Bolten says trump wanted the aid frozen until he had answers to inquires sought

[MaxVel]

Using the matrix you outline here:

Unless I'm mistaken, I've only seen you -- in my time back here -- go after Jim and myself in this manner. The last month or so, only Jim. So your apology

Neither an apology nor a defense.

is that you're gettin' on Jim because he's in the first group (fair-minded)

Nope.

but you're chiding him for appealing to others using harsh and derogatory language ... by calling him a "crybully", effectively using the same tactic?

Nope, again. Pointing out that it makes no sense to claim something is an observation of fact that anyone should accept while framing it with insults in such a way that people who have different politics aren't going to accept it, and are going to feel insulted. And then going on to complain about a negative response, all the while holding oneself an one's views up as the only rational and moral response.

Prod and poke a classmate until they can take it no longer, and punch you in the arm, then "Teacher, he hit me!" = Crybully

Even if I've got the matrix wrong and you're putting Jim in the third group, it's a completely hypocritical stance. Might need some tweaking.

Personal attacks aside (thanks for the pro tip, Charles), it's irrelevant. (1) Either my comments above are correct, or they are not, any personal hypocrisy on my part is irrelevant.

(2) I (unlike Ox, and to an extent, you) make no claims to the moral conscience of the board.

No MM. Just disgusted that my gut feel about where you and others actually stand on these issues was correct. You have day after day, week after week, month after month, abandoned all moral sense in support of this president. You have supported him in every evil thing he has done, and you have made excuses for every law he's broken. And now, when it is absolutely clear that he did indeed coerce Ukraine and try to enlist them to interfere with our elections, you are still making up stories, pretending there is some doubt that could justify continuing to defend him, to the point you are willing to smear the names of moral, upright men with the courage to stand up to your idol. I don't understand it, but I know it is wrong. So you can call me all the derogatory names you want, but I'm not the one rejoicing in the smearing a courageous moral man, a man who though courage and bravery in the face of unthinkable danger earned a purple heart, and who has the courage to take the bile of people like you for the good of his country.

Apart from that, I'll fully agree that people can tone it down ... but Jim is pretty far from the person to start with, in that regard.

I don't bother addressing such observations to people towards whom I have a well-founded and long-standing lack of respect. Hence I comment to Ox, and to you, but not to some others. Feel free to talk to Ox about his over the top accusations, posted above. Or you could just carry on, like most, skipping over the excesses of people who support your views.

And it'd be worthwhile to get a full grasp of Trump's conduct and the ensuing impeachment proceedings before coming down on people for getting frustrated. An example: it was only months ago that several folks here were arguing incessantly that Trump did not link his "favor" on the July 25 phone call to Biden, only to the DNC server conspiracy. These days? That argument is gone -- and not only gone, Trump's request to investigate Biden is being celebrated as good governance and completely legitimate.

That's playing in a big field of bad faith, one where the goalposts keep moving back, and back, and back because the core argument is that Trump cannot legitimately be impeached. Folks here have argued in the past months that 1) The President can't be criminally charged while in office, 2) Congress does not have the ability to investigate potential crimes and 3) The President cannot be impeached except for criminal behavior. Effectively, the President cannot be impeached.

There are better places to direct our tut-tutting than at people calling out that sort of nonsense bad faith for what it is.

--Sam

This is why you're in group three, Sam. You've neatly summarised the changes (so you claim) in arguments over a period of months, of some unnamed posters, and asserted / assumed that they are acting in 'bad faith'.

(1) That implies a lack of integrity on their part, is uncharitable, and assumes that (a) they actually have changed their arguments; (b) they had no new data or good reasons to change said arguments.

(2) By not naming people you attack pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with you on the impeachment - you imply that they are all acting in bad faith - i.e. morally and intellectually dishonest, while you are acting in good faith, and are both factually correct and morally upright.

So you've made a moral issue of a disagreement / differing interpretation of facts, with people who hold a different explanation of the facts not just factually wrong, but immoral. That's a great way to harden people in their positions, and stroke your own ego. If they do change their position, it's because they're evil scum who shouldn't be trusted, not because they realised they were wrong about something. It's also an attempt at manipulating people - 'agree with this or you get called immoral' or intimidating them into agreement / silence. It's of a piece with cries of 'racist', 'white supremacist' 'homophobe' and so on.

Frankly, it's disgusting, it's just that you think you're more moral and smarter than most here, so justify it to yourself, and you use this tactic more subtly than maniacs like JimL, or over-invested people like oxmixmudd.


I find the best posters on the 'I don't yet hate Trump' side to be calmer and less manipulative than the anti-Trump side. They might not get everything right, but they're not trying to bully everyone who doesn't immediately agree with their interpretation of things.

[oxmixmudd]

Money quote from Jim Jordan: "Someone telling the New York Times what John Bolton's draft manuscript supposedly says doesn't change the underlying facts!"

You are confusing dollars and sense. John Bolton telling the senate, however, does change the underlying facts (only in that we have first hand direct testimony of what we have a myriad instances of second hand or inferred). And if they refuse to call him at this point, EVERYONE (except those that have sworn fielty to Trump like yourself) will know this is nothing more than a sham. Most of us know it already, but there are some feeding on the Conservative Pablum that still think maybe the senate is doing the right thing. Not calling Bolton after this leak coupled with the fact Bolton has not denied it puts the GOP Senate in the category of a clan of crooks and thieves covering up the bad deeds of their Patriarch.

[oxmixmudd]

Not a "fact". That's a faulty premise.

That would be the debate of course. There is not real world example where the body of evidence that exists against Trump does not lead directly to guilt. I would be willing to wager people have gotten life for less.

Just this week video and audio evidence has confirmed Trump lied about knowing Lev Parnas. Massively so. Donald Trump has lied about the timing of events. The content of calls. The content of conversations, whether he ordered the money put on holds and so on and so on. He has lied about the Ukraine scandal from the very beginning and continuously. And almost all of those lies have been shown to be exactly that - lies.

This is well beyond the point when Lance Armstrong caved with his Oprah Interview.

There is no rational reason to believe Donald Trump did not try to coerce Ukraine for personal gain and illegally halt payment of legally allocated congressional funds to do it. And if you still believe he's not guilty, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell that you might be interested in. You would be among the most gullible people that ever lived, except for the fact your intelligence or savvy are not in question here, you've just hitch your wagon to the wrong train and you NEED for Trump not to be guilty or else even you will know you've been played for a fool by a master con.

Every president does it, "lawfully" or not. Obama just got through doing it.

In my perfect world, Ukraine wouldn't be getting any money from US taxpayers - period.

You keep drinkin' that Conservative swill. But I warn you, the hangover after's a real you know what.

[lilpixieofterror]

You are confusing dollars and sense. John Bolton telling the senate, however, does change the underlying facts (only in that we have first hand direct testimony of what we have a myriad instances of second hand or inferred). And if they refuse to call him at this point, EVERYONE (except those that have sworn fielty to Trump like yourself) will know this is nothing more than a sham. Most of us know it already, but there are some feeding on the Conservative Pablum that still think maybe the senate is doing the right thing. Not calling Bolton after this leak coupled with the fact Bolton has not denied it puts the GOP Senate in the category of a clan of crooks and thieves covering up the bad deeds of their Patriarch.

More of:

“Anyone that disagrees with me is morally corrupt.”

Selective leaks, that leak out of context quotes to try to influence people, should automatically be suspect, but anyone that disagrees with the morally upright and perfect Jim, is not a ‘true Christian’, right?

[oxmixmudd]

More of:

“Anyone that disagrees with me is morally corrupt.”

Selective leaks, that leak out of context quotes to try to influence people, should automatically be suspect, but anyone that disagrees with the morally upright and perfect Jim, is not a ‘true Christian’, right?

Flaming is against forum rules.

You have so far continuously been posting replies to me whose only purpose is to insult and demean.

"Flaming is the online act of posting insults, often laced with profanity or other offensive language on social networking sites."


Come up with something of substance please.

[lilpixieofterror]

Flaming is against forum rules.

You have so far continuously been posting replies to me whose only purpose is to insult and demean.

"Flaming is the online act of posting insults, often laced with profanity or other offensive language on social networking sites."


Come up with something of substance please.

More of the cry bullying I see:

“You’re flaming me!!!!”

Says the man calling his opponents morally corrupt, not ‘true Christians’, and being a total hypocrite.

Why is it okay for you to flame anyone not agreeing with you, but nobody else can return the favor? This is what you deserve, log eye.

[Ronson]

That would be the debate of course. There is not real world example where the body of evidence that exists against Trump does not lead directly to guilt. I would be willing to wager people have gotten life for less.

Just this week video and audio evidence has confirmed Trump lied about knowing Lev Parnas. Massively so. Donald Trump has lied about the timing of events. The content of calls. The content of conversations, whether he ordered the money put on holds and so on and so on. He has lied about the Ukraine scandal from the very beginning and continuously. And almost all of those lies have been shown to be exactly that - lies.

Every president lies. They should all be impeached.

This is well beyond the point when Lance Armstrong caved with his Oprah Interview.

There is no rational reason to believe Donald Trump did not try to coerce Ukraine for personal gain and illegally halt payment of legally allocated congressional funds to do it. And if you still believe he's not guilty, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell that you might be interested in. You would be among the most gullible people that ever lived, except for the fact your intelligence or savvy are not in question here, you've just hitch your wagon to the wrong train and you NEED for Trump not to be guilty or else even you will know you've been played for a fool by a master con.

As I said, if Trump is guilty then so is Obama. They both held up Ukraine assistance on conditions. In fact, Congress authorized "lethal" aid to Ukraine and Obama refused to send it. It wasn't until Trump got into office that it was sent.

Democrats (in conjunction with a sympathetic media) have drummed it into the heads of the willing to believe Trump is destroying the world. It's not happening. Or that Trump is committing every felony under the sun. It's not happening.

You keep drinkin' that Conservative swill. But I warn you, the hangover after's a real you know what.

Libertarians can see both sides. The Kool Aid is on the Left lately.

[oxmixmudd]

Every president lies. They should all be impeached.

Your attempt at Reductio ad absurdum fails miserably here.

1) I am not using lying as justification for impeachment. The acts he is lying about are the justification for impeachment.
2) His continuous lying does however point out the absurdity of trusting his claims the witnesses we've heard are lying and give a strong indication he is guilty.
3) Trump's lying is or borders on the pathological unlike that of other presidents.

[Sparko]

So, let's assume Trump did mean to withhold the aid until Ukraine investigated Biden.

How is that impeachable, but Biden gets away with doing the exact same thing when he was VP, withholding money until Ukraine fired the investigator? Which he actually bragged about on video so we have it in his own words. AND he implicates Obama in the extortion, telling Ukraine to call Obama for confirmation if they didn't think he had the authority.

[also notice that Biden also is saying that the President has the authority to withhold funds, not congress]

Biden: I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...rosecutor.html

And Trump never actually went through with withholding the aid and Ukraine never did investigate Biden, while Biden's extortion actually worked and Ukraine caved to his demands.

[oxmixmudd]

So, let's assume Trump did mean to withhold the aid until Ukraine investigated Biden.

How is that impeachable, but Biden gets away with doing the exact same thing when he was VP, withholding money until Ukraine fired the investigator? Which he actually bragged about on video so we have it in his own words. AND he implicates Obama in the extortion, telling Ukraine to call Obama for confirmation if they didn't think he had the authority.

[also notice that Biden also is saying that the President has the authority to withhold funds, not congress]

Biden: I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.

(Laughter.)

I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...rosecutor.html

And Trump never actually went through with withholding the aid and Ukraine never did investigate Biden, while Biden's extortion actually worked and Ukraine caved to his demands.

Yeah - this is the 'next phase' of the defense strategy for Trump.

He isn't lying ... oops he IS lying!
He isn't guilty ... oops he IS guilty!
It's no big deal after all ...

And the hard reality is ... is IS a big deal after all!

[Mountain Man]

John Bolton telling the senate, however, does change the underlying facts...

No it doesn't. What can Bolton say that will change the underlying facts? Assuming Trump told Bolton what the New York Times claims he did, that message was apparently never passed on to other people in the Trump administration, and it was never delivered to Ukrainian officials who have repeatedly said they were never pressured and were never told that the release of aid was conditioned on their willingness to begin investigations.

Of course this is assuming that the New York Times "sources say" hit-piece is even accurate.

And if they refuse to call him at this point, EVERYONE ...* will know this is nothing more than a sham.

And everyone knows that's a begged question.



* For the record, I cut out your gratuitous and unprovoked insult. As you say, flaming is against forum rules. Wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite.

[oxmixmudd]

As I said, if Trump is guilty then so is Obama. They both held up Ukraine assistance on conditions. In fact, Congress authorized "lethal" aid to Ukraine and Obama refused to send it. It wasn't until Trump got into office that it was sent.

You are - again - way over generalizing.

'Conditions' == national security interest - It is ok
'Condiction' == personal gain contrary to national security interest - it is NOT ok.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah - this is the 'next phase' of the defense strategy for Trump.

He isn't lying ... oops he IS lying!
He isn't guilty ... oops he IS guilty!
It's no big deal after all ...

And the hard reality is ... is IS a big deal after all!

“Anyone that disagrees with me is immoral, an idiot, or both!”

Still trying to bully people into agreeing with you? Still unable to answer why it’s perfectly acceptable for you to flame people and attack them, but nobody else can? Maybe if you want substance you should try giving substance yourself? Just saying.

[Ronson]

You are - again - way over generalizing.

'Conditions' == national security interest - It is ok
'Condiction' == personal gain contrary to national security interest - it is NOT ok.

An investigation of Hunter Biden is somehow personal gain? An investigation into possible influence peddling by his father is personal gain? The subject is an investigation. And Ukraine prosecutors were trying to get an investigation going into Hunter and Burisma before Joe Biden announced his candidacy (Trump was late to the game).

So your arguments sound like partisan incredulity to me.
I suppose the Biden family - and possibly all Democrats - are off limits for investigation according to Democrats.

[demi-conservative]

Words to the wise,

1. Bolton submitted this book to both the NSC and the White House a month ago, so this sort of last minute theater was easily foreseeable, and countermoves prepared. Do enjoy the theatre.

2. Maggie Haberman, one author of the NYT article, added a disclaimer (but only on Twitter, of course)

Bolton left the White House on terrible terms and was not always seen as a reliable narrator by colleagues. The he said/he said of him versus Trump on tying the aid to investigations is testing that in a pronounced way.
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT