  18. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    9,397
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    KingVamp and IncredulousP like this.
  19. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    Ev1l0rd and Xzi like this.
  20. cots

    cots Banned
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    1,533
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - Impeachment, Hearings, Public