Bob Juch wrote:Yes, it would compare to the 18 and a half minute gap.
So you agree that should put an end to Hillary's political career.
Hillary has nothing to do with the Ukraine mess.
But Nixon does? I'd say "try to follow along," but you're clearly unable to.
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:28 pm
by Bob Juch
Estonut wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Estonut wrote:So you agree that should put an end to Hillary's political career.
Hillary has nothing to do with the Ukraine mess.
But Nixon does? I'd say "try to follow along," but you're clearly unable to.
Yeah, he was going to be impeached too.
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:47 pm
by Bob78164
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: The president did nothing wrong. The bidens did.
You've kept asking what Trump did wrong, even though Bob and I have explained it several times. What did Joe Biden do that was wrong, other than, perhaps not raising his son better? And while Hunter Biden's actions might be crass, he was not a political officeholder and what he did was common practice and not illegal. So, if by "wrong" you mean in someway dishonorable, then there are hundreds of others in both parties who have done the same thing. And if you mean, illegal, then I ask the same question. What did Hunter Biden do that was illegal? (Accepting a job for which you are overpaid and underqualified isn't illegal, by the way.)
My whole point is that they all do it, which is why very few of them get called on it. Get it?
What did Burisma get in return? Dontcha think since all dc wants to do is investigate, they could throw that one in? Or maybe Durham is looking into that.
Are you by any chance aware of how Rudy Guiliani's son pulls down a paycheck? Or his qualifications for that position? --Bob
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:58 pm
by silverscreenselect
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: My whole point is that they all do it, which is why very few of them get called on it. Get it?
What did Burisma get in return? Dontcha think since all dc wants to do is investigate, they could throw that one in? Or maybe Durham is looking into that.
Are you by any chance aware of how Rudy Guiliani's son pulls down a paycheck? Or his qualifications for that position? --Bob
And while he's at it, maybe Flock could explain the testimony that came out yesterday that Trump wasn't interested in whether there actually was an investigation into the Bidens or not, just that the Ukrainian government publicly announce that there was an investigation.
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 2:52 pm
by flockofseagulls104
silverscreenselect wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: My whole point is that they all do it, which is why very few of them get called on it. Get it?
What did Burisma get in return? Dontcha think since all dc wants to do is investigate, they could throw that one in? Or maybe Durham is looking into that.
Are you by any chance aware of how Rudy Guiliani's son pulls down a paycheck? Or his qualifications for that position? --Bob
And while he's at it, maybe Flock could explain the testimony that came out yesterday that Trump wasn't interested in whether there actually was an investigation into the Bidens or not, just that the Ukrainian government publicly announce that there was an investigation.
I have given up explaining anything to you. You don't read it, you don't comprehend it, and you automatically dismiss it with a troll to me personally.
Nothing I have heard from these witnesses has changed my opinion of this circus, where the prosecution has secret auditions for the people they want to testify, control everything about the circus they are putting on, and exude opinions, hearsay, concerns and innuendo instead of fact. It is a foregone conclusion that the house will vote for impeachment no matter what is done or said here, simply because they have more dems than there are repubs. This circus is only to reinforce and fire up their lunatic base. And, as been admitted by several dems with loose lips, is to effect the 2002 election. Talk about abusing power for political purposes.
Maybe in the senate, the accused will actually be able to present a defense, if indeed, it even gets to a trial.
Nothing I have heard from these witnesses has changed my opinion of this circus, where the prosecution has secret auditions for the people they want to testify, control everything about the circus they are putting on, and exude opinions, hearsay, concerns and innuendo instead of fact.
You must not be very familiar with the criminal justice process. There, the prosecution holds "secret auditions," called grand jury proceedings. Unlike a grand jury, the Republicans attended the depositions and had the right to ask all the questions they wanted to. Here, they could ask all the questions they wanted as well, although often they were too busy making speeches about how unfair the process was.
Yes, people ventured opinions and stated hearsay. But there was plenty of direct testimony about what Trump said and did and what others like Giuliani did on his behalf. While these proceedings would have been more interesting had Giuliani, Pompeo, Bolton and others testified, it was Trump who kept them from doing so.
It's ironic that, at one point, Nunes had the gall to tell Vindman he was obligated to reveal the name of the whistleblower (which Vindman didn't know) because he was there under oath, when the Republicans kept so many witnesses from testifying.
