President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

You may laugh but the real world moves on despite your delusions.


It might seem silly to you that important people get their news from papers with a good track record instead of randos on twitter with red Xs or high integer values appended to their handle but when your Donald wants actual news, even he gets it from the NYT. and WaPo.

Most of Fiona Hills TV watching was Fox News you'll not be delighted to hear.

Overheal

Wonder how much it’s occurred to most people that Trump and his surrogates haven’t just been using the media for intimidating potential witnesses but also for the potential Jurors - the Senators. Trump has famously and viciously attacked anyone who has had the audacity to approach the facts of impeachment impartially from within the GOP.

It won’t be long before they themselves declare Impeachment would be a “mistrial” because of all the witness and jury tampering done by the defendant. Without any sense of irony about it either.

FreudianSlippers

Overheal wrote: »

Have you read the Mueller Report?

Let me assist here. No.

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

LMAO


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192186577084174336

I'm genuinely curious as to why someone who isn't American, doesn't live in the US or has never lived there has such a love and passion for defending Trump?

Billy Mays

Doesn't even like Trump that much either apparently

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

Wonder how much it’s occurred to most people that Trump and his surrogates haven’t just been using the media for intimidating potential witnesses but also for the potential Jurors - the Senators. Trump has famously and viciously attacked anyone who has had the audacity to approach the facts of impeachment impartially from within the GOP.

It won’t be long before they themselves declare Impeachment would be a “mistrial” because of all the witness and jury tampering done by the defendant. Without any sense of irony about it either.

Thing is, there's no choice in the jurors - the Constitution says it's the Senate. So, the Senators can be campaigning with Trump, soliciting his endorsements, getting involved in his endless shady businesses, and still be on the jury in an impeachment trial. Wouldn't it be amusing if there was a "juror qualification process" for senators and only, say, a dozen Democratic senators qualified.

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let me assist here. No.

Nobody has read it all Einstein.

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Nobody has read it all Einstein.

I read it when it was released fully back in July (**** it seems way longer ago!), it's 448 pages and a good 50+ of those are the indices and annexes (definitions, name abbreviations, etc.). Another 50+ are redacted. There are also so many footnotes on every page, that the vast majority of those pages are half-pages. If one cannot read circa 200 pages of text - a text which should take maximum 30 minutes for any literate person to read - a text which is central to a key flaw in the US (particularly if one lives there, as I do for 6-7 months a year for work) then that's sad.

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I read it when it was released fully back in July (**** it seems way longer ago!), it's 448 pages and a good 50+ of those are the indices and annexes (definitions, name abbreviations, etc.). Another 50+ are redacted. There are also so many footnotes on every page, that the vast majority of those pages are half-pages. If one cannot read circa 200 pages of text - a text which should take maximum 30 minutes for any literate person to read - a text which is central to a key flaw in the US (particularly if one lives there, as I do for 6-7 months a year for work) then that's sad.

We have a winner!
I read the Fiona Hill one last night, took me about 5 hours to finish.
They kept her there from 10am until 8pm.
Tried to read the unredacted Meuller report, I couldn't make much headway.

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

We have a winner!
I read the Fiona Hill one last night, took me about 5 hours to finish.
They kept her there from 10am until 8pm.
Tried to read the unredacted Meuller report, I couldn't make much headway.

You're telling us that you're either on the Mueller team or that you're Neomi Rao, Thomas Griffith or Judith Rogers? :rolleyes:

Overheal

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious as to why someone who isn't American, doesn't live in the US or has never lived there has such a love and passion for defending Trump?

That should have been made obvious over his career: ‘to own the libs’

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're telling us that you're either on the Mueller team or that you're Neomi Rao, Thomas Griffith or Judith Rogers? :rolleyes:

You'll need to add footnotes to that.

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You'll need to add footnotes to that.

Let me put this simply I guess for those who are catching up here. You alleged you "[t]ried to read the unredacted Meuller [sic] report", a report which dear readers, at the time of my writing this, has not yet been released to the public; a report which is currently being requested by House Democrats and which request is currently being considered by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, subject to a three-judge panel appointment.

You tried to read that report yeah?

