The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[Hedge]

 

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

 

Bob stop being such a disingenuous idiot, Bob. 

 

Just for some levity, the 2 Bobs:

 

 

 

[muppy]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The President is not only empowered, but rather required, to set and conduct foreign policy.

 

Pursuant to that, the President followed, to the letter and spirit of the law, the authority permitted to him by the Ukraine treaty signed by President Clinton empowering the executive to work with the Ukraine to ferret out international corruption between the two nations.

 

There is no Constitutional provision requiring this matter be handled/managed by the DOJ; and besides, the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, which the President is the head of. There is no firewall of any sort between the DOJ and the President.

 

Your argument is that the President does not have the right to conduct foreign policy, and that the President serves under the oversight of Congress.  It is a bad argument.

if this is so cut and dry as you surmise then why was this call deemed "perfect" by DT now "not so perfect" by his own defense counsel? I think you misunderstood what I was attempting to say...

[Warren Zevon]

Never forget

 

 

1 minute ago, Hedge said:

 

 

You check out Burkman's announcement today?

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

if this is so cut and dry as you surmise then why was this call deemed "perfect" by DT now "not so perfect" by his own defense counsel? I think you misunderstood what I was attempting to say...

 

Put Trump on the stand and the impeachment is over the next day. 

[CoudyBills]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You can't dispute those facts, honestly. He is conspiring with Putin, obviously 

Please do expand on this assertion good sir.  I'm not familiar with these facts.  If you have facts that are confirmed through multiple sources I will absolutely listen.  I want to know the truth.

[BillsFanNC]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I don't know.  Let's ask Atkinson what he knows about all of this.  Is he unwilling to give testimony to the Senate?

 

Conjecture is tough when I don't know who the guy is yet.   lol    Was it related at all to trying to protect the whistle blower's identity?  I know that is why the House says they refused some House Repub requests. 

 

One of Senator Rick Scott's questions will be around this.  He has released a few of his questions and he intends to ask why this testimony has not been unsealed.  

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Please do expand on this assertion good sir.  I'm not familiar with these facts.  If you have facts that are confirmed through multiple sources I will absolutely listen.  I want to know the truth.

You don't know the facts? Ok, you win then. Ignorance is bliss. 

 

Maybe read up on somethings....oh that's right, you don't trust any sources at all. I forgot. 

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I don't know.  Let's ask Atkinson what he knows about all of this.  Is he unwilling to give testimony to the Senate?

 

Conjecture is tough when I don't know who the guy is yet.   lol    Was it related at all to trying to protect the whistle blower's identity?  I know that is why the House says they refused some House Repub requests. 

 

Yes - his testimony was about the whistle blower.

[Deranged Rhino]

That was NOT the entire substance of his testimony. Gary's wrong. Again.

[Warren Zevon]

Titanic was about Rose's love of Jack.

 

DR: That was NOT the entire substance of the movie. Wrong. Again.

[CoudyBills]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You don't know the facts? Ok, you win then. Ignorance is bliss. 

 

Maybe read up on somethings....oh that's right, you don't trust any sources at all. I forgot. 

 

 

That's what I thought. No stomach for honest debate.  

Edited January 29, 2020 by CoudyBills

[Deranged Rhino]

[Foxx]

32 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Foxx, I find it more and more difficult to ignore your repeated insults.  If they continue, I will stop engaging and just put you on ignore with DR and Tom.  I don't need it.

 

I have taken more time than I have to have a conversation here.  You may disagree with my posts but I am not disingenuous.  If so, where, what post?

 

Notice that there are about a dozen or so folks that jump on my replies.  Your side does not get flooded over like that so maybe you missed it.  I stated earlier that I can't possibly give detailed replies to everyone.  I noted that if I missed something to bring it up again. 

 

I watched about a half hour of Bondi off Youtube.  She made a good case for not voting for Hunter for anything.  She made a very strong case that he displayed pretty poor judgement.  His board position looked bad and she made that point.  She also threw a lot of suspicion on JoeB but from the part I saw, not proof of anything other than the prosecutor firing.  Since that was our nation's policy I don't see any equivalence to Trump's affair.

