Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, toonkee said:

What's the difference anymore?  Mitch says he's coordinating with the defendant's wishes.  

:shrug:

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’ve said before that messenger is just as important as the message.  Having Schiff be the messenger discounts whatever message you’re trying to send. 

Cons have a tendancy to demonize a person by just repeating over, and over, and over, and over how BAD they are without exactly identifying what is so bad about them.  They get that echo chamber revved up and everyone just repeats how bad XYZ person is.  Pelosi, AOC, Schiff, Hillary, and many...many...others.

Aside from following the consitution and investigating the president what exactly did Schiff do wrong?  Does anyone really believe that the Russian collusion thing shouldn't have been investigated?  We are about to see a replay of it as we speak as the Russians have attacked Burisma for Trump's benefit.  Just because Trump does a "wink, wink" to escape culpability doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Why is Schiff to blame for that?  

Is Schiff to blame because he led the impeachment inquiry in the house?  Because he didn't lie down for the coverup?  Just because Trump tells everyone to attack someone on Twitter we should really have a reason.

I know he embelished a bit on the Trump call but is that the "offense" he committed.  That is child's play compared to what Trump does every day!!!

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/lev-parnas-documents-house-investigators/index.html

House Democrats provide new evidence of Giuliani's push to meet with Zelensky

 

"The House panel made some of the documents that Parnas provided public on Tuesday, including a letter from Giuliani to then-President-elect Zelensky requesting a meeting as the President's personal attorney, in which Giuliani said he was working "with the President's knowledge and consent." There are also text messages that show Parnas' communications with members of Zelesnky's aides where he pursued a meeting between Zelensky and Giuliani and provided negative information about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

The text messages provided show exchanges with former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who provided Giuliani with unsubstantiated allegations against the Bidens last year, pushing for the ouster of Yovanovitch. In the texts, he suggested that he wanted Yovanovitch removed if he was going to provide allegations to Giuliani about "B," which could be a reference to Burisma or the Bidens, saying, "If you don't make a decision about Madam — you are bringing into question all my allegations. Including about B."
 
"He then made his ask: "In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you on this upcoming Monday, May 13th or Tuesday, May 14th. I will need no more than a half-hour of your time and I will be accompanied by my colleague Victoria Toensing, a distinguished American attorney who is very familiar with this matter."
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Cons have a tendancy to demonize a person by just repeating over, and over, and over, and over how BAD they are without exactly identifying what is so bad about them.  They get that echo chamber revved up and everyone just repeats how bad XYZ person is.  Pelosi, AOC, Schiff, Hillary, and many...many...others.

Aside from following the consitution and investigating the president what exactly did Schiff do wrong?  Does anyone really believe that the Russian collusion thing shouldn't have been investigated?  We are about to see a replay of it as we speak as the Russians have attacked Burisma for Trump's benefit.  Just because Trump does a "wink, wink" to escape culpability doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Why is Schiff to blame for that?  

Is Schiff to blame because he led the impeachment inquiry in the house?  Because he didn't lie down for the coverup?  Just because Trump tells everyone to attack someone on Twitter we should really have a reason.

I know he embelished a bit on the Trump call but is that the "offense" he committed.  That is child's play compared to what Trump does every day!!!

I have zero issue with the Russia investigation.  I never had an issue with it.  My only issue is Schiff went on national TV for 2 years claiming he had evidence of this collusion and continued to even after Mueller said he couldn’t find evidence.  So the special prosecutor couldn’t find the evidence that Schiff supposedly had.  And I never said I have an issue with impeachment or the trial.  All I said is Schiff is probably not the best person to carry the flag for impeachment. I’ve said this from day one. If that makes me one of those “cons that only listen to the echo chamber” then so be it.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I have zero issue with the Russia investigation.  I never had an issue with it.  My only issue is Schiff went on national TV for 2 years claiming he had evidence of this collusion and continued to even after Mueller said he couldn’t find evidence.  So the special prosecutor couldn’t find the evidence that Schiff supposedly had.  And I never said I have an issue with impeachment or the trial.  All I said is Schiff is probably not the best person to carry the flag for impeachment. I’ve said this from day one. If that makes me one of those “cons that only listen to the echo chamber” then so be it.  

"The indictment does not charge Stone with anything amounting to collusion (or treason). But as The Washington Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman reports, it does somewhat conspicuously lay out a series of occasions on which the Trump campaign sought information about WikiLeaks’s releases from Stone and encouraged the relationship.

At one point, it even makes reference to someone who could be President Trump himself, saying, “After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by [WikiLeaks], a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE” about WikiLeaks and its future releases. It is not clear who did that directing, but the fact that it is left unsaid, and that Trump would be in such a position to direct a senior aide, is intriguing to say the least.

"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/25/roger-stones-indictment-thickens-russia-collusion-plot/

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

Just because they can't find a smoking gun linking Trump directly to the collusion it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Roger Stone is sitting in jail right now.  Even now that we have plenty of smoking guns showing Trump tried to hold up our military aid for his personal gain that still isn't enough.

Would anyone really say Trump didn't commit the Ukraine crime if this was a court of law?  It is surely clear that Trump supporters are not stupid and they know he used the Ukraine aid for his personal electoral gain....they just don't care!  In fact they cheer it on!

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Akkula said:

"The indictment does not charge Stone with anything amounting to collusion (or treason). But as The Washington Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman reports, it does somewhat conspicuously lay out a series of occasions on which the Trump campaign sought information about WikiLeaks’s releases from Stone and encouraged the relationship.

