Bob in Mich

I warned you. bye bye Back to ignore so don't expect any more replies from me. I tried to give you another chance but you just badger and badger. I shouldn't have to answer questions 10 times because you are too dim to recognize a reply. Good Luck with all of your theories. out

Stop it. You are brighter than this. A coup? That is just not what is happening. What is happening are investigations into Trump's 2019 actions. That is it. Congressional investigations would not be required in a coup. Stop with the exaggerations and the inflammatory words, please.

DR, don't try to squirm out of this after harassing me for pages. You stated that Mueller stated there was zero evidence of a conspiracy and I said there was insufficient evidence to charge. To prove you are exaggerating about this zero evidence of conspiracy claim, I copy the exact words from the Mueller report and then we see your apology....oh Bob, you were right? Nope, just slip sliding. You are the one being dishonest I am afraid pal. There was some evidence of interaction as well as strong evidence of obstruction. A serious person would not cling to a false narrative but we see that DR is not being honest or serious. I like you DR but you need to think for yourself and also be able to admit when you are wrong. Good night

lol, good one

What a dig! Damn, that one really hurts. Is someone helping you to write these really clever replies?

Oh gosh, how original of you! There is no reply to counter such brilliance. I have no chance against this tower of intellect.

Truthfully, not rage at all Wetside. Just checked my BP - 110/70. I just post when I need some distraction. Today is one such day and the arguments made by blind Trump supporters are so easy.

So insightful as always. Thanks for the depth of thought you invested in this issue. You never fail to disappoint Wetside!

The Ukrainian aid quid pro quo was wrong because Trump used our country's money (the aid) as the carrot to be given only if the Ukrainians did a favor to benefit Trump personally and politically. Let's say you got laid off yesterday and went to the unemployment office today. The claims examiner there says, "You qualify but before I sign off on this I would like you to do me a personal favor." He proceeds to describe the sexual favor he requires from you. Does requesting this sexual favor in order to get your deserved unemployment benefits sound like a proper and reasonable request to you? It doesn't, does it?

Our country's system of checks and balances may no longer function. The reason is because the founding fathers made the foolish assumption that people that have been elected to the House and the Senate would be persons of integrity. Certainly they would have a political slant but surely they would protect the democracy over party if it came right down to it. Today integrity, honesty, and position consistency are no longer as important as tribal loyalty. I am old enough to remember when a politician caught lying would apologize for disgracing the office and resign. Today that same lying is cheered by partisans as pissing off and screwing with the other side. How is that a good thing for the country? I don't see statements or actions done only to piss off the other side as anything to cheer. That just digs the divide deeper.

I said what I think and I directed you to an article that states that while there were lots of contacts and lies by some about those contacts, there was no provable conspiracy. You can't seem to take the answer. Why is that? Because there was zero evidence? Oh pulease. If I denied driving to Miami from Buffalo and you discovered my gas receipts over a few days. Let's say you found $50 gas receipts from Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia, do you have any evidence that I drove to Miami or do you have absolutely zero evidence? From page 9 of the Mueller Report: Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

One final time, I disagree with your take on Trump/Russia as you know all too well. I am not getting on that hamster wheel with you again. There was a lot of improper activity by the Trump campaign, just not enough in Mueller's opinion to convict Trump of conspiracy. There was clearly obstruction of justice. Without Barr's protection it could have easily gone a different way last spring. And just to restate, thinking that hundreds in the IC and press are involved in a vast conspiracy that if discovered could result in their death, is still as silly as ever. Did you read the BBC article? If you keep repeating the same answered question you are going back on ignore fast. Up to you

Look DR, I am trying to not be insulting but you are making it tough. I HAVE TOLD YOU MY OPINION ON THAT SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY. Remember this post above? That is it. Or, if you want expansion, read that BBC article I linked.

Just as a public service announcement.... Please be careful when backpedaling. If you back-up over your past opinions you might disrupt the space-time continuum.

Look, regardless of your 2016/2017 conspiracy theory, this is about new Presidential possible misdeeds. You only need to listen to the President and his people. Many have admitted this wrongdoing on video. Not a single media person needs to assist this story so please forget that angle. It does not apply here. And again, these admitted actions were in 2019. And, before you begin backpedaling and tell me there was nothing wrong on that phone call, why would they repeatedly insist on the denial for so long and why would they have tried to squirrel away the original Ukraine call transcript? Yeah, the answers could be because of a grand conspiracy by hundreds or it could be that Trump is not as innocent as you think. I guess we should let investigations continue and follow the evidence. Hopefully, wrong doers, regardless of party, get justice.

Pretty much everyone from the USIC that you claimed was in on this 2016/2017 conspiracy is gone. There is a whole new set of people in those key positions that you claimed were corrupt in 'framing' Trump back then. Gone are Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Baker, Page, Strzok, etc, etc. How are these same people still controlling power? The people getting Trump in trouble today, not counting Trump himself, are all different....but wait....they are all in on it too? Amiright? Here's another possibility. Trump continues to ignore the law concerning foreign involvement in his campaigns as he has always done. See his statements about China investigating, Ukraine investigating, The Stephanopolous interview. Is that a possibility or are you too myopic to consider that? I am not going around again with you on Trump-Russia. I told you what I think there repeatedly and am not starting down that hole. Here, this bbc article sums up my take pretty well. Read that and if you have any other related questions after reading that, keep them to yourself. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48450534

Just stop with the coup talk. It is incorrect as well as inflammatory and you know that. As I just pointed out, why would coup leaders be following any rules? They wouldn't. Power is taken without an impeachment process in a real coup. In addition, this current inquiry surrounds Trumps actions in 2019. There are some less stable folks around here, ahem TYTT, that could be convinced this is an actual takeover and so convinced that he needs to gun down his neighbors.

Coups don't need to follow any rules. If this is a coup, they should just arrest those whining 9 Republicans. That would send a good message to the rest of the Republicans. This is a coup and if any stinkin Republican gets in the way, we should put them up against the wall....just like we would see in a real coup. What? Not happening? Hmm, maybe we are witnessing a highly partisan, fully constitutional, political impeachment process and not a coup? Just a thought

Seems clear to me that someone drilled into Trump's head, no easy endeavor apparently, that evidence of a Ukrainian aid quid pro quo for personal political benefit would be very bad for him. In explaining the concept to him they probably showed him examples to avoid - simple, single sentence examples. Mr President, be very careful not to say "If you investigate the Bidens for me I will provide the aid to your country '". Trump, thinking himself a genius, devised a clever way around that hurdle. He keeps claiming this Ukrainian phone call was 'perfect'. Why 'perfect' when to many the call seems to actually demonstrate the quid pro quo? I think in his mind it was perfect because he actually listened and learned and didn't say anything like 'Investigate the Bidens for me and you will get the US aid' on the call. He was clever and got his message across without connecting the actions directly in a single sentence. Perfect, eh? See, he told us he was smart, really smart.

So, you are saying that lying to the American people by this elected official is sufficient reason to believe he can no longer be trusted ... and so I assume, therefore should not be in office? I ask because that sure sounds like what you are saying. Before firing back consider please for a few moments how Trump's constant lying about issues both big and small, has similarly impacted his trustworthiness. It is difficult to comprehend how folks such as yourself, who like DR express outrage at this Schiff 'lie', repeatedly and so predictably will discount and excuse Trump's blatant daily lies. Essentially Trump's critics are being asked to believe that, while Trump does lie habitually, he always tells us the absolute truth when answering accusations against himself. At the exact points in time that there would be the most pressure for anyone to lie in order to protect themselves, we are supposed to believe Trump suddenly becomes truthful.

I used the analogy to make the point. If the game has been fixed with the refs, playing again is not going to decide fairly. If one party is cheating during the election, the results would be tainted. One final time, I disagree with your take on Trump/Russia as you know all too well. I am not getting on that hamster wheel with you again. There was a lot of improper activity by the Trump campaign, just not enough in Mueller's opinion to convict Trump of conspiracy. There was clearly obstruction of justice. Without Barr's protection it could have easily gone a different way last spring. And just to restate, thinking that hundreds in the IC and press are involved in a vast conspiracy that if discovered could result in their death, is still as silly as ever. I disagree too on your take about a House vote. I guess we will see but I think they will vote to impeach Trump and will send it to the Republican controlled Senate where he will be acquitted. As you mention about the House members, I would like the Senators to go on the record. If in the future, Trump is proven to be guilty of several crimes/misdeeds, I like the idea of having a record of who wished to put Trump above the law. I read somewhere that this is like 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. You claim that anyone that thought Trump was guilty of conspiring with the Russians is a liar, not simply mistaken, but a liar. They cannot now be believed, right? The problem though is that every investigator of Trump is in that group. You are thus advocating for no oversight for Trump. Even you must see that would place him above the law. Let me ask you, what current Trump investigator would you believe? Name names please. The primary point of that Boy-Wolf story was that liars never win. At least that was what I took away as a child. Folks seem to ignore though that although the Boy lied, in the end the sheep got eaten because the others now ignored his cries of help. The Wolf was really there that next time but the others never even looked.

I keep hearing this argument and it is not a good one. How about a football analogy? Let's say there is growing evidence that the Patriots have been paying off the NFL refs and the replay guy in NY. Nothing has been proven yet but a league investigation is underway and evidence is being gathered. The Patriots of course are denying and obstructing the investigation at every turn. They are ignoring subpoenas to testify and all requests for evidence - stonewalling every investigative path. As you know the Bills have to play these guys again this year. Your argument is like the Patriots saying stop this unfair investigation now, quit your bitching, and play the upcoming game. If you want to beat us, do it on the field. You can see the problem there, right?

Surely there will be a House vote in order to advance it to the Senate, if it ever advances. That is mandated and will certainly be done by the Dems. Every issue these days is nearly unanimously along party lines and this will be no exception. Some Dems may dissent. Is the actual reason because they don't like the process, or they fear for their own re-election in a Trump district, or for some other reason? Probably a case by case examination would be needed to tell. I guess I was sort of replying in part to Rep Smucker on twitter that complained that the House investigation was a secret political trial. The trial will be in the Senate

It's not yet the trial though. It is an investigation and a vote on impeachment inquiry is not required. The investigation is taking place in a body led by Democrats and at this point they are not likely to do anything to help Republicans that is not absolutely mandated. After all, if there is any politician unconcerned with ignoring past norms it is Trump so he should expect equal treatment. When the trial begins, if it does, the Republicans will have all of their rights and then some as it will be held in a Republican Senate. We will certainly witness the Republicans partisanship there. Don't worry.

Regardless of proof of criminal activity, a large percentage of Trump's supporters will never criticize his actions. Short of actual televised murder, they will find a way to rationalize nearly any action. You claim you will accept facts and evidence of any Trump misdeeds and make a rational judgement, and you may. I know that many posters here will certainly not do that. The chief reason for that is in your post. They will immediately upon criticism, completely discount the source as not credible. This happens with anyone voicing criticism. At this point, anyone investigating the President has been deemed by his supporters to be unfit to judge his actions. So, those folks really no longer believe any negative information from the investigating bodies and therefore do not have the ability to make rational judgements on his activities. From your post, it seems you too may be in that camp. Hunter Biden clearly got positions due largely to his last name - without a doubt. He has admitted that. If you are as rational as proclaimed, you would certainly have to admit that the Trump children have also taken advantage of their family name to enrich themselves. It is the way of our world. "In finding a job, it isn't what you know as much as who you know", is an adage for valid reasons. However, if that is the chief source of corruption in the Ukraine, as one might think given the President's specific request, the Ukraine is far less corrupt than the USA. A rational person would surely conclude that Trump's motivation in singling out that 'corruption' had far more to do with influencing the upcoming 2020 election than with cleaning up general corruption in the Ukraine.