Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment

[Bob in Mich]

One final time, I disagree with your take on Trump/Russia as you know all too well.  I am not getting on that hamster wheel with you again. There was a lot of improper activity by the Trump campaign, just not enough in Mueller's opinion to convict Trump of conspiracy.  There was clearly obstruction of justice.  Without Barr's protection it could have easily gone a different way last spring.  And just to restate, thinking that hundreds in the IC and press are involved in a vast conspiracy that if discovered could result in their death, is still as silly as ever.

 

Did you read the BBC article? 

 

If you keep repeating the same answered question you are going back on ignore fast.  Up to you

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

(Who's the one who believes in a "conspiracy theory" again?)

 

It's very hard to take anyone seriously who still believes this to be true while calling others conspiracy theorists. What facts are you basing your belief on? Mueller proved it didn't happen. The House and Senate probes both concluded the same. There was zero evidence of collusion/conspiracy found by Mueller after millions of dollars, two years, and unlimited subpoena power... yet you still think maybe there's something hiding in the shadows??

 

Bob. I like you, I really do. But if you can't honestly admit that you were duped on Russia -- by the very same people who are pushing "Ukraine!" while RUNNING from any mention of 2016 and the role Ukraine played in the coup attempt -- then why should anyone take your opinion on this matter as anything more than blind partisanship?

 

It's not based on facts. 

It's not based on evidence. 

It's only based on a story you were told, by the media and corrupt IC officials, which has now conclusively been debunked. 

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

Did you read the BBC article? 

 

I don't care about the BBC -- I'm not trying to trap you. I care about YOUR opinion. The BBC is a garbage source as they speak for the UK IC who were up to their breasts in this scandal. 

 

The question I'm asking is a simple yes or no. It doesn't require nuance. Either Trump and Russia colluded together to steal the election -- your premise for the past three years -- or they didn't. Mueller, the House, and the Senate all concluded he did not. Not that there was "some evidence" of it, "just not enough to convict" -- Mueller found NO evidence to support it. None. 

 

But you don't buy it? 

 

(As an aside, the use of breasts above was not done by me but by the censor  and it's funnier than t i t s which is what I wrote)

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

This thread is becoming hilarious.

 

How someone can believe something which has been thoroughly investigated multiple times, by multiple agencies/branches of government, with an unlimited budget, and an agenda purely focused on finding dirt on an individual in a fishing expedition format, spanning the duration of two years, and still turning up zero evidence, can have the gall and total lack of self awareness to call other people conspiracy theorists is nothing short of staggering.

There is literally the same amount of evidence that Jordan Phillips is actually five midgets bound together with fly-paper and saran wrap, and then tucked carefully into a Darryl Talley snow suit featuring the pattern of a large black man as there is of collusion between the President and Russia, and this guy “believes” it’s real.

 

Please, nobody tell him about Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Edited October 18, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[Bob in Mich]

I said what I think and I directed you to an article that states that while there were lots of contacts and lies by some about those contacts, there was no provable conspiracy.  You can't seem to take the answer.  Why is that?  Because there was zero evidence?  Oh pulease.

 

If I denied driving to Miami from Buffalo and you discovered my gas receipts over a few days.  Let's say you found $50 gas receipts from Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia, do you have any evidence that I drove to Miami or do you have absolutely zero evidence?

 

From page 9 of the Mueller Report:

 

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Bob in Mich

[Warren Zevon]

He likes you Bob, he really does.

 

 

[Doc]

The House won't impeach because they don't have the votes (and are probably losing what votes they did have by the lack of evidence from these secret hearings).  The Senate won't convict because they know it's all bull####.  But have at it Dems.

[Foxx]

 

https://twitter.com/almostjingo/status/1185154840869179393

 

[Bob in Mich]

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

The House won't impeach because they don't have the votes (and are probably losing what votes they did have by the lack of evidence from these secret hearings).  The Senate won't convict because they know it's all bull####.  But have at it Dems.

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function.  The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it.  Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. 

 

I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign.  Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side.  How is that a good thing for the country?  I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer.  That just digs the divide deeper.

[Westside]

25 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function.  The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it.  Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. 

 

I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign.  Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side.  How is that a good thing for the country?  I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer.  That just digs the divide deeper.

Bob fiddles while the DNC burns.

Keep hitting that bong bob, the answers will become clearer. 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Bob fiddles while the DNC burns.

Keep hitting that bong bob, the answers will become clearer. 

 

So insightful as always.  Thanks for the depth of thought you invested in this issue.  You never fail to disappoint Wetside! 

[Westside]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

So insightful as always.  Thanks for the depth of thought you invested in this issue.  You never fail to disappoint Wetside! 

Does that rage inside you burn? Does orange man make you cry and shake with anger? Is that how you liberals felt the last three years? 

 

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!!!

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

There is literally the same amount of evidence that Jordan Phillips is actually five midgets bound together with fly-paper and saran wrap, and then tucked carefully into a Darryl Talley snow suit featuring the pattern of a large black man

 

Well, actually...

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, westside2 said:

Does that rage inside you burn? Does orange man make you cry and shake with anger? Is that how you liberals felt the last three years? 

 

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!!!

 

Truthfully, not rage at all Wetside.  Just checked my BP - 110/70.  

 

I just post when I need some distraction.  Today is one such day and the arguments made by blind Trump supporters are so easy.

[Westside]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Truthfully, not rage at all Wetside.  Just checked my BP - 110/70.  

 

I just post when I need some distraction.  Today is one such day and the arguments made by blind Trump supporters are so easy.

Probably because you're stoned out of your mind

[Bob in Mich]

Just now, westside2 said:

Probably because you're stoned out of your mind

 

Oh gosh, how original of you!  There is no reply to counter such brilliance.   I have no chance against this tower of intellect.

[Westside]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Oh gosh, how original of you!  There is no reply to counter such brilliance.   I have no chance against this tower of intellect.

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!

[Bob in Mich]

14 minutes ago, westside2 said:

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!

What a dig!  Damn, that one really hurts. 

 

Is someone helping you to write these really clever replies?

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, westside2 said:

SO MUCH RAGE!!!!!!!!

 

He doesn't have rage.  He's got some tasty waves and a cool buzz...he's fine...

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function.  The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it.  Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. 

 

I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign.  Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side.  How is that a good thing for the country?  I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer.  That just digs the divide deeper.

It is what it is now, Bob. When Filthy Harry stood on the Senate floor and told a bald-faced lie about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years, and not only did not apologize for it but grinningly said “it worked, didn’t it?”, just to harm Romney's campaign, it told me that almost anything is fair game. The Russia farce was that, on steroids. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

I said what I think and I directed you to an article that states that while there were lots of contacts and lies by some about those contacts, there was no provable conspiracy.  You can't seem to take the answer.  Why is that? 

 

Because the accusations made, since December 2016 through the day Mueller's report was released, was not that "there MIGHT be Trump/Russia collusion" but that there "DEFINITELY was collusion/conspiracy" and the entire election was stolen because of it. It wasn't just one paper saying that, it was all of them. It was sitting members of Congress saying it. And you said it as well. 

 

We know now that none of it was true. It was all fiction -- starting with the dossier which, again, many in multiple threads and papers and from the seats in Congress SWORE under oath was accurate. 

 

But it never was. Multiple investigations have proven this.

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 Because there was zero evidence?  Oh pulease

 

There was zero proof of collusion/conspiracy discovered by Mueller. In fact, his report debunked much of the dossier (and all of it's most salacious/nefarious charges). 

 

In fact, we know now that what started this whole thing -- the contact between Mifsud and G-Pop which was painted for three years as being between a Russian intelligence officer/asset and a member of Trump's staff -- was entrapment. Mifsud is a western intelligence source, not a Russian one. 

 

Three years of lies were built on the notion that Mifsud was a Russian spook. 

 

He never was. 

 

Without that, the entire narrative falls apart -- as Mueller definitively proved in Volume I. 

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

From page 9 of the Mueller Report:

 

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. 

 

What's the standard of justice we operate under? Guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty? 

 

There was NO evidence to support a conviction. None. The "links" you mention are not proof or evidence of anything other than the world of diplomats and spooks is very, very small. And in fact, we now know that at least some (if not all) of the "links" Mueller covered (like Mifsud) are either misleading or flat out false. 

 

Because it was a coup. 

 

Still is. 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function. 

 

One party has worked actively to de-legitimize the court and the executive. 

 

It wasn't the GOP. 

 

That's beyond doubt. 
 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity.  Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it. 

 

Bob, again I'm not trying to be disrespectful but this is a gross misunderstanding of history and the position of the founding fathers. They distrusted centralized government because they knew it would always be corrupt. The temptation for avarice and greed were constantly warned about by nearly every one of the founders. 

 

That's why it's our job, as citizens, to hold the government accountable. Not the other way around. It's our job to hold them to account when they do things like: illegally spy on their political opposition for their own gain, or attempt a palace coup. 

 

The founders NEVER trusted the government and insisted that we the people did not either.