Trump hired ZERO of the 40,000 non-outsiders who applied for positions in his administration. He chose DC insiders who knew how to "get things done". Too bad they are all taking orders from Valerie Jarrett.

---

The transcript is not the only piece of evidence out there.  Try to keep up.

---

One finger at me, three at you, buddy.

"President Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017.[33][34] He was one of the 46 United States Attorneys ordered on March 10, 2017, to resign by Attorney General Jeff Sessions; Trump declined his resignation.[35] Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate on April 25, 2017, by a vote of 94–6.[36][37]"

I call you a liar because I don't think you're that stupid. Trump was a political outsider, he didn't have any direct knowledge of likely candidates needed for his many appointments. Rosenstein was chosen because someone recommended him to Trump. Rosenstein, like most of the political appointments by every president, had a history of government work; he was a deep stater. But even if you want to make the ridiculous claim that Rosenstein was a Trump supporter, once Mueller was appointed Rosenstein (and the DoJ) was out of the loop when Manafort was investigated.

I don't disagree that Rosenstein was a career government employee. But he was also appointed by Trump. Both things are true.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with minimizing the fact that Trump appointed him.
What does it matter?
Manafort lied on his tax returns for years, and he was finally prosecuted for it. Manafort's taxes were not the initial scope of Mueller's investigation.  Robert Mueller was tasked with finding out if anybody working for Trump's campaign was beholden to or coordinating with Russians or other foreigners. He did not find convincing evidence for that, but, in the course of investigating that, he found that Paul Manafort had a lot of unreported income. 
Which part of this process do you object to?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Ever since the whistleblower complaint came out, Democrats in the House have been very consistent:

"This would be an abuse of power if true."

But the Republicans in the House keep changing their story:

"You haven't investigated enough to know that, there's just this one complaint and one transcript"
*They call witnesses and get more evidence*
"Your procedure is all wrong, the whole House has to vote to investigate"
*They hold a vote to investigate*
"We think there are better things to do with our time"
"This is tanking the stock market."
"You're just trying to overturn the 2016 election"

If you don't think Trump abused power, say so.  If you think his actions are good and normal, say so.  They wouldn't be quibbling so much about process if they thought their man was innocent.  Trump is out there declaring his own innocence every day.  Don't you think it's telling that his erstwhile allies in Congress are not?

Plus we can dismiss some of these quibbles out of hand easily.
Impeaching the president is one of the jobs the Constitution gives the House.  It doesn't say any job is more important.  The Constitution doesn't mention the stock market or even the economy.   A vote to impeach does not overturn the 2016 election.  All the judges Trump got remain in place, and Pence becomes President, not Hillary.

This is a neat trick.  As part of our corrupt process, we are going to embargo any details of the depositions we deem fit so that our opponents CAN'T argue substance in the public square while we set the narrative.  Shameful!  The Republicans are upset because they want the hearings out in the open, and they want the full transcripts of the depositions leaked.  It's not, "Oh well we don't have anything to say, let's just bang the table," It's "We just shredded your witness and the narrative you're advancing, but you won't let us share it with the American people!"  

The Republicans are hypocrites. There is precedent for closed hearings, set by Republicans with legislation and used during the Benghazi hearings. They will get their wish, all will be public soon enough. If you think they were "shredding witnesses" and we wouldn't know about it, you're dumber than I think you are.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

This is a neat trick.  As part of our corrupt process, we are going to embargo any details of the depositions we deem fit so that our opponents CAN'T argue substance in the public square while we set the narrative.  Shameful!  The Republicans are upset because they want the hearings out in the open, and they want the full transcripts of the depositions leaked.  It's not, "Oh well we don't have anything to say, let's just bang the table," It's "We just shredded your witness and the narrative you're advancing, but you won't let us share it with the American people!"  