At one point, it even makes reference to someone who could be President Trump himself, saying, “After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by [WikiLeaks], a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE” about WikiLeaks and its future releases. It is not clear who did that directing, but the fact that it is left unsaid, and that Trump would be in such a position to direct a senior aide, is intriguing to say the least.

"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/25/roger-stones-indictment-thickens-russia-collusion-plot/

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

Just because they can't find a smoking gun linking Trump directly to the collusion it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Roger Stone is sitting in jail right now.  Even now that we have plenty of smoking guns showing Trump tried to hold up our military aid for his personal gain that still isn't enough.

Would anyone really say Trump didn't commit the Ukraine crime if this was a court of law?  It is surely clear that Trump supporters are not stupid and they know he used the Ukraine aid for his personal electoral gain....they just don't care!  In fact they cheer it on!

Ok.  You’re clearly missing the point of what I’m saying.  If you want to convince 18 GOP senators to vote to remove Trump from office, Schiff is not the guy to do it.  That is all I’m saying.  Jesus 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Ok.  You’re clearly missing the point of what I’m saying.  If you want to convince 18 GOP senators to vote to remove Trump from office, Schiff is not the guy to do it.  That is all I’m saying.  Jesus 

Well, I can see what you are saying but I would say that Trump could shoot a guy on 5th avenue and 18 GOP senators wouldn't vote against him.  Amash is a pariah to the 18 Trumpists too.  Please don't call any Republicans "conservatives" so Amash is just as good as Schiff.  The only ones who will put any pressure on the senators is the public who will vote them out so pretending this isn't a "political" issue is kind of silly and so having political actors prosecute the case on TV isn't out of line.  Obviously I think the Democrats learned their lesson from putting Robert Mueller in charge of convincing the American Public about wrongdoing the last time.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

Wish they’d added Justin Amash to the roster. 

Yeah, it probably wouldn't have been a bad idea but perhap he didn't want to do it.  I am guessing even though he is an independent he may not want to be seen as too close to the Democrats either...it may not be good politics for him.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I have zero issue with the Russia investigation.  I never had an issue with it.  My only issue is Schiff went on national TV for 2 years claiming he had evidence of this collusion and continued to even after Mueller said he couldn’t find evidence.  So the special prosecutor couldn’t find the evidence that Schiff supposedly had.  And I never said I have an issue with impeachment or the trial.  All I said is Schiff is probably not the best person to carry the flag for impeachment. I’ve said this from day one. If that makes me one of those “cons that only listen to the echo chamber” then so be it.  

Oh don’t leave out his FISA memo which was completely refuted by the IG. Embrace the con tendency to demonize an opponent for...(checks notes) things they literally did.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Ok.  You’re clearly missing the point of what I’m saying.  If you want to convince 18 GOP senators to vote to remove Trump from office, Schiff is not the guy to do it.  That is all I’m saying.  Jesus 

That's a valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I have zero issue with the Russia investigation.  I never had an issue with it.  My only issue is Schiff went on national TV for 2 years claiming he had evidence of this collusion and continued to even after Mueller said he couldn’t find evidence.  So the special prosecutor couldn’t find the evidence that Schiff supposedly had.  And I never said I have an issue with impeachment or the trial.  All I said is Schiff is probably not the best person to carry the flag for impeachment. I’ve said this from day one. If that makes me one of those “cons that only listen to the echo chamber” then so be it.  

See, that's the problem here. Mueller never stated that... he said that there wasn't enough evidence to charge conspiracy. Not enough evidence is in no way the same thing as no evidence.

Mind you, I'm not really a fan of Schiff's... he committed one of the unforced errors I've referenced by paraphrasing Trump's call with Zelensky the way that he did, and it blew up in his face. It's not the same thing here, because he said there was merely evidence of collusion, of which there is ample, even in plain sight as he originally stated. I do agree that Schiff isn't really the best choice to lead this thing to get Trump removed, but they already know that's not going to happen. What Pelosi did here was to put together a team of people who can marshal the evidence during the Senate trial. She also put a former law enforcement officer in Demings and a former soldier in Crow on the team.

These are people who can marshal the evidence... not for the Senators (because their minds are made up), but for the inevitable sound bytes on network and cable news, and the endless political ads that will be coming shortly. They were never going to get rid of Trump, the cult mindset is too strong within the party, so they're going to put the evidence up for display. Time will tell as to whether it works or if it blows up in their faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whaddyall think about Parnas and Hyde surveilling Yovanovitch and discussing ordering a hit?

Just going to keep giving Trump plausible deniability because he's mean to libruls?  Guiliani just went all rogue?  They were just messing around? Nobody actually killed nobody?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toonkee said:

So whaddyall think about Parnas and Hyde surveilling Yovanovitch and discussing ordering a hit?

Just going to keep giving Trump plausible deniability because he's mean to libruls?  Guiliani just went all rogue?  They were just messing around? Nobody actually killed nobody?  

 

I think it's pretty disturbing if that's in fact what they were doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, retrofade said:

I think it's pretty disturbing if that's in fact what they were doing. 

Well, they accomplished their goal for all intents and purposes.  Trump was the hitman for hire to take out this crusader against corruption for a fee.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Akkula said:

None of you conjobs want to talk about the massive document dump and allegations from Parnas?  Fox hasn't covered and given you the talking points yet?

I’m watching the interview right now.  It’s still going on.  Geez. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’m watching the interview right now.  It’s still going on.  Geez. 

Looks like Pence was involved in the quid pro quo.   Barr also looks to have traded leniency to an oligarch for dirt on Biden.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...