Anybody paying close attention to the impeachment trial?

[CO. Hoosier]

A pretty clear bright line is when it involves tampering with federal elections.

Tampering how? The Ukrainian ambassador, presumably with approval of his government, took an anti-Trump position in 2016 and wrote an op ed about that. Is that tampering with an election? The Russians support the anti-fracking political position here. Is that indirect tampering in favor of candidates who hold similar views? There has been some comment about attacks Russians and other foreigners have made on our online systems, which attacks are unsuccessful. Is that tampering?

I agree that tampering with vote counts is serious business. There is no evidence of foreign entities doing that, but there is some evidence that domestic political operatives have.

Putting this into the context of abuse of power, Schiff, Nadler, and maybe other Democrats have already cast a shadow over the 2020 election setting the stage for claiming that the 2020 results can’t be trusted if Trump wins. Is that tampering? I’d say yes. Is that an abuse of their power. Again, yes. As far as Trump and Ukraine is concerned, all the facts supporting 2020 tampering allegations didn’t happen and are now moot. Nothing new has been shown. So far no tampering.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think that can be put on the table if you were to ever admit you were wrong...... about anything. Until then..... no...... they can’t be removed.

Well this is the problem. I don’t post here to eventually get to right or wrong. I think in terms of agree or disagree. I don’t think the Socratic method is intended to get to right/wrong. Instead it’s intended to test strengths and weaknesses of arguments. While I don’t always post in this manner, I try to most of the time. Those who usually post about posters or yack about bad faith show me considerable intellectual laziness if not intellectual deficits.

 

[IUclover]

As far as Trump and Ukraine is concerned, all the facts supporting 2020 tampering allegations didn’t happen and are now moot. Nothing new has been shown. So far no tampering.

Why did Trump illegally hold aid and condition the release of "all aid" on the basis that Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into the Biden's? Why the Biden's, especially after the intelligence agencies debunked the conspiracy theory? Is your argument that Biden hasn't won the nomination, therefore it's not tampering (yet)?

One of the main Repub arguments is that Trump cares about corruption and taxpayer dollars. Do you honestly believe Trump cares about either?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Well this is the problem. I don’t post here to eventually get to right or wrong. I think in terms of agree or disagree. I don’t think the Socratic method is intended to get to right/wrong. Instead it’s intended to test strengths and weaknesses of arguments. While I don’t always post in this manner, I try to most of the time. Those who usually post about posters or yack about bad faith show me considerable intellectual laziness if not intellectual deficits.

So when is the last time you agreed with a position to which you didn’t previously agree based on what you learned here? I don’t peruse daily but I have you at “never.”

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Tampering how? The Ukrainian ambassador, presumably with approval of his government, took an anti-Trump position in 2016 and wrote an op ed about that. Is that tampering with an election? The Russians support the anti-fracking political position here. Is that indirect tampering in favor of candidates who hold similar views? There has been some comment about attacks Russians and other foreigners have made on our online systems, which attacks are unsuccessful. Is that tampering?

I agree that tampering with vote counts is serious business. There is no evidence of foreign entities doing that, but there is some evidence that domestic political operatives have.

Putting this into the context of abuse of power, Schiff, Nadler, and maybe other Democrats have already cast a shadow over the 2020 election setting the stage for claiming that the 2020 results can’t be trusted if Trump wins. Is that tampering? I’d say yes. Is that an abuse of their power. Again, yes. As far as Trump and Ukraine is concerned, all the facts supporting 2020 tampering allegations didn’t happen and are now moot. Nothing new has been shown. So far no tampering.

Withholding aid to secure opposition research on a political opponent is forcing that government into tampering, period. To disagree is to be completely intellectually dishonest even for the most partisan hack.

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph and I’ll not defend such cavalier statements about not trusting results.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Why did Trump illegally hold aid and condition the release of "all aid" on the basis that Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into the Biden's? Why the Biden's, especially after the intelligence agencies debunked the conspiracy theory? Is your argument that Biden hasn't won the nomination, therefore it's not tampering (yet)?

One of the main Repub arguments is that Trump cares about corruption and taxpayer dollars. Do you honestly believe Trump cares about either?

Withholding aid to secure opposition research on a political opponent is forcing that government into tampering, period. To disagree is to be completely intellectually dishonest even for the most partisan hack.

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph and I’ll not defend such cavalier statements about not trusting results.

The aid was provided and as far as I know, no investigation happened. The Ukrainian president said he never felt pressured to conduct an investigation.

This “digging up dirt” idea is a false Democratic talking point. Trump never said that. In fact, Trump had no idea what an investigation would show. As Democrats are fond of saying “Biden didn’t do anything wrong”.

 

[zeke4ahs]

The aid was provided and as far as I know, no investigation happened. The Ukrainian president said he never felt pressured to conduct an investigation.

This “digging up dirt” idea is a false Democratic talking point. Trump never said that. In fact, Trump had no idea what an investigation would show. As Democrats are fond of saying “Biden didn’t do anything wrong”.

The funds were provided because he was busted. The day after the whistleblower came forward. And Trump did say that repeatedly , and many people have testified to it, as would others if Trump would allow them to.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The aid was provided and as far as I know, no investigation happened. The Ukrainian president said he never felt pressured to conduct an investigation.

This “digging up dirt” idea is a false Democratic talking point. Trump never said that. In fact, Trump had no idea what an investigation would show. As Democrats are fond of saying “Biden didn’t do anything wrong”.

Oh my dear

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So when is the last time you agreed with a position to which you didn’t previously agree based on what you learned here? I don’t peruse daily but I have you at “never.”

Seldom. A better question would be how often do in depth discussions happen before the ad hominems and name calling flow? Or “moving the goal posts” becomes the position? Seldom. I do remember discussions with a few posters where we have come into clarity through agreement and agreement to disagree.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The funds were provided because he was busted. The day after the whistleblower came forward. And Trump did say that repeatedly , and many people have testified to it, as would others if Trump would allow them to.

Right. So now we must impeach within months before the election because these facts have put 2020 election in jeopardy? That is Schiff’s and Nadler’s claim.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Seldom. A better question would be how often do in depth discussions happen before the ad hominems and name calling flow? Or “moving the goal posts” becomes the position? Seldom. I do remember discussions with a few posters where we have come into clarity through agreement and agreement to disagree.

It’s a circular discussion. If you never accept and learn from others and instead nearly always refuse to consider others opinions then why bother? And I say this with peace and love: you give the appearance of moving the goalposts on nearly every debate once counter arguments that would damage your take are introduced and supported. Do with that what you will. I’m just being honest.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This “digging up dirt” idea is a false Democratic talking point. Trump never said that. In fact, Trump had no idea what an investigation would show. As Democrats are fond of saying “Biden didn’t do anything wrong”.

If we believe the testimony, Trump only wanted an investigation announced. He did not care what it would show, as he never planned on using the results.

We know he was not worried about corruption. Congress ordered State and Defense to certify Ukraine on corruption since 2016. That certification was completed in the spring. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-ukraine-corruption-military-aid-trump-zelensky.amp

He was clearly hoping the announcement of an investigation would knock Biden out of the primary. After which point, there is no need for an investigation into anything.

Imagine FDR telling Churchill that he would love to help Churchill against the Nazis, all Winston has to do is announce they are investigating GOP assistance to Hitler.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It’s a circular discussion. If you never accept and learn from others and instead nearly always refuse to consider others opinions then why bother? And I say this with peace and love: you give the appearance of moving the goalposts on nearly every debate once counter arguments that would damage your take are introduced and supported. Do with that what you will. I’m just being honest.

