The Impeachment Thread

[Larry]

51 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

And he's, what, the 783,432,322nd person in a row to suddenly realize this? These ****ing morons who work for this numbnuts never learn. 

 

Perhaps it has something to do with his criteria for selecting personnel?  

[skinsmarydu]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Perhaps it has something to do with his criteria for selecting personnel?  

Only the best people? (that one still has some mileage as well) 😉

 

Edit, add: I'm wrong. It's "ball-washer ", isn't it? 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

1)  "This proves that they're all Deep State agents still pursuing their years-long efforts at a coup!"  

 

2)  Somebody watches MSNBC?

[visionary]

 

[LD0506]

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Well, if they don't, they'll get primaried by a bigger asshole. 

[Larry]

Just wanting to point out, to the folks following and participating in this thread, to beware their own assumptions, and tendencies towards confirmation bias.  

 

While the kinds of conspiracy things the R's are throwing up to defend the known criminal in chief are moronic in their obviousness, I want to point out:  

 

Listening to the parts of the testimony I heard, what I heard was a whole lot of "It gradually became clear to me that this other person believed that this third person is implying that what Trump wanted was . . . ".  

 

Now, no, I do not believe that there is some rule hat says that an explicit threat must be explicitly delivered, in the same sentence as the demand, or else it doesn't count.  Just me, but "Nice place, here.  Be a shame if something were to happen to it." is a clear threat, even it not explicitly stated.  Yes, the jury is allowed to consider the context, and the accused's past behaviour, in deciding whether a crime was committed.  Things like Trump spending a year making sure that Ukraine knew that he wanted a public announcement of investigations, into specifically these two things; things like him intentionally choosing people he'd hand picked (and specifically who do not keep records, or have trouble acting as bag men); things like his efforts to conceal the conversation, and the complaints about it; I think all are legitimate things to consider when deciding whether he was solicitinbg a campaign contribution.  

 

But let's also remember to double-check our own assumptions, too.  We're not immune.  

 

[visionary]

Good point.  We shouldn't immediately assume something like...um...Trump wanted Biden killed and ordered a hit on him. 😉

 

The stuff Trump is actually being accused of though are so far things that have been confirmed by witnesses, Trump himself, and his people. (and there's plenty of criminal stuff he's done in full view of the public or that he's admitted to in the past that he isn't being accused of so far)

[Springfield]

I wonder if we will continually live in two separate “reality bubbles” in perpetuity until this country folds or if there will be some sort of reckoning where one of the two parties realities wins out.

 

Not having lived through Nixon, it seems to me that there was probably 40%, or more, of the country that believed that he wasn’t in the wrong in what he was doing and continued to believe that after he resigned.  Somehow, it became common belief that Nixon was a crook that was completely in the wrong.

 

Do we ever get to a point where it becomes accepted, across the board, that Trump is all the things that democrats say he is?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

But let's also remember to double-check our own assumptions, too.  We're not immune. 

He’s a guilty mother****er.

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, visionary said:

The stuff Trump is actually being accused of though are so far things that have been confirmed by witnesses, Trump himself, and his people. (and there's plenty of criminal stuff he's done in full view of the public or that he's admitted to in the past that he isn't being accused of so far)

 

Oh, to me, the thing that he ought to be impeached for is asking the head of the FBI to make sure that the national security investigation that had been launched didn't mention that his staff had been involved, and then firing him when he failed to promise to do so.  

 

The witness they ought to be calling is James Comey.  

 

Because he can personally testify that Donald Trump, personally, explicitly, asked him to obstruct justice.  

 

And he can fix exactly what day and time that happened.  And I'm pretty sure other witnesses can testify exactly what day Trump asked his staff to come up with an excuse to fire him.  (And it was the next day.)  

[Burgold]

37 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just wanting to point out, to the folks following and participating in this thread, to beware their own assumptions, and tendencies towards confirmation bias.  

 

 

 

But let's also remember to double-check our own assumptions, too.  We're not immune.  

 

This is fair, but on the other hand, Trump pretty much confessed, Giuliani pretty much confessed, and we've had dozens of people who've confirmed the wrongdoing.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I wonder if we will continually live in two separate “reality bubbles” in perpetuity until this country folds or if there will be some sort of reckoning where one of the two parties realities wins out.

 

Not having lived through Nixon, it seems to me that there was probably 40%, or more, of the country that believed that he wasn’t in the wrong in what he was doing and continued to believe that after he resigned.  Somehow, it became common belief that Nixon was a crook that was completely in the wrong.

 

Do we ever get to a point where it becomes accepted, across the board, that Trump is all the things that democrats say he is?

 

Just pointing out, we're talking about people (not always the same people, but I bet there's a lot of overlap), who believe:  

 

Trickle down economics has been proven to work.

Obama caused the Birthers, by refusing to release his birth certificate.

Reagan caused the end of the Soviet Union by spending more on the military than they did.  

And the Civil War wasn't about slavery.  

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Technically this is the impeachment thread.

 

 

 

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

I wonder if we will continually live in two separate “reality bubbles” in perpetuity until this country folds or if there will be some sort of reckoning where one of the two parties realities wins out.

 

There aren't two realities.  Relativism is a surrender to nonsense.  The difference is in the values of the right and left.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

Reuters, come get your boy.

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

Haha. So whether or not something was wrong or criminal is dependent on what percentage of the time was spent doing the illegal/immoral ****?

 

"X person was was around Y person for hours and only for 15 seconds did X point a gun at Y and tell him to give him all of his money, so we should ignore that whole part of it and pretend it didn't happen."   

 

Seems legit. 

[DoneMessedUp]

 

Oh ffs 

 

 

And the author defending it... 

 

 

 

I'll give Trumpers one thing:  A lot of the media really does suck

[NoCalMike]

5 hours ago, Springfield said:

I wonder if we will continually live in two separate “reality bubbles” in perpetuity until this country folds or if there will be some sort of reckoning where one of the two parties realities wins out.

 

Well what changed in the last 30 years?  The obvious answer is that right-wing media went mainstream. The last 30 years of right-wing media has been cultivating an alternative reality. It took a couple decades, but this is the country we are living in now.  It was never about debating the issues, it was questioning established facts to the point of discounting them, creating confusion, mistrust while also spreading disinformation.  

 

If Trump had been President in the Nixon era and his first 3 years played out the same exact way, he'd have been gone already.  He probably doesn't survive the Mueller report to begin with. But not in 2019......See, in 2019,  The FBI/CIA/State Dept are all "deep state" operatives trying to enact a coup on a completely innocent man who is making America great again, draining the swamp, and only hiring the best people!

 

When I hear things like "you aren't going to convince so and so people that....." well of course not, look at the sources they go to for their information (disinformation).  It is hard for me, one person, to compete with million dollar media machines and dirt rag blogs being pumped into their eyeballs all day long.   Today, when you are having a conversation/debate with a Trump supporter, at least 75% of the time and effort is being spent on just sifting through the nonsense that has been pumped into their heads.  If you are LUCKY, you might actually get around to debating the facts of the matter with them, but most likely not. 

[Skin'emAlive]

6 hours ago, Larry said:

Just wanting to point out, to the folks following and participating in this thread, to beware their own assumptions, and tendencies towards confirmation bias.  

 

While the kinds of conspiracy things the R's are throwing up to defend the known criminal in chief are moronic in their obviousness, I want to point out:  

 

Listening to the parts of the testimony I heard, what I heard was a whole lot of "It gradually became clear to me that this other person believed that this third person is implying that what Trump wanted was . . . ". 

 

In a court of law you never outright say something with a certainty. I feel we all went over this repeatedly during the Mueller Report.

 

In addition, the "other person" is a counselor for political affairs who directly overheard trump via a phone with the US Ambassador to the EU. He is giving a closed door testimony on Friday.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Destino]

Calling day one of these hearings boring is infuriating for two reasons.  The first is that this isn’t meant to entertain.  It is not reality tv, it is reality.  These are problems facing our country that must be addressed even though we’d all prefer none of this were necessary.  
 

The second is that it reminds me that millions of idiots will ignore these hearings entirely if they are not entertaining.  People, in general, are terribly disappointing.  

[Burgold]

The level of FOX News analysis is impressive...