Wasn't it your earlier complaint that insisting morals play a role in politics is naïve? — Benkei

Yes - point was that really shitty people - including HRC - know this all too well. This doesn't make them shitty people, its just the means by which they achieve power. But its not that insisting morals play a role is naive - morals always 'play a role' - but that you simply can't play politics as a morality game.

Show me a statement or policy or anything that references finding political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election, or anything to do with the next election and political dirt. If you find that the evidence of what he has been accused of will go from zero to one — NOS4A2

Trump's close relatives held a meeting with the explicit intent of doing just that.

Do you really believe that Trump knew nothing?

:meh:

...you simply can't play politics as a morality game. — StreetlightX

What else could politics be if not doing what ought be done?

But its not that insisting morals play a role is naive - morals always 'play a role' - but that you simply can't play politics as a morality game. — StreetlightX

Maybe I'm missing something because I haven't been following all the posts here, but what would you call Sanders' political ascension?

The ruthless seizure of power.

:wink:

Point taken.

...what would you call Sanders' political ascension? — Maw

A demonstrably wise, prudent, and admirable politician who has been nearly perfect throughout his time, sometimes when he was the only "nay". Someone who knows what the underlying problems are and is of outstanding moral character while informing people of those problems and how they arose.

I would call that "long overdue"...

Trump's close relatives held a meeting with the explicit intent of doing just that.

Do you really believe that Trump knew nothing?

Knew about what?

Read the Mueller report.

Read my posts. I was not speaking about the Mueller report.

I know that. You're talking about current events. I'm pointing you towards solid evidence of the exact same thing in past.

I know that. You're talking about current events. I'm pointing you towards solid evidence of the exact same thing in past.

Sorry, I don’t get the point.

You're asking for something that's already been done. I'm assuming both sanity and sincerity in speech. So, I figure that you asked as a way to suggest that what you asked for would be good enough reason for you to believe that Trump has worked with a foreign entity for illegal reasons.

I gave you - or pointed you towards - exactly that.

There was no point. It was an answer. What's the point in asking for evidence of an illegal activity when there's already evidence for it? Do you not know this?

You're asking for something that's already been done. I'm assuming both sanity and sincerity in speech. So, I figure that you asked as a way to suggest that what you asked for would be good enough reason for you to believe that Trump has worked with a foreign entity for illegal reasons.

I gave you - or pointed you towards - exactly that.

There was no point. It was an answer. What's the point in asking for evidence of an illegal activity when there's already evidence for it? Do you not know this?

That’s false. You pointed me to a previous event, regarding a different person, from a previous investigation, in which no one was found guilty of the “illegal reasons” you allege. Do your false allegations rise to the level of sanity and sincerity you assume from others?

Maybe I'm missing something because I haven't been following all the posts here, but what would you call Sanders' political ascension? — Maw

Sanders is a profoundly political operator. By this I mean that he's not just offering to tinker a little bit with the system here and there, patching up holes, as it were, in a technocratic manner a la Warren (or the rest of the democratic field, for that matter). His platform is an attempt to pitch power against power: the power of a mass of the socious against those the few who accrue benefit to themselves. He stakes a position in a field and arrays people for and against it. Which is another way of saying that Sanders isn't an 'issues' candidate, tackling this problem here, that problem there. His approch is properly politicaI, seeking to transform the relations of power in society. As such, I see him as offering a unified approach in which the issues tackled are derivative of this larger political program. I see him playing politics as politics, more than anyone else in the democratic lineup. And it bloody works and people love it.

That’s false. — NOS4A2

What is false? Which statement?

According to Rudy he was doing it in his capacity as a defense lawyer, and it wasn’t, as I once assumed, in the capacity of the government. Rudy had given his findings to the state department through the proper channels back in March. — NOS4A2

The issue isn't about his "findings". The issue is that Rudy – a private citizen – was using irregular channels to prompt Ukrainian officials to commit to particular demands from Trump so as to receive Congress-appointed foreign aid. That's not how these things should work. These demands should be have been made through the proper channels – via the relevant government officials, which in this case would presumably have been the envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor, and certainly not by Trump's personal lawyer.

...According to Tim Morrison, as described by Taylor.

Everything about this will be according to someone. I doubt there's video footage of these events. But the testimony before Congress of a long-standing government official should carry some weight, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be lying – and the previous release of text messages related to the situation and the whistleblower's account are corroborating evidence.

Of course, there is no such CNN interview.

Whether or not the interview happened is irrelevant. What's relevant is if the demand was made. Asking Ukraine to investigate corruption is one thing, but asking a foreign President to publicly announce that he is investigating one's political rival is something else entirely, and suggestive that one is concerned more with domestic political issues that are of personal benefit than with a foreign policy that promotes U.S. interests.

You pointed me to a previous event, regarding a different person, from a previous investigation, in which no one was found guilty of the “illegal reasons” you allege. Do your false allegations rise to the level of sanity and sincerity you assume from others? — NOS4A2

Pointing you towards evidence you ask for says nothing else.

:wink:

Read the Mueller report. Watch the sworn testimony.

When I said “zero evidence” I was saying it in regards to your question earlier, and my explicit answer:

“If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors”

Show me a statement or policy or anything that references finding political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election, or anything to do with the next election and political dirt. If you find that the evidence of what he has been accused of will go from zero to one. — NOS4A2

You don't understand the concept of "evidence". With your absurdly narrow view of evidence, no white collar crimes could ever be prosecuted.

You don't understand the concept of "evidence". With your absurdly narrow view of evidence, no white collar crimes could ever be prosecuted. — Relativist

By the way, it seems that substantial evidence has just been provided by the acting ambassador to Ukraine.

