Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Sondland is not the only person who spoke directly to Trump about it. Volodymyr Zelensky also spoke directly to Trump about it, and we have a transcript of that conversation, where something entirely different was said.
Click to expand...

Time to stop calling a memorandum a transcript, especially when it appears said memorandum was cleaned up.
 
Of for the love of the Supreme God of Pedantics just drop it.

Everyone understood what I meant but you. If my use of the language offends you that bad print out all my posts, sit down at your desk with them, a red pen, and your surely very well worn favorite edition of Strunk and White and proofread them to your heart's content and when you're done mail them to me and I will provide you with revised editions of my posts so you can sleep at night so you can move on to berating a Grocer for having "10 Items or Less" instead of "10 Items or Fewer."

You know what I meant, stop being obtuse. I was using "Not facing impeachment" as lyrical shorthand for "He faces absolutely no chance of being removed from office so the whole thing is a symbolic waste of time." Do you suffer an existential crisis about the what is the philosophical defining characteristic of a truck when someone uses "Chevy? Hell that ain't a real truck" as turn of phrase to describe a truck they don't like? Of course not. Stop acting like the concept has never been explained to you or you've never encountered it.

But just like the Trumpers you've got us arguing the argument, not arguing the topic because you think you can "No it's not champagne it's sparkling wine" this topic into going your way.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Of for the love of the Supreme God of Pedantics just drop it.

Everyone understood what I meant but you. If my use of the language offends you that bad print out all my posts, sit down at your desk with them, a red pen, and your surely very well worn favorite edition of Strunk and White and proofread them to your heart's content and when you're done mail them to me and I will provide you with revised editions of my posts so you can sleep at night so you can move on to berating a Grocer for having "10 Items or Less" instead of "10 Items or Fewer."

You know what I meant, stop being obtuse. I was using "Not facing impeachment" as lyrical shorthand for "He faces absolutely no chance of being removed from office so the whole thing is a symbolic waste of time." Do you suffer an existential crisis about the what is the philosophical defining characteristic of a truck when someone uses "Chevy? Hell that ain't a real truck" as turn of phrase to describe a truck they don't like? Of course not. Stop acting like the concept has never been explained to you or you've never encountered it.

But just like the Trumpers you've got us arguing the argument, not arguing the topic because you think you can "No it's not champagne it's sparkling wine" this topic into going your way.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are referring to me, it was Belz that complained I should go back and read the posts. I'm tired of being accused of not reading posts.

In the post I said Trump has been impeached, I was tired of people talking about it as if being impeached was insignificant without a conviction. It is significant as is at this point.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
In the post I said Trump has been impeached, I was tired of people talking about it as if being impeached was insignificant without a conviction. It is significant as is at this point.
Click to expand...

Okay. I disagree. That's why we have discussions.

Maybe if you spent more time reading for actual context and meaning instead of just grading their posts to confirm to your personal style guide we get somewhere, but I'm done having the "Is it four fingers and a thumb or five fingers?" hijacks with you.

You see this is the problem with the Left. I'm in your side and you're treating me worse then the Trumpers do because they don't care as long as they get their yuck-yucks in.
 
Meadmaker said:
They released it last week. You're behind the times.
Of course, I can't talk. I have to see if I can find something about the second conversation, whatever that was.
Click to expand...

The 2nd phone call is the call we heard about from the whistle blower, the one that started all of this. The 1st phone call, which they released a 'transcript' of recently, is not what all the hubbub stems from; it's a separate call being used as a distraction/smokescreen.
 
Last edited:
Again it's a moo point, you know a cow's opinion. Everything the Whistleblower said has already been corroborated multiple times. The events did happen. These are facts and they are not in dispute.

As always we're dealing with reality denial, not wrongness.
 
TalosMarr said:
The 2nd phone call is the call we heard about from the whistle blower, the one that started all of this. The 1st phone call, which they released a 'transcript' of recently, is not what all the hubbub stems from; it's a separate call being used as a distraction/smokescreen.
Click to expand...
It's the equivalent of a bank robber caught on camera, and in his defense he presents video from a different day when he didn't commit a robbery.

That's how indefensible Trump's actions were, and how mindless the cultists are.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
What's the difference between them bragging about it and them just doing it?
Click to expand...
If they'd waited until the Articles were sent over, Pelosi would have no move.

Re: obstruction of justice - *they anticipated more evidence*. So it would n't have made sense to issue that Article until all available evidence was in hand and on the record. And actually, they still might get more evidence of abuse of power and contempt of Congress. A good reason not to send them over.

Whether Pelosi is shocked or not, the GOP gave her a damn good excuse to hold on to the Articles.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. I disagree. That's why we have discussions.

Maybe if you spent more time reading for actual context and meaning instead of just grading their posts to confirm to your personal style guide we get somewhere, but I'm done having the "Is it four fingers and a thumb or five fingers?" hijacks with you.

You see this is the problem with the Left. I'm in your side and you're treating me worse then the Trumpers do because they don't care as long as they get their yuck-yucks in.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not going to bother looking for all the other posts with this pedantry but there are a few and the others are not my posts.

The point was and still is, you kept repeatedly pointing out that the impeachment had not been completed. It has been. The trial has not yet occurred. The impeachment has.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
In the post I said Trump has been impeached, I was tired of people talking about it as if being impeached was insignificant without a conviction. It is significant as is at this point.
Click to expand...
It's significant to me partly because it's driving Trump insane(r). Not a very noble motive, but true.

But the other thing people miss is that not impeaching would set a terrible precedent, in the phone call case. While it's almost certain the Senate will not convict, that's beside the point. The House saw an impeachable offense and impeached. They did their part. Didn't McConnell criticize the impeachment as being "rushed"? Maybe he was right, so a couple of week's delay might be the responsible thing to do.

I also wonder if Mitch and Lindsey might have overplayed their hand a wee bit. Not all GOP senators are going to be eager to vote to proceed with a "trial" in which no witnesses testify and no evidence is considered. I'm pretty sure that voting for such rules would cost my GOP senator their job.
 
'It wasn't a crime' is not a defense when it is a high crime, and it DOUBLY isn't a defense when it's also not true.

It's not like it's even a close call.
 
First things first. Whatever I heard last week about transcripts, I must have heard it wrong, or they were lying. (It was on talk radio. Lying is a definite possibility.) I don't know what was released or when.

However.....


JoeMorgue said:
Again it's a moo point, you know a cow's opinion. Everything the Whistleblower said has already been corroborated multiple times. The events did happen. These are facts and they are not in dispute.

As always we're dealing with reality denial, not wrongness.
Click to expand...

varwoche said:
It's the equivalent of a bank robber caught on camera, and in his defense he presents video from a different day when he didn't commit a robbery.

That's how indefensible Trump's actions were, and how mindless the cultists are.
Click to expand...


So, there's something interesting going on here. I get the feeling that, somehow, I'm supposed to be indicated in the above. Maybe I'm wrong. It just seems that way. Let's go over what the subject of the most recent dispute is:

Which of the following is true?

1) Donald Trump asked President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden

or

2) Donald Trump did not ask President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, but he just wanted Zelensky to "announce" that he was investigating Joe Biden, instead of actually investigating him.


That's the dispute. Which side of that dispute are you on? I'm on side 1.


If you are also on side 1, then congratulations on being on the correct side.;)

If you are on side 2, I guess I'd like to hear an explanation of your position, and whether you think that makes Trump look bad, especially if you think that somehow position 2 is a more severe crime than position 1.
 
Meadmaker said:
I get the feeling that, somehow, I'm supposed to be indicated in the above. Maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
The latter. In no way, shape or form was I indicating you.

If you wish, I'll be glad to review the thread and see if you merit indication retroactively. :p
 
... but I'm pleased to answer your question anyway. That's how genial I am!

My answer is 1.5. That is, he asked that Biden be investigated, but would have been satisfied by an announcement. That's my sense of things, simply because the announcement probably would have sufficed.

But that said, if Biden is leading in the polls in Sept 2020, I can well imagine Trump going back to the well and demanding a damning outcome, never mind if the investigation ever occurred.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You go back and look.
Click to expand...

I did. If you refuse to understand what he's telling you, it's beyond my power to make you see it.

Also, nice moving of goalposts.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm tired of being accused of not reading posts.
Click to expand...

And instead of dealing with the problem at the source (you), you lash out at other posters instead.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom