Hands up those who think this latest whistleblower is real

[Intrinsic]

What the fuck does The Whistleblower identity and faults have to do with Trump abuse of power for personal gain. Nothing NADA zilch ridiculous argument.

Now Que the trump apologists whom will vehemently attack the messenger, blame biden and everyone else but trump, as we see Bob did. Same shit i seen from the wingnuts since Nixon.

Trump abused his power for personal gain. Fact, An impeachable crime. And on cue here comes the Trump apologist AGAIN attacking the whistle blower.
Ignoring and distracting from the president's crime
and the abuse of power. Yanno, the old red herring and Strawman arguments, the Cornerstone of the politician illogic

[Intrinsic]

By the by, Pence is also is also guilty off Trump's crime since he knew about it was told about and did nothing.

But he'll probably be let go because the alternative would be Nancy Pelosi would be president, who wants that shit?

Back to your old logical fallacies eh Bob? Attacking The Messengers as I pointed out much earlier would happen and now you did it twice.
What makes you like Trump so much that you would commit the sin of illogic?

[rSin]

the trampling of the rules of law and the power grab behind it are extrodinary
as is the answer to the questions "what on earth is worth protecting in this man/party to allow these violations of the rule of law and rejection of the separation of powers to stand???"

truly chilling
bob just wants to be our next guano
dick lost his frickin mind last year and megalomaniacs always appeal to the saneless

remember half the democrats are in the corporate cash party with most of the republicans so ITS IN THEIR INTEREST to do a weak job of laying out the savaging of the system that's afoot

that's speaks nothing to the merit of the case or process

god I cant imagine whos fools youd have to be to rest on them
same fuckers who think we should have stayed with Nixon cuz the people had no business knowing what he was doing with the power of his office???



heres some ON point points...

the most important impeachment story that most of the press continues to look away from—the fact that one of our two major political parties in this country no longer deals in facts and reality, and instead has willingly burrowed itself into a world of lies and fantasy, specifically when it comes to the issues surrounding impeachment.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1201183435554992129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact, some Republican officials are now actively working alongside a Kremlin disinformation campaign regarding Ukraine’s role in American elections.

heh... NO RUSSIAN COLUSION!!! so please no questions on our game plan ORIGINATING with Russian disinfo experts!!!

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1201183435554992129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If more journalists openly acknowledged this crucial development regarding the GOP, the fact that Republicans aren’t willing to support impeachment would no longer be treated as “news,” and the press wouldn’t portray Democrats as failing with their impeachment messaging. What’s also completely lacking is any kind of historical context regarding how awful those impeachment poll numbers are for Trump.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/the-me ... oceedings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I liked wolfe's summation being that in 76' and then 78' the supreme court ORDAINED that corporations COULD OWN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENATIVES. this all coming a few years after future supreme court justice wrote his famous 'powell memo' telling corporate America 'better get fucking spending your money buying influence or the institution of higher learning and progress in America is going to shit can your gravy train


When Republicans in the House spent 1998 impeaching Bill Clinton, Americans across the board rejected the inquiry. At no point during the partisan process did more than 30% of Americans support impeachment, and most of the time that number hovered around 25%. Republicans categorically failed to change the nation’s mind about Clinton, who famously weathered the political storm with historically high approval ratings, logging a staggering 71% approval rating in a Pew Research poll.

Today, more than twice as many Americans support the impeachment of a Republican president than supported the impeachment of a Democratic president two decades ago. Yet the press portrays the Trump impeachment as a political and public relations failure for Democrats. How does that work exactly? Note that it wasn’t until July 1974, one month before President Richard Nixon resigned, that a plurality of Americans finally agreed that he should be forced from office. Today, a plurality already feels that way about Trump, yet the press shrugs.

The Times’ conclusion? It’s a toss-up: “As a result, support for or opposition to impeachment rarely climbs much higher than 50 percent in any poll.” This is what you call missing the big picture, and most of the Beltway press is now doing it with regard to impeachment.

The news media are committed to a storyline that says impeachment is only a “success” if the hearings spike public support, and not whether the hearings unequivocally show wholesale abuse within the executive branch, which they clearly have done. There’s simply no question that Trump used $391 million of U.S. taxpayer-funded military aid to extort the Ukrainian government into opening a bogus investigation for Trump’s own personal and political gain.

And the public gets it.



the problem is that WAY to many want to suck the prick of monarch's again
the press being wholely owned by the oligarchy is happy to make it look kosher

and

modernity has delivered an under educated over worked under paid over entertained public to them

remember
if your not at the table
your on the menu...

[Butcher Bob]

Take your tribalism and go fuk yourself Intrinsic.

Yeah, let's follow up on this CIA plant's...er I mean whistleblower's claim...

..but keep Snowden in exile for his...Manning in prison for hers...and extradite and imprison Assange for publishing them...

...let's ignore the OPCW whistleblowers that revealed we bombed the fuk out of Syria for red flag events that never occurred...

...let's pretend Blumanthal didn't expose CNN for completely manufacturing news that Venesuela set fire to an aid convoy, when it was a CIA action to justify our 2nd coup attempt...

...let's forget the military coup the CIA just orchestrated in Bolivia, over false reporting of election fraud...

...yeah, that's the ticket.

You still think Trump's the problem.

If Trump had never mentioned Biden, none of this impeachment stuff would be happening. Trump's MO his entire life has been to use his power for personal gain. He didn't hide that, he campaigned on it...and he won. He beat every republican contender like a teenager's dick without a date. Then he took the democrat's "most qualified" candidate and shoved her face in a big ole pile of shit. Instead of acknowledging the overwelmingly exposed true revelation, that the system is broken and corruption is rampant, you would rather play meaningless tribal games. You, are part of the problem.

I couldn't care less one way or the other if Trump gets impeached. Do I think Trump did wrong?...yes. Do I think Biden did wrong?...yes. And I think both those cocksuckers should be strung up. But what I am not goig to do is play a political game of sides. Go ahead and continue your tribal circle-jerk, but I won't be joining in...I will focus on the real problem, not someone that is the result of that problem.

[Intrinsic]

So you kind of lied there when you said these were just some sticking points yer concerned with.

Whatever, I do agree with you that is why I will vote for Trump 2020. It's all a clusterfuk and we should get this thing quickly to the bottom and Trigger the revolution


Or spare the blood and start by getting rid of the biggest fuker first and send a strong message with extreme prejudice.

Or as an alternate hypothesis:
Let Trump do what he was elected to do by the American people?

[Intrinsic]

Can you believe some of these foolish 100% strawman arguments I'm hearing at this impeachment inquiry un fukin believable. No wonder people like Bob feel free to to use fallacious arguments

I'm on the side of Truth and Justice .mathematicians if you need a pigeon hole

[Jesús Malverde]

The impeachment proceedings are a sideshow/endless soap opera for the marks (tribal MSNBC bubble inhabitants). The Senate will never convict, complete masturbation session. Even famously liberal GWU law prof Jonathan Turley sees through the hype and points to the real dangers. Here's his full statement to the Judiciary Committee for anyone who dares to read it.

https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/u ... Final_.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jesús Malverde]

Mathematicians and other practitioners of the hard sciences get used to being objectively right (as in provably so), can often do it at will (within their sphere) and sometimes get in an hubristic trap where they think this well honed ability to discern truth from falsity applies in the realms where there is no hard objective, quantifiable, non-subjective truth. It really doesn't. Mathematicians and hard scientists are subject to the same sorts of wrong thinking and self delusion as anyone else once dragged out of their mathematical realms.

A math prof and an iron worker have equal chances of political awareness—or the lack thereof.

[Jesús Malverde]

OK nobody's going to click on and read my Turley testimony so I'll C&P the conclusion below to make it easier-

Allow me to be candid in my closing remarks.
I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My
Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . .
and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad. We are all mad and where has it
taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation
for the madness to follow in every future administration?
That is why this is wrong. It is not wrong because President Trump is right. His
call was anything but “perfect” and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.
It is not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian
controversy. The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political
opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.
It is not wrong because we are in an election year. There is no good time for an
impeachment, but this process concerns the constitutional right to hold office in this term,
not the next.
No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be
impeached. For two years, members of this Committee have declared that criminal and
impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to
obstruction. However, no action was taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago,
the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in
just a matter of weeks. To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would
51
not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo.
Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses
with largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversations
with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expressly
deny such a pre-condition. The House has offered compelling arguments why those two
calls can be discounted by the fact that President Trump had knowledge of the underlying
whistleblower complaint. However, this does not change the fact that it is moving
forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed the
time or inclination to establish it. The military aid was released after a delay that the
witnesses described as “not uncommon” for this or prior Administrations. This is not a
case of the unknowable. It is a case of the peripheral. The House testimony is replete with
references to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearly
hold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose
every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.
Principle often takes us to a place where we would prefer not to be. That was the
place the “Republican Recusants” found themselves in 1868 when sitting in judgment of
a president they loathed and despised. However, they took an oath not to Andrew
Johnson, but to the Constitution. One of the greatest among them, Lyman Trumbull (RIll.) explained his fateful decision to vote against Johnson’s impeachment charges even at
the cost of his own career:
“Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the
excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient
causes … no future President will be safe who happens to differ with the
majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate …
I tremble for the future of my country. I cannot be an instrument to produce
such a result; and at the hazard of the ties even of friendship and affection,
till calmer times shall do justice to my motives, no alternative is left
me…”

Trumbull acted in the same type of age of rage that we have today. He knew that raising a
question about the underlying crime or the supporting evidence would instantly be
condemned as approving of the underlying conduct of a president. In an age of rage, there
seems to be no room for nuance or reservation. Yet, that is what the Constitution expects
of us. Expects of you.
For generations, the seven Republicans who defected to save President Johnson
from removal have been heralded as profiles of courage. In recalling the moment he was
called to vote, Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas said he “almost literally looked down
into my open grave.” He jumped because the price was too great not to. Such moments
are easy to celebrate from a distance of time and circumstance. However, that is precisely
the moment in which you now find yourself. “When the excitement of the hour [has] subsided” and “calmer times” prevail, I do not believe that this impeachment will be
viewed as bringing credit upon this body. It is possible that a case for impeachment could
be made, but it cannot be made on this record. To return to Wordsworth, the Constitution
is not a call to arms for the “Happy Warriors.” The Constitution calls for circumspection,
not celebration, at the prospect of the removal of an American president. It is easy to
allow one’s “judgment [to be] affected by your moral approval of the lines” in an
impeachment narrative. But your oath demands more, even personal and political
sacrifice, in deciding whether to impeach a president for only the third time in the history
of this Republic.
In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just
do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can
declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics,
not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my
testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason. Listening to these calls to
dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More
in “A Man For All Seasons.” In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law
William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil
the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the
law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in
England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the
Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This
country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my
own safety’s sake!”
Both sides in this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in
defense much like Roper. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten
the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution.
However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you
consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic
president. Where will you stand then “the laws all being flat?”
107
Thank you again for the honor of testifying before you today. I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.

[Intrinsic]

Back to the live hearings

Mr Collins under oath is the quintessential icon of logical fallacy, textbook. Shame our children sees this as legitimate

We the People are the victims not presidenc Z , chingas what a tool