Smoke, mirrors and circus much?
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:12 pm
I've got no problem with the whistleblower answering questions if he or she is willing to do so, but it's ridiculous to claim that either motivation or sources are relevant at this point. Those would matter only if we had no other way to assess the accuracy of what the whistleblower said. But we do. We've got firsthand testimony now, not to mention the altered transcript that all by itself proved most of what was in the report.Beebs52 wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.co ... epublicans
Whistleblowers, like informants in general, often have a grudge against the person they inform against. The Republicans at first claimed that what the whistleblower was saying was hearsay and his identity was vital to assess credibility. We've now had the credibility verified by multiple witnesses and we've had people who were sitting in on the phone call to testify about it.Bob78164 wrote: So now that we know that the whistleblower was right, why he or she came forward really doesn't make a particle of difference to whether the conduct described actually occurred.
Bobby, this whole thing is a partisan attempt to get trump out of the election or to discredit him to gain a little advantage in the election. We have the transcript of what was said, and anything that was left out did not change the tone of the conversation. It certainly did not add "find dirt or make it up" to the conversation. It didn't add it 8 times.Bob78164 wrote:I've got no problem with the whistleblower answering questions if he or she is willing to do so, but it's ridiculous to claim that either motivation or sources are relevant at this point. Those would matter only if we had no other way to assess the accuracy of what the whistleblower said. But we do. We've got firsthand testimony now, not to mention the altered transcript that all by itself proved most of what was in the report.Beebs52 wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.co ... epublicans
So now that we know that the whistleblower was right, why he or she came forward really doesn't make a particle of difference to whether the conduct described actually occurred. It's like saying that Donny should get away with murder because the witness who told us where to find the videotape had it in for Donny. If the video exists, it doesn't matter why Donny was turned in. --Bob
And, as inevitably happens, you are wrong. Justin Amash, who is no liberal, voted in favor of the proceedings and has repeatedly castigated Republicans for their blind allegiance to Trump. A majority of the American public is now in favor of at least the hearings if not actual impeachment.flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are entitled to your opinion, but not one non democrat voted to continue the impeachment.
While this is technically true, the rules the Democrats adopted allow the Republicans to subpoena witnesses and documents and the questioning will be 45 minutes a side by the attorneys, followed by five minutes by each member. That should give the Republicans plenty of time to bring out whatever they can.flockofseagulls104 wrote: going forward, Schiff controls who can be questioned and who can question them.
Leaker fits.Ritterskoop wrote:I'm just saying, we spent all night at work trying to find a word to replace Whistleblower that would fit in one-column headlines.
I think they settled on Informant, but even that loses some of its meaning.
If it had been me, I would have gone a whole other route:
Hearings
to return
to source
or some such.
I think the simple "whistler" should do the trick. Everybody knows how to whistle in Washington, just pucker up and blow smoke.BackInTex wrote:Leaker fits.Ritterskoop wrote:I'm just saying, we spent all night at work trying to find a word to replace Whistleblower that would fit in one-column headlines.
I think they settled on Informant, but even that loses some of its meaning.
If it had been me, I would have gone a whole other route:
Hearings
to return
to source
or some such.
Justin Amash, the newest Jon Ossoff, is an independent, as you have pointed out yourself.silverscreenselect wrote:And, as inevitably happens, you are wrong. Justin Amash, who is no liberal, voted in favor of the proceedings and has repeatedly castigated Republicans for their blind allegiance to Trump. A majority of the American public is now in favor of at least the hearings if not actual impeachment.flockofseagulls104 wrote: You are entitled to your opinion, but not one non democrat voted to continue the impeachment.
From what was described, nothing that changed anything about the call was omitted. Please omit the trolling. I follow this as much as you do, probably more, because I try and get information from all sides. You don't.silverscreenselect wrote: What was left out of the so-called transcript were specific references to the Bidens according to the witness who was on the call.
You really should review facts, not right-wing whitewashing and spin.
Due process has already been thrown under the bus. No way to get it back. And once again, please name the specific crime that was allegedly committed.silverscreenselect wrote:While this is technically true, the rules the Democrats adopted allow the Republicans to subpoena witnesses and documents and the questioning will be 45 minutes a side by the attorneys, followed by five minutes by each member. That should give the Republicans plenty of time to bring out whatever they can.flockofseagulls104 wrote: going forward, Schiff controls who can be questioned and who can question them.
All earthshaking stuff. Where's the Mexico-Canada Trade bill?silverscreenselect wrote: And as far as the House doing nothing, here's a list of bills that were considered last week alone.
https://docs.house.gov/floor/
Since the House of Representatives determines what process is due and is using the rules that were established by the Republicans themselves in 2015, that argument doesn't hold water.flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Due process has already been thrown under the bus. No way to get it back. And once again, please name the specific crime that was allegedly committed.
I know you'll agree, my sources may be flawed, but I can not find anywhere where the president withheld or threatened to withhold aid. Please show me where that was done or threatened. And before you go there "By the way, I would like you to do us a favor" is not in anyway such a threat.silverscreenselect wrote: Withholding aid that had already been approved by demanding that a foreign government take action against a private individual for personal gain qualifies as either bribery or a high crime and misdemeanor. Take your pick.
This is the latest Republican game plan. Focus completely on the phone call and ignore all of the additional evidence that Donny required Ukraine to invent dirt on a political opponent as a quid pro quo for receiving foreign aid that Congress had already approved. "I would like you to do us a favor" is the code. All of the other conversations that you want us to ignore are the code book.BackInTex wrote:I know you'll agree, my sources may be flawed, but I can not find anywhere where the president withheld or threatened to withhold aid. Please show me where that was done or threatened. And before you go there "By the way, I would like you to do us a favor" is not in anyway such a threat.silverscreenselect wrote: Withholding aid that had already been approved by demanding that a foreign government take action against a private individual for personal gain qualifies as either bribery or a high crime and misdemeanor. Take your pick.
And as far as personal gain goes, it is not Trump's fault the crimes were committed by a potential political opponent. Biden doesn't get a pass on being investigated for crimes because he happens to be running for president. Just as Trump was not granted such immunity.
Oh. We got a dog whistle here. No question about it. We get to impeach presidents based on dog whistles now. Good thing they had the English to Ukrainian dog whistle dictionary handy for that call! Good thinking!Bob78164 wrote:This is the latest Republican game plan. Focus completely on the phone call and ignore all of the additional evidence that Donny required Ukraine to invent dirt on a political opponent as a quid pro quo for receiving foreign aid that Congress had already approved. "I would like you to do us a favor" is the code. All of the other conversations that you want us to ignore are the code book.BackInTex wrote:I know you'll agree, my sources may be flawed, but I can not find anywhere where the president withheld or threatened to withhold aid. Please show me where that was done or threatened. And before you go there "By the way, I would like you to do us a favor" is not in anyway such a threat.silverscreenselect wrote: Withholding aid that had already been approved by demanding that a foreign government take action against a private individual for personal gain qualifies as either bribery or a high crime and misdemeanor. Take your pick.
And as far as personal gain goes, it is not Trump's fault the crimes were committed by a potential political opponent. Biden doesn't get a pass on being investigated for crimes because he happens to be running for president. Just as Trump was not granted such immunity.
He did it. There's no question about it. The only remaining question is whether you're okay with it because he's on your side. It sounds like you are. And if enough Americans agree with you, that has terrifying implications for the future of our democracy. --Bob
You were doing so well, too. You had one non trolling response in a row going.silverscreenselect wrote:Since the House of Representatives determines what process is due and is using the rules that were established by the Republicans themselves in 2015, that argument doesn't hold water.flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Due process has already been thrown under the bus. No way to get it back. And once again, please name the specific crime that was allegedly committed.
Withholding aid that had already been approved by demanding that a foreign government take action against a private individual for personal gain qualifies as either bribery or a high crime and misdemeanor. Take your pick.
And I guess you discounted Vindman's testimony that Trump removed specific references to Biden and Burisma from the so-called transcript.
As far as due process, while all you've done is throw the term around like a magic mantra, Trump is being afforded similar rights and protections to those extended to Clinton and Nixon during the impeachment phase of their proceedings.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/03/77515242 ... nd-clinton
You may actually stare at the words from various news sources but you rely on right wingers to form your opinions for you, even when they make little to no sense as here.
Which beats your current and continuing record of zero accurate, intelligent responses in a row.flockofseagulls104 wrote: You were doing so well, too. You had one non trolling response in a row going.
I accept responsibility for the direction of this thread. I just ...whatever.Ritterskoop wrote:I love Leaker and Whistler, and will pass them along, and give y'all credit.
This is the latest Democrat game plan. Ignore the facts, the actual phone call, and make up "dog whistles" and other things usually perpetrated by Democrats.Bob78164 wrote:This is the latest Republican game plan. Focus completely on the phone call and ignore all of the additional evidence that Donny required Ukraine to invent dirt on a political opponent as a quid pro quo for receiving foreign aid that Congress had already approved. "I would like you to do us a favor" is the code. All of the other conversations that you want us to ignore are the code book.BackInTex wrote:I know you'll agree, my sources may be flawed, but I can not find anywhere where the president withheld or threatened to withhold aid. Please show me where that was done or threatened. And before you go there "By the way, I would like you to do us a favor" is not in anyway such a threat.silverscreenselect wrote: Withholding aid that had already been approved by demanding that a foreign government take action against a private individual for personal gain qualifies as either bribery or a high crime and misdemeanor. Take your pick.
And as far as personal gain goes, it is not Trump's fault the crimes were committed by a potential political opponent. Biden doesn't get a pass on being investigated for crimes because he happens to be running for president. Just as Trump was not granted such immunity.
He did it. There's no question about it. The only remaining question is whether you're okay with it because he's on your side. It sounds like you are. And if enough Americans agree with you, that has terrifying implications for the future of our democracy. --Bob
Ritterskoop wrote:I love Leaker and Whistler, and will pass them along, and give y'all credit.
Ask and ye shall receive.BackInTex wrote:This is the latest Democrat game plan. Ignore the facts, the actual phone call, and make up "dog whistles" and other things usually perpetrated by Democrats.Bob78164 wrote:This is the latest Republican game plan. Focus completely on the phone call and ignore all of the additional evidence that Donny required Ukraine to invent dirt on a political opponent as a quid pro quo for receiving foreign aid that Congress had already approved. "I would like you to do us a favor" is the code. All of the other conversations that you want us to ignore are the code book.BackInTex wrote:
I know you'll agree, my sources may be flawed, but I can not find anywhere where the president withheld or threatened to withhold aid. Please show me where that was done or threatened. And before you go there "By the way, I would like you to do us a favor" is not in anyway such a threat.
And as far as personal gain goes, it is not Trump's fault the crimes were committed by a potential political opponent. Biden doesn't get a pass on being investigated for crimes because he happens to be running for president. Just as Trump was not granted such immunity.
He did it. There's no question about it. The only remaining question is whether you're okay with it because he's on your side. It sounds like you are. And if enough Americans agree with you, that has terrifying implications for the future of our democracy. --Bob
"no question about it". Funny. How much did you put down on Beto?
I have a feeling Flock's going to be doing some extra-heavy-duty research of Breitbart and Redstate to figure how to explain away today's developments.Bob78164 wrote: He did it. There's no question about it. The only remaining question is whether you're okay with it because he's on your side.
I'm ok with that because he's on my team. But I will do my part to save The Future Of Our Democracy by voting for a socialist. It's the least I can do.Bob78164 wrote:Ask and ye shall receive.BackInTex wrote:This is the latest Democrat game plan. Ignore the facts, the actual phone call, and make up "dog whistles" and other things usually perpetrated by Democrats.Bob78164 wrote:This is the latest Republican game plan. Focus completely on the phone call and ignore all of the additional evidence that Donny required Ukraine to invent dirt on a political opponent as a quid pro quo for receiving foreign aid that Congress had already approved. "I would like you to do us a favor" is the code. All of the other conversations that you want us to ignore are the code book.
He did it. There's no question about it. The only remaining question is whether you're okay with it because he's on your side. It sounds like you are. And if enough Americans agree with you, that has terrifying implications for the future of our democracy. --Bob
"no question about it". Funny. How much did you put down on Beto?
"Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the impeachment inquiry, told a top Ukrainian official that hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the beleaguered U.S. ally would 'likely' be held up unless the country’s government announced investigations of President Donald Trump’s political rivals — a major reversal from his previous closed-door testimony."
He did it. The only remaining question is whether you're okay with that because he's on your team. So far all available evidence is that most of the Republican Party is okay with that, which is damning evidence that the modern Republican Party needs to suffer the same fate nationwide that it has already suffered in California. Because as long as Republican voters have that attitude, Republican politicians who care more about Republican primaries than about doing what's right (which appears to be just about all of them) will continue to defend the indefensible without regard for right, wrong, or what's good for our country. --Bob
so you do believe him, if he is saying something you want to believe. Seems about right.Bob78164 wrote:Ask and ye shall receive.
You think that this guy, who donated to Donny's campaign and was rewarded with a plum diplomatic post, is making it up?BackInTex wrote:so you do believe him, if he is saying something you want to believe. Seems about right.Bob78164 wrote:Ask and ye shall receive.