Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[JoeMorgue]

"What did Trump think Biden did?" is a red herring because the proper way for the President to investigate something doesn't involve bringing in foreign agents.

If I think my next door neighbor is stealing my paper every morning when he's out walking the dog and I hire Stalin to "look into him for me" I'm not exonerated if he turns out he's really stealing my paper or committing some other crime that comes out during the investigation.

 

[tyr_13]

"What did Trump think Biden did?" is a red herring because the proper way for the President to investigate something doesn't involve bringing in foreign agents.

If I think my next door neighbor is stealing my paper every morning when he's out walking the dog and I hire Stalin to "look into him for me" I'm not exonerated if he turns out he's really stealing my paper or committing some other crime that comes out during the investigation.

It amuses me that the defense of Trump is profoundly wrong on so many levels that we end up arguing which level of wrong has primacy.

 

[Belz...]

It amuses me that the defense of Trump is profoundly wrong on so many levels that we end up arguing which level of wrong has primacy.

 

[Venom]

Evolution of the GOP position on impeachment:
"It doesn't take a crime."
"It doesn't take a technical crime."
"It requires a crime."
"It requires a crime-like behaviour."
"It doesn't really matter."

I also see many Trumpists doing whatabout Obama or Hillary, perceiving them as somehow more corrupt. In what way I don't have a ******* clue.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Trying to make sense of cult logic is like trying herd cats.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Influence peddling and/or bribery.

I'm not saying he did those things, or even that there is any evidence of those things. I am saying that some people suspected him of those things.

Okay. Keep going. Whom is he suspected to have bribed, and to what end?

In addition, what exactly are these suspicions based on? Is it anything more than "Well I heard on Facebook..."?

 

[newyorkguy]

I believe his actual quote was, "I wasn't wrong then but I'm more right now".

I can understand that. As one of my bosses used to say -- and he was a successful New York businessman (and a registered Republican) -- "We believe what we need to believe when we need to believe it. If the situation changes, we believe something else."

 

[Armitage72]

"What did Trump think Biden did?" is a red herring because the proper way for the President to investigate something doesn't involve bringing in foreign agents.

He knows more about military operations and fighting terrorism than any of his generals. Obviously, he also knows more about investigation than any of the federal law enforcement agencies. It's only logical that he apply his superior knowledge to initiate the investigation himself, in a way that his inferiors wouldn't have considered.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay. Keep going. Whom is he suspected to have bribed, and to what end?

In addition, what exactly are these suspicions based on? Is it anything more than "Well I heard on Facebook..."?

Burisma, where he was on the board, is suspected of bribing Ukrainian officials to get contracts. Hunter is also suspected of contacting his father in an attemp to influence foreign policy in ways that would benefit Burisma.

These suspicions, as far as I know, are based on nothing more than a belief that Hunter Biden had no real qualifications for a job for which he was paid a million dollars per year.

ETA: some people are probably unaware that the Biden corruption angle was a right wing talking point for months before Trump picked it up. Trump probably got it from Hannity.

 

[Belz...]

Burisma, where he was on the board, is suspected of bribing Ukrainian officials to get contracts. Hunter is also suspected of contacting his father in an attemp to influence foreign policy in ways that would benefit Burisma.

These suspicions, as far as I know, are based on nothing more than a belief that Hunter Biden had no real qualifications for a job for which he was paid a million dollars per year.

Which, even if it were true, has zip all to do with announcing an investigation in Donald Trump's political opponent.

 

[plague311]

Burisma, where he was on the board, is suspected of bribing Ukrainian officials to get contracts. Hunter is also suspected of contacting his father in an attemp to influence foreign policy in ways that would benefit Burisma.

These suspicions, as far as I know, are based on nothing more than a belief that Hunter Biden had no real qualifications for a job for which he was paid a million dollars per year.

ETA: some people are probably unaware that the Biden corruption angle was a right wing talking point for months before Trump picked it up. Trump probably got it from Hannity.

Other than the fact he had a decade + of serving on multiple boards and running a few of his own businesses.

I know it's not your point, but that is such a tired ass argument. How could he possibly be more qualified to sit on a board than having a decade of experience doing exactly that?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Evolution of the GOP position on impeachment:
"It doesn't take a crime."
"It doesn't take a technical crime."
"It requires a crime."
"It requires a crime-like behaviour."
"It doesn't really matter."

“I was not aware, but am delighted to discover, Trump’s bunghole tastes just like Franken Berry.*”

*Part of this nutritious breakfast.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Other than the fact he had a decade + of serving on multiple boards and running a few of his own businesses.

I know it's not your point, but that is such a tired ass argument. How could he possibly be more qualified to sit on a board than having a decade of experience doing exactly that?

Experience in the field. Achievements generally. Not widely known to be a failson.

Look at the Theranos board. There is no doubt it was an incredible assembly of people. It was also clear they were not their for their qualifications and they were unqualified to be on the Theranos board.

 

[Aridas]

Part of me agrees with you but then Russia cheated for Trump and they are currently spreading Trump's CT that it was Ukraine not them.

And I believe they are on opposite sides of a number of conflicts in the world.


So it's not like there is no basis for the label.


It's probably not helpful to call them the enemy, though.

Not just conflicts around the world. When, for example, the leader of a white supremacist group that was just busted by the FBI for planning a number of terroristic attacks in the US just happens to live in Russia with his Russian wife and sure looks like he's acting on the behalf of Russia, that's a problem. When Russian mercenaries under a Putin stooge directly attacked an American base in Syria, that's a problem. When Russia apparently steals the logins to a bunch of US nuclear power plant accounts, that's a problem.

"Enemy" or not, they're not even remotely our friends, regardless of how willing the Trump Administration is to prioritize Russian jobs over American jobs and how willing Trump is to pass them super top secret information and give them direct access to our election electronics.

 

[Cabbage]

Assuming that was what happened:

My point would be: Then maybe you shouldn't have voted for someone who threatens to nuke North Korea. Do a better job of matching your vote to your ideals.

My turn: What was your point in asking me that question?

Huh. It seems like it was only two days ago when I was pointing out how theprestige keeps ghosting my questions. He said to try addressing the argument, not the arguer. I responded, "We'll see".

That certainly didn't take long: Very next day he's still ghosting my questions.


Yes, I certainly do see. I see BS, as usual.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It amuses me that the defense of Trump is profoundly wrong on so many levels that we end up arguing which level of wrong has primacy.

"Trump hasn't done anything wrong until we've perfectly defined, categorized, and scaled his wrongness" has been a common tactic from the stalling contrarians for a while now.

It's arguing that the Pacific Ocean isn't wet because I can't say, down to the individual H20 atom, how much water is in it.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Schiff and Nadler are both lying about the Hamilton quote. It was not about impeachment. It was lifted from a letter to George Washington about tax policy five years after the Constitution was adopted. He did discuss the possibility of a monarchy developing, but that was poo-pooed by Washington.

"He (Hamilton) does, however, warn that, "the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions," to throw affairs into anarchy and drive citizens into, "the arms of monarchy for repose and security."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...ote-out-of-context-in-trump-impeachment-trial

 

[Meadmaker]

Other than the fact he had a decade + of serving on multiple boards and running a few of his own businesses.

I know it's not your point, but that is such a tired ass argument. How could he possibly be more qualified to sit on a board than having a decade of experience doing exactly that?

I'm describing a belief, not a reality. You probably understood that, but just clarifying for the folks at home.


Personally, I find it amusing that Republicans are so concerned about overpaid, do-nothing, boards of directors.

 

[plague311]

Experience in the field. Achievements generally. Not widely known to be a failson.

Are you saying Biden didn't have these? If you're saying Biden didn't have experience, you'd be wrong. If you're saying he didn't have achievements, you'd be wrong. If you're saying he was a failson, you'd be wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm saying Trump and his apologists win more and more the longer we talk about whether or not Biden did anything because it doesn't matter.

The President doesn't get order political hits on opponents using foreign agents just because it's justified.

If a split hair is equal on both sides, it doesn't need to be split.