The Impeachment Trial

[JimL]

You're as wrong now about these events as you were about the date you believed Kupperman's suit was dismissed. My guess is you're confusing the actions of UK with the actions of the PGO of Ukraine, but knowing your track record with such factual details, who knows.

Not surprised you're confused, it's a complicated case. Zlochevsky's assets were actually siezed on Feb. 2 2015, they were then unseized on Dec. 25th 2015 because of a change in jurisdiction. The case was transfered from the PGO to NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and under NABU the siezure was reinstated on Feb. 4th 2016. That had nothing to do with the UK seizure of 23 million. Republicans confused the reinstatement of the siezure in Feb 4th 2016 with the original siezure in Feb 2nd 2015. So, Shokin was no longer on the case at that time and Biden had nothing to do with it.

[firstfloor]

McConnell's choice is to keep his own butt in power until they pry his cold dead fingers from the lectern. Pretty much the same with Aunt Nancy, Nadler, Schumer....

Let’s just be sure we are rooting for the good guys, and not the baddies, with their black hats and all; “ ‘mon the fish”.

[Cow Poke]

Not surprised you're confused, it's a complicated case. Zlochevsky's assets were actually siezed on Feb. 2 2015, they were then unseized on Dec. 25th 2015 because of a change in jurisdiction. The case was transfered from the PGO to NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, and under NABU the siezure was reinstated on Feb. 4th 2016. That had nothing to do with the UK seizure of 23 million. Republicans confused the reinstatement of the siezure in Feb 4th 2016 with the original siezure in Feb 2nd 2015. So, Shokin was no longer on the case at that time and Biden had nothing to do with it.

Kudos to you, Jim, for your persistence. You have successfully convinced me that I don't understand all I know about this. (Not sure you do, either, but A for effort)

[Mountain Man]

"We need Bolton to testify under oath to see if the New York Times is telling they truth!"



Some Senators have taken the much more sensible position that they would like to read the manuscript first to see if it's even worth the time to have Bolton testify.

[Cow Poke]

"We need Bolton to testify under oath to see if the New York Times is telling they truth!"



Some Senators have taken the much more sensible position that they would like to read the manuscript first to see if it's even worth the time to have Bolton testify.

Even some Dems have said that ---

If all it does is support the Dem's 'quid pro quo' charge, and
The Repubs still think that's not impeachable, then
there is nothing Bolton can say to move the needle.

[oxmixmudd]

"We need Bolton to testify under oath to see if the New York Times is telling they truth!"



Some Senators have taken the much more sensible position that they would like to read the manuscript first to see if it's even worth the time to have Bolton testify.

Since that manuscript will not be available till march, that is just an excuse. IT is also important that not merely the senators hear the testimony, but that the American people as a whole are made aware of its content.

This is, bottom line, just another sham dismissal of yet more testimony concerning Trumps actions in Ukraine. The clear difference is that this IS first hand testimony. Yet all that does is amplify the hypocrisy behind the excuses used. Because the rallying cry to this point has been, "there is no 1st hand testimony". Well now right here is 1st hand testimony. And there are others too that can indeed provide 1st hand testimony. But now the focus is on the excuse that he might be lying. And of course, even though we have multiple witnesses saying the same thing, and access to multiple 1st hand witnesses that could corroborate or cast doubt on Bolton's testimony, the truth is - there is NO testimony that will not be dismissed in favor of excusing this president.

You are just parroting excuses MM. And the real reason Bolton's testimony is not desired is that a veneer is wearing just a little to thin for comfort. The veneer that covers up the fact that the evidence doesn't matter and that the GOP will protect themselves and their political position by preserving the Trump presidency.

[Cow Poke]

Since that manuscript will not be available till march, that is just an excuse. IT is also important that not merely the senators hear the testimony, but that the American people as a whole are made aware of its content.

This is, bottom line, just another sham dismissal of yet more testimony concerning Trumps actions in Ukraine. The clear difference is that this IS first hand testimony. Yet all that does is amplify the hypocrisy behind the excuses use. Because the rallying cry to this point has been, "this is not 1st had testimony". Well now right here is 1st hand testimony. And there are others too that can indeed provide 1st hand testimony. But now the focus is on the excuse that he might be lying. And of course, even though we have multiple witnesses saying the same thing, and access to multiple 1st hand witnesses that could corroborate or cast doubt on Bolton's testimony, the truth is - there is NO testimony that will not be dismissed in favor of excusing this president.

You are just parroting excuses MM. And the real reason Bolton's testimony is not desired is that a veneer is wearing just a little to thin for comfort. The veneer that covers up the fact that the evidence doesn't matter and that the GOP will protect themselves and their political position by preserving the Trump presidency.

Do you ever wish the Dems had done a better job of investigating before passing (after suspicious delay) the Articles to the Senate?

[One Bad Pig]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42412[/ATTACH]

That's a fascinating assertion, but it fails the smell test. At best, it's ostensibly positions concurrently held by various Republicans - though I've yet to come across anyone saying something is impeachable but they don't care, or that something might have happened, and everyone I've seen who's said "Of course it happened. So what?" has said so in conjunction with saying "It happened, but it wasn't wrong."

Of course, I'm one of those odd people who tries to look at the facts before coming to a conclusion instead of toeing some party line or uncritically swallowing what supports my preconceived notions, so what do I know?

[oxmixmudd]

Do you ever wish the Dems had done a better job of investigating before passing (after suspicious delay) the Articles to the Senate?

There are a lot of things I wish were done differently. But the thing I wish the most is that Christians would understand that their witness of the reality of the new life that comes through faith in Jesus Christ is no less compromised by their unqualified support of Donald Trump than if they were seen whole heartedly participating in a wild, drunken orgy.

[firstfloor]

Even some Dems have said that ---

If all it does is support the Dem's 'quid pro quo' charge, and
The Repubs still think that's not impeachable, then
there is nothing Bolton can say to move the needle.

The Republican’s are pinning their hopes on Dershowitz’s hopeless argument - for an unconstitutional Presidency. I think there are a few that are not stupid enough to put that on the record, and those few Republicans, may save the day.

[Cow Poke]

There are a lot of things I wish were done differently.

But I asked you about that, specifically.

But the thing I wish the most is that Christians would understand that their witness of the reality of the new life that comes through faith in Jesus Christ is no less compromised by their unqualified support of Donald Trump than if they were seen whole heartedly participating in a wild, drunken orgy.

Um. Yeah, thanks for that...

A) My "support" for Trump is nowhere near "unqualified", and I'm the one asking you the question.
2) I think you're really reaching when you compare voicing political opinions with "whole heartedly participating in a wild, drunken orgy".

This is why conversation with you is so difficult at times, Jim --- it makes you APPEAR to be out of touch with reality.

[lilpixieofterror]

There are a lot of things I wish were done differently. But the thing I wish the most is that Christians would understand that their witness of the reality of the new life that comes through faith in Jesus Christ is no less compromised by their unqualified support of Donald Trump than if they were seen whole heartedly participating in a wild, drunken orgy.

“Dare to disagree with me and you’re an immoral monster.”

Thus why conversations with you are pointless. Questioning your fellow Christians faith, for not agreeing with your politics, is a serious accusation. Do you have any evidence that those who would rather vote for someone that at least makes promises not to destroy their lives vs those that actively try to destroy their lives, are unchristian like? You’re welcome to go live as a serf, if you so desire Jim. I’ll pass.

[Cow Poke]

The Republican’s are pinning their hopes on Dershowitz’s hopeless argument -

Meh... only in part

for an unconstitutional Presidency.

I think there are a few that are not stupid enough to put that on the record, and those few Republicans, may save the day.

I hear there are a few principled Democrats who are not stupid enough to be put on record as going along with this sham impeachment (as far as removal), and THAT may save the day.

[lilpixieofterror]

But I asked you about that, specifically.



Um. Yeah, thanks for that...

A) My "support" for Trump is nowhere near "unqualified", and I'm the one asking you the question.
2) I think you're really reaching when you compare voicing political opinions with "whole heartedly participating in a wild, drunken orgy".

This is why conversation with you is so difficult at times, Jim --- it makes you APPEAR to be out of touch with reality.

It’s classic either/or Jorge like thinking, “Agree with me or else you’re not a True Christian^TM!!!” isn’t the best way to win people over to your thinking. There’s a wide range of options between, ‘reject everything Trump says or does!’ and, ‘Trump can do anything and I’ll support him!’ My support is hardly in the ‘no matter what’ category’ in fact, most people are not. Jim does himself no favors and only is ensuring a Trump 2020 victory. The sad thing is, he can’t see it.

[oxmixmudd]

But I asked you about that, specifically.



Um. Yeah, thanks for that...

A) My "support" for Trump is nowhere near "unqualified", and I'm the one asking you the question.
2) I think you're really reaching when you compare voicing political opinions with "whole heartedly participating in a wild, drunken orgy".

This is why conversation with you is so difficult at times, Jim --- it makes you APPEAR to be out of touch with reality.

You support for Trump is qualified only in that when accused of giving unqualified support, you will claim you don't.

Your posts here almost universally support Trump. AFAICT, MM is the only one posting that supports Trump in a clearly more unqualified manner than yourself.

Appearing to 'be out of touch' with reality assumes you are 'in touch' with reality. What standard of measure would you propose should be used to evaluate 'in touch with reality'?