The issue isn't about his "findings". The issue is that Rudy – a private citizen – was using irregular channels to prompt Ukrainian officials to commit to particular demands from Trump so as to receive Congress-appointed foreign aid. That's not how these things should work. These demands should be have been made through the proper channels – via the relevant government officials, which in this case would presumably have been the envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor, and certainly not by Trump's personal lawyer.

Not just any private citizen, but the defense lawyer of the president of the United States, who (perhaps ironically) at the time was under investigation for a number of years because of a piece of political dirt, sourced from Russia, payed for by the DNC. Defense lawyers can gather evidence of their own, which he did, and handed it to the relevant authorities, which he did.

Everything about this will be according to someone. I doubt there's video footage of these events. But the testimony before Congress of a long-standing government official should carry some weight, particularly as there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to be lying – and the previous release of text messages related to the situation and the whistleblower's account are corroborating evidence.

But we don’t know his testimony before Congress. We don’t know any of their testimonies before Congress. We are not allowed to see the testimonies from any of the government officials because Schiff is running a secret court and is classifying all documents.

Whether or not the interview happened is irrelevant. What's relevant is if the demand was made. Asking Ukraine to investigate corruption is one thing, but asking a foreign President to publicly announce that he is investigating one's political rival is something else entirely, and suggestive that one is concerned more with domestic political issues that are of personal benefit than with a foreign policy that promotes U.S. interests.

Yesterday it was a quid pro quo on a telephone call, now it is a CNN interview that never happened. Frankly I don’t care what any of this “suggests” to the same people who suggested Russian collusion for the past 3 years.

Not just any private citizen, but the defense lawyer of the president of the United States, who (perhaps ironically) at the time was under investigation for a number of years because of a piece of political dirt, sourced from Russia, played for by the DNC. Defense lawyers can gather evidence of their own, which he did, and handed it to the relevant authorities, which he did. — NOS4A2

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Rudy is a private citizen and so shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. He shouldn't be going around the official channel – in this case the work being done by the envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor – and telling the Ukrainian government what they need to do to receive foreign aid from the United States.

But we don’t know his testimony before Congress. We don’t know any of their testimonies before Congress. We are not allowed to see the testimonies from any of the government officials because Schiff is running a secret court and is classifying all documents.

Here's the opening statement that I'm referring to.

Yesterday it was a quid pro quo on a telephone call, now it is a CNN interview that never happened.

There was a long-standing effort to have the President of Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into Biden. Most of it was done behind the scenes as explained in the above opening statement, with Trump's phone call just one more instance of this effort. As part of this effort the President of Ukraine committed to a CNN interview – after speaking with Sondland.

But then two days later, which happened to be two days after the House announced that they were opening investigations into the withholding of aid to Ukraine and the accusations that Trump and Rudy were compelling Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden, and just hours before the House were due to vote on an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have prevented Trump from such actions in the future, the aid was released – probably as an attempt at damage control – and so the President of Ukraine was no longer compelled to carry out the interview.

Frankly I don’t care what any of this “suggests” to the same people who suggested Russian collusion for the past 3 years.

I didn't suggest that. If you look back at my past posts on the matter I only suggested obstruction of justice and the Trump Tower meeting violating campaign finance laws, and Mueller's report would seem to verify my judgement.

And if you don’t think that compelling Ukraine’s President to publicly announce an investigation into Biden is Trump looking after Trump then I don’t trust your opinion on the matter. It’s wilful ignorance at best.

Yes, and Republican defenders are implying he lied, and is part of a "deep state" conspiracy. His true believers, like NOS4A2, will continue to have that to fall back on. Faith is a powerful thing.

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Rudy is a private citizen and so shouldn't be conducting foreign policy. He shouldn't be going around the official channel – in this case the work being done by the envoy to Ukraine, William Taylor – and telling the Ukrainian government what they need to do to receive foreign aid from the United States.

He isn’t conducting foreign policy. He’s defending his client, according to him.

Here's the opening statement that I'm referring to.

An opening statement is a far cry from a congressional testimony. Take it at face value all you wish, but It’s simply not enough.

But then two days later, which happened to be two days after the House announced that they were opening investigations into the withholding of aid to Ukraine and the accusations that Trump and Rudy were compelling Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden, and just hours before the House were due to vote on an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have prevented Trump from such actions in the future, the aid was released – probably as an attempt at damage control – and so the President of Ukraine was no longer compelled to carry out the interview.

This conspiracy theory is based on hearsay, while those with direct knowledge of the interactions say quite the opposite. How do you get around that?

In a strange turn of events, House Republicans tried to storm Schiff’s secret court, demanding transparency.

Politico

Bunch of dumb-shits. :rofl:

I think they’re wrong to storm the deposition, but right that this should be done in the open.

In a strange turn of events, House Republicans tried to storm Schiff’s secret court, demanding transparency. — NOS4A2

Which is hilarious, given that there are Republicans on the committee and so in the room already.

Also this from Trey Gowdy in 2015:

Darrell Issa is not a Select committee on Benghazi member and non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them, no exceptions made.

Although it’s not really hilarious. They brought phones into the SCIF. That’s a national security issue.

I think they’re wrong to storm the deposition, but right that this should be done in the open. — NOS4A2

Presumably there’a a reason it’s being held in the SCIF, and aren’t there legitimate reasons to limit who can go in? Or is it open to all Congress?

Those reasons are explicit somewhere, but to paraphrase it had to do with national security, the integrity of the proceedings, and other glittering generalities.