The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

Bob, bob bob bob.....

 

Trump sets national policy you unmitigated idiot.

 

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but your work is futile unfortunately. 

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Do we as Americans really not know how foreign policy negotiations work?  Has anyone in this sub actually negotiated anything of consequence?

I spent decades negotiating commercial real estate deals of all sizes. While that may not sound on par with foreign policy negotiations it's not all that different. It's all about finding a way to give each party the least that they can accept. Some deals are relatively simple and are centered mainly around money. Most deals have a few or many issues that have to be worked through. The key though is to get to the bottom line of each party without tripping over your dick and actually creating additional roadblocks. ? It's what we call a Quid Pro Quo". 

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but your work is futile unfortunately. 

first you take the liberals hand and walk them through the garden of evil. then you eventually understand that doesn't work so you try other tacts. empathy takes many shapes and forms. 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

If Biden fired the guy that was investigating his son, which I dispute at this time, but if so and that firing aligned with our country's national policy, then it is not as shady as implied.  Did it look bad?  Yup.  How did it differ from Trump's quid pro quo?  The request of Trump was not aligned with national policy and appears to be simply about smearing Biden, his political opponent.

 

As the WH lawyers pointed out, there were many news stories about this and how bad it looked.  Did these stories build over time to eventually show all the shady dealings you guys are implying?  It seems if a reporter had their teeth into this story they would not just drop it.  Did they all drop the stories or is there now a mountain of evidence that Foxx is sitting on?

 

And then you wonder why insults are thrown back at you?

 

This episode is precisely why bribery and corruption laws exist.    There are no parallels between the two.   In one, you're dealing with an executive who sets the policy and has a wide latitude to set that policy.  In the other, you have a guy who tries to influence policy, is in charge of implementing his boss's policy in a country where his son is a direct financial beneficiary, and exerted his influence to prevent a criminal investigation where his son could be implicated?

 

You really don't see the difference?   In one, there's a real illegal offense that may have been committed.  In the other, there's a dispute in how foreign policy should be conducted.

[CoudyBills]

9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

If Biden fired the guy that was investigating his son, which I dispute at this time, but if so and that firing aligned with our country's national policy, then it is not as shady as implied.  Did it look bad?  Yup.  How did it differ from Trump's quid pro quo?  The request of Trump was not aligned with national policy and appears to be simply about smearing Biden, his political opponent.

 

As the WH lawyers pointed out, there were many news stories about this and how bad it looked.  Did these stories build over time to eventually show all the shady dealings you guys are implying?  It seems if a reporter had their teeth into this story they would not just drop it.  Did they all drop the stories or is there now a mountain of evidence that Foxx is sitting on?

Bob. 

1. President sets foreign policy.  

2. You dispute a video bragging about it?  

 

You assured me you are a man of integrity.  

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

If Biden fired the guy that was investigating his son, which I dispute at this time,

 

You're literally disputing an uncontested fact. 

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

... but if so and that firing aligned with our country's national policy, then it is not as shady as implied. 

 

It's not the firing in itself that's problematic. It's the hiring in the first place. Details are hard to keep track of when you don't know the basic facts -- which you admit you do not.

 

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

The request of Trump was not aligned with national policy and appears to be simply about smearing Biden, his political opponent.

 

"Appears" -- notice how you have to qualify the sequence of events in order to "prove" your case? 

 

That's problematic. And someone who wasn't a blind partisan would recognize that and try, just try, to think for himself. 

 

5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

As the WH lawyers pointed out, there were many news stories about this and how bad it looked.  Did these stories build over time to eventually show all the shady dealings you guys are implying?  It seems if a reporter had their teeth into this story they would not just drop it.  Did they all drop the stories or is there now a mountain of evidence that Foxx is sitting on?

 

This just shows how asleep you still are. You think the media plays fair? They literally ignored the biggest political scandal in US history (the fake Russia narrative) in order to lie to the American people for the benefit of their political "side". 

 

How many "reporters" have asked Obama a single question about his FBI's illegal spying (now proven)? Zero. 

 

You're SOUND asleep. 

[CoudyBills]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I spent decades negotiating commercial real estate deals of all sizes. While that may not sound on par with foreign policy negotiations it's not all that different. It's all about finding a way to give each party the least that they can accept. Some deals are relatively simple and are centered mainly around money. Most deals have a few or many issues that have to be worked through. The key though is to get to the bottom line of each party without tripping over your dick and actually creating additional roadblocks. ? It's what we call a Quid Pro Quo". 

Nailed it

[Westside]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh no, I used the word correctly, but you will never be able to figure that out. 

 

And, again, good job Nancy! 

 

You should stick to laundromat lingo.

[Cinga]

13 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The Senate has heard from 17 witnesses.....via the House testimony

There were actually 18, but Schiff won't allow that last one's testimony..... It was the intelligence IG

[Bray Wyatt]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

first you take the liberals hand and walk them through the garden of evil. then you eventually understand that doesn't work so you try other tacts. empathy takes many shapes and forms. 

 

You are a much more patient man than I

[RochesterRob]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

DEAR ABBY: After a long relationship, "Eric" and I plan on getting married very soon. My problem is, Eric is secretive. He keeps his phone right next to him, and before he walks into the house, he sits in his car, clearing his history. I know he looks at porn, and I'm not happy about it, but it's the other things I'm angry and confused about.

He secretly has social media. I know he's been sending pictures of himself to women, and they send pictures to him. Isn't that cheating? I think secret phone and video calls to women is cheating. I saw an image of a woman's private parts on his phone, and he told me lies about it. When I have confronted him about chatting with the other women, he gets angry and withdraws. One woman even sent me their chat history, and he lied about that, too.

Abby, I love my man, but I feel he's cheating. I don't know what else to do as there's a wedding soon. -- DESPERATE FOR ANSWERS

  We will assume the "I" in this is you and that Eric is through with experimentation so to speak.  Tell your friends so they can send back/cancel any gifts they may have bought for you.  For every person there is a match so get back on the horse and keep looking.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

first you take the liberals hand and walk them through the garden of evil. then you eventually understand that doesn't work so you try other tacts. empathy takes many shapes and forms. 

Oh brother 

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

And then you wonder why insults are thrown back at you?

 

This episode is precisely why bribery and corruption laws exist.    There are no parallels between the two.   In one, you're dealing with an executive who sets the policy and has a wide latitude to set that policy.  In the other, you have a guy who tries to influence policy, is in charge of implementing his boss's policy in a country where his son is a direct financial beneficiary, and exerted his influence to prevent a criminal investigation where his son could be implicated?

 

You really don't see the difference?   In one, there's a real illegal offense that may have been committed.  In the other, there's a dispute in how foreign policy should be conducted.

quick, short,  concise and above all cogent.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bray Wyatt said:

 

You are a much more patient man than I

 

I tried to be patient with Bob for years -- then he snapped because the cognitive dissonance in his brain broke him. He became hostile, and agitated. 

 

But I still humor him only because exposing his particular partisan brand of idiocy can be illuminating for others/lurkers. He's like one of these things: 

 

[Bob in Mich]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

talk about moving the goal posts, holy schifft batman. stick to one tangent at a time, Bob. 

 

That is the second poster that won't address the OJ analogy.  It's just ridiculous?   I agree that it is ridiculous logic but it mirrors pretty well what you are claiming should be done in treating Trump.  So, what do you think?  No further oversight of OJ?  Trump?

 

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

You got to the crux of his issue though, he is okay with all of this because he thinks trump is a terrible person.

 

I don't like Trump.  Never have.  Believe it or don't, on the day after the election I was talking to my sis, who would fit in with the Trump supports here.  She called to gloat but I told her that he is my President now too.  If he does a good job I told her that I would vote for him in 2020.  I don't think he has done that.  None of that though is why he should be impeached.

 

He should be impeached and removed for exactly what the House accuses him of doing.  None of us should be OK with illegal foreign election interference, imo.  You may feel it should be OK. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Deranged Rhino]

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

He should be impeached and removed for exactly what the House accuses him of doing. 

 

Evidence be damned, am I right? 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Evidence be damned, am I right? 

 

 

 

Election: We need a new president, the one we have is a bum 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

That is the second poster that won't address the OJ analogy.  It's just ridiculous?   I agree that it is ridiculous logic but it mirrors pretty well what you are claiming should be done in treating Trump.  So, what do you think?  No further oversight of OJ?  Trump?

 

 

I don't like Trump.  Never have.  Believe it or don't, on the day after the election I was talking to my sis, who would fit in the the Trump supports here.  She called to gloat but I told her that he is my President now too.  If he does a good job I told her that I would vote for him in 2020.  I don't think he has done that.  None of that though is why he should be impeached.

 

He should be impeached and removed for exactly what the House accuses him of doing.  None of us should be OK with illegal foreign election interference, imo.  You may feel it should be OK. 

Damn, I hate doing this. Up thread you asked me "if the House dems were correct in their assumptions about Trump" and now you state emphatically that he should be removed. How dense are you? There has been no foreign election influence by Trump. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Election: We need a new president, the one we have is a bum 

 

No one has a problem with that approach. No one. 

 

... But democrats who know they can't beat Trump at the ballot, hence the schiff show we're being subjected to now.