Why no Trump impeachment thread on Paw-Litics???

[techman05]

You forgot Hitler. Lefty lunatics LOVE references to Hitler. Well, Schiff is a regular Adolph with his oratory skills.

Oh, I forgot their role model. You’re right

[FriscoDog]

Doesn’t sound like you have actually watched the trial. We do know for a fact that the call record is not actually a full transcript, but even that fact is not particularly important. The evidence of the quid pro quo is from outside the call between Trump and Z. It is all the meetings that happened before and after the call.

The call demonstrates that Trump new about the deal and wanted Z to work with Rudy to work it. Whether or not Trump said us/country doesn’t even matter (and not sure why you would put so much stock in this particular piece of hearsay evidence). Based on the nature of the request, the channels that Trump used, and the totality of evidence, there is no doubt that this was a personal political favor. That is what the last 2 days of evidence showed - that Trump used Rudy as a communication channel where Rudy was claiming to represent Trump’s personal interests (rather than the county) to inform Z of the fact that he would not get a meeting or aid unless he announced investigations against Burisma and the 2016 election, and that Z resisting making the statement that would personally benefit Trump and that Trump continued to hold he aid/meeting as a carrot every time Z would not commit to the substance of the statement. The fact that Trump wasn’t fine with a generic corruption statement only proves how important that elections and Biden were to Trump. These announcements would personally benefit him - not the country.

Saying that “there is no quid pro quo” doesn’t change the actual facts. Saying “no quid pro quo, but you have to make the announcement to get the meeting” doesn’t change the fact that what was proposed ACTUALLY is a quid pro quo.

But the witnesses during the House hearings who were actually on the phone call, when asked by GOP members if there was a quid pro quo, or if Trump did anything illegal, the answer was always "No". They didn't like the fact that Trump was deviating from the stated "policy" towards Ukraine . Trump went off script from what was done and they didn't like it. Too bad, it is not their position to set foreign policy, it is the Presidents.

[detltu]

Honestly, I do. From the perspective of having watched trial attorneys deliver evidence and elected officials give speeches, he has skills that match the very best of them. Did you see his closing remarks either of the last two nights? Or the closing statement at the impeachment hearings on any day? These are very hard skills to master - to be able to weave evidence into a narrative, to choose just the right words, to not overreach, to lend clarity in a fog, to speak precisely, simply, eloquently with full control of your pace and cadence, tone and emphasis. When you compare him to the other impeachment managers, it isn’t even close.

Even Lindsay Graham complemented him.

I have watched his closing statements. I find his pace odd, with some odd pauses and repetition. I'm not saying he is bad at all, but I was just surprised to hear you call him one of the best.

I feel like they are doing a fine job presenting what they have so far, but avoiding addressing the real arguments from the other side. So far they are riddled with logical fallacies and i don't think avoiding the genuine arguments are going to win anyone over. The one genuine argument I have personally seen addressed was the "even if it's all true does it warrant impeachment". I feel like they did a poor job arguing that point as well.

[Guisslapp]

This is your craziest post ever. Schiff is nothing but a liar. Do you remember when he said he had proof that Donald Trump was a Russian agent? You have completely lost it. Do you remember how he made up what was in the transcript to make it seem like Trump had done something wrong?
Have you seen the video of him talking to the Russian comedians about getting naked pictures of Trump. This guy is a certified lunatic. You need to find a mental hospital and check yourself in.

I assume you didn’t read the Mueller report. It was damning for Trump. Here is what Schiff said:

“We now know that the Russians offered to help the Trump campaign; the president’s son accepted that help and said he would love to receive it,” he told me. “They set up secret meetings to obtain that help and they made use of the help, which the Russians in fact provided. All of that, I think, most Americans view as quintessential collusion with a foreign adversary. And that it didn’t meet the requirements of the criminal law doesn’t make it any less corrupt.”

[Guisslapp]

I have watched his closing statements. I find his pace odd, with some odd pauses and repetition. I'm not saying he is bad at all, but I was just surprised to hear you call him one of the best.

I feel like they are doing a fine job presenting what they have so far, but avoiding addressing the real arguments from the other side. So far they are riddled with logical fallacies and i don't think avoiding the genuine arguments are going to win anyone over. The one genuine argument I have personally seen addressed was the "even if it's all true does it warrant impeachment". I feel like they did a poor job arguing that point as well.

Which logical fallacy?

As far as why it warrants impeachment, I suspect that is what today will be mostly about. But we got a preview yesterday in closing:

“Why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani over a man like Christopher Wray?" he asked, referring to the FBI director who acknowledges the reality that Russia, not Ukraine, attacked us in 2016.

“Because he wanted to, and because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally. And what Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the truth. What Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the information he needed to protect this country and its elections. But that's not good enough—what's in it for him? What's in it for Donald Trump? This is why he must be removed.”

He cited the reports that Russia attempted to hack into the computer systems of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm at the center of the rat****ing, and drew a clear picture of the future.

“Let's say they got in. And let's say they start dumping documents to interfere in the next election. Let's say they start dumping some real things they have from Burisma, let's say they start dumping some fake things they didn't hack from Burisma, but they want you to believe they did. Let's say they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help Donald Trump. Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump will stand up to them and protect our national interest over his own personal interest? You know you can't, which makes him dangerous to this country. You know you can't. You know you can't count on him. None of us can.“

[detltu]

Doesn’t sound like you have actually watched the trial. We do know for a fact that the call record is not actually a full transcript, but even that fact is not particularly important. The evidence of the quid pro quo is from outside the call between Trump and Z. It is all the meetings that happened before and after the call.

The call demonstrates that Trump new about the deal and wanted Z to work with Rudy to work it. Whether or not Trump said us/country doesn’t even matter (and not sure why you would put so much stock in this particular piece of hearsay evidence). Based on the nature of the request, the channels that Trump used, and the totality of evidence, there is no doubt that this was a personal political favor. That is what the last 2 days of evidence showed - that Trump used Rudy as a communication channel where Rudy was claiming to represent Trump’s personal interests (rather than the county) to inform Z of the fact that he would not get a meeting or aid unless he announced investigations against Burisma and the 2016 election, and that Z resisting making the statement that would personally benefit Trump and that Trump continued to hold he aid/meeting as a carrot every time Z would not commit to the substance of the statement. The fact that Trump wasn’t fine with a generic corruption statement only proves how important that elections and Biden were to Trump. These announcements would personally benefit him - not the country.

Saying that “there is no quid pro quo” doesn’t change the actual facts. Saying “no quid pro quo, but you have to make the announcement to get the meeting” doesn’t change the fact that what was proposed ACTUALLY is a quid pro quo.

Saying there is no doubt or "it's proven" does not make it so. If they want to make the case they should address these issues and not avoid them. I think this particular issue is probably not as cut and dry as they would like everyone to believe and likely wouldn't sway many people. The second part and perhaps the tougher part is does this warrant impeachment even if true? That is probably the more contentious issue.

[DawgyNWindow]

But the witnesses during the House hearings who were actually on the phone call, when asked by GOP members if there was a quid pro quo, or if Trump did anything illegal, the answer was always "No". They didn't like the fact that Trump was deviating from the stated "policy" towards Ukraine . Trump went off script from what was done and they didn't like it. Too bad, it is not their position to set foreign policy, it is the Presidents.

This whole quid pro quo thing is also a bunch of nothing.

Virtually every decision, negotiation, agreement and discussion contains some sort of quid pro quo. Well, unless you are a dem leaving a pallet of cash on a tarmac in Iran that will be used to kill and injure Americans and their allies.

In North Korea, we keep the sanctions on until they agree to kill their nuke program. To do otherwise would be dumb.

In China we keep the tariffs on until they come to the table and give us the remedies we seek. This is negotiation 101.

In the Ukraine, where we KNOW the dems have tons of dirty laundry and where corruption has been the name of the game, we don't give them hard-earned taxpayer cash until we are sure they have cleaned up their act. I think the dems are more concerned about losing a partner in crime than anything else. I hope this exposes them.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Are you telling me that you watched CNN or MSNBC for hours over the past 2 days?

I am semi-retired so yes but not CNN nor MSNBC all the time obviously. Fox is my preferred and they played it as well as me listening to the Patriot and POTUS station while in the car.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Schiff is one of the best orators we have seen in a long time. What he has is no doubt a gift, but he has obviously put tens of thousands of hours into honing this craft. The hours he has spent preparing for this trial alone would probably surprise most people.