Yeah, I admit to splitting hairs and focusing on . . . . . Ahem. . . .fine nuance. Some might consider that moving the goal posts. I think goal posts are often irrelevant. I value the journey not the destination.

 

[tooold4]

From a most conservative source, the president's use of EP wanders into the realm of SOP rather than using it for actual national security. Protection of the president from criticism is not a form of national security. What little info that has been leaked is cause for questions that need to be answered, those questions become more urgent when said president is so easy with a lie and following the advice of lawyers hides his dealings in secure, password protected servers.
And before we begin the whatabouts the comparison is between rarely and SOP.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/28/susan-rice-obama-put-call-transcripts-on-top-secret-server-too/

 

[hoot1]

Starting with his income taxes and ending with the way he runs the executive branch why would anyone think Donald Trump is willing to let anyone or anything pry into the way he runs things ?

Bottom line, our economy is the best in the history of the world thanks to me, so get off my back with partisan hoaxes and witch hunts..

 

[Stuffshot]

Well this is the problem. I don’t post here to eventually get to right or wrong. I think in terms of agree or disagree. I don’t think the Socratic method is intended to get to right/wrong. Instead it’s intended to test strengths and weaknesses of arguments. While I don’t always post in this manner, I try to most of the time. Those who usually post about posters or yack about bad faith show me considerable intellectual laziness if not intellectual deficits.

You wrote, "I don’t post here to eventually get to right or wrong."

I respond, "No kidding."

 

[Bill4411]

Tampering how? The Ukrainian ambassador, presumably with approval of his government, took an anti-Trump position in 2016 and wrote an op ed about that. Is that tampering with an election? The Russians support the anti-fracking political position here. Is that indirect tampering in favor of candidates who hold similar views? There has been some comment about attacks Russians and other foreigners have made on our online systems, which attacks are unsuccessful. Is that tampering?

I agree that tampering with vote counts is serious business. There is no evidence of foreign entities doing that, but there is some evidence that domestic political operatives have.

Putting this into the context of abuse of power, Schiff, Nadler, and maybe other Democrats have already cast a shadow over the 2020 election setting the stage for claiming that the 2020 results can’t be trusted if Trump wins. Is that tampering? I’d say yes. Is that an abuse of their power. Again, yes. As far as Trump and Ukraine is concerned, all the facts supporting 2020 tampering allegations didn’t happen and are now moot. Nothing new has been shown. So far no tampering.

What anti-Trump position did the Ukrainian Ambassador take in 2016 that warranted how she was treated? Where is the op ed you reference so we can see how disloyal she was.

 

[UncleMark]

What anti-Trump position did the Ukrainian Ambassador take in 2016 that warranted how she was treated? Where is the op ed you reference so we can see how disloyal she was.

He's referring to the Ukrainian ambassador to the US, who wrote an op-ed critical of then candidate Trump after Trump made some really stupid policy statement about Ukraine and Russia (the details of which I don't recall and am too lazy to look up). The attempt to claim this is an equivalent "meddling in our elections" is just another laughable Republican talking point pushed by Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

 

[Stuffshot]

Withholding aid to secure opposition research on a political opponent is forcing that government into tampering, period. To disagree is to be completely intellectually dishonest even for the most partisan hack.

I don’t disagree with your last paragraph and I’ll not defend such cavalier statements about not trusting results.

Your point is valid and I'm take it one step further.

What Trump did was certainly an attempt to "secure opposition research" against Biden. But it's doubtless that an investigation by a foreign government like that would also have demanded much of Joe Biden's personal time (meeting with lawyers, answering questions, reviewing documents, producing documents, etc. etc. etc.) reducing his availability to campaign, thus diminishing his ability to be a political threat to Trump. Legal bills for those things would also cut into Biden's resources and further distract his candidacy. It was intended to do more than just uncover dirt -- it was intended to waste Biden's time and money.

