Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5801  
Old 11-29-2019, 05:22 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
About that...
"Mr. President, that means you have something that shows your innocence,"

Calling him a liar and a moron in one phrase? I'll allow it.
  #5802  
Old 11-29-2019, 06:22 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,185
He will sign his declaration of innocence right there in front of the American people! Case closed, libs pwned!
  #5803  
Old 11-29-2019, 06:31 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,140
Indeed.
  #5804  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:22 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn't apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That's all I'm saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid
  #5805  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:31 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
On top of the fact that the man trying to sell the dog is making claims in attempt to convince the other guy. I am not making claims here, I am making suppositions and considering them. Big difference.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid
  #5806  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:38 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,116
Woof. Meow!
  #5807  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:09 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,185
“....to the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

"Nothing 'curious' about it, Holmes, you coked-up nincompoop, it was a cat!"
  #5808  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:11 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,152
So Trump is saying he doesn't know what Guiliani was up to in Ukraine and this is being characterized as Trump throwing him under the bus. Very clever. Name a fall guy to take the blame for the whole thing and it might just go away.

However, if this was Guiliani's side project (that Trump knew nothing about) why did OMB indulge him on holding up the aid to Ukraine?

Looks like you're gonna need that insurance Rudy.
  #5809  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:12 PM
jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn't apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That's all I'm saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing.
Your passion for justice is admirable. No, wait...I meant to say that your disingenuity is NOT admirable. Sorry about that.
  #5810  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:53 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I am 100% behind the idea that reality is the best place to be. After all, as Woody Allen once quipped, it's the only place you can get a good steak. 🙂 But in situations where I don't know all the facts, I'm not going to fill them in and pretend I know the whole reality.
I'm sure you know that is not true. That is, in all situations you are in you cannot be waiting for all the facts to come in before taking any action. There is proportionality, cost/benefit, and potential fatality/harm, among other factors to figure in. This is common to all...humans.
  #5811  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:56 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn't apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That's all I'm saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing.
So you are waiting for them to be interviewed? That's it? Shouldn't we postpone this discussion then? Are we having it prematurely?

That's a fair point but a very simple one to deal with.
  #5812  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:20 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
Your passion for justice is admirable. No, wait...I meant to say that your disingenuity is NOT admirable. Sorry about that.
Since you made no specific point about my supposed disingenuity, I don't care what you meant to say at this point. But I do welcome you pointing out what you're getting at, if you want to discuss it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I'm sure you know that is not true. That is, in all situations you are in you cannot be waiting for all the facts to come in before taking any action. There is proportionality, cost/benefit, and potential fatality/harm, among other factors to figure in. This is common to all...humans.
All of the facts usually don't come in. That is true. But when a number of people whom it seems likely to be involved in some way (Pence, Perry, Pompeo...) have NOT be interviewed, I think there is a decent chance that there is more to be known. If you don't, that of course is fine.

Now, just a general question:

I started out by saying "Suppose, just suppose..." To my recollection without going back and looking, only Sherrerd responded directly to what I said about the idea I thought of regarding Trump's involvement. Everyone else seems to think I have some agenda here, some ulterior motive, other than just wanting discussing that. I assure you I do not.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 11-30-2019 at 12:22 AM. Reason: typo
  #5813  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:30 AM
simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Since you made no specific point about my supposed disingenuity, I don't care what you meant to say at this point. But I do welcome you pointing out what you're getting at, if you want to discuss it.



All of the facts usually don't come in. That is true. But when a number of people whom it seems likely to be involved in some way (Pence, Perry, Pompeo...) have NOT be interviewed, I think there is a decent chance that there is more to be known. If you don't, that of course is fine.
(bolding mine)

Who is preventing these interviews? When they talk about preventing them - does it sound like they have a reason to withhold these 'facts' that might exonerate the person in question?

I completely agree these people - and others - Mulvaney for one - know things we should know about the situation - but seems they are being obstructed.

