Author Topic: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation  (Read 20174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Walrus

  • goo goo g'joob
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17221
  • PSA: Stairway to Heaven is in 4/4
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #210 on: December 20, 2019, 03:41:08 PM »
Stadler, just last week you claimed with 100% certainty that "the dems are most certainly NOT doing their jobs" (I had to go looking for this quote to be certain). So for you to now say, "I just don't get that mindset that assumes "because I think it, there's no reasonable, rational, sane alternate theory" - it raises an eyebrow.
From a Mega Man Legends island jamming power metal to a Walrus listening to black metal, I like your story arc.
"I don't worry about nothing, no, 'cause worrying's a waste of my time"

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1334
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #211 on: December 20, 2019, 03:48:04 PM »
"I'm here to impeach that motherfucker".

Ok, you've brought this up several times now.  Other than profanity, how is that any different than many Republican's comments after Obama became POTUS?  Boehner said openly his sole purpose was to stop every thing Obama tried to pass.  McConnell said it was job to see Obama as a one term president. 

I'm sure these types of statements have been uttered since the beginning of time.  Boehner and McConnell made good on their threats.  Tlaib made good on hers.  What's the difference?  Whether or not you or I agree with them, what is the difference?

None different.  I've long been a proponent that we're where we are because of the last 15, 20 years, so it's none different.  But with that, let's - NOT YOU, I mean generally - not now assume this narrative that Republicans are now assuming some ridiculous/insane/irrational/corrupt/bootlicking/asskissing/whatever-word-we-want-to-use position that is an offense to our morality or our democracy.  One cannot castigate Mitch McConnell without acknowledging Tlaib, or that which came before.

Again, I'm really not arguing for one side as much as I am arguing for neither/both sides. In this partisan time, ridiculing one side is very often seen as implicitly defending another.  I think (maybe? did I misunderstand?) that I've been referred to here (also not by you) as a "Republican", and I suppose nominally I am because I lean conservative on the issues I vote on (economics) but when criticizing a Democrat, and we're not talking specific ideology, I'm not defending Republicans at all, implicitly or otherwise.

I appreciate your honesty.  And I appreciate your ire that things are the way they are.  I truly do.  So since we can't control the McConnells and the Tlaibs post-election rhetoric/promises/threats then why do you keep stirring the pot by bringing it up again and again?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, so that's why I'm asking.  But if you want us all to do better, then ruminating how horrible it is that she uttered those words (as had been modeled for her since politics began) isn't really helping your cause, is it?  Not to mention the point is moot.  For better or worse, she did vote to impeach him.  I guess her supporters could see that as a politician following through on the promises they made.
What if UFOs are just billionaires from other planets?

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9800
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #212 on: December 20, 2019, 03:56:14 PM »
Without getting too in the weeds, I'll just respond to this, because I think maybe it cuts to the heart of where we most fundamentally disagree on at least some of this:
I'd go so far as to say there's enough there that they would be negligent if they didn't begin an investigation, and impeachment proceedings are the best way to go about that.

Whether or not I agree with the first part of the sentence is largely immaterial.  And I don't think I disagree with it.  But there's the thing:  investigation and impeachment proceedings are two wholly different things.  Investigating is absolutely the right way for Congress to have discharged their duties.  Impeachment proceedings are a different animal and require more.
The impeachment inquiry is simply an up-level investigation to see if impeachment is warranted. It also brings with it greater subpoena power, which would have been a real asset were they honored. But even if I were to concede your point, the fact still remains that the House was operating well within its Constitutional mandate and the republicans attacked them for exercising that authority.

Well, I often hesitate to wade into these discussions at all because I rarely see them go anywhere that I feel is profitable.  But I'm glad I stuck my nose into this one in the first place because I get where you are coming from now, and I didn't understand it before. 

In response to the specific point, not trying to beat a dead horse, but I'll just say this:  I fundamentally disagree with you on the role and purpose of impeachment.  Yes, it does bring with it a greater subpoena power.  But that isn't the point.  Any sort of actual litigation, be it civil or criminal, carries with it stronger mechanisms for investigating than any sort of pre-litigation investigatory process.  But that's beside the point.  There is supposed to be a level of pre-litigation investigation done to ensure that there is enough evidence, or a good faith belief that such evidence will materialize, before litigation is initiated.  Failure to do that can get a lawyer (and his client) slapped with abuse of process charges.

