2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It still leaves the question of why Trump is so keen on exonerating Russia.

 

Trump is only keen on getting at the truth.

Really?  When did this massive change in character come about?

 

All the US intelligence agencies, Mueller, and investigations done by both the House and Senate concluded that Russia interfered in the election.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living a fantasy.

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Really?  When did this massive change in character come about?

 

All the US intelligence agencies, Mueller, and investigations done by both the House and Senate concluded that Russia interfered in the election.  Anyone who believes otherwise is living a fantasy.

It's your interpretation that Trump is trying to exonerate Russian interference.  Not a fact.  I hope you're clear on that.

 

I'll double down on my opinion that Trump is only after the truth no matter where that truth leads.

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>

I'll double down on my opinion that Trump is only after the truth no matter where that truth leads.

LOL, how many Trump lies so far, is he up to 12,000 already?

36 minutes ago, stevenl said:

LOL, how many Trump lies so far, is he up to 12,000 already?

No.  Too low.  I think he's up to 26,226 by now.  LOL

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It still leaves the question of why Trump is so keen on exonerating Russia.

 

Trump is only keen on getting at the truth.

Trump’s very inaccurate claim that the whistleblower is ‘very inaccurate’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/09/trumps-very-inaccurate-claim-whistleblower-is-very-inaccurate/

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's your interpretation that Trump is trying to exonerate Russian interference.  Not a fact.  I hope you're clear on that.

 

I'll double down on my opinion that Trump is only after the truth no matter where that truth leads.

TRUMP ADMITS RUSSIA HELPED HIM WIN, DENIES IT 20 MINUTES LATER

The president accidentally acknowledged reality—then quickly returned to his alternate universe.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/trump-admits-russia-helped-him-win-denies-it-20-minutes-later

 

Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

After face-to-face talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Trump contradicted US intelligence agencies and said there had been no reason for Russia to meddle in the vote.

Mr Putin reiterated that Russia had never interfered in US affairs.

The two men held nearly two hours of closed-door talks in the Finnish capital Helsinki on Monday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812

38 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No.  Too low.  I think he's up to 26,226 by now.  LOL

And again denying reality.

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll double down on my opinion that Trump is only after the truth no matter where that truth leads.

If that were so, he wouldn't be preventing people from giving evidence, he would be encouraging them. He also wouldn't be refusing to hand over documents.

 

If all you want is the truth, then you make as much information available as you possibly can. Trump is doing the exact opposite.

If that were so, he wouldn't be preventing people from giving evidence, he would be encouraging them. He also wouldn't be refusing to hand over documents.
 
If all you want is the truth, then you make as much information available as you possibly can. Trump is doing the exact opposite.

Unless you know that only the portions of what you release that makes you look bad will make it to the press.

If the hearings were open to the public what you say might make sense, but as they are not, I think Trump would be a fool to provide them with anything.

It’s not as if he were cleared of any wrongdoing the dems would suddenly support the President and try to work with him. They would just move to the next bit of hysteria and continue attacking him.

7 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Unless you know that only the portions of what you release that makes you look bad will make it to the press.

If the hearings were open to the public what you say might make sense, but as they are not, I think Trump would be a fool to provide them with anything.

It’s not as if he were cleared of any wrongdoing the dems would suddenly support the President and try to work with him. They would just move to the next bit of hysteria and continue attacking him.

 

When has any investigation been public.

 

Grasping at straws much?

 

You fo realise repubs are in there and can leak the bits they like. Like the Redcliffe guy that said Taylor was destroyed in 90 seconds. ????

6 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Unless you know that only the portions of what you release that makes you look bad will make it to the press.

If the hearings were open to the public what you say might make sense, but as they are not, I think Trump would be a fool to provide them with anything.

It’s not as if he were cleared of any wrongdoing the dems would suddenly support the President and try to work with him. They would just move to the next bit of hysteria and continue attacking him.

 

You don't seem to get it. Ultimately, if it goes to an actual impeachment procedure, that information will be made public. And once again you resort to the fakery about the preliminary hearings not being open to the public. In both the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment there were far more private investigations thanks to the existence of a special prosecutors. They no longer exist so you get these closed door hearings instead. Which are far more open.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You don't seem to get it. Ultimately, if it goes to an actual impeachment procedure, that information will be made public. And once again you resort to the fakery about the preliminary hearings not being open to the public. In both the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment there were far more private investigations thanks to the existence of a special prosecutors. They no longer exist so you get these closed door hearings instead. Which are far more open.

Even trey gowdy and repubs agree with you. Until the dems do the same.

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's your interpretation that Trump is trying to exonerate Russian interference.  Not a fact.  I hope you're clear on that.

 

I'll double down on my opinion that Trump is only after the truth no matter where that truth leads.

Ok, it is my interpretation that Trump is trying to exonerate Russia.  Another interpretation is that he is an idiot who believes any conspiracy theory presented to him.

 

It is your opinion that Trump is after the truth.  It is an opinion that no informed person shares.

You don't seem to get it. Ultimately, if it goes to an actual impeachment procedure, that information will be made public. And once again you resort to the fakery about the preliminary hearings not being open to the public. In both the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment there were far more private investigations thanks to the existence of a special prosecutors. They no longer exist so you get these closed door hearings instead. Which are far more open.

And both Presidents Nixon and Clinton cooperated fully, yes?

You don't seem to get it. Ultimately, if it goes to an actual impeachment procedure, that information will be made public. And once again you resort to the fakery about the preliminary hearings not being open to the public. In both the Nixon impeachment and the Clinton impeachment there were far more private investigations thanks to the existence of a special prosecutors. They no longer exist so you get these closed door hearings instead. Which are far more open.

Okay, so it’s not an “actual” impeachment hearing. That clears up a lot.

So again, why should Trump help them? While no doubt the left has nothing but the President’s best interest at heart, I still think he’d be a fool to give them any more than he has to.

Ok, it is my interpretation that Trump is trying to exonerate Russia.  Another interpretation is that he is an idiot who believes any conspiracy theory presented to him.
 
It is your opinion that Trump is after the truth.  It is an opinion that no informed person shares.

As all “informed” people are leftists, yes?

Is this where I say it’s an opinion that Trump is not only after the truth, and it’s an opinion no informed person shares?

Do you think the dems are only after the truth?

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Okay, so it’s not an “actual” impeachment hearing. That clears up a lot.

So again, why should Trump help them? While no doubt the left has nothing but the President’s best interest at heart, I still think he’d be a fool to give them any more than he has to.

 

Congress has said it is, so it is. Like it or lump it.

 

Trump is lawfully obligated to comply. Failure to do so is obstruction of justice. Another impeachable offence.

3 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

As all “informed” people are leftists, yes?

Is this where I say it’s an opinion that Trump is not only after the truth, and it’s an opinion no informed person shares?

Do you think the dems are only after the truth?

 

Congress is looking for the truth. Trump is trying to stop that. Even tho he says he is the most open and transparent preseident ever bigly

Congress has said it is, so it is. Like it or lump it.
 
Trump is lawfully obligated to comply. Failure to do so is obstruction of justice. Another impeachable offence.

Lawfully obligated you comply with what? Anything they ask for? I think not.

Besides, I thought per the Mueller debacle he was already guilty of obstruction, why not just impeach him for that?

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Lawfully obligated you comply with what? Anything they ask for? I think not.

Besides, I thought per the Mueller debacle he was already guilty of obstruction, why not just impeach him for that?

 

What muller debacle 11 counts of obstruction exposed for using a hostile foreign powers help to rig the election the one and only reason Donald isent up on charges is #1 the attorney general is donalds lap dog and #2 he is potus no more no less and now the investigation has access to the un redacted muller report good!

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

Lawfully obligated you comply with what? Anything they ask for? I think not.

Besides, I thought per the Mueller debacle he was already guilty of obstruction, why not just impeach him for that?

 

Congressional subpoenas. Its not rocket science.

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

Lawfully obligated you comply with what? Anything they ask for? I think not.

Besides, I thought per the Mueller debacle he was already guilty of obstruction, why not just impeach him for that?

 

 

Can't. Under questioning Mueller admitted that the Department of Justice does not not-exonerate thus Trump was really not-not-exonerated. He was only not-exonerated politically. No credible legal document is full of innuendo and double negatives.  But I do not fault Mueller because even he was not certain about the document during the hearing.

 

6 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

And both Presidents Nixon and Clinton cooperated fully, yes?
 

Clinton didn't ignore subpoenas.  Nixon did, which became the third article of impeachment against him.  https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

6 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

As all “informed” people are leftists, yes?

Is this where I say it’s an opinion that Trump is not only after the truth, and it’s an opinion no informed person shares?

Do you think the dems are only after the truth?

No, informed people are not all liberal, there are quite a few centrists and conservatives that are aware of Trump's history of lying.  That's why it's comical to suggest Trump was after the truth when he pressured Zelenski to "investigate" the discredited conspiracy theory about the DNC server being in Ukraine.

 

I think the Democrats in the impeachment investigation are after the truth, and are very confident that the truth about Trump's actions will be sufficient to impeach him.

5 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Lawfully obligated you comply with what? Anything they ask for? I think not.

Besides, I thought per the Mueller debacle he was already guilty of obstruction, why not just impeach him for that?

Lawfully obligated to comply with subpoenas.  Read the post above.

7 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

Lawfully obligated you comply with what? Anything they ask for? I think not.

Besides, I thought per the Mueller debacle he was already guilty of obstruction, why not just impeach him for that?

Now that the court has ruled that the DOJ must turn over the grand jury transcripts of the Mueller investigation and has also ruled that the way congress is conducting the closed door depositions is legal,  Some of the Mueller findings about Trump's obstruction of justice might just become articles of impeachment.  It's up to Pelosi and the democratic caucus how much those articles will cover.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

No, informed people are not all liberal, there are quite a few centrists and conservatives that are aware of Trump's history of lying. 

"Being informed" is not keeping with Republican orthodoxy (a term Roger Ailes enjoyed using).  At least not for the rank and file.  "You don't need to know anything other than what we tell you."  Like religion, it is about faith in the leadership.  Those that go against the leadership are upstarts.  Look at Marco Rubio, he doesn't approach issues from a perspective of right and wrong, he's all about how things fit into the conservative agenda (ok, I'm interchanging GOP with conservative, which works to varying degrees, but there is no liberal wing of the GOP).  When Marco dies he'll go to Republican heaven and Saint Ronnie will greet him at the gate.  The GOP has the serial hand-wringers (Susan Collins and Murkowski) who make a display of "oo, I don't know..." but in the end go along with the rest of them.  The few who are presently not opposing impeachment include these two usual suspects. 

Which is not to say the Dems don't have some of this (Nancy P. is infamous for her iron hand) but no where near the degree that the GOP does.  Getting the Dems into agreement can be like herding cats.

The old chestnut "the Democrats fall in love, the Republicans fall in line."

 

 

Congressional subpoenas. Its not rocket science.

That’s what I thought.

No, me doesn’t have to comply with those.

34 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

That’s what I thought.

No, me doesn’t have to comply with those.

 

Yes, he is required to comply with those. Not complying is in itself an impeachable offence.

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, he is required to comply with those. Not complying is in itself an impeachable offence.

I've already pointed out to RideJocky that not complying with subpoenas was the third article of impeachment against Nixon.  However Trump's base is impervious to facts.