Hey Judiciary Comm

[Bob78164]

I actually watched the Horowitz testimony. You didn't. CNN didn't find it newsworthy enough to present to it's dozen or so viewers. But they showed every second of the impeachment circus.

Flock, you're mixing up apples and oranges here to get the results you want. A lot of people have criticized the FISA process for years on civil liberties and due process grounds. That has nothing to do with who is being investigated. Horowitz found examples of these same types of mistakes. My feeling is that if he had launched an in-depth investigation into a lot FISA warrants over the years, he would have found similar mistakes.

The question is whether these errors were unique to the Trump investigation because of some sort of anti-Trump bias, which is at the center of all the deep state conspiracy theories, and evidence for that was lacking. Where Horowitz found inaccuracies in the FBI presentation, you and other right-wingers find fraudulent intent at the time of the investigation. What's more, you would think that in an organization the size of the FBI, a substantial number of whose agents would be at the least impartial and possibly favoring Trump and other Republicans, someone would have said something about this "conspiracy." Instead, all we get is the same tired groundless speculation about the same half dozen or so names. You would think that people upset about what these "conspirators" were doing would document their dissatisfaction through memos or some way that Horowitz would certainly have found in a thorough investigation.

I don’t remember Flock stating that we shouldn’t credit embarrassing revelations about the DNC because they were the product of illegal hacking. Back then, he understood that whether the process was proper was an entirely separate question from whether the conclusions were sound. He only links the two when necessary to defend Donny or the Republican Party. —Bob

[Bob Juch]

I see that you haven't answered my question yet.

Oh,you were expecting a response?
In that case my answer would be one ounce of horseradish sauce on a blueberry muffin.

You actually think that some people find you amusing, don't you?

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

[flockofseagulls104]

I see that you haven't answered my question yet.

Oh,you were expecting a response?
In that case my answer would be one ounce of horseradish sauce on a blueberry muffin.

You actually think that some people find you amusing, don't you?

Certainly not you. I could say the same thing about you. Depends on your point of view and if you understand sarcasm, which leftists seem to have a problem with.

[flockofseagulls104]

I actually watched the Horowitz testimony. You didn't. CNN didn't find it newsworthy enough to present to it's dozen or so viewers. But they showed every second of the impeachment circus.

Flock, you're mixing up apples and oranges here to get the results you want. A lot of people have criticized the FISA process for years on civil liberties and due process grounds. That has nothing to do with who is being investigated. Horowitz found examples of these same types of mistakes. My feeling is that if he had launched an in-depth investigation into a lot FISA warrants over the years, he would have found similar mistakes.

The question is whether these errors were unique to the Trump investigation because of some sort of anti-Trump bias, which is at the center of all the deep state conspiracy theories, and evidence for that was lacking. Where Horowitz found inaccuracies in the FBI presentation, you and other right-wingers find fraudulent intent at the time of the investigation. What's more, you would think that in an organization the size of the FBI, a substantial number of whose agents would be at the least impartial and possibly favoring Trump and other Republicans, someone would have said something about this "conspiracy." Instead, all we get is the same tired groundless speculation about the same half dozen or so names. You would think that people upset about what these "conspirators" were doing would document their dissatisfaction through memos or some way that Horowitz would certainly have found in a thorough investigation.

I don’t remember Flock stating that we shouldn’t credit embarrassing revelations about the DNC because they were the product of illegal hacking. Back then, he understood that whether the process was proper was an entirely separate question from whether the conclusions were sound. He only links the two when necessary to defend Donny or the Republican Party. —Bob

Here you have, in the case of both the FISA abuse and the impeachment, bad, flawed processes and no sound conclusions. 0 for 2.

[flockofseagulls104]

I actually watched the Horowitz testimony. You didn't. CNN didn't find it newsworthy enough to present to it's dozen or so viewers. But they showed every second of the impeachment circus.

Flock, you're mixing up apples and oranges here to get the results you want. A lot of people have criticized the FISA process for years on civil liberties and due process grounds. That has nothing to do with who is being investigated. Horowitz found examples of these same types of mistakes. My feeling is that if he had launched an in-depth investigation into a lot FISA warrants over the years, he would have found similar mistakes.

