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

You are the base

theLiquidGuy

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
227
Reaction score
80
If the investigation is an honestly conducted investigation, I have no problem. Who helped the whistle blower write the complaint and why did they help?
It doesn't matter. It just does not matter. I don't care if George Soros, adam schiff, Barack Obama, the chinese, the russians and the entirety of democratic candidates helped him write it. It doesn't change the facts that we have learned since then. Get over it! The whistle blower is no longer relevant unless you are looking to make an example of what happens to people who produce incriminating evidence against the president.


When the transcript of the call in question was released, any questions regarding the call should have been dismissed by any rational reviewer.
I am rational. In that call, I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival. That fact alone is enough to prove illegal activity. He used the influence of his presidency to solicit something of value from foreign nationals in connection with a US election, which according to the chair of the FEC, is against the law. The kindest thing that a "rational reviewer" could say about that is that it has the "appearance of a conflict of interest" which is also against the law. But thats being kind. Yet you have deluded yourselves into thinking that it's all completely cool. No. You are not thinking straight from the facts before us. The power of wishful thinking helps you cling to "the call was perfect" narrative. In other words, you are part of the intransigent, immovable, impenetrable Trump base. A recent poll shows that 70% (CNN) of Americans can also see that the president did something wrong. 50% of americans want him removed (vs. 43% saying no).


In light of the Schiff dramatic interpretation of the transcript lied into the Congressional Record, we know with absolute certainty that the investigation is NOT be conducted honestly.
Schiff made it clear in real time that his recount was interpretive, not literal. Republicans pounced on his performance and pretended that he attempted to straight up lie. I will admit it was a little cheap on Schiff's part. But as usual, republicans seized upon this opportunity to blow things way out of proportion. They will do the same with the IG report email blip too. Masters of spin. Masters!


I hope that the impeachment proceeds and that Schiff is called as a witness in the Senate Trial and then jailed for his crimes. Schiff is a dirty, lying crook with no ethics, morals or regard for justice.
And his crimes are exactly what?
Republican accuse dems of being angry, lawless, irrational, and suppressive of freedom of speech. Why do you think Schiff should be in jail?
 
It doesn't matter. It just does not matter. I don't care if George Soros, adam schiff, Barack Obama, the chinese, the russians and the entirety of democratic candidates helped him write it. It doesn't change the facts that we have learned since then. Get over it! The whistle blower is no longer relevant unless you are looking to make an example of what happens to people who produce incriminating evidence against the president.



I am rational. In that call, I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival. That fact alone is enough to prove illegal activity. He used the influence of his presidency to solicit something of value from foreign nationals in connection with a US election, which according to the chair of the FEC, is against the law. The kindest thing that a "rational reviewer" could say about that is that it has the "appearance of a conflict of interest" which is also against the law. But thats being kind. Yet you have deluded yourselves into thinking that it's all completely cool. No. You are not thinking straight from the facts before us. The power of wishful thinking helps you cling to "the call was perfect" narrative. In other words, you are part of the intransigent, immovable, impenetrable Trump base. A recent poll shows that 70% (CNN) of Americans can also see that the president did something wrong. 50% of americans want him removed (vs. 43% saying no).



Schiff made it clear in real time that his recount was interpretive, not literal. Republicans pounced on his performance and pretended that he attempted to straight up lie. I will admit it was a little cheap on Schiff's part. But as usual, republicans seized upon this opportunity to blow things way out of proportion. They will do the same with the IG report email blip too. Masters of spin. Masters!



And his crimes are exactly what?
Republican accuse dems of being angry, lawless, irrational, and suppressive of freedom of speech. Why do you think Schiff should be in jail?

You really don't have a clue.

If the Whistle Blower went to Schiff or his staff and received help in framing the complaint, that makes it bogus.

Can you link to the part of the call that demonstrates what your delusion seems to make you think it demonstrates?

Here's what you said the call demonstrates: "I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival".

Please link to the transcript and cut and paste the words that reflect your imagined proof.

What is wrong with you guys?
 
You really don't have a clue.

If the Whistle Blower went to Schiff or his staff and received help in framing the complaint, that makes it bogus.
First, conflating Schiff and his staff is a bad faith move. They are not the same.

The WB briefly spoke to committee staffers, Not Schiff. The staffers properly re-directed the WB to the IG. No wrong doing took place.

But let's pretend that your wishful thinking "theory" was true and Adam toiled for weeks on end with the WB to compose the perfect fake complaint, full of 18th hand information. Republicans tried floating this at the Inquiry.

Your argument feels like TV-law-show-inspired thinking. You are saying that a technical violation invalidates the whole complaint because it is "fruit of the poisoned tree". Understand that this standard does not apply here. This is a political process. Not a legal one. The legal standard errs on the side of strictness because lawmakers cannot attend millions of trials. But even in those trials a judge can choose to overrule technical violations. In the political process, congress necessarily has even more discretion since their decisions more readily come under public scrutiny.

All of that aside there is the most important consideration: All the broad strokes of the complaint have been corroborated by testimony and available evidence. Dismissing it because of a (theoretical) technical violation would not and should not be tolerated by the people. 70% of us (according to the latest poll) see that there is substance to the complaint. Dismissing it now would tempt us to (figuratively) riot in the streets.


Can you link to the part of the call that demonstrates what your delusion seems to make you think it demonstrates?
Here's what you said the call demonstrates: "I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival".
Please link to the transcript and cut and paste the words that reflect your imagined proof.
Happy to oblige. It's not a delusion. It's not imagined. I saw it with my own eyes. And now yours will be so blessed...
Check points 1 and 2 here.


What is wrong with you guys?
No, no, no. What is wrong with you guys?
 
First, conflating Schiff and his staff is a bad faith move. They are not the same.

The WB briefly spoke to committee staffers, Not Schiff. The staffers properly re-directed the WB to the IG. No wrong doing took place.

But let's pretend that your wishful thinking "theory" was true and Adam toiled for weeks on end with the WB to compose the perfect fake complaint, full of 18th hand information. Republicans tried floating this at the Inquiry.

Your argument feels like TV-law-show-inspired thinking. You are saying that a technical violation invalidates the whole complaint because it is "fruit of the poisoned tree". Understand that this standard does not apply here. This is a political process. Not a legal one. The legal standard errs on the side of strictness because lawmakers cannot attend millions of trials. But even in those trials a judge can choose to overrule technical violations. In the political process, congress necessarily has even more discretion since their decisions more readily come under public scrutiny.

All of that aside there is the most important consideration: All the broad strokes of the complaint have been corroborated by testimony and available evidence. Dismissing it because of a (theoretical) technical violation would not and should not be tolerated by the people. 70% of us (according to the latest poll) see that there is substance to the complaint. Dismissing it now would tempt us to (figuratively) riot in the streets.



Happy to oblige. It's not a delusion. It's not imagined. I saw it with my own eyes. And now yours will be so blessed...
Check points 1 and 2 here.



No, no, no. What is wrong with you guys?

You need to show that Trump asked for something and linked the request to a specific payment. Snipets selectively edited to change their meaning is just a way to lie.

You got nothing!

Twisting the words and context of the call and selectively editing does not create anything but the evidence that the accusers are crooked.

Here, I'll quote your words to show you what I mean. Your exact words edited selectively:

"Schiff spoke to committee staffers to compose the perfect fake complaint."

See? Taking snipets out of context is a fun way to lie.
 
It doesn't matter. It just does not matter. I don't care if George Soros, adam schiff, Barack Obama, the chinese, the russians and the entirety of democratic candidates helped him write it. It doesn't change the facts that we have learned since then. Get over it! The whistle blower is no longer relevant unless you are looking to make an example of what happens to people who produce incriminating evidence against the president.



I am rational. In that call, I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival. That fact alone is enough to prove illegal activity. He used the influence of his presidency to solicit something of value from foreign nationals in connection with a US election, which according to the chair of the FEC, is against the law. The kindest thing that a "rational reviewer" could say about that is that it has the "appearance of a conflict of interest" which is also against the law. But thats being kind. Yet you have deluded yourselves into thinking that it's all completely cool. No. You are not thinking straight from the facts before us. The power of wishful thinking helps you cling to "the call was perfect" narrative. In other words, you are part of the intransigent, immovable, impenetrable Trump base. A recent poll shows that 70% (CNN) of Americans can also see that the president did something wrong. 50% of americans want him removed (vs. 43% saying no).



Schiff made it clear in real time that his recount was interpretive, not literal. Republicans pounced on his performance and pretended that he attempted to straight up lie. I will admit it was a little cheap on Schiff's part. But as usual, republicans seized upon this opportunity to blow things way out of proportion. They will do the same with the IG report email blip too. Masters of spin. Masters!



And his crimes are exactly what?
Republican accuse dems of being angry, lawless, irrational, and suppressive of freedom of speech. Why do you think Schiff should be in jail?

Democrats continually see what is not there while desperately hiding the whistling clown who started the impeachment circus show to begin with.
 
You really don't have a clue.

If the Whistle Blower went to Schiff or his staff and received help in framing the complaint, that makes it bogus.

Can you link to the part of the call that demonstrates what your delusion seems to make you think it demonstrates?

Here's what you said the call demonstrates: "I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival".

Please link to the transcript and cut and paste the words that reflect your imagined proof.

What is wrong with you guys?

Bogus?

All he did was bring to light what trump was up to in Ucraine. I don't see, however this came to light, how it has any bearing on what all those who have came forward to validate what trump was up to. Spin it any way you want. Fact is Trump wanted the president of the Ucraine to announce an investigation of the bidens in exchange for releasing the military funding. He didn't care if the bidens were really guilty. He just wanted to be able to use this against Joe in the 2020 election. He did much the same to Hillary in the last election. Only difference is that time it was his buddies the Russians.
 
Last edited:
If the Whistle Blower went to Schiff or his staff and received help in framing the complaint, that makes it bogus.

By analogy with a criminal case (even though impeachment is not a criminal case), if someone reports a crime to law enforcement and they help them fill in and file the paperwork, it's bogus and law enforcement no longer has the right to prosecute it?

:screwy
 
You need to show that Trump asked for something and linked the request to a specific payment. Snipets selectively edited to change their meaning is just a way to lie.
It doesn’t matter how good the evidence is. You are the base. Your brain will rationalize whatever it must to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with the avalanche of contradictory evidence. You are unreachable.

But one last try:
Trump uttered “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...” He was not being sarcastic like i was. He was not joking. He was not speaking figuratively. He meant exactly that: “look into it”. And as i have repeated pointed out in this forum and others, that’s all you need to prove that he broke the law (and more importantly broke our trust). If you insist on the fairy tale that quid pro quo is somehow a necessary component, let me assure you of something: The fact that a paragraph of speech separates the quid from the quo would not ever deter a prosecutor or a judge from linking the two. There are plenty of people rotting in jail right this moment who can attest to that.

Look, It's not merely the preponderance of evidence that weighs against him. It's ALL of it! Can you show me one single scrap of evidence —one— that weighs even just a little bit in Trump's favour? For obvious reasons, let’s disqualify anything that has come out of his forever lying mouth. All you and the GOP has ever done is pound the table and attack the supposedly unfair process! It is not me who has “got nothing”. It’s you. But then, you are the base.

You need to understand something. In this category of evidence, it doesn't get much better than this.

You got nothing!
(Sigh) Sometimes the base just uses words because they sound good to say.


Twisting the words and context of the call and selectively editing does not create anything but the evidence that the accusers are crooked.
Again with the saying of words? Why do you always say words?? baseless, desperate unjustified words. There was no twisting. I do not twist. I did not twist. I do not, did not edit words. What would be the point?

Here, I'll quote your words to show you what I mean. Your exact words edited selectively:

"Schiff spoke to committee staffers to compose the perfect fake complaint."

See? Taking snipets out of context is a fun way to lie.

Yes, you certainly took my sarcastic/hypothetical remark out of context. Good job. But what you did is completely different from what i did...

You are misusing the “out of context” defense.
First, I did provide the full context when I placed a hyperlink to the full text.
Second, It was YOU who asked me to cut and paste: “Please link to the transcript and cut and paste the words that reflect your imagined proof.”
Third, what part did I supposedly leave out that would be exculpatory for him? Please let me know. I will admit I did leave out where Trump mentions that Ukraine hasn’t been giving anything back in return:

“...but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”


And then later asks for a “favour”

Oh wait, i accidentally confused “exculpatory” with “damning”. My bad.
 
Last edited:
Bogus?

All he did was bring to light what trump was up to in Ucraine. I don't see, however this came to light, how it has any bearing on what all those who have came forward to validate what trump was up to. Spin it any way you want. Fact is Trump wanted the president of the Ucraine to announce an investigation of the bidens in exchange for releasing the military funding. He didn't care if the bidens were really guilty. He just wanted to be able to use this against Joe in the 2020 election. He did much the same to Hillary in the last election. Only difference is that time it was his buddies the Russians.

That's a fact?

Are you sure?

Can you link to anything that indicates this actually happened? I doubt it since it never happened. Nobody has ever said that they actually spoke to Trump and heard him actually say this.

There is no record of Trump ever having locked aid to investigation. No indication that the the aid was not delivered. No indication that Ukraine ever granted the favor. No Pro. No Quid. No Quo.

What the Hell are you talking about?

Regarding the Russians, Hillary and her buddies from the Obama Administration and the DNC actually worked with Russians to interfere in the election. Trump did not. All Trump did was win against the lying thugs conspiring against him and the American People.

