Impeachment hearings

[_Markk]

Yeah Markk?

There was exactly no 'parroting' nor 'talking points' in my response to Cam. See the little squiggly marks at the end of the sentences? Those are questions.

Further, do you know how i approach posts that touch on my own field where someone could use more information?

I supply the information that they need in order to increase their insight and understanding of an issue. Without attempting even once to degrade them for what they are yet to learn.

Keep it classy, Markk.

This is what you wrote...sarcastically...

Jersey Girl wrote...Yeah, I wonder what Markk thinks about that statement? The concrete was soaking wet? You mean the so-called wall was just sitting there in wet concrete with no support?

It was a real fence/wall, it was supported, and the concrete was wet...however the bracing gave way in the wind. If you want to double down on it knock yourself out, but the only thing worse than being so off on a subject is doubling down on it.

Yeah, you were asking an objective question about me to Doc...LOL, that's like asking Hitler how he feels about Jews. Give me a break...stop and let it go.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yeah Markk?

There was exactly no 'parroting' nor 'talking points' in my response to Cam. See the little squiggly marks at the end of the sentences? Those are questions.

Further, do you know how i approach posts that touch on my own field where someone could use more information?

I supply the information that they need in order to increase their insight and understanding of an issue. Without attempting even once to degrade them for what they are yet to learn.

Keep it classy, Markk.

This is what you wrote...sarcastically...

Jersey Girl wrote...Yeah, I wonder what Markk thinks about that statement? The concrete was soaking wet? You mean the so-called wall was just sitting there in wet concrete with no support?

It was a real fence/wall, it was supported, and the concrete was wet...however the bracing gave way in the wind. If you want to double down on it knock yourself out, but the only thing worse than being so off on a subject is doubling down on it.

Yeah, you were asking an objective question about me to Doc...LOL, that's like asking Hitler how he feels about Jews. Give me a break...stop and let it go.

Holy crap. You can't read. I didn't say that I was asking objective questions. I said I wasn't parroting Cam, I was asking questions. Pointing that out to you is doubling down on the wall blowing over?

Seriously, pull your head out.

[_Markk]

Our family has had two USMC officers within the last two generations. Needless to say, our backgrounds and attitudes ‘lean conservative’.

Don’t confuse wanting to improve your own with calling something ‘horrible’.

Then you approve of a lot of what Trump has gotten done, from a conservative perspective? Who do you support on the right, who is your candidate of choice beyond Trump?

by the way I have a sister that is a school teacher and ones that is in real estate...our back ground are conservative...{ Don Rickles shaking his head"} What does having Marines in that family have do with this...? I have not seen you say anything supportive of anything conservative, but I am open, tell me more.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5_V9RT8aR8 off topic but very funny...

[_canpakes]

You should have pasted the next paragraph also...and the video of Sondland saying this was his opinion by presumption. And Yermek denying what Sondland said. Again, he said she said...and this is why i asked for a context, which ironically keeps moving around.

Yermak wasn’t in control of the process. Sondland was part of the mechanism that enabled the aid to flow, or not. Yermak’s personal belief would have no effect on Trump’s decision and Sondland’s message.

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?

Your answer to the question is that there was not enough evidence, my answer is there was, and he did not need to ask the DOJ.

Then you see that your circular distraction brings you back to the first point. If there was a question of corruption, then Trump should have asked the DoJ to investigate. Stating that he ‘knew’ so he didn’t need the DoJ to investigate doesn’t make any sense - legally, procedurally, or otherwise.

You’re basically conceding that you won’t address the question. That’s fine, but you might consider that your 20 pages of dodging is the best example of a partisan political stubbornness in this thread so far.

You could try addressing the other post about the point of impeachment, but I have a feeling that you’ll dodge that one, too.

[_MeDotOrg]

The bottom line in the Trump impeachment, to me, really boils do to whether or not the corruption is the Ukraine did or did not deserve an investigation.

I'm not sure if you've been asked before, but if Trump was so concerned about corruption in the Ukraine, why did he hire Paul Manafort? Manafort was an agent for the very corruption Trump pretends to be against.

And again, if there should be an investigation, shouldn't our own Justice Department be involved? If this is the business of the United States, why go through the President's personal lawyer, who is not a Government employee, and does not have security clearance?

This is not an attack against conservatism. As a liberal, the Presidency of Donald Trump has given me an appreciation of the old guard Republicans. I may have disagreed with the Bush, McCain and Romney, but all possessed patriotism, decency and honesty, and a genuine concern about the future of this country. None of them were amoral, transactional narcissists. Conservatism is a fashion label for Donald Trump. It is transactional, just like his evangelical support. Some conservatives, to their credit, have denounced the administration and call a spade a spade. But how many members of the GOP who gave negative assessments about candidate Trump now totally disavow those statements? People like Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham, who disparaged the President's character before the election now kiss his ring. It is truly disappointing to watch people sell their souls for a Senate seat.

The battle with Donald Trump is not about ideology. It's about character. Donald Trump's narcissism blinds him to anything outside his personal self-aggrandizement. He has repeatedly violated his oath of office and the Constitution in the pursuit of that narcissistic need to make himself the center of the universe. Donald Trump came at a time in American history when the lines of communication were re-wired. Like a lot of movement leaders, he has great intuition about the collective unconscious, and has used that ability to re-define the norm as the tweet instead of the press conference. A tweet is a monologue. A press conference is a dialogue. It brings the statements made in monologue up for questioning. We need that it a functioning democracy. Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, should we accept this as the new norm? Is this a good thing in a functioning democracy?