The Republicans are hypocrites. There is precedent for closed hearings, set by Republicans with legislation and used during the Benghazi hearings. They will get their wish, all will be public soon enough. If you think they were "shredding witnesses" and we wouldn't know about it, you're dumber than I think you are.

Lol, if you really think the Dems are going to give up the tiny bit of leverage they have by allowing this to be discussed under oath in public then you really don't understand what's going on here. The minute this sees the light of day it's going up in smoke as fast as your Friday afternoon delivery.
+

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It already is. Now we all suspect the identity of the leaker. He was dismissed by the White House for making false leaks to the press, is a hold over from the Obama whitehouse and would potentially be a fact witness in any probe into crowd strike and the origins of the Russia probe.

As for me being dumb? Why is Pelosi trying to bring DIN MCGHAN back in to relive the mueller report? The Ukraine strand is over

---

I call you a liar because I don't think you're that stupid. Trump was a political outsider, he didn't have any direct knowledge of likely candidates needed for his many appointments. Rosenstein was chosen because someone recommended him to Trump. Rosenstein, like most of the political appointments by every president, had a history of government work; he was a deep stater. But even if you want to make the ridiculous claim that Rosenstein was a Trump supporter, once Mueller was appointed Rosenstein (and the DoJ) was out of the loop when Manafort was investigated.

I don't disagree that Rosenstein was a career government employee. But he was also appointed by Trump. Both things are true.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with minimizing the fact that Trump appointed him.
What does it matter?
Manafort lied on his tax returns for years, and he was finally prosecuted for it. Manafort's taxes were not the initial scope of Mueller's investigation.  Robert Mueller was tasked with finding out if anybody working for Trump's campaign was beholden to or coordinating with Russians or other foreigners. He did not find convincing evidence for that, but, in the course of investigating that, he found that Paul Manafort had a lot of unreported income. 
Which part of this process do you object to?

Knowingly stating something that's true while it's only a meaningless factor in the whole picture to make a point is "spin," which is a type of lie.

You originally claimed that asking for foreign help in an investigation was unethical. Manafort was the counter argument. It was fair game to request info on Manafort although that should have been done in the original context. Instead it was in a clear, long after the fact, spite move to make him a victim because he couldn't or wouldn't provide any dirt Trump.

If Joe Biden got his son a fat "paycheck" by using his position to coerce a foreign power, that's far worse than asking for any information the foreign power had on the topic.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I don't disagree that Rosenstein was a career government employee. But he was also appointed by Trump. Both things are true.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with minimizing the fact that Trump appointed him.
What does it matter?
Manafort lied on his tax returns for years, and he was finally prosecuted for it. Manafort's taxes were not the initial scope of Mueller's investigation.  Robert Mueller was tasked with finding out if anybody working for Trump's campaign was beholden to or coordinating with Russians or other foreigners. He did not find convincing evidence for that, but, in the course of investigating that, he found that Paul Manafort had a lot of unreported income. 
Which part of this process do you object to?

Knowingly stating something that's true while it's only a meaningless factor in the whole picture to make a point is "spin," which is a type of lie.

You originally claimed that asking for foreign help in an investigation was unethical. Manafort was the counter argument. It was fair game to request info on Manafort although that should have been done in the original context. Instead it was in a clear, long after the fact, spite move to make him a victim because he couldn't or wouldn't provide any dirt Trump.

If Joe Biden got his son a fat "paycheck" by using his position to coerce a foreign power, that's far worse than asking for any information the foreign power had on the topic.

His basic premise, that it's in the national interest to enable corruption and obstruction of justice but a crime to pursue reasonable suspicion if the target is a political rival, is the kind of word salad only a never trumper could stomach.

---

I don't disagree that Rosenstein was a career government employee. But he was also appointed by Trump. Both things are true.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with minimizing the fact that Trump appointed him.
What does it matter?
Manafort lied on his tax returns for years, and he was finally prosecuted for it. Manafort's taxes were not the initial scope of Mueller's investigation.  Robert Mueller was tasked with finding out if anybody working for Trump's campaign was beholden to or coordinating with Russians or other foreigners. He did not find convincing evidence for that, but, in the course of investigating that, he found that Paul Manafort had a lot of unreported income. 
Which part of this process do you object to?

