When assessing Trump’s guilt or innocence...

And that interpretation would vary from person to persons with the ONLY accurate description being the one the people Directly involved in the conversation see it!

The willingness to ignore the logic in all this has really detracted from how I once perceived some on this forum and their posts.. I guess blinding bias and dislike for someone has a way of effecting not only a peoples mental well being but also their ability to use common sense while allowing themselves and others to convince them to believe the unrealistic..

 

The facts you speak of are self evident nothing burgers. The Republicans have moved some Congressmen into the Intelligence committee who are capable of better cross-examination.

Schiff is a fool if he thinks he is actually going to turn public opinion. The transcript is the primary FACT and it is public and totally unredacted. The testimony is primarily all opinion.

Schiff is on a slippery slope because more of these people are potentially going to be exposed for their own malfeasance.

 

Taylor --- was not on the call --- he read his testimony in the NY Times.
Yovanovitch --- When Obama's people went to Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign, namely Manafort --- they were shown a Black Ledger that had some entries about Manafort. When 2 people familiar with the lack of credibility of the ledger tried to get Visas to report their knowledge to the FBI, Yovanovich refused to issue the Visas.
Sondland --- didn't remember anything and testified as much
Vindman --- he was on the call, but did not come forward. Instead, he sent Mr. Anonymous Russian collusion guy represented by Zaid, who said on January 30, 2017, 10 days into the administration, that he was leading a coup against Trump.
Mulvaney wasn't on the call
Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified that he did not work on Ukraine while he served under Pompeo and did not learn about President Donald Trump’s July call with the president of Ukraine until September media reports.

While McKinley said he had read media reports about the interactions Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani had with Ukraine, he added that was the extent of his knowledge on the matter.

I know how disappointing it was, but Trump trumped you conspiracy theorists by releasing the actual transcript. Must have been a shock to your guts. Once again, the dunce outsmarted you geniuses.

 

Yep. I was trying to get the hoaxters to make up another story just like the other story. They're hiding under their keyboards.

 

Except those have already been investigated.... And proven to be accurate. Inserting the word "fake" doesn't make the evidence go away.

Try again....

 

wrong it was PROVEN Trump did not collude with Russia.

wrong it was PROVEN Kavanaugh never touched Ford probably never even saw her before

that IS the objective view!

 

You are most definitely one I would consider rational. My opinion, of course.

 

of course you do.

 

I appreciate the underlying thought. But once you call it a "transcript" you are already reading something into it. Because it says on the first page that it's not a transcript.

The problem is not whether you or I or ... anybody is objective or not. The matter on hand is if the President of the United States committed he high crime of "bribery". The facts are the object. We are the subject. If we focus on the object, we are objective. If we focus on the subject, then we are subjective.

The WH Memo is very damaging for the President. But, of course, if this were in a court of law, no judge or jury would convict solely based on it. But, in reality, the memos is not an isolated entity. There are other calls. There is much communication with the President. There is testimony about those other calls. There is quite a bit of testimony that very relevant information was omitted from the memo. And that it was kept out despite the fact that people who were on the call for the only purpose of making sure that nothing was omitted, pointed out these omissions.

There is too much evidence against Trump. And objectivity doesn't mean ignoring everything that doesn't suit your favorite conclusion. It means looking at all of it and acknowledging the conclusion that all of this leads to.

At the top of your message you correctly pointed out that all of us on this forum tend to form an opinion very early on these things. That's fine.... so long as we are willing to change our opinion as the facts come in. And now facts are coming in rapidly. And they are abundant. If we are to claim objectivity, we cannot ignore any of them.

 

It might. But it does not vary among any of the people who listened to the call (the whole call), or who in any way participated in the events. Including other calls, other conversations, discussions with the President himself, etc.

What all of the witnesses, all of the participants.... including those who were loyal to Trump... who supposedly "like" Trump (if such a thing is even possible), agree on is that what they witnessed is what is described in our criminal code as "bribery"

 

do you think it's ok to ask a foreign government to investigate your political opponent, if you do, then I think it's you that doesn't know how government works

 

There is never a need to assess anyone's innocence. We are all innocent unless, and until, assessed guilty.

 

It might, LMAO.. Golem just stop

I suppose you've never seen the exercise "The Story Carousel" at a party, where one person tell another and that person to their left and so on? We did it in the 8th grade "California of course" and our goal was to keep the original story/gossip in tact with no variation.. Never came back to the original source as he told it

 

Then you have nothing to worry about. But you better hope the American people also believe that. Looks like the witnesses don't believe that. So you better pray really hard. Because you have not counter-arguments. So your only hope is that just repeating over and over that it's a "nothing burger" is more effective than actual first-hand accounts of what transpired by a large number of witnesses who both Republicans and even Trump himself have praised as honorable people.

