The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

LSHEAB is trying to take something totally out of context to prove a point with the posting of that video with "Hot Ainsley" front and center.

 

What am I taking out of context?

[Bob in Mich]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

The best part of any Tweet about Eric Ciaramella (the leaker/coconspirator popularly referred to as "the whistleblower") is the histrionic hacks that inevitably accuse the poster of putting his life in danger.

 

Hypocrisy aside, no one with an IQ above room temperature could actually think that. Anyone who cares enough to pay attention has known his name for months.

 

The theory must be that one of these crazed, rabid Trump supporters, that we hear so much about but rarely, if ever, see, feels so strongly about this that he'd take the guy out, but hasn't followed the story at all.

 

It's a pretty stupid theory.

I get your point and to an extent, I agree that most zealots know by now. 

 

Why keep repeating it then and trying to get it more publicity ?

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

What am I taking out of context?

He said "if" and it appears that you are trying to make the case that he was calling it as fact. That's what happens when you simply just post a video or some kind of another person's work without comment of your own. 

[LSHMEAB]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He said "if" and it appears that you are trying to make the case that he was calling it as fact. That's what happens when you simply just post a video or some kind of another person's work without comment of your own. 

Nah. I think you're missing the point. He indeed said if and that particular "if" is now all but conceded; except, of course, among the fringiest of the fringe. Maybe Lamar Alexander is a RINO around these parts, but I think he hit the nail on the head with his press release. 

 

This does not meet the standards for an impeachable offense, so let the voter's decide.

 

But it very much fits the pattern; "If he did this, it would be awful" culminating with "so what"?

[Foxx]

28 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Can you comprehend that my comparison was not about public figure vs  private individual? 

 

The point is exposing an individual's identity on the web exposes that individual to possible retaliation from anyone on the web that may have beef.  Period.

 

Before your stroke, let me state that I realize that public figures have less expectations of privacy

 

What is your purpose of ensuring the guy's identity is pushed further into the light, allowing that is not necessary in order to push for any investigation?

 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

No greater danger by publicizing it more?  Are you sure?  OK, then why are you doing it?   What is gained by publicizing him/her?

 

Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ?  There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. 

Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure.  you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart.

 

your brian is riddled, Bob. at this point there is no conversing with you because you refuse to follow any logical order of progression in civil discourse. rather, you would prefer to talk one in circles. i am not interested in that kind of discourse, Bob. 

 

there is a reason why no one can get through to you. you argue 1 + 1 = 3 . when someone points out to you that 1 + 1 = 2, you change the subject to, 1 x 1 = 3. it is fallacious in it's very theory but you refuse to see that and obfuscate through the smoke filled cobwebs of your attic trying to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. when you began posting here, i ignored the urges to engage you because this pattern was readily apparent. however, i thought i saw an opportunity to perhaps clear away some of that smoke for you, i was wrong, Bob. you are hopeless, enjoy your delusion, Bob.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx

[Bob in Mich]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Standards have eroded. Check.

Clinton earned his perjury charge. Check. 
I was never “aghast” at lying, I can’t recall a time when I didn’t think it was a normal for a politician to lie, so while I get what you’re trying to say on the higher standard issue, I think it’s a crock just as I think witnesses in thus impeachment will or could lead to some baseline of understanding amongst our political parties. 
 

I have no special truth-o-meter, but I do have the ability to reason. If you apply Bob’s Deluxe Less-Lie-Spectrometer to politicians, that’s great, but simply know that I think that argument is absurd. Your comments on Trump and Kelly Ann Conway are hyperbolic, but these issues tend to cause emotional declarations to be made, but as I said before...how cute it is you think your guys are less liarly than the people I support. 

 

What is this spectrometer of which you speak?  Don't recall that.  You aren't the only one that views news from multiple sources and decides on the likely truth.  Others do that too. 

 

The primary reason we come to different conclusions is because in spite of every reason not to, you are willing to believe the words of a notorious liar, while I am much more skeptical of Trump's tales.  You are willing to believe that when under pressure to protect himself, he tells the truth.  That is not logical

 

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Nah. I think you're missing the point. He indeed said if and that particular "if" is now all but conceded; except, of course, among the fringiest of the fringe. Maybe Lamar Alexander is a RINO around these parts, but I think he hit the nail on the head with his press release. 

 

This does not meet the standards for an impeachable offense, so let the voter's decide.

 

But it very much fits the pattern; "If he did this, it would be awful" culminating with "so what"?

Except that you have bought into other people's interpretation of the transcript of that phone call. There are 500 words between "do us a favor" and any mention of the Bidens. On top of that Zelensky was the one who first brought up the Bidens. 

[Bob in Mich]

22 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure.  you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart.

 

your brian is riddled, Bob. at this point there is no conversing with you because you refuse to follow any logical order of progression in civil discourse. rather, you would prefer to talk one in circles. i am not interested in that kind of discourse, Bob. 

 

there is a reason why no one can get through to you. you argue 1 + 1 = 3 . when someone points out to you that 1 + 1 = 2, you change the subject to, 1 x 1 = 3. it is fallacious in it's very theory but you refuse to see that and obfuscate through the smoke filled cobwebs of your attic trying to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. when you began posting here, i ignored the urges to engage you because this pattern was readily apparent. however, i thought i saw an opportunity to perhaps clear away some of that smoke for you, i was wrong, Bob. you are hopeless, enjoy your delusion, Bob.

Yeah, Ok.  Good idea to avoid your posts then.  Can do.

 

Even though I just told that you make these broad hand waving dismissals and don't point out specific problems, you do the exact same thing in the next post.  In addition, someday, look into your need to insult.  Apparently the need is there.  Insecure much?   

 

Moved goalposts, 1+1   very specific    lol    Ok, Foxx      Out

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Foxx]

civil discourse 101 for the mentally challenged:

 

poster makes an argument (post). subsequently, a different poster challenges said argument by addressing certain points of said argument made by the aforementioned poster. aforementioned poster then addresses contended aspects of the responding poster. whereby, once done, the aforementioned poster can then expand the argument. however, if the aforementioned poster does not address the contested arguments the subsequent poster makes, there exists a gap in the progression of the logical order of civil discourse. by omitting the rebuttal, the aforementioned poster is attempting to control the narrative, that is not how civil discourse works, nor should it.

 

with liberals, controlling any discussion is paramount. it also includes many different tactics to 'allow' them to steer said discussion to fit into a certain narrative they wish to portray. of course, being brian addled often prevents one from understanding exactly what they are doing with regard.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx

[ALF]

"Dershowitz was a member of the legal defense team for Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors"

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Yeah, Ok.  Good idea to avoid your posts then.  Can do.

 

Even though I just told that you make these broad hand waving dismissals and don't point out specific problems, you do the exact same thing in the next post.  In addition, someday, look into your need to insult.  Apparently the need is there.  Insecure much?   

 

Moved goalposts, 1+1   very specific    lol    Ok, Foxx      Out

i pointed it out exactly. i even went back and retrieved the post to quote the portion i contested.  but, you can't understand that because your brian is broken beyond repair.

[LSHMEAB]

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Except that you have bought into other people's interpretation of the transcript of that phone call. There are 500 words between "do us a favor" and any mention of the Bidens. On top of that Zelensky was the one who first brought up the Bidens. 

So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation."

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

Stop with the talking points BS.  It is tiring.  I give my own opinions on this board as much as anyone and I do think for myself.  You don't like my thoughts, fine but they are my opinions. 

 

Your opinions are always in line with Democrat talking points. Always.

It’s exactly like the 51 FISA “errors” that all went against against Trump. What a striking coincidence.

 

 

 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation."

you've seen his exact words?

 

please post a link, i would like to see them myself.

 

TYIA

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

10 minutes ago, ALF said:

"Dershowitz was a member of the legal defense team for Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors"

...so now we base an attorney's litigation abilities based on what clients he has represented?.......I'm certain he knew all about Epstein, the facts about his scurrilous past that came out recently with his death?.....pretty sad and baseless indictment of his litigation and constitutional knowledge skills......SMH.......care to cite prominent lawyers whose clients who were found "guilty as charged"?.......same scurrilous ilk?.....hide your biases better.......

[B-Man]

10 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure. 

 

 

How can you be so sure that I am not ?

 

[snafu]

Too. Much. Orange!

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation."

Ah, you might have just as well heard it from your cousin's girlfriends aunt. Don't post such stupidshit. I know you are capable of better stuff than that. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

22 minutes ago, ALF said:

"Dershowitz was a member of the legal defense team for Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors"

 

What's your argument, here, "moderate independent?"
 

[Bob in Mich]

26 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Your opinions are always in line with Democrat talking points. Always.

It’s exactly like the 51 FISA “errors” that all went against against Trump. What a striking coincidence.

 

 

 

Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues.  I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so.  Not that you should know that but that is the case. 

 

A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment.  I thought he should have been convicted and removed.  Didn't match up with the Dems then. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Foxx]

@Bob in Mich

 

please read the included article. it may help with your, 'understanding' or lack thereof.

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1223657481441812480

 

 

i'm sure your 'selective' understanding will commit you to not believe the 'whistle blower' in the article though.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx

[snafu]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues.  I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so.  Not that you should know that but that is the case. 

 

A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment.  I thought he should have been convicted and removed.  Didn't match up then with the Dems then. 

 

The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. 

Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S.  Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass.

 

[ALF]

13 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

What's your argument, here, "moderate independent?"
 

 

As far as I'm concerned Dershowitz  and Epstein are scum. 

[Foxx]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. 

Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S.  Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass.

 

if the other two FISA's are found to have been deficient, the entire Mueller report is null and void. fruit of the poisoned tree. it will then call into question the entire #moderdaywatergate operation.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx

[sherpa]

20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

A few pages ago I posted my take from 1999 on the Clinton impeachment.  I thought he should have been convicted and removed.   

 

We always knew who the whistle blower in that one was.

[Bob in Mich]

59 minutes ago, Foxx said:

 

Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure.  you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart.

 

 

For no good reason I am still trying to understand this.  I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him.  That was my point

 

From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference.  I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger.   

 

If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base.  It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up.  You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, sherpa said:

 

We always knew who the whistle blower in that one was.

 

,...asinine for Roberts to block disclosure .....whoa wait....Schiff said he had no idea who the whistle blower was.......who is the BIGGER gaffe?..........

[Foxx]

13 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

For no good reason I am still trying to understand this.  I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him.  That was my point

 

From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference.  I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger.   

 

If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base.  It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up.  You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger. 

Bob, one last time...

 

here is the last sentence of your post that i took contention with...

"Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ?  There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. "

 

if you are claiming that you are making a point of, 'increasing danger' then you have a very poor way of wording what you are trying to say. your subsequent attempts were, in my opinion, weaksauce and didn't spell out very clearly your opposition to my contention.

 

further, if we attempt to put your last sentence in greater context, the first sentence states thus: " No greater danger by publicizing it more?  Are you sure?  OK, then why are you doing it?   What is gained by publicizing him/her?" it seems readily apparent that even with the greater context included, you were plainly comparing apples to oranges.

 

however, now that you have made it clear what was in your head and not necessarily on the board, while addressing my contention with a modicum of adequacy we can move on with common civil discourse. of which i believe was 'increased danger'. to wit, i did address that in what may have been my first post to you (may not be, but I did address it with you in one of my posts). that being, there is considerable question as to whether he is legally considered to be a 'whistle blower'. additionally, i stated that i did not believe him to be in any more danger than any of the other deep state coup plotters that have already been exposed.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Foxx

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

22 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

As far as I'm concerned Dershowitz  and Epstein are scum. 

 

That's all well and good but what kind of argument are you making?

 

That Dershowitz should lose his law license? That he shouldn't be on Trump's legal team?

 

WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

 

 

 

[Foxx]

15 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

We always knew who the whistle blower in that one was.

huh. i always thought it was a cigar.

[3rdnlng]

17 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

For no good reason I am still trying to understand this.  I asked b-man if he would want web identification, noting that even in this small space that could increase risk to him.  That was my point

 

From there you brought up the Public figure vs private person difference.  I tried to tell you that difference, while true to an extent, was immaterial in the point I was making of increasing danger.   

 

If that is a correct take, and that is a big if, you are off base.  It is my comparison and I get to dictate what I was trying to point up.  You don't get to say that my point was public vs private after I told you the point was about increased danger. 

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The fake whistleblower/leaker/Schiff operative is already known and should be thoroughly investigated. 

[Bob in Mich]

31 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The Mueller investigation was 100% a continuation of Crossfire Hurricane. 

Crossfire Hurricane should have ended in November, 2016 at the latest. Continuing Mueller’s investigation and looking into FISA issues is absolute B.S.  Mueller’s team knew the warrants were flawed and didn’t give a rats ass.

 

Ok.. but,

you were implying that it appeared that I always took the same, Dem, side and that I didn't care about FISA abuse . 

 

I was pointing out that I am in favor of looking into the Fisa abuse and haven't always taken the Dems side.

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation."

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

39 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

As far as I'm concerned Dershowitz  and Epstein are scum. 

 

...mentioned in the SAME sentence as scum?.....um...er...ok....uh....oh......only if YOU say so...SMH......simply woeful.......

[Bob in Mich]

17 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Bob, one last time...

 

here is the last sentence of your post that i took contention with...

"Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ?  There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. "

 

if you are claiming that you are making a point of, 'increasing danger' then you have a very poor way of wording what you are trying to say. your subsequent attempts were, in my opinion, weaksauce and didn't spell out very clearly your opposition to my contention.

 

further, if we attempt to put your last sentence in greater context, the first sentence states thus: " No greater danger by publicizing it more?  Are you sure?  OK, then why are you doing it?   What is gained by publicizing him/her?" it seems readily apparent that even with the greater context included, you were plainly comparing apples to oranges.

 

however, now that you have made it clear what was in your head and not necessarily on the board, while addressing my contention with a modicum of adequacy we can move on with common civil discourse. of which i believe was 'increased danger'. to wit, i did address that in what may have been my first post to you (may not be, but I did address it with you in one of my posts). that being, there is considerable question as to whether he is legally considered to be a 'whistle blower'. additionally, i stated that i did not believe him to be in any more danger than any of the other deep state coup plotters that have already been exposed.

 

What ya drinking?  lol  This is getting funny at this point. You state that I posted the following:

 

"Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ?  There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. "

 

Then you state that is a poor way of wording a point about increased danger?  That is kinda amazing even for here, Foxx.

 

The other point is still unanswered.  It is that if the name is known to many and the point of publicizing it further is not to increase danger to the guy, why keep repeating it?  What is being gained by that effort if not to endanger?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

What is this spectrometer of which you speak?  Don't recall that.  You aren't the only one that views news from multiple sources and decides on the likely truth.  Others do that too. 

 

The primary reason we come to different conclusions is because in spite of every reason not to, you are willing to believe the words of a notorious liar, while I am much more skeptical of Trump's tales.  You are willing to believe that when under pressure to protect himself, he tells the truth.  That is not logical

 

Well, you had made the argument that your liar's lies were more or less more believable than my liars lies, I just assumed you had a machine of sorts to document that your liars are less likely to lie when they don't tell the truth.  If you're freestyling, that's cool too.  It's sort of the Adam Schiff model, but have at it.

 

Skepticism is healthy, and I acknowledge that you truly believe your liar's lie a lot less than Trump lies, and something you also believe something about Mike Pence. 

 

I would ask only that you acknowledge I'm skeptical of your claim, apparently fabricated, and that I acknowledge you think you hold the moral high ground on the issue of lies from politicians. I ask that you further acknowledge that I find that delightful and funny. 

 

That is my truth. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

The point is exposing an individual's identity on the web exposes that individual to possible retaliation from anyone on the web that may have beef.  Period.

 

It's a stupid point. His name has been on the web for longer than you've been paying attention to this story.

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

The primary reason we come to different conclusions is because in spite of every reason not to, you are willing to believe the words of a notorious liar..

 

Bob was looking into a mirror as he typed that first sentence. This is a man who still believes Schiff. 
 

He’s a partisan hack. Incapable of honesty or independent thought. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I lobbied all along to continue the Mueller investigation and to look into any FISA issues.  I have posted if those FISA investigations lead to anyone that should be brought to justice, then do so.  Not that you should know that but that is the case. 

Which only shows how uniformed you are on the topic of Trump/Russia. You wanted to continue an investigation that was fraudulent from its formation, an investigation that KNEW its conclusion from the first day it was formed (that conclusion being that he was innocent of the conspiracy charge) — yet it carried on for two years, meddling in the midterm election along the way.  
 

Oh, and all the people who broke the law on FISA were working on the mueller team. 
 

That’s how dumb you are Bob. You’re arguing that an illegal, unjustified investigation that was protecting wrong doers should have continued indefinitely. 
 

Your brain is indeed broken. 

[/dev/null]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/joe_lieberman_acquit_trump

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

So who's gonna start the 100 page thread slandering John freaking Bolton, of all people? Frankly, I'm a bigger fan of MICHAEL Bolton, but his words are no "interpretation."