The Right Side of the News

That is true. To our founders bribery in a political context meant abuse of the power of political office for private benefit.--Percy

You're drawing a distinction between bribing someone versus being bribed. The Constitution doesn't make that distinction, and in any case, bribery to the founders meant abuse of power for private benefit. What Trump did to the Ukraine was much more akin to extortion and abuse of power than to bribery in the modern sense. You mean the way Trump bribed (paid hush money to) Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal? Still wrong in a Constitutional context. Benedict Arnold committed treason. No bribery was involved. If we go by the original Constitutional interpretation of bribery as abuse of power for private gain, it is likely that some of the articles of impeachment will charge this or be related to this. This would include the attempt to extort from the Ukraine a commitment to investigate the Bidens and locate the DNC server spirited away to the Ukraine by Cloudstrike. That's nice. Mark Levin is either lying to you or is a much worse Constitutional scholar than you think. Who told you he was a great Constitutional scholar? Would I be correct in guessing he did?--Percy

Geez, Faith, the link is right there in my message, click on it. No, she did not say "Putin" either. She said nothing that even remotely had anything to do with Russia or its government. Well, if you heard the tape then what did she say? If you'd like to refresh your memory and don't want to read the link then here's a YouTube video of her speech. Listen to it and tell me the timestamp where she says something even remotely related to Russia: You won't be able to find it because it's not there. Either Marc Levin is lying to you or you misunderstood what he said he was playing. Perhaps he played a clip of something Pelosi said somewhere and sometime else.--Percy

Later that same day Pelosi held a press conference where she took questions from reporters. Perhaps what you heard came from the press conference, not the speech. It's 19 minutes long so you probably don't want to listen to that, either, but here it is in case you do: --Percy

Except it wasn't a lie. It's just that Trump calls anything uncomplementary that anyone says about him a lie. Everyone knows this. Schiff preceded his parody with words making clear that it was a parody, stating that he was putting the phone call into a crime boss context:

quote:

---

It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates.

---

As Schiff's words that I just quoted say, he wasn't trying to mislead at all. You can argue that it isn't appropriate for a U.S. Congressman to engage in parody, or you can argue that it's bad parody, but you can't call it a lie because it accurately captured Trump's meaning. You're off in la-la land now. Schiff's parody occurred a couple days after the Trump White House released the transcript. Really? You're arguing that once some Democrat or liberal or news media attacks/insults Trump once that it justifies all subsequent Trump attacks/insults? Well, okay, that's exactly what Trump is doing, because all by himself he makes more attacks and insults than everyone else combined, including his fellow Republicans. It's just me you're dealing with, Marc. I'm just one person. I don't have a team of a dozen people. I just read the news. If you did the same you would see the exact same reports of Trump attacks/insults that I see, and then you only have to find what attack/insult Trump is responding to. I think you have some 'splainin' to do. Since you've witnessed these attacks/insults on Trump, you obviously don't need a team of a dozen people to find them and report them here. So why don't just you go ahead and do it? Though made many times, your claim of biased mainstream news reporting remains unsubstantiated. Opposition to Trump does not derive from hate. Opposition is driven by the actions and words of Trump and his administration. For myself, I operate from evidence, not hate. So your logic is that because some wealthy people back Democrats that Democratic presidential candidates are just chasing the money. So what is Trump doing when he holds rallies that bring in millions of dollars? Have you perhaps heard of the billionaire Koch brothers who back Republicans (one passed away recently)? Does it perhaps make more sense that neither side lacks billionaire supporters and that it would be better to get the money out of politics, starting by the Supreme Court reconsidering their ruling that money is speech. The last time you criticized ABC World News Tonight I found a YouTube video of the precise broadcast you referenced, and it contradicted your claim. Your claims are typically unreliable, so I'm not going to track this one down and will disregard it.But Trump *was* described as furious about what happened at the NATO summit, for example, Trump Furious - Leaves NATO Meeting Early - Mocked By World Leaders - Jim Heath TV. SNL's cold open was about the NATO summit this week.But the mainstream news media aren't the only ones who occasionally judge Trump's mood as "furious," for example, this headline from Fox News: 'Furious' Trump sounds off on whistleblower, inquiry in exclusive interview with Dan Bongino | Fox News. You provide no evidence to support this, no details to make possible tracking this down, so I'll just disregard this one, too. But even Fox News will describe Trump as lashing out, for example, Trump: Impeachment probe has been 'very hard' on family:

quote:

---

Speaking in friendly territory in a state he carried in 2016 by 20 percentage points, Trump lashed out at Democratic investigators and what he called a "deranged impeachment witch hunt."