You are falling for the Chris Mathews "he sent a shiver up my leg" syndrome. Only on the fake news channels did anyone lather praises on Schiff. The guy has a great one-sided memory for sure. However, he is a professional pathologic liar. He makes things up and embellishes to the max. And he looks possessed or ill in so many ways as he rants his hatred. And between him and Nadler they are blowing it big time. The moderates aren't impressed and women know a lying arse scoundrel when they see and hear them.

‘Stunned’ Susan Collins says she wrote note to chief justice after Nadler attacked GOP senators

• Joni Ernst calls out Democrats over aid to Ukraine: 'Hypocrisy is on full display'

• Laura Ingraham: Adam Schiff is claiming he can read minds during Senate impeachment trial

Sen. Susan Collins: I asked chief justice to reprimand Nadler

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I assume you didn’t read the Mueller report. It was damning for Trump.

Come on man! You are a lawyer for goodness sakes. You are suppose to be better the this.
And as a lawyer, Lady Justice is suppose to be blind folded; not eaten up by hatred as you appear to always be.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

You forgot Hitler. Lefty lunatics LOVE references to Hitler. Well, Schiff is a regular Adolph with his oratory skills.

And yes Hitler and Germany were socialist just like the Democrat party!!!

[detltu]

Which logical fallacy?

As far as why it warrants impeachment, I suspect that is what today will be mostly about. But we got a preview yesterday in closing:

“Why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani over a man like Christopher Wray?" he asked, referring to the FBI director who acknowledges the reality that Russia, not Ukraine, attacked us in 2016.

“Because he wanted to, and because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally. And what Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the truth. What Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the information he needed to protect this country and its elections. But that's not good enough—what's in it for him? What's in it for Donald Trump? This is why he must be removed.”

He cited the reports that Russia attempted to hack into the computer systems of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm at the center of the rat****ing, and drew a clear picture of the future.

“Let's say they got in. And let's say they start dumping documents to interfere in the next election. Let's say they start dumping some real things they have from Burisma, let's say they start dumping some fake things they didn't hack from Burisma, but they want you to believe they did. Let's say they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help Donald Trump. Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump will stand up to them and protect our national interest over his own personal interest? You know you can't, which makes him dangerous to this country. You know you can't. You know you can't count on him. None of us can.“

False dilemma and straw man mostly. What you quoted is actually a false dilemma actually.

Also did Trump ever mention the Russians trying to hack Burisma? I honestly missed that. That is news to me, although again I don't know that it matters too much. This goes back to the Russian interference in the election. Honestly we have to allow people to be smart enough/ dumb enough to make up their own minds and weed out the disinformation. This is where a strong trusted media would be helpful. Now, if another country is actually trying to falsify votes or tamper with counts, then that is a serious issue that whoever is president needs to address whether it is in their best interests or not.

[Guisslapp]

I am semi-retired so yes but not CNN nor MSNBC all the time obviously. Fox is my preferred and they played it as well as me listening to the Patriot and POTUS station while in the car.

I had FoxNews on and they didn’t show hardly anything.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

BARNES: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP

[detltu]

You are falling for the Chris Mathews "he sent a shiver up my leg" syndrome. Only on the fake news channels did anyone lather praises on Schiff. The guy has a great one-sided memory for sure. However, he is a professional pathologic liar. He makes things up and embellishes to the max. And he looks possessed or ill in so many ways as he rants his hatred. And between him and Nadler they are blowing it big time. The moderates aren't impressed and women know a lying arse scoundrel when they see and hear them.

‘Stunned’ Susan Collins says she wrote note to chief justice after Nadler attacked GOP senators

• Joni Ernst calls out Democrats over aid to Ukraine: 'Hypocrisy is on full display'

• Laura Ingraham: Adam Schiff is claiming he can read minds during Senate impeachment trial

Sen. Susan Collins: I asked chief justice to reprimand Nadler

Nadler is not the same as Schiff, clearly Schiff is the better speaker. Also just because you don't think the substance isn't great, doesn't mean he is not a good speaker. Whether you agree with the substance or not he is pretty good at giving these long speeches without seeming like a robot or like he's just making it up as he goes.