The question is whether these errors were unique to the Trump investigation because of some sort of anti-Trump bias, which is at the center of all the deep state conspiracy theories, and evidence for that was lacking. Where Horowitz found inaccuracies in the FBI presentation, you and other right-wingers find fraudulent intent at the time of the investigation. What's more, you would think that in an organization the size of the FBI, a substantial number of whose agents would be at the least impartial and possibly favoring Trump and other Republicans, someone would have said something about this "conspiracy." Instead, all we get is the same tired groundless speculation about the same half dozen or so names. You would think that people upset about what these "conspirators" were doing would document their dissatisfaction through memos or some way that Horowitz would certainly have found in a thorough investigation.

Your feelings are as irrelevant as those of Schiff's handpicked, cherrypicked 'witnesses'. And your often stated feelings about the mueller probe. Why should anyone give any credibility to your feelings based on your impeccable track record?
Let's see what Durham found out, shall we?

[Beebs52]

Schiff had some sorta eyeball treatment! Someone has a beauty consultant.

[silverscreenselect]

Your feelings are as irrelevant as those of Schiff's handpicked, cherrypicked 'witnesses'.

Please refresh my memory as to where were the witnesses with relevant information that the Republicans had the ability to call during the proceedings.

I'm not even counting those that refused to testify like Bolton, Pompeo, and Giuliani.

[silverscreenselect]

Let's see what Durham found out, shall we?

I seem to recall Republicans whistling that same tune about the Horowitz report.

I do expect that Durham will issue an indictment or two, probably against that FBI lawyer who rather clumsily tried to cover his rear end for sloppy work. But that will be as far as it will go since indictments require a presentation of evidence to a grand jury as opposed to wild speculation about deep state conspiracies.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let's see what Durham found out, shall we?

I seem to recall Republicans whistling that same tune about the Horowitz report.

I do expect that Durham will issue an indictment or two, probably against that FBI lawyer who rather clumsily tried to cover his rear end for sloppy work. But that will be as far as it will go since indictments require a presentation of evidence to a grand jury as opposed to wild speculation about deep state conspiracies.

What was it you expected from mueller? Every other day you were gloating about the latest rumor, gossip and speculation coming from your echo chamber. How many times can you be wrong and use the same tired excuses before you question yourself? Why do you think anyone cares what you expect?
You do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Like always, you know nothing about what Durham will report, and neither do I. The difference is you have already made up your mind no matter what he reports.

And for the millionth and first time, you are not addressing a republican. I couldn't care less about your problems with that party. You and yours, however, show me everyday the vast moral, intellectual and childish wasteland of hypocrisy wielded by those who identify themselves as democrats. That you question none of THEIR tactics, motives and conclusions shows how in the tank YOU are and what an apologist YOU are.

[Bob Juch]

Let's see what Durham found out, shall we?

I seem to recall Republicans whistling that same tune about the Horowitz report.

I do expect that Durham will issue an indictment or two, probably against that FBI lawyer who rather clumsily tried to cover his rear end for sloppy work. But that will be as far as it will go since indictments require a presentation of evidence to a grand jury as opposed to wild speculation about deep state conspiracies.

Every witness that's said trump is guilty had done so under oath. Every witness who says he isn't has not been under oath.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let's see what Durham found out, shall we?

I seem to recall Republicans whistling that same tune about the Horowitz report.

I do expect that Durham will issue an indictment or two, probably against that FBI lawyer who rather clumsily tried to cover his rear end for sloppy work. But that will be as far as it will go since indictments require a presentation of evidence to a grand jury as opposed to wild speculation about deep state conspiracies.

Every witness that's said trump is guilty had done so under oath. Every witness who says he isn't has not been under oath.

Every witness that said trump is guilty testified as to their OPINIONS that trump is guilty. None of those people have any authority to set or question foreign policy. That power is granted to the President. None of them but one have ever even spoken to the President. And the president is not required to carry out foreign policy according to the dictates of the people who ultimately report to him. He released the transcript of the phone call in question and it does not in any way resemble what Schiff described. For me, I'll go with the facts, which is the actual phone call, not the interpretation of the phone call by those who have disagreements with or political animus towards the President or his policies.

[Bob Juch]

I seem to recall Republicans whistling that same tune about the Horowitz report.

I do expect that Durham will issue an indictment or two, probably against that FBI lawyer who rather clumsily tried to cover his rear end for sloppy work. But that will be as far as it will go since indictments require a presentation of evidence to a grand jury as opposed to wild speculation about deep state conspiracies.

Every witness that's said trump is guilty had done so under oath. Every witness who says he isn't has not been under oath.

Every witness that said trump is guilty testified as to their OPINIONS that trump is guilty. None of those people have any authority to set or question foreign policy. That power is granted to the President. None of them but one have ever even spoken to the President. And the president is not required to carry out foreign policy according to the dictates of the people who ultimately report to him. He released the transcript of the phone call in question and it does not in any way resemble what Schiff described. For me, I'll go with the facts, which is the actual phone call, not the interpretation of the phone call by those who have disagreements with or political animus towards the President or his policies.

trump had admitted to exactly what he has been accused of. He thinks he has the right to extort foreign governments and prevent administration officials from testifying before Congress. The question is what sort of despot he can be.

[flockofseagulls104]

Every witness that's said trump is guilty had done so under oath. Every witness who says he isn't has not been under oath.

Every witness that said trump is guilty testified as to their OPINIONS that trump is guilty. None of those people have any authority to set or question foreign policy. That power is granted to the President. None of them but one have ever even spoken to the President. And the president is not required to carry out foreign policy according to the dictates of the people who ultimately report to him. He released the transcript of the phone call in question and it does not in any way resemble what Schiff described. For me, I'll go with the facts, which is the actual phone call, not the interpretation of the phone call by those who have disagreements with or political animus towards the President or his policies.

trump had admitted to exactly what he has been accused of. He thinks he has the right to extort foreign governments and prevent administration officials from testifying before Congress. The question is what sort of despot he can be.

There was no extortion and no evidence of any. Only accusations by people who have no direct evidence. Every president in history has used executive privilege. It is usually resolved by the judicial branch. The only despot here is the House of Representatives which is overstepping its authority.

[silverscreenselect]

There was no extortion and no evidence of any. Only accusations by people who have no direct evidence.

There was direct evidence from people who listened to the various conversations that took place. You focus on those people without direct knowledge and ignore the others. The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain. The scheme only fell apart when it became public (thanks to the whistleblower, proving that the law worked the way it was supposed to).

You may have listened to the proceedings, but you obviously didn't comprehend them without your helpful right-wing sources to misinterpret them for you.

As far as your not being a Republican, if it makes you feel better to think of yourself as an independent who is in the tank for Trump and the Republicans, then good for you. But if it walks like a duck ...

[flockofseagulls104]

The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain.

No, it wasn't. I, and many millions of other people, disagree with your OPINION. I, and millions of other people have at least a reasonable doubt that your CONCLUSION is wrong.
I, and millions of other people, believe that the whole goal of impeaching President trump is a purely political project, and is supported by mountains of evidence and history and patterns of behavior that is at least as strong, if not more so, than your 'evidence' of wrongdoing by trump and has gone on for much longer. A much stronger case can be made that the leadership of the dem party and the house of representatives have abused THEIR power and have obstructed the executive branch from the minute trump was elected, and most probably before.

[Bob78164]

The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain.

No, it wasn't. I, and many millions of other people, disagree with your OPINION. I, and millions of other people have at least a reasonable doubt that your CONCLUSION is wrong.
I, and millions of other people, believe that the whole goal of impeaching President trump is a purely political project, and is supported by mountains of evidence and history and patterns of behavior that is at least as strong, if not more so, than your 'evidence' of wrongdoing by trump and has gone on for much longer. A much stronger case can be made that the leadership of the dem party and the house of representatives have abused THEIR power and have obstructed the executive branch from the minute trump was elected, and most probably before.

According to Fox News, 50% of the American people want Donny impeached and removed from office. So I'm not too worried that people think that House Democrats are abusing the power of impeachment. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain.