That isn't very different than the impeachment scenario we are dealing with now.  It is supposed to be a multiple-step process, with the impeachment inquiry arising only after other steps leading up to it.  Yes, that slows the entire process down.  But the process is that way for a reason.  And even moreso than litigation, impeachment proceedings are supposed to be an extraordinary process that is not invoked prematurely. 

That is primarily the reason I object to the process here.  And that is a big part of the reason why, as you put it, "republicans attacked them for exercising that authority."  Yes, another big reason on the part of SOME Republicans was simply partisan bias.  I can't speak to or condone that.  But let's not get stuck on that issue.  I'm instead focused on the other. 

You are entitled to hold onto how you feel about the impeachment process.  But I wanted to tease that out because your posts and this discussion have given me sort of an epiphany about what it is, at least those with honest motives, on both sides of the issue fundamentally disagree about and why.  And, to me anyway, that's helpful.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #213 on: December 20, 2019, 05:40:38 PM »
Without getting too in the weeds, I'll just respond to this, because I think maybe it cuts to the heart of where we most fundamentally disagree on at least some of this:
I'd go so far as to say there's enough there that they would be negligent if they didn't begin an investigation, and impeachment proceedings are the best way to go about that.

Whether or not I agree with the first part of the sentence is largely immaterial.  And I don't think I disagree with it.  But there's the thing:  investigation and impeachment proceedings are two wholly different things.  Investigating is absolutely the right way for Congress to have discharged their duties.  Impeachment proceedings are a different animal and require more.
The impeachment inquiry is simply an up-level investigation to see if impeachment is warranted. It also brings with it greater subpoena power, which would have been a real asset were they honored. But even if I were to concede your point, the fact still remains that the House was operating well within its Constitutional mandate and the republicans attacked them for exercising that authority.

Well, I often hesitate to wade into these discussions at all because I rarely see them go anywhere that I feel is profitable.  But I'm glad I stuck my nose into this one in the first place because I get where you are coming from now, and I didn't understand it before. 

In response to the specific point, not trying to beat a dead horse, but I'll just say this:  I fundamentally disagree with you on the role and purpose of impeachment.  Yes, it does bring with it a greater subpoena power.  But that isn't the point.  Any sort of actual litigation, be it civil or criminal, carries with it stronger mechanisms for investigating than any sort of pre-litigation investigatory process.  But that's beside the point.  There is supposed to be a level of pre-litigation investigation done to ensure that there is enough evidence, or a good faith belief that such evidence will materialize, before litigation is initiated.  Failure to do that can get a lawyer (and his client) slapped with abuse of process charges.

That isn't very different than the impeachment scenario we are dealing with now.  It is supposed to be a multiple-step process, with the impeachment inquiry arising only after other steps leading up to it.  Yes, that slows the entire process down.  But the process is that way for a reason.  And even moreso than litigation, impeachment proceedings are supposed to be an extraordinary process that is not invoked prematurely. 

That is primarily the reason I object to the process here.  And that is a big part of the reason why, as you put it, "republicans attacked them for exercising that authority."  Yes, another big reason on the part of SOME Republicans was simply partisan bias.  I can't speak to or condone that.  But let's not get stuck on that issue.  I'm instead focused on the other. 

You are entitled to hold onto how you feel about the impeachment process.  But I wanted to tease that out because your posts and this discussion have given me sort of an epiphany about what it is, at least those with honest motives, on both sides of the issue fundamentally disagree about and why.  And, to me anyway, that's helpful.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the bolded. Not that it's wrong in theory, but rather that these things did happen. The initial phase of an impeachment, the inquiry, is the investigation, which typically happens in the House Judiciary Committee. That's what we saw here. Moreover, [honest question here] would a timeline of failure to uphold an obligation amidst unrelated negotiations and numerous witnesses stating that he withheld that obligation because he was seeking something in return not constitute a reasonable belief that they could secure a conviction? That's enough of a case to send somebody to death row in both of our states. 

