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

[Ronson]

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.

You were going on and on about his lying.

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.

I find no reason to believe anyone in this game. This is a recent societal #MeToo development where accusations are equal to guilt. Prosecutions should be based on evidence, and it is sorely lacking here.

3) Trump's lying is or borders on the pathological unlike that of other presidents.

I won't argue there; Trump has the personality of a used car salesman. But that's not a crime.

[Mountain Man]

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)

Regarding the Twitter disclaimer, they're still treating this as a "Bolton said" story, which isn't really accurate. Rather, it's what anonymous sources say Bolton may have said in a draft manuscript. So we're still dealing with 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best.

[demi-conservative]

Regarding the Twitter disclaimer, they're still treating this as a "Bolton said" story, which isn't really accurate. Rather, it's what anonymous sources say Bolton may have said in a draft manuscript. So we're still dealing with 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best.

2nd hand hearsay with NYT spin on top of that, and Haberman admitting that Bolton isn't a reliable narrator. At this point, how can any sane and informed person take it at face value?

[lilpixieofterror]

Regarding the Twitter disclaimer, they're still treating this as a "Bolton said" story, which isn't really accurate. Rather, it's what anonymous sources say Bolton may have said in a draft manuscript. So we're still dealing with 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best.

It’s the game we’ve seen for the past three years:

- selectively leak something at a critical moment in time this information doesn’t need to be totally accurate or even the truth, but it needs to be juicy.
- get the never Trump drones to jump in and condemn.
- be silent when the whole truth doesn’t reveal quite what you made it sound like it did earlier.

Thus you have the cycle.

[JimL]

You guys really haven't been paying attention to how the defense is shredding Shifty Schiff's case, have you?

Wrong, the defense is treating the Senate and you supporters of Trump, like you're a bunch of dummies.

[JimL]

Isn’t the aid kind of owed to the Ukrainians for giving up 1000 nukes?

Sure is, and it was the U.S. that convinced them to give up the nukes in return for our support.

[JimL]

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.

To borrow a phrase from Amassador Sondland, as far as the cover-up goes, everyone's (on the republican side) in the loop.

[JimL]

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?

Broken record.

[lilpixieofterror]

Broken record.

Inability to refute, noted.

[JimL]

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.

For one thing, if you are going to open an investigation, you don't make a public announcement to that effect on CNN, and for another thing you don't leave that task up to a foreign government to do, you don't demand foreign governments to investigate American citizens. So your arguments sound like partisan incredulity to me!

[JimL]

Regarding the Twitter disclaimer, they're still treating this as a "Bolton said" story, which isn't really accurate. Rather, it's what anonymous sources say Bolton may have said in a draft manuscript. So we're still dealing with 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay at best.

Well then, I'm sure you'd like to hear him testify, right?

[oxmixmudd]

An investigation of Hunter Biden is somehow personal gain?

Big time personal gain. Heck, UKraine never even announced the investigation and look how much mileage he's getting out of it in terms of casting aspersion's on Biden.

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).

The issue here is that The investigations are all tied to elements that only have value as they relate to Trump's future campaign. Remember, All Trump wanted was the announcement. In the grand scheme of things, what exactly does an announcement of an investigation into an unknown to the public oil company do to curb corruption or the perception of corruption in Ukraine? Nothing. But what does it do in terms casting shade on a well known potential candidate whose son happened to serve on the board of the relatively unknown oil company? A lot! Even without the announcement from Ukraine, look how much mileage he's getting out if it politically! You've got people asking for Biden's testimony in Trump's impeachment trial! It casts a pale over his chief rival - Biden.

Likewise the server deal. What does it do to help expose or curb corruption in Ukraine. Nothing, BUT - in terms of accusations Russia is helping Trump win elections, there you go - very helpful. He gets to turn it around and pretend it wasn't Russian help, and it wasn't Trump that was being helped. very helpful politically in the US.

This had nothing to do with curbing corruption in Ukraine (which has been clearly testified to as well). This had to do with getting Ukraine to do things Donald Trump and decided would help reduce the threat of the Democrats and Biden in 2020.

So your arguments sound like partisan incredulity to me.

That would be because or the filters you are 'listening' through.

I suppose the Biden family - and possibly all Democrats - are off limits for investigation according to Democrats.

And you are just proving my case.

[Sam]

Neither an apology nor a defense.




Nope.



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



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.









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.





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.

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) 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

[Sam]

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.

We've been over this countless times: Biden's threat to withhold aid was official government policy, supported by Obama, the international community, and Republican senators. Biden received no personal benefit from the policy decision and action, especially not one at the cost of national security.

Trump's decision was made for personal gain, as explained by his personal attorney who told Zelensky in May that he was coming to make these investigation requests for Trump explicitly in a personal capacity and not as part of his presidential duties. Trump withheld government resources so that he could receive a personal benefit, information or publicity against a political opponent, and he did go through with withholding the aid for several months, causing Ukraine to schedule the announcement for those investigations and DoD to miss its deadline for spending the money before running afoul of the law.

No one can call what Biden did extortion -- getting Shokin fired was consensus policy among Democrats, Republicans, and the international community. It increased the possibility of Burisma and Zolchevsky getting investigated, since Shokin had buried the investigation in an extortion scheme.

No one can honestly deny that what Trump did was extortion -- instead of allowing our government to open a legitimate investigation on Hunter and Joe Biden if DOJ found a legitimate predicate, Trump attempted to withhold vital assistance until the Ukrainian government announced an investigation (without predicate) into a political opponent; one his own attorney had called a personal endeavor, not part of his presidential duties.

--Sam

[Sparko]

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!

That's not an answer to my post.