The 'reconstructed' transcript

[Futbol Phan]

Given Cheetolini's penchant for lying and twisting facts, why should anyone believe that this 'reconstructed' transcript (as bad as it looks) tells the whole, truthful story?

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Unless you got anything else/better...

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Why was the call manually transcribed to begin with, vs a recording?

What's the deal with the three ellipses?

Didn't this guy alter a hurricane path diagram with a black sharpie and try to pass it off as unaltered?

Lolol it stretches the imagination that dude has so many defenders and close to a 90% approval rating across Rs.

Cheers.

[btpag...@gmail.com]

Because if you think it looks bad, it would be foolish not to modify further so it didn’t look bad. Just for starters.

But it sounds like this crazy train is just getting started.

[xyzzy]

There are multiple people listening to and taking notes on these calls... that's why there was a whistleblower in the first place. It would be taking a big risk to alter the transcript given how many people were likely involved in the call.

For example: https://twitter.com/realjoelwillett/status/1175544859379339264?s=12

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:49:18 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>There are multiple people listening to and taking notes on these calls... that's why there was a whistleblower in the first place. It would be taking a big risk to alter the transcript given how many people were likely involved in the call.

Now that there be a reesonabul 'pinion - almost unicornish from the
librul wing.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:38:43 -0700 (PDT), btpag...@gmail.com wrote:

>Because if you think it looks bad, it would be foolish not to modify furthe=
>r so it didn=E2=80=99t look bad. Just for starters.

>
>But it sounds like this crazy train is just getting started.

I sorta doubt that Trump has "clean hands" in this episode, or most
any episode.

But he did not make a fool of any leftwingers - God beat him to it.

Hugh

[Tom Enright]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:49:20 PM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:

> There are multiple people listening to and taking notes on these calls...
> that's why there was a whistleblower in the first place. It would be
> taking a big risk to alter the transcript given how many people were
> likely involved in the call.
>
> For example: https://twitter.com/realjoelwillett/status/1175544859379339264?s=12

To be clear the, 'whistleblower' was not involved with the call nor had he seen
a transcript. It's a FoF situation.

-TE

[Futbol Phan]

IOW, F the Constitution. As long as in my mind I think socialist/liberals are unhappy, I'm pleased. Nice.

[Eric Ramon]

this is the kind of thinking we used to get from Iraqis who said "I love Saddam. He's tough!"

[btpag...@gmail.com]

I’m hearing the folks on the left bring up the constitution a lot here. I think they need to explain where they believe it has been violated. I don’t see a thing yet that even hints at it, please explain.

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:51:11 AM UTC-5, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I’m hearing the folks on the left bring up the constitution a lot here. I think they need to explain where they believe it has been violated. I don’t see a thing yet that even hints at it, please explain.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ... The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Do you see the word "Bribery" in there?

[Tom Enright]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:10:13 AM UTC-4, unclejr wrote:


> "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ...
> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
> Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
> Misdemeanors."
>
> Do you see the word "Bribery" in there?

I do. Are you saying Trump has received a bribe? That's a new one.
Good luck.

-TE

[unclejr]

Bribery goes both ways. But you knew that already.

You know the more you post your dishonest bullshit, your credibility diminishes each time.

[Tom Enright]

I'm not the one accusing Trump of being involved in bribery.

I understand the desire to grab at straws, but I do not understand the
refusal to learn from past experience.

-TE

[unclejr]

You're irrelevant. It's the whistleblower who is accusing Trump of bribery, not you.

[Futbol Phan]

Maybe so, but Cheetolini must have had some motivation to "lock down" the formal transcript of the call.

[Futbol Phan]

Here's an idea: Try actually reading the whistleblower's complaint before you tell us all that it's total BS:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html#g-page-1

[btpag...@gmail.com]

Have any of you heard of the term hearsay? I’ve read the report I see nothing alarming in there really whatsoever nor do I see anything that is shocking relative to the transcript that we saw

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:45:47 AM UTC-5, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have any of you heard of the term hearsay? I’ve read the report I see nothing alarming in there really whatsoever nor do I see anything that is shocking relative to the transcript that we saw

Well, you've drank the Kool-Aid already, so...

Thoughts and prayers, pla.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

I'd love to hear your explanation around locking down the transcript.

I've yet to hear any good reason why Biden's name is mentioned at all on that call, why the word "favor" is used, etc.