Also, if the House had initiated a non-impeachment investigation would it have been any different? For one thing the republicans would have attacked it just the same, and I suspect we'd be hearing the exact same arguments about how awful the democrats are for attacking Trump. Secondly, without the enhanced subpoena powers it's unlikely to offer anything more than what we have. Lastly, it's entirely possible that the presidency outlasts the investigation. Those last two things are important because it effectively elevates the president to a position of being above the law absent any means of accountability. That's precisely why everybody from Washington to Burgher have made it so clear that impeachment is the proverbial trump card, and the House's investigatory powers during the impeachment process are supreme.

In any case, glad you found this beneficial. I find many of these discussions helpful, either to better understand my opinions or the counterpoints. And Bill will certainly agree that we've both shifted plenty of our beliefs based on this sort of discussion. It's just a matter of going into it in good faith.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #214 on: December 21, 2019, 09:37:49 AM »
Without getting too in the weeds, I'll just respond to this, because I think maybe it cuts to the heart of where we most fundamentally disagree on at least some of this:
I'd go so far as to say there's enough there that they would be negligent if they didn't begin an investigation, and impeachment proceedings are the best way to go about that.

Whether or not I agree with the first part of the sentence is largely immaterial.  And I don't think I disagree with it.  But there's the thing:  investigation and impeachment proceedings are two wholly different things.  Investigating is absolutely the right way for Congress to have discharged their duties.  Impeachment proceedings are a different animal and require more.
The impeachment inquiry is simply an up-level investigation to see if impeachment is warranted. It also brings with it greater subpoena power, which would have been a real asset were they honored. But even if I were to concede your point, the fact still remains that the House was operating well within its Constitutional mandate and the republicans attacked them for exercising that authority.

Not going to miss an opportunity to point out that Trump was legally challenging that in court, and the case has not been finally decided.  It would have been nice had they honored them (I guess) but it also would have been nice for the Committee to respect the Judicial Branch as much as they are screaming for the Executive Branch to respect Congress. 

I would be more inclined to agree with you if a) the Mueller Report didn't exist, and b) it didn't seem so much a fait accompli for three years now.   The Democrats - and I'm not suggesting that Republicans are any better; we're not talking about them right now - have played the same "we just want this/<Get this>/Well, we meant THIS, so this is it, last time/<Get this>/Ok, no, really, we meant THIS, so this is REALLY it, last time..." game almost ad infinitum.  This wasn't STRICTLY "Hey, we got this info, we should now investigate!" as much as it was "We're going to investigate just as soon as... Election?  Nope, that won't work.  Obstruction of justice?  Nope, that won't work.  Border atrocity?  Nope, that won't work.  Phone call? GOT HIM!"   

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #215 on: December 21, 2019, 10:02:49 AM »
Stadler, just last week you claimed with 100% certainty that "the dems are most certainly NOT doing their jobs" (I had to go looking for this quote to be certain). So for you to now say, "I just don't get that mindset that assumes "because I think it, there's no reasonable, rational, sane alternate theory" - it raises an eyebrow.

Don't skip over the discussion about what exactly "their job" means.  There are levels here, and on some of them they are doing their jobs - Congress's role is, among other things, oversight of the other two branches.    On others - thoroughness of investigation, respect for the fact that "checks and balances" go both ways, and the Judicial Branch has some oversight over Congress - maybe not so much. 

I've also very clearly said that there is a "private position" and a "public position".   I've already written that this is extremely difficult for me and it's been a real struggle to look at it through both lenses, as well as keep both separate, honest, and objective as I can.  As much as some of you view my positions as "inconsistent", it's the one standard I value, and I try very very hard to be consistent. That's not always easy, and it's not always simple.  Private position - which DOES mean nothing, and has no probative weight, as least as Congress is concerned - I don't like Trump.  He's embarrassing, he's every thing John Adams (my favorite President; yes I have a favorite President) was not.  But he gets the same advantages and disadvantages as anyone else in public office/private citizenry. 

