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

[Sam]

That was the other poster bringing that up. Sorry.



Planned by Zelensky? OK.



Joe Biden says he was Obama's "point man" in Kyiv. At the same time, his son is hired by a Kyiv gas company for $50,000 per month - in spite of his complete lack of experience in the energy business. Obviously Burisma thought it would get some favorable outcome from this. I'm certain Hunter wasn't providing $50,000-per-month legal advice. Perhaps he contributed to the board meetings "Uh, the best coke is from Colombia, man."



John Kerry had practically pitched a tent in Kyiv as well. He could have been point man - especially since his stepson, Chris Heinz, immediately disassociated himself with Hunter and notified the State Department of his disassociation. Obviously he knew there was something wrong.



There was smoke. Where there is smoke there is often fire. An investigation would have sought that fire - not condemned anyone.

Hunter Biden was hired to the board of Burisma in 2014; Burisma's intent was pretty obviously to show legitimacy and influence in Washington. We agree it was a throughly corrupt thing -- but people ought to agree that it's also completely normal among the DC class. Heck, Trump's own attorney Pam Bondi is a registered foreign agent for Qatar and a lobbyist for Kuwait.

There's a large difference between the corrupt practice of lobbying, often tied to nepotism, and the corrupt practice of abuse of power in government positions. People are trying to erase that distinction for partisan purpose.

--Sam

[Sam]

What are you suggesting? That Mueller didn't investigate a more serious "collusion" (your quote, not mine) but just sniffed around the edges of coordination?



"likely obstruction" isn't a crime. It is also subjective.



No, what fits the definition of "collusion" is the Steele dossier; foreign source and full of fabrications.



"Almost certainly". We have "likely" and "almost" and the opinion of Doug Collins to launch a prosecution here?

Okay, let's stop for a moment.

The Mueller investigation outlines in the first page why it didn't investigate "collusion": it's not a legal term and it's outside the scope of the SCO's mandate. It's been clearly reported since the start of the SCO investigation that DAG Rosenstein was limiting the scope of the investigation to a very narrow lane -- agree or disagree with the value of those limitations, that's what happened.

We say "likely obstruction" because, although the Mueller report details numerous obstructive acts that fulfill the requirements to bring criminal charges, the report also explained that OLC policy prevents the SCO from filing criminal charges against a sitting president. Since you can't make the charge and thereby give the President a process by which to clear his name, "likely obstruction" is as far as one can go, at least in the context of the report itself. Outside that, yeah, Trump obstructed justice by numerous acts, including ordering Don McGahn to make a false government record to conceal the order to fire Mueller.

Same deal with the Stone collusion and Trump's involvement in it: you can't charge the President as a co-conspirator so the terminology you use when discussing the case requires some circumspection. Just part of making a responsible explanation.

--Sam

[Sam]

Dang. I was sure I didn't need the sarcasm tags. I know I didn't go overboard in making it obvious but still I thought it was pretty durn blatant.

You understand making this argument really commits you to investigations of innumerable Trump actions, correct? The presumption of wrongdoing for Trump is many, many times greater than the presumption of wrongdoing for Biden.

--Sam

[JimL]

The phone call happened in June, and the whistleblower hullabaloo started months later. Between those times I don't recall any announcement. And if there was, you can thank the whistleblower for making the whole thing public.

No, the phone call happened in July, July 25th to be exact, and the whistleblower reported it on august 12th, not months later. Regardless, the opening of investigations aren't publicly announced, which is what Trump asked for of Zelensky.

Burisma is based in Ukraine. The US could have investigated but it would have needed Ukraine cooperation.

Trump wasn't asking for Ukraine to cooperate with the FBI, he was asking Zelensky to make a public announcement on CNN.

If the alleged crime happened in their country, why not?

For one thing there is no alleged crime, and for another we don't subject American Citizens to foreign justice.

[Tassman]

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!"

There's one way to find out, call Bolton to testify. Because what Bolton's "draft manuscript supposedly says" directly implicates the president.

[Mountain Man]

Interesting interview with John Bolton who unapologetically says he would be willing to lie in order to defend the "truth".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...me_continue=86

[MaxVel]

This is the same Bolton who's attorney was 'dismayed' when the House didn't follow through on a subpoena to get him to testify? And now everyone's going nuts over what he apparently claims in a new book?