 

Is it possible that JoeB didn't want Hunter in that job?  Is it possible that Hunter took it over Joe's objections?  I don't know but I am just pointing out that surmising evil intentions by JoeB may not be correct. 

Bob, i have tried very patiently to explain things to you. when you don't play by the rules of common ordinary social discourse, then you get moved into another category for treatment. moving the goal posts, avoiding posts that would have you have to explain or respond to something that would possibly make you uncomfortable because there is no logical defense other than to avoid them because responding to them would make you have to admit you were wrong, much like the 'extortion' discussion we had, amongst others are all tactics that show you are not being genuine in your discourse. this turnip didn't just fall off the truck.

 

the ship has sailed on our previous discussions at this point, because to go back and make sense of the mishmash that you have created at this point would prove to be more effort than i am willing to expend in your direction now. what i will do is to attempt, going forward, to interact with you one more time on a cordial basis. however that basis depends on you being genuine in our discourse, Bob. be honest and genuine and we will have no problem.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Foxx

[muppy]

6 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Have you not seen the video?

I hadn't seen it no. I appreciate now what was said and that's great. If someone lacks information its very profitable that it be spoken up and brought forward it furthers understanding. Im reading a lot of posts chastising  for not knowing every nuance or detail in regards to this political thread. The lack of knowledge in my view doesn't equal stupidity OR laziness . I thought This is was a chat board forum.  As such if the expectation that everyone have full  knowledge and wisdom about every nuance  or an expert before entering well then you will have the ultra zealots in each camp at war and not much else. A seeker of info and insight diminished and chastised for it?  If that's what PPP is about then maybe Im in the wrong chat.  Not saying you did that IDBillzfan just an observation. 

[BillsFanNC]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 So to be clear, just changing those two names and you're still cool with everything?

 

Crickets.  Thought so.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Margarita said:

I hadn't seen it no. I appreciate now what was said and that's great. If someone lacks information its very profitable that it be spoken up and brought forward it furthers understanding. Im reading a lot of posts chastising  for not knowing every nuance or detail in regards to this political thread. The lack of knowledge in my view doesn't equal stupidity OR laziness . 

 

No one has a real problem with people not knowing all the facts or nuances. That's more than understandable and acceptable. 

 

The issue is when people like @Bob in Mich come down and claim they DO know all of the information and make sweeping proclamations that anyone who disagrees with him is doing so because they're not interested in the "full truth" -- and then it turns out they don't know the information themselves. 

 

That's the issue. 

 

I, as an example, am always happy to discuss (at length) the nuances and facts with people who are honest about their desire to learn, rather than those who plug their ears and run from any information which runs counter to their programming. 

[Warren Zevon]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is that the bait Bolton used on Trump when Trump hired him?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Gary, still three steps behind. Because he refuses to think for himself.

*************

 

[Foxx]

3 minutes ago, Margarita said:

I hadn't seen it no. I appreciate now what was said and that's great. If someone lacks information its very profitable that it be spoken up and brought forward it furthers understanding. Im reading a lot of posts chastising  for not knowing every nuance or detail in regards to this political thread. The lack of knowledge in my view doesn't equal stupidity OR laziness . I thought This is was a chat board forum.  As such if the expectation that everyone have full  knowledge and wisdom about every nuance  or an expert before entering well then you will have the ultra zealots in each camp at war and not much else. A seeker of info and insight diminished and chastised for it?  If that's what PPP is about then maybe Im in the wrong chat.  Not saying you did that IDBillzfan just an observation. 

so, you argue against it without having the information on it? gotcha. typical of you though.

[CoudyBills]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Is that the bait Bolton used on Trump when Trump hired him?

No.  That was a porn star lure.

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Gary, still three steps behind. Because he refuses to think for himself.

 

Is that it? How big are these steps we talking about?