But that doesn't mean "anything goes".  My "public position" is different. I have to acknowledge that some of the things that Trump has done that I don't like are not illegal, not impeachable, and not actionable outside of a vote.   Others, may be actionable.   But - separate from my "private position", those that want to enforce that have to PROVE that with more than flashy speeches in Congress that talk about "patriotism" and "courage", and ignore on-going court cases. 

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9800
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #216 on: December 23, 2019, 08:40:19 AM »
I don't always agree with Stadler, but the above two posts are pretty spot on with my opinion.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #217 on: January 09, 2020, 05:05:04 PM »
Graham sure has changed his tune over the last 20 years

1:50 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXRRu3XKPE0

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1592
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #218 on: January 09, 2020, 05:46:11 PM »
Graham's the most hypocritical and shameless whore in that entire bordello. Steve Schmidt (Republican strategist and former advisor to John McCain) summed him up superbly a couple of days ago:

"People try to analyze Lindsey through the prism of the manifest inconsistencies that exist between things that he used to believe and what he's doing now. The way to understand him is to look at what's consistent. And essentially what he is in American politics is what, in the aquatic world, would be a pilot fish: a smaller fish that hovers about a larger predator, like a shark, living off of its detritus. That's Lindsey. And when he swam around the McCain shark, broadly viewed as a virtuous and good shark, Lindsey took on the patina of virtue. But wherever the apex shark is, you find the Lindsey fish hovering about, and Trump's the newest shark in the sea. Lindsey has a real draw to power but he's found it unattainable on his own merits."


This is my personal favourite Lindsey moment, from back when a Trump presidency still seemed an impossibility and he hadn't sold off the last of his principles to be the spineless sycophant-in-chief he is today:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkDykGhM8c
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #219 on: January 09, 2020, 07:12:52 PM »
I'm a big fan of Schmidt  Even before he ditched the republican party, I've always had lots of respect for the guy. I hadn't seen the quote you provided, but he hit the nail on the head. The video you provided demonstrates that perfectly.   

It makes me wonder though, in the clip you provided, is that actually Graham, or was that just his flavor for the week? If he spoke like that to the people of South Carolina today, he'd be labeled a terrorist sympathizer. Graham, like Schmidt, along with Michael Steele and John Kasich (on most things), was always one of the republicans that I could get behind and liked to listen to. Today he seems to have gone completely off the deep end and has abandoned everything good he once stood for. I feel my heart rate elevating as the verbal diarrhea begins to flow from his mouth.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2020, 10:08:15 PM by Chino »

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49832
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #220 on: January 09, 2020, 07:57:44 PM »


This is my personal favourite Lindsey moment, from back when a Trump presidency still seemed an impossibility and he hadn't sold off the last of his principles to be the spineless sycophant-in-chief he is today:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkDykGhM8c

Wow. And on CNN to boot.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #221 on: January 09, 2020, 08:57:56 PM »


This is my personal favourite Lindsey moment, from back when a Trump presidency still seemed an impossibility and he hadn't sold off the last of his principles to be the spineless sycophant-in-chief he is today:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2bkDykGhM8c

Wow.
Yeah, that was my first reaction, too. Good speech. At the same time, with the benefit of hindsight, I had the same problem as Chino. Today he would be the first person to call himself a terrorist sympathizer for making those remarks. He said what most of us believe to be true, and now he would tell us all that he was completely wrong back when he made that statement. And since I have every reason to believe he's a somewhat intelligent guy, and certainly not an imbecile, I can only see him as a worthless hypocrite.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #222 on: January 10, 2020, 08:55:09 AM »
I hope I'm just putting into basic words what some of you are alluding to, but that's not a "good speech" in any meaningful sense of the word.  It's a mistake to say that he was "right" then, and that he "shifted", and in so doing, "lost his principles".  I don't define "principles" as "saying something that I agree with me".   That he said something in the past that was more in line with the popular wisdom of the listener doesn't at all mean that he at one point had "integrity" and somehow lost it. 

I think that's Schmidt's point; he gets that.  It's reading between the lines, but I don't think Schmidt thought that Graham had any more integrity walking arm-in-arm with McCain than he does now.  It's just that his platform then had a wider general appeal (if a narrower personal reward).  (You'll note that in that clip, he's more than willing to hop on the popular anti-Trump talking points about him: "racist", "religious bigot", etc.)