Therefore - I have no problem going ahead with what we _do_ know at this point.
  #5814  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:33 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
But when a number of people whom it seems likely to be involved in some way (Pence, Perry, Pompeo...) have NOT be interviewed,
You continue to repeat this like it's just an oversight, that the House just hasn't gotten around to talking to them. That ignores, yet again, that two of just who you named, plus how many others, are actively ignoring subpoenas. If there was exculpatory evidence, it would have been provided - like Trump's call to Sondland saying "NO QUID PRO QUO".

You're insisting that there might just be a nugget of help out there for Trump's case, yet no one has given us that information - especially given that it would immeasurably help the President out of his current predicament. So I ask, if there are facts out there helpful to Trump, why has the American people not heard about them?
  #5815  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:40 AM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Since you made no specific point about my supposed disingenuity, I don't care what you meant to say at this point. But I do welcome you pointing out what you're getting at, if you want to discuss it.



All of the facts usually don't come in. That is true. But when a number of people whom it seems likely to be involved in some way (Pence, Perry, Pompeo...) have NOT be interviewed, I think there is a decent chance that there is more to be known. If you don't, that of course is fine.

Now, just a general question:

I started out by saying "Suppose, just suppose..." To my recollection without going back and looking, only Sherrerd responded directly to what I said about the idea I thought of regarding Trump's involvement. Everyone else seems to think I have some agenda here, some ulterior motive, other than just wanting discussing that. I assure you I do not.
I think that it's been established that the failures to appear are evidence of guilt. You are making contortions to avoid the actualities, which would indicate dt is a danger in the wh. His obstructions indicate as much, as do the obstructions of those others.

I for one am using the standard that there is no massaging of the facts from here that can change the ones we already know anyway. It can only get worse for them. I say get dt out of office and then prosecute the gang criminally afterwards and answer all those questions that you have.
  #5816  
Old 11-30-2019, 04:51 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,580
Wow! That's a good one. I see that argumentation style all the time here.
  #5817  
Old 11-30-2019, 07:09 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,363
Guess I was right (it certainly got a lot more traction than the other time I posted it).
  #5818  
Old 11-30-2019, 07:38 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn't apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That's all I'm saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing.
OK, like the guy in the strip says, "When will you be satisfied that you have 'all the facts'?"

Specifically, who still needs to be questioned, and why? And in instances where Trump is actively enabling them to keep from testifying, why does that fact not suffice?
  #5819  
Old 11-30-2019, 07:39 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Guess I was right (it certainly got a lot more traction than the other time I posted it).
Yeah, that strip totally nails it.
  #5820  
Old 11-30-2019, 10:54 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I started out by saying "Suppose, just suppose..." To my recollection without going back and looking, only Sherrerd responded directly to what I said about the idea I thought of regarding Trump's involvement. Everyone else seems to think I have some agenda here, some ulterior motive, other than just wanting discussing that. I assure you I do not.
Here's the thing about your, "Suppose, just suppose," post...

The facts that we have show that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money. If we go down the road of supposing everything that you'd like us to suppose we still have that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money after he thought about doing some other stuff.

The problem here is that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money. It doesn't matter if he came up with the idea on his own or if Giuliani put that idea in his head. It certainly doesn't matter when Giuliani gave him the idea, if that's what happened. The thing that matters is that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money.

Your, "Suppose, just suppose," scenario in no way exculpates Trump. I'm not even sure why you think it does.
  #5821  
Old 11-30-2019, 11:26 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,185
"Lead me not into temptation, I can find it easily enough on my own."
  #5822  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:22 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn't apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That's all I'm saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing.
If I ask 30 people, "What animal passed in front of you at the beach?" And all 30 of them say, "It was a duck." I don't feel like I really need to go talk to the 10 people who were in the front row.
  #5823  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:46 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
(bolding mine)
Therefore - I have no problem going ahead with what we _do_ know at this point.
Nor do I. Trump should be impeached and thrown out of office. This has been the case for me for quite a while now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
You continue to repeat this like it's just an oversight, that the House just hasn't gotten around to talking to them. That ignores, yet again, that two of just who you named, plus how many others, are actively ignoring subpoenas. If there was exculpatory evidence, it would have been provided - like Trump's call to Sondland saying "NO QUID PRO QUO".

You're insisting that there might just be a nugget of help out there for Trump's case, yet no one has given us that information - especially given that it would immeasurably help the President out of his current predicament. So I ask, if there are facts out there helpful to Trump, why has the American people not heard about them?
I am not repeating it because I think it's an oversight, which implies the House just forgot about the need to interview others. They didn't do that. They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas. And most definitely, I did not bring this up because I want to help Trump's case. I just want to talk about shit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I think that it's been established that the failures to appear are evidence of guilt. You are making contortions to avoid the actualities, which would indicate dt is a danger in the wh. His obstructions indicate as much, as do the obstructions of those others.
I wouldn't say failure to appear is necessarily evidence of guilt. It is highly suggestive that they have something to hide. Hearing from them would better allow us to judge their guilt/innocence/involvement. Can anyone disagree with this?? As for contortions, again, I am making no claims. I am asking questions and putting forth ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Wow! That's a good one. I see that argumentation style all the time here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yeah, that strip totally nails it.
The comic makes an important point. But it doesn't apply here as I stated earlier, and no one has bothered to refute what I said about why it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
OK, like the guy in the strip says, "When will you be satisfied that you have 'all the facts'?"

Specifically, who still needs to be questioned, and why? And in instances where Trump is actively enabling them to keep from testifying, why does that fact not suffice?
I am satisfied with the facts we know at present that Trump should be gone. I am not satisfied with them to show that Trump, from the beginning, way before the phone call, was sending out his goons to drum up dirt. That was my original idea, and as I've said, only Sherrerd addressed it directly.

As for who should still be questioned, I've already named Pence, Pompeo, and Perry. I would add Bolton and Mulvaney. My apologies that I don't have time to name specific reasons right now. But in general, because they all are very close to the president. Would you agree at least they might have some pertinent details? The idea is to impeach and oust the president. More details, assuming they are damning, are better than fewer details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The facts that we have show that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money...

It doesn't matter if he came up with the idea on his own or if Giuliani put that idea in his head...

The thing that matters is that Trump tried to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money.

Your, "Suppose, just suppose," scenario in no way exculpates Trump. I'm not even sure why you think it does.
I agree 100% with the first three. I have never said I think it exculpates him. I do NOT think that. This is the kind of thing that often gets lost if I say something either supporting Republican ideas, or not just sticking to arguing the Democrats' ideas. People assume I'm trying to absolve Trump of something, when in fact I'm just stating ideas that have occurred to me that I'd like to discuss.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 11-30-2019 at 02:50 PM. Reason: Bolding in the last line
  #5824  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:58 PM
splatterpunk is offline
Dismember
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
People assume I'm trying to absolve Trump of something, when in fact I'm just stating ideas that have occurred to me that I'd like to discuss.
But why? Why would anyone want to discuss these ridiculously implausible scenarios? To what end? It's just as worthy of discussion as supposing that aliens hypnotized Trump and manipulated him into doing all this shit. It's not instructive or even interesting.
  #5825  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:02 PM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 61,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatterpunk View Post
But why? Why would anyone want to discuss these ridiculously implausible scenarios?
He's 'just asking questions'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by splatterpunk View Post
To what end?
To whatever end transpires... which is total exoneration of The Messiah.
  #5826  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:23 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I am not repeating it because I think it's an oversight, which implies the House just forgot about the need to interview others. They didn't do that. They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas. And most definitely, I did not bring this up because I want to help Trump's case. I just want to talk about shit.
Which conveniently ignores that they ARE fighting the refusals, where they should - in court.

The only other option would be for the House to send the sergeant-at-arms to physically arrest and detain members of the Executive Branch, some of which might have Secret Service protection. If you don't see the problems and PR nightmare that would arise from that, there's little I can do to educate you.
  #5827  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:56 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
People assume I'm trying to absolve Trump of something, when in fact I'm just stating ideas that have occurred to me that I'd like to discuss.
The standard in a court of law is "reasonable doubt".

