U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Completing the QUOTE of Lamar Alexander is not a diversion.  It's the summary of all that he said -- in his own words -- and was left out by you.  The diversion -- the intellectually dishonest quote was provided by you, since you chose to leave out the summary statement.

 

The rest of your post is more wishcasting.

His biggest statement of his disgust with Trump’s behavior will be him calling it quits and joining 4 other incumbents GOP senators and 18 incumbent GOP representatives. There will be more as days row on when their constituency who wanted a trial with witnesses turn on their representative. It will be trouble for Republicans running for re-election with a 239 pound orange albatross around their neck. 

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

His biggest statement of his disgust with Trump’s behavior will be him calling it quits and joining 4 other incumbents GOP senators and 18 incumbent GOP representatives. There will be more as days row on when their constituency who wanted a trial with witnesses turn on their representative. It will be trouble for Republicans running for re-election with a 239 pound orange albatross around their neck. 

You're making a false assumption that any and all incumbent GOP Senators and Representatives are not seeking another term due to their disgust with Trump's behaviour.  You do not know the individual reasons for each and every GOP member for their choice.

 

You're not slipping this false assumption past us.

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You're making a false assumption that any and all incumbent GOP Senators and Representatives are not seeking another term due to their disgust with Trump's behaviour.  You do not know the individual reasons for each and every GOP member for their choice.

 

You're not slipping this false assumption past us.

Those are incumbents and stand a very good chance of being elected back to office. Trump is President and they quit on him. That’s telling a lot about how they feel about Trump. 

[Ramen087]

22 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

His biggest statement of his disgust with Trump’s behavior will be him calling it quits and joining 4 other incumbents GOP senators and 18 incumbent GOP representatives. There will be more as days row on when their constituency who wanted a trial with witnesses turn on their representative. It will be trouble for Republicans running for re-election with a 239 pound orange albatross around their neck. 

Very strange commentary... there have been times during past administrations (within ~the last half century) when a Democrat held the highest office in the land, republicans gained seats in the house and/or senate... the reverse has also held true... if you count the amount of seats democrats held on the first week of the Obama administration compared to the last, you would consider Obama to be the same albatross... and this analogy can be used with a republican president and democratic house or senate... so I don’t see the value in the analysis or inference asserted in the post quoted above... unless it’s all about hating the fact he won the Oval Office fair and square, of course... and whining about using any means necessary to get him out, then whining when it doesn’t work... like impeachment based on...well, orange man bad...

Edited February 5, 2020 by Ramen087

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

<snip> Trump is President and they quit on him. <snip>

Please provide factual evidence that all of the GOP members quit on Trump.  If you're unable then I'm assuming you're just making it up per what you want to believe.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Very strange commentary... there have been times during past administrations (within ~the last half century) when a Democrat held the highest office in the land, republicans gained seats in the house and/or senate... the reverse has also held true... if you count the amount of seats democrats held on the first week of the Obama administration compared to the last, you would consider Obama to be the same albatross... and this analogy can be used with a republican president and democratic house or senate... so I don’t see the value in the analysis or inference asserted in the post quoted above... unless it’s all about hating the fact he won the Oval Office fair and square, of course

It's what I would call twisted logic.  It has the appearance of logic but once given all of the facts it is in essence illogical.

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Very strange commentary... there have been times during past administrations (within ~the last half century) when a Democrat held the highest office in the land, republicans gained seats in the house and/or senate... the reverse has also held true... if you count the amount of seats democrats held on the first week of the Obama administration compared to the last, you would consider Obama to be the same albatross... and this analogy can be used with a republican president and democratic house or senate... so I don’t see the value in the analysis or inference asserted in the post quoted above... unless it’s all about hating the fact he won the Oval Office fair and square, of course... and whining about using any means necessary to get him out, then whining when it doesn’t work... like impeachment based on...well, orange man bad...