What new bombshell revelation has Schiff et al got lined up for next week, when this one has fizzled? (You'll excuse my cynicism, I remember the Kavanaugh escapade)

[Mountain Man]

This is the same Bolton who's attorney was 'dismayed' when the House didn't follow through on a subpoena to get him to testify? And now everyone's going nuts over what he apparently claims in a new book?

And now the liberal narrative has become "We need to have Bolton testify under oath to see if the New York Times is telling the truth!"

It's pretty insane. This is exactly the kind of circus our Founding Fathers did not want when debating the impeachment clause.

[MaxVel]

Sorry, dude, but this is just a way for you to paper over how "discussions" usually work around here, which is moving the goalposts at a moment's notice with no repercussion.

Now I didn't mention specific names because the exact set of people making the argument is a bit fuzzy but, by memory, LPot, Mountain Man, CP, and Teal all made the earlier claim about no linkage between Trump's ask and Biden. Not one of them (nor anyone else who's been on the other side of this issue) has once come back around to acknowledge that and acknowledge that it significantly changes how one should view the call and the context surrounding it. The goalpost simply moved. Mountain Man and CP, especially, have been notable for their fact-challenged attacks against the impeachment process, both creating slight variations of the circular trap outlined above.

You can schoolmarm all you like (plenty of room in this boat) but your failure here is you do try to set standard of behavior for (some) others without paying much attention at all to the conversation or topic at hand and so rely on a set of priors that color your opinion and favor -- just without a firm basis in knowledge and fact.

Only way to fix that is to actually know the thing that people are arguing about so you can actually determine who's trying to play on the level and getting frustrated (e.g., Jim)

Again you falsely assume that I haven't already done that to my own satisfaction, through my own interactions with him. So your starting premise is false. It's abundantly clear to me that Jim is not objective, and has large mental blocks in place when it comes to assessing reports fairly WRT anything about Trump. Doesn't mean that he's wrong about everything, but does mean that I don't accept what he claims, or his interpretation of data, without confirming it myself.


Further, the content of the particular post is irrelevant to my point - anyone who starts a thread with 'You guys are too dumb/immoral/biased/bigoted to accept this, but...' and adds in accusations of irrationality on the part of anyone who disagrees with the OP, before anyone could possibly respond, is simply poisoning the well. They're framing the discussion so that no matter what else is said, they are both correct and moral, and everyone who disagrees with, or even challenges the OP, does so only because they're irrational and immoral. They've shut the door on any possibility of learning anything new about the issue, and on having their own views modified if they are incorrect.

That is a bad thing to do, if you're genuine about truth-seeking; and it also damages your ability to convince others of your views. If Jim was able too post more calmly without the well-poisoning, he'd be more credible. You too.

and who's playing a shell game with facts to preserve, at any cost, the priors they walked in with.

That requires a good bit of work but it does add the needed weight when you're trying to chastise somebody.

--Sam

Your whole objection to my original comment is :Ox isn't any worse than anyone else here, in fact some are worse!

IOW, irrelevant to my point. If you want to convince the people you have listed above, not to mention those who read but seldom post, then address them as honest interlocutors, or SHOW where they are not.


I note that you don't limit your accusations of dishonesty to only those you mentioned above, but include people who don't usually indulge in character attacks on posters they disagree with - it appears because they do disagree with your narrative. And you (elsewhere in this thread) conflate being (IYHO) factually wrong with 'lying' - uncharitable at best, and no way to win people over to a new viewpoint.

In short, Sam, you aren't as convincing as you could be, because you flavour your observations with attacks on the character of anyone who might disagree. Not that you're the only one who does that, it's a TWeb tradition.

[oxmixmudd]

Again you falsely assume that I haven't already done that to my own satisfaction, through my own interactions with him. So your starting premise is false. It's abundantly clear to me that Jim is not objective, and has large mental blocks in place when it comes to assessing reports fairly WRT anything about Trump. Doesn't mean that he's wrong about everything, but does mean that I don't accept what he claims, or his interpretation of data, without confirming it myself.


Further, the content of the particular post is irrelevant to my point - anyone who starts a thread with 'You guys are too dumb/immoral/biased/bigoted to accept this, but...' and adds in accusations of irrationality on the part of anyone who disagrees with the OP, before anyone could possibly respond, is simply poisoning the well. They're framing the discussion so that no matter what else is said, they are both correct and moral, and everyone who disagrees with, or even challenges the OP, does so only because they're irrational and immoral. They've shut the door on any possibility of learning anything new about the issue, and on having their own views modified if they are incorrect.