No, it wasn't. I, and many millions of other people, disagree with your OPINION. I, and millions of other people have at least a reasonable doubt that your CONCLUSION is wrong.
I, and millions of other people, believe that the whole goal of impeaching President trump is a purely political project, and is supported by mountains of evidence and history and patterns of behavior that is at least as strong, if not more so, than your 'evidence' of wrongdoing by trump and has gone on for much longer. A much stronger case can be made that the leadership of the dem party and the house of representatives have abused THEIR power and have obstructed the executive branch from the minute trump was elected, and most probably before.

According to Fox News, 50% of the American people want Donny impeached and removed from office. So I'm not too worried that people think that House Democrats are abusing the power of impeachment. --Bob

So let's run the country by polls? In that case let's do away with congress.

[silverscreenselect]

The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain.

No, it wasn't. I, and many millions of other people, disagree with your OPINION. I, and millions of other people have at least a reasonable doubt that your CONCLUSION is wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that you've got the wrong legal standard for impeachment, you're expecting people to believe that when Trump coerces a "favor" to investigate a grand total of two people for possible corruption and that those two people just happen to be a possible political opponent in 2020 and his son, that's all just a coincidence. And it's not just my opinion or Bob's opinion or Adam Schiff's opinion. It's the opinion of the legal scholars who were called as expert witnesses to testify.

[Bob78164]

The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain.

No, it wasn't. I, and many millions of other people, disagree with your OPINION. I, and millions of other people have at least a reasonable doubt that your CONCLUSION is wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that you've got the wrong legal standard for impeachment, you're expecting people to believe that when Trump coerces a "favor" to investigate a grand total of two people for possible corruption and that those two people just happen to be a possible political opponent in 2020 and his son, that's all just a coincidence. And it's not just my opinion or Bob's opinion or Adam Schiff's opinion. It's the opinion of the legal scholars who were called as expert witnesses to testify.

Look at the big picture. He's citing a pattern and practice of conduct to defend Donny, whom we know is a liar and a serial fraudster who is willing to steal from charities. What more do you need to know about how in the tank flock is for Donny and the Republicans? --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Rudy Giuliani openly declared that he was going to Ukraine to “interfere in an investigation,” but he was underselling it. The conspiracy theories that Giuliani has been pushing for Donald Trump’s benefit go beyond simply smearing Joe Biden and his family, to attacking Hillary Clinton, exonerating Vladimir Putin, and convicting the Ukrainian government of involvement in a broad international conspiracy. Not surprisingly, to support this “theory,” Giuliani has been prowling the debris of the former pro-Russian government that was ousted for its allegiance to Moscow and unending corruption. The threat of losing U.S. military assistance may be enough to keep Ukrainian leadership silent, but finding members of the current government who are willing to indict their own people simply to gain the favor of Trump and Guiliani has proven more of a challenge for Trump’s man in Kyiv.

But Giuliani thinks he has one. As the Kyiv Post reports, Andrii Telizhenko is a 29-year-old former Ukrainian diplomat who popped up in 2017 to claim that the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. colluded with the Democratic Party to undermine Trump’s campaign — a statement that repeatedly appeared in statements from Republicans during the impeachment proceedings. None of the claims voiced by Telizhenko, who worked in D.C. for only a matter of weeks, have held up to even casual scrutiny. That hasn’t stopped Giuliani from making them a centerpiece of his “documentary” in support of Trump’s conspiracy theories, and it hasn’t stopped Republicans from using those claims to suggest that the ludicrous ideas championed by Trump and Giuliani deserve serious study. In fact, Republicans repeatedly put forward disproven statements by Telizhenko as if they are facts.

The Post describes Telizhenko as “a young man who came out of nowhere, sought personal enrichment and is hardly a reliable source for the claims he is making.” In fact, Telizhenko seems to be a serial liar whose background consists of constantly shedding his “beliefs” to adopt those of whoever happens to be winning at the moment. But it’s not as if going all in on backing Giuliani isn’t working out for him so far. Not only is he being squired around Ukraine by Trump’s personal attorney, Giuliani and Trump are now pushing to make Telizhenko the actual Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States.

Telizhenko‘s own personal story is riddled with claims about his education and actions that also don’t hold up to scrutiny. He’s also been accused of seeking bribes. But Telizhenko did work with fired prosecutor Viktor Shokin and claims that the prosecutor—who was so corrupt that his resignation was sought by the Obama administration, multiple allied nations, and a raft of Republican senators—was a good, tough, and “apolitical.” Best of all, Telizhenko claims that Shokin was investigating Burisma when he was fired, which is a claim not even Shokin makes—because it’s provably not true.

All this makes Telizhenko a one-stop-shop for supporting both of the conspiracy theories that Trump was demanding Ukrainian President Zelensky investigate. And it makes him the one person Republicans need to tap for “proof” that Trump’s demands were somehow reasonable.

So naturally, Trump and Guiliani want to reward their one man wrecking crew. As The New York Times reports, Telizhenko has been “embraced by Mr. Trump’s allies” and is being pushed as a candidate for ambassador despite a lack of experience, a history of soliciting bribes, and an overall reputation as a schemer. Because really … that makes him a perfect fit for Trump.

[flockofseagulls104]

The purpose was to investigate two individuals, the Bidens, for Trump's personal political gain.

No, it wasn't. I, and many millions of other people, disagree with your OPINION. I, and millions of other people have at least a reasonable doubt that your CONCLUSION is wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that you've got the wrong legal standard for impeachment, you're expecting people to believe that when Trump coerces a "favor" to investigate a grand total of two people for possible corruption and that those two people just happen to be a possible political opponent in 2020 and his son, that's all just a coincidence. And it's not just my opinion or Bob's opinion or Adam Schiff's opinion. It's the opinion of the legal scholars who were called as expert witnesses to testify.

Only those shrill leftist 'scholars' handpicked by the dems. Tell me that their opinion is unanimous, and I'll give you just as many legal scholars that totally disagree with them. But they weren't called, were they? Give me a break.
No one but your echo chamber says that there was any coercing going on here, including the 2 subjects on the call and the actual transcript of the call. But everyone but you are liars, of course. Not to mention what biden did and bragged about. Was THAT a coincidence?

You and I both know that you will NEVER be swayed from your opinion. And besides, it will play out how it will play out. But it will take a LOT of argument to convince me the left is going to represent ANY of my values or that they have any agenda besides advancing their own power in the government. And everything you write convinces me even more.

[wbtravis007]

Oh,you were expecting a response?
In that case my answer would be one ounce of horseradish sauce on a blueberry muffin.

You actually think that some people find you amusing, don't you?

Certainly not you. I could say the same thing about you. Depends on your point of view and if you understand sarcasm, which leftists seem to have a problem with.

Well, you didn't directly answer my question -- just a yes or no would do -- but I gather from your response that you would have answered "yes" if you had, in which case I would say that I think you're wrong, and haven't seen any evidence that you're not.

The most revealing thing about your response is that your obsession and hatred and rage appear to have so blinded you that you'd suggest that "leftists" have difficulty understanding sarcasm.

You don't get out much, do you?

[silverscreenselect]

But it will take a LOT of argument to convince me the left is going to represent ANY of my values

At last we agree on something. Here's some of the people who represent your values.

[flockofseagulls104]

You actually think that some people find you amusing, don't you?

Certainly not you. I could say the same thing about you. Depends on your point of view and if you understand sarcasm, which leftists seem to have a problem with.

Well, you didn't directly answer my question -- just a yes or no would do -- but I gather from your response that you would have answered "yes" if you had, in which case I would say that I think you're wrong, and haven't seen any evidence that you're not.

The most revealing thing about your response is that your obsession and hatred and rage appear to have so blinded you that you'd suggest that "leftists" have difficulty understanding sarcasm.

You don't get out much, do you?

Ok. Yes or no. I guess that will have to do.

It's been my experience that leftists take sarcasm very literally, at least when it is to their advantage. "Hey Russia, if you're listening...." is one example. I heard variations on that joke long before trump used it, and I said it at the time.

[flockofseagulls104]

But it will take a LOT of argument to convince me the left is going to represent ANY of my values

At last we agree on something. Here's some of the people who represent your values.

Sorry, but you are wrong. But if it makes you happy to believe that, knock yourself out. As I said, everything you post confirms how sickening you and your political party (which was and is the political party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow) is. You are never going to win any arguments by doing stupid shit like this.