Trump did not write the Steele Dossier and it didn't write itself. Turns out nothing in it was factual. All of it was made up crap. Sounds a lot like the impeachment process, doesn't it?

Again, what the Hell are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
By analogy with a criminal case (even though impeachment is not a criminal case), if someone reports a crime to law enforcement and they help them fill in and file the paperwork, it's bogus and law enforcement no longer has the right to prosecute it?

:screwy

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents them as if they have not been edited?

Reporting a crime and faking evidence are not the same thing. Are you really this incapable?

When the "someone" in your example asks the cops to loan him a gun, tell him how to stage the crime scene, plant the gun on the intended patsy and fake the evidence, this goes far beyond simply reporting a crime.

The only people not questioning the foundation for this whole sham are the deliberately self-stupified morons who have suspended their disbelief.

You should consider using that last little emoji as your avatar.
 
You really don't have a clue.

If the Whistle Blower went to Schiff or his staff and received help in framing the complaint, that makes it bogus.

Given that even if this was the case, I don't think Schiff's staff has the power of time travel to make the reported events happen after the fact.

If the report was phrased this or that way or if the editor was joe the janitor or Schiff himself, THE EVENTS STILL HAPPENED
 
It doesn’t matter how good the evidence is. You are the base. Your brain will rationalize whatever it must to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with the avalanche of contradictory evidence. You are unreachable.

But one last try:
Trump uttered “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...” He was not being sarcastic like i was. He was not joking. He was not speaking figuratively. He meant exactly that: “look into it”. And as i have repeated pointed out in this forum and others, that’s all you need to prove that he broke the law (and more importantly broke our trust). If you insist on the fairy tale that quid pro quo is somehow a necessary component, let me assure you of something: The fact that a paragraph of speech separates the quid from the quo would not ever deter a prosecutor or a judge from linking the two. There are plenty of people rotting in jail right this moment who can attest to that.

Look, It's not merely the preponderance of evidence that weighs against him. It's ALL of it! Can you show me one single scrap of evidence —one— that weighs even just a little bit in Trump's favour? For obvious reasons, let’s disqualify anything that has come out of his forever lying mouth. All you and the GOP has ever done is pound the table and attack the supposedly unfair process! It is not me who has “got nothing”. It’s you. But then, you are the base.

You need to understand something. In this category of evidence, it doesn't get much better than this.


(Sigh) Sometimes the base just uses words because they sound good to say.



Again with the saying of words? Why do you always say words?? baseless, desperate unjustified words. There was no twisting. I do not twist. I did not twist. I do not, did not edit words. What would be the point?



Yes, you certainly took my sarcastic/hypothetical remark out of context. Good job. But what you did is completely different from what i did...

You are misusing the “out of context” defense.
First, I did provide the full context when I placed a hyperlink to the full text.
Second, It was YOU who asked me to cut and paste: “Please link to the transcript and cut and paste the words that reflect your imagined proof.”
Third, what part did I supposedly leave out that would be exculpatory for him? Please let me know. I will admit I did leave out where Trump mentions that Ukraine hasn’t been giving anything back in return:

“...but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”


And then later asks for a “favour”

Oh wait, i accidentally confused “exculpatory” with “damning”. My bad.

Zelensky said that he was trying to drain the swamp in his country as Trump was trying to do in his country.

Trump notes that a guy said that he broke the law in Zelensky's country. Then, in the same sentence, says you might want to look into that.

Trump didn't ask for anything to be concocted or made up. Didn't ask for any dirt. Zelensky said he had a problem and Trump suggested an additional avenue to look into.

What you feel or imagine is nothing. That's what this whole sham is about. Nothing.

I asked you to cut and paste the words that you imagine to be actual proof. What you posted demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that your imagination is very, very good.

Biden actually DID admit to what you wish Trump had admitted too. If you were being honest, you'd cite this as proof of the corruption in the Obama Administration.

So far, there's nothing corrupt being revealed about Trump while the cess pool of the Dems is being smelled by all and the slime dripping off of them leads in disgusting trails back to the Big 0.

It's a little sad that the propagandists in the media are such shills. There's a great chance for some investigative reporting being ignored in all of this.
 
Zelensky said that he was trying to drain the swamp in his country as Trump was trying to do in his country.

Trump notes that a guy said that he broke the law in Zelensky's country. Then, in the same sentence, says you might want to look into that.
I could not find that part. Does it come BEFORE Trump asks for a favour? Or after? Please paste the quote,

Trump didn't ask for anything to be concocted or made up. Didn't ask for any dirt.
Correct. He didn’t ask for dirt. He asked for an investigation: “look into it.” And as we know from testimony and the Fareed Zakaria interview cancelation, he was only interested in the "announcement" of investigation.

Zelensky said he had a problem and Trump suggested an additional avenue to look into.
So your argument is that Trump was trying to help Zelensky? No. Trump was the one who specifically asked for a “favour”.

Look, I don’t blame you for twisting Trump’s intent. I blame your brain. Your brain refuses to look at the executive summary of the IC report because those facts are inconsistent with it’s current model of reality. Your brain has spent too much time absorbing Trump’s truth. It needs some time, a lot of time, to become accustomed to the idea that Trump is actually corrupt. Just give your brain some warm milk and expose it to some Rachel Maddow. It will come around, eventually.


What you feel or imagine is nothing.
Trump, both directly and indirectly, asked a foreign official to stage an investigation into his political rival(s). That is not a feeling. That is a well documented fact. Get over it. That kind of request is illegal.

I did not imagine Trump saying:
“I need you to do me a favour though”
“Look into it”
“Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars when there is tremendous corruption?”
I didn’t imagine:
Mulvaney blatantly admitting that they held back the aid in exchange for investigating democrats
Sondland testifying that there was definitely a quid pro quo.
Sondland testifying that they only were interested in an “announcement” of an investigation, not an actual investigation.


That's what this whole sham is about. Nothing.
Sham. Is that your word? No. Its the word that you have been taught by the president and his partisan pundits who have a vested interests in discrediting this constitutionally prescribed process.
I asked you to cut and paste the words that you imagine to be actual proof. What you posted demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that your imagination is very, very good.
LOL! Again you are using some words. Words, words, words. Why must you just use words? Those words are just words. Save those words for when they are not.

From the phone call alone:
I demonstrated he wanted an investigation: “look into it”. Do you deny he did?
I demonstrated he wanted investigations, first. “I need you to do me a favour, though”.
The evidence now extends far beyond that incriminating call. There are now reams of testimonial, circumstancial, and direct evidence supporting those contentions. If you would like me to show you all that evidence it will take about as much space as the exec summary of the IC report. Read it.


Biden actually DID admit to what you wish Trump had admitted too. If you were being honest, you'd cite this as proof of the corruption in the Obama Administration.
I like to think I am speaking in good faith. I will never state something in this or any other forum that I do not wholly believe. That is my oath.
Yes, Biden did openly recount the story of his QPQ. But QPQ is not illegal by itself. It is only illegal/abusive if there is an underlying corrupt intent. And until recently we had every reason to believe that Biden was acting in the interests of America, not himself. We’ll have to wait to see what happens with the latest document, which has yet to be scrutinized.

So far, there's nothing corrupt being revealed about Trump while the cess pool of the Dems is being smelled by all and the slime dripping off of them leads in disgusting trails back to the Big 0.
There is plenty. Read the report. Until you do, you baseless claim of “no evidence” is just more words. More words, on top of wordy, useless words.

It's a little sad that the propagandists in the media are such shills. There's a great chance for some investigative reporting being ignored in all of this.
Propagandists? Like Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Laura Ingraham? Lou Dobbs? Jesse Waters? And on and on… They are the definition of propagandists.
 
Given that even if this was the case, I don't think Schiff's staff has the power of time travel to make the reported events happen after the fact.

If the report was phrased this or that way or if the editor was joe the janitor or Schiff himself, THE EVENTS STILL HAPPENED

And we are back where we started.

The Whistle Blower was at the water cooler and overheard some leakers interpreting things they should not have been discussing and he got panicky and all hot and bothered.

Is any investigation involving a political figure a crime?

I have been struck by this dual tiered approach to "justice" since the existence of the Lynch mob(s) was revealed.

If Schiff's staff does have the power to time travel, they would undoubtedly undo the crimes they committed in this.

By the look of things, they think they can undo what they did. At least in the view of those who are so willingly blinded by BS.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was actually a crime that actually was committed that they could investigate. What they have so far is pretty dramatic. It's not criminal, though.

What it is is this: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." My apologies to ol' Will. There are too many idiots in this to count.
 
And we are back where we started.

The Whistle Blower was at the water cooler and overheard some leakers interpreting things they should not have been discussing and he got panicky and all hot and bothered.

Is any investigation involving a political figure a crime?

I have been struck by this dual tiered approach to "justice" since the existence of the Lynch mob(s) was revealed.

If Schiff's staff does have the power to time travel, they would undoubtedly undo the crimes they committed in this.

By the look of things, they think they can undo what they did. At least in the view of those who are so willingly blinded by BS.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was actually a crime that actually was committed that they could investigate. What they have so far is pretty dramatic. It's not criminal, though.

What it is is this: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." My apologies to ol' Will. There are too many idiots in this to count.

The one thing I agreed on with Turley from yesterday is that this impeachment is happening too quickly. The dems need to get the courts to force the various executive branch officials to testify or at least appear before congress and claim exec. priv. on each question as appropriate. Also the results of the Rudi investigation should still have time to come to light. Those two things are how to bypass the current stonewalling and get court of law level evidence.

The danger is that Trump will **** out our foreign policy even more during that time though and that will take even longer to fully repair, but that is life in the city.
 
I could not find that part. Does it come BEFORE Trump asks for a favour? Or after? Please paste the quote,


Correct. He didn’t ask for dirt. He asked for an investigation: “look into it.” And as we know from testimony and the Fareed Zakaria interview cancelation, he was only interested in the "announcement" of investigation.


So your argument is that Trump was trying to help Zelensky? No. Trump was the one who specifically asked for a “favour”.

Look, I don’t blame you for twisting Trump’s intent. I blame your brain. Your brain refuses to look at the executive summary of the IC report because those facts are inconsistent with it’s current model of reality. Your brain has spent too much time absorbing Trump’s truth. It needs some time, a lot of time, to become accustomed to the idea that Trump is actually corrupt. Just give your brain some warm milk and expose it to some Rachel Maddow. It will come around, eventually.



Trump, both directly and indirectly, asked a foreign official to stage an investigation into his political rival(s). That is not a feeling. That is a well documented fact. Get over it. That kind of request is illegal.

I did not imagine Trump saying:
“I need you to do me a favour though”
“Look into it”
“Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars when there is tremendous corruption?”
I didn’t imagine:
Mulvaney blatantly admitting that they held back the aid in exchange for investigating democrats
Sondland testifying that there was definitely a quid pro quo.
Sondland testifying that they only were interested in an “announcement” of an investigation, not an actual investigation.



Sham. Is that your word? No. Its the word that you have been taught by the president and his partisan pundits who have a vested interests in discrediting this constitutionally prescribed process.

LOL! Again you are using some words. Words, words, words. Why must you just use words? Those words are just words. Save those words for when they are not.

From the phone call alone:
I demonstrated he wanted an investigation: “look into it”. Do you deny he did?
I demonstrated he wanted investigations, first. “I need you to do me a favour, though”.
The evidence now extends far beyond that incriminating call. There are now reams of testimonial, circumstancial, and direct evidence supporting those contentions. If you would like me to show you all that evidence it will take about as much space as the exec summary of the IC report. Read it.



I like to think I am speaking in good faith. I will never state something in this or any other forum that I do not wholly believe. That is my oath.
Yes, Biden did openly recount the story of his QPQ. But QPQ is not illegal by itself. It is only illegal/abusive if there is an underlying corrupt intent. And until recently we had every reason to believe that Biden was acting in the interests of America, not himself. We’ll have to wait to see what happens with the latest document, which has yet to be scrutinized.


There is plenty. Read the report. Until you do, you baseless claim of “no evidence” is just more words. More words, on top of wordy, useless words.


Propagandists? Like Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Laura Ingraham? Lou Dobbs? Jesse Waters? And on and on… They are the definition of propagandists.

You didn't read the transcript? That explains a lot!

Read the third paragraph, second page.

"Look into it" and "Launch an investigation" are very different things. Any investigation that touches on a political figure is illegal? Interesting point of view...

He was having a conversation with a foreign leader with whom he shared similar experiences. No bribe was described, set up, delivered or withheld.

You need to open your mind. Start out with the presumption of innocence, you know, like America, and everything comes clear.
 
The one thing I agreed on with Turley from yesterday is that this impeachment is happening too quickly. The dems need to get the courts to force the various executive branch officials to testify or at least appear before congress and claim exec. priv. on each question as appropriate. Also the results of the Rudi investigation should still have time to come to light. Those two things are how to bypass the current stonewalling and get court of law level evidence.

The danger is that Trump will **** out our foreign policy even more during that time though and that will take even longer to fully repair, but that is life in the city.

Taking the last point first, what damage is Trump doing to the "foreign policy"? As I read the outcomes of our foreign policy, they are far from good in an ethical sense and far from beneficial in an America First sense.

What does your view of a Best Practices foreign policy look like?

Whatever the biased, unfair, politically motivated lynch mob turns up, the fact remains: There was no crime to initiate their actions.
 
The problem is you think we should all have a problem with Trump investigating Biden.

We elected him to drain the swamp. How Bidens son got that job? That’s part of the swamp.

