Albwan Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: The vast majority of the board has him on ignore precisely because he has proved countless times that he is incapable of the bolded. I'd encourage you to do the same. he/she/it is a big time d-bag, a lonely creep just trying to get attention.
B-Man Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 THIS SCHIFF SCHARADE Yesterday during the question and answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, Senators Josh Hawley and Jerry Moran submitted a question for Chief Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff regarding the “whistleblower” who set the train in motion. The gist of the question: “Where’s Waldo Whistleblower?” Everyone in Washington knows who he is, if not where he is. Schiff knows. The senators wondered about his past work with Joe Biden and sought details. Schiff, however, kept up his charade. He responded to the question in the well of the Senate (video below): “I don’t know who the whistleblower is. I haven’t met them [sic] or communicated with them [sic] in any way.” Fox News has a good account of the question and answer along with relevant background here. Schiff’s Republican colleagues in the House commented on Twitter. Lee Zeldin has made this his pinned tweet: “There’s a ZERO percent chance Adam Schiff doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. How does he lie so easily? It’s really quite remarkable. He’s prosecuting the Pres of the United States in front of the Chief Justice & these lies just keep flowing right out of his mouth.” Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee colleague Elise Stefanik commented to the same effect: “Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower because he coordinated with the individual before the whistleblower’s complaint! His staff helped write it!” Schiff implies that a “conspiracy theory” lies behind the question, though it os a theory with considerably more substance to it than the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that Schiff himself peddled until the “whistleblower” took the baton. . 1
Doc Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Albwan said: Why don't they bring Bolton and the Bidens criminal family on...Bolton has already agreed with Trump by stating it was a good phone call on tape...back pedaling will make him a liar... Do it !!! Because it will all take months and not change anyone’s mind. It’s painfully obvious by this thread that those who think Trump is guilty of using foreign aid to influence an election use different rules/excuses/justifications for Democrats versus Republicans. 1
Rob's House Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 3 hours ago, CoudyBills said: Seems pretty clear that Roberts and the Democrats are engaging in a huge cover up. Let's here from this "whitsleblower". John "How Will I Look" Roberts has always been more concerned with his image than the law. 2
B-Man Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Because it will all take months and not change anyone’s mind. It’s painfully obvious by this thread that those who think Trump is guilty of using foreign aid to influence an election use different rules/excuses/justifications for Democrats versus Republicans. ................? .
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 i think Roberts has overstepped his authority here. https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1222699882986835968
Tiberius Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 26 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: Complete misrepresentation of what he said. Very trash eating bum worthy. Good job bro. Clarify (obfuscate, really) what he said then.
Bob in Mich Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 20 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: We've had to put up with people here for so long that just don't know the facts but have a gigantic fervor based on their feelings. Time and time again people like gator, gary, bob, TH3, etc. kick up shitstorms based on ignorance that it causes any new poster like Margarita to be suspect. As I've said in the past, this forum's usefulness is not so much in giving a person the opportunity to spout off but first the opportunity to listen and learn. We are all mini teachers here but the true value is that we are all much more learners if we take that opportunity. Those of us that realize that, despise people who don't even understand the subject or the players but expect to teach the rest of us. 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 1
Rob's House Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 2 hours ago, Foxx said: impressions/thoughts on yesterday's question and answer session. i could be wrong but i thought the questions were pretty much evenly divided between the House Managers and the WHC. while both sides had their 'prepared' questions delivered, i thought that the House Managers presentation as quite a bit more orchestrated than the WHC. again, without having looked at the twitterverse to gauge reaction , i could be wrong but i don't know that either side won or lost yesterday. i thought they both had their good moments and bad. i thought the WHC was cruising along and doing quite well until Sekulow took those two questions just before dinner break where he appeared quite impassioned and stated unequivocally that if they called witnesses, they were going to keep the Senators there an awful long time. it may have been a true statement and i don't think me meant it that way, however, to me at least, it came off as somewhat of a threat. after the dinner break, i thought Schiffty had a pretty good couple of answers. it was here he offered that Roberts had the authoirty to rule on a myriad of items and to abide by whatever the Chief Justice ruled, on anything, and asked if the WHC would do the same. while it was just another ploy to goad the WHC and Trump into giving up their constitutional rights, i thought it played strongly. anytime Nadler takes the spotlight, it is bad for the Dems, it is funny to watch him sit at the table for HM council and watch him either sleeping or just staring out into space, no one and i mean no one talks to him except when he is getting council from the lawyers before going to the podium. i don't like Demmings demeanor. Jeffries never answered a question asked. he sidestepped each time. i thought Crow was okay on his time at the podium. i didn't like Garcia, she is too wrote and reads only from the prepared notes. i think Lofgren is probably their best presenter. for the WHC, Cippilone spoke once and did nothing out of the ordinary, Sekulow spoke 4 or 5 times and outside of those two opines just before the dinner break did okay, though on the ones after, i was cringing a bit waiting for him to do something stupid. Dershowitz i think was 50/50. i don't agree with his argument that a president can't be impeached for abuse of power. neither did Schiffty and took Alan down a couple times on it. he did have a particularly strong argument in his last appearance of the night however. Philbin was the star of the night for the president. though he may be somewhat dry, i think he comes across as knowledgeable and even tempered. he spoke often and it was probably a good thing as he kept responding to the questions with smart, well balanced and reasoned opines. i hope we see more of him today. i don't know where the direction of the mindset of the Senators is going as far as witnesses, based upon the questions asked yesterday. i saw it reported somewhere yesterday though that while McConnell didn't think he had the votes to deny, he thought that by the time came for the vote that he might have the numbers. all in all... what a boring ***** day. I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity. He could have fleshed that out better. He sounded more like he was arguing to the bench rather than the jury. That makes since because [most of] the Senators making the decision are more analogous to a legally savvy judge than lay jurors, but in this situation he needs to break it down to sell it to the lay public as well. 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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 Don't look now, Bob, but you're doing precisely what you accuse others of doing. Hounding them for not answering questions (a move you mastered). Your hypocrisy is only matched by your lack of understanding about basic facts. 1
Bob in Mich Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 4 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: How would rooting out corruption in an ally be against national policy? 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? 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove. The standard is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent Bob. That's not Trump defenders, that's the constitution. The document you're smearing because you're too stupid to think for yourself and too emotional to hold a thought in your head other than "ORANGE MAN BAD!" You're a good little NPC. 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. That's what the evidence says. The evidence you're ignoring or ignorant of (have you figured out why the IC IG matters? Or did you just continue on in ignorance after it was pointed out to you that you should look into that?) 4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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? You had ZERO problem with it when Clinton/Obama used foreign governments (Russia, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and France) to spy on and attack their political opponents. Why didn't you scream and hoot and holler then, Bob? Could it be that your'e full of *****? Or is it that you're completely uniformed? (Spoiler alert: It's both) 1 2
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1222680628447076353 2 2
Rob's House Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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 What was the question?
Foxx Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 11 minutes ago, Rob's House said: I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity. He could have fleshed that out better. He sounded more like he was arguing to the bench rather than the jury. That makes since because [most of] the Senators making the decision are more analogous to a legally savvy judge than lay jurors, but in this situation he needs to break it down to sell it to the lay public as well. i agree, the specificity is very weak in these articles. and as you say, perhaps Dersh was not orating very well to the target that matters most.
Rob's House Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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? The two are not mutually exclusive. 5
Bob in Mich Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Foxx said: i think Roberts has overstepped his authority here. https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1222699882986835968 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? Edited January 30, 2020 by Bob in Mich
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: 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? Things Bob can't answer... ****************************** 1 1 1
Recommended Posts