The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Yeah I will acknowledge you are getting annoying.  If you want to claim Trump doesn't lie by orders of magnitude more than any of our previous leaders I would say you are blind or stupid or, possibly I missed the point of one of your stupid jokes.  Enjoy the evening.  

I’m torn on how to reply here, but I guess I’ll just go with your reply was positively Trumpian.  Ironically it’s one of the things he does that I find distasteful at times. 
 

Anyway, I think your “orders of magnitudes” argument is overly simplistic, impossible to quantify, and an odd line in the sand given the propensity for our elected officials to lie through their teeth. Accordingly, I give it the internet raspberry and move on.

 

i think you were over the top here, and I think the response was disproportionate to the subject matter and certainly to the context of our interaction.  I try hard not to send something out I wish I could get back the next day, so I’ll simply say I hope you’re feeling ok and that all is well with you and yours. 
 

 

 

 

[Prickly Pete]

11 hours ago, dubs said:

I’m always perplexed by the people who constantly throw out the bullet point: “trump always lies”, yet take as gospel everything that proven and notorious liar, Adam Schiff says. Schiff was on TV for three years lying to the American public about a the Russia hoax and has been lying that he doesn’t know who the “whistleblower” is. 
 

Trump is certainly no saint and I’m sure he’s lied about many things in his life, but I’m curious as to what exactly the trump haters are referring to when they always say, “trump lies”.  And how those lies stack up to at least two attempts that we know of to overthrow the will of the American people through the election process and negate the results of a free and fair election. 

 

 

They don't care. They are all full of *****.

 

In most cases, it's all just public posturing, a way to fit in, and make themselves appear to be concerned citizens. Trump is just the perfect bad guy that provides them an opportunity to make a big show of their virtuous outrage.

***** em.

 

One conclusion that I have reached is that most of them know things like 10+million illegal aliens, caravans of refugees rushing the border with their children in tow, troops in places like Syria, unbalanced trade agreements, etc. are bad. But the Liberals just want to let Republicans do the dirty work, and make the tough decisions, so then the Liberals can still feel good about themselves. They have to hold on to their self image as "the Good, Compassionate People, against the evil Repugs".

 

There is no reasoning with them. It's just barrel through their bull#### with laughter and a smile.

 

None of these whiners are actually desperate enough to have some kind of civil war. How many Pink Hatters do you think have, say, gone a single day without eating (aside from some self-inflicted fast)?

 

For the vast majority of them, they are either better off now, or at least no worse off, than before Trump was elected, or can't trace any of their problems to one of Trump's policies. They still have their health care, a good economy...no Muslim concentration camps, no mass round up of Mexicans, no violent "White Nationalist" uprising, no Police on a rampage against POC, no escalation of wars, no Kurdish massacre, no overturning of Roe vs. Wade, no declaration of martial law, blahblahblah....none of all the terrible things we were promised would happen.

 

They ain't gonna do *****, except continue to go to Whole Foods, Starbucks, giant Music Festivals, Burning Man, Craft Beer breweries, and pay for Netflix, post selfies on social media, lease fancy cars and SUV's that they would never have been able to buy, take yoga classes, get tattoo$, buy cheap Chinese goods, vape weed, snort coke, and take Molly or Adderall...there is no real desperation. 

 

Again, ignore these whiny *****.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by 32ABBA

[Bob in Mich]

10 hours ago, Rob's House said:

 

You haven't answered mine yet either. Not honestly anyway. You're sticking to a nonsensical talking point you can't support.

 

That's why people give you a hard time about lacking independent thought and critical thinking skills. We all have cognitive biases, but you seem to be more affected than most.

 

I talk about Eric Ciaramella because 1. He's central to the topic we're discussing, 2. I think he's involved in nefarious activities that should be exposed, 3. There is no reason not to, and 4. because the people covering up his surreptitious plot don't want me to.

 

You are starting to reason like DR.  Be Careful!  That road leads to madness and insufferable douche-iness..

 

I honestly answered your question of 'why not' several times.  I think doing so is irresponsible because I think you are increasing the odds that a person could be attacked by a political zealot.

 

I agree with your 'everybody knows' argument, but only to an extent.  I mean realistically, not everyone knows.  I am not 100% certain of the whistle blowers identity, to be truthful.  I have seen who has been accused but I would not bet my life on it.  To disagree with my opinion of increasing danger is fine, but to tell me it is dishonest, comes across as arrogant. It may be a talking point but any reasonable individual could easily arrive at that conclusion. 

 

People often criticize my thinking or reasoning skills HERE.  Posters do it within broad criticisms, like the discussion I just had with Foxx.  When I ask where my reasoning breaks down, for specifics, I seldom hear back.  Also I don't get that from people when having an in-person conversation.  Of course people don't always agree anywhere but disagreements aren't typically about reasoning or logic skills.  And, yes, I do socialize with Trump supporters in person. 

