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

[detltu]

But Trump didn’t ask for anything to be done about corruption in the general sense. He was only concerned with Biden and elections.

I think you can argue that involved the executive branch whereas other areas of corruption may have been sufficiently addressed. He also asked about the supposed DNC hacking company that seems to be completely erroneous. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the previous administration would ignore these particular (alleged) incidents of corruption for political reasons.

[detltu]

The other impeachment managers’ presentations felt more dull/repetitive. Schiff’s was easy to follow.

There is no doubt why he is hated so much be the right wing media. He has game.

I just follow along while doing cardio, so it isn’t like I have something more exciting competing for my attention at that time.

That's not a bad idea. I find myself playing on my phone after a few minutes of listening to them.

[Guisslapp]

This is where you start to lose me. Was Clinton "cheating" at an election when she hired a firm to spread misinformation on her opponent? If not, then how in the world is Donald Trump cheating when we have found no actual link between Trump and the Russian disinformation campaign that we don't actually know affected the election at all?

She didn’t hire them to spread misinformation. She hired them to collect information. The fact that they collected some information that was also not true was not the point. She didn’t even disseminate the information. Nor did Obama even though it would have benefited Clinton. We know what Trump would do in the reverse.

Trump literally asked Russian for help and his son, working for his campaign (and others) did try to help him get the trove of emails. Russia did provide the requested help. It fell short of a provable criminal conspiracy, but some would call that collusion. It WAS improper. He did benefit. The reason it wasn’t a conspiracy was simply because there was no agreement (no bargained for exchange). He made a request. Russia obliged. They both had an interest in seeing emails leaked.

[techman05]

I think you can argue that involved the executive branch whereas other areas of corruption may have been sufficiently addressed. He also asked about the supposed DNC hacking company that seems to be completely erroneous. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the previous administration would ignore these particular (alleged) incidents of corruption for political reasons.

But I thought it was established that no politician should do anything which benefits them politically? Dang, I can’t keep up.

[detltu]

Most folks CHOOSE to select the “news” source that will confirm their bias and not challenge their worldview. An independent news source, to the extent you could have such a thing, would struggle.

It is very problematic that FoxNews wouldn’t show the full trial. Everyone knows why. Helping people hide out from hearing things they don’t want to hear is not a noble purpose.

Yep, it's our own fault. We also want entertainment as much as anything. A neutral independent news outlet would probably be really boring.

There are a few reasons Fox wouldn't show the full trial. I doubt it is what you are implying and more about ratings.

[Guisslapp]

I think you can argue that involved the executive branch whereas other areas of corruption may have been sufficiently addressed. He also asked about the supposed DNC hacking company that seems to be completely erroneous. I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the previous administration would ignore these particular (alleged) incidents of corruption for political reasons.

Why does it involve the executive branch any more than other corruption?

The DNC hacking request served his political interest too. It is part of this right wing conspiracy theory that Ukraine was trying to help Hillary and hurt Donald in the 2016 election.

Both of these requests were driven by personal interest - not the nation’s interest, but he was willing to risk the nation’s interest for his benefit.

[Guisslapp]

But I thought it was established that no politician should do anything which benefits them politically? Dang, I can’t keep up.

What are you saying?

[DONW]

Why does it involve the executive branch any more than other corruption?

The DNC hacking request served his political interest too. It is part of this right wing conspiracy theory that Ukraine was trying to help Hillary and hurt Donald in the 2016 election.

Both of these requests were driven by personal interest - not the nation’s interest, but he was willing to risk the nation’s interest for his benefit.

I pity you!! You are such a fool for believing Schiff, Nadler, CNN and MSNBC. These are all fake news. You only believe them because you hate Trump.

[DONW]

Why does it involve the executive branch any more than other corruption?

The DNC hacking request served his political interest too. It is part of this right wing conspiracy theory that Ukraine was trying to help Hillary and hurt Donald in the 2016 election.

