Anybody paying close attention to the impeachment trial?

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I'm gonna celebrate the President's acquittal on Sunday by eating chips and dip and other snacks.

Good for you. When the country turns sharp left in response to the buffoon you elected and support, you can dump the chips on your head.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Most rational people are convinced that sort of thing happens in every administration at every level in every industry.

If you’re the definition of rational then I’m happy to be irrational.

oh and to your other point: Bullshit. Prove it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Lots of trials don't have witnesses. Your mistake is believing that the impeachment proceedings in the senate is supposed to look like a trial. It isn't. No impeachment proceeding has never been like a trial as those conducted in the judicial branch. The legislative branch doesn't do trials. The framers could have required impeahmemts be decided in the judicial branch but it didn't. We know from the get go impeachments are not to be like trials.

That being said; one example where we have trials without witnesses is when the facts are essentially undisputed and the trial consists of arguing what the facts mean. If you feel compelled to analogize this impeachment to a trial, this notion comes to closest. The meaning of Trump's position on the Biden investigation and the money transfer is at the heart of the case. Review and understand Dershowitz's argument to fully understand this point. Hint: Don't rely on what the pundit class has said about his argument; they don't get it.

Moreover, nothing happened. The money was timely transferred (meaning within the budget year) and no investigation was announced or held. Even if the few weeks delay was wrong, should that really be something that is impeachable? I don't think so. Other presidents have done similar things--including Trump's predecessor who didn't budge until SCOTUS issued an order.

As for witnesses, don't forget that all but one of the witnesses Schiff called in the intelligence committee "testified" in the senate either by the house managers cherry picking their quotes, or playing videos. This is unlike a trial in the judicial branch. Remember too that Schiff did not permit meaningful cross examination of such witnesses. And remember too it was Schiff who concealed some crucial testimony by not presenting it to the senate nor presenting it at all such as the alleged whistleblower and his cohorts.

And we can't overlook the crucial and totally dumbassary of Schiff. This began with his "parody" of the phone call on the very first hour of the first day of the impeachment investigation. He then ran a unprecedented and one-sided impeachment investigation. He then insulted and talked down to the senate. Finally he destroyed any need to call Bolton by loudly proclaiming that Bolton "corroborates the undisputed evidence" thereby saying to the senate, "we don't need him". Schiff is a total dumbass from head to toe. And Pelosi? Good Lord! She wears a black dress when the vote is taken to reflect on the "prayerful" and "solemnity" of the occasion, then she wears a peach dress at the signing ceremony and hands out pens with her name emblazoned thereon. And that stupid manager march across the capital? Can you say "showboating"? The fact is that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler turned the proceeding into a total political joke.

So calling you up and threatening you unless you pay me is not a crime unless you actually pay me?

 

[hoot1]

Lots of trials don't have witnesses. Your mistake is believing that the impeachment proceedings in the senate is supposed to look like a trial. It isn't. No impeachment proceeding has never been like a trial as those conducted in the judicial branch. The legislative branch doesn't do trials. The framers could have required impeahmemts be decided in the judicial branch but it didn't. We know from the get go impeachments are not to be like trials.

That being said; one example where we have trials without witnesses is when the facts are essentially undisputed and the trial consists of arguing what the facts mean. If you feel compelled to analogize this impeachment to a trial, this notion comes to closest. The meaning of Trump's position on the Biden investigation and the money transfer is at the heart of the case. Review and understand Dershowitz's argument to fully understand this point. Hint: Don't rely on what the pundit class has said about his argument; they don't get it.

Moreover, nothing happened. The money was timely transferred (meaning within the budget year) and no investigation was announced or held. Even if the few weeks delay was wrong, should that really be something that is impeachable? I don't think so. Other presidents have done similar things--including Trump's predecessor who didn't budge until SCOTUS issued an order.

As for witnesses, don't forget that all but one of the witnesses Schiff called in the intelligence committee "testified" in the senate either by the house managers cherry picking their quotes, or playing videos. This is unlike a trial in the judicial branch. Remember too that Schiff did not permit meaningful cross examination of such witnesses. And remember too it was Schiff who concealed some crucial testimony by not presenting it to the senate nor presenting it at all such as the alleged whistleblower and his cohorts.

And we can't overlook the crucial and totally dumbassary of Schiff. This began with his "parody" of the phone call on the very first hour of the first day of the impeachment investigation. He then ran a unprecedented and one-sided impeachment investigation. He then insulted and talked down to the senate. Finally he destroyed any need to call Bolton by loudly proclaiming that Bolton "corroborates the undisputed evidence" thereby saying to the senate, "we don't need him". Schiff is a total dumbass from head to toe. And Pelosi? Good Lord! She wears a black dress when the vote is taken to reflect on the "prayerful" and "solemnity" of the occasion, then she wears a peach dress at the signing ceremony and hands out pens with her name emblazoned thereon. And that stupid manager march across the capital? Can you say "showboating"? The fact is that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler turned the proceeding into a total political joke.

The failure to have witnesses and obtain documents to which I referred was in the House impeachment phase and not the Senate trial.

 

[Cortez88]

The failure to have witnesses and obtain documents to which I referred was in the House impeachment phase and not the Senate trial.

This is the circular game the WH is playing. In the Senate, they argued that the House subpoenas needed to run through the courts. At the same time, they argued in court that the subpoenas have to come from the impeachment proceeding. This is the obstruction article.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The failure to have witnesses and obtain documents to which I referred was in the House impeachment phase and not the Senate trial.

If the House had fought that battle, impeachment would not have happened until summer. Numerous Senators were already complaining that this impeachment was too close to the election. If those articles appeared September 1, there is no chance the Senate would have acted any differently. They have it both ways, it is too close and the House should have waited until it was closer.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So calling you up and threatening you unless you pay me is not a crime unless you actually pay me?

No.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No.

That seems to be your argument, Trump can call up leaders and demand/cajole/threaten for personal favors but it only a problem if the personal favor is delivered. "We will nuke your country unless you put $1 billion onto my bank account" is good, you know as long as they do not do it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That seems to be your argument, Trump can call up leaders and demand/cajole/threaten for personal favors but it only a problem if the personal favor is delivered. "We will nuke your country unless you put $1 billion onto my bank account" is good, you know as long as they do not do it.

You only have two things wrong. First that is not these facts and second, you don’t understand the argument.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You only have two things wrong. First that is not these facts and second, you don’t understand the argument.

I know you are so emotionally attached to Trump that you cannot see the facts. If Obama called a foreign leader and said "Give me dirt on Trump so Clinton will win", you would have had the biggest cow in the history if the board. The GOP now says that is completely legal, let's see what happens.

 

[UncleMark]

I know you are so emotionally attached to Trump that you cannot see the facts. If Obama called a foreign leader and said "Give me dirt on Trump so Clinton will win", you would have had the biggest cow in the history if the board. The GOP now says that is completely legal, let's see what happens.

No no no Marvin. As long as Obama did it thinking it was in the best interests of the country, it would have been perfectly fine. Right, COH?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No no no Marvin. As long as Obama did it thinking it was in the best interests of the country, it would have been perfectly fine. Right, COH?

I am just confused. A year ago if we polled Americans, "Is it ok for a president to pressure a foreign government to announce an investigation of a political opponent for the purpose of damaging said opponent", I would have put money on most Americans saying it was wrong. And a huge majority at that.

And we know that it is what Trump wanted and what Ukraine knew they wanted. Ukraine scheduled an announcement on CNN, but cancelled it. If Ukraine had no idea they were being extorted, why did they schedule that announcement?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I know you are so emotionally attached to Trump that you cannot see the facts. If Obama called a foreign leader and said "Give me dirt on Trump so Clinton will win", you would have had the biggest cow in the history if the board. The GOP now says that is completely legal, let's see what happens.

Emotionally attached? WTF is that supposed to mean?

As for the rest of your post, even stupid Schiff said that “gimme dirt” song and dance was a parody, here you take it as truth. I don’t think I’m the one with the emotional issue here.

FWIW, you used to be one of the reasons this board was worth visiting. What happened?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Emotionally attached? WTF is that supposed to mean?

As for the rest of your post, even stupid Schiff said that “gimme dirt” song and dance was a parody, here you take it as truth. I don’t think I’m the one with the emotional issue here.

FWIW, you used to be one of the reasons this board was worth visiting. What happened?

He's still one of the reasons this board is worth visiting. Whatever happened, happened with you, not him.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Emotionally attached? WTF is that supposed to mean?

As for the rest of your post, even stupid Schiff said that “gimme dirt” song and dance was a parody, here you take it as truth. I don’t think I’m the one with the emotional issue here.

FWIW, you used to be one of the reasons this board was worth visiting. What happened?

You are not making sense is the problem. Read my reply to Mark. I am disillusioned the idea that a president could demand help from a foreign government is not universally condemned.

As I mentioned in that post, the Ukrainian President scheduled the announcement on CNN. I mentioned that a couple more times, that is irrefutable proof that the testimony of others saying Trump wanted an announcement (and not in investigation) is true. Now we even have Bolton saying that. Yet you seem stuck on this is only a Schiff fantasy.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Alexander on the reason he didn’t need to hear from witnesses. “ If you’ve got 8 witnesses saying you left the scene of an accident, you don’t need to hear from a ninth.” Little did he know there would still be some people arguing that Trump didn’t do it, after hearing from those 8 witnesses. Actually, he probably did know, but this was his excuse.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Alexander on the reason he didn’t need to hear from witnesses. “ If you’ve got 8 witnesses saying you left the scene of an accident, you don’t need to hear from a ninth.” Little did he know there would still be some people arguing that Trump didn’t do it, after hearing from those 8 witnesses. Actually, he probably did know, but this was his excuse.

Good point. But like I have said, I give him some credit for saying it was wrong but not impeachable. People like CO saying it was not at all wrong makes me think of the urinating down my back and telling me it is raining. If get we may not agree that it was impeachable. But arguing there was nothing wrong seems wilfully obtuse.

 

[UncleMark]

Good point. But like I have said, I give him some credit for saying it was wrong but not impeachable. People like CO saying it was not at all wrong makes me think of the urinating down my back and telling me it is raining. If get we may not agree that it was impeachable. But arguing there was nothing wrong seems wilfully obtuse.

COH had committed to the Nothing Wrong talking point before Alexander came up with his. COH will have to come up with some nuancy way to switch positions.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I am just confused. A year ago if we polled Americans, "Is it ok for a president to pressure a foreign government to announce an investigation of a political opponent for the purpose of damaging said opponent", I would have put money on most Americans saying it was wrong. And a huge majority at that.

And we know that it is what Trump wanted and what Ukraine knew they wanted. Ukraine scheduled an announcement on CNN, but cancelled it. If Ukraine had no idea they were being extorted, why did they schedule that announcement?

You are not making sense is the problem. Read my reply to Mark. I am disillusioned the idea that a president could demand help from a foreign government is not universally condemned.

As I mentioned in that post, the Ukrainian President scheduled the announcement on CNN. I mentioned that a couple more times, that is irrefutable proof that the testimony of others saying Trump wanted an announcement (and not in investigation) is true. Now we even have Bolton saying that. Yet you seem stuck on this is only a Schiff fantasy.

Good point. But like I have said, I give him some credit for saying it was wrong but not impeachable. People like CO saying it was not at all wrong makes me think of the urinating down my back and telling me it is raining. If get we may not agree that it was impeachable. But arguing there was nothing wrong seems wilfully obtuse.

Alexander on the reason he didn’t need to hear from witnesses. “ If you’ve got 8 witnesses saying you left the scene of an accident, you don’t need to hear from a ninth.” Little did he know there would still be some people arguing that Trump didn’t do it, after hearing from those 8 witnesses. Actually, he probably did know, but this was his excuse.

I can’t overstate the significance of The House Judiciary Committee’s failure to identify a statutory violation in its articles. That’s the fatal flaw in this circumstance. Words like “demand,” “dirt,” “pressure,” are nowhere in the evidentiary record because none of that happened. As Dershowitz so convincingly argued, a mixed motive situation cannot be a basis for impeachment. Why? Because there are no criminal elements against which to measure Trump’s intentions. We concede what Trump wanted to do, but for various reasons his desire didn’t go anywhere. That’s a piss poor reason for impeachment.

For those of you who think I’m full of shit about this ought to re-examine how the house managers handled this whole thing. They had it in their grasp to at least have the senate ask for witnesses, (it only took two moderate votes) but Schiff f*cked it up. I’ll never understand why Pelosi chose Schiff and Nadler for the job. Before that happened, I was talking with another attorney about who the Dems might pick to present the case and make the arguments. I was shocked to see Schiff and Nadler at the controls. And the pens and capital march? All this shows is that I was correct all along by saying that the whole damn impeachment was political theater, it was never serious, and only directed at the 2020 election. For people like Marv, to think this was serious is silly. Of course I expect silliness from a few others around here.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I can’t overstate the significance of The House Judiciary Committee’s failure to identify a statutory violation in its articles. That’s the fatal flaw in this circumstance. Words like “demand,” “dirt,” “pressure,” are nowhere in the evidentiary record because none of that happened. As Dershowitz so convincingly argued, a mixed motive situation cannot be a basis for impeachment. Why? Because there are no criminal elements against which to measure Trump’s intentions. We concede what Trump wanted to do, but for various reasons his desire didn’t go anywhere. That’s a piss poor reason for impeachment.

For those of you who think I’m full of shit about this ought to re-examine how the house managers handled this whole thing. They had it in their grasp to at least have the senate ask for witnesses, (it only took two moderate votes) but Schiff f*cked it up. I’ll never understand why Pelosi chose Schiff and Nadler for the job. Before that happened, I was talking with another attorney about who the Dems might pick to present the case and make the arguments. I was shocked to see Schiff and Nadler at the controls. And the pens and capital march? All this shows is that I was correct all along by saying that the whole damn impeachment was political theater, it was never serious, and only directed at the 2020 election. For people like Marv, to think this was serious is silly. Of course I expect silliness from a few others around here.

Notice Dersh quoted 2 experts is his testimony and both said he was wrong. Turley was one and he said a crime is not necessary but it is very difficult without one.

Think logically, after the Revolution the FF were very worried a president would make a deal with England not in the nation's interest. It is crazy to think they would not have thought one could freely negotiate a bad deal for the country but good personally and Congress could not remove that president.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Notice Dersh quoted 2 experts is his testimony and both said he was wrong. Turley was one and he said a crime is not necessary but it is very difficult without one.

Think logically, after the Revolution the FF were very worried a president would make a deal with England not in the nation's interest. It is crazy to think they would not have thought one could freely negotiate a bad deal for the country but good personally and Congress could not remove that president.

You are missing important nuance here. I didn’t say a crime is necessary for an impeachment. I said the failure to specify i crime was a fatal flaw in this impeachment. I’ve tried to explain why several times in different ways.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You are missing important nuance here. I didn’t say a crime is necessary for an impeachment. I said the failure to specify i crime was a fatal flaw in this impeachment. I’ve tried to explain why several times in different ways.

If a crime 8s not necessary, why does one need specified? That sounds like no purchase is necessary to enter, but we are not letting you enter without a purchase.

Dersh seems very very much in the minority.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If a crime 8s not necessary, why does one need specified? That sounds like no purchase is necessary to enter, but we are not letting you enter without a purchase.

Dersh seems very very much in the minority.

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into figuring out why COH thinks this impeachment is special, when you already know damn well the answer is "Because I said so."

 

[zeke4ahs]

Good point. But like I have said, I give him some credit for saying it was wrong but not impeachable. People like CO saying it was not at all wrong makes me think of the urinating down my back and telling me it is raining. If get we may not agree that it was impeachable. But arguing there was nothing wrong seems wilfully obtuse.

Yes, I’ve said all along that’s what I thought they should have done. Called witnesses and then said wrong but not impeachable. And in any sane universe, that’s what would have happened. But that can’t happen. Alexander can only say it because he is retiring. Trump would roast and try to get revenge on anyone else who even admits that he did anything wrong.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes, I’ve said all along that’s what I thought they should have done. Called witnesses and then said wrong but not impeachable. And in any sane universe, that’s what would have happened. But that can’t happen. Alexander can only say it because he is retiring. Trump would roast and try to get revenge on anyone else who even admits that he did anything wrong.

It is why I brought up the censure idea twice. I do not want presidents making that call. The GOP has just guaranteed that is SOP from now on. That point is why I am frustrated in talking with CO. I cannot believe he WANTS presidents to routinely lean on allies for election help,

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If a crime 8s not necessary, why does one need specified? That sounds like no purchase is necessary to enter, but we are not letting you enter without a purchase.

Dersh seems very very much in the minority.

because it isn’t inherently improper for any POTUS to request foreign assistance in investigating misconduct of our officials. There needs be a way make such a request objectively improper. That means proving a violation the law. The Dems kept yapping about treason and bribery but never mentioned that in the articles. Why? They didn’t have the evidence. So they made the whole process a political clown show. Saying Trump behaves improperly because he is a douchebag doesn’t cut it.

The examples you and Dersh’s critics mention is conduct that is mostly objectively improper.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

because it isn’t inherently improper for any POTUS to request foreign assistance in investigating misconduct of our officials. There needs be a way make such a request objectively improper. That means proving a violation the law. The Dems kept yapping about treason and bribery but never mentioned that in the articles. Why? They didn’t have the evidence. So they made the whole process a political clown show. Saying Trump behaves improperly because he is a douchebag doesn’t cut it.

The examples you and Dersh’s critics mention is conduct that is mostly objectively improper.

No one more sane side than Rudy has suggested Joe did anything wrong. If Hunter did something wrong there are plenty of people in State and DOJ to investigate. Hunter Biden is not worth a call from the president.

But that is irrelevant. Trump only wanted an investigation announced on CNN. He did not want an investigation, he wanted it announced. How is announcing an investigation doing anything in helping us investigate? That fact proves Trump had no pure motive and you know it because I keep mentioning it and you ignore it. How does announcing a non-existant investigation of the Bidens help us sort out legal issues?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No one more sane side than Rudy has suggested Joe did anything wrong. If Hunter did something wrong there are plenty of people in State and DOJ to investigate. Hunter Biden is not worth a call from the president.

But that is irrelevant. Trump only wanted an investigation announced on CNN. He did not want an investigation, he wanted it announced. How is announcing an investigation doing anything in helping us investigate? That fact proves Trump had no pure motive and you know it because I keep mentioning it and you ignore it. How does announcing a non-existant investigation of the Bidens help us sort out legal issues?

I don't know how this simple fact can escape so many supposedly smart people. Trump didn't care if they investigated. He only cared if they went on TV and said they were investigating. That's basically a smoking gun right there.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don't know how this simple fact can escape so many supposedly smart people. Trump didn't care if they investigated. He only cared if they went on TV and said they were investigating. That's basically a smoking gun right there.

And he sent Rudy and Lev to do the investigation instead of an official whose job that would be. It doesn’t make any sense at all, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No one more sane side than Rudy has suggested Joe did anything wrong. If Hunter did something wrong there are plenty of people in State and DOJ to investigate. Hunter Biden is not worth a call from the president.

But that is irrelevant. Trump only wanted an investigation announced on CNN. He did not want an investigation, he wanted it announced. How is announcing an investigation doing anything in helping us investigate? That fact proves Trump had no pure motive and you know it because I keep mentioning it and you ignore it. How does announcing a non-existant investigation of the Bidens help us sort out legal issues?

That wasn't the subject of the wistleblower complaint. That wasn't the subject of the Schiff parody and other parts of his clown show. That was the subject of the presentation to the senate. It wasn't the argument you made elsewhere in this thread. And most importantly, it wasn't the complete basis for impeachment article one.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That wasn't the subject of the wistleblower complaint. That wasn't the subject of the Schiff parody and other parts of his clown show. That was the subject of the presentation to the senate. It wasn't the argument you made elsewhere in this thread. And most importantly, it wasn't the complete basis for impeachment article one.

I made that argument in this thread as far back as the 23rd.

Anybody paying close attention to the impeachment trial?

 

[UncleMark]

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into figuring out why COH thinks this impeachment is special, when you already know damn well the answer is "Because I said so."

And he said so because Republican.

 

[UncleMark]

It is why I brought up the censure idea twice. I do not want presidents making that call. The GOP has just guaranteed that is SOP from now on. That point is why I am frustrated in talking with CO. I cannot believe he WANTS presidents to routinely lean on allies for election help,

Why wouldn't GOP Senators fear reprisal from Trump for voting for censure any more than voting for removal?

 

[Digressions]

That wasn't the subject of the wistleblower complaint. That wasn't the subject of the Schiff parody and other parts of his clown show. That was the subject of the presentation to the senate. It wasn't the argument you made elsewhere in this thread. And most importantly, it wasn't the complete basis for impeachment article one.

This post is important because it demonstrates that you're more interested in winning an argument for your team, than you are in seeking knowledge and finding the truth. The truth is the truth, despite whether or when, Marvin or anyone else introduces it into the discussion.

 

[UncleMark]

This post is important because it demonstrates that you're more interested in winning an argument for your team, than you are in seeking knowledge and finding the truth. The truth is the truth, despite whether or when, Marvin or anyone else introduces it into the discussion.

It's all about scoring points.

 

[Lucy01]

It's all about scoring points.

No, It’s about how Trump is exposing the politicians and how they steal money though their kids and phony book deals!

 

[UncleMark]

No, It’s about how Trump is exposing the politicians and how they steal money though their kids and phony book deals!

Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

This post is important because it demonstrates that you're more interested in winning an argument for your team, than you are in seeking knowledge and finding the truth. The truth is the truth, despite whether or when, Marvin or anyone else introduces it into the discussion.

You are kinda on the right track here. Finding "truth" is seldom my objective. I'd rather explore how to apply the truth and what truth means in a given situation. As you should know by now, I'm seldom interested in getting to "right" or "wrong". There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether Trump should be impeached over the "truth" as many contend. Those who want to frame everything in terms of "right and wrong" or "truth" are usually pretty weak thinkers, often engage in name calling and other arguments directed to people (posters), and won't engage in critical thinking and maieutics which flows therefrom.

 

[UncleMark]

You are kinda on the right track here. Finding "truth" is seldom my objective. I'd rather explore how to apply the truth and what truth means in a given situation. As you should know by now, I'm seldom interested in getting to "right" or "wrong". There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether Trump should be impeached over the "truth" as many contend. Those who want to frame everything in terms of "right and wrong" or "truth" are usually pretty weak thinkers, often engage in name calling and other arguments directed to people (posters), and won't engage in critical thinking and maieutics which flows therefrom.

Shorter COH: There is no right or wrong and truth doesn't matter.

 

[Digressions]

You are kinda on the right track here. Finding "truth" is seldom my objective. I'd rather explore how to apply the truth and what truth means in a given situation. As you should know by now, I'm seldom interested in getting to "right" or "wrong". There is no right or wrong answer to the question of whether Trump should be impeached over the "truth" as many contend. Those who want to frame everything in terms of "right and wrong" or "truth" are usually pretty weak thinkers, often engage in name calling and other arguments directed to people (posters), and won't engage in critical thinking and maieutics which flows therefrom.

Agreed. But if the defense, judge, and jury are in your own head, and you refuse to acknowledge truth as fact, and fact as truth, the prosecution is going to get tired of going around in circles and eventually call bullshit, bullshit.

I'm not trying to be mean. I appreciate where you're coming from wrt Socratic method, and critical thinking. But at some point there needs to be a basic foundation of truth from which to grow the argument.

For example, in the post I previously replied to, the fact that the whistleblower and Schiff's parody didn't mention Marvin's fact about Trump not wanting an investigation is totally irrelevant. In fact, it was chronologically impossible because Marvin's fact was revealed during Sondland's testimony, which came after the WB and the parody.

So either you're ignorant of the facts(which I don't believe), or you're mudding the waters(aka posting in bad faith). Even more, nothing you posted has anything to do with Marvin's ultimate point, which destroys the Republican talking point that Trump cared about corruption. IOW, why should anyone engage you on the shape of the Earth, when you refuse to concede the sky is blue?