Let deal with the current situation. Does more GOP representatives than Dems quitting under Trump signal a pattern and feelings that their principles, ethics and moral have been violated by Trump’s behavior? 
https://www.axios.com/congress-republicans-democrats-retire-2020-8149a7a1-1878-47fc-b44d-b3970c858f47.html

[mogandave]

29 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Let deal with the current situation. Does more GOP representatives than Dems quitting under Trump signal a pattern and feelings that their principles, ethics and moral have been violated by Trump’s behavior? 
https://www.axios.com/congress-republicans-democrats-retire-2020-8149a7a1-1878-47fc-b44d-b3970c858f47.html

So it’s because of “...their principles, ethics and moral have been violated by Trump’s behavior, yet none of them voted to impeach. 
 

How funny is that?
 

it could just be they’re fat and happy and tired of all the abuse from the left and their press. Maybe they got a hummer in high school and they don’t want the press to find out and try to ruin their life behind it.  

 

 

[Eric Loh]

46 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So it’s because of “...their principles, ethics and moral have been violated by Trump’s behavior, yet none of them voted to impeach. 
 

How funny is that?
 

it could just be they’re fat and happy and tired of all the abuse from the left and their press. Maybe they got a hummer in high school and they don’t want the press to find out and try to ruin their life behind it.  

 

 

I suspect they are giving Trump enough rope to be embarrassed in the election. 
 

Nice try at comedy. Truthfully it fell badly flat. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Let deal with the current situation. Does more GOP representatives than Dems quitting under Trump signal a pattern and feelings that their principles, ethics and moral have been violated by Trump’s behavior? 
https://www.axios.com/congress-republicans-democrats-retire-2020-8149a7a1-1878-47fc-b44d-b3970c858f47.html

The Axios piece refers to an article in the Atlantic, The 2020 Congressional-Retirement Tracker.  The entire article is simply a propaganda piece in which it attempts to provide an explanation for the GOP departures.  I'll go over only a few statements so as not to violate the fair use policy:

 

"The announcements may indicate that GOP members have little confidence that their party will regain power in the House anytime soon."

 

This statement is pure speculation on the part of the author.  He provides no other supportive information.  What is apparent, though, is the narrative the author is deliberately suggesting:  "GOP members have little confidence that their party will regain power . . . "  I will give him credit for at least inserting "may" into his speculative statement.

 

"The retirement of Representative Will Hurd of Texas stung—and surprised—Republicans the most. As the lone black Republican in the House, the former CIA officer, who represents a swing district along the border, was once seen as a rising star in the party at a time when it seemed Republicans would pursue bipartisan immigration legislation that could appeal to Latino voters. Yet Hurd decided to leave in the weeks after a series of racist tweets by the president appeared to crystallize a 2020 electoral strategy of mobilizing the GOP’s white base."

 

Followed by the header for the next paragraph:  "Read: Will Hurd could be the canary in the coal mine"

 

Notice this line:  "Yet Hurd decided to leave in the weeks after a series of racist tweets by the president appeared to crystallize a 2020 electoral strategy of mobilizing the GOP’s white base."

 

Again, propaganda since it makes assumptions along with biased opinion suggesting a reason which the author has no way of knowing.  He obviously didn't contact Hurd and question him for his reasons for stepping away to get the truth and print that.  The suggestive nature of the last sentence isn't even subtle.  Racist tweets by the president.  He does not inform the reader that this is his opinion but states it as fact.  That's propagandizing.  An electoral strategy of mobilizing the GOP's white base.  This is absolutely pathetic journalism as it asserts, without evidence, a false claim meant to support the idea of Trump's and the GOP's supposed racism.  But do notice the (il)logical flow attempted . . . stating Hurd leaving then followed by racist tweets and GOP's white base in a blatant attempt to tie the two together.

 

The header for the next paragraph continues with the author's opinion, which he's now fashioned into his narrative as fact.  Hurd is now the canary in the coal mine of defections from the GOP due to Trump or party disillusionment.  This header establishes that "fact."

 

There's an old saying:  Don't believe everything you read.  Most of these types of articles depend on exactly that . . . the reader forgoing the use his own thinking processes and simply believing whatever the author tells him without question and then disseminating that narrative to others as being true.  Some people don't question at all and are therefore easily misled.  Some people question it all and refuse to be so misguided.  The obviousness of the deceptive quality of this type of journalism (and I don't consider it to be that) does not escape me or many of the other posters here.

 

Basic psychology on display here.

 

In any case, all of the above is towards an effort to get you to understand why some posters here will not buy into the narrative you're attempting to regurgitate, Eric.

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Tippaporn

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Wow, analysis by NBC news, that’s impressive. Aren’t they one of the sources you were quoting when you were bleating on about collusion and obstruction of justice after the Mueller debacle? 
 

I think there are a lot of things the Senate would remove him from office for, but not for stuff fabricated by the left and promoted by their press. 

Not analysis.  The link was to a video of Alan Dershowitz stating that the framers of the constitution would not consider a term such as "abuse of power" as being grounds for impeachment. 

 

I'll give you a little credit for attempting to deflect to Mueller, but not much.  Really weak.

 

I think there were few things that the framers of the constitution feared more than a President using the power of the office to invite or coerce a foreign power to interfere in a Presidential election.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

In any case, all of the above is towards an effort to get you to understand why some posters here will not buy into the narrative you're attempting to regurgitate, Eric.

Not my narrative but factual reporting by a newbie news website which normally covers a mix of business, technology and healthcare. Don’t think they are politically bias too. Koch Brothers is a key advertiser. I honestly don’t see much opinion in the article but direct quotes and reporting. That’s ok that you wish to spin this off track. Expected of you and your blind loyalty. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You lost the argument, heybruce.  Here's why:

 

Formal fallacies of arguments:  Appeal to probability:  A statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).

 

Appeal to probability is inductive reasoning:  Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion; this is in contrast to deductive reasoning. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

 

Succinctly put: deduction is about certainty/necessity; induction is about probability. Any single assertion will answer to one of these two criteria.

 

Both of your premises 1) that Zelensky was under pressure and 2) he lied are fallacious arguments.

 

Continue to argue at the risk of your credibility.

 

You've lost the argument Tippaporn.  Here's why:

 

You never asked "Why would Zelensky lie?" 

 

That's because I have explained, repeatedly, why he not only had reason to lie, but why he would have betrayed his responsibility as President of Ukraine by not lying.

 

Regarding your probability BS:  Do you wish to argue that he probably would not lie even if telling the truth would be ruinous to his country?  Or do you prefer to argue that his country was not at risk and dependent on the US, therefore he had no reason to lie?

 

"deduction is about certainty/necessity; induction is about probability."

 

Zelensky certainly refused to confirm he was under pressure.  His reason was almost certainly that he was looking after the interests of his country.

 

The reason why a statement is made is often usually important than the statement.

Edited February 5, 2020 by heybruce

[Ricohoc]

20 minutes ago, heybruce said:

. . .

Alan Dershowitz stating that the framers of the constitution would not consider a term such as "abuse of power" as being grounds for impeachment. 

. . . 

I think there were few things that the framers of the constitution feared more than a President using the power of the office to invite or coerce a foreign power to interfere in a Presidential election.

The fact that the term of "abuse of power" is so ambiguous and not specific was the main reason why Dershowitz didn't buy into it.  I have watched several interviews given by him, and he stated that the vagueness of the phrase does not reach the level of an impeachable offense by itself.  The specifics that Democrats tried to attach to their charge were extremely lacking.

 

In all of my readings of the Founders and Framers, I can only recall their concerns with foreign countries being in line with treaty entanglements, wars, and a POTUS being bribed by a foreign country -- not even a POTUS bribing a foreign country.  Never read a thing about foreign powers interfering in our elections.  If you have a citation, please share it. I'd like to read it.

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You've lost the argument Tippaporn.  Here's why:

 

You never asked "Why would Zelensky lie?" 

 

That's because I have explained, repeatedly, why he not only had reason to lie, but why he would have betrayed his responsibility as President of Ukraine by not lying.

 

Regarding your probability BS:  Do you wish to argue that he probably would not lie even if telling the truth would be ruinous to his country?  Or do you prefer to argue that his country was not at risk and dependent on the US, therefore he had no reason to lie?

LOL.  I fully understand your logic and I don't discount the possibility but don't expect me to buy your assumed conclusion.  The issue here is that you don't admit that your conclusion is only one possible conclusion.  You insist that it's fact.  You can't know with certainty.  And that's fact.

 

Bruce, believe what you will.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not my narrative but factual reporting by a newbie news website which normally covers a mix of business, technology and healthcare. Don’t think they are politically bias too. Koch Brothers is a key advertiser. I honestly don’t see much opinion in the article but direct quotes and reporting. That’s ok that you wish to spin this off track. Expected of you and your blind loyalty. 

Perhaps I assumed wrongly about you regurgitating the Atlantic narrative but your comments from your two posts match it.  Thus my assumption.

 

And true, the only opinion that Axios article provides is a quote from the Atlantic article, which it links to.  But I covered that statement in my post.

 

As to their political bias, well, it's obvious they're left leaning.  I checked out their article Key takeaways from Trump's State of the Union address and it's proves out.  Besides, linking to the Atlantic gives their bias away as well.

 

Hoped you agreed with the rest of the post.

[Eric Loh]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Perhaps I assumed wrongly about you regurgitating the Atlantic narrative but your comments from your two posts match it.  Thus my assumption.

 

And true, the only opinion that Axios article provides is a quote from the Atlantic article, which it links to.  But I covered that statement in my post.

 

As to their political bias, well, it's obvious they're left leaning.  I checked out their article Key takeaways from Trump's State of the Union address and it's proves out.  Besides, linking to the Atlantic gives their bias away as well.

 

Hoped you agreed with the rest of the post.

Is AXIOS left or right leaning? I kind of like this interpretation by an independent journalist T. Carter.
 

”based on the political activity and affiliations of AXIOS media founders and investors, it appears AXIOS leans more to the left side of the political spectrum. However, with right-leaning investors like JP Morgan and Koch Industries, there may be some room for non-biased and balanced reporting on issues”. 

Let’s agree to disagree. I can live with that. 

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Not analysis.  The link was to a video of Alan Dershowitz stating that the framers of the constitution would not consider a term such as "abuse of power" as being grounds for impeachment. 

 

I'll give you a little credit for attempting to deflect to Mueller, but not much.  Really weak.

 

I think there were few things that the framers of the constitution feared more than a President using the power of the office to invite or coerce a foreign power to interfere in a Presidential election.

I thought you didn’t watch videos? 
 

So you jumped from the it was Trump’s defense to something Dershowitz said about the intent of the framers when they said high crimes and misdemeanors, typical. 
 

I think the framer’s worst fear was big government running roughshod over the population, but I think one half of one branch attempting to run roughshod over the other two and a half branches has to be a close second. 
 

 

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Is AXIOS left or right leaning? I kind of like this interpretation by an independent journalist T. Carter.
 

”based on the political activity and affiliations of AXIOS media founders and investors, it appears AXIOS leans more to the left side of the political spectrum. However, with right-leaning investors like JP Morgan and Koch Industries, there may be some room for non-biased and balanced reporting on issues”. 

Let’s agree to disagree. I can live with that. 

Well, that's very gentlemanly of you.  Credit where credit is due.  I agree.

 

My personal feelings are that I don't believe in left, right or center.  It's all bullsh!t to me.  Truth is all that matters and truth has no leanings.  It simply is.

[RideJocky]

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I suspect they are giving Trump enough rope to be embarrassed in the election. 
 

Nice try at comedy. Truthfully it fell badly flat. 