Both of these requests were driven by personal interest - not the nation’s interest, but he was willing to risk the nation’s interest for his benefit.

I pity you!! You are such a fool for believing Schiff, Nadler, CNN and MSNBC. These are all fake news. You only believe them because you hate Trump.

[dawg1984]

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.

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.

Have to defend Guisslap somewhat. Guisslapp did not say whether Schiff is telling the truth or not. He is commenting on Schiff's speaking skills. An attorney explained to me long ago trials are not about right and wrong but rather who presents the best argument/case. That said, whether the "evidence" is factual or fictitious evidence does not matter. All that matters is if he can weave a narrative enough people will believe. As someone else posted, people are seeing/hearing what they want in this trial. So, Schiff's objective is to fire up the left to the point they will not believe anything presented by Trump's defense team.

[detltu]

She didn’t hire them to spread misinformation. She hired them to collect information. The fact that they collected some information that was also not true was not the point. She didn’t even disseminate the information. Nor did Obama even though it would have benefited Clinton. We know what Trump would do in the reverse.

Trump literally asked Russian for help and his son, working for his campaign (and others) did try to help him get the trove of emails. Russia did provide the requested help. It fell short of a provable criminal conspiracy, but some would call that collusion. It WAS improper. He did benefit. The reason it wasn’t a conspiracy was simply because there was no agreement (no bargained for exchange). He made a request. Russia obliged. They both had an interest in seeing emails leaked.

They did worse. They used it to turn the Government against a political opponent. And we are still seeing the effects of it to this day.

He asked in a very public way that can easily be construed as a joke. His son was attempting to gain access to information (very similar to the Clinton campaign actually paying for dirt) but at some point realized he was being set up. Had he actually recieved the information I guess it would have been ok as long as he didn't disseminate it right?
I would agree that it was all improper. It's arguable whether he benefited (certainly didn't in the long run). There is also nothing saying Russia obliged with his request. You are reaching on that one.

[detltu]

Why does it involve the executive branch any more than other corruption?

The DNC hacking request served his political interest too. It is part of this right wing conspiracy theory that Ukraine was trying to help Hillary and hurt Donald in the 2016 election.

Both of these requests were driven by personal interest - not the nation’s interest, but he was willing to risk the nation’s interest for his benefit.

Because it involved the Vice president?
The serving his political interests is a red herring. Everything Trump or any other politician does serves their political interests. Doing their job serves their political interests. To say it doesn't serve the nations interests is the crux of the argument. You say it does not and many disagree. To say he risked the nation's interest for his benefit is another tough one to prove. Especially since he sets foreign policy.

[Guisslapp]

Because it involved the Vice president?
The serving his political interests is a red herring. Everything Trump or any other politician does serves their political interests. Doing their job serves their political interests. To say it doesn't serve the nations interests is the crux of the argument. You say it does not and many disagree. To say he risked the nation's interest for his benefit is another tough one to prove. Especially since he sets foreign policy.

There is a difference between trying to do a good job to win approval and trying to dig up dirt or stir controversy over a political rival. In one case, the nation’s interest is the primary beneficiary of your activity and you hope to also benefit.

This case is even further different because we were putting Ukraine (and therefore our own interest) at risk for a personal interest.

[Guisslapp]

Yep, it's our own fault. We also want entertainment as much as anything. A neutral independent news outlet would probably be really boring.

There are a few reasons Fox wouldn't show the full trial. I doubt it is what you are implying and more about ratings.

https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/2...ation-divided/

Fresh off the press today.

[DawgyNWindow]

OK, I have been shamed into action.

I will start watching on Saturday and watch Monday and Tuesday. Can someone tell me where I can watch without some stupid "journalist" telling me what my opinion should be on what I've heard? Obviously this excludes dictator-friendly TV (CNN, MSNBC) that excluded airing the testimony of the few allowed repub witnesses during the CHARADE in the house.

Maybe One America News will show it.