Nothing I have heard from these witnesses has changed my opinion of this circus, where the prosecution has secret auditions for the people they want to testify, control everything about the circus they are putting on, and exude opinions, hearsay, concerns and innuendo instead of fact.
You must not be very familiar with the criminal justice process. There, the prosecution holds "secret auditions," called grand jury proceedings. Unlike a grand jury, the Republicans attended the depositions and had the right to ask all the questions they wanted to. Here, they could ask all the questions they wanted as well, although often they were too busy making speeches about how unfair the process was.
Yes, people ventured opinions and stated hearsay. But there was plenty of direct testimony about what Trump said and did and what others like Giuliani did on his behalf. While these proceedings would have been more interesting had Giuliani, Pompeo, Bolton and others testified, it was Trump who kept them from doing so.
It's ironic that, at one point, Nunes had the gall to tell Vindman he was obligated to reveal the name of the whistleblower (which Vindman didn't know) because he was there under oath, when the Republicans kept so many witnesses from testifying.
It's so great to have the Bored back.
Which illustrates how much of a charade this whole thing is. Everybody and their great aunt knows who the 'whistleblower' is and they're pretending they don't. Vindman knows. Schiff knows. Schiff's staff met with him, if not Schiff himself, and he's lying about that. But their obvious lies don't bother you. It's Eric Ciaramella. Do you think if it was someone accusing Obama of something they would go through this charade? When was the last time the whole media complex had any problem with blasting out information they had regardless of what harm it might do? Why now? I know. Do you?
Vindman knows. Schiff knows. Schiff's staff met with him, if not Schiff himself, and he's lying about that. But their obvious lies don't bother you. It's Eric Ciaramella. Do you think if it was someone accusing Obama of something they would go through this charade? When was the last time the whole media complex had any problem with blasting out information they had regardless of what harm it might do? Why now? I know. Do you?
Again, what does it matter who the whistleblower is? The whistleblower presumably did not testify. The whistleblower gave a tip through proper channels that led to the investigation. The purpose for the whistleblower laws is to protect them from retaliation and encourage them to come forward. That's the same as the purpose for rape shield laws.
You've never answered the questions. How is the whistleblower's identity relevant to any of the testimony that was offered in the last week? How would revealing his identity aid this investigation in any relevant manner?
The Republicans and their toadies (like you) keep harping on the identity of the whistleblower because they can't defend Trump and his actions on the fact. So they're trying to distract by any means possible.
Vindman knows. Schiff knows. Schiff's staff met with him, if not Schiff himself, and he's lying about that. But their obvious lies don't bother you. It's Eric Ciaramella. Do you think if it was someone accusing Obama of something they would go through this charade? When was the last time the whole media complex had any problem with blasting out information they had regardless of what harm it might do? Why now? I know. Do you?
Again, what does it matter who the whistleblower is? The whistleblower presumably did not testify. The whistleblower gave a tip through proper channels that led to the investigation. The purpose for the whistleblower laws is to protect them from retaliation and encourage them to come forward. That's the same as the purpose for rape shield laws.
You've never answered the questions. How is the whistleblower's identity relevant to any of the testimony that was offered in the last week? How would revealing his identity aid this investigation in any relevant manner?
The Republicans and their toadies (like you) keep harping on the identity of the whistleblower because they can't defend Trump and his actions on the fact. So they're trying to distract by any means possible.
Since Schiff had contact with Eric during this process, which has been established,and Schiff continues to lie about it, the accused has every right to be able to ask questions of Eric, which can be done behind closed doors so no one gets to know Eric's identity. I think there are a lot of questions that are relevant that perhaps Sciff and his toadies (like you) do not want to have asked.
Vindman knows. Schiff knows. Schiff's staff met with him, if not Schiff himself, and he's lying about that. But their obvious lies don't bother you. It's Eric Ciaramella. Do you think if it was someone accusing Obama of something they would go through this charade? When was the last time the whole media complex had any problem with blasting out information they had regardless of what harm it might do? Why now? I know. Do you?
Again, what does it matter who the whistleblower is? The whistleblower presumably did not testify. The whistleblower gave a tip through proper channels that led to the investigation. The purpose for the whistleblower laws is to protect them from retaliation and encourage them to come forward. That's the same as the purpose for rape shield laws.
