Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. — tim wood

Why don't start a thread in the lounge, with a poll, what is Noseforatooth? I vote c)

Nos4's replies here say it all. On the basis of his many posts, he is a) playing games, b) is mentally ill, c) is in some way a paid troll. It is therefore an error to engage with him. The real clues are in his language. All of his arguments are fallacious. Not least because of their frequent categorical nature. — tim wood

Tim Wood’s hysteria has polluted his reason, so much so that he see’s enemies in everyone who disagrees with him. His borderline McCarthyism reeks of paranoia and fear, and this while he touts justice from the other side of his mealy mouth. — NOS4A2

Philosophy Forum 2020 edition.

If it's all downhill from here, I wonder where the discussion will be in 2024.

Trump speaks the world goes wild. — NOS4A2

Just like the guy who went on a ferry to the UK and started driving his car on the right lane. When the radio said "Emergency bulletin, one car driving on the wrong lane on the Harwich London road" the guy shouted: "One? Jesus Christ with this Fake News: EVERYBODY is driving on the wrong side!!!!"

Philosophy Forum 2020 edition.

If it's all downhill from here, I wonder where the discussion will be in 2024.

Wagging your finger every time I defend myself, but never when I’m attacked.

He was commenting on you both.

Apparently he's fully internalized victimhood. Tear. :fear:

I use the standard I was taught during by 33 year career at <Major Oil Company*>: avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal. Like with politicians, MOC always had a target on its back and knew that perceptions impact reputation. You could be fired for violating the standard even if nothing illegal or ethical was actually involved.

So under no circumstances should a President,
acting in his official capacity, pursue investigations into a political opponent. If the President has good reason to believe a crime was committed, the FBI, other investigative agency, or a well-regarded independent investigator can be appointed. But his hands should be off of it; the subject should be treated as radioactive.

This doesn't make it illegal for a President to push a rival's investigation, just like an MOC employee has not necessarily committed a crime. But it is grounds for suspicion, warrants scrutiny, and imposes a burden to show that the action was necessary and appropriate.

*note: I originally stated the name of the major oil company I worked for, but edited it out. It's against company policy to use their name. If I still worked there, I could be fired for it.

I feel almost as sorry for him as I do for Trump who just wanted to stop corruption around the globe and was forced to arrange a smear of his biggest political opponent to do so. How unlucky can you get that fighting the only corruption you can find happens to involve discrediting the guy who's threatening to take the presidency from you??

You said this before and I ignored it: that they deluged Trump, but were completely silent about the Uygurs.

It brings into view how meaningless the anti-Trump stuff really is.

I can appreciate that. That’s why conflicts of interest warrant scrutiny and is grounds for suspicion.

Remember that he only asked Zelensky to look into it if it’s possible—Burisma is a Ukrainian company—“so whatever [Zelenski] can do with the Attorney General would be great”. The attorney General is the head of the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States.

So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?

You said this before and I ignored it: that they deluged Trump, but were completely silent about the Uygurs.

It brings into view how meaningless the anti-Trump stuff really is.

History will not be kind to them. They will be demoted to its proverbial dustbin while the source of their ire will be remembered for centuries to come.

I am wagging my finger?

Nope.

It's just that the hostility is so typical, it really does tell what is wrong nowdays with public discussion. You see, this ought to be a Philosophy Forum. That's really, REALLY the telling thing here. If this is people who are interested on philosophy, think about those that just watch sports and follow politics occasionally.

And you can think people are attacking you personally. Wrong. People here are quite anonymous. And sometimes they agree, sometimes not. But usually when they don't know you, they'll be very keen on putting you into a box as some stereotype.

I understand.

No, I do not think people are attacking me personally. Wrong. I just think it’s odd that with all the name-calling and hostility towards my posts that I am held up as an example of what is wrong with public discussion.

History will not be kind to them. They will be demoted to its proverbial dustbin while the source of their ire will be remembered for centuries to come. — NOS4A2

What's the source of their ire?

This is a pretty awkward interview for the pro-impeachment wing of congress.

Very simple. If McConnell and Trump fail to block Bolton testifying, Trump is toast. If they manage it, he probably isn't. But as some have pointed out, there is more important stuff happening in the world right now. Kids working in cobalt mines in the DRC, for example. If Trump would care to do something about that, I might even find a kind word to say about him.

