Bob in Mich

Well, it was a fable that he made up so, sure, why not? Too bad you missed the pictures of him, out on a northern Canadian lake, in the nation's largest canoe, holding up a huge stringer of sturgeon

Hey, that's right. What happened to Row33? Hey NiagaraBill, you're from Canada, right? Have you seen our missing Russian-Canadian poster Row33? He says he lives in Canada too. Bet he went sturgeon fishing again.

Help us! lol Not a bad take but I suspect it may not be popular here. You are lucky most are watching the Senate hearings. You may even learn some new insult words.

Thanks man.

I can't, but thank you, sincerely. Sorry, interpreted your earlier question as, 'why does TYTT's opinion matter to me'. Trump's reasons for his actions matter to me. Corrupt purposes versus honest purposes, that matter to you?

The truth is TYTT's take doesn't mean anything either way. Just looking to exchange thoughts. I read posts here often and am tempted to weigh in but usually conclude, why bother? I have some injury/health issues. I search for a distraction at times. Posting gives a decent distraction, lol, as I am a popular punching bag. I value opinions and the learning but mostly I am trying to get through a bad stretch. As an aside, If TYTT gave an answer I didn't like I wouldn't harass the hell out of him for years.

Did you have to change the ribbon? Sorry, man.

Henry, Henry, again with the insults. Can't we all just get along? I get along with other jerks. You never answered when I asked if you had been an altar boy. You know you can get back at those pedos now in NY for what they have done to your psyche. I will testify that you are ***** up if you'd like.

Henry, Henry, please, don't answer it. Your input is not that precious and I no longer wish to deal with your crap. Was just trying to pass some time. Sometimes I slip up and forget you are a jerk.

Maybe if we could see the emails and texts that went back and forth from the involved parties, that might help to determine what was actually the scheme. Maybe witnesses could help clarify the scheme. It is funny when a poster spends hundreds of words explaining why they are unable to answer a question when that answer would likely be under 10 characters.

Yes, I am asking him/you what, in your own personal, non-legal opinion, was his actual motivation. I don't think the Senators or Managers are listening so I was hoping to just get an honest opinion.

Whacko, you are spot on today. Good one brother! Kinda getting a bit predictable though. Aside to DR. The question you have referenced for about 6 months now that you claim I won't face, has been answered likely a minimum of 15 times now by me to you or to others. You clearly know that but just as clearly, you don''t agree with or like that answer. In fact I recall one thread where you asked the same question 10 times in a few pages in spite of me answering it every time. In addition I quoted the Mueller report and gave you a link that spelled out my views in detail. You have my answer. You know that. If you are being a reasonable, honest person, as you constantly claim, you would consider people may hold opinions that differ from your opinions. Those opinions may be correct or incorrect. Is that true Mr Reasonable? Are people allowed in your mind to think something that is different than you or even incorrect or must you continue to badger them until they agree with your take? You continue to try to claim you are just innocently trying to help educate when that stopped ages ago. You are clearly simply harassing and not trying to help anything or anyone but your own ego.

Dude, I just asked you for an opinion. We aren't in court or the Senate. Just looking for your opinion. Here again was the question: Do you honestly believe that Trump was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

In honor of the OP I will stash a copy of this here. 3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet. Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you. (Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

DR, just a reminder. You are on ignore. You will remain on ignore meaning I don't read your posts or follow any links. I will not engage with you based solely on your repeated horrible posting behavior towards me. Out

Sort of implies all just a coincidence that Bidens were going to be involved in his requested investigation? I have to leave shortly but thought I would ask a question to you. Check back later...or tomorrow Do you honestly believe that he was primarily motivated in this Ukraine scheme by the country's interests or are you let's say, content, that it could be true?

Thank you. I appreciate it. Lunch plans today so I will likely get back to you later...or maybe tomorrow. In brief it seems that people want to punish this guy. If all the political suspicions and nefarious actions are true, that take is understandable. it just seems that so far, I have only seen suspicions without any other proof, though I may have missed it. Anyway, thx again.

Possibly one of the reasons Trump called his phone call perfect. Perhaps he thought his plan so good because he had a great defensible position that would be all but impossible to disprove.....unless the prosecution got their hands on all the emails, texts, and witnesses. He had just the answer to that problem too with absolute immunity.

Does it matter? My take is derived from a preponderance of evidence from the totality of his postings.

Maybe you can help me understand the Repub motivation on this. If so, please take a minute if you would. Agree or disagree? The whistle blower program in general is useful in uncovering possible misdeeds by government employees. Agree or disagree? Outing this guy/girl's identity will put his and his family's lives in greater danger from some possibly unstable Trump supporter. Agree or disagree? Outing him/her too would have a chilling affect on future possible whistle blowing due to the outing of this whistle blower. agree or disagree? The whistle blower's statement has been, if not exactly, largely supported by the House witnesses who were under oath. agree or disagree? Couldn't whatever questions the Repub Sens have be answered by the whistle blower either on paper or in secret hearings? Why is it so important to Repubs (if it is to you) to publicly out this guy/woman given the concerns?

I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove. Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. The question I have is : how close are these defensible positions to the actual truth ? I would like to know the actual truth and whether or not Trump will continue to use foreign governments to attack his political opponents. Is that now OK for all candidates to do?

3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet. Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you. And, as a reminder, I haven't seen yet that you replied to my 'simple question', or have you? (Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

Dersh, who just a day or so earlier was hailed as a savior for the Repub Sens, sort of came off as a bit kooky yesterday, imo. Much tougher today for those Sens to say, 'well I believe Dersh, he's an expert'. At one point I think I understood him to say that all these so called experts have their constitutional opinions flipped by money, politics, and power. Fair enough. Those Clinton hearing videos pretty much show that with lots of politicians. The funny part to me though is that Alan's position has flipped too as evidenced by a 1999 video of him. He claims however that he didn't flip. He claims that he just now knows more and is really the only expert that has resisted the affects of money and power.

Lucky Strike, thanks for the reply and the replying to my OJ analogy. It is a work in progress I admit, but the salient similar points: - OJ underwent a massive investigation that cost taxpayers $Millions - Same for Trump -OJ was acquitted of charges but a lot of suspicion of his possible guilt remained -Similar for Trump -The investigations and eventual trial put OJ through a very difficult process personally that damaged his reputation -Same for Trump -OJ and his supporters claim now that those that still investigate/watch him are harassing him even though he was acquitted - Same for Trump -OJ's detractors claim the guy is a criminal who needs to be watched closely for future crimes - Similar for Trump detractors The point then that I was making is that you claim that Trump should not be investigated by Congress going forward just because Mueller did not charge him after that massive previous investigation. Try to follow here, but that logic put to OJ would be like saying OJ should not be investigated if there are any new allegations because he was already acquitted after a massive investigation that has put him through hell. Regarding closing out the trial without witnesses, it appears you will get your wish. As I posted before, the impact on Trump is obvious and immediate. Remains to be seen the future impact on the campaigns of the deaf and blind Repub Senators. Americans have short memories though so maybe none. Kavanaugh...we talked about this issue previously and I gave you my honest though limited take. I recall I had a question for you on that that you never answered. I will look for that but probably enough for one posting anyway

Louie Louie, I have probably written responses to about 40 posts today. Sorry but I have to tell you that your posts are exhausting. You throw everything in the world into them ...Kavanaugh and Clinton and Obama and Iran and Mitch and Ukraine and Biden and etc, etc, and then the jokes. It is not possible to answer all the points you raise though I disagree with your take on nearly every one. I mentioned in a post earlier that some may not realize that you all can overrun a poster with replies. There are about 10 posters that want replies and god help you if you make a spelling or grammatical error. You did not answer my OJ question by the way. You slid on by with a joke. Shame were these the ones? Adam Schiff and the house Democrats are attempting to have Trump removed from office. (yes) Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of those in control of the house used political majority in the house to frame a story in the manner they wanted it presented. (yes) There was no call for harmony, they did not consider the feelings of the Rs, defer to their requests for a "fair hearing", nor attempt to meet somewhere in the middle so we could all get to the truth. (false. The process has different phases. In the final house phase the president declined to have his counsel present.) Schiff in particular made statements to the public that were false and misleading along the way, and in that regard, did so for maximum political effect. If you are saying his statements have a political slant, then I agree. If you are trying to make an issue of his ill advised parody, then (False)