 

Please be specific if you wish......If you have issues of faulty reasoning, where, what post?  Certainly we all are capable of mistakes.

 

Oh, and I do appreciate the answer.  It pretty much confirms what I thought.  The increased danger is recognized but dismissed.

[ALF]

Whistleblower Laws Enforced by OSHA

 

https://www.whistleblowers.gov/

[Bob in Mich]

7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m torn on how to reply here, but I guess I’ll just go with your reply was positively Trumpian.  Ironically it’s one of the things he does that I find distasteful at times. 
 

Anyway, I think your “orders of magnitudes” argument is overly simplistic, impossible to quantify, and an odd line in the sand given the propensity for our elected officials to lie through their teeth. Accordingly, I give it the internet raspberry and move on.

 

i think you were over the top here, and I think the response was disproportionate to the subject matter and certainly to the context of our interaction.  I try hard not to send something out I wish I could get back the next day, so I’ll simply say I hope you’re feeling ok and that all is well with you and yours. 
 

 

Len, on this board my reply was easily within acceptable standards.  In the context of our interaction however, my reply was too harsh.  You were right.  I apologize for the tone of that reply.  With that said and hopefully accepted and the slate hopefully cleared, I will attack you further.   lol 

 

Keeping it real, I apologized for the delivery.  Folks like you keep saying sure Trump lies, they all lie.  That is a false equivalency.  Just because you can point to where Obama or Schiff lied does not mean that we should accept a president that lies as much as Trump.  I know times have changed since Pres Clinton but to discount honesty is the wrong direction.

 

And seriously, how can Trump supporters even have the gall to claim someone else's lies are wrong?  If lies are wrong they have to be wrong for everyone.  If they are OK now, then please stop making a big deal out of the lies of others. 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

Whistleblower Laws Enforced by OSHA

 

https://www.whistleblowers.gov/

 

That's all well and good, but in order to impeach and remove a president, they must have been found guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, those are criminal charges, which means that the accused is still protected by the 6th amendment, which guarantees in all criminal cases that the accused has the right to face their accuser in court. How do you square anonymity for the whistle-blower under those circumstances?

 

It seems to me that the only way they can keep the whistle-blower's identity secret is if Trump committed no crime.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Azalin

[4merper4mer]

27 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

That's all well and good, but in order to impeach and remove a president, they must have been found guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, those are criminal charges, which means that the accused is still protected by the 6th amendment, which guarantees in all criminal cases that the accused has the right to face their accuser in court. How do you square anonymity for the whistle-blower under those circumstances?

 

It seems to me that the only way they can keep the whistle-blower's identity secret is if Trump committed no crime.

Whistleblowers also are protected under the little known "if a commie makes up crap they should be allowed to get away with it" clause of the constitution.

[Foxx]

42 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

That's all well and good, but in order to impeach and remove a president, they must have been found guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, those are criminal charges, which means that the accused is still protected by the 6th amendment, which guarantees in all criminal cases that the accused has the right to face their accuser in court. How do you square anonymity for the whistle-blower under those circumstances?

 

It seems to me that the only way they can keep the whistle-blower's identity secret is if Trump committed no crime.

no where in there does it state that whistle blowers are afforded any sort of anonymity. protection against retaliation, yes, anonymity, no.

[Bob in Mich]

32 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

That's all well and good, but in order to impeach and remove a president, they must have been found guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. By definition, those are criminal charges, which means that the accused is still protected by the 6th amendment, which guarantees in all criminal cases that the accused has the right to face their accuser in court. How do you square anonymity for the whistle-blower under those circumstances?

 

It seems to me that the only way they can keep the whistle-blower's identity secret is if Trump committed no crime.

 

I am not sure about your claim about the charges from the House being criminal charges.  If convicted in the Senate, there is no criminal offense.  He would just be removed for bribery for instance and then could be charged for the crime after out of office.  Unsure of Senate rules, so I can't say if that 'face accuser' is a Senate trial rule.

 

At this point in time, couldn't others actually accuse Trump at a Senate or criminal trial, if that was an actual requirement?  I don't recall who would be the best, but wouldn't some of the House taped testimony accusing Trump of the scheme and of the obstruction of the document release (obstruction of congress) suffice?

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, Foxx said:

no where in there does it state that whistle blowers are afforded any sort of anonymity. protection against retaliation, yes, anonymity, no.

The core issue here should not be about exposing the identity of the whistleblower. It should first be to determine whether the whistleblower has an alternative motive in blowing the whistle! For example, what if he/she is trying to deflect attention from their own criminal behavior? Due to the seriousness of the charges in this case an investigation into the whistleblower could have and should have be done by the FBI, before proceeding to step two.

