Trump sending lethal arms to Ukraine came at a price as they were holding a key witness in the Russia probe who was then released and allowed to leave so Mueller could not get access to him. Ukraine was desperate so they had to chose a path they did not want to follow but that was the only way they could get anything from the Trump administration:
That's a possibility but we haven't seen that yet.
I've got to confess as to having doubts about the claim that there is no record anywhere of what was said in that meeting. That could be the case but it is difficult to imagine a President Trump who would not want to have this record available to show how he handled Putin for historians or for his memoirs.
Prove it.
Prove it.
That's not my point. You apply rigorous logic to the statements others make here and demand they prove or support their points. That's good. You don't apply the same rigor to yourself. That's hypocritical. That's bad-faith posting.
yes
Not necessarily.--I learned years ago this is usually a waste of time.
Some posts have more rigor than others.
You don't understand maieutics if you think this is true. Pursuing an argument doesn't necessarily mean I think I am right, but it does mean that I am testing an opinion or other argument for which there is no clear right or wrong. I usually continue to split hairs or drill down until I am satisfied with the end result. Most posters here start in with the name calling and snarks immediately or after the first or second exchange. I plead guilty to not seeing right and wrong in places where other posters come to that end without much thought instead using emotion and reaction to arrive at a "right" answer.
LOL. Can you backpedal that tandem like that too?
Maieutics is another example of your (apparent?) bad-faith posting, for one simple reason, others here, myself included, don't get the impression you're engaging in any dialogue to arrive at some clarification, truth, or understanding. Instead, you lead the conversation into dead-ends, circles, and other non-maieutic misdirections. I gather you're saying that's not your intention. You could have fooled a whole lot of us. Think of it as good-faith versus bad-faith maieutics. In legal think, it's a question of intent. You seem intent on trolling rather than actually engaging in collegial maieutics.
With his Strzok qualifier, he's trying to backpedal only the back half of the tandem...
Nope, but no need to repeat myself. I expected a dodge from you. I gave you a concrete example above. It stands as does my point, and it has nothing to do with ending anything.
Trump would have been a pin cushion for McCarthy.Hmm....
What happens next is unknowable. But for the president’s supporters to double down in the face of mounting evidence that the president himself is, in some way, compromised by our most dedicated enemy, while making excuses for his secretive behavior by attacking the men and women of the FBI, is a road so dark that perhaps even Joseph McCarthy would not have dared walk it.
Nichols is about 100x smarter than I.... and has forgotten more about Russia/Soviet Union than I've ever even considered to read.
Nah, Roy Cohn would have somehow worked it out for him after all he was the Trump family attorney and Joe McCarthy depended on him for his legal counsel. Roy had no problem with conflicts of interest and Trump even with all his Russian connections would still good as long as Fred Trump kept paying Roy.
I loved their house made sausage. First time we went was after dark. Off duty cops escorted us to and from the parking lot. Don’t know if that was really necessary or just intended to add to the mob-like atmosphere.
Have you been to the original Arthur Bryant’s? Best BBQ on the planet.
I loved their house made sausage. First time we went was after dark. Off duty cops escorted us to and from the parking lot. Don’t know if that was really necessary or just intended to add to the mob-like atmosphere.
Have you been to the original Arthur Bryant’s? Best BBQ on the planet.
