• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
I love how you think that your personal interpretation binds Mr. Kent in his statements.

It's cute, in a way.
Click to expand...

Ha. You're reminding me of one of Orwell's old warning about "how not to be":
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/th.../essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/
"...there is a habit of mind which is now so widespread that it affects our thinking on nearly every subject, but which has not yet been given a name. As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation – that is, a single race or a geographical area. It can attach itself to a church or a class, or it may work in a merely negative sense, against something or other and without the need for any positive object of loyalty."

The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
You are just refusing to answer the question.
Click to expand...

I DID ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. Several posters did. But the only answer you'll accept is one that matches yours. It's dishonest and stupid.

That might work as effective obfuscation in a legalistic sense. That's a better answer than Kent's lie to his question. Screwit. I'll accept it. A+ job at achieving something that might be effective obfuscation.
Click to expand...

What in the blue **** are you babbling about? I've explained to you why your question is not relevant, and why Kent's answer is not a lie. You could explain _why_ you don't agree, but I suppose that would expose the weakness of your position if you did:

It's not true, but teasing out all the places you're wrong would confuse people.
Click to expand...

An interesting excuse, but I think it's more obvious that you simply don't know what you're talking about, per usual. You thought you had a neat gotcha, but no one bit your lure.

I would just be honest and say "I guess it's true, although the writer was using the word "intervened" I wouldn't choose to," or something like that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that anyone who doesn't see things exactly your way is simply dishonest. Kent is lying, Belz... is lying, Smartcooky is lying. We're all lying except you. :rolleyes:

The question he was given was one which asked "was there ANY factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered."

He'd have to not know it was reported that they "intervened" at the time to not be lying there.
Click to expand...

Or he could, you know, simply disagree that they did. There are a host of possibilities but you only see one, for some reason. In fact, it's the same one you apply to everybody who disagrees with you here.

Ha. You're reminding me of one of Orwell's old warning about "how not to be"
Click to expand...

And I'm reminded that people who quote others to speak for them usually don't have anything clever to say.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that anyone who doesn't see things exactly your way is simply dishonest. Kent is lying, Belz... is lying, Smartcooky is lying. We're all lying except you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you think the Republicans are basically lying?

I know you'll give another scattered to the stars and back non-answer type response to that question, so say whatever you will, but I really think "partisian blinders" as the phenomenon is referred to most frequently now, is the same thing as this:

...having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.
Click to expand...
 
It's striking to hear Yovanovitch's perspective on the way she was smeared by Trump, Giuliani, and various stooges. What was done to her is so ugly that it's sickening.
 
varwoche said:
It's striking to hear Yovanovitch's perspective on the way she was smeared by Trump, Giuliani, and various stooges. What was done to her is so ugly that it's sickening.
Click to expand...

In the other thread Captain Swoop posted a Trump tweet. He's starting in on her already this morning as well.
 
kellyb said:
Do you think the Republicans are basically lying?
Click to expand...

No one said anything about lying except you. Constantly.

I know you'll give another scattered to the stars and back non-answer type response to that question
Click to expand...

For ****'s sake, Kelly, how dishonest can you be? I've given you precise and honest answers to every question and points you've made. You, on the other hand, have declined to indicate how and why you disagree with me, so it's a bit rich that you try to gaslight the thread into thinking that I'm the one doing this. You do know they can read the exchange, right?
 
kellyb said:
That wasn't what the question was about, though. It really was a question about if there was ANY factual basis for the allegation that Ukraine interfered in 2016.
Watch the video, starting at 02:12:30

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent&start=7969


-------------------------------------------

NOW, WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THIS CROWDSTRIKE AND SERVER, WHAT DO YOU WANTED THIS TO BE REFERENCE TO?

02:12:30
TO BE HONEST, I HAD NOT HEARD OF CROWDSTRIKE UNTIL I READ THIS TRANSCRIPT ON SEPTEMBER 25th.

02:12:36
DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHAT IT RELATES TO?

02:12:37
I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORY THAT THERE'S A SERVER WITH MISSING EMAILS. I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THE OWNERS OF CROWDSTRIKE IS A RUSSIAN/AMERICAN I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORY THAT THERE'S A SERVER WITH MISSING EMAILS. I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THE OWNERS OF CROWDSTRIKE IS A RUSSIAN/AMERICAN. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UKRAINIAN CONNECTION TO THE COMPANY.
02:12:57
ARE YOU AWARE THIS IS ALL PART OF A LARGER ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

02:13:07
YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

02:13:09
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

02:13:17
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS, NO
------

Every time I see this, it sinks in a little deeper that He. Is. Just. Lying.

The fact that the lie was a nifty "hook" into the narrative's "it was Russia!" exclamation point at the end, does not in any way make the lie better. It just makes "Russian interference" look like it might be BS, too.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you read it again, and look at what the questioner asks him about, it all about the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory. He's not asking him if Ukrainian officials got Manafort fired and wrote some op-eds and blog posts. He's asking him about the whole emails and Crowdstrike stuff which as Kent stated, has no factual basis in reality. And to the rest of it. Writing a few blogs and an Op-Ed, and even revealing Manafort's corruption is not interfering in the election.
 
Something occurred to me a few minutes ago: Who gave Trump the idea to use Ukraine against Biden? It doesn't seem like something he's capable of coming up with on his own.
 
kellyb said:
Is this statement below true or false?

"The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election."
Click to expand...

It's a claim. What is the evidence?
 
"Fox News anchors described the testimony of Maria Yovanovitch as a “turning point” in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Anchor Bret Baier predicted that Trump’s tweet smearing Yovanovitch’s reputation as the longtime diplomat testified would lead to a new article of impeachment against the president."

Oops.

Hope the link works.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Something occurred to me a few minutes ago: Who gave Trump the idea to use Ukraine against Biden? It doesn't seem like something he's capable of coming up with on his own.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
from most accounts it was Giuliani
Click to expand...

I think it goes back to Manafort who, no doubt, was upset that "his" Ukrainian Dictator was deposed and replaced with something more hostile to his scams and his Russian backers.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I think it goes back to Manafort who, no doubt, was upset that "his" Ukrainian Dictator was deposed and replaced with something more hostile to his scams and his Russian backers.
Click to expand...

It was very much Manafort. This all goes back to the revolution in 2013/14, which removed Yanukovich (Manafort’s $60M boss and Putin’s stooge) from his golden throne.
 
GlennB said:
"Fox News anchors described the testimony of Maria Yovanovitch as a “turning point” in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Anchor Bret Baier predicted that Trump’s tweet smearing Yovanovitch’s reputation as the longtime diplomat testified would lead to a new article of impeachment against the president."

Hope the link works.

Oops.
Click to expand...

Wow, holy ****. Trump is imploding.
 
kellyb said:
Yeah, but they performed an action intended to sway the election, and were cheering when they thought it had probably swayed the election.

The correct answer here to the "Is there any factual basis" question is yes.

There's no way out of that.
Click to expand...

Apropos, are you aware of the concept "concern trolling"? Anyway, semantics aside, it is very plain that no, Ukraine did not interfere improperly in the electoral process of the USA. Very unlike the Kremlin which did blatantly interfere.
 
plague311 said:
Wow, holy ****. Trump is imploding.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter though? I honestly don't know if Republicans would impeach under any circumstances. Establishing undeniable guilt and blatant corrupt intent may not even matter.

The Republican stance is going to be "he did, it was bad, we don't care, MAGA".
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Does it really matter though? I honestly don't know if Republicans would impeach under any circumstances. Establishing undeniable guilt and blatant corrupt intent may not even matter.

The Republican stance is going to be "he did, it was bad, we don't care, MAGA".
Click to expand...

None of this will I argue. It's at least nice to see the Dems get some back bone though. Eventually Trump will lose his mind over this and I truly believe that the electorate, at least the ones that can be swayed, will think he's even too much for them to handle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom