Oh good. Another sleeper sock comes out of the closet.
And if a trial, which is what it is called, in the Senate eventually happens, who do you think Trump's lawyers are going to call? If all of this is leading towards that, why not release his name now since he or she is such a fine and outstanding American with nothing to hide or be uneasy about?MetoliusAg said:
Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist
Just another normal day in the Trump era.
That's likely who it is. He had a blatant troll thread nuked yesterday and hasn't been back since.Line Ate Member said:
He writes like that nmag poster. And I haven't seen that guy in a few pages.
Must be hard to get stars when all your socks get banned.Deats said:
They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.
Banned accounts can still star posts.CanyonAg77 said:Must be hard to get stars when all your socks get banned.Deats said:
They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.
Rapier108 said:Banned accounts can still star posts.CanyonAg77 said:Must be hard to get stars when all your socks get banned.Deats said:
They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.
To add to what you posted. If it isn't a "trial", why have so many dems already found him guilty?hbtheduce said:BMX Bandit said:
Rand may want to read that amendment.
Correct, it specifies only criminal trials (most analogous to the senate trial). But I do think it defines the spirit of fairness and level of evidence expected for serious allegations.
If someone isn't willing to stand by their criminal accusation, it shouldn't be taken seriously by a jury or any American citizen.
hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
What crime is the DOJ investigating?
FARA violations, Bribery (huge deal according to Metolius), Emoluments Clause.
The DOJ hasn't announced an investigation, but the public evidence we have shows that
Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Depends on which articles of impeachment are passed and accepted by the Senate for trial. If there is one or more articles on this phone call with Zelensky, then the way that happened will be relevant and material.Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Pretty sure that's not how that doctrine works.Deats said:Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Fruit of the poisonous tree
We already know that. I have posted several times Trump won't be removed by Senate trial unless a smoking gun of financial crimes is uncovered.captkirk said:
Trump not going anywhere. I don't know why you guys put yourselves through this over and over again
I would certainly expect one of the articles to cover abuse of power tied to his conduct, so I'm curious how that argument works. I understand that there may be reasonable concerns about credibility of evidence provided by an unknown party, but I'm not certain how that would impact the admissibility of the testimony of other parties (presumably just because it relates to the subject matter of the original complaint). I'd love to understand the argument though.aggiehawg said:Depends on which articles of impeachment are passed and accepted by the Senate for trial. If there is one or more articles on this phone call with Zelensky, then the way that happened will be relevant and material.Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
What about the crimes committed by Clinton and Obama that others took the fall for (or they covered up)?MetoliusAg said:We already know that. I have posted several times Trump won't be removed by Senate trial unless a smoking gun of financial crimes is uncovered.captkirk said:
Trump not going anywhere. I don't know why you guys put yourselves through this over and over again
Look at past Potus scandals in the GOP. The **only** reason that enough House and Senate R's got onboard with removing Nixon was the tapes.
Without those tapes of Nixon, all the other mountain of evidence was still not enough to convince a sufficient number of R's to choose country over party.
It wasn't a sense of duty or of right vs wrong that motivated enough GOP Senators to agree the removal of Nixon was necessary. It was their understanding of how the tapes would overwhemingly affect public opinion and voters in their future Senate elections.
Reagan committed numerous crimes, but he never faced impeachment. There were no tapes, and so Reagan cowardly let his subordinates take all the blame.
Just like with Nixon and Reagan, most people in the GOP will turn a blind eye to Trump's criminal behavior as long as no smoking gun evidence of Presidential wrongdoing & criminality emerges equivalent to Nixon's tapes.
Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Zero relevance and zero applicability to a HoR impeachment investigation.Deats said:Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Fruit of the poisonous tree
MetoliusAg said:Zero relevance and zero applicability to a HoR impeachment investigation.Deats said:Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Fruit of the poisonous tree
First off, what's out there is not a transcript - says so right on the cover:BuddysBud said:Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Even further, why even start this impeachment witch hunt based on a leaked second hand report of a call the transcript of which is available for all of us to read?
Edit to suggest that you might want to use one of your older accounts to answer because this new one is close to being out of posts.
Second, there's been testimony that specific elements from the call were omitted from the Memorandum. Why were specific elements relating to Burisma omitted? Not sure, but it does cast into doubt the integrity of that specific record.Quote:
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.
Tbs2003 said:First off, what's out there is not a transcript - says so right on the cover:BuddysBud said:Tbs2003 said:
Honest question here - what is the obsession with the whistleblower? What do you think is in the WB's complaint that you don't think is being independently corroborated by others? I'm betting that in the Senate trial, they wouldn't even bother to introduce the complaint into evidence. If so, the whole issue of having the right to confront your accuser is moot, right?
Even further, why even start this impeachment witch hunt based on a leaked second hand report of a call the transcript of which is available for all of us to read?
Edit to suggest that you might want to use one of your older accounts to answer because this new one is close to being out of posts.Second, there's been testimony that specific elements from the call were omitted from the Memorandum. Why were specific elements relating to Burisma omitted? Not sure, but it does cast into doubt the integrity of that specific record.Quote:
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.
Third, the interaction with Ukraine was not limited to this one call. As we've seen from the statements from those testifying thus far, there is a lot more to the story, and everyone who is not a Trump loyalist appears to be terribly concerned by Trump and Rudy's conduct.
That's why I view this whole "Read the Transcript" narrative as so ridiculous. But, hey, three words is about all the rubes these days can seem to digest, so kudos to Trump for coming up with one that fits within the limitations of his base.
Oh - and I'm not anyone's sock, just a lurker. As you might guess, I don't agree with most of what is said around here, but I like to try to get a sense of what the ends of the political spectrum (both right and left) are saying.
Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
What crime is the DOJ investigating?
FARA violations, Bribery (huge deal according to Metolius), Emoluments Clause.
The DOJ hasn't announced an investigation, but the public evidence we have shows that
So there are no known crimes or DOJ investigations. Thanks that's what I thought.
Tbs2003 said:And this insanity is exactly why Trump was working so hard to pressure Zelenskyy to make a public announcement that Ukraine was investigating Burisma. Even though it's pretty clear that there's nothing there, if a statement is made by someone outside the Trump administration (especially a foreign government) on this topic, the Trump crowd is going to latch onto it and never let it go. It would absolutely be the next "Hilary's emails" and his crowds would be chanting about it for the next 12 months.hbtheduce said:Gary Johnson said:
What crime is the DOJ investigating?
FARA violations, Bribery (huge deal according to Metolius), Emoluments Clause.
The DOJ hasn't announced an investigation, but the public evidence we have shows that
1. Money was exchanged
2. H Biden accompanied J Biden on AF2 for some of these payments
3. J Biden was making foreign policy decisions during these payments
Its possible that it was all done legal. Seems premature to say there were no crimes when the DOJ AG was willing to speak with Ukraine on the matter, and we have no clue if there is an open investigation.
As a reminder, here's the relevant part of Bill Taylor's opening statement:This is what this whole thing boils down to. Trump doesn't care at all about corruption (other than the extent to which he can get away with it). If he did, it wouldn't matter whether there was a public announcement - the assurances that Ukraine would investigate would have been sufficient. Ultimately, he's just trying to legitimize his claims that his political rival was corrupt by blackmailing a foreign government into making a public statement that would support that claim.Quote:
During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations - in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy " in a public box" by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.
Honestly, something like that shouldn't work - but when you have a large portion of the country mainlining Fox News and regurgitating it through Twitter and Facebook (with some helpful amplification by Russia), it's the type of thing that could make the difference in the election. I mean, why else would Trump and Rudy do this and then try to stonewall the whole investigation?
One more time ...Tbs2003 said:
First off, what's out there is not a transcript - says so right on the cover:Quote:
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.
Gary Johnson said:This is at least honest.Quote:
DGAF
Link? Careful not to conflate Hunter and Joe, thinking it was subtle. We noticed. Earning income from foreign companies isn't illegal.Quote:
Biden walked away with millions of dollars from Ukraine
Gary Johnson said:Link? Careful not to conflate Hunter and Joe, thinking it was subtle. We noticed. Earning income from foreign companies isn't illegal.Quote:
Biden walked away with millions of dollars from Ukraine