(01-27-2020, 01:38 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Bipartisan? It had zero GOP support in the house and even had some Dems vote against it. This is about as partisan as you can get.
Dude, you can choose to look at things through a red lens or not. I like Lewis Black, if that adds anything to how I'm perceiving this administration and Congress in general.
This hasn't looked good for republicans or democrats alike - hence the context behind my "bipartisan bad show"
I don't think its a bipartisan bad show. I think its a partisan bad show. You are clearly looking at things through your blue lens, as every single "witness" you want to see called would supposedly benefit the Democrats. This is a total crap show and EVERY American should be outraged their tax dollar is funding this.
(01-27-2020, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 12:02 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Are we talking about what is OK or what is legal? You like to change your intent a lot, huh? Legally, Comey was allowed to open that investigation. He wasn’t, however, allowed to obtain surveillance warrants based on information he knew was incorrect and the myriad of other illegal decisions.
Oh so surveillance has a higher burden of proof? Should Trump have sent some business associates to surveil our ambassador to Ukraine?
It’s OK to not know what you’re talking about.
Yes, it requires more to obtain a surveillance warrant than it does to start an investigation. You keep moving the posts and changing your arguments each time your shown how you’re wrong. It’s no wonder people jump on you all the time.
Has this ‘leak’ to the NYT been confirmed, or is it another anonymous source?
To me, this seems like an act of desperation by the NYT to help the dems to get witnesses called since Schiff’s case was scuttled quickly Saturday.
(01-27-2020, 02:01 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Oh so surveillance has a higher burden of proof? Should Trump have sent some business associates to surveil our ambassador to Ukraine?
It’s OK to not know what you’re talking about.
As soon as he finds something that qualifies I'm sure he'll let you know.
(01-27-2020, 02:01 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 12:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Oh so surveillance has a higher burden of proof? Should Trump have sent some business associates to surveil our ambassador to Ukraine?
It’s OK to not know what you’re talking about.
Yes, it requires more to obtain a surveillance warrant than it does to start an investigation. You keep moving the posts and changing your arguments each time your shown how you’re wrong. It’s no wonder people jump on you all the time.
You only answered one of my two questions.
(01-27-2020, 01:41 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:40 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]You forgot
Hunter Biden
Harrison J. Bounel
Hillary Clinton
Adam Schiff
Nancy Pelosi
Paul Palosi
Chris Heinz
That's fine.
(01-27-2020, 01:51 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:38 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, you can choose to look at things through a red lens or not. I like Lewis Black, if that adds anything to how I'm perceiving this administration and Congress in general.
This hasn't looked good for republicans or democrats alike - hence the context behind my "bipartisan bad show"
I don't think its a bipartisan bad show. I think its a partisan bad show. You are clearly looking at things through your blue lens, as every single "witness" you want to see called would supposedly benefit the Democrats. This is a total crap show and EVERY American should be outraged their tax dollar is funding this.
Color me shocked that you think the request for any witness, including both republican- and democrat-"friendly" witnesses, is viewing things through a blue lens.
(01-27-2020, 02:30 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 02:01 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]It’s OK to not know what you’re talking about.
As soon as he finds something that qualifies I'm sure he'll let you know.
I've asked sincere questions many times on this board. Sincere meaning, I don't know the answer so I need to ask.
This wasn't one of those questions. Sorry my tone didn't convey that.
(01-27-2020, 02:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 02:30 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]As soon as he finds something that qualifies I'm sure he'll let you know.
I've asked sincere questions many times on this board. Sincere meaning, I don't know the answer so I need to ask.
This wasn't one of those questions. Sorry my tone didn't convey that.
I don't think anyone really believes you've ever asked a question that you didn't already adamantly believe you knew the right answer to before asking.
(01-27-2020, 01:12 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:06 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok cool. Give me Biden (your choice) and you can have Bolton.
I don't care. Call witnesses. Impeachments are serious and should be afforded what information is available so that informed decisions can be made, regardless of political affiliation. That's been my perspective all along.
Who I'd like to see provide witness testimony:
Trump
Pompeo
Parnas
Bolton
Mulvaney
Giuliani
Perry
Kerry
Holder
Biden
Whistleblower
It's the seriousness of the charge!!! Exculpatory evidence be darned, let's just keep digging for dirt till we drive his numbers down, I mean get to the somber truth.
(01-27-2020, 03:16 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:12 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care. Call witnesses. Impeachments are serious and should be afforded what information is available so that informed decisions can be made, regardless of political affiliation. That's been my perspective all along.
Who I'd like to see provide witness testimony:
Trump
Pompeo
Parnas
Bolton
Mulvaney
Giuliani
Perry
Kerry
Holder
Biden
Whistleblower
It's the seriousness of the charge!!! Exculpatory evidence be darned, let's just keep digging for dirt till we drive his numbers down, I mean get to the somber truth.