That is a bad thing to do, if you're genuine about truth-seeking; and it also damages your ability to convince others of your views. If Jim was able too post more calmly without the well-poisoning, he'd be more credible. You too.







Your whole objection to my original comment is :Ox isn't any worse than anyone else here, in fact some are worse!

IOW, irrelevant to my point. If you want to convince the people you have listed above, not to mention those who read but seldom post, then address them as honest interlocutors, or SHOW where they are not.


I note that you don't limit your accusations of dishonesty to only those you mentioned above, but include people who don't usually indulge in character attacks on posters they disagree with - it appears because they do disagree with your narrative. And you (elsewhere in this thread) conflate being (IYHO) factually wrong with 'lying' - uncharitable at best, and no way to win people over to a new viewpoint.

In short, Sam, you aren't as convincing as you could be, because you flavour your observations with attacks on the character of anyone who might disagree. Not that you're the only one who does that, it's a TWeb tradition.

One thing you've not yet learned to differentiate between: Attacks on the person, and attacks on the morality of an idea that was expressed by the person. You should try to understand the difference, and then perhaps re-evaluate your position.

E.g.

If a person expresses an idea that is racist, and the reply to that person is something like "this idea is a racist idea", or even "how can you ally yourself with this racist idea" or even "That idea is racist and a Christian person should not be saying things like that", the attack is not on the person, it is on the idea, and the person is being given notice that idea is in conflict with good moral standards, or even their own expressed moral standards.Yes the person is being chastised for not holding a higher standard, but the attack is on the idea, not the person themselves.

OTOH

"you are a scumbag and a racist liar" - that is an attack on the person.


Most people here, yourself included, conflate the two continuously. And most people engage more in the latter than the former. I know I try to deal with moral issues more in the form of the former, but I will not claim I am always successful.

I am of the opinion it is cowardly not to confront clear moral conflicts, it is even a form of assent to stand back and remain silent when clear moral boundaries are being crossed.

But it is no less than unjust, hypocritical really, to equate a person that attempts to confront a moral wrong in the fashion of the former as if it was the latter. And also to completely ignore others that universally engage in the latter.

[lilpixieofterror]

One thing you've not yet learned to differentiate between: Attacks on the person, and attacks on the morality of an idea that was expressed by the person. You should try to understand the difference, and then perhaps re-evaluate your position.

E.g.

If a person expresses an idea that is racist, and the reply to that person is something like "this idea is a racist idea", or even "how can you ally yourself with this racist idea" or even "That idea is racist and a Christian person should not be saying things like that", the attack is not on the person, it is on the idea, and the person is being given notice that idea is in conflict with good moral standards, or even their own expressed moral standards.Yes the person is being chastised for not holding a higher standard, but the attack is on the idea, not the person themselves.

OTOH

"you are a scumbag and a racist liar" - that is an attack on the person.


Most people here, yourself included, conflate the two continuously. And most people engage more in the latter than the former. I know I try to deal with moral issues more in the form of the former, but I will not claim I am always successful.

I am of the opinion it is cowardly not to confront clear moral conflicts, it is even a form of assent to stand back and remain silent when clear moral boundaries are being crossed.

But it is no less than unjust, hypocritical really, to equate a person that attempts to confront a moral wrong in the fashion of the former as if it was the latter. And also to completely ignore others that universally engage in the latter.

You’ve accused me of racism, for daring to disagree with you on racial issues. Which would be news to the minorities I’ve worked with over the years. So Max is right on point and you refuse to see it.

[oxmixmudd]

Pix:

In fairness, I am informing you (and others) that you are on ignore for a time. I'll take you off after a little while to see if you've found your composure. I never put people on ignore permanently, but sometimes it is necessary to provide some breathing room for both parties.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix:

In fairness, I am informing you (and others) that you are on ignore for a time. I'll take you off after a little while to see if you've found your composure. I never put people on ignore permanently, but sometimes it is necessary to provide some breathing room for both parties.

Don’t care. You deserve everything you get, hypocrite.

[rogue06]

Alright, if y'all can't get along I'm gonna send the lot of you to bed without any dinner

[oxmixmudd]

Alright, if y'all can't get along I'm gonna send the lot of you to bed without any dinner