Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:20 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I wouldn't classify it as micromanagement. Melinda isn't managing at all, let alone micromanaging.

This is where we get back to the discussion of LEO versus not.

Is it micromanaging for the President to perform investigations on his own? Or is it better described as a hobby?
I would say micromanaging still. It's not a hobby because it is actually his underlings' jobs to investigate. I see what you are saying though - it would be like me doing my employee's work even though I am not certified to do that work. Whether I have time to cover for my employee is a separate issue. I'm probably not going to concede this point as applied to the President, at least not wholeheartedly.

But I still want to see the rest of your argument. Pretend that I agree with you that it is wrong for the president to perform investigations on his own. That would be the Bill Barr's job. Leave the time factor out because evidently the President has plenty of time on his hands, his involvement in Ukraine notwithstanding. Can you circle back to the impeachment trial? How does this tie in?

I think I see two separate arguments that don't fit the situation, but I don't want to attack a straw man.

~Max
  #202  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:24 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
Additionally, what other countries did we withhold aid from due to corruption? Saudia Arabia? Sudan? Venezuela? Brazil? Nope. We only apparently held up Ukraine's aid. That dog just doesn't hunt.
P.93 of the defense brief provides one example:
Karen DeYoung, U.S. Withdrawing $100 Million in Aid to Afghanistan Amid Corruption Concerns, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/TK8K-4332

Also possibly Lebanon?
Ben Gittleson & Conor Finnegan, Trump Administration Releases Lebanon Military Aid After It Was Held Up for Months, ABC News (Dec. 2, 2019), https://perma.cc/B4YJ-Z77C

~Max
  #203  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:26 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
You are using a regal or royal doctrine of the presidency. potus can't just improvise national policy for our agencies, outside of his chain of command. This is a very important principle in the US. Are you American?
Born in Tennessee, yessirree. You tell me what the chain of command you have in mind is and either I'll tell you why Trump's actions are still appropriate, or I'll concede the argument.

~Max
  #204  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:28 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Being the nominal head of something does not make you that profession. The President is Commander in Chief of the armed services, but he is not a soldier, he's a civilian - a rather critical fact in a democratic republic. He is the head of the GAO but he's not an accountant, and he's the head of NASA but he's not an astronaut.
Conceded for the sake of argument, and... I'm not going to nitpick despite the temptation.

So the President is not a law enforcement officer. Where were we?

~Max
  #205  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:48 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
In this situation what would be the "chain of command"?

~Max
There is a chain in every heirarchical organization. You haven't entered the work force yet have you?
  #206  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:53 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This is contrary to my understanding, and I will have to return with cites.

And the defense theory is that the whistleblower had nothing to do with it, and the Pence/Portman meeting had everything to do with releasing the hold.

~Max
Could you explain the defense theory of the whistleblower more fully? How is he going to be advancing the defense case? I have been watching the defense and I'm pretty sure that notwithstanding their law degrees they don't know what a whistleblower is or does. How is it a part of their defense?
  #207  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:54 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Conceded for the sake of argument, and... I'm not going to nitpick despite the temptation.

So the President is not a law enforcement officer. Where were we?

~Max
We were talking about turnoup not being able to do what he did legally, because he isn't part of any LE force. He is the civilian in charge.
  #208  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:57 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Born in Tennessee, yessirree. You tell me what the chain of command you have in mind is and either I'll tell you why Trump's actions are still appropriate, or I'll concede the argument.

~Max
I asked about your unitary executive theories, which sound royalist to me.
  #209  
Old 01-22-2020, 09:04 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
Additionally, what other countries did we withhold aid from due to corruption? Saudia Arabia? Sudan? Venezuela? Brazil? Nope. We only apparently held up Ukraine's aid. That dog just doesn't hunt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
P.93 of the defense brief provides one example:
Karen DeYoung, U.S. Withdrawing $100 Million in Aid to Afghanistan Amid Corruption Concerns, Wash. Post (Sept. 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/TK8K-4332

Also possibly Lebanon?
Ben Gittleson & Conor Finnegan, Trump Administration Releases Lebanon Military Aid After It Was Held Up for Months, ABC News (Dec. 2, 2019), https://perma.cc/B4YJ-Z77C
~Max
By an astonishing coincidence, both these examples of Corruption Fighting occurred after the White House had learned of the whistleblower complaint.

Got anything from before?
  #210  
Old 01-22-2020, 09:08 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This is contrary to my understanding, and I will have to return with cites.

And the defense theory is that the whistleblower had nothing to do with it, and the Pence/Portman meeting had everything to do with releasing the hold.

~Max
You should be able to find good cites on this. It’s a tale typical of the gaslighting and corruption endemic in Ukraine.

Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor, was tasked with investigating, not Burisma, but the owner of Burisma, an oligarch named Zlochevsky. He was accused of stealing 23 million dollars from the Ukrainian people. This money was in a British bank account and British authorities had frozen the account.

Shokin was tasked with investigating Zlochevsky and his corruption. But Zlochevsky was his buddy, so he slow-walked the investigation and failed to take certain actions. Great Britain was forced to release the 23 million back to Zlochevsky.

This outraged both the British and the US prosecutors, who embarked on a campaign spearheaded by Biden, to get Shokin fired. It worked.

So the “spin” on this tale is “Biden fired the prosecutor investigating the owner of his son’s company”. But the reality is he was fired for NOT investigating.

Here’s a good article from USA Today, a reasonably non-partisan source. There were other reasons for firing the dude and the story I paraphrased is only a small part of the article.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...or/3785620002/

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 01-22-2020 at 09:12 PM.
  #211  
Old 01-22-2020, 09:16 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
Additionally, what other countries did we withhold aid from due to corruption? Saudia Arabia? Sudan? Venezuela? Brazil? Nope. We only apparently held up Ukraine's aid. That dog just doesn't hunt.
Notable, too: Trump had all of 2017, all of 2018, and the beginning of 2019 to express his concern about 'corruption in Ukraine' and/or 'problems with Joe Biden's conduct with regard to Ukraine' and/or 'problems with Hunter Biden's time in Ukraine.'

And for a big chunk of that Jan 2017-to-April-2019 time period, Trump had a GOP Senate and House at his disposal, ready to support efforts to Work on Corruption in Ukraine! Not to mention Trump's ability to ask CIA and other US intelligence agencies for help in rooting out Corruption in Ukraine, and/or Problems with the Bidens.

Yet---by yet another of those amazing coincidences---Trump did nothing whatsoever along these lines* until, you guessed it, Joe Biden became a candidate for the Presidency.




*If Trump had anything to show that he'd taken Anti-Corruption Action On Ukraine and/or Bidens before Joe announced his candidacy, it would be massively exculpatory. And Trump wouldn't have to violate any security concerns---he could employ as many redactions as his people thought necessary to keep the nation safe, in releasing such documentation; he could release it only to committees of Congress in which members have high security clearance (for example).

Given these facts: if Trump did anything about Ukraine or 'problems with Bidens in Ukraine' prior to Joe's announcement....why isn't he producing that evidence? Wouldn't you think he'd want to clear his name?


(I continue to be amazed that Trump defenders apparently believe the 'Trump the Ardent Corruption-Fighter' story is even remotely credible.)
  #212  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:37 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
No, but does make him a military commander. A military officer even.

I'm not saying he is a general, not until he is actually in the field commanding an army. But he's still an officer within that organization.

~Max

No, he is not an officer.

In some ways, I wish he was. That would make him subject to the UCMJ, particularly Article 133.

Also articles:
77
78
80
81
82
88
92
98
104
107
123a
127
131
132
134-2
134-6
134-11
134-12
134-19
134-28
134-35
134-37
134-40
134-43
134-48
134-51
134-53


Basically, if Trump was a military officer, he would be fucked.

Last edited by Wolf333; 01-22-2020 at 10:38 PM.
  #213  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:47 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
Basically, if Trump was a military officer, he would be fucked.
Fortunately, he had bone spurs and does not need to hold himself to the standard by which he (as the Executive) holds millions of others, who he sometimes sends to their deaths in service to our flag.
  #214  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:20 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Fortunately, he had bone spurs and does not need to hold himself to the standard by which he (as the Executive) holds millions of others, who he sometimes sends to their deaths in service to our flag.
"Deaths"? No, you're mistaken. Those were just really bad headaches.
  #215  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:41 AM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
"Deaths"? No, you're mistaken. Those were just really bad headaches.
No, not even that bad, Dr. Trump has assured us!: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...ry?id=68448853
  #216  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:45 AM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
You should be able to find good cites on this. It’s a tale typical of the gaslighting and corruption endemic in Ukraine.

Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor, was tasked with investigating, not Burisma, but the owner of Burisma, an oligarch named Zlochevsky. He was accused of stealing 23 million dollars from the Ukrainian people. This money was in a British bank account and British authorities had frozen the account.

Shokin was tasked with investigating Zlochevsky and his corruption. But Zlochevsky was his buddy, so he slow-walked the investigation and failed to take certain actions. Great Britain was forced to release the 23 million back to Zlochevsky.

This outraged both the British and the US prosecutors, who embarked on a campaign spearheaded by Biden, to get Shokin fired. It worked.

So the “spin” on this tale is “Biden fired the prosecutor investigating the owner of his son’s company”. But the reality is he was fired for NOT investigating.

Here’s a good article from USA Today, a reasonably non-partisan source. There were other reasons for firing the dude and the story I paraphrased is only a small part of the article.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...or/3785620002/

In addition to this fine summary, here is a nice compilation of the Ukraine timeline. The Prosecutor General that Joe Biden helped to oust, Shorkin, was removed partly for not investigating Burisma.
  #217  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:50 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
In addition to this fine summary, here is a nice compilation of the Ukraine timeline. The Prosecutor General that Joe Biden helped to oust, Shorkin, was removed partly for not investigating Burisma.
As I recall, several countries, not just Biden and the US, were pushing for ousting that prosecutor for failing to go after corruption. But in the Bizarro world that is the Republican Party, Biden alone arranged for the ouster in order to stop investigation of him and his son.
  #218  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:51 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I wonder if he'll be swayed by some of the lying antics of Adam Schiff and company.
NY T imes sub-headline today pretty much summed it up.

Piles of Evidence vs. Heaps of Scorn.

As House impeachment managers emphasize the facts, President Trump’s defense team calls the process unfair.

Last edited by BigAppleBucky; 01-23-2020 at 11:52 AM.
  #219  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:27 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
While I would agree that Schiff is not above stretching the truth a fair ways - or, at least, is so partisan that he is prone to misreadings that render some of his output useless - the majority of his work is perfectly founded in fact and would survive any independent review.

Moreover, it is silly to complain that Schiff is a liar while backing even greater liars. And it is silly to back liars because you hate the FBI, when those liars would almost certainly use the FBI for far graver violations of privacy than is already occurring.

At the same time as Devin Nunes was writing his first memo on FISA abuse, as example, he was voting to maintain full spy powers for the FBI. That gives strong lie to the concept that he believed what he preached.
It's not a misreading when you have access to the same classified information and clearly misrepresent that information. This happened with Schiff's memo countering Nunes's memo that exposed the wrongdoing that the IG documented in his report.

I'm not backing anyone let alone liars. Don't confuse me with other posters or make assumptions about what I think. Ask questions and get answers.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #220  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:07 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,525

I thought of starting a thread to air this malaise....


...but I may as well bury it at the end of a sinking thread for all my opinion matters.

There is no way in hell the senate will convict, let alone remove this guy. And I really can't explain why that would be without making outrageous assertions with zero evidence apart from past performance. The situation is not simply a matter of different opinions, it is a partisan thing where the Republicans aren't even willing to give an honest hearing of what the Democrats feel are relevant facts. It looks, quacks, and walks like the Republican party legit wants the USA to crumble into a disorganized third world mess. If they even whispered so much as a fact in defense of President Trump I might have hope, but this is not happening.

This impeachment is not a fight to save the nation at this point. It is the physician holding the mirror under the nose of a suspected corpse and hoping against hope for even a tiny bit of fog.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #221  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:16 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,253
It's kind of hilarious that the people screaming "Make America great again!" are the single biggest cause of the country's current decline.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 01-23-2020 at 02:19 PM.
  #222  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
The purpose of this impeachment and trial is to show that the Democrats did their duty as public servants, and just as crucially, that the Republican party has abandoned theirs. This is why it's important, just as much, if not more so than the minuscule chance that he's actually removed.
  #223  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:25 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's not a misreading when you have access to the same classified information and clearly misrepresent that information. This happened with Schiff's memo countering Nunes's memo that exposed the wrongdoing that the IG documented in his report.
I've seen sufficient insane readings of things, here on the SDMB (or, myself been the person, presumably, doing so) that it's safe to say that any assumption that a person is lying because they're saying something that directly conflicts with what they're saying would be unsupportable without much greater information to back the "lie" hypothesis.

As example, you read the Mueller report, which makes the direct statement, "This report does not exonerate the President", and told us that it says it exonerates the President.

Should I take you to be a liar? Or is it more reasonable to assume that some element of your psyche prevents you from taking the literal words of the document at face value? I lean towards the latter, even disregarding the rules of the forum.

Quote:
I'm not backing anyone let alone liars. Don't confuse me with other posters or make assumptions about what I think. Ask questions and get answers.
Unless I misremembered, you have championed the Nunes report. That seems unreasonable if you read it thinking, "This Nunes guy, he's a blatant liar who can't be trusted an inch." To think that, read the document, and then come out of it and champion it as something we should care about seems unsupportable.

So, clearly, you trusted the general good intent of his words and you're basing your actions on his words and calling others liars on the basis of trusting the good intent of his words.

But, as said, he is provably a liar.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-23-2020 at 02:27 PM.
  #224  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:52 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The purpose of this impeachment and trial is to show that the Democrats did their duty as public servants, and just as crucially, that the Republican party has abandoned theirs. This is why it's important, just as much, if not more so than the minuscule chance that he's actually removed.
But so what? The Republicans will crow their victory and the Democrats will look like losers--because they are losers who, when it mattered most, insisted on using outdated tactics to fight a ruthless and lawless enemy. The Democrats are going to fail spectacularly and hand this nation over, once and for all, to anti-intellectuals and fascists. But at least they'll look honorable in their defeat. Oh sure, something will coalesce in the ashes on the Left, but not in what's left of my lifetime.
  #225  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:59 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
"Deaths"? No, you're mistaken. Those were just really bad headaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
No, not even that bad, Dr. Trump has assured us!: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pres...ry?id=68448853
While I understand the point that you both are making, I just want to make it clear that the President (including President Trump) does send people into battle and other situations where they are in a struggle for their life.

So while it may be that there are no popularized deaths in the media in recent times, a) the media isn't paying much attention to our troops in Africa and elsewhere nor to individual little skirmishes, plus b) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/w...espionage.html
  #226  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
But so what? The Republicans will crow their victory and the Democrats will look like losers--because they are losers who, when it mattered most, insisted on using outdated tactics to fight a ruthless and lawless enemy. The Democrats are going to fail spectacularly and hand this nation over, once and for all, to anti-intellectuals and fascists. But at least they'll look honorable in their defeat. Oh sure, something will coalesce in the ashes on the Left, but not in what's left of my lifetime.
The alternative is not fighting at all. Fighting is better than doing nothing.

We'll see how it turns out. I'm less than convinced by the doom-and-gloom certainty of a random internet stranger.
  #227  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:38 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
So while it may be that there are no popularized deaths in the media in recent times, a) the media isn't paying much attention to our troops in Africa and elsewhere nor to individual little skirmishes, plus b) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/w...espionage.html
I gotta say, I've been watching more PBS and BBC news lately for actual world news. I'm well past my limit of the 24hour news cycle of "Look at what that fucking asshole Trump did now!"
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #228  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:54 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The alternative is not fighting at all. Fighting is better than doing nothing.

We'll see how it turns out. I'm less than convinced by the doom-and-gloom certainty of a random internet stranger.
He he he...I don't want to convince ANYONE to join me in this miserable, gloomy corner, I'm just crying into the void because it seems like the most reasonable course of action at this point. Hell, I hope I'm totally misreading the whole sitch--I'd rather be happy than right any day.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #229  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:57 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I've seen sufficient insane readings of things, here on the SDMB (or, myself been the person, presumably, doing so) that it's safe to say that any assumption that a person is lying because they're saying something that directly conflicts with what they're saying would be unsupportable without much greater information to back the "lie" hypothesis.
It safe to say someone is lying when they have access to information that directly contradicts what they are saying and writing for public consumption. Schiff at the time was the Minority member of the Intelligence Committee, the Committee responsible for Intelligence Agency oversight. The information that Nunes put in his memo to expose the FBI wrongdoing was validated by the subsequent IG Report. Schiff crafted a memo in direct contradiction to the Nunes memo. I'd love to give him the benefit of the doubt but he's a smart guy, he should have known better and his actions were not in keeping with his oversight role.

Quote:
As example, you read the Mueller report, which makes the direct statement, "This report does not exonerate the President", and told us that it says it exonerates the President.

Should I take you to be a liar? Or is it more reasonable to assume that some element of your psyche prevents you from taking the literal words of the document at face value? I lean towards the latter, even disregarding the rules of the forum.
This isn't the same thing and you should know that.


Quote:
Unless I misremembered, you have championed the Nunes report. That seems unreasonable if you read it thinking, "This Nunes guy, he's a blatant liar who can't be trusted an inch." To think that, read the document, and then come out of it and champion it as something we should care about seems unsupportable.

So, clearly, you trusted the general good intent of his words and you're basing your actions on his words and calling others liars on the basis of trusting the good intent of his words.

But, as said, he is provably a liar.
You're making assumptions again. It's not the person it's the information.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!

Last edited by EasyPhil; 01-23-2020 at 03:58 PM.
  #230  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:59 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
While I understand the point that you both are making, I just want to make it clear that the President (including President Trump) does send people into battle and other situations where they are in a struggle for their life.

So while it may be that there are no popularized deaths in the media in recent times, a) the media isn't paying much attention to our troops in Africa and elsewhere nor to individual little skirmishes, plus b) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/w...espionage.html
Sorry, I don't understand your quibble with my sarcastic remark. I'm both the daughter and widow of disabled veterans and I know what trump does. I don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you on this (there are too many of them in this thread already ), but I want to make it clear that my remark was bitter and intended to insult him.
  #231  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:04 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It safe to say someone is lying when they have access to information that directly contradicts what they are saying and writing for public consumption.
You have had direct access to information that directly contradicts what you were saying. Should I report you to the mods for calling yourself a liar?
  #232  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:13 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Carter Page. The least relevant figure in this whole mess. That's what the whole Nunes/Schriff crapola is about, this insignificant dweeb from nowhere. And somehow, we are urged to believe that this is a Big Hairy Ass Deal. Carter Fucking Page. Cheese Louise, EZ, this is all you got?

Last edited by elucidator; 01-23-2020 at 04:13 PM.
  #233  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:15 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
You have had direct access to information that directly contradicts what you were saying. Should I report you to the mods for calling yourself a liar?
Show me.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #234  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:16 PM
EasyPhil is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Carter Page. The least relevant figure in this whole mess. That's what the whole Nunes/Schriff crapola is about, this insignificant dweeb from nowhere. And somehow, we are urged to believe that this is a Big Hairy Ass Deal. Carter Fucking Page. Cheese Louise, EZ, this is all you got?
It's bigger than that which is why there was an IG investigation and a statement by the FISC court and a continuing investigation by John Durham.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #235  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:21 PM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's bigger than that which is why there was an IG investigation and a statement by the FISC court and a continuing investigation by John Durham.
I've asked this of you numerous times, never to get an answer. So, I'll take another swing at it:

So what?

This is a thread about the impeachment of Donald Trump, not about mistakes that the FBI made in getting a FISA warrant. Why, other than your penchant for beating departed horses, do you continue to raise this issue? And why here? What is the conclusion that you are so desperately trying to not voice out loud?

Last edited by Hamlet; 01-23-2020 at 04:23 PM.
  #236  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:18 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Show me.
I have no interest in reopening the discussion, so I'll just link to the one:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=860343

Again, my presumption is that you were honest at all points in time in the discussion. Nevertheless, I believe that there was only one statement that you made that was supported by the material you referenced.

I can certainly say that I was honest in my presentations of the information, so if that was opposite to what you were saying, then one of us is dramatically misreading.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-23-2020 at 05:20 PM.
  #237  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:55 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 164
I wish we had a view of the whole Senate chamber, not just of the people speaking. I've read reports of senators sleeping, doing crossword puzzles, leaving the room for extended periods, talking amongst themselves, throwing temper fits, and reading books when they are supposed to be listening to the evidence presented. That's probably precisely why access to the press has been curtailed. Show America exactly who is representing them!
  #238  
Old 01-23-2020, 05:58 PM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
leaving the room for extended periods
NOTICE: DOOR LOCKS UPON CLOSING

And how about, if you miss more than a certain amount of testimony, you don't get to vote.
  #239  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:05 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
It's kind of hilarious that the people screaming "Make America great again!" are the single biggest cause of the country's current decline.
Making America great AGAIN is only sufficiently impressive if you start from a point of America being a dystopian hellscape. They’re concerned that they haven’t yet achieved maximum dystopian hellscape.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 01-23-2020 at 06:06 PM.
  #240  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:33 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
There is a chain in every heirarchical organization. You haven't entered the work force yet have you?
I know what a chain of command is, but I don't know what it would be in this situation. That's why I ask. I don't see any strict chain of command that goes above the president. It seems to me that it could be appropriate for heads of state to arrange for their deputies to meet and work out the details.

~Max
  #241  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:35 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Could you explain the defense theory of the whistleblower more fully? How is he going to be advancing the defense case? I have been watching the defense and I'm pretty sure that notwithstanding their law degrees they don't know what a whistleblower is or does. How is it a part of their defense?
Sure, the defense theory is that the timing of the whistleblower and related press is a complete coincidence, it had nothing to do with Mr. Trump's decision to release the hold, end of story.

~Max
  #242  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:36 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
I
Quote:
wish we had a view of the whole Senate chamber, not just of the people speaking. I've read reports of senators sleeping, doing crossword puzzles, leaving the room for extended periods, talking amongst themselves, throwing temper fits...
Its a show, point they are trying to make is that its all trivia and insignificant. Which works as long as you don't listen. Because Schiff and Co. made a case that is solid, verified and testified. Perhaps one can disagree, but no reasoning mind would dismiss it out of hand, too many documents, too many reliable witnesses.

They are trying to tamp down and undermine the prevailing sentiment among voters that yeah, they do want the facts, they do want to know. And if this contempt backfires, this will make it a whole lot worse.

"Oh, your Senator? Yours didn't listen, he already made up his mind. Sure, swore he wouldn't, did anyway."

Last edited by elucidator; 01-23-2020 at 06:38 PM.
  #243  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:45 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
We were talking about turnoup not being able to do what he did legally, because he isn't part of any LE force. He is the civilian in charge.
Mr. Trump wasn't the one that went to Ukraine to play detective, so could you explain what you mean when you write "what he did"?

Sage Rat had originally argued that Mr. Trump's actions were a dereliction of his duties and thus unconstitutional, because Mr. Trump is not a law enforcement officer, and I assume Sage Rat's argument is that Mr. Trump's actions would only have been constitutional if he were a law enforcement officer. It is still not clear which particular actions we are talking about, and thus it is unclear if the defense theory addresses this.

I can only guess that you two think only law enforcement officers can request a foreign nation to investigate something. But law enforcement officers work for the president, and foreign law enforcement officers work for the foreign president, so I see no reason that our president and their president can't talk to eachother about the work of their respective underlings, or to arrange some sort of cooperation.

~Max
  #244  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:48 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I asked about your unitary executive theories, which sound royalist to me.
I'm not a royalist, because not only do I prefer elections to monarchy, I dislike our current president.

~Max
  #245  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:50 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
By an astonishing coincidence, both these examples of Corruption Fighting occurred after the White House had learned of the whistleblower complaint.

Got anything from before?
Nope, sorry. I found something about Guatemala in '18 but it looks like that was in response to the migrant caravan, not actually corruption.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 01-23-2020 at 06:50 PM. Reason: spelling
  #246  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:52 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
John Roberts must be the most bored man on the planet.
  #247  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:17 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I

Its a show, point they are trying to make is that its all trivia and insignificant. Which works as long as you don't listen. Because Schiff and Co. made a case that is solid, verified and testified. Perhaps one can disagree, but no reasoning mind would dismiss it out of hand, too many documents, too many reliable witnesses.

They are trying to tamp down and undermine the prevailing sentiment among voters that yeah, they do want the facts, they do want to know. And if this contempt backfires, this will make it a whole lot worse.

"Oh, your Senator? Yours didn't listen, he already made up his mind. Sure, swore he wouldn't, did anyway."
I want to know how my senator is behaving. My state's one of those that's been gerrymandered into a red state despite the actual population makeup. My senator often shows up on TV spouting nonsense. I'd like to be able to call him out if he can't even sit still and listen for a few hours at a time and pretend that all this matters.
  #248  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:33 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I know what a chain of command is, but I don't know what it would be in this situation. That's why I ask. I don't see any strict chain of command that goes above the president. It seems to me that it could be appropriate for heads of state to arrange for their deputies to meet and work out the details.

~Max


Chain of command is mandatory in orgs like LE and the military for obvious reasons. Sometimes you even get "topped" for violating it, depending on the theater of the violation. It has to do with protocol: both going up the chain and going down.

It was not appropraite if he is sandbagging his own foreign office about it, and holding up our money.
  #249  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:37 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Sure, the defense theory is that the timing of the whistleblower and related press is a complete coincidence, it had nothing to do with Mr. Trump's decision to release the hold, end of story.

~Max
So the WB is only in this as an excuse about the date of disbursement? No they had big plans for him. He was a bad person. Part of a plan.
  #250  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:41 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I'm not a royalist, because not only do I prefer elections to monarchy, I dislike our current president.

~Max
But you are giving him the biggest benefit of the doubt possible on each issue, and then exceeding it. That sounds royalist or even trumpist.

He is a king who says stuff and then minions rationalize it, or make it into a grid of unreality. Why?
Closed Thread

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 10:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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