Is that why the kneejerk response is to call Hunter/Joe Biden and the whistleblower, among others, to testify in exchange for the testimony of Pompeo/Bolton/etc.? I mean, if we're gonna dig, let's all dig.
(01-27-2020, 03:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 02:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I've asked sincere questions many times on this board. Sincere meaning, I don't know the answer so I need to ask.
This wasn't one of those questions. Sorry my tone didn't convey that.
I don't think anyone really believes you've ever asked a question that you didn't already adamantly believe you knew the right answer to before asking.
Believe what you want, Nerf herder!
(01-27-2020, 02:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 02:01 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]It’s OK to not know what you’re talking about.
Yes, it requires more to obtain a surveillance warrant than it does to start an investigation. You keep moving the posts and changing your arguments each time your shown how you’re wrong. It’s no wonder people jump on you all the time.
You only answered one of my two questions.
Because it was irrelevant to the conversation. Did Trump send government officials to conduct surveillance and spy on his adversaries while simultaneously violating their 4th amendment? Because sending a business associate on a fishing expedition isn’t that.
(01-27-2020, 03:19 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 03:16 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]It's the seriousness of the charge!!! Exculpatory evidence be darned, let's just keep digging for dirt till we drive his numbers down, I mean get to the somber truth.
Is that why the kneejerk response is to call Hunter/Joe Biden and the whistleblower, among others, to testify in exchange for the testimony of Pompeo/Bolton/etc.? I mean, if we're gonna dig, let's all dig.
The statements of the ukrainians exculpate the president of the current charges. If you charge him with murdering someone whose still demonstrably alive then theres no evidence that can trump the guys pulse.
Conversely, the charges boil down to corrupt intent of official office to improperly investigate joe biden. A material element of that fact pattern is the incident put forth as the predicate for the investigation (the admitted extortion of the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor). The veracity of Probable cause or reasonable suspicion has bearing on the aspect of corrupt intent.
There is no such potential when the alleged target of the president's actions clearly states he was never extorted.
Ironic that the people screaming loudest for more witnesses and further investigation are the least familiar with the charges, their elements, and the basic facts of the case.
(01-27-2020, 04:49 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 02:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You only answered one of my two questions.
Because it was irrelevant to the conversation. Did Trump send government officials to conduct surveillance and spy on his adversaries while simultaneously violating their 4th amendment? Because sending a business associate on a fishing expedition isn’t that.
+1
Everything they are accusing the president of doing, Comey, Brennan and Clapper have been proven to have done. Nothing illustrates the modern cultural triad of progressive supremacy better than the difference in coverage between these two stories.
(01-27-2020, 04:49 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 02:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You only answered one of my two questions.
Because it was irrelevant to the conversation. Did Trump send government officials to conduct surveillance and spy on his adversaries while simultaneously violating their 4th amendment? Because sending a business associate on a fishing expedition isn’t that.
You're technically correct. But even though this is not in the Constitution, it's usually illegal for one person to follow another person everywhere they go. You know that, right?
(01-27-2020, 05:12 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 03:19 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Is that why the kneejerk response is to call Hunter/Joe Biden and the whistleblower, among others, to testify in exchange for the testimony of Pompeo/Bolton/etc.? I mean, if we're gonna dig, let's all dig.
The statements of the ukrainians exculpate the president of the current charges. If you charge him with murdering someone whose still demonstrably alive then theres no evidence that can trump the guys pulse.
Ukraine's president will say anything to make his country and his regime seem strong.
And in any case, he can't be brought in to testify under oath.
(01-27-2020, 05:30 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:12 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care. Call witnesses. Impeachments are serious and should be afforded what information is available so that informed decisions can be made, regardless of political affiliation. That's been my perspective all along.
Who I'd like to see provide witness testimony:
Trump
Pompeo
Parnas
Bolton
Mulvaney
Giuliani
Perry
Kerry
Holder
Biden
Whistleblower
The Dems lost the right to call witnesses after the original charges are presented because of the Kavanaugh debacle. Mitch should be firm in refusing to allow the Dems to call additional witnesses to fabricate lies like they did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Like the saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
MB, I have no doubt your ire for the Kavanaugh hearings, you've clearly & eloquently stated it before. I understand and can appreciate that perspective. I, like Brett, like beer too.
But the latter part of your statement leads to another question: Do you believe the witnesses democrats want to call would fabricate lies?
We have seen countless instances of high-ranking officials lying under oath, and endless hearings filled with "I do not recall" x 100.
Then you have the modern Dem playbook ala Kavanaugh hearings where they are ready and willing to trot out an endless parade of "people who don't like Trump and are happy to tell any lie that will hurt him".
Not to mention the steady supply of "fresh revelations" leaked by anonymous people named Adam Schiff whenever it looks like he is about to lose.