Remember that he only asked Zelensky to look into it if it’s possible—Burisma is a Ukrainian company—“so whatever [Zelenski] can do with the Attorney General would be great”. The attorney General is the head of the DOJ, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States. — NOS4A2

Asking for investigation into the Bidens looks wrong on its face, which puts the burden on him to make a case for this being essential. He hasn't. He's thrown gasoline on the flames, by attacking those who criticized him, and stonewalling the collection of evidence. Further he has appealed to partisan loyalties, even "defending" his action based on rationale that seems purely partisan (e.g. Trump's referring to Biden's bragging about getting the prosecutor fired appears pure partisan, given the fact that his ouster was desired by so many).

Evidence that HAS come out adds even more reason to regard it as an act of partisanship, and that it harmed Ukraine (Zelensky looks like a fool).

So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election?

Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to hold the President accountable for misdeeds. The partisan nature of the process is inescapable.

He has made his case and so have members of Congress and the senate.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. Meanwhile his son was being payed vast sums of cash working for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and this right after a revolution.

In combination with his dealings with a state-owned Chinese bank, travelling in Air Force 2 and even getting old Joe to shake hands with his new CCP partners, there was a pattern emerging.

This doesn’t look bad? As someone who wants to be an informed voter it is in our best interest to sort out these conflicts of interest.

Still I do not understand the argument that a Democratic Party candidate’s son cannot be investigated by Ukraine because he’s running for office. “It looks wrong” does not seem an adequate enough explanation, and in fact it looks like grasping for straws.

Biden threatened to withhold over a billion dollars if the top prosecutor wasn’t fired. — NOS4A2

You're ignoring the fact that this prosecutor was widely regarded as corrupt, by US Intelligence, our allies, and by anti-corruption activists in the Ukraine. Further, he was not actively investigating Burisma.

Still I do not understand the argument that a Democratic Party candidate’s son cannot be investigated by Ukraine because he’s running for office. “It looks wrong” does not seem an adequate enough explanation, and in fact it looks like grasping for straws. — NOS4A2

I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.

If there is evidence of Hunter having committed crimes, it would be perfectly legitimate for Ukraine to investigate this. What crimes has he been accussed of? Do you understand the nature of the corrupt acts of Burisma? What reason is there to think Hunter was involved?

I get that it looks bad for Hunter to have taken the high paying job, but he's hardly the first person to profit from a name and connections (e.g. Giuliani; Trump's kids). You need something more than the mere fact that he worked for Burisma.

This doesn’t look bad? As someone who wants to be an informed voter it is in our best interest to sort out these conflicts of interest. — NOS4A2

Sure, information (even dirt) is valuable to voters, but that doesn't make it appropriate for a President to use the power of the office to dig for this valuable dirt. Merely looking bad is insufficient justification.

If McConnell and Trump fail to block Bolton testifying, Trump is toast. — Baden

I'm not sure if any Republican will want to toast Trump. You can allways say that you don't remember.

So what about congressional Democrats pursuing investigations into their political opponent, POTUS, who is the man to beat in the upcoming election? — NOS4A2

How's that comparable? The issue is foreign influence in an American election, which is explicitly illegal.

I get that it looks bad for Hunter to have taken the high paying job, but he's hardly the first person to profit from a name and connections (e.g. Giuliani; Trump's kids). You need something more than the mere fact that he worked for Burisma.

What about your standard, avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal? Sounds like it’s not so much a standard anymore, at least when applied to the Bidens.

I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with Ukraine investigating. I said there's something with Trump pushing an investigation of a political opponent.

You said it “looks wrong on its face”, that it is not “appropriate”. This is the court of opinion, and given that the standard here is selectively applied, it seems partisan.

What about your standard, avoid any action that could potentially be perceived as unethical or illegal? Sounds like it’s not so much a standard anymore, at least when applied to the Bidens. — NOS4A2

I apply the same standard to Hunter: it looks wrong on its face, and he shouldn't have taken the job.
It does raise questions, and its worthy of scrutiny. But it's not probable cause for a criminal investigation. Trump's case is different: it's an abuse of his considerable power (he's arguably the most powerful person on the planet) and contrary to his oath of office to faithfully execute.

On the other hand, I don't see that Joe did anything wrong: he's not responsible for his 40+ year-old son's actions. Nevertheless, it makes sense to question Joe's getting the prosecutor fired in light of his son's job. When I first heard about it, I was concerned, so I looked into it and saw that the context of the action (which I've already described) doesn't seem problematic at all. The only things I've read that try to make a case against Joe for this have ignored that context.

I’m glad we can agree it is deserving of scrutiny. Luckily there was no pressure, nor any call for criminal investigations from the president.

I think where we disagree is whether Trump abused the power of his office. Considering that abuse of power is one of the articles of impeachment hopefully more facts will come to light in the upcoming trial.

Trump is the best of the bunch, but the bunch is potatoes, grown on the lowest quality of ground - hardly fertile.

I'd prefer him in power for one or two more terms, to let the feminist movement simmer.

Who wants the pro-impeachment side in charge?

That would be a sick joke. We'd all be in danger. I hate corruption.

Trump, is currently performing well. I just know a better personality exists, and a wiser mind.

I’m glad we can agree it is deserving of scrutiny. Luckily there was no pressure, nor any call for criminal investigations from the president. — NOS4A2

There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.

Recall that I'm not convinced his action is necessarily worthy of removal from office, but that it was important to send him the message that it's wrong. My hope is that a fair number of Republicans will send him that message - voting to acquit solely because it doesn't rise to the level of "high crime" but noting that he shouldn't have done that.

I think where we disagree is whether Trump abused the power of his office. Considering that abuse of power is one of the articles of impeachment hopefully more facts will come to light in the upcoming trial. — NOS4A2

Yes, it would be great to have more facts. Do you agree it would be good to hear Bolton's testimony?

There is testimony evidence of pressure, and documentary evidence the aid was held up illegally. If the requested investigation was not for criminal purposes, what else could it be other than simply digging up dirt on an opponent? The fact that Trump's position that his call was "perfect" is troubling, because it suggests we can expect more of the same.

Recall that I'm not convinced his action is necessarily worthy of removal from office, but that it was important to send him the message that it's wrong. My hope is that a fair number of Republicans will send him that message - voting to acquit solely because it doesn't rise to the level of "high crime" but noting that he shouldn't have done that.

From the Ukrainian side there is exculpatory evidence that there was no pressure, that hold ups on the American side are routine, and that nothing amounted to any quid pro quo. This is direct evidence considering it involves people on the phone call, the supposed victims. It’s a shame their words were not even considered in the inquiry, but that’s to be expected in such a partisan inquiry.

I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.

In a 46-page trial memorandum, the House impeachment managers asserted that beginning in the spring, Mr. Trump undertook a corrupt campaign to push Ukraine to publicly announce investigations of his political rivals, withholding as leverage nearly $400 million in military aid and a White House meeting. He then sought to conceal those actions from Congress, they said, refusing to cooperate with a House impeachment inquiry and ordering administration officials not to testify or turn over documents requested by investigators.

https://nyti.ms/37aWw52

This was abundantly documented by trustworthy witness testimony in painstaking detail during the public hearings. Since the first round of hearings, further damning and confirmatory information has come out supporting these claims, including the forensic exposé of the 84 day period in which aid to Ukraine was suspended by presidential fiat.

And what is the defense?

Mr. Trump’s defense team will denounce the impeachment case brought by House Democrats as illegitimate, driven by malice toward him and lacking a factual or legal basis.

So, it's simply a reiteration of Trump's claim that the whole prosecution is a sham. In reality, the defense case consists of lies, smears and evasions.

It's said to be likely that the thoroughly corrupted Republican senate will vote to acquit anyway, but one can only hope this is not a foregone conclusion.

It's said to be likely that the thoroughly corrupted Republican senate will vote to acquit anyway, but one can only hope this is not a foregone conclusion.

I have a sinking suspicion the GOP might betray the president. I hope I’m wrong, but you might just get what you desire.

From the Ukrainian side there is exculpatory evidence that there was no pressure, that hold ups on the American side are routine, and that nothing amounted to any quid pro quo. This is direct evidence considering it involves people on the phone call, the supposed victims. It’s a shame their words were not even considered in the inquiry, but that’s to be expected in such a partisan inquiry. — NOS4A2

Are you referring to Zelensky' statements? That is something, but it is at odds with testimony by the diplomats. It would be risky for Zelensky to say he felt pressured, and to his benefit to convey to Trump that "he loves your ass". On the other hand, the diplomats took a risk by testifying, and they corroborate one another.

I do not think there was an explicit quid pro quo, but the nature of the relationship (they need our money) creates an implicit one, and makes it all the more inappapropriate.

I actually would like to hear Bolton’s testimony, and also Hunter Biden’s, Lev Parnas’, and the whistleblower’s. Let the chips fall where they may.

What's the point of testimony by Hunter and the whistleblower?