It is fact. And, even though it's very damaging to the President's case, if it were the only fact he would be out free. They would probably not condemn him solely base on it. Unfortunately for him, it's not the only fact.

BTW, it's not a transcript. It's a Memo.

 

I'm not sure what part of "these are first hand witnesses" you failed to understand. Unfortunately for you, the American people do understand this.

 

The desperation is really a sad thing to watch.. I actually feel somewhat sorry for many on the left investing this much emotion and life in to something this futile on it's face alone.

 

That's just it. You have no concept of the exercise and how stories change when they are corrupted by other stories while being passed along to others over time..

I cant believe you have never heard nor played this at a social gathering. O'well, I suppose we all haven't the same benefit of regional and cultural interactions..

Carry on ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

I don't know, is it against a law? Also, Biden is not Trump's opponent yet. I think he will never be, but we'll see. And if it's against the law to use foreigners to aid in investigating anyone at all, where does that place the folks who received and initiated info from the Steele dossier?

The only ones who are actually witnesses are those who were listening on the call, not people who heard it from someone else or the media, etc. And the only information relevant is exactly what was said, not what they think someone meant, or how they "interpreted" the conversation. The voters can do their own interpreting.

 

Taylor is not testifying to the call.

Who's Obama? Manafort is in jail. Visas are not going to exonerate Trump. Focus!

Are you that far behind? News flash: Sondland remembered! Everything! And what he "remembered" is not good for Trump.

He did come forward. But what Vindman did is irrelevant. Only thing important is what he heard on the calls (plural) Also no good for Trump. And, apparently, you have not response to that.

Also not testifying to the call.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from everything you have written here you appear to actually believe that "hat "call" is the only thing that condemns Trump. You could not be more wrong. There were several calls. there were conversations, there were cover up attempts, ... The call was very damaging. Even the partial "transcript" is almost lapidary. But if you think that Democrats are going to build this case solely on the call.... or on the "memo" of the call... your guy is fried.

Except he hasn't. And, even though what he released was extremely damaging, it was only a partial memo. And that's not the only thing that exists. There are more calls. There are testimonies you obviously didn't even know existed (like Sondland's sudden memory "recovery"). You are too far behind on the news. I would say you have about one week of backlog. And the way this is going, missing a week is like
missing five years.

 

yeah, it's impeachable, and Trump is being impeached over it, the founders did not want American politicians doing this

 

"1: Wanted to smear Biden for political gain. 2: Wanted to make sure there was no corruption." Both could apply.

Asking for an investigation is playing a part in the investigation especially if the investigation would not have happened otherwise. We are not going to agree upon the previous point. Another problem I have with Trump is that he has a history of espousing conspiracy theories such as the birther moment. I argue that investigations need to be started based upon solid evidence or a credible claim rather than partisan suspicion such as was done during the birther movement that Trump was a major player in. Because of Trump's history of espousing conspiracy theories I do not trust his logic in such matters thus I am skeptical of his motives and question if he practiced due diligence when vetting claims made against the Biden's. Trump does have a constitutional duty to make sure laws are upheld, yet he also has an ethical duty to recuse himself from playing part in any investigation (including asking for one to be started) in which he has a vested interest in the outcome. And if the reports by those testifying before the House are to be believed, Trump's personal lawyer was acting on behalf of Trump which goes well beyond a simple request for an investigation, to Trump's attorney being an active participant in the investigation and reporting directly to Trump. Trump's attorney waved a bunch of papers in the air on a Sunday morning show a while back claiming that he had evidence proving that the Biden's were up to no good. Because of that I am skeptical of the claim that Trump had no hand in any investigation into the Biden's and I also doubt that Giuliani has simply gone rogue.

I agree with the hypocrisy of the dems but I also take issue with the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who would take a very different stand against a democrat that did a like thing.

 

"Might" is speculation. I seek facts.

 

"Perhaps they trusted the Dems too much and didn't think they'd make it the sham that it is?" Been watching politics for decades including 15 years of debating on this forum. If I have learned anything it is that the two sides tend to be adversarial rather than trusting.

As for the rest of your argument, I agree.

 

A cult is a tribe but not all tribes are cults. A tribe in terms of tribalism is simply a group of people with shared values and interests. What cult am I allegedly part of?

 

So many to most democrats and many to most republicans are objective but few independents are as well. From my POV few democrats, republicans or independents are objective with any level of consistency, including myself. I appreciate your perspective, but I do not share it.