Along with this, Trump and his surrogates used the pulpit of the Presidency to freely publicize a possible Ukrainian investigation against Biden, gaining false credence for the notion by connecting it to both the U.S. Presidency and the Ukrainian government. This publicity too would reduce Biden's effectiveness as a political threat to Trump -- all made possible by Trump's use of the Presidential powers.

Also, it goes without saying that Biden would have to spend millions defending against the actions of the Ukrainian government. Taking millions from Biden can't possibly help him be bigger political threat to Trump.

It was never solely about just getting "research" on Biden.

 

[UncleMark]

Oh my dear

Frightening or disgusting. I can't decide.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Right. So now we must impeach within months before the election because these facts have put 2020 election in jeopardy? That is Schiff’s and Nadler’s claim.

It needs to be done because no one is above the law. And yes, he did indeed try to interfere with the election and of course he will continue to do the same. Does anyone honestly think this is the only thing he’s done ? This just happens to be the one where he got caught. Just like he did this right after the Muller testimony, if acquitted, he will continue to thumb his nose at the rule of law. Exactly as he has done his entire life.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

He's referring to the Ukrainian ambassador to the US, who wrote an op-ed critical of then candidate Trump after Trump made some really stupid policy statement about Ukraine and Russia (the details of which I don't recall and am too lazy to look up). The attempt to claim this is an equivalent "meddling in our elections" is just another laughable Republican talking point pushed by Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

The entire discussion of meddling is just another misdirection. It allows Republicans to say, "Well, nobody actually did any meddling, so let's all go home." The impeachable act Trump committed wasn't procuring meddling. Remember, his people didn't actually even care whether or not Zelensky investigated the Bidens. They simply wanted him to announce an investigation. He wanted Biden damaged publicly.

Meddling isn't the issue. The issue is that Trump performed an official act for the sole purpose of private political gain. As I mentioned in the other thread, this is the essential reason impeachment was invented in the first place. When the King's ministers used their office to pursue personal interests to the detriment of the kingdom, Parliament asserted they had a right to demand their removal (and, originally, punishment, although the Founders changed that to prevent abuse of the process).

 

[ButHerEmails]

If we believe the testimony, Trump only wanted an investigation announced. He did not care what it would show, as he never planned on using the results.

We know he was not worried about corruption. Congress ordered State and Defense to certify Ukraine on corruption since 2016. That certification was completed in the spring. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-ukraine-corruption-military-aid-trump-zelensky.amp

He was clearly hoping the announcement of an investigation would knock Biden out of the primary. After which point, there is no need for an investigation into anything.

Imagine FDR telling Churchill that he would love to help Churchill against the Nazis, all Winston has to do is announce they are investigating GOP assistance to Hitler.

This is exactly right. Trump only wanted the announcement of an investigation because Trump remembered Comey’s mere announcement of another investigation in Hillary’s emails likely swayed the election just enough for Trump to eke out a win. We all knew they wouldn’t find anything with Hillary’s emails and they never have. Again, the announcement of that investigation was enough. That’s all Trump wanted.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The Ukrainian ambassador, presumably with approval of his government, took an anti-Trump position in 2016 and wrote an op ed about that

Here is the op-ed. It is not particularly anti Trump. It does take issue with Trump's view on Crimea.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...assador-trumps-comments-send-wrong-message-to

 

[Bill4411]

This is exactly right. Trump only wanted the announcement of an investigation because Trump remembered Comey’s mere announcement of another investigation in Hillary’s emails likely swayed the election just enough for Trump to eke out a win. We all knew they wouldn’t find anything with Hillary’s emails and they never have. Again, the announcement of that investigation was enough. That’s all Trump wanted.

I think he wants Russia to regain control of Ukraine, too-all part of his original deal with Putin if you want to look at the bigger picture.

 

[Bill4411]

Here is the op-ed. It is not particularly anti Trump. It does take issue with Trump's view on Crimea.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...assador-trumps-comments-send-wrong-message-to

That’s the anti-Trump article he is talking about.. LOL.

 

[Ladoga]

Here is the op-ed. It is not particularly anti Trump. It does take issue with Trump's view on Crimea.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...assador-trumps-comments-send-wrong-message-to

All United States Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. An ambassador may be recalled (removed) at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. That removal by a President is not subject to review. Thus, any argument about why one such Ambassador might have been recalled is meaningless since no reason is ever required.

 

[UncleMark]

That’s the anti-Trump article he is talking about.. LOL.

Definitely election meddling. It would have been a mortal blow to any lesser candidate, but Trump was able to overcome this vicious attack.

 

[UncleMark]

All United States Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. An ambassador may be recalled (removed) at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. That removal by a President is not subject to review. Thus, any argument about why one such Ambassador might have been recalled is meaningless since no reason is ever required.

That was written by a Ukrainian, you moran.

 

[Ladoga]

That was written by a Ukrainian, you moran.

It was a general comment for your obviously badly need edification. It was not about anything written by anyone. It was a statement of the FACT of Ambassadorship for folks like you to understand when contemplating the issue of ambassadorship - any ambassadorship anywhere.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It was a general comment for your obviously badly need edification. It was not about anything written by anyone. It was a statement of the FACT of Ambassadorship for folks like you to understand when contemplating the issue of ambassadorship - any ambassadorship anywhere.

LOL.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

All United States Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. An ambassador may be recalled (removed) at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. That removal by a President is not subject to review. Thus, any argument about why one such Ambassador might have been recalled is meaningless since no reason is ever required.

My point had nothing to do with a US ambassador. CO mentioned the Ukrainian Ambassador writing an op ed. I linked the op ed.

 

[twenty02]

It was a general comment for your obviously badly need edification. It was not about anything written by anyone. It was a statement of the FACT of Ambassadorship for folks like you to understand when contemplating the issue of ambassadorship - any ambassadorship anywhere.

WTF are you even talking about?


Someone posted an oped written by the Ukranian ambassador to the US.... and you fumbled and bungled and mumbled out something about US Ambassadors serving at the pleasure of President?

Guessing as usual you don't even read the links before pontificating on them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

WTF are you even talking about?


Someone posted an oped written by the Ukranian ambassador to the US.... and you fumbled and bungled and mumbled out something about US Ambassadors serving at the pleasure of President?

Guessing as usual you don't even read the links before pontificating on them.

No one demonstrates aggressive ignorance quite like Ladoga.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

All United States Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. An ambassador may be recalled (removed) at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. That removal by a President is not subject to review. Thus, any argument about why one such Ambassador might have been recalled is meaningless since no reason is ever required.

While in a vacuum that is of course true, his reason for wanting to recall this ambassador who had served with distinction, and smear her name in the process, does speak to the larger intent he had. It's perspective. He's not being impeached for recalling the ambassador.

 

[IUXC68]

That was written by a Ukrainian, you moran.

Did you mean "moran" or "moron"? One is an Irish family name and the other is a description of a person with a low IQ.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

While in a vacuum that is of course true, his reason for wanting to recall this ambassador who had served with distinction, and smear her name in the process, does speak to the larger intent he had. It's perspective. He's not being impeached for recalling the ambassador.

Dude. Trolls. Feeding.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did you mean "moran" or "moron"? One is an Irish family name and the other is a description of a person with a low IQ.

Get a brain!

 

[tooold4]

All United States Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. An ambassador may be recalled (removed) at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. That removal by a President is not subject to review. Thus, any argument about why one such Ambassador might have been recalled is meaningless since no reason is ever required.

Of course that is the case, and well within the presidential prerogative. It is also a given that ambassadors undergo a vetting process and Senate approval. Please direct your attention to the Rudy and Lev sideshow and WTF was that all about?

 

[twenty02]

Did you mean "moran" or "moron"? One is an Irish family name and the other is a description of a person with a low IQ.