Comedy?

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, that's very gentlemanly of you.  Credit where credit is due.  I agree.

 

My personal feelings are that I don't believe in left, right or center.  It's all bullsh!t to me.  Truth is all that matters and truth has no leanings.  It simply is.

Then you agree witnesses should be called.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

The fact that the term of "abuse of power" is so ambiguous and not specific was the main reason why Dershowitz didn't buy into it.  I have watched several interviews given by him, and he stated that the vagueness of the phrase does not reach the level of an impeachable offense by itself.  The specifics that Democrats tried to attach to their charge were extremely lacking.

 

In all of my readings of the Founders and Framers, I can only recall their concerns with foreign countries being in line with treaty entanglements, wars, and a POTUS being bribed by a foreign country -- not even a POTUS bribing a foreign country.  Never read a thing about foreign powers interfering in our elections.  If you have a citation, please share it. I'd like to read it.

Are you seriously maintaining that the Founding Fathers weren't concerned with foreign powers interfering in our elections and democracy, and that a President inviting such interference has not committed an impeachable offense?

 

Clearly all your readings on the subject were insufficient:

 

"George Washington, in his farewell address at the end of his presidency, said: “one of the greatest dangers to the United States involved the “insidious wiles” of foreign powers and their multiple avenues to improperly influence our political system. " "

"Jefferson knew that a republic could not function if its chief executive would abuse his office—and the public trust—by soliciting personal political assistance from a foreign government."

"Adams, too, was concerned about corruption in the political system, leading him to assert that America should not conduct elections too often. “As often as Elections happen,” Adams wrote, “the danger of foreign Influence recurs.” "  https://www.asianjournal.com/features/opinion-editorial-columnists/why-impeach-trump-let-the-founding-fathers-and-framers-of-the-us-constitution-count-the-whys-and-the-ways/

 

Clearly the Founding Fathers were concerned about foreign interference in our elections, and particularly concerned about a President seeking such interference.

 

"James Madison saw the Impeachment Clause as “indispensable . . . for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” Elbridge Gerry stated that impeachment was needed as a check against presidential abuse of power. “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them,” he argued. "  https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president

 

It only took me a few minutes to find these references.  See how long it takes you to find references that suggest the Founding Fathers didn't think foreign interference in our elections was a big deal

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  I fully understand your logic and I don't discount the possibility but don't expect me to buy your assumed conclusion.  The issue here is that you don't admit that your conclusion is only one possible conclusion.  You insist that it's fact.  You can't know with certainty.  And that's fact.

 

Bruce, believe what you will.

I don't believe it is fact, I believe it is the most likely explanation of why Zelensky won't confirm the obvious pressure Trump was putting on him.  Another possibility is that he is too stupid to see the obvious, but I consider that unlikely.

 

As I've repeatedly stated, Zelensky had ample reasons to deny pressure, and nothing to gain by confirming it.  And the pressure was obvious.

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, RideJocky said:

I thought you didn’t watch videos? 
 

So you jumped from the it was Trump’s defense to something Dershowitz said about the intent of the framers when they said high crimes and misdemeanors, typical. 
 

I think the framer’s worst fear was big government running roughshod over the population, but I think one half of one branch attempting to run roughshod over the other two and a half branches has to be a close second. 
 

 

I give one minute, straight to the point videos a chance.

 

Dershowitz was speaking as one of the lead lawyers of Trump's defense team while defending Trump in the Senate.  It was his contention that abuse of power was not impeachable.  Therefore that was Trump's defense.

 

Your speculation about the framer's worst fear would have greater weight if backed up by sources. 

[Crazy Alex]

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Those are incumbents and stand a very good chance of being elected back to office. Trump is President and they quit on him. That’s telling a lot about how they feel about Trump. 

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to listen to what they actually say about Trump rather simply make assumptions?

[metisdead]

As the impeachment trial is over and President Trump has been acquitted, please continue here:

 

 

 

//Closed//