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #223 on: January 10, 2020, 09:06:37 AM »
I'm not sure what you're asking, but for my part I'm suggesting that he has no principles. Hence the worthless hypocrite comment. While he was saying what everybody wanted to hear in the video, he was also largely correct. I think you'd even agree with him. In jumping ship to what a different audience wanted to hear he's been saying things that are largely incorrect. I think you'd also disagree with him. If you want to take correctness out of the equation that's fine, but it doesn't change the worthless hypocrite component.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #224 on: January 10, 2020, 12:27:30 PM »
I'm not sure what you're asking, but for my part I'm suggesting that he has no principles. Hence the worthless hypocrite comment. While he was saying what everybody wanted to hear in the video, he was also largely correct. I think you'd even agree with him. In jumping ship to what a different audience wanted to hear he's been saying things that are largely incorrect. I think you'd also disagree with him. If you want to take correctness out of the equation that's fine, but it doesn't change the worthless hypocrite component.

I think you and I are in agreement.  You are able (if not willing, that's your call) to take correctness out of the equation.  Many others are not.  He's a hypocrite, for sure, because he had the audacity to change his point of view over time (I say that not with admiration, but to present one point of view that reasonably explains the change; I don't share that view).  But you know as well as I do that "hypocrisy" is at least somewhat tied to the positions themselves, and the actions taken on both sides of the change.   No one calls a recovered alcoholic a "hypocrite".   No one calls a progressive atheist a "hypocrite".   

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #225 on: January 10, 2020, 01:00:33 PM »
As I think about it hypocrite was clearly the wrong word. Hypocrisy implies held beliefs, and the point I've been trying to make is that he has none. And while a person is certainly entitled to change his beliefs, I think that change needs to be rooted in learned experience rather than practicality.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #226 on: January 10, 2020, 01:19:40 PM »
As I think about it hypocrite was clearly the wrong word. Hypocrisy implies held beliefs, and the point I've been trying to make is that he has none. And while a person is certainly entitled to change his beliefs, I think that change needs to be rooted in learned experience rather than practicality.

On that I agree with you 1000% percent. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #227 on: January 13, 2020, 08:55:16 AM »
So Trump will be found not guilty 43-55. We already know this. I wonder what the verdict would be if the votes were cast anonymously. I'm not sure if it would change the outcome, but it might. I suspect there are probably 10 republicans (and the two dems) who would love to vote their conscience.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #228 on: January 13, 2020, 09:15:34 AM »
So Trump will be found not guilty 43-55. We already know this. I wonder what the verdict would be if the votes were cast anonymously. I'm not sure if it would change the outcome, but it might. I suspect there are probably 10 republicans (and the two dems) who would love to vote their conscience.

Politics is a sticky game though; I feel like these are not the best charges to be bringing against Trump, and as much as I respect Nancy Pelosi, I think the Democrats as a whole are botching the job.   The trick for a politician is to act in self-interest and make it seem like the most noble, moral, and self-less act possible ("self-interest" doesn't necessarily mean for that particular politicians own personal benefit; I'm including constituents and party in there too).  They are seemingly doing the exact opposite.   If you're REALLY talking "conscience" - and not that self-interest - then I think the numbers are different.  I think there are probably as many Democrats who deep down recognize that this is a cold comfort for the real damage Trump has caused, and who also have pause in removing from office a President for (in part) simply exercising his due process rights with the third arm of the triparte government, the Judicial Branch.   

The other variable is the "Establishment" line of thinking.  It's simply not accurate that "there is no evidence that Hunter or Joe Biden did anything wrong".   How many of those politicians on either side of the aisle aren't really voting on "Trump" or his issues, but on the more macro point of "what is this guy going to blow up next?".  I have, over the past six months or so, come to believe that there is a decent amount of fear towards Trump that he's going to upset the apple-cart in ways that were never, ever considered back in November of 2016 when we were all "terrified" that he would be "normalized".   

Offline The Walrus

  • goo goo g'joob
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17221
  • PSA: Stairway to Heaven is in 4/4
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #229 on: January 15, 2020, 07:40:34 PM »
Stadler, I'm just here to tell you to clear out your damn inbox. Again.  :lol
From a Mega Man Legends island jamming power metal to a Walrus listening to black metal, I like your story arc.
"I don't worry about nothing, no, 'cause worrying's a waste of my time"

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #230 on: January 16, 2020, 05:55:07 AM »
Things should be pretty juicy the next few days. That interview on Maddow last night seemed like a bombshell if what he's saying is true. Part II is on tonight.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8705
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #231 on: January 16, 2020, 06:16:26 AM »
Things should be pretty juicy the next few days. That interview on Maddow last night seemed like a bombshell if what he's saying is true. Part II is on tonight.

Yeah, it was really interesting to watch. I liked Maddow's interview style, polite but unflinching. I was really curious to see what would be posted here as takes on the interview.
I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the U.S. that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough. Christopher Hitchens

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #232 on: January 16, 2020, 08:23:26 AM »
Things should be pretty juicy the next few days. That interview on Maddow last night seemed like a bombshell if what he's saying is true. Part II is on tonight.

Yeah, it was really interesting to watch. I liked Maddow's interview style, polite but unflinching. I was really curious to see what would be posted here as takes on the interview.

Since I ignore her (and MSNBC) with the same level of intensity as Sean Hannity (and most of Fox News, at least during prime time), what was the interview? 

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #233 on: January 16, 2020, 08:27:14 AM »
Things should be pretty juicy the next few days. That interview on Maddow last night seemed like a bombshell if what he's saying is true. Part II is on tonight.

Yeah, it was really interesting to watch. I liked Maddow's interview style, polite but unflinching. I was really curious to see what would be posted here as takes on the interview.

Since I ignore her (and MSNBC) with the same level of intensity as Sean Hannity (and most of Fox News, at least during prime time), what was the interview?

Check out whichever source you feel to be the most reliable:

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/epd4aj/megathread_lev_parnas_states_in_interview_trump/


Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #234 on: January 17, 2020, 10:09:31 AM »
I think this is big news, and meaningful news.

For all Trump's experience with lawyers, and his repeated use of lawyers, I've always sort of scratched my head at some of the strategic choices.  I understand the response is "but he doesn't listen to them", and I imagine that is in part true, but it doesn't nearly explain everything.  Trump not listening to a lawyer doesn't cover those things the lawyer themselves does or says. 

In any event, these guys know what they're doing, and will not - in my estimation - simply play fall-guy for the President.  Alan Dershowitz is one of the best in the game, and while he's primarily an appeal guy (and was on the OJ team solely for the purposes of preparing and managing any potential appeal efforts) he is strong in this Constitutional realm.  Starr knows the process and knows the ins-and-outs of the trial.   If Trump lets them do their jobs, this is a formidable team now, and I don't think Schiff, Nadler, et. al are their equal.

(To be honest, I think a whole lot less than that, at least of Schiff, but I'm trying to be fair and reasonable.  If I wasn't trying to be fair and reasonable, I'd note that I believe Dershowitz is going to eviscerate Schiff's grandstanding and sloppiness in bringing these Articles.)   

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #235 on: January 17, 2020, 10:23:42 AM »
Dude, I could pick a wino off the street to serve as Trump's council and he'd get off just the same. I suspect this is simply window dressing for the history books, and none of that's really going to matter.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #236 on: January 17, 2020, 10:25:12 AM »
Starr is the perfect guy to defend Trump. Who better to represent him than a guy that got kicked out as head of Baylor University for covering rapes in the athletic department.

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #237 on: January 17, 2020, 11:26:59 AM »
Dude, I could pick a wino off the street to serve as Trump's council and he'd get off just the same. I suspect this is simply window dressing for the history books, and none of that's really going to matter.

Maybe; but I'm not looking at the nuts and bolts outcome, I'm looking at the bigger picture.  "Window dressing for the history books" could mean two things:  Trump's own personal legacy - which I do not believe will be materially helped by either Starr or Dershowitz - and the process of impeachment itself.  I think there is a great danger here, and that danger is in large part why I am so critical of Schiff.  I certainly do not know what he's thinking; for all I know he could well have the best of intentions.  I don't think so, but I'm open to that possibility.   But he cannot be sloppy, he cannot cut corners, and he cannot be anything less than deliberate, and he hasn't met the mark on ANY of those counts.   