Knowingly stating something that's true while it's only a meaningless factor in the whole picture to make a point is "spin," which is a type of lie.

You originally claimed that asking for foreign help in an investigation was unethical. Manafort was the counter argument. It was fair game to request info on Manafort although that should have been done in the original context. Instead it was in a clear, long after the fact, spite move to make him a victim because he couldn't or wouldn't provide any dirt Trump.

If Joe Biden got his son a fat "paycheck" by using his position to coerce a foreign power, that's far worse than asking for any information the foreign power had on the topic.

No that is not what I said. 
I said that US prosecutors should only initiate investigations when there is probable cause for violations of US law.
and Ukrainian prosecutors should only initiate investigations when there is probable cause for violation of Ukrainian law.
The two prosecutors can ask each other for help once one has decided to initiate an investigation, but there is no good reason for a US prosecutor to care if Ukrainian law is violated. there is no reason for a US prosecutor to demand that a Ukrainian prosecutor initiate an investigation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Private attorneys, private citizens, notaries, and businesses can only issue subpoenas to defend themselves against a legal proceeding. Usually only after they are indicted or subpoenaed themselves.

I'm telling you that "unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case" is the typical situation in the US from the time an investigation is opened to the time that an indictment is presented.

---

How many impeachment inquiries were launched between 2011 & 2019?

Seven BenGhazi investigations... The rules for those were the same.

Well, you just said only "one authority" can issue subpoenas, so you're either lying or you don't know. 

Also, they can issue subpoena under the basis that the person has information or documents that can help their side or hurt the other side. It isn't usually after they've been subpoenaed, and it isn't only to defend themselves. You simply don't know. Besides, while law enforcement is typically one-sided, this committee is not.

---

Knowingly stating something that's true while it's only a meaningless factor in the whole picture to make a point is "spin," which is a type of lie.

You originally claimed that asking for foreign help in an investigation was unethical. Manafort was the counter argument. It was fair game to request info on Manafort although that should have been done in the original context. Instead it was in a clear, long after the fact, spite move to make him a victim because he couldn't or wouldn't provide any dirt Trump.

If Joe Biden got his son a fat "paycheck" by using his position to coerce a foreign power, that's far worse than asking for any information the foreign power had on the topic.

No that is not what I said. 
I said that US prosecutors should only initiate investigations when there is probable cause for violations of US law.
and Ukrainian prosecutors should only initiate investigations when there is probable cause for violation of Ukrainian law.
The two prosecutors can ask each other for help once one has decided to initiate an investigation, but there is no good reason for a US prosecutor to care if Ukrainian law is violated. there is no reason for a US prosecutor to demand that a Ukrainian prosecutor initiate an investigation.

Well, son of a [BLEEP]!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Private attorneys, private citizens, notaries, and businesses can only issue subpoenas to defend themselves against a legal proceeding. Usually only after they are indicted or subpoenaed themselves.

I'm telling you that "unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case" is the typical situation in the US from the time an investigation is opened to the time that an indictment is presented.

---

Seven BenGhazi investigations... The rules for those were the same.

Well, you just said only "one authority" can issue subpoenas, so you're either lying or you don't know. 

Also, they can issue subpoena under the basis that the person has information or documents that can help their side or hurt the other side. It isn't usually after they've been subpoenaed, and it isn't only to defend themselves. You simply don't know. Besides, while law enforcement is typically one-sided, this committee is not.

No, you're being a pedant.
You're straining to make my words mean what I clearly didn't intend. 
This is a moot point anyway.
Trump and his advocates will have multiple opportunities to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, and question witnesses before the Senate votes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sometimes I think you start typing before you know what you want to say. 
Do you honest believe the partisan House would vote to censor Schiff? Both sides are voting down party lines, and it’s completely naive to think the Dems would do anything to stop him even if they disagree with what he’s doing. 
You do know many people can issue a subpoena, right? 
Judges, prosecutors, private attorneys, State Clerks, notary public, businesses, and even private citizens can have a subpoena signed and delivered. There are more, too. I can’t speak for your county, but I doubt your’s is much different.
What you’re telling me is that you’re OK with one person having unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case to impeach the President. You wouldn’t be OK with this in any other situation.

Private attorneys, private citizens, notaries, and businesses can only issue subpoenas to defend themselves against a legal proceeding. Usually only after they are indicted or subpoenaed themselves.

I'm telling you that "unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case" is the typical situation in the US from the time an investigation is opened to the time that an indictment is presented.

---

How many impeachment inquiries were launched between 2011 & 2019?

Seven BenGhazi investigations... The rules for those were the same.

So none.  That's what I thought

---

Well, you just said only "one authority" can issue subpoenas, so you're either lying or you don't know. 

Also, they can issue subpoena under the basis that the person has information or documents that can help their side or hurt the other side. It isn't usually after they've been subpoenaed, and it isn't only to defend themselves. You simply don't know. Besides, while law enforcement is typically one-sided, this committee is not.

No, you're being a pedant.
You're straining to make my words mean what I clearly didn't intend. 
This is a moot point anyway.
Trump and his advocates will have multiple opportunities to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, and question witnesses before the Senate votes.

Bruh...  it's over.  We know what happened.  Let it go.

---

Well, you just said only "one authority" can issue subpoenas, so you're either lying or you don't know. 

Also, they can issue subpoena under the basis that the person has information or documents that can help their side or hurt the other side. It isn't usually after they've been subpoenaed, and it isn't only to defend themselves. You simply don't know. Besides, while law enforcement is typically one-sided, this committee is not.

No, you're being a pedant.
You're straining to make my words mean what I clearly didn't intend. 
This is a moot point anyway.
Trump and his advocates will have multiple opportunities to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, and question witnesses before the Senate votes.

I took you literally. You said “one authority” and proceeded to explain a situation where one person had the authority to issue them. If that isn’t what you meant, you should clarify it.

---

No, you're being a pedant.
You're straining to make my words mean what I clearly didn't intend. 
This is a moot point anyway.
Trump and his advocates will have multiple opportunities to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, and question witnesses before the Senate votes.

I took you literally. You said “one authority” and proceeded to explain a situation where one person had the authority to issue them. If that isn’t what you meant, you should clarify it.

Look back at post #36.
It has not been edited.
"In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. "

In general
For a given subject matter

I laid it out.  
Yes, certain administrative authorities like licensing boards can issue subpoenas.  But it's not as if they compete with a prosecutor when they do so.  They have a different subject matter.  A different area they look at.

You're ignoring half of what I say and then telling me I didn't put enough detail and caveats in.  You're being a donkeys butt with this.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I took you literally. You said “one authority” and proceeded to explain a situation where one person had the authority to issue them. If that isn’t what you meant, you should clarify it.

Look back at post #36.
It has not been edited.
"In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. "

In general
For a given subject matter

I laid it out.  
Yes, certain administrative authorities like licensing boards can issue subpoenas.  But it's not as if they compete with a prosecutor when they do so.  They have a different subject matter.  A different area they look at.

You're ignoring half of what I say and then telling me I didn't put enough detail and caveats in.  You're being a donkeys butt with this.

Pot... kettle... oh nevermind

---

I took you literally. You said “one authority” and proceeded to explain a situation where one person had the authority to issue them. If that isn’t what you meant, you should clarify it.

Look back at post #36.
It has not been edited.
"In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. "

In general
For a given subject matter

I laid it out.  
Yes, certain administrative authorities like licensing boards can issue subpoenas.  But it's not as if they compete with a prosecutor when they do so.  They have a different subject matter.  A different area they look at.

You're ignoring half of what I say and then telling me I didn't put enough detail and caveats in.  You're being a donkeys butt with this.

Oh, please. In general, you’re still wrong about it. I think you think I’m more serious about this than I am. I didn’t ignore anything. You should be more clear if you didn’t mean what you said. 

The purpose of my initial comment was to show that many people can issue them. You were excusing the Dem majority from allowing the Repub minority from getting their own because that’s simply how it is everywhere... which isn’t true.

---

Look back at post #36.
It has not been edited.
"In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. "

In general
For a given subject matter

I laid it out.  
Yes, certain administrative authorities like licensing boards can issue subpoenas.  But it's not as if they compete with a prosecutor when they do so.  They have a different subject matter.  A different area they look at.

You're ignoring half of what I say and then telling me I didn't put enough detail and caveats in.  You're being a donkeys butt with this.

Pot... kettle... oh nevermind

You're just saying that because you disagree with my opinions, which is fine.  You understand my opinions.  You just disagree.
This dude from the other side of the st mary's river doesnt understand.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Look back at post #36.
It has not been edited.
"In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. "

In general
For a given subject matter

I laid it out.  
Yes, certain administrative authorities like licensing boards can issue subpoenas.  But it's not as if they compete with a prosecutor when they do so.  They have a different subject matter.  A different area they look at.

You're ignoring half of what I say and then telling me I didn't put enough detail and caveats in.  You're being a donkeys butt with this.

Oh, please. In general, you’re still wrong about it. I think you think I’m more serious about this than I am. I didn’t ignore anything. You should be more clear if you didn’t mean what you said. 

The purpose of my initial comment was to show that many people can issue them. You were excusing the Dem majority from allowing the Repub minority from getting their own because that’s simply how it is everywhere... which isn’t true.

Show one example of a chamber of Congress issuing a subpoena that the speaker's party doesn't agree with.

I think you'll have trouble even finding sources that categorize subpoenas by party.  Congress used to make every effort to have their investigations and reports get created and endorsed by both parties.  

That all stopped with Fast and Furious in 2011. BenGhazi in 2012 solidified the trend. From now on there will be a partisan investigation resulting in a majority report and a minority report.  Do I love this? No.  But I know it was always possible under the rules we've used for 230 years.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Oh, please. In general, you’re still wrong about it. I think you think I’m more serious about this than I am. I didn’t ignore anything. You should be more clear if you didn’t mean what you said. 

The purpose of my initial comment was to show that many people can issue them. You were excusing the Dem majority from allowing the Repub minority from getting their own because that’s simply how it is everywhere... which isn’t true.

Show one example of a chamber of Congress issuing a subpoena that the speaker's party doesn't agree with.

I think you'll have trouble even finding sources that categorize subpoenas by party.  Congress used to make every effort to have their investigations and reports get created and endorsed by both parties.  

That all stopped with Fast and Furious in 2011. BenGhazi in 2012 solidified the trend. From now on there will be a partisan investigation resulting in a majority report and a minority report.  Do I love this? No.  But I know it was always possible under the rules we've used for 230 years.

Investigation...  impeachment hearing....  see how the terms are different?

---

Show one example of a chamber of Congress issuing a subpoena that the speaker's party doesn't agree with.

I think you'll have trouble even finding sources that categorize subpoenas by party.  Congress used to make every effort to have their investigations and reports get created and endorsed by both parties.  

That all stopped with Fast and Furious in 2011. BenGhazi in 2012 solidified the trend. From now on there will be a partisan investigation resulting in a majority report and a minority report.  Do I love this? No.  But I know it was always possible under the rules we've used for 230 years.

Investigation...  impeachment hearing....  see how the terms are different?

The hearings they're having are just a specific type of investigation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.