Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:40 pm**

He did retain a number of the Epstien legal team, seemingly appropriate.

Posted: **Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:42 pm**

Geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:40 pm He did retain a number of the Epstien legal team, seemingly appropriate.

In proper context, I assume.

Posted: **Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:06 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:49 pm**

Gosh, if we didn't know better, it's as if "the defendant", aka. Donald Trump, has something to hide.

More coverup, please:

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:52 pm**

It's absolutely amazing that they're really going to get away with the two-horse Merry-Go-Round (we won't let you see/use/develop evidence; the evidence you've produced isn't sufficient to remove).

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:16 pm**

I think it's been said, but imho the obstruction charge is an even bigger deal than the abuse of power one, and even more difficult to understand how so many Mericans are willing to condone it.

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to understand, I guess: it's all a sham, a witch hunt, fake news, self-fulfills the deep state conspiracy narrative cultivated all along for this very purpose, what about Dowdy, blah blah blah.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:30 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:16 pm I think it's been said, but imho the obstruction charge is an even bigger deal than the abuse of power one, and even more difficult to understand how so many Mericans are willing to condone it.

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to understand, I guess: it's all a sham, a witch hunt, fake news, self-fulfills the deep state conspiracy narrative cultivated all along for this very purpose, what about Dowdy, blah blah blah.

You forgot "At least it's NOT Dowdy."

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:34 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:37 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:16 pm I think it's been said, but imho the obstruction charge is an even bigger deal than the abuse of power one, and even more difficult to understand how so many Mericans are willing to condone it.

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to understand, I guess: it's all a sham, a witch hunt, fake news, self-fulfills the deep state conspiracy narrative cultivated all along for this very purpose, what about Dowdy, blah blah blah.

I don't think "average" Americans generally have a sense for the extremeness of the stonewalling that's gone on. To our discussion last week - I think "average" people generally assume that conduct this extreme cannot be done, and that their elected representatives would work to counter it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm**

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:45 pm**

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

It's a shame that Trump and Giuliani didnt involve more upstanding, law abiding citizens in their shady law breaking schemes so that any subsequent court case would have more reputable potential witnesses...

It's like claiming that Jose Canseco isnt a good person to talk about steroid use in baseball because he's a sketchy steroid user. Eh.....

Trump has a long history of employing scumbags and lawyers to do his dirty work for exactly your goofy logic. The scumbags are easy to refute with a simple "he's a scumbag, you cant believe him!" and the lawyers arent allowed to say anything.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:47 pm**

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:48 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:45 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?
It's a shame that Trump and Giuliani didnt involve more upstanding, law abiding citizens in their shady law breaking schemes so that any subsequent court case would have more reputable potential witnesses...

It's like claiming that Jose Canseco isnt a good person to talk about steroid use in baseball because he's a sketchy steroid user. Eh.....

Trump has a long history of employing scumbags and lawyers to do his dirty work for exactly your goofy logic. The scumbags are easy to refute with a simple "he's a scumbag, you cant believe him!" and the lawyers arent allowed to say anything.

ummm...no.

Jose was a steroid user. Parnas is a con man -- a professional liar, under indictment for professionally lying.

Of course, like I said, "I know why some people think it would be a good idea."

You're one of those people.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:53 pm**

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:47 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?
But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:56 pm**

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:48 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:45 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?
It's a shame that Trump and Giuliani didnt involve more upstanding, law abiding citizens in their shady law breaking schemes so that any subsequent court case would have more reputable potential witnesses...

It's like claiming that Jose Canseco isnt a good person to talk about steroid use in baseball because he's a sketchy steroid user. Eh.....

Trump has a long history of employing scumbags and lawyers to do his dirty work for exactly your goofy logic. The scumbags are easy to refute with a simple "he's a scumbag, you cant believe him!" and the lawyers arent allowed to say anything.

ummm...no.

Jose was a steroid user. Parnas is a con man -- a professional liar, under indictment for professionally lying.

Of course, like I said, "I know why some people think it would be a good idea."

You're one of those people.

You hire professional con men with ties to the target of the con to run a con, which is what Trump's investigation into the Bidens is and which is what pressuring Ukraine into taking the fall for russian hacking of the DNC was.

Parnas is a material witness who seems to have had direct contact and conversation with all persons in question. In any other trial involving any other person, he would absolutely be called as a witness.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:57 pm**

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:53 pm
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:47 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?
But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).
I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

So what were they supposed to do? Wait on voluntary cooperation that was never going to come, or on judicial processes that were 100% going to be obstructed/protracted/delayed (and then, if recent history is any indication, just not complied with (if unfavorable) anyway)?

The system wasn't designed for just an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:58 pm**

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:53 pm
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:47 pm
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:40 pm I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.

Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.

Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?
But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).
I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

And calling people as witnesses in the trial is part of that constitutional process.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:01 pm**

wait, so Parnas testifying wouldn't be a good thing toward the pursuit of what the eff all went down?

is he gonna con the Senate too?

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:03 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:01 pm wait, so Parnas testifying wouldn't be a good thing toward the pursuit of what the eff all went down?

is he gonna con the Senate too?

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

Depends on whether they're written in English or Cyrillic.

Posted: **Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:09 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:01 pm wait, so Parnas testifying wouldn't be a good thing toward the pursuit of what the eff all went down?

is he gonna con the Senate too?

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

Everyone knows that books and text books are all part of the Deep State conspiracy to liberalize America's youth.

Kansas Crimson

Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

Re: Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?