Trump sees the standards of Democracy as hindering the promulgation of his brand. Trumpism is not conservatism. For a parallel in American history, consider the Know-Nothings, a the far right nativist faction of the 1850's, which actually started as a secret society.


I find great irony in the fact that Know Nothings referred to themselves as "Native Americans". History belongs to the victors.

Trump has said he is more Presidential than anyone except Abraham Lincoln. He should consider Trump's words about the Know-Nothings.

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of Negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

From the czar to Putin, from the 'Know-Nothings' to 'Team Trump' the song remains the same.

[_canpakes]

And again, if there should be an investigation, shouldn't our own Justice Department be involved? If this is the business of the United States, why go through the President's personal lawyer, who is not a Government employee, and does not have security clearance?

... or rely solely on a brand-new foreign government administration that has sprung out of a previously corrupt one?

Markk’s answer to both questions will be, “Because he knew!!1!”, which will - of course - be no answer to these questions.

[_Chap]

Trump has said he is more Presidential than anyone except Abraham Lincoln. He should consider Trump's Lincoln's words about the Know-Nothings.

I herewith correct a typo in your excellent post.

[_Markk]

Yermak wasn’t in control of the process. Sondland was part of the mechanism that enabled the aid to flow, or not. Yermak’s personal belief would have no effect on Trump’s decision and Sondland’s message.

HuH... Yermak was Z. advisor, and at the heart of the lefts failed case against the President...have you read the findings report? His "personal belief" refutes Sondlands testimony. Did you watch the Senate trial either? He is at the heart of the Trial, and in both the House's transcripts and the Senates trial transcripts.

It was a he said she said...and under oath Sonland said his belief was a presumption? And when pressed under oath admitted he presumed this.

Then you see that your circular distraction brings you back to the first point. If there was a question of corruption, then Trump should have asked the DoJ to investigate. Stating that he ‘knew’ so he didn’t need the DoJ to investigate doesn’t make any sense - legally, procedurally, or otherwise.

You’re basically conceding that you won’t address the question. That’s fine, but you might consider that your 20 pages of dodging is the best example of a partisan political stubbornness in this thread so far.

You could try addressing the other post about the point of impeachment, but I have a feeling that you’ll dodge that one, too.

HuH...I addressed the question many different ways, you just don't like my answer. You just opined on my answer and then said you don't like it. LOL, read what you are writing. The President has every right to have whom ever he wants, Rudy in this case, investigate anything he feels is wrong...like Obama appointed Biden to investigate or expose the Ukraine as whole for corruption.

But is this case Trump said in the transcript that he wanted both the DoJ and Rudy involved, and eventually the DOJ was and is involved, as are a few senators looking into Hunter and his father.

Why don't you feel that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation of Biden and Hunter and associates and the different LLC's that benefited only because of Joe?


I am not sure what other question I missed, but link me to it. I have limited time to answer questions from different folks. I still have not got to a few points Honor has raised...so link me to the specific question you are talking about, and I will try to get to it tonight after work.

If it was the point you tried to make about the DoJ investigating Manafort? So what they were investigating Manafort, not the Ukraine and has nothing to do with you ducking my question about who Obama gave the check book to, and to root out corruption so the monies would go where they were suppose to...but let me know.

[_Markk]

Holy ____. You can't read. I didn't say that I was asking objective questions. I said I wasn't parroting Cam, I was asking questions. Pointing that out to you is doubling down on the wall blowing over?

Seriously, pull your head out.

You were parroting/following the narrative that Trump was a idiot for what he said about wet concrete...you did not give him any credence as a builder, but mocked him in your quote. Yes, you just follow along, and doubling down...Jersey Girl want a cracker... (LOL this is just to easy...and do apologize, but you bring it on yourself.).

Love ya.

[_canpakes]

HuH... Yermak was Z. advisor, and at the heart of the lefts failed case against the President...have you read the findings report? His "personal belief" refutes Sondlands testimony.

Yermak could state any belief that he wanted, but if Team Trump wanted to hold the aid up until the public announcement that Sondland stated would be required was made, then Team Trump is calling the shots there.

Your defense pretends that if Team Trump wanted an announcement but Yermak didn’t interpret that demand to be required, then Team Trump would simply forget about wanting a public announcement. You know that’s not how this would work.

Then you see that your circular distraction brings you back to the first point. If there was a question of corruption, then Trump should have asked the DoJ to investigate. Stating that he ‘knew’ so he didn’t need the DoJ to investigate doesn’t make any sense - legally, procedurally, or otherwise.

HuH...I addressed the question many different ways, you just don't like my answer. You just opined on my answer and then said you don't like it. LOL, read what you are writing. The President has every right to have whom ever he wants, Rudy in this case, investigate anything he feels is wrong...

Stating that someone does or doesn’t have to do a thing isn’t giving a reason as to why they wouldn’t have done it, especially if that thing would have been the usual, preferred, customary, legal or smart thing to do.

It would be like asking you why you didn’t jump in a lake to pull someone out of the water who was drowning. You could answer, “because I don’t need to do that!!1!”, but such an answer doesn’t tell us why you didn’t do it (you can’t swim yourself; you hate the person in the water; you don’t want to get your shirt wet, whatever). My question has always centered on why Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate, and you have repeatedly dodged back behind the same non-answer.

I am not sure what other question I missed, but link me to it.

The point of the impeachment action. You want to pretend that it has to do with actions by others beyond Trump, as if a bad action committed by Trump can be rationalized by someone else’s unproven action.