Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

[Belz...]

Secret votes for impeachment trials are a bad idea. I am in unequivocal agreement with that.

But it is interesting to see the idea that if provided with political cover the vocal supporters of Trump would kick him out of office.

It points to one of the flaws in the checks and balances system. Decisions in a Senate trial, important ones bearing on the integrity of the presidency and our government are not made on the facts, they are made on political expediency.

Not sure if that's fixable, but the secret ballot conceit sure makes it obvious.

I don't think it's fixable unless we plug a different species in the equation. Humans are thus.

 

[Belz...]

WTF? Where did I speak for anyone but myself?

I was replying to Joe directly.

Gods, it's really hard to get you to read what you reply to, isn't it? You said he wasted everybody's time. You can only speak for yourself here.

I really don't know why this is all so damned hard for you.

 

[varwoche]

Hannity has a comical, inane excuse for Mulvaney's shocking* admission to quid pro quo.

I just think he's dumb, I really do. I don't even think he knows what he's talking about. That's my take on it.

* Not unlike admitting there's such a thing as death and taxes, in terms of obviousness.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If Mulvaney is dumb, the guy who hired him must be a total moron.

 

[Minoosh]

It also seems somewhat off for you to be complaining about unfair treatment, given how much you like to bait people.

This kinda sounds like addressing the arguer, not the argument.

Trump has alluded to a full transcript but that doesn't mean it exists. I thought of another possibility - maybe it was taken down by a court reporter. For many years that was the gold standard, not audio tapes.

Could he avoid turning it over if he classified it as super-duper top secret?

Not sure how much this matters, since the summary he turned over is pretty damning on its own. It bothers me a little that Mulvaney's quid pro quo involved the "server" thing and not the Biden thing. It makes it less personal, because Trump has been yammering about the server for years, independent of any named candidate. I'd still rather there were few more dots to connect but it sounds like the House is on it.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm so sick of hearing about poor conservatives being insulted and being treated badly while they support a President who treats anyone that disagrees with him or refuses to put their noses in the crack of his ass badly.

The thing that bugs me is how Trump is pitching a hissy fit about someone else supposedly lying to the American people. How can anyone take that **** seriously?

 

[Minoosh]

Hannity has a comical, inane excuse for Mulvaney's shocking* admission to quid pro quo.

So does this mean Mulvaney's about be canned? Think Trump will understand that Hannity is also insulting Trump?

ETA: Plus, since when does being dumb make someone a liar?

 

[acbytesla]

The thing that bugs me is how Trump is pitching a hissy fit about someone else supposedly lying to the American people. How can anyone take that **** seriously?

I've been asking that question since he descended down that escalator.

Trump is by far the most prolific liar I've encountered in my entire life. And what's amazing is this person is the President of the United States. And what's doubly amazing is that statement isn't hyperbole. Given what we know about Trump how anyone believes him on anything amazes me. And yet every day people in these threads defend those lies.

 

[quadraginta]

I've been asking that question since he descended down that escalator.

Trump is by far the most prolific liar I've encountered in my entire life. And what's amazing is this person is the President of the United States. And what's doubly amazing is that statement isn't hyperbole. Given what we know about Trump how anyone believes him on anything amazes me. And yet every day people in these threads defend those lies.

Or ignore them.

With great fervor.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I've been asking that question since he descended down that escalator.

Trump is by far the most prolific liar I've encountered in my entire life. And what's amazing is this person is the President of the United States. And what's doubly amazing is that statement isn't hyperbole. Given what we know about Trump how anyone believes him on anything amazes me. And yet every day people in these threads defend those lies.

Just because he lies a lot does not mean that your perception something is a lie is correct. That is sometimes what you are getting challenged on.

ETA: plus, for most *lies" you are simply going to lack evidence that it is a lie

 

[Craig4]

Hannity has a comical, inane excuse for Mulvaney's shocking* admission to quid pro quo.



* Not unlike admitting there's such a thing as death and taxes, in terms of obviousness.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...eek-just-got-worse/ar-AAJ4PM9?ocid=spartanntp

I'm not sure how it's possible but as bad as Thursday was, Mickey had an even worse Sunday.

 

[acbytesla]

Just because he lies a lot does not mean that your perception something is a lie is correct. That is sometimes what you are getting challenged on.

ETA: plus, for most *lies" you are simply going to lack evidence that it is a lie

No, he lies on what I'm being challenged on too. In truth though, I'm rarely challenged on whether his lies are the truth. It's more we don't care. Or they propose a false equivalence. It's spin and pivot. Its things like what he says isn't important or he was joking.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, he lies on what I'm being challenged on too. In truth though, I'm rarely challenged on whether his lies are the truth. It's more we don't care. Or they propose a false equivalence. It's spin and pivot. Its things like what he says isn't important or he was joking.

And that is why I carefully chose the word sometimes

 

[acbytesla]

And that is why I carefully chose the word sometimes

I wouldn't describe what you do that way. I would call it sophistry.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I wouldn't describe what you do that way. I would call it sophistry.

Sophistry implies I'm making an argument. I am not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gods, it's really hard to get you to read what you reply to, isn't it? You said he wasted everybody's time. You can only speak for yourself here.

I really don't know why this is all so damned hard for you.

Here, apparently you need help with your language challenges:

Why not post, "IMO it's hopeless" instead of wasting everyone's time with all the whining?

Don't speak for me. Put him on ignore if you don't want to read his posts.

The proper way to reply here and have your meaning be clear would have been to address only that one word in the post, not the whole thing.

For example, "I take issue with "everyone" in that post". That would have made it clear you were only talking about the use of the word, "everyone".

I know it's easier to believe we can all read your mind and we should never misunderstand your perfect prose. But sometimes it is you that is not clear, and it is not the fault of the person who tried to decipher your petty ire.


BTW, you could follow your own advice and put me on ignore. It would be no loss for me.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Sophistry implies I'm making an argument.

No it doesn't. Just stop, Bob.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No it doesn't. Just stop, Bob.

From Oxford dictionary

the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
"trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"

I am not making arguments. It is pure observation for its own sake.

 

[Belz...]

The proper way to reply here and have your meaning be clear would have been to address only that one word in the post, not the whole thing.

Yeah, sure, and then you'd accuse me of cutting out the rest of the "context" that made all the difference in the world.

No, the post was short, and my response was clear. You just didn't get it because you didn't bother to try.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Taylor's opening statement. Key excerpts:

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 elections...

Amb. 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 Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Amb. Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,’