If you have a video of a man robbing a bank, to be sure it is theoretically possible that he was extorted into doing it by very clever thieves, who kidnapped a woman the he fancied. But it's silly to keep hunting for evidence that might prove this case when the suspect hasn't made it as a defense, no one has put it forward as a defense, you've been hunting for three months for anything like evidence of the theory, and you never had any reason to back the theory other than that it was "cool".

If there were exonerating evidence for Trump it would be have been presented by someone. The people that you think should be asked questions would be cooperating in the investigation and answering questions, again, if they had some form of defense or if there were some argument to be made in Trump's favor. No one has ever done anything other than ask those people to please come down and answer questions.

Saying, "Well, we should ask Little Timmy if he broke the vase." Like that's a real thing that should be done, when you've just spent the last 30 minutes trying to convince Timmy to come out of his room because he's locked himself in and is screaming that he didn't do it, he'll be better in the future, and please don't take away his TV rights, and there's a trail of blood footprints going straight from the vase shards to under Timmy's door... Like, no, there a reason that Timmy has holed up in his little fort and is saying those things. Let's not insult our intelligence.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-30-2019 at 04:00 PM.
  #5828  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:17 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
He's 'just asking questions'.



To whatever end transpires... which is total exoneration of The Messiah.
I think it's the Overton Window. I can practically feel it moving sometimes.
  #5829  
Old 12-01-2019, 06:48 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by splatterpunk View Post
But why? Why would anyone want to discuss these ridiculously implausible scenarios? To what end? It's just as worthy of discussion as supposing that aliens hypnotized Trump and manipulated him into doing all this shit. It's not instructive or even interesting.
Oh, maybe because it would mean admitting that perhaps Trump did not cook up the idea himself to go after the Bidens, and that Giuliani or others instigated it. That would require Trump to be just a little bit less of a reprehensible president in their minds. Of course I have no idea if this is the reason, just something that occurred to me.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid
  #5830  
Old 12-01-2019, 06:55 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Oh, maybe because it would mean admitting that perhaps Trump did not cook up the idea himself to go after the Bidens, and that Giuliani or others instigated it. That would require Trump to be just a little bit less of a reprehensible president in their minds. Of course I have no idea if this is the reason, just something that occurred to me.
That doesn't really answer the question posed.
  #5831  
Old 12-01-2019, 06:57 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
He's 'just asking questions'.
No, not just that. I also said "putting forth ideas".

Quote:
To whatever end transpires... which is total exoneration of The Messiah.
Now you're doing it. Implying I meant something, when I said nothing of the kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I think it's the Overton Window. I can practically feel it moving sometimes.
Please explain. You know, if you have any actual examples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Which conveniently ignores that they ARE fighting the refusals, where they should - in court.
Quote:
Hopefully the people I mentioned will eventually end up in court. But of course they had the impeachment hearings without them. I think that was the wrong way to go.

The only other option would be for the House to send the sergeant-at-arms to physically arrest and detain members of the Executive Branch, some of which might have Secret Service protection. If you don't see the problems and PR nightmare that would arise from that, there's little I can do to educate you.
Not that I need to be "educated" by you, since right now I have no idea who you are. But okay, it's a PR nightmare. What does that have to do with what I said?
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 12-01-2019 at 07:01 PM.
  #5832  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:02 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Not that I need to be "educated" by you, since right now I have no idea who you are. But okay, it's a PR nightmare. What does that have to do with what I said?
You stated "They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas." I showed that they are, in fact, fighting the refusal to honor subpoenas.


I figured you might learn that your statement "They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas." was demonstrably false, and reconsider your view. Or don't. I did what I could to correct your ignorance. How you progress from here is on you.
  #5833  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:05 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
That doesn't really answer the question posed.
Please explain, keeping in mind that I am not a mind reader. I don't know why no one wants to discuss it. I offered an idea.

To splatterpunk I also should have said that if the idea that Trump did not start the whole thing is "ridiculously implausible", then that would be a good reason. I happen think it is very far from implausible.

Which leads me to ask, what do you, fellow Dopers, think about the plausibility of this?
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid
  #5834  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:08 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
You stated "They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas." I showed that they are, in fact, fighting the refusal to honor subpoenas.


I figured you might learn that your statement "They chose not to fight the refusal to honor subpoenas." was demonstrably false, and reconsider your view. Or don't. I did what I could to correct your ignorance. How you progress from here is on you.
In that I said that during a discussion of the impeachment hearings, I would think it obvious that I meant during the time period of the hearings. I guess it was not obvious, so thanks for allowing me to make that clear.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid
  #5835  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:19 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Please explain, keeping in mind that I am not a mind reader. I don't know why no one wants to discuss it. I offered an idea.
Well the question was, why should we WANT to discuss it, not why are we avoiding it. Why we're avoiding it has already been addressed -- there's no evidence to support your hypothesis. That's the baseline.
  #5836  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:27 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Oh, maybe because it would mean admitting that perhaps Trump did not cook up the idea himself to go after the Bidens, and that Giuliani or others instigated it. That would require Trump to be just a little bit less of a reprehensible president in their minds. Of course I have no idea if this is the reason, just something that occurred to me.
What do you mean here?

You think it matters whether turnp decided to do this without prompting, or was given the idea by rudy? They are pretty much equally reprehensible in any sense that matters for our politics. Also to a judge or jury they aren't very different.

Also, why are you defending your general posting here with things that "just occurred to you"? What is the deeper conviction? You know, from before that.

Anyway are you taking this time to be lecturing us that dt is not as reprehensible as we think? Is that the eventual point? Who is your audience?
  #5837  
Old 12-01-2019, 07:54 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Well the question was, why should we WANT to discuss it, not why are we avoiding it. Why we're avoiding it has already been addressed -- there's no evidence to support your hypothesis. That's the baseline.
I don't usually sit down and think for hours whether or not someone will be interested in discussing something before I post it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
What do you mean here?
I merely posed a question/supposition. I don't know what all the uproar is about. Just forget it.
__________________
The essence of youth is believing things last forever. -Eric Sevareid

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 12-01-2019 at 07:54 PM.
  #5838  
Old 12-01-2019, 08:32 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I don't usually sit down and think for hours whether or not someone will be interested in discussing something before I post it.



I merely posed a question/supposition. I don't know what all the uproar is about. Just forget it.
I was doing that too. Your questions are just curiosity and mine are an uproar?

If we are entertaining your questions why don't you feel you need to answer ours?
  #5839  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:02 PM
simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Please explain, keeping in mind that I am not a mind reader. I don't know why no one wants to discuss it. I offered an idea.

To splatterpunk I also should have said that if the idea that Trump did not start the whole thing is "ridiculously implausible", then that would be a good reason. I happen think it is very far from implausible.

Which leads me to ask, what do you, fellow Dopers, think about the plausibility of this?
Irrelevant - he went along with it, and used the power of the presidency to pursue it.
  #5840  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:31 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
What do you mean here?

You think it matters whether turnp decided to do this without prompting, or was given the idea by rudy? They are pretty much equally reprehensible in any sense that matters for our politics. Also to a judge or jury they aren't very different.
Yeah, Iím not seeing a difference. Itíd be like debating whether Nixon decided to bug his opponents or one of his staffers gave him the idea. Itís trivial.

Iím completely willing to accept that Rudy is whispering nutty conspiracy theories in Donaldís ear, and Trump laps them up, because in his addled brain they *should* be true since they are to his advantage. And I also bet that Putin is confirming similar nonsense when he and Trump surreptitiously speak, in part because Russia is responsible for some of the misinformation.

None of that absolves Trump of anything.
  #5841  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:23 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
In that I said that during a discussion of the impeachment hearings, I would think it obvious that I meant during the time period of the hearings. I guess it was not obvious, so thanks for allowing me to make that clear.
The hearings that are still ongoing?
  #5842  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:26 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,865
I just don't get the "it's not impeachable" defense at all. He cheated in the 2020 election. If you cheat in an election, you don't get to say that we should all have to rely on the tainted election to decide your fate.
  #5843  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:19 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I just don't get the "it's not impeachable" defense at all. He cheated in the 2020 election. If you cheat in an election, you don't get to say that we should all have to rely on the tainted election to decide your fate.
Apparently nothing that happens in the 18 months before an election -- even if it's an effort to cheat in that election -- counts anymore. See: Merrick Garland.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #5844  
Old 12-02-2019, 07:16 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,397
Josh Gerstein, Politico:
Quote:
BREAKING: Judge denies Trump admin request to stay order requiring McGahn to appear for testimony. Also flays DOJ, calling its arguments 'disingenuous' & 'unacceptable mischaracterization'. Doc:
Axios: GOP impeachment report claims Trump did nothing wrong
Quote:
President Trump committed ďno quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of power,Ē Republicans on the House committees investigating the Ukraine controversy have concluded in a 110-page report reviewed by Axios ahead of its formal release. [Includes 110-page report]
  #5845  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:13 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Having glanced at it, Nunes seems to have been smart enough, this time around, to let someone smarter than himself do most of the writing.

But, on the whole, it seems to be 110 pages of denial. I'll leave it to someone else to hunt through it for something like evidence of innocence. My feeling is like that's liable to be an effort of futility.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-02-2019 at 10:14 PM.
  #5846  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:17 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Josh Gerstein, Politico:
Quote:
BREAKING: Judge denies Trump admin request to stay order requiring McGahn to appear for testimony. Also flays DOJ, calling its arguments 'disingenuous' & 'unacceptable mischaracterization'. Doc:
Here is a direct link to the decision. Only 17 pages and it is a fun read. The judge isn't having any of DOJ's bullshit.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 12-02-2019 at 10:18 PM.
  #5847  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:25 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Having glanced at it, Nunes seems to have been smart enough, this time around, to let someone smarter than himself do most of the writing.

But, on the whole, it seems to be 110 pages of denial. I'll leave it to someone else to hunt through it for something like evidence of innocence. My feeling is like that's liable to be an effort of futility.
I haven't read it but as I understand it the Republican strategy is to claim that he had legitimate concerns that the Ukraine was corrupt. Never mind that all of his actions and words were more about finding out if the bidens were corrupt. That's their story and they're evidently going to stick to it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #5848  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:40 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I haven't read it but as I understand it the Republican strategy is to claim that he had legitimate concerns that the Ukraine was corrupt. Never mind that all of his actions and words were more about finding out if the bidens were corrupt. That's their story and they're evidently going to stick to it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
And, as said, I welcome anyone to find any evidence to support the position statement in the document.
  #5849  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:42 AM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
Here is a direct link to the decision. Only 17 pages and it is a fun read. The judge isn't having any of DOJ's bullshit.
The story I read is that:

A) The Fed circuit judge says, nope: you have to respond to the subpoena, like right now.
B) The Fed appeals court has put the case on "administrative hold", arguments scheduled for Jan 3.

Does that mean that McGahn must testify now, or has the can been kicked to Jan 3? It's two different courts.

Last edited by squeegee; 12-03-2019 at 12:43 AM.
  #5850  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:50 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,977

The Trump Impeachment Inquiry


Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
Does that mean that McGahn must testify now, or has the can been kicked to Jan 3? It's two different courts.
IANAL, so I could be wrong, but my reading of it is something along the lines of, DOJ’s arguments are so weak and unlikely to succeed on appeal that McGahn has to testify NOW. Part of the reasoning seems to be that since he already testified under oath for Mueller there is little or no harm that can happen if he appears before a congressional committee exercising their constitutional investigative authority.

The entire opinion seems to me a big slap down to Barr and pretty much says the idea of all encompassing immunity for the executive is bullshit.

I await input from any of our lawyers to correct me if I have this wrong.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 12-03-2019 at 04:51 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017