The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[snafu]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Would be nice to ask Bolton if he was aware of other similar schemes. 

 

This is exactly why there should have been no Senate testimony.

 

[Bob in Mich]

13 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

This is exactly why there should have been no Senate testimony.

 

I don't understand.  Why not find that out?   Do you think you would have been in favor of getting the Nixon tapes at the time or not ?

Edited February 4, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I don't understand.  Why not find that out?

 

Any other schemes, as you put it, should have been discovered in the House, so they could write articles of impeachment for those other schemes.  That’s their job.  That’s not the Senate’s job.  The Senate’s job is to have a trial on the articles that the House passes, not to uncover more schemes.

 

[3rdnlng]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Never has his cowardice been on display more than this post. I think he donated his nuts to science long ago. 

 

Waste.

Of. 

Carbon.

As an aside, when those scientists were delivered those nuts they thought they were jellyfish and tossed them.

[Q-baby!]

53 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This is something you can verify for yourself. Horwitz's report is clear this happened. He's a democrat, and not a part of the administration... 

 

 

And yet you still cite disproven conspiracy theories as if they were fact.

 

You're such a joke  

??? Nutbar! 

[Bob in Mich]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Any other schemes, as you put it, should have been discovered in the House, so they could write articles of impeachment for those other schemes.  That’s their job.  That’s not the Senate’s job.  The Senate’s job is to have a trial on the articles that the House passes, not to uncover more schemes.

 

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

[keepthefaith]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

 

Unfortunately impeachment proceedings have their own rules and are run by political parties.   Apples and oranges comparison to a criminal trial.  This is an example of why Congress has an approval rating less than half of that of the President. 

 

 

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

 

 

Nope, not beating this horse again with you. Find some other sucker. Your questions have already been answered by me and several others in this thread. Your hypothetical is nonsensical.

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Welp, you've certainly closed your mind to Joe Biden, on camera, admitting to his corruption in The Ukraine.    And lots of people not associated with the Democrats certainly want to know more about that. 

 

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Nope, not beating this horse again with you. Find some other sucker. Your questions have already been answered by me and several others in this thread. Your hypothetical is nonsensical.

 

 

Didn't recall that that was you earlier.  Don't answer then.  Did I start this conversation or did you?

 

The hypothetical helps focus on the heart of the matter.   It flips motivation around and then asks the 'same' question.   I don't think you would ever accept that weak excuse you used if you were motivated to learn the truth, as in the rape example. 

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Didn't recall that that was you earlier.  Don't answer then.  Did I start this conversation or did you?

 

The hypothetical helps focus on the heart of the matter.   It flips motivation around and then asks the 'same' question.   I don't think you would ever accept that weak excuse you used if you were motivated to learn the truth, as in the rape example. 

 

I don’t need a hypothetical. I understand the actual events. Your use of hypotheticals is a waste of time. Maybe you should focus on learning the actual events and then you don’t need to waste your time with hypotheticals. And maybe get an open mind.  You like to spout one sided talking points. That’s a waste of time, too.

 

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Welp, you've certainly closed your mind to Joe Biden, on camera, admitting to his corruption in The Ukraine.    And lots of people not associated with the Democrats certainly want to know more about that. 

 

How do you know that I closed my mind?  Are you referencing some earlier discussion?

 

My take on the Biden issue you reference has been explained as a quid pro quo HOWEVER it was done as part of our policy and not related to smearing personal political opponents.  There is disagreement whether or not he ended up protecting his son's job or not as the particular prosecutor has been said to both be investigating and to not be investigating.  I don't know the truth.

 

The whole problem is that I see Hunter's bad judgement and that his job looked bad but I have not seen any concrete evidence of further misdeeds.  What exactly are you suspicious he did?  Do you have hard evidence of that?

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

How do you know that I closed my mind?  Are you referencing some earlier discussion?

 

My take on the Biden issue you reference has been explained as a quid pro quo HOWEVER it was done as part of our policy and not related to smearing personal political opponents.  There is disagreement whether or not he ended up protecting his son's job or not as the particular prosecutor has been said to both be investigating and to not be investigating.  I don't know the truth.

 

The whole problem is that I see Hunter's bad judgement and that his job looked bad but I have not seen any concrete evidence of further misdeeds.  What exactly are you suspicious he did?  Do you have hard evidence of that?

yeah, go check out the Ukraine thread. You are welcome. 

[Bob in Mich]

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I don’t need a hypothetical. I understand the actual events. Your use of hypotheticals is a waste of time. Maybe you should focus on learning the actual events and then you don’t need to waste your time with hypotheticals. And maybe get an open mind.  You like to spout one sided talking points. That’s a waste of time, too.

 

Thanks for your advice.  Gee I guess I must be the only one with a political take.  On this topic my position aligns with the Dem position.  Why should I argue positions with which I disagree.  That would be silly. 

 

Not a waste of my time though as obviously it forced you to see, if not admit, that it is a weak, totally partisan position motivated by a desire to bury truth. 

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for your advice.  Gee I guess I must be the only one with a political take.  On this topic my position aligns with the Dem position.  Why should I argue positions with which I disagree.  That would be silly. 

 

Not a waste of my time though as obviously it forced you to see, if not admit, that it is a weak, totally partisan position motivated by a desire to bury truth. 

 

Bull *****, Bob.

 

[Bob in Mich]

Alrighty then    Good night folks.   Out.

[Deranged Rhino]

Replay of Bob's day of posting in this thread: 

[Hedge]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Replay of Bob's day of posting in this thread: 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

Bob, thinking he's getting lucky tonight. 

[Foxx]

10 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Probably impossible but I would like to come to general agreement as to what types of misdeeds would fall under that label of high crimes and misdemeanors and what specifically would not.  As it stands today, the question is never discussed until one party is under fire and then the political interpretations override honest interpretations.  It may require periodic review or updating but that definition seems to be a big part of disagreements in the last 50 years or so.

i have already explained my position here. taken in it's context, 'bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors' seems to indicate that an actual crime is needed. as we know with what just happened, no actual crime was alleged in either article.

 

 

9 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

the continued argument of comparing apples to oranges does not hold water of any sorts. in a criminal trial you are afforded the protections of double jeopardy. in a political trial, you have no such protections. nothing is stopping the House from holding (as they should but one never knows with Nancy Schiffty) a vote to re-initiate an inquiry to bring more articles should an investigation warrant it.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Foxx

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Well, you picked a bad example but I am sure there is some middle ground on some other things.  Obama and his, 'you can keep your doctor line' was a bad mistake.  His red line Syria statement, although was traded for removing most chem weapons, if I recall, was seen by most as a large mistake.  I think he said that blue or gold dress was blue when clearly it was gold.

 

Trump' credibility overall has become a huge problem with me.  Did I mention that before?  I no longer can buy his administration's account of anything that I can't verify.  Without picking top ones, let me just list some......his assertions about say, bringing back some particular industry jobs, or keeping plants open....that sort of stuff is terribly misleading.  Many jobs will fall to automation and those workers need new directions, not promises of returning to the way it was.  We should not revive coal, either imo and we are not but he lead people to believe that was going that way.

 

He will hold some rally at a plant, like that Ohio auto plant, make promises, brag that he saved it.  Then a few months later it quietly downsizes or shuts down.  He is a con man at heart, imo, and I hate to see people get fooled by his lies.  NKorea.   He has those WH photo op summits that go nowhere.  He was going to eliminate the deficit and that is going the wrong way.  He declares 'national emergency' and re-appropriates money to his own project that congress decided not to support.  No Mex$ either.  His recent budget attacks on programs he promised to protect....SS, medicare, etc.  DACA was going to be protected.  We were going to all have better and cheaper health coverage that included pre-existing conditions.  Remember that tax cut was supposed to be generally for the middle class along with business but now that we see it better, the middle class was not the target.  Then just before the 2018 election recall he claimed they were all discussing the new 10% middle class tax cut.  After the election, that evaporated too.    Anyway, most quit reading already and I am unintentionally gish galloping I guess.  How ironic Len. 

 

The issue I have with the surveillance question is the same question I have had all along.  So, the FISA 'mistakes' lead to surveying CPage, OK.  And now because of that, the FBI could survey others that he contacted and maybe Trump too, OK.  After that the actual surveillance that was done gets less clear to me as I have stated.  Did anyone record these people that were surveyed?  The question I have isn't 'who the CPage FISA allowed them to watch, but who did they watch'?  Len, you assert like a fact that they wiretapped Trump conversations.  How are you so certain that this is fact?   Is there further proof beyond the ability to do so and the follow up suspicion.....like recordings?  I have never seen or heard of recordings from a program supposedly designed to survey the whole campaign.  Have you?  If not, why is that?

So one lie, one “some saw it as lie-ish” and one issue of previously undiagnosed color-blindness?  Not bad for 8 years.  And yes, I can now see why you suggested DJT lies substantially more than past presidents.

 

You’ll have to forgive me if I discount rallies at plants, photo ops, generalized political word tracks because every presidential candidate can be knocked on those.  The repeal of ACA seemed within reach until McCain changed his vote when all eyes were on him, and from what I have seen and read, the approach to sh$tcanning it has transitioned to death by paper cut v torching it with a flamethrower.  You seem to be knocking him for lawfully re-appropriating $$$ to keep a promise on an issue he and his supporters feel is a National Emergency—-that constitutes a lie? 
 

We can keep going here but as I have already acknowledged that politicians lie, and that President Trump has lied as well, why bother?

 

I’m much more interested in the truth(s) he has told and the agenda he is following.

 

On surveillance, no, my assertion is nit that some Tom Cruise-looking mo’fo dressed up like a Verizon tech and breached the data room at Trump Towers. Surveillance and spycraft occurred, that’s undeniable.  You questions imply you desire exacting specifity on surveillance while rounding up (or down) on  “lies” like Trump and appropriations made under presidential powers or the absolute ability to withhold foreign aide to corrupt nations,  That seems a more political standard than one borne of the ethical standard that all lies matter.  For me, it’s much less complicated.  When one administration accuses an individual of treasonous activity, broadly and publicly, using the incredible power of the US government to investigate/coordinate/manipulate/and crush anyone in it’s path in pursuit of national security, they should absolutely be correct and revealed to have righteousness on their side.  To be clear—-had the dems established a causal and treasonous connection between Trump and Russia, I’d have stood next to you at the “Trump 4 Prison” rally in Detroit.  I can’t imagine why you’re not calling for the heads of those who lied to you, and in fact doubling down in Ukraine and whatever fantasy they are cooking up now. 
 

When it turns out the entire premise turned out to be fabricated, and in spite of arms twisted and doors broken down, absolutely nothing comes of it, the corrupt officials in charge of the scheme should be called out on it and prosecuted. Whether that happens or not I cannot say.  Honestly Bob, I don’t see why you would approve of the actions of Obama on down, even in light of your feelings on Trump, given all that took place, all that was promised and a big fat goose egg offered to you at the end of the investigation.
 

Nice spin on FISA ‘mistakes’ though.  I’m hearing from the libs that all that happened was the US Govt misspelled “Febuary” 14 times, and in the other 3 spelled his last name “Paige”.  ?

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

DAVID HARSANYI: Why Impeachment Failed. 

 

“Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary decent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of ‘vital’ Ukrainian aid that most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.”

 

 

Or maybe people would still have realized it was all bull####.

 

 

.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

12 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

 

The issue I have with the surveillance question is the same question I have had all along.  So, the FISA 'mistakes' lead to surveying CPage, OK.  And now because of that, the FBI could survey others that he contacted and maybe Trump too, OK.  After that the actual surveillance that was done gets less clear to me as I have stated.  Did anyone record these people that were surveyed?  The question I have isn't 'who the CPage FISA allowed them to watch, but who did they watch'?  Len, you assert like a fact that they wiretapped Trump conversations.  How are you so certain that this is fact?   Is there further proof beyond the ability to do so and the follow up suspicion.....like recordings?  I have never seen or heard of recordings from a program supposedly designed to survey the whole campaign.  Have you?  If not, why is that?

Bob is back to asking “where are the tapes!” — proving, beyond all doubt, he knows NOTHING about how the Nat security surveillance apparatus works. 
 

Nothing. 

[B-Man]

Impeachment Trial: Closing Arguments From Patrick Philbin

 

Philbin: We’ve heard repeatedly throughout the last week-and-a-half or so that the President is not above the law. And I’d like to focus in my last remarks here on an equally important principle, which is that the House of Representatives also is not above the law in the way that they conduct the impeachment proceedings and bring the matter here before the Senate because in very significant and important respects, they didn’t follow the law. From the outset, they began an impeachment inquiry without a vote from the House, and therefore without lawful authority delegated to any committees to begin any impeachment inquiries against the President of the United States. That was unprecedented in our history. The Speaker of the House does not have authority by holding a press conference to delegate the sole power of impeachment from the House to a committee.

 

And the result was 23 totally unauthorized and invalid subpoenas were issued at the beginning of this impeachment inquiry. After that, the House violated every principle of due process and fundamental fairness in the way that the hearings were conducted. … It is significant because denying the President the ability to be present through counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence fundamentally skewed the proceedings in the House of Representatives. It left the President without the ability to have a fair proceeding, and it reflected the fact that those proceedings were not truly designed as a search for truth. We have procedural protections; we have the right of cross-examination as a mechanism for getting to the facts. And that was not present in the House of Representatives. And lastly, Manager Schiff, as an interested witness, who had been involved with … or who at least his staff had discussions with the whistleblower … then guided the factual inquiry in the House.

 

So why does all of this matter? It matters because the lack of the vote meant that there was no democratic accountability and no lawful authorization for the beginning of the process. It meant that there were procedural defects that produced a record that this chamber can’t rely on for any conclusion other than to reject the articles of impeachment and to acquit the President. And it mattered because the President, in response to these violations of the President’s rights, with the failure to follow proper procedure, with the failure to follow the law, has rights of his own … rights of the executive branch to be exerted. And that’s the President’s response to the invalid subpoenas … that they’re invalid and we’re not going to comply with them. And the President exerted other rights of the executive branch. When there were subpoenas for his senior advisers to come and testify, along with virtually every president since Nixon, he asserted the principle of immunity of his senior advisers that they could not be called to testify. And the President asserted the defects in subpoenas that called for executive branch officials to testify without the presence of agency counsel. All established principles that had been asserted before.

 

And what did the House managers say in response? They accused the President in their second article of impeachment that this was unprecedented response and unprecedented refusal to cooperate. It was unprecedented that 23 subpoenas were issued in a presidential impeachment inquiry without valid authorization from House. The President’s response was to a totally unprecedented attempt by the House to do that which it had no authority to do. They’ve asserted today and on other occasions that the President’s legal arguments in response to these subpoenas … they’ve said that it’s indiscriminate … that there was just a blanket defiance. I think I’ve shown that that wasn’t true.

(more at the link)

 

• The House process did not follow the law
• The House issued invalid subpoenas and chose not to correct the process for reasons of political expediency
• The House denied the President due process rights: the right to be represented and to cross-examine witnesses
• The denial of the President’s due process rights precluded the ability of the House to get to the truth of the matter
• Schiff was an interested witness with a conflict of interest and should never have been involved in guiding the inquiry in the House
• The President followed long-established legal precedent every step of the way; the assertion of those privileges cannot be considered unlawful or “obstruction of Congress”
• The House abused power by rushing to impeachment without exploring other mechanisms to resolve inter-branch conflicts
• The House managers’ calling of the exertion of privileges by the President to be “evidence of guilt” is contrary to long-standing traditions of American jurisprudence
• The House attempted to destroy the longstanding privilege of separation of powers in their article of impeachment alleging obstruction of Congress
• The House’s rush to impeachment was an entirely partisan political endeavor by the Democrats, about which James Madison specifically warned us in Federalist No. 65
• The House was driven by a political timetable which, in itself, is reason to reject the articles of impeachment

The end.

 

https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2020/02/04/impeachment-trial-closing-arguments-from-patrick-philbin-superstar/

Edited February 4, 2020 by B-Man

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political.  You don't want to know anything more, is that fair?

 

Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter.  Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said.  Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify.  Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

 

 

Great point, although not on topic. 

 

The politics of life come into play here.  If we look at the current narrative, one individual who acknowledged wrongdoing when accused of rape/assault, settled a civil suit and is celebrated as being an incredible human being.  Another was accused of wrongdoing on an unknown day at an unknown time 30 years prior, with the accuser being discredited almost immediately upon making the allegation.  Both parties have/had lead apparently expemlary lives after the alleged/actual event.  One has lived under a cloud of suspicion and derision, the other not so much.  Politics are a strange thing, aren't they? 

 

As for your scenario, if I  thought the allegations were true, I'd support overlooking every civil liberty we hold dear and support having  the perp drawn and quartered and his limbs sent to the farthest reaches of the earth. I don't know how to draw but I'd bet I'd be ok at the quartering.  Of course, that's one of the reasons they don't put the relatives of a victim on a jury, and why checks and balances are necessary even when the outcome is painful for you.  

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

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

So one lie, one “some saw it as lie-ish” and one issue of previously undiagnosed color-blindness?  Not bad for 8 years.  And yes, I can now see why you suggested DJT lies substantially more than past presidents.

 

You’ll have to forgive me if I discount rallies at plants, photo ops, generalized political word tracks because every presidential candidate can be knocked on those.  The repeal of ACA seemed within reach until McCain changed his vote when all eyes were on him, and from what I have seen and read, the approach to sh$tcanning it has transitioned to death by paper cut v torching it with a flamethrower.  You seem to be knocking him for lawfully re-appropriating $$$ to keep a promise on an issue he and his supporters feel is a National Emergency—-that constitutes a lie? 
 

We can keep going here but as I have already acknowledged that politicians lie, and that President Trump has lied as well, why bother?

 

I’m much more interested in the truth(s) he has told and the agenda he is following.

 

On surveillance, no, my assertion is nit that some Tom Cruise-looking mo’fo dressed up like a Verizon tech and breached the data room at Trump Towers. Surveillance and spycraft occurred, that’s undeniable.  You questions imply you desire exacting specifity on surveillance while rounding up (or down) on  “lies” like Trump and appropriations made under presidential powers or the absolute ability to withhold foreign aide to corrupt nations,  That seems a more political standard than one borne of the ethical standard that all lies matter.  For me, it’s much less complicated.  When one administration accuses an individual of treasonous activity, broadly and publicly, using the incredible power of the US government to investigate/coordinate/manipulate/and crush anyone in it’s path in pursuit of national security, they should absolutely be correct and revealed to have righteousness on their side.  To be clear—-had the dems established a causal and treasonous connection between Trump and Russia, I’d have stood next to you at the “Trump 4 Prison” rally in Detroit.  I can’t imagine why you’re not calling for the heads of those who lied to you, and in fact doubling down in Ukraine and whatever fantasy they are cooking up now. 
 

When it turns out the entire premise turned out to be fabricated, and in spite of arms twisted and doors broken down, absolutely nothing comes of it, the corrupt officials in charge of the scheme should be called out on it and prosecuted. Whether that happens or not I cannot say.  Honestly Bob, I don’t see why you would approve of the actions of Obama on down, even in light of your feelings on Trump, given all that took place, all that was promised and a big fat goose egg offered to you at the end of the investigation.
 

Nice spin on FISA ‘mistakes’ though.  I’m hearing from the libs that all that happened was the US Govt misspelled “Febuary” 14 times, and in the other 3 spelled his last name “Paige”.  ?

 

 

 

 

Certainly we are not going to agree .  As I said, if you believe what Trump tells you, you are going to come away with a much different impression than if you don't believe the guy or his cabinet.  Many of these upbeat statements or assertions or accusations of his are unknowns at this point.  Time will tell if what he has been telling us is true.  Hopefully one of us will see it more clearly later and we can back slap and mock someone together.

 

You are right, I don't know a lot of the OBAMA lies that pissed you off.  If you care to discuss further go ahead.

 

I don't see killing the ACA as a positive goal.  Several years back my wife and I fell right into the circumstances that bankrupted many - expensive treatments, pre-existing conditions, followed by job loss.  Candidate Trump promised us better, cheaper health care with coverage for pre-existing conditions.  His plan today is to kill the ACA...and replace that coverage with?  He has stated no real replacement plan but....what, maybe after the next election he will reveal the plan?

 

You have told me how upsetting that surveillance on the Trump campaign by the FBI under Obama was to you.  Understood.  What you have yet to tell me is, if that was such a widespread spying operation, as is implied by you and Trump both, where are the fruits of the investigations?  What all was done with this evidence, specifically? 

 

I put FISA 'mistakes' in quotes as they may not be mistakes.  I approve of the investigations.  Find out what happened.  Hold those accountable for misdeeds.  Clear?

 

Now, this is tougher to follow.....If there was a subset of FBI and/or CIA  officials that were behind the supposed 'coup plot' in 2016, they manipulated/manufactured the whole tale that Trump was involved with Russians to get himself elected.  They made him look like a possible traitor, is that basically correct?

 

If that is what happened, how can you blame people, posters, politicians, or even media outlets for seeing the publicly available evidence and concluding that he might, in fact, be involved with the Russians.  If what we saw on the surface was true, not investigating would be irresponsible.  I don't agree that Mueller produced nothing.  I don't agree that every bit of Trump-Russia evidence was innocent or manufactured but if that is the story you believe, concluding that everyone that bought the story was hateful or unreasonably out to get Donnie, is not really logical.

 

[Bob in Mich]

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

Great point, although not on topic. 

 

The politics of life come into play here.  If we look at the current narrative, one individual who acknowledged wrongdoing when accused of rape/assault, settled a civil suit and is celebrated as being an incredible human being.  Another was accused of wrongdoing on an unknown day at an unknown time 30 years prior, with the accuser being discredited almost immediately upon making the allegation.  Both parties have/had lead apparently expemlary lives after the alleged/actual event.  One has lived under a cloud of suspicion and derision, the other not so much.  Politics are a strange thing, aren't they? 

 

As for your scenario, if I  thought the allegations were true, I'd support overlooking every civil liberty we hold dear and support having  the perp drawn and quartered and his limbs sent to the farthest reaches of the earth. I don't know how to draw but I'd bet I'd be ok at the quartering.  Of course, that's one of the reasons they don't put the relatives of a victim on a jury, and why checks and balances are necessary even when the outcome is painful for you.  

 

 

You don't have enough to reply to and have to butt in here too?   lol

 

I guess it wasn't on topic if you want to change the topic to Kavanaugh....again with the Kavanaugh.  I will have to find that last discussion.  Rape itself was not my point either, just a circumstance where it would be apparent to most that, motivations for witnesses would be 180 degrees from today's Repubs in Senate trial.

 

When I wrote it, we were discussing wanting to pursue more witnesses, like Bolton, versus claiming we shouldn't because the House didn't get his testimony.   So, on topic?  Yes, spot on my topic, not on the Kavanaugh topic of yours though.

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Certainly we are not going to agree .  As I said, if you believe what Trump tells you, you are going to come away with a much different impression than if you don't believe the guy or his cabinet. 

 

Or, you could be an adult, and go by the evidence -- not the words of politicians. 

 

And if you go by the evidence, you'd understand that everything you believe regarding Trump/Russia is 100% incorrect, without factual support, and pushed on you by proven liars and manipulators whom you don't seem to mind lying to you and manipulating you. 

 

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

You have told me how upsetting that surveillance on the Trump campaign by the FBI under Obama was to you.  Understood.  What you have yet to tell me is, if that was such a widespread spying operation, as is implied by you and Trump both, where are the fruits of the investigations?  What all was done with this evidence, specifically?

 

Still proving you don't have the basic understanding needed to have a discussion about the IC, surveillance, or how this all works. It also proves you didn't read the Mueller report, any of the IG reports, the House report, the Senate report, or any of that. 

 

(Bob's MO: "Why read for myself when I can have MSNBC tell me what to think?")

 

17 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I put FISA 'mistakes' in quotes as they may not be mistakes.  I approve of the investigations.  Find out what happened.  Hold those accountable for misdeeds.  Clear?

 

The only one who calls them "mistakes" are dishonest people. The IG did not call them mistakes. Nor does the evidence. 

 

You can read about it here: 

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf

 

You should try reading the pertinent information before forming your opinion on it. That's what intellectually honest people do. 

 

19 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Now, this is tougher to follow.....If there was a subset of FBI and/or CIA  officials that were behind the supposed 'coup plot' in 2016, they manipulated/manufactured the whole tale that Trump was involved with Russians to get himself elected.  They made him look like a possible traitor, is that basically correct?

 

If that is what happened, how can you blame people, posters, politicians, or even media outlets for seeing the publicly available evidence and concluding that he might, in fact, be involved with the Russians.  If what we saw on the surface was true, not investigating would be irresponsible.

 

This is why you're a dishonest asshat. 

 

You had every chance to see through the spin, because information was shared with you for the past three years -- not op-eds, not anonymous source material, actual sourced facts, testimony, congressional records, and more -- yet you chose to NOT read any of it and scoff at it as being "conspiracy". 

 

So yes, I can blame you for your own ignorance because it was entirely earned and deserved. You're still displaying it. 

 

21 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 I don't agree that Mueller produced nothing.

 

 

No one said he produced nothing. He produced a report which proved, beyond all doubt, that the entire narrative of Trump being an active agent of Russia was false. And the report linked above from the OIG proved that Mueller knew this from day one of his probe, yet he dragged it out for two years anyway. 

 

22 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I don't agree that every bit of Trump-Russia evidence was innocent or manufactured but if that is the story you believe, concluding that everyone that bought the story was hateful or unreasonably out to get Donnie, is not really logical.

 

 

Not hateful. Ignorant. 

 

You're ignorant. 

 

And you keep proving it. 

 

You're a partisan asshat. 

 

And you keep proving it. 

 

You've had every opportunity to learn the truth, and you REPEATEDLY turn your nose at it. 

 

Because you're a dishonest, partisan asshat.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Certainly we are not going to agree .  As I said, if you believe what Trump tells you, you are going to come away with a much different impression than if you don't believe the guy or his cabinet.  Many of these upbeat statements or assertions or accusations of his are unknowns at this point.  Time will tell if what he has been telling us is true.  Hopefully one of us will see it more clearly later and we can back slap and mock someone together.

 

You are right, I don't know a lot of the OBAMA lies that pissed you off.  If you care to discuss further go ahead.

 

I don't see killing the ACA as a positive goal.  Several years back my wife and I fell right into the circumstances that bankrupted many - expensive treatments, pre-existing conditions, followed by job loss.  Candidate Trump promised us better, cheaper health care with coverage for pre-existing conditions.  His plan today is to kill the ACA...and replace that coverage with?  He has stated no real replacement plan but....what, maybe after the next election he will reveal the plan?

 

You have told me how upsetting that surveillance on the Trump campaign by the FBI under Obama was to you.  Understood.  What you have yet to tell me is, if that was such a widespread spying operation, as is implied by you and Trump both, where are the fruits of the investigations?  What all was done with this evidence, specifically? 

 

I put FISA 'mistakes' in quotes as they may not be mistakes.  I approve of the investigations.  Find out what happened.  Hold those accountable for misdeeds.  Clear?

 

Now, this is tougher to follow.....If there was a subset of FBI and/or CIA  officials that were behind the supposed 'coup plot' in 2016, they manipulated/manufactured the whole tale that Trump was involved with Russians to get himself elected.  They made him look like a possible traitor, is that basically correct?

 

If that is what happened, how can you blame people, posters, politicians, or even media outlets for seeing the publicly available evidence and concluding that he might, in fact, be involved with the Russians.  If what we saw on the surface was true, not investigating would be irresponsible.  I don't agree that Mueller produced nothing.  I don't agree that every bit of Trump-Russia evidence was innocent or manufactured but if that is the story you believe, concluding that everyone that bought the story was hateful or unreasonably out to get Donnie, is not really logical.

 

We've reached the end here sir. 

 

I'm truly sorry to hear about the medical issues and health care coverage. I think you know that already.  What I can offer in that regard is only that everything that happened there was part of the over-managed, over-regulated system set in place by the politicians in the state where you receive care. Everything--everything starts with the state and its requirements.it always has been that way. There are obvious problems with our health care system, but at the end of the day the total disregard for actuarial science is where it all starts. You can't solve a problem that involves both people AND mathematics by creating a new system that ignores the math totally. 

 

I acknowledge health  care seems to be a non-issue at this point. Could focus on proving he's not a traitor for 3 years be part of the  challenge? Could that be part or the dem strategy? You've seen the House and Senate and where there attentions have been focused. 

 

You are correct--the last part was tough to follow. Impossible in fact. It belies virtually everything we know now about the Russia investigation.  Could people believe that it was a big innocent misunderstanding and Trump is guilty in spite of what came out, or that Comey and Brennan are the true heroes of the take, and that the FISA "mistakes" actually represent the truth? 

 

Diabetics skip insulin shots. People with heart conditions allow themselves to become obese. Pat's fans think the cheaters don't cheat. Of course people will think that way. 

 

I'm not one of those people. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

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

We've reached the end here sir. 

 

I'm truly sorry to hear about the medical issues and health care coverage. I think you know that already.  What I can offer in that regard is only that everything that happened there was part of the over-managed, over-regulated system set in place by the politicians in the state where you receive care. Everything--everything starts with the state and its requirements.it always has been that way. There are obvious problems with our health care system, but at the end of the day the total disregard for actuarial science is where it all starts. You can't solve a problem that involves both people AND mathematics by creating a new system that ignores the math totally. 

 

I acknowledge health  care seems to be a non-issue at this point. Could focus on proving he's not a traitor for 3 years be part of the  challenge? Could that be part or the dem strategy? You've seen the House and Senate and where there attentions have been focused. 

 

You are correct--the last part was tough to follow. Impossible in fact. It belies virtually everything we know now about the Russia investigation.  Could people believe that it was a big innocent misunderstanding and Trump is guilty in spite of what came out, or that Comey and Brennan are the true heroes of the take, and that the FISA "mistakes" actually represent the truth? 

 

Diabetics skip insulin shots. People with heart conditions allow themselves to become obese. Pat's fans think the cheaters don't cheat. Of course people will think that way. 

 

I'm not one of those people. 

This is spot on. Back when we were debating the ACA before its inception I had two major objections to it. (1) It ignored the "Law of Large Numbers" which is the basis for all insurance. (2) The people implementing the ACA were incompetent. 

[B-Man]

 

[IDBillzFan]

13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This is spot on. Back when we were debating the ACA before its inception I had two major objections to it. (1) It ignored the "Law of Large Numbers" which is the basis for all insurance. (2) The people implementing the ACA were incompetent. 

 

I had two different major objection to it: (1) It was mandatory. You HAD to get health insurance. You were being forced by the government to buy a product, regardless of whether you wanted it. (2) The law exempted the very people who wrote it, passed it and forced it on the rest of us.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This is spot on. Back when we were debating the ACA before its inception I had two major objections to it. (1) It ignored the "Law of Large Numbers" which is the basis for all insurance. (2) The people implementing the ACA were incompetent. 

Deliberately incompetent imo. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Rob's House]

"Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter"

 

I want to address this sentence, not in relation to Bob personally or even his post specifically, but to this rhetorical device generally.

 

If someone is accused of raping my daughter I am not going to be rational. I am going to be fueled by emotion rather than reason.

 

If an argument requires me to be irrational to accept it then it isn't a good argument.

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Were those people Eric Ciaramella and Sean Misko?

Edited February 4, 2020 by Rob's House

[Hedge]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Here's the full RP statement: 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

You don't have enough to reply to and have to butt in here too?   lol

 

I guess it wasn't on topic if you want to change the topic to Kavanaugh....again with the Kavanaugh.  I will have to find that last discussion.  Rape itself was not my point either, just a circumstance where it would be apparent to most that, motivations for witnesses would be 180 degrees from today's Repubs in Senate trial.

 

When I wrote it, we were discussing wanting to pursue more witnesses, like Bolton, versus claiming we shouldn't because the House didn't get his testimony.   So, on topic?  Yes, spot on my topic, not on the Kavanaugh topic of yours though.

Ok, I'll admit I'm still laughing about butting in. However, you compared a father dealing with his daughter's assault in a criminal trial with wanting to tune to the All Bolton All the time channel on Sirius Xm Impeachment radio. Yes, they are similar because each deals with people talking, but they have little else in common. Hence, off topic. 

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Here's the full RP statement: 

 

 

The comments in that twitter thread make Tibs look like a genius, my god