We want that to happen. It’s not being done for personal political benefit. That’s where Democrats are fabrication the lie. It’s being done because that’s what he was elected to do.

Anyone peddling this story knows it. They don’t care. There is no low they would not go to if it meant Trump was removed. They have made this clear from Election Day. Unambiguously. They will do anything to remove Cheeto Man. He stole election. Didn’t even win the popular vote.
 
Taking the last point first, what damage is Trump doing to the "foreign policy"? As I read the outcomes of our foreign policy, they are far from good in an ethical sense and far from beneficial in an America First sense.

What does your view of a Best Practices foreign policy look like?

Whatever the biased, unfair, politically motivated lynch mob turns up, the fact remains: There was no crime to initiate their actions.

As you said yourself, they are far from beneficial in an America First sense. The mess we made with Turkey for example gave Russia a foothold in the middle east.

I am not sure what best practices would look like, but not giving ground to Russia would a good idea as noted in the example.
 
You didn't read the transcript? That explains a lot!

Read the third paragraph, second page.
Of course I have read it. More than once. The 3rd paragraph of page 2 makes no mention of “Trump notes that a guy said that he broke the law in Zelensky's country. Then, in the same sentence, says you might want to look into that.”:

"Look into it" and "Launch an investigation" are very different things.

Is that seriously your defense? They are exactly the same thing. That is the very definition of investigation. Did you expect Zelensky to hop on his laptop and start googling Biden? Did you expect him to start personally poking around his prosecutors office? No. The only way to "look into it" is to start an official to investigate.


Any investigation that touches on a political figure is illegal? Interesting point of view...
Don't try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say "political figure". I said "political rival"
In many branches of law the mere “appearance” of a conflict of interest is illegal. Since he was asking for an investigation of his primary political rival, it has the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. So yes, he should have recused and handed it off to the proper channels. But that is not even my complaint. My complaint is that he asked a foreign power to interfere in the election. This is something that the FEC has specifically said is illegal. (incidentally, No quid pro quo is required)

No bribe was described, set up, delivered or withheld.
Even in the face of contradictory evidence Republican apologists keep repeating this same lie over and over. The aid was DELAYED for 55 days! Sondland and others testified that it was the “announcement” of an investigation that Trump needed. When the aid was released Zelensky canceled his scheduled interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria. Why did he cancel? Because the announcement was no longer needed once the aid was released. I know, I know: crazy assumption right? I must have a “wild” imagination to make such and outrageous leap.

I have before laid out that there was a quid and there was a quo. The IC report describes additional evidence to that effect. But as I mentioned above, no QPQ is even necessary to show an abuse of power. Bribe is another word for QPQ.

There is way, way more than enough indirect evidence to conclude that the president is guilty. Direct and incontrovertible evidence? Not so much. The only way to get that, is to speak to Guliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Pence. But the innocent president with nothing to hide is preventing them from testifying. I wonder why? Hmm…

You need to open your mind. Start out with the presumption of innocence, you know, like America, and everything comes clear.

In order to be as confident as I am, I have had to start from the presumption of innocence. And I did. But fine. I will rewind again. Full disclosure, I am already half way through the executive summary of the IC report. so it may be difficult. You should read it too and then we can compare notes. Deal?
 
The one thing I agreed on with Turley from yesterday is that this impeachment is happening too quickly. The dems need to get the courts to force the various executive branch officials to testify or at least appear before congress and claim exec. priv. on each question as appropriate. Also the results of the Rudi investigation should still have time to come to light. Those two things are how to bypass the current stonewalling and get court of law level evidence.

The danger is that Trump will **** out our foreign policy even more during that time though and that will take even longer to fully repair, but that is life in the city.

The Democrat-Socialists are in court to determine if their sham charges can be substantiated using sham hearings and unfair rules to question Executive Branch employees.

Everyone except you understands the the courts will require several weeks to finish their work on this and the absolute earliest point in time that any decision will be rendered is January.

The Democrat-Socialists have determined that they need to proceed with no evidence and have the impeachment vote long before they have any evidence to justify it.

Actually, they determined that the "no-evidence" strategy was the one they would use in about August of 2016 so this is no surprise.

More of the same from the same gang of crooks.

If this testimony is critical to the process of justice, then the Democrat-Socialists should wait until that courts finish their work to allow them to seek justice.

Justice, incidentally, is the LAST thing the Democrat-Socialists seek.
 
As you said yourself, they are far from beneficial in an America First sense. The mess we made with Turkey for example gave Russia a foothold in the middle east.

I am not sure what best practices would look like, but not giving ground to Russia would a good idea as noted in the example.

With respect, Russia has had a "foothold" in the Middle East for decades. Syria didn't get their Russian weapons from anyone but Russia.

In all of the Middle Eastern wars involving Israel, the "proxy war" aspect set up the "American Weapons are superior to the Russian Weapons" line of thinking. Again, the Russian weapons came from the Russians.

The first time I was aware of this was during the '67 war in which the Israelis used air launched missiles from American jets to "kill" attacking tanks.

Tactical thinking of the day said this was not possible as a reliable deterrent. Turns out it was.

Giving Ground to Russia, literally, was the policy of the Obama Administration. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine come to mind. That's a lot of ground. The Trump policy involves containment and sanctions.

Germany in particular and the EU in general seem to be actively working to circumvent Trump's policies especially in the import of LNG.

Trump is interested gaining favorable outcomes from the the flow of LNG while that EU seems more interested in NOT interrupting the flow of pay-offs and bribes.
 
Last edited:
Of course I have read it. More than once. The 3rd paragraph of page 2 makes no mention of “Trump notes that a guy said that he broke the law in Zelensky's country. Then, in the same sentence, says you might want to look into that.”:



Is that seriously your defense? They are exactly the same thing. That is the very definition of investigation. Did you expect Zelensky to hop on his laptop and start googling Biden? Did you expect him to start personally poking around his prosecutors office? No. The only way to "look into it" is to start an official to investigate.



Don't try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say "political figure". I said "political rival"
In many branches of law the mere “appearance” of a conflict of interest is illegal. Since he was asking for an investigation of his primary political rival, it has the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. So yes, he should have recused and handed it off to the proper channels. But that is not even my complaint. My complaint is that he asked a foreign power to interfere in the election. This is something that the FEC has specifically said is illegal. (incidentally, No quid pro quo is required)


Even in the face of contradictory evidence Republican apologists keep repeating this same lie over and over. The aid was DELAYED for 55 days! Sondland and others testified that it was the “announcement” of an investigation that Trump needed. When the aid was released Zelensky canceled his scheduled interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria. Why did he cancel? Because the announcement was no longer needed once the aid was released. I know, I know: crazy assumption right? I must have a “wild” imagination to make such and outrageous leap.

I have before laid out that there was a quid and there was a quo. The IC report describes additional evidence to that effect. But as I mentioned above, no QPQ is even necessary to show an abuse of power. Bribe is another word for QPQ.

There is way, way more than enough indirect evidence to conclude that the president is guilty. Direct and incontrovertible evidence? Not so much. The only way to get that, is to speak to Guliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Pence. But the innocent president with nothing to hide is preventing them from testifying. I wonder why? Hmm…



In order to be as confident as I am, I have had to start from the presumption of innocence. And I did. But fine. I will rewind again. Full disclosure, I am already half way through the executive summary of the IC report. so it may be difficult. You should read it too and then we can compare notes. Deal?

You seem to be saying that if you change the actual words spoken to whatever the Hell it is you need them to say in order to provide the evidence that does not exist, but that you sincerely wish DID exist, then there would be evidence.

There is no evidence. The absence of evidence is the only evidence there is in this sham.

You have not produced any evidence to support your firm belief and I assume that means you cannot produce it.

If you have it, then produce it.

At this point in time, the rabidly partisan, Trump hating Democrat-Socialists have only produced witnesses helping their case that are rabidly partisan, Trump hating rumor mongers discussing rumors they like to discuss.

The one and only actual witness who actually spoke to Trump on what Trump desired be done testified that Trump told him to tell Zelensky "to do the right thing".

Is telling someone to do the right thing a crime?

Was that one of the 11 felonies cited in the Starr Report submitted to the House of Representatives that motivated the Clinton Impeachment? How about the Watergate thingy? The Johnson impeachment?

Since when is telling someone to do the right thing a wrong thing?
 
You seem to be saying that if you change the actual words spoken to whatever the Hell it is you need them to say in order to provide the evidence that does not exist, but that you sincerely wish DID exist, then there would be evidence.

There is no evidence. The absence of evidence is the only evidence there is in this sham.

You have not produced any evidence to support your firm belief and I assume that means you cannot produce it.

If you have it, then produce it.


Below is the evidence. This is not the only evidence. But it is enough evidence.

This following is text from the July 25 call transcript between Trump and Zelensky. It shows Donald Trump asking the president of Ukraine to open an investigation into Trump's primary political rival, Joe Biden.

Trump:" ... Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... "

That is an illegal act.

On June 13, 2019 the chairwoman of F.E.C. released the following statement

"[...]It is illegal to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election[...]"
 
Back
Top Bottom