I know you know this, El Barto, but most people don't:  the process is NOT supposed to be easy. That's the point. It's supposed to be slow, deliberate, and oppositional.  This is how we (try to) ensure that justice is done.   We allow rapists and pedophiles and murderers to have full access to our courts, to have their day, to have full access to the evidence against them, to have opportunities to appeal (whereas the prosecutors do not), so that we can be SURE that no innocent persons liberties are withheld.  So here, not so much because we care about Trump personally, but we care about his office, and the fact that the will of the people - as expressed through the appropriate channels - has him in that role.  We don't like it in the case of Trump, sure, but what about the next Obama?  And by that I mean a well-intentioned, moral, law-abiding President looking to push the envelope in ways that some parts of the population are resistant to.  Impeachment is a political process, yes, but that means that it's NOT a criminal one, not that the process can be politicized.  And yet here we are. 

Put another way, yes, we all know how it's going to turn out.  But what can't happen is that this be viewed as "but for a Republican Senate..." and the battle continue. 

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25827
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #238 on: January 17, 2020, 11:31:40 AM »
You're fond of pointing out that Trump is an evolutionary process. He's a continuation rather than the beginning of a failed system. Has it occurred to you that the same can be said of the impeachment? I would propose that what you're concerned about is an inevitability. This is a sham from both sides, but it was going to be regardless. The process might be a complete failure, but even if Starr prevents this one from being a joke (though we all know he's too late) the next impeachment (I'd give it 3 years) probably still will be. Nothing that happens here will make the same inevitable steps any more legitimate.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28822
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #239 on: January 17, 2020, 01:11:40 PM »
If I'm being dead honest, no it really hasn't occurred to me in that way.  But then again, I don't think of "processes" being fluid that way, only the people who implement them. 

I tend to think of the government as really two things:  the people and the process/structure.  The process/structure are what they are.  They are wrenches, guns, guitars, in the sense that they are neither good nor bad themselves, but only to be used by the people with them, who are good or bad (well, have good or bad intentions, let's say).   And the people are split between careerists and elected officials, both of whom have to answer, but in different ways. 

Given that the process only changes, because the people have.  If the people miraculously change back, then so will the process.  I don't really see that happening - the incentive would have been, I thought, a shitty President, but two in a row (in very very different ways) didn't seem to make a damn bit of difference. I think the word of the millenium so far is "double down", since that's apparently the only real meaningful reaction I've seen in quite some time. 



(By the way, I don't literally mean that Obama was a shitty President; of course he was not.   But he either hasn't noticed or refuses to acknowledge the way that politics has morphed over the five years before his term, his term, and in the three +/- since and in many ways has helped to make it worse.)

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1334
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #240 on: January 19, 2020, 10:10:08 AM »
I'm seeing this photo on Twitter.  Do y'all think this is Lev Parnas at Ivanka's birthday party 30 years ago?

What if UFOs are just billionaires from other planets?

Online lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 20187
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #241 on: January 19, 2020, 10:44:52 AM »
I'm gonna say no just because the photo is 30 years ago and that'd make Parnas 17 years old. He was born in '72

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1334
  • Gender: Female
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #242 on: January 19, 2020, 11:12:54 AM »
Parnas is 48?  Shit - he looks bad.

For the record, I'm not sure how old that photo is.  People say it's Ivanka's birthday party.  A football party for a girly girl?  I don't know about that either.  Is that a football cake?  Kind of looks like roadkill.  I do enjoy the look on Jr's face.  "Whaddayamean the party isn't for me?!?!?"   :laugh:
What if UFOs are just billionaires from other planets?

Online lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 20187
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #243 on: January 19, 2020, 01:45:02 PM »
Right? That's rough living just riding hard on him for sure...shady deals, constant stress and looking over the back, all paired with I would assume an alcoholic level of drinking based on how his face looked in the Maddow interview.

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 49832
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: Ukraine Scandal / Impeachment Investigation
« Reply #244 on: January 19, 2020, 02:19:27 PM »
That's Stadler.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D