I mean is your stance that this is all above board and shouldn't have raised any flags? That takes me back to my first question, I guess.

I suspect his staff was taken by surprise when he started asking for dirt on Biden and as soon as the call was finished went into damage control mode. Or, as they refer to it in teh trumpster's WH, business as usual.

Cheers.

[JGibson]

I read it, and I think you would actually have to have the classified information to make the call. So I'm not sure either side on rsfc is correct, considering none of us have access to the classified information (as far as I know).

[btpag...@gmail.com]

The only thing at issue at the moment is the credibility of the whistleblower. Given the characterization of the phone call vs the actual transcript of the phone call, the credibility is in doubt to say the least. But far more alarming for the credibility of the whistleblower is the fact that they were willing to file this based on taking someone else’s word for it, instead of encouraging those with firsthand knowledge to file.

This reeks to high heaven. I think if credibility can actually be established, then there are some concerns about locking down the transcript for sure, and yet, they released it, so I’m not sure what to make of that. It suggests to me that the whistleblower may just be wrong.

[the_andr...@yahoo.com]

TTTWWWWEEEEEEEETTTTTTRTTTT!!!!!

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

I'm super confused, Brent. Do you not believe Trump asked dude to do him a favor and dig up shit about Biden? Or you just don't care or think that's a problem?

Do you think it's coincidence that he wanted shit on Biden - dude he thinks he's going to be facing shortly in a potus election - specifically? Or you just don't care or think that's a problem?

At this point it feels like Trump could open up with an uzi on 5th st or whatever and loyal R defenders would continue to defend. Let me be clear here - there is no good reason or reasonable explanation for Biden's name to come up in that call. Period. Everything else is just bullshit.

I'll state for the 5000th time I think impeachment is a waste of time and a bad strategy for Ds. But I'm also blown away by what y'all are willing to tolerate and actively defend.

I guess I'm glad, though. The worst thing that could happen going into 2020 (from a left perspective) would be to replace Trump as the R candidate with someone who has even an ounce of integrity.

So, keep defending and explaining away. Go team trump.

Cheers.

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 11:38:12 AM UTC-5, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> The only thing at issue at the moment is the credibility of the whistleblower. Given the characterization of the phone call vs the actual transcript of the phone call, the credibility is in doubt to say the least. But far more alarming for the credibility of the whistleblower is the fact that they were willing to file this based on taking someone else’s word for it, instead of encouraging those with firsthand knowledge to file.
>
> This reeks to high heaven. I think if credibility can actually be established, then there are some concerns about locking down the transcript for sure, and yet, they released it, so I’m not sure what to make of that. It suggests to me that the whistleblower may just be wrong.

You do realize that the transcript released yesterday lines up almost perfectly with the whistleblower's report, right? That just lends credibility to the whistleblower. By releasing the (likely heavily redacted) transcript that he did, Trump (and his White House counsel) has reinforced that the whistleblower's claim is true and non partisan.

[btpag...@gmail.com]

No, it aligns with CNN’s edited portrayal of the transcript and follows that narrative. There’s a clear difference if you read both without filling in information that isn’t there.

[Tom Enright]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-4, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm super confused, Brent. Do you not believe Trump asked dude to do
> him a favor and dig up shit about Biden? Or you just don't care or
> think that's a problem?

<snip>

Can you point to the exact phrase in the conversation where Trump asks
for this 'favor?'

-TE

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:19:43 PM UTC-5, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, it aligns with CNN’s edited portrayal of the transcript and follows that narrative. There’s a clear difference if you read both without filling in information that isn’t there.

Dude, the whistleblower's complaint appears to be all true. Trump inadvertently confirmed it when he released the redacted/constructed telephone call transcript.

[Tom Enright]

Please point to the allegations made and then confirmed by the transcript.

Thanks.

-TE

-TE

[unclejr]

I'm not doing your research for you, dumnass.

[Tom Enright]

> I'm not doing your research for you, dumnass.

Well, your statements imply that you've already done it. Why not share it?

-TE

[unclejr]

Does the google machine not work in Michigan?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/26/20885174/trump-ukraine-transcript-whistleblower-complaint

[btpag...@gmail.com]

You see, unlike the assumption of the elite liberals, I’ve fully read both. I reiterate since I’ve already stated it, the whistleblower actually characterized the call as something the transcript does not support, specifically a pressuring or pay for play situation.