---

It would seem the mainstream media is joined by Fox News in describing Trump as furious and lashing out. You are such a poor researcher. You say so many false things that you could avoid saying with a simple Google. I had no trouble finding an article saying Pelosi "lashes out": https://thehill.com/...hes-out-at-reporter-dont-mess-with-me "Fired back" sounds accurate, too. Somewhat hostile? Have you watched the video? Badgering and accusatory is more like it. I agree. You mean where he called the man a "damn liar?" I disapprove of that, too. Biden didn't get a free pass. Here are some of the headlines:

• Biden lashes out at town hall questioner in heated exchange: ‘You’re a damn liar, man’ | Fox News
• realclearpolitics.com
• Joe Biden goes off on voter over Ukraine question - CNN Video
• Biden Gets In Spat With Voter In Iowa, Who Challenged Him On His Son And Ukraine : NPR

This is clearly false. Trump's manic driving of the news cycle means that any specific indiscretion survives only a short time. You haven't supported your opinions with any actual facts, and what you did say was pretty easy to rebut. In fact, except for noting my misspelling of Mark Levine's name, you've pretty much managed to make it through an entire post without saying a single true thing.--Percy

Don't think this deserves its own thread so I'm putting it here.What do the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars have in common? The government lied to the American people about the progress of both wars. Read all about the lying about Afghanistan in https://www.washingtonpost.com/...war-confidential-documents. We were always doing far worse than we were saying.After the World Trade Center attack we had to do something about Afghanistan because the Al Qaeda terrorists had trained there, but that we're still fighting that war after 18 years says we couldn't possibly have been doing as well as our leaders told us, and that includes the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

And as I pointed out in my response in Message 3744, even Fox News will characterize Trump as furious or lashing out. Here's are those example Fox News articles again:

• 'Furious' Trump sounds off on whistleblower, inquiry in exclusive interview with Dan Bongino
  ​
• Trump: Impeachment probe has been 'very hard' on family:
  ​

  quote:

  ---

  Speaking in friendly territory in a state he carried in 2016 by 20 percentage points, Trump lashed out at Democratic investigators and what he called a "deranged impeachment witch hunt."

  ---

--Percy

On what grounds are you calling it inaccurate. It's parody, not a reenactment or a quote.SNL had a parody of the recent NATO summit in their cold open: This parody shows a lunchroom when there was no lunchroom at NATO, and Macron, Trudeau and Johnson were not palling around like the cool guys and telling Trump he couldn't sit at the cool guys table. Trump wasn't even present in the video at the NATO summit where Trudeau was speaking to Macron and Johnson. But the SNL skit was parody, not a reenactment. It makes the point that foreign leaders regard Trump as a joke. Your post doesn't reflect an understanding of what parody is. Cover for him how? By writing headlines like https://www.washingtonpost.com/...errors-impeachment-inquiry from the Washington Post and Just a moment... from Mediaite? He received a lot of criticism in the mainstream media for acting in a way inappropriate and undignified for a House Committee Chairman. I thought it was funny but inappropriate. Huh? It was a crime boss style riff on the transcript. Anyone who's seen old crime movies can pull that off right off the top of their head.By the way, here's another Fox News headline saying Trump "fired back" and made "fiery remarks, so please, let us hear no more claims about the mainstream media mischaracterizing Trump's temperament. He's impulsive, reactive, temperamental, emotional and vengeful: Trump fires back at 'corrupt' Schiff, 'phony' mainstream media during fiery remarks on impeachment | Fox News So when Trump calls Schiff a "maniac" and "a deranged human being" and "a very sick man" and a liar and that he deserves to be in jail, that's justified because of insults directed at Trump after his 2015 announcement over four years ago? I only have one guy I'm tracking insults/attacks from, and that's Trump. I'm not deep searching the web for Trump attacks/insults, they're all right there in the headlines from all news media, including Fox News usually. If these attacks/insults were actually instigated by attacks/insults from Democrats then they should be very easy for you to find, so find them. I don't think the U.S. founders would agree with you that the mainstream press is controlled by a single political party. Well, yes, that's what Trump does, so that's what the mainstream media reports on. My "'splainin'" comment was just a riff on I Love Lucy to indicate that you'd already told us all we needed to know, but thank you for the additional clarification about your homophobia. But I don't know of their existence. I know you keep claiming they exist, but you can't seem to produce any examples. Every attempt you've made has been rebutted nine ways from Sunday. From here on I'm ignoring everything you say about news broadcasts like ABC World News Tonight and Fox News unless you provide video of the broadcasts (which is available) and a timestamp. Your past record of unreliability calls all your unsupported claims into question. Oh, good grief, more unