Schiff ended the session today by addressing the lunacy of actually believing this President gives two ***** about corruption.

Schiff is the biggest liar in Congress.

How is any of this supposed to make me want a Democrat for President?

(11-21-2019 12:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How is any of this supposed to make me want a Democrat for President?

It isn’t. It is supposed to lay out evidence regarding whether or not Trump abused the office of POTUS for personal gain.

(11-20-2019 11:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, you have described the issue as no more than a 'conflict of interest' and worthy of no more processing or consideration. Lolz

Glad you are able to recognize that your statement was utterly false. I appreciate that.

Look, do you really, actually believe that Trump cares about rooting out all corruption in our allies when those actions don’t personally benefit him?

(11-21-2019 07:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 12:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How is any of this supposed to make me want a Democrat for President?

It isn’t. It is supposed to lay out evidence regarding whether or not Trump abused the office of POTUS for personal gain.

Well, then, it is failing to produce such evidence.

But suppose my choice in 2020 is a criminal versus a commiecrat?

I'll see what's behind door #3, Monty.

(11-21-2019 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 07:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 12:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How is any of this supposed to make me want a Democrat for President?

It isn’t. It is supposed to lay out evidence regarding whether or not Trump abused the office of POTUS for personal gain.

Well, then, it is failing to produce such evidence.

But suppose my choice in 2020 is a criminal versus a commiecrat?

I'll see what's behind door #3, Monty.

It is not way failing to produce the evidence, unless you don’t consider first hand accounts of conversations evidence.

It is clearly not a slam dunk case that the POTUS abuses his power, but there are plenty of testimonies that produce the same picture - Trump did not care about corruption investigations in Ukraine, just announcing that Ukraine would investigate a debunked conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden.

(11-21-2019 07:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2019 11:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, you have described the issue as no more than a 'conflict of interest' and worthy of no more processing or consideration. Lolz

Glad you are able to recognize that your statement was utterly false. I appreciate that.

When you simply describe anything about the situation off as a simple 'conflict of interest' worthy of zero consideration, seems to me to be fairly tantamount to utterly disregarding it. As opposed to your characterization in your putative cute little victory dance above. Funny that.

How do you describe your putting everything off as a 'simple conflict of interest' and worthy of zero consideration?

Kind of exactly opposite your Encyclopedia Brown Junior Detective stance on the amount of 'smoke' vis a vis the Russia issues. Again, funny that.

And, color me shocked. (sarcasm there, lad)

(11-21-2019 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 07:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 12:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How is any of this supposed to make me want a Democrat for President?

It isn’t. It is supposed to lay out evidence regarding whether or not Trump abused the office of POTUS for personal gain.

Well, then, it is failing to produce such evidence.

But suppose my choice in 2020 is a criminal versus a commiecrat?

I'll see what's behind door #3, Monty.

It is not way failing to produce the evidence, unless you don’t consider first hand accounts of conversations evidence.

I guess you fail to understand the import of the term "I believe" that crops up like a bad case of athlete's foot in every critical juncture in the testimony. And dont understand what that phrase (and related phrases) have to do with actual evidence.

Not just "I believe", but here is list of other items *just* in Sondland's testimony on the case when it comes to all these things that you seemingly believe lock stock and two smoking barrels in:

“I believe”
“I presume”
“my personal belief”
“I came to believe”
“It could’ve been”
“I think”
""I said repeatedly [...] I was presuming,"

Hmmm.... what might those words indicate? What do you think that those words indicate lad?

As an exercise in 'evidence' lad, I suggest you go back to your Rachel Maddow tapes, and actually strip out the hard, cold facts presented. That is, the 'evidence'. That means stripping out the things like the above.

Come back and tell us what the cold, hard facts say. You, know, the stuff that isnt prefaced by the phrases on the list, or phrases like them.

When pressed on the facts, the testimony reveals such things as:

Rep. Turner: "Your testimony and his are consistent in that the President did not tie aid to the investigations?"
Sondland: "That is correct".

But I forget, which tack is the issue now? Abuse of power, quid pro quo, {input theory de jure here} (literally de jure in the literal sense...)

lad today seems fixated on 'for personal gain'. Then he lauds the 'evidence'. Funny, all of the 'evidence' that lad jumps up and down about on 'personal gain' always seems to be made wholly of 'belief or supposition' by a witness. Funny, last time I looked that *isnt* evidence, it is opinion. That was drilled into my head by both a litigation partner and a judge (and an opposing counsel). Yet the current wing flapping is on such 'evidence'. Glad to know there is such an epochal change in what constitutes evidence.

lad, should I go back and try to get a refund on the ass reaming I took on that issue 22 years ago?

(11-21-2019 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It is clearly not a slam dunk case that the POTUS abuses his power, but there are plenty of testimonies that produce the same picture - Trump did not care about corruption investigations in Ukraine, just announcing that Ukraine would investigate a debunked conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden.

So what? Even if your mountain of innuendo is true, we both know this is an election ploy, and there is no way I or any other sane person would vote for any democrat based on this stuff. Schiff is just a modern Ahab whose white whale is Trump. Frankly, after three years of lies, hypocrisy, and name calling, I am very, very tired of the Democrat hysteria.

I would like Schiff, Nadler, and other leading Democrats go back to their constituents and tell tell them what they did for them OTHER than than try to impeach Trump. Of course, THEIR constituents might be satisfied with nothing but an inane and unrelenting witch hunt.

(11-21-2019 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It is clearly not a slam dunk case that the POTUS abuses his power, but there are plenty of testimonies that produce the same picture - Trump did not care about corruption investigations in Ukraine, just announcing that Ukraine would investigate a debunked conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden.

So what? Even if your mountain of innuendo is true, we both know this is an election ploy, and there is no way I or any other sane person would vote for any democrat based on this stuff. Schiff is just a modern Ahab whose white whale is Trump. Frankly, after three years of lies, hypocrisy, and name calling, I am very, very tired of the Democrat hysteria.

I would like Schiff, Nadler, and other leading Democrats go back to their constituents and tell tell them what they did for them OTHER than than try to impeach Trump. Of course, THEIR constituents might be satisfied with nothing but an inane and unrelenting witch hunt.

You don't care if the POTUS used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally? The accusations, which have support now, are that Trump was not acting in the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole, but rather generate some news stories that would hurt Biden.

And to you last point - there are a lot of bills that have been passed by the House that are sitting on McConnell's desk. The House is even working on passing marijuana decriminalization right now, which is a pretty big deal.

I care, but not to the point of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This county used to have a sheriff who could not read or write. But he defeated opponent after opponent who tried to run on his illiteracy. Six straight terms until he retired.

Why? Because he did a good job.

A lot of people must have asked themselves, why should I vote against a person doing a good job, just to elect somebody who can read?

Maybe you think Obama or Clinton were lily pure. I think they just cared enough to cover it better.

It's like pointing at George Washington and screaming "But he owns slaves! We need to elect somebody else! Anybody else!"

We went through "AnybodyButBailiff" and got Bloomgren. I see no reason to give in to a AnybodyButTrump campaign. That would be like wanting to replace a coach with a 22-3 record because he spits tobacco at press conferences.

(11-21-2019 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I care, but not to the point of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This county used to have a sheriff who could not read or write. But he defeated opponent after opponent who tried to run on his illiteracy. Six straight terms until he retired.

Why? Because he did a good job.

A lot of people must have asked themselves, why should I vote against a person doing a good job, just to elect somebody who can read?

Maybe you think Obama or Clinton were lily pure. I think they just cared enough to cover it better.

It's like pointing at George Washington and screaming "But he owns slaves! We need to elect somebody else! Anybody else!"

We went through "AnybodyButBailiff" and got Bloomgren. I see no reason to give in to a AnybodyButTrump campaign. That would be like wanting to replace a coach with a 22-3 record because he spits tobacco at press conferences.

Fair enough. I understand why some people believe the ends justify the means.

(11-21-2019 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I care, but not to the point of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This county used to have a sheriff who could not read or write. But he defeated opponent after opponent who tried to run on his illiteracy. Six straight terms until he retired.

Why? Because he did a good job.

A lot of people must have asked themselves, why should I vote against a person doing a good job, just to elect somebody who can read?

Maybe you think Obama or Clinton were lily pure. I think they just cared enough to cover it better.

It's like pointing at George Washington and screaming "But he owns slaves! We need to elect somebody else! Anybody else!"

We went through "AnybodyButBailiff" and got Bloomgren. I see no reason to give in to a AnybodyButTrump campaign. That would be like wanting to replace a coach with a 22-3 record because he spits tobacco at press conferences.

Fair enough. I understand why some people believe the ends justify the means.

Not at all a fair comparison. More like, the results and the lack of viable alternatives justify sticking with somebody who is not perfect. Much the same attitude as the Democrats in 1998.

The Democrats started operations against a political opponent, Trump, in 2016. Now they are shocked, shocked I tell you, that he may have had a political motivation in this? Buncha hypocrites.

I am more concerned with why Hunter was on that board.

(11-21-2019 11:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I care, but not to the point of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This county used to have a sheriff who could not read or write. But he defeated opponent after opponent who tried to run on his illiteracy. Six straight terms until he retired.

Why? Because he did a good job.

A lot of people must have asked themselves, why should I vote against a person doing a good job, just to elect somebody who can read?

Maybe you think Obama or Clinton were lily pure. I think they just cared enough to cover it better.

It's like pointing at George Washington and screaming "But he owns slaves! We need to elect somebody else! Anybody else!"

We went through "AnybodyButBailiff" and got Bloomgren. I see no reason to give in to a AnybodyButTrump campaign. That would be like wanting to replace a coach with a 22-3 record because he spits tobacco at press conferences.

Fair enough. I understand why some people believe the ends justify the means.

Not at all a fair comparison. More like, the results and the lack of viable alternatives justify sticking with somebody who is not perfect. Much the same attitude as the Democrats in 1998.

The Democrats started operations against a political opponent, Trump, in 2016. Now they are shocked, shocked I tell you, that he may have had a political motivation in this? Buncha hypocrites.

I am more concerned with why Hunter was on that board.

That is literally the ends justify the means...

(11-21-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally? The accusations, which have support now, are that Trump was not acting in the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole, but rather generate some news stories that would hurt Biden.

Care to rephrase? Lolz.

Solely, only, 'not acting in the interests of the United States'. Really?

I guess you see zero interest of the United States in the potential corruption, potential linkage to election meddling that has ties to the Ukraine. Really?

But the *sole* use of the office was to *only* benefit the POTUS personally.... And no action at all had any confluence with the interests of the United States.

Good grief and you get your wings worked up about our (or my) being hyperbolic. Double Lolz.

Here is the rich riposte, and I think I will actually quote you for this:

Quote: Hope that little tirade made you feel better.

(11-21-2019 12:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally? The accusations, which have support now, are that Trump was not acting in the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole, but rather generate some news stories that would hurt Biden.

Care to rephrase? Lolz.

Solely, only, 'not acting in the interests of the United States'. Really?

I guess you see zero interest of the United States in the potential corruption, potential linkage to election meddling that has ties to the Ukraine. Really?

But the *sole* use of the office was to *only* benefit the POTUS personally.... And no action at all had any confluence with the interests of the United States.

Good grief and you get your wings worked up about our (or my) being hyperbolic. Double Lolz.

Here is the rich riposte, and I think I will actually quote you for this:

Quote: Hope that little tirade made you feel better.

So you disagree that Trump is being accused of what I laid out?

This is the thing that nobody has addressed and each time I ask it, I get no response.....

We have a nation apparently so corrupt that the VP of the US and even the UN had to threaten sanctions to get them to oust someone who had zero impact on US or international policies....

and perhaps the leading corporate entity in that country gives a VERY high paying job to someone whose primary qualification seems to be his name (and connection to US political interests)

and there is now absolutely NO reason to investigate corruption in that country anymore other than for personal political gain? We got rid of the ONE guy and everything is cool now, right?

(11-21-2019 12:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 11:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I care, but not to the point of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This county used to have a sheriff who could not read or write. But he defeated opponent after opponent who tried to run on his illiteracy. Six straight terms until he retired.

Why? Because he did a good job.

A lot of people must have asked themselves, why should I vote against a person doing a good job, just to elect somebody who can read?

Maybe you think Obama or Clinton were lily pure. I think they just cared enough to cover it better.

It's like pointing at George Washington and screaming "But he owns slaves! We need to elect somebody else! Anybody else!"

We went through "AnybodyButBailiff" and got Bloomgren. I see no reason to give in to a AnybodyButTrump campaign. That would be like wanting to replace a coach with a 22-3 record because he spits tobacco at press conferences.

Fair enough. I understand why some people believe the ends justify the means.

Not at all a fair comparison. More like, the results and the lack of viable alternatives justify sticking with somebody who is not perfect. Much the same attitude as the Democrats in 1998.

The Democrats started operations against a political opponent, Trump, in 2016. Now they are shocked, shocked I tell you, that he may have had a political motivation in this? Buncha hypocrites.

I am more concerned with why Hunter was on that board.

That is literally the ends justify the means...

I guess if you define my continued well being, and the well being of the American economy, as the ends, and a minor transgression in form and process as the means, I guess so.

But I do not see Trump's alleged wrongdoing as the means to my well being. It is more the mean by which the Democrats want to achieve the end of bringing him down.

I see the continued witch hunt by the Democrats as the means to an "end" of winning the 2020 election. You and nearly all Democrats support that.

So I guess we are in agreement.

(11-21-2019 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is the thing that nobody has addressed and each time I ask it, I get no response.....

We have a nation apparently so corrupt that the VP of the US and even the UN had to threaten sanctions to get them to oust someone who had zero impact on US or international policies....

and perhaps the leading corporate entity in that country gives a VERY high paying job to someone whose primary qualification seems to be his name (and connection to US political interests)

and there is now absolutely NO reason to investigate corruption in that country anymore other than for personal political gain? We got rid of the ONE guy and everything is cool now, right?

I think it smells of influence peddling by Hunter.

And protection of the corruption by the Democrats.