I don’t believe a credible source, listening to THAT call, would reasonably have come to that conclusion. I do believe that someone looking to remove Trump from office would believe that conclusion could be drawn with the transcript.

I furthermore believe, and think the most likely explanation that as a hearsay report mischaracterizing that call, might have legitimately believed it was something worth reporting. The unsolved issue for me, however, is why the first hand people would not have filed a complaint and why it would have been left to a person who heard it second hand.

In Judge Judy’s court, which doesn’t exactly require the highest legal standard, hearsay is repeatedly dismissed as inadmissible. It seems that if hearsay is such a basic concept that pretty much everyone knows that it isn’t real evidence, that thinking people from the left, the right, the middle, the apolitical, would all treat such a report with a high degree of skepticism. Yet, that is not the case.

Why? Because none of this has been or ever will be about the truth.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

You and Tom continue to respond without answering the simplest question - why is trump talking about Biden on this call?

You'd both make great defense attorneys - opportunity lost. That isn't a compliment, but is meant to point out you both push very long posts that avoid this simple question at the heart of this story. Deliberately misunderstand what folks say so you can "control the narrative".

Like I said, missed opportunities.

There is no good reason for Trump to be talking about Biden to dude from Ukraine. Full stop. At a minimum, it's just rsfcking stupid.

Refusing to acknowledge this point makes you even more partisan than teh trumpster's staff, who tried to bury this shit because even they knew it was shady as rsfck. And you two can't admit what his own staff knew instantly? Wow.

Brent you wanna take some high road approach like "better be careful of precedent here Ds" but I imagine the head explosions you and Tom woulda had if some obama phone call was released where he asked (say) mexico president to dig up some shit on Romney - that twin explosion woulda been visible from Madison.

Long sentence. Tough for mentally challenged Rs to parse. Oh, I just dropped some shit in about y'all backing the offical R position that our European climate change gal is mentally something (it's called asperger's rsfckers and it doesn't indicate a low iq). Why do I drop this shit in? Because y'all wingers have been sickening for a long time but in the last couple weeks you've turned the knob up to human centipede.

And for what? Scotus rsfcking overturned roe yet? Lol. Suckers.

Hth!

Cheers.

[Eric Ramon]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:01:21 PM UTC-7, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> You see, unlike the assumption of the elite liberals,

what about the non-elite liberals? Or are all liberals elite? all liberals who believe this are elite?

I’ve fully read both. I reiterate since I’ve already stated it, the whistleblower actually characterized the call as something the transcript does not support, specifically a pressuring or pay for play situation.

ok.

>
> I don’t believe a credible source, listening to THAT call, would reasonably have come to that conclusion. I do believe that someone looking to remove Trump from office would believe that conclusion could be drawn with the transcript.

credible...reliable...I'd rephrase your characterizations as "loyal Republican".

>
> I furthermore believe, and think the most likely explanation that as a hearsay report mischaracterizing that call, might have legitimately believed it was something worth reporting. The unsolved issue for me, however, is why the first hand people would not have filed a complaint

because they're partisans!

>and why it would have been left to a person who heard it second hand.

because the partisans didn't!

>
> In Judge Judy’s court, which doesn’t exactly require the highest legal standard, hearsay is repeatedly dismissed as inadmissible. It seems that if hearsay is such a basic concept that pretty much everyone knows that it isn’t real evidence, that thinking people from the left, the right, the middle, the apolitical, would all treat such a report with a high degree of skepticism. Yet, that is not the case.

this is part of the Repub talking points that were accidentally sent to Democrats. I see you're onboard.

>
> Why? Because none of this has been or ever will be about the truth.

you're right about that, as I read your post.

[btpag...@gmail.com]

I haven’t seen any desire on the left to appreciate the context at all. On the off chance you mean it, he’s talking about the president taking on corruption, and it absolutely naturally flows. This really isn’t hard to follow.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:44:20 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:38:43 -0700 (PDT), btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Because if you think it looks bad, it would be foolish not to modify furthe=
>> >r so it didn=E2=80=99t look bad. Just for starters.
>> >
>> >But it sounds like this crazy train is just getting started.
>>
>> I sorta doubt that Trump has "clean hands" in this episode, or most
>> any episode.
>>
>> But he did not make a fool of any leftwingers - God beat him to it.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>IOW, F the Constitution. As long as in my mind I think socialist/liberals are unhappy, I'm pleased. Nice.

Not true. I believe in the C. I'm not for the way it is often
interpreted. If you need a law that attempts to enforce equality, you
were not equal before, and you will not be equal after.

As to your next sentence, as long as liberal policies require taking
earned funds and redistributing to some undeserving people, I will
generally disagree. Require non-handicapped to earn what they get and
I will moderate my thinking.

But, yes, I lump libs into a group, with rare exceptions, and hope
they are unhappy when they try to implement socialist policy. And that
is an understatement.

Hugh

[btpag...@gmail.com]

Eric,

I’m going to say this even thought you will make fun of me, say I’m lying or being disingenuous or something of the that ilk.

The truth is all I care about. I also care about the country, and I’m really really sick of the political games.

I’m telling you what I see from what I’ve read. I’m sure I have blind spots. I have no interest in “covering” for Trump. Not on Russia, not on this, not on anything. Is it really so hard to believe people can draw different conclusions without it being politics?

[unclejr]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-5, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I haven’t seen any desire on the left to appreciate the context at all. On the off chance you mean it, he’s talking about the president taking on corruption, and it absolutely naturally flows. This really isn’t hard to follow.

Not for QAnon followers, no it isn't.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 02:51:08 -0700 (PDT), btpag...@gmail.com wrote:

>I=E2=80=99m hearing the folks on the left bring up the constitution a lot h=
>ere. I think they need to explain where they believe it has been violated.=

When you inject the word "believe" they will have a lot of answers.

For example they believe in equality. Other than a soul, there is no
such thing, law or no law.

Even as a gun owner who would not give up his guns, I'm not sure what
the 2nd means. I view the Guard and Reserves as the militia. I'm not
going to run out and battle someone with my 30.06 when he is firing a
5" shell at me from miles away. But the problem is a person, not the
gun. The gun is merely a very effective tool.

Libs think what a person does in his bedroom is private - but then
support him when he makes it public.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

Outstanding job of totally avoiding addressing the point that was made.

[unclejr]

https://2vwlfu3ynqxb3npfhm3m8lde-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Screen-Shot-2019-09-19-at-6.48.29-PM-485x278.png

[Eric Ramon]

absolutely not. We've all had the experiences we've had....and NOT the experiences others have had, and that colors all our reactions.

[Tom Enright]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:37:24 PM UTC-4, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> You and Tom continue to respond without answering the simplest
> question - why is trump talking about Biden on this call?

When you make an accusation, you should back-it-up.

You wrote:

"Trump asked dude to do him a favor and dig up shit about Biden?"

I've asked you to point-out where in the conversation Trump did this.
I'm still waiting. Thanks.

-TE

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Yo Brent - ever realize how many of your responses start out with "I'm way more informed on this issue than you guys"?

You're not, dude. I'm sure you're relatively smart and shit, but all us evul socialists have read these documents, top to bottom, same as you.

Hell, when you were getting all condescending like this with the Mueller shit I had to drop a bunch of quotes that were at odds with your soooo learned, studied, interpretation - as is usual you just disappeared from the thread and then raised your same generic winger talking points in the next thread.

You're talking to some smart folk here. Starting from a position that you've investigated this shit more than us is equally laughable and elitist. You elitist. Academic elitist.

Hth!

Cheers.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

I'm confused, Tom. Are you denying Trump mentioned Biden?

That's weird. Them winger blinders must be auper duper effective, I guess.

Should I also prove the earth circles the sun?

I mean I literally can't *prove* Trump asked ukraine prez to go after Biden. For all I know, the transcript we all saw was invented by D pedophiles looking to get back in on that sweet pizza money.

Cheers.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Liberal elite is redundant. Non-liberal, non-elite democrats voted for Trump and will again.

[Eric Ramon]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:00:07 PM UTC-7, Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger wrote:
> Liberal elite is redundant. Non-liberal, non-elite democrats voted for Trump and will again.

I don't think this is accurate.

[Eric Ramon]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:00:07 PM UTC-7, Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger wrote:

> Liberal elite is redundant. Non-liberal, non-elite democrats voted for Trump and will again.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

this says Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton 89% to 8% (Trump got the Repub vote 88-8).

So you're saying that 89% of the Democratic Party membership is liberal AND elite. That seems pretty inclusive to be "elite".

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Or they think/aspire to being elite. See Idiots, Useful.

[Eric Ramon]

like Repubs aspire to be billionaires so they don't want billionaires' taxes going up....'cause they're gonna get there someday!

