A new sock. Who got banned?

MetoliusAg said:

---

Constitutional lawyer vs. the #2 trump propagandist at The Federalist

Just another normal day in the Trump era.

---

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?

Oh wait.. he visited with Schiff before all of this. He waited until the rules were changed so that WB could then give 2nd band information. He waited for the best time to spring as the "Orange Man Did Bad Things" hero he was promised to be.

What an absolute idiotic hill to defend. I can't wait to get him on the stand and ask, "Who did you get your information from?"

He writes like that nmag poster. And I haven't seen that guy in a few pages.

Line Ate Member said:

---

He writes like that nmag poster. And I haven't seen that guy in a few pages.

---

That's likely who it is. He had a blatant troll thread nuked yesterday and hasn't been back since.

They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.

Deats said:

---

They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.

---

Must be hard to get stars when all your socks get banned.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Deats said:

---

They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.

---

Must be hard to get stars when all your socks get banned.

---

Banned accounts can still star posts.

Rapier108 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Deats said:

---

They are all LotY. He's built a stable of socks.

---

Must be hard to get stars when all your socks get banned.

---

Banned accounts can still star posts.

---

Yep, and he's probably got more accounts than any of us would care to count

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.

---

To add to what you posted. If it isn't a "trial", why have so many dems already found him guilty?

"In their campaigns and fundraising, various members of Congress have declared that Trump is guilty of numerous crimes. Future Senate jurors such as Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren have raised money based on impeachment pledges and stating that Trump is guilty. Not waiting for a trial, fellow candidate and Senate juror Kamala Harris declared in the last debate, "As a former prosecutor, I know a confession when I see it. He did it in plain sight. He has given us the evidence.""

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/468667-if-donald-trump-is-guilty-of-bribery-democrats-are-guilty-of-solicitation

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.

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?

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

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.

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

---

Pretty sure that's not how that doctrine works.

captkirk said:

---

Trump not going anywhere. I don't know why you guys put yourselves through this over and over again

---

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.

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.

aggiehawg 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?

---

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.

---

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.

MetoliusAg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Trump not going anywhere. I don't know why you guys put yourselves through this over and over again

---

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.

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.

---

What about the crimes committed by Clinton and Obama that others took the fall for (or they covered up)?

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.

Obama was a constitutional lawyer.....so your post doesn't mean chit

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

---

Zero relevance and zero applicability to a HoR impeachment investigation.

MetoliusAg said:

---

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

---

Zero relevance and zero applicability to a HoR impeachment investigation.

---

You've been wrong more times than I care to count on this board.

If the whistleblower doesn't testify, everything else falls apart.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Tbs2003 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Another insulting poster calling Trump supporters "rubes".

So enlightened.

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.

---

There could be an open investigation on the Shokin stuff even if you viewed it as debunked. You don't know, I don't know. But the AG was willing to talk with Ukrainian officials.

This also strengthens the case for Trump. DOJ has never denied criminal activity with Biden. We know the ICIG sent the Ukraine stuff to the DOJ. They determined it was legal, so No known crimes or investigations for Trump either.

Trump has committed no crimes. HTH.

Long 5 years and whatnot

siap

Tbs2003 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

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.

---

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.

As a reminder, here's the relevant part of Bill Taylor's opening statement:

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.

---

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.

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?

---

Biden walked away with millions of dollars from Ukraine and I'm supposed to care that Trump wanted a press conference to align Ukraine with a criminal investigation lead by the AG?

What a freaking weak argument. Both threatened aid to get Ukraine to cave on their foreign policy, but only one got cold hard cash.

On top of that, you have the previous administration paying foreign nationals to "investigate" Trump from the same freaking country. They spun that into a 2 year bogus SC investigation. So sorry if I don't shed a tear for Joe Biden for letting his son make millions of dollars, and creating very public conflicts of interest.

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.

---

---

One more time ...

The word not in the phrase "is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion" negates the word verbatim and not the word transcript. It is a transcript. It's not a verbatim transcript.

Why is this so hard to understand? A transcript doesn't have to be verbatim to be a transcript.

Comparable example ...

If you say "not a great game" ... it means the game was not great, not that there was not a game.

Again, why is this so hard to understand?

Deats: I would very glad to see the WB and the ICIG publicly testify. It would greatly strengthen the case for impeachment and removal and it would increase public support for removing Trump from office.

However, the existing federal whistleblower law protects a WB's identity if a WB wishes to remain anonymous. There are sound reasons for this.

The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' legal concept is a 4A issue in criminal court cases. If you wish to explain why you think the WB complaint filed with the ICIG has any relevance to the HoR impeachment investigation, please do.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

DGAF

---

This is at least honest.

---

I care about results. Alot is happening that moves the needle back to the right and away from socialist BS. The results are good. Unless he commits a crime I DGAS.

If that happens let me know.

FWIW, the Republicans have already said they'll subpoena Schiff. Once the Dems went after Rohrbacher, and subpoened a sitting Congressman, they opened the floodgates.

I would LOVE to see that exchange, hoping it would last several days!

Quote:

---

Biden walked away with millions of dollars from Ukraine

---

Link? Careful not to conflate Hunter and Joe, thinking it was subtle. We noticed. Earning income from foreign companies isn't illegal.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

Biden walked away with millions of dollars from Ukraine

---

Link? Careful not to conflate Hunter and Joe, thinking it was subtle. We noticed. Earning income from foreign companies isn't illegal.

---

Don Jr should join as many foreign company boards as possible then. If you can't see the conflict, our conversation is over. You are just playing partisan power games and we might as well get a national divorce.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren even admitted her Vice President wouldn't be allowed to have their kid on a foreign board.