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let me put this simply I guess for those who are catching up here. You alleged you "[t]ried to read the unredacted Meuller [sic] report", a report which dear readers, at the time of my writing this, has not yet been released to the public; a report which is currently being requested by House Democrats and which request is currently being considered by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, subject to a three-judge panel appointment.

You tried to read that report yeah?

No, I mispoke, I meant the one that you had read, yeah?
Be careful or I'll have to send the entire Chapter around.

FreudianSlippers

I'm at a complete loss as to what point you're trying to make here, or is it just to spew out so much nonsense as to distract from everything factual?

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm at a complete loss as to what point you're trying to make here, or is it just to spew out so much nonsense as to distract from everything factual?

The point is that you're being too aggressive, yeah?
When I'd said unredacted, I meant not the 100 odd page one, clear?

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The point is that you're being too aggressive, yeah?
When I'd said unredacted, I meant not the 100 odd page one, clear?

So anything over 100 pages is a no-go. Gotcha.

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So anything over 100 pages is a no-go. Gotcha.

No, by the time the more readable version had come out I'd learned all I'd needed to know.

Which was....

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No, by the time the more readable version had come out I'd learned all I'd needed to know.

Which was....

Introduction to Volume I, page 1, paragraph 2, sentence 1: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016." page 182 conclusion "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Introduction to Volume I, page 1, paragraph 2, sentence 1: "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016." page 182 conclusion "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

If you take the time to read Hill's testimony you will discover that the consensus opinion of the State dept. was that the Russians were using the same operation on all candidates in the 2016 election.
She thought that Mueller's sole focus on Trump was wrong.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you take the time to read Hill's testimony you will discover that the consensus opinion of the State dept. was that the Russians were using the same operation on all candidates in the 2016 election.
She thought that Mueller's sole focus on Trump was wrong.

Cite it?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Cite it?

Read it, you gave me the link.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Read it, you gave me the link.

I cite things. Freud cites things. Why don’t you cite things? This thread is full of people citing things. Who do I believe: someone who cites support for their statement or the person who says the person backing up their statement with source evidence is “wrong” because “just read it”

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you take the time to read Hill's testimony you will discover that the consensus opinion of the State dept. was that the Russians were using the same operation on all candidates in the 2016 election.
She thought that Mueller's sole focus on Trump was wrong.

So your great point is "the Russians had dirt on everyone"? Jim Jordan parrot account here trying to deflect from the actual reality of what Dr Hill said (pages 401-406 being the most relevant to whatever point you're trying unsuccessfully to make here). Page 402, Dr Hill specifically says that she believed that the Mueller report should have investigated more deeply into the Russian interference to (page 403) "find out what doors were opened for them into our political system. I think they would have still, to be quite frank, come down where the did on Mr Manafort"

Woopsie!

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I cite things. Freud cites things. Why don’t you cite things? This thread is full of people citing things. Who do I believe: someone who cites support for their statement or the person who says the person backing up their statement with source evidence is “wrong” because “just read it”

I already been party to a similar comedy show on here in another thread. I'm not obliged to provide anything.
However because I have some respect I will this time.

This is her opinion on the focus of the Mueller report. If you want me to cite anything else in my post you just will have to accept my analysis, like it or lump it.

Fiona Hill;

"I have my own beef with 2015 and the investigations,
that I don't believe it should have started by focusing,
first of all, on Americans. It should have started by
looking at what Russians were doing, and I think we would
have ended up in exactly the same place that Mr. Mueller djd
on what the Russians did with the same sets of indictments ,
and it might have not been quite so politicized at the tjme,
because I can promise you that the Russians did everything
that he outlined and then some"

FreudianSlippers

...and this is positive for Trump's impeachment inquiry because?

Spencerfreeman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...and this is positive for Trump's impeachment inquiry because?

?

FreudianSlippers

Oh man.

Ok.

What's. Your. Point?

Spencerfreeman

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you take the time to read Hill's testimony you will discover that the consensus opinion of the State dept. was that the Russians were using the same operation on all candidates in the 2016 election.
She thought that Mueller's sole focus on Trump was wrong.

Do you wish to talk about something else?

FreudianSlippers

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Do you wish to talk about something else?

I'd like to talk about what the relevance of literally a word of what you post is to the thread at hand. Can we start there?