[Foxx]

new DNC/propaganda press talking points.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1223787560914313217

 

 

********************************************************

 

 

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The core issue here should not be about exposing the identity of the whistleblower. It should first be to determine whether the whistleblower has an alternative motive in blowing the whistle! For example, what if he/she is trying to deflect attention from their own criminal behavior? Due to the seriousness of the charges in this case an investigation into the whistleblower could have and should have be done by the FBI, before proceeding to step two.

correct. however, as we see with the narrative spewed by the Left and eaten up by the likes of Bob, the whistle blower must be protected at all costs because, meh #orangemanbad. what they are effectively doing is running cover by making the claim that he can't be outed. that narrative has to be destroyed.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

correct. however, as we see with the narrative spewed by the Left and eaten up by the likes of Bob, that the whistle blower must be protected at all costs because, meh #orangemanbad. what they are effectively doing is running cover by making the claim that he can't be outed. that narrative has to be destroyed.

As an employer myself, I’m concerned at the position that an employee could make a claim against me, and I wouldn’t be able to learn who it was so that I might be able to expose an alternative motive. 
PS: We just had that exact circumstance in our company. When the claim was debunked, the employee was fired!

[Foxx]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

As an employer myself, I’m concerned at the position that an employee could make a claim against me, and I wouldn’t be able to learn who it was so that I might be able to expose an alternative motive. 
PS: We just had that exact circumstance in our company. When the claim was debunked, the employee was fired!

right. that is exactly why there should be no protection of immunity. the claim(s) as well as the motivations behind said claim(s) need to be scrutinized to ascertain whether or not the claim(s) have validity.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....at least there is ONE Joe who is a voice of reason.............

Joe Lieberman, former Dem VP nominee, says Founding Fathers would have 'intended' Trump's acquittal

 

By Sam Dorman | Fox News

 

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, who served as Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000, reportedly claimed that America's Founding Fathers would have wanted an acquittal in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial.

Lieberman made those comments during an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. He was specifically referring to what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would have said if they were alive to see Trump's would-be acquittal.

"This is what we intended," Lieberman said the founders would have remarked, according to The Blaze, which is owned by Beck.

 

While Lieberman said that he would vote to allow witnesses, he would ultimately support acquitting the president. He told Beck that Trump shouldn't have conducted the now-infamous July 25 call with Ukraine's president in the way he did, "but did it reach the point where we can say nine months before an election [...] that, if we keep him in office, he represents a danger to the country? I don't think so."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-lieberman-founders-trump-acquittal

 

 

[Rob's House]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

You are starting to reason like DR.  Be Careful!  That road leads to madness and insufferable douche-iness..

 

I honestly answered your question of 'why not' several times.  I think doing so is irresponsible because I think you are increasing the odds that a person could be attacked by a political zealot.

 

I agree with your 'everybody knows' argument, but only to an extent.  I mean realistically, not everyone knows.  I am not 100% certain of the whistle blowers identity, to be truthful.  I have seen who has been accused but I would not bet my life on it.  To disagree with my opinion of increasing danger is fine, but to tell me it is dishonest, comes across as arrogant. It may be a talking point but any reasonable individual could easily arrive at that conclusion. 

 

People often criticize my thinking or reasoning skills HERE.  Posters do it within broad criticisms, like the discussion I just had with Foxx.  When I ask where my reasoning breaks down, for specifics, I seldom hear back.  Also I don't get that from people when having an in-person conversation.  Of course people don't always agree anywhere but disagreements aren't typically about reasoning or logic skills.  And, yes, I do socialize with Trump supporters in person. 

 

Please be specific if you wish......If you have issues of faulty reasoning, where, what post?  Certainly we all are capable of mistakes.

 

Oh, and I do appreciate the answer.  It pretty much confirms what I thought.  The increased danger is recognized but dismissed.

 

I actually did break down in detail why the "increased danger" argument is baseless. You haven't given any reason why you believe it, you just restated that you do.

 

As far as honesty goes, were you nearly as concerned about protecting the identity of Nick Sandman? 

 

Have you ever given this much thought to concealing the identity of anyone prior to this story?

 

If so, who?

 

If not, why?

[3rdnlng]

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

cue the predictable lib tears in, 3... 2...

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

 

...why not?....maybe counselor Koko78 can chime in......is a whistleblower guaranteed anonymity?....I thought their protection was from reprisals unless I'm sadly mistaken.......

[B-Man]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 

 

 

Are they trying to get him killed ?

 

 

 

.

  

[3rdnlng]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

Are they trying to get him killed ?

 

 

 

.

  

I want to apologize in advance for possibly lighting another fire under our very own Chief of the Waponis, Bob of the Michigan Chapter. Having E.C. as a witness is the equivalent of throwing him into the volcano. Hope for his sake he has floatable luggage.