Impeachment hearings

[Guest]

...my question could not be more clearer, it is not a yes or no question, it is a "who is" or "what is the persons name" question ..." who was the point man appointed by Obama to investigate the Ukraine?"

Investigations into possible corruption were begun by the FBI as early as 2014, with a look at Paul Manafort's connections to Viktor Yanukovych.

You are free to ignore whatever part of the history of investigations that you wish to ignore in presentring your alternate timeline, but if you want to implicate someone in something, you'll need to provide something more that naming a name, and stating that he was 'involved'; in the investigation.

Unlike your own claims, you can find information about this literally everywhere. Google is your friend; use it. Here’s a random link:

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/21/son ... omat-says/

From the article:

“The two diplomats (Sondland and Volker), who exchanged calls and text messages with Giuliani all summer, worked with the president’s lawyer on the text of a statement Trump wanted Ukraine’s president to deliver on CNN, in which he would announce investigations of Burisma and supposed Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.”

So, now you can answer my question directly, yes?

Where does that article show Trump asked Z to announce, or any Ukrainian to announce publicly on CNN the investigation of Biden?
The article is more about trying to discredit Sondland, and his testimony, than anything else. It is a he said she said article. meddling in the 2016 election.”

Nice try, but it's not a 'he said, she said' situation, given that the following is what Sondland said:

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks"





Now you can toss that argument of yours into the trash bin. Thanks. And you can now answer my question directly, yes? Here it is, again:

"Given your inability to answer why Trump did not engage the DoJ in pursuing corruption that you claim he was sure existed because “he was sure that it existed”, then why would Trump need to ask Zelensky to look into any corruption claim, or make a public announcement about same?

After all, there would be no need to ask Zelensky to do anything, either, right?"

This all boils down to what I have been saying all along.... If there is evidence that warrants an investigation of Joe, and his family and associates, then it show's Trump is more than justified in asking for an investigation of the corruption in the Ukraine that would include Biden.

Then why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

That is why I have been trying get anyone here to engage in the evidences, so far Honor is the only one who has tried, and so far has come short.

It's still looking like the only person "coming up short" is the one that can't dare to answer the question of why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate. That person would be you. : )

My new question you will duck...."are you saying that Trump should not have wanted an investigation for corruption in the Ukraine?"

Here, let me not 'duck' this question for you: I'm saying that if the President felt that he had credible evidence of corruption that warranted an investigation, then he should have asked the DoJ to investigate. Your question here is more for Trump - why didn't he want an investigation for corruption in Ukraine, given that he would not ask the DoJ for this?

You should try answering that question, or the original version of it, which you have ducked for some twenty pages or so: Why didn't Trump as the DoJ to investigate?

[_canpakes]

Yep, those Trump voters and their ‘concern about corruption’. Riggghhtt. ; )

Look at you and how you consider "all things subjective" just when it suits you.
One man's garbage is another man's DNC party platform equivocation.

FIFY.

You know the concept well. You've been confused about what you think you are for so many years, now; I don't suspect that'll change any time soon. Carry on.

[_canpakes]

...as defined at the time of the original document’s creation.

Except you literally argued that anything goes (awkward for ya on the whole 'reread').

But, speaking of "nice try"; here's to you and the idea that the writers of the Constitution had no idea for the interpretation of words. Like "arms" is to be exclusive to muskets and arrows; and "press" is only that which is on paper; and "speech" is only to be spoken: and so on.
So good luck as you strive for more erratic and inconsistent interpretations of the Constitution and whether things can truly be conveniently absolute and subjective to suit your mood du jour (and whatever the first page of your google search reveals...because scrolling diminishes credibility, amiright?).

My argument is to follow along with the plain language of the Constitution. You're the fellow trying to modify phrasing and define words changed from that new context to match very particular modern definitions. But there's no need to try to impose your errors on others... just man up and go with the facts.

[_Morley]

He is sincere.

I also think he is sincere. This is an object lesson in how disinformation works.

I've tried to give Markk the benefit of the doubt, but I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that he's not that sincere. One way sincerity and good faith are manifest is through the ability to acknowledge at least some of your own mistakes in fact or reasoning. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I've really not seen him doing that very often, if ever.

[_honorentheos]

One way sincerity and good faith are manifest is through the ability to acknowledge at least some of your own mistakes in fact or reasoning.

I would honestly doubt I've seen someone acknowledge mistakes here more than a dozen times in 10 years. That's not due to people not being wrong.

I think Markk is expressing his sincerely held beliefs. I don't think he is intentionally lying or trying to obfuscate the issue here. I think EA hit on it correctly in pointing it out as the result of disinformation rather than an example of someone intentionally trying to spread it.

[_EAllusion]

Markk is stubborn to be sure, but the underlying problem is he trusts bad sources and has some rationalizations to defeat information that points out his trust in bad sources is misplaced.

People like Ajax and Subgenius have this problem too, but they also delight in lying because they think that's how the game is played.

[_Icarus]

I've tried to give Markk the benefit of the doubt, but I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that he's not that sincere. One way sincerity and good faith are manifest is through the ability to acknowledge at least some of your own mistakes in fact or reasoning. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I've really not seen him doing that very often, if ever.

I'm with you on this. It seems every forum I've participated on has their troll whose only intent is to ruin it for everyone else.

[_Icarus]

One way sincerity and good faith are manifest is through the ability to acknowledge at least some of your own mistakes in fact or reasoning.

I would honestly doubt I've seen someone acknowledge mistakes here more than a dozen times in 10 years. That's not due to people not being wrong.

Many people don't admit being wrong, but they still know they're wrong, and move one because of it. I've done this many times over the years and I know most other people have as well.

That's not Markk.

He doubles down on stupidity, digs in with bad faith arguments, pretends he's provided references he hasn't provided, pretends he's answered questions he hasn't answers, and the entire time he's laughing because his intention was never to have a rational discussion with anyone. His intention is to to clutter and obfuscate.

[_Morley]

One way sincerity and good faith are manifest is through the ability to acknowledge at least some of your own mistakes in fact or reasoning.

I would honestly doubt I've seen someone acknowledge mistakes here more than a dozen times in 10 years.

Maybe we're referring to different things. I'm talking about acknowledging a point and adjusting one's position with the give-and-take that's inherent in any healthy conversation. I glanced back at a few of the interactions I've been involved in on this thread, and it seems to happen quite frequently.

[Guest]

Moved to correct thread. I MADE A MISTAKE.