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Eric, I’m having a busy day and I might not be thinking coherently—and it’s not like RSFC is the Congressional Record anyhow—but I think it safe to say that Republican s/Conservatives/Libertarians want to get out of the way of other people, so that can make their billions—or not. Whereas Dems/Libs/Proggies want to ensure that they’re needed so people can be thankful for the wealth they’re given.

[Eric Ramon]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:32:02 PM UTC-7, Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger wrote:
> Eric, I’m having a busy day and I might not be thinking coherently—and it’s not like RSFC is the Congressional Record anyhow—but I think it safe to say that Republican s/Conservatives/Libertarians want to get out of the way of other people, so that can make their billions—or not. Whereas Dems/Libs/Proggies want to ensure that they’re needed so people can be thankful for the wealth they’re given.

I suspect that if we were sitting around, chatting, and really got to it, that we'd find each other's position was completely reasonable.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Yep. Agree 100%.

[Irish Ranger]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-4, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm super confused, Brent. Do you not believe Trump asked dude to do him a favor and dig up shit about Biden? Or you just don't care or think that's a problem?

Here is the real crook and the real problem:

"Vice President Biden’s intervention to protect his son, and his son’s company Burisma, from a Ukrainian corruption investigation, was heavy-handed and amazingly arrogant. And there is no question that Biden interfered. In his own words to the Council on Foreign Relations on Jan. 23, 2018, Biden clearly pushed to have the prosecutor who was investigating his son fired:

“I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from [former Ukrainian President] Poroshenko and from [former Prime Minister Arseniy] Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

“So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b*tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

As Deroy Murdock, who is a member of the council, wrote for Fox News, “Biden’s actions reek of extortion and obstruction of justice.”

Now that the Hunter Biden corruption scandal is beginning to threaten his candidacy, Vice President Biden is trying to come up with a new story."

Or don't you care about Democrat corruption?

Irish Mike

[unclejr]

El Oh El

Have some more Kool-Aid, spaz.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

You stupid piece of shit I addressed the C. and the unhappy part.

I now see your handicap - you can't read. I thought it was just lack
of comprehension.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

You seem to be slipping. You say that your hero Cheetolini likely is implicated in this whole mess, but you don't care because it has pissed off 'socialists'. I point out that you seem to not care that the Constitution has been violated, and then you ramble on about implementing socialist policy. And I am the one with the reading problem. LOL.

[Tom Enright]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 11:12:19 PM UTC-4, Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger wrote:
> Yep. Agree 100%.

"In Ukraine matter, Democrats apply Russiagate lesson: Strike fast, don’t wait to find out what happened."

-TE

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 08:13:47 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan

<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:34:30 AM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:20:09 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>=20
>>=20
>> >> >IOW, F the Constitution. As long as in my mind I think socialist/lib=

>erals are unhappy, I'm pleased. Nice.

>> >>=20

>> >> Not true. I believe in the C. I'm not for the way it is often
>> >> interpreted. If you need a law that attempts to enforce equality, you
>> >> were not equal before, and you will not be equal after.

>> >>=20

>> >> As to your next sentence, as long as liberal policies require taking
>> >> earned funds and redistributing to some undeserving people, I will
>> >> generally disagree. Require non-handicapped to earn what they get and
>> >> I will moderate my thinking.

>> >>=20

>> >> But, yes, I lump libs into a group, with rare exceptions, and hope
>> >> they are unhappy when they try to implement socialist policy. And that
>> >> is an understatement.

>> >>=20
>> >> Hugh
>> >
>> >Outstanding job of totally avoiding addressing the point that was made. =
>=20
>>=20

>> You stupid piece of shit I addressed the C. and the unhappy part.

>>=20

>> I now see your handicap - you can't read. I thought it was just lack
>> of comprehension.

>>=20
>> Hugh
>
>You seem to be slipping. You say that your hero Cheetolini likely is impli=
>cated in this whole mess, but you don't care because it has pissed off 'soc=
>ialists'. I point out that you seem to not care that the Constitution has=
> been violated, and then you ramble on about implementing socialist policy.=

> And I am the one with the reading problem. LOL.

Let me remind you what I said. It's a few paragraphs above so you
probably can't find it.

>> >> Not true. I believe in the C. I'm not for the way it is often
>> >> interpreted. If you need a law that attempts to enforce equality, you
>> >> were not equal before, and you will not be equal after.

And I'm honest enough to make it clear that anyone, including Trump,
who limits socialistic policies is okay with me regardless of his
shortcomings.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

IOW, F the Constitution. Thanks for the clarification.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Tell me what part of the C. Trump violated, NOT based on opinions, and
I'll tell you exactly what I think. That's a challenge. Please don't
chicken out.

Both Congress and the SCOTUS have recourse to such violations and
should stymie such if they were effected.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And I'm honest enough to make it clear that anyone, including Trump,
> >> who limits socialistic policies is okay with me regardless of his
> >> shortcomings.
> >
> >
> >IOW, F the Constitution. Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Tell me what part of the C. Trump violated, NOT based on opinions, and
> I'll tell you exactly what I think. That's a challenge. Please don't
> chicken out.

Try this:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Lol. Let's face facts, if these rsfcons aren't fazed by Trump suggesting whistleblowers should be back alley executed, there is literally nothing that'll ever give them pause - they're full-on ideologues, full stop. Why talk to them?

We've seen this develop over time with rsfcons. Twenty years ago they had some integrity and could look at our INSANE SPENDING and be like this is our hill. At this point, as long as they get their way on stupid bass ackwards social shit they just couldn't give two rsfcks.

I think they're afraid they'll be tricked into marrying dudes. An aside.

Like I said a couple days ago, teh trumpster's greatest insight was that he could do literally anything (shoot someone in broad daylight) and the R base would eat it up and ask for more. When your own people demand zero accountability, why worry?

Rsfck, even Putin is like "look Trump I know your base will look the other way on literally anything, but in Mother Russia maybe this isn't entirely true so shut your rsfcking pie-hole".

Hell the most ironically delicious outcome here would be Putin releasing something that shuts Trump down just to shut him the hell up.

Or being even more direct.

"Comrade, you're rsfcking erratical and nuts and have become a liability... my friends in that black suv would like a quick word."

You know, like teh trumpster wants - an "old-fashioned" solution.

Cheers.

[Ken Olson]

What conviction?

[Futbol Phan]

Do you have any idea of how this process works?

[unclejr]

It's been a while, but he was either a teen or a young adult during the Watergate hearings.

[Tom Enright]

Well, I thought I did. But the process has been stream-lined.

1. Democrat looses presidential race.
2. GOP President is guilty of....something

-TE

"Asking for the assistance of our global friends and allies to help reveal the wrongdoing of the American ruling class is now an impeachable offense. Investigating their wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Exposing their corruption is corruption. In the Clown World we currently inhabit, the president of the United States must be removed from office for daring to ask they be investigated abroad."

[Eric Ramon]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:01:41 PM UTC-7, Tom Enright wrote:
> On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 10:28:29 PM UTC-4, Futbol Phan wrote:
> > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 9:11:10 PM UTC-5, Ken Olson wrote:
>
> > > What conviction?
>
> > Do you have any idea of how this process works?
>
> Well, I thought I did. But the process has been stream-lined.
>
> 1. Democrat looses presidential race.
> 2. GOP President is guilty of....something
>
> -TE
>

did you forget the 4 yr search by Ken Starr for something, anything?

[btpag...@gmail.com]

You know the difference between Clinton and Trump? Not only would Trump have been ousted from office doing what Clinton did, he would not even have needed to lie under oath to a grand jury. How own party would have jumped on board and he would’ve resigned.

I’m not patting the GOP on the back here, I’m saying you really don’t understand how much his own party hates him. The turn this is taking right now, I’m not convinced he won’t be impeached and convicted now. All the power-hungry enemies need is something to actually hang their hat on. The Dems hate him so much they don’t realize how much “nothing” they’ve been pushing. Now? Real smoke seems to be gathering. I wasn’t bothered by the transcript or the whistleblower complaint. But the moves happening right now, don’t add up. I don’t know what it all means and it appears to be based on info none of us has, so we just have to wait and see. Either way going forward the ability for the president to work with other leaders has been seriously debilitated. Maybe that’s good with all our corruption, I don’t know.

[xyzzy]

<btpag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know the difference between Clinton and Trump? Not only would Trump
> have been ousted from office doing what Clinton did, he would not even
> have needed to lie under oath to a grand jury. How own party would have
> jumped on board and he would’ve resigned.
>

Please, you can’t tell me you really believe that after Pussy grabbing,
David Vitter, etc.

> I’m not patting the GOP on the back here, I’m saying you really don’t
> understand how much his own party hates him.

> On the one hand I don’t doubt that. I saw a news story that some GOP
> Senator said that if impeachment were a secret ballot 30 GOP Senators would vote aye.

But the principled party of conservative values has thrown in their lot
with a man they hate and privately admit is unfit because he gives them
power they couldn’t earn on their principles. I agree with that’s no reason
to pat them on the back.

> The turn this is taking right now, I’m not convinced he won’t be
> impeached and convicted now. All the power-hungry enemies need is
> something to actually hang their hat on. The Dems hate him so much they
> don’t realize how much “nothing” they’ve been pushing. Now? Real smoke
> seems to be gathering.

Lots do but Pelosi didn’t. She resisted calls for impeachment but gave in
now for a reason. She understood what this meant and what’s real. You’re
right that there was a lot of premature BS calls for impeachment but people
outside the GOP bubble understood the seriousness of this before you did.
You just needed to see darker, thicker smoke than most people.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:58:28 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan

<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And I'm honest enough to make it clear that anyone, including Trump,
>> >> who limits socialistic policies is okay with me regardless of his
>> >> shortcomings.
>> >
>> >
>> >IOW, F the Constitution. Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> Tell me what part of the C. Trump violated, NOT based on opinions, and
>> I'll tell you exactly what I think. That's a challenge. Please don't
>> chicken out.
>
>Try this:
>
>"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

I absolutely agree. But I must have missed the memo announcing his
conviction.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:28:27 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan

<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 9:11:10 PM UTC-5, Ken Olson wrote:
>> On 9/27/2019 4:58 PM, Futbol Phan wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> >> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> And I'm honest enough to make it clear that anyone, including Trump,
>> >>>> who limits socialistic policies is okay with me regardless of his
>> >>>> shortcomings.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> IOW, F the Constitution. Thanks for the clarification.
>> >>
>> >> Tell me what part of the C. Trump violated, NOT based on opinions, and
>> >> I'll tell you exactly what I think. That's a challenge. Please don't
>> >> chicken out.
>> >
>> > Try this:
>> >
>> > "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>> >
>>
>> What conviction?
>
>Do you have any idea of how this process works?

Since opinions are not convictions, you need to quit avoiding my
challenge and respond to it.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 14:19:29 -0700 (PDT), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Lol. Let's face facts, if these rsfcons aren't fazed by Trump suggesting w=
>histleblowers should be back alley executed, there is literally nothing tha=
>t'll ever give them pause - they're full-on ideologues, full stop. Why tal=
>k to them?
>
>We've seen this develop over time with rsfcons. Twenty years ago they had =
>some integrity and could look at our INSANE SPENDING and be like this is ou=
>r hill. At this point, as long as they get their way on stupid bass ackwar=

>ds social shit they just couldn't give two rsfcks.
>
>I think they're afraid they'll be tricked into marrying dudes. An aside.
>

>Like I said a couple days ago, teh trumpster's greatest insight was that he=
> could do literally anything (shoot someone in broad daylight) and the R ba=
>se would eat it up and ask for more. When your own people demand zero acco=
>untability, why worry?
>
>Rsfck, even Putin is like "look Trump I know your base will look the other =
>way on literally anything, but in Mother Russia maybe this isn't entirely t=

>rue so shut your rsfcking pie-hole".
>

>Hell the most ironically delicious outcome here would be Putin releasing so=

>mething that shuts Trump down just to shut him the hell up.
>
>Or being even more direct.
>

>"Comrade, you're rsfcking erratical and nuts and have become a liability...=

> my friends in that black suv would like a quick word."
>
>You know, like teh trumpster wants - an "old-fashioned" solution.
>
>Cheers.

This has to be the Most Doodoo About Nothing I have ever seen (with my
apologies to Bill S'peare).

Maybe you should help Phat Phart respond to my challenge.

Hugh

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 9/26/2019 11:19 PM, Irish Ranger wrote:
> “I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee

From WAPO9/23 Fact Checker Analyses

"Trump has claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government
to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was
investigating a Ukrainian gas producer, Burisma Holdings, that had added
Biden’s son Hunter to its board. But it turns out that the investigation
had already been shelved when Biden acted and may have even involved a
side company, not Burisma. The Ukrainian prosecutor was regarded as a
failure, and “Joe Biden’s efforts to oust Shokin were universally
praised,” said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist heavily involved in
Eastern European market reforms.

Moreover, Yuri Lutsenko, a former Ukrainian prosecutor general who
succeeded the fired prosecutor, told Bloomberg News that there was no
evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.


To help readers keep the allegations straight, let’s dissect the
president’s latest statements.

Biden lied about talking to his son
Biden told reporters that he never spoke to his son about his overseas
business dealings.

Trump labeled that a lie. “Who wouldn’t speak to your son?” asked Trump,
who has always maintained he never spoke to his son Donald Jr. about the
Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives. “Of course you spoke to
your son.”

In July, in a profile of Hunter Biden in the New Yorker, Hunter
described one brief exchange with his father on the issue.

In December, 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides
braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos
Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy,
raised the matter with Biden, but did not go so far as to recommend that
Hunter leave the board. As Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma
with him just once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and
I said, ‘I do.’ ”


Is that a substantive discussion or not? We will leave it to readers to
decide, but it’s a thin reed on which to hang the label of “lie.” In any
case, Biden never said he spoke to his son, as Trump claimed he did.

Biden was ‘disgraceful’ when he bragged about holding back the funds
Trump is referring to a 2018 appearance by Biden before the Council on
Foreign Relations. Here’s what Biden said:

“I remember going over, convincing our team … that we should be
providing for loan guarantees. … And I was supposed to announce that

there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a

commitment from [then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko] and from
[then-Prime Minister Arseniy] Yatsenyuk that they would take action
against the state prosecutor [Shokin]. And they didn’t…They were walking
out to a press conference. I said, ‘Nah, … We’re not going to give you
the billion dollars.’ They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the
president.’ … I said, ‘Call him.’ I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not
getting the billion dollars.’ … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving

in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the

money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place

someone who was solid at the time.”

Biden is certainly being self-congratulatory here. But, as noted,
Biden’s action was coordinated with other major players in the region
and celebrated at the time because Shokin was widely seen as a failure.


Bloomberg reported that “the U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal
didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials
at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge
of the situation.” In the same month Biden traveled to Ukraine,
Bloomberg also reported, “hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside
President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and
he was dismissed.”

“This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the
prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will
ensure that [his office] becomes independent from political influence
and pressure and enjoys public trust,” Jan Tombinski, the European
Union’s envoy to Ukraine, said in a statement when the firing was
announced. The statement decried the “lack of tangible results of
investigations into serious cases.”

--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

[Some dued]

Here you go Hugh: https://youtu.be/sdiVn3lQDgU

[Ken Olson]

Quite well, thank you.

[Ken Olson]

Teen-age, but I knew the process at the time. I was politically precocious.

[Ken Olson]

What are "conservative values" as you see them?

[Ken Olson]

Exactly.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 05:19:43 -0400, Ken Olson <kol...@freedomnet.org>
wrote:

Seems like a real PhD would have jumped on the chance to answer my
challenge.

First he sidesteps and no response now - a few more degrees and he
might be good enough to be a little people.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here you go Hugh: https://youtu.be/sdiVn3lQDgU

To refresh your mind, my challenge was to PhDumbass statement about
violation of the C. not about impeachment. But it's nice of you to
act as his spokesman. He needs all the help he can get.

I don't see a violation of the C and I don't see a REASON, not
opinion, for impeachment. Does Trump often act unpresidential?
Certainly. It's not justifiable even though JFK and LBJ turned the
White House into a whore house and Clinton had an Oral Office there.

But, if any liberal finds the intelligence to challenge me with a
legitimate charge, I will respond.

Hugh

[Futbol Phan]

What 'challenge' are you talking about? You seem to think that the impeachment process is over in the snap of your fingers. Guess what-- it's a process. Get back to me when it's over, Mr. Know-It-All.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 09:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What 'challenge' are you talking about? You seem to think that the impeachment process is over in the snap of your fingers. Guess what-- it's a process. Get back to me when it's over, Mr. Know-It-All.

ME

> >> And I'm honest enough to make it clear that anyone, including Trump,
> >> who limits socialistic policies is okay with me regardless of his
> >> shortcomings.

YOU

> >IOW, F the Constitution. Thanks for the clarification.

ME

> Tell me what part of the C. Trump violated, NOT based on opinions, and
> I'll tell you exactly what I think. That's a challenge. Please don't
> chicken out.

That challenge. You have sidestepped, dodged and avoided responding
like the sorry scum you are.

Do you really think I will let this drop?

Hugh