You've never answered the questions. How is the whistleblower's identity relevant to any of the testimony that was offered in the last week? How would revealing his identity aid this investigation in any relevant manner?
The Republicans and their toadies (like you) keep harping on the identity of the whistleblower because they can't defend Trump and his actions on the fact. So they're trying to distract by any means possible.
Since Schiff had contact with Eric during this process, which has been established,and Schiff continues to lie about it, the accused has every right to be able to ask questions of Eric, which can be done behind closed doors so no one gets to know Eric's identity. I think there are a lot of questions that are relevant that perhaps Schiff and his toadies (like you) do not want to have asked.
That, btw, is once again the answer to your question which I've answered before and you ignored in your hurry to get to the batphone.
Since Schiff had contact with Eric during this process, which has been established,and Schiff continues to lie about it, the accused has every right to be able to ask questions of Eric, which can be done behind closed doors so no one gets to know Eric's identity. I think there are a lot of questions that are relevant that perhaps Schiff and his toadies (like you) do not want to have asked.
That, btw, is once again the answer to your question which I've answered before and you ignored in your hurry to get to the batphone.
So, again, a non-answer. While I'm sure that the whistleblower could provide a lot of information that Trump enablers find interesting, like where his children go to school, none of that is relevant to what's at issue here, which is whether or not Trump tried to bribe the Ukraine by tying already allocated US aid to their announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. The whistleblower has admitted he has no direct knowledge. Others do and have testified. You clearly don't have an understanding of the legal concept of relevance which you make obvious every time you parrot another right-wing theme on this subject. Testimony is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a matter of fact that is related to an issue in dispute in a case. What could the whistleblower possibly say that would make Trump's alleged actions more or less likely?
His motivations as to providing that information are not relevant; they have no bearing on the issues. It's interesting that the people who did have direct knowledge of what Trump said and did were available and did testify and the Republicans had every right to delve into their possible motivations for perhaps slanting their testimony. How'd that go?
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:32 am
by Bob78164
That's like arguing that the identity of the person who gave the press the Access Hollywood tape is relevant to whether Donny actually said those things. It isn't, and he did. --Bob
Since Schiff had contact with Eric during this process, which has been established,and Schiff continues to lie about it, the accused has every right to be able to ask questions of Eric, which can be done behind closed doors so no one gets to know Eric's identity. I think there are a lot of questions that are relevant that perhaps Schiff and his toadies (like you) do not want to have asked.
That, btw, is once again the answer to your question which I've answered before and you ignored in your hurry to get to the batphone.
So, again, a non-answer. While I'm sure that the whistleblower could provide a lot of information that Trump enablers find interesting, like where his children go to school, none of that is relevant to what's at issue here, which is whether or not Trump tried to bribe the Ukraine by tying already allocated US aid to their announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. The whistleblower has admitted he has no direct knowledge. Others do and have testified. You clearly don't have an understanding of the legal concept of relevance which you make obvious every time you parrot another right-wing theme on this subject. Testimony is relevant if it tends to prove or disprove a matter of fact that is related to an issue in dispute in a case. What could the whistleblower possibly say that would make Trump's alleged actions more or less likely?
His motivations as to providing that information are not relevant; they have no bearing on the issues. It's interesting that the people who did have direct knowledge of what Trump said and did were available and did testify and the Republicans had every right to delve into their possible motivations for perhaps slanting their testimony. How'd that go?
They certainly do. But in your echo chamber everything connected with the dems is pristinely unquestionable. All the witnesses selected by Schiff are 'patriots' of the first order and cannot possibly have any flaws.
That's like arguing that the identity of the person who gave the press the Access Hollywood tape is relevant to whether Donny actually said those things. It isn't, and he did. --Bob
Apples and oranges. Whataboutism. Be real, for once.
That's like arguing that the identity of the person who gave the press the Access Hollywood tape is relevant to whether Donny actually said those things. It isn't, and he did. --Bob
Apples and oranges. Whataboutism. Be real, for once.
In one sense you're right. The Access Hollywood tape merely demonstrated that Donny is a contemptible human being. We're now talking about Donny using the power of his office to extort the government of Ukraine to bribe him by announcing (but not carrying through) an investigation against a domestic political opponent.
But in the other sense they're exactly the same. Who turned over the tape/reported the incident doesn't matter a bit. What matters is whether it actually happened as reported. And since we have firsthand evidence of exactly what Donny did, and since the whistleblower never claimed to have firsthand knowledge, his or her identity is irrelevant. Unless, of course, the goal is to deter future whistleblowers. --Bob
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:33 pm
by Bob78164
And by the way, it seems to me that anyone who's actually concerned about fairness in the process would be concerned about the future jurors taking serial private meetings with Donny. --Bob
Re: With a name like Boris
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:38 pm
by flockofseagulls104
And since we have firsthand evidence of exactly what Donny did
Really? When did that happen? In Schiff's mind?
Ukraine got their money.
Unfortunately, no corruption investigations were started as far as I know, including one on the bidens.
Trump and Zelensky have met.
According to all the 'witnesses', Ukraine defense is paramount to the Future Of Our Democracy, yet Obama gave them nothing to defend themselves with, which not one of the 'witnesses' addressed. He stood by while russia annexed crimea and did nothing. (Maybe that's what he had flexibility to do after his last election.) And Fiona advocated not too long ago giving them no military aid. Things certainly change.
and
Mueller was not fired, neither was Rosenstein. No one said 'dirt' except for Schiff. Eric Ciaramella is the 'whistleblower'.
Just what did he do, bobby? If it was quid pro quo, extortion, bribery or whatever the focus group tested word of the day is, it was a pretty bad attempt.
Oh, obstruction of justice. That's the ticket. Or is it collusion with russia? Or is it emoluments? I get so confused.
Ukraine got their money.
Unfortunately, no corruption investigations were started as far as I know, including one on the bidens.
Just what did he do, bobby? If it was quid pro quo, extortion, bribery or whatever the focus group tested word of the day is, it was a pretty bad attempt.
Ukraine got their money only after Trump's attempted extortion scheme went public. The crime is in the threat, not whether the other party eventually acts on it. And the evidence showed that the Ukrainians were preparing to act on it before everything blew up.
As far as Trump being bad at bribery, you won't get any argument here. Stupidity is no defense to criminality, however.
Ukraine got their money.
Unfortunately, no corruption investigations were started as far as I know, including one on the bidens.
Just what did he do, bobby? If it was quid pro quo, extortion, bribery or whatever the focus group tested word of the day is, it was a pretty bad attempt.
Ukraine got their money only after Trump's attempted extortion scheme went public. The crime is in the threat, not whether the other party eventually acts on it. And the evidence showed that the Ukrainians were preparing to act on it before everything blew up.
As far as Trump being bad at bribery, you won't get any argument here. Stupidity is no defense to criminality, however.
I'm not going to go apeshit like you democrat toadies did over mueller, but let's just see what starts happening on Dec 9th. Maybe we'll finally see who is stupider.
Just an aside here.
For all of us that believe the 'News' conglomerates and government investigative agencies that we get our information from (I include Fox news, et al...) even as a whole cannot get it wrong, mislead us, report things based on their own narratives and totally create images and caricatures of people and things that don't fit their narratives, reconsider the case of Richard Jewell. He was a true hero who was turned into the most hated and hounded person in America by a news media who had no qualms or remorse for ruining a person's life all for the sake of ratings and selling newspapers.
I think it's no coincidence that one of the very few independent thinkers with power in Hollywood, Clint Eastwood, has decided to revisit this disgrace in an upcoming film.
Anybody with any capacity for introspection and rational thought should consider the case of Richard Jewell when looking at the past 3 years.
Just sayin.
For another view on the Richard Jewell case, there will be a miniseries debuting on Spectrum on February 3, called Manhunt: Deadly Games. This is essentially a second season for the Manhunt series, which debuted in 2017 on Discovery Channel with a series on the Unabomber. For those who don't have Spectrum, the Jewell/Rudolph series will be available at a later date, details to be determined. Apparently, this series focuses more on Eric Robert Rudolph (Jack Huston), the actual bomber. Jewell is played by Cameron Britton, who was quite memorable as serial killer Edmund Kemper on the first season of Mindhunter (not the same series). Judith Light plays Jewell's mother Bobbi, and Carla Gugino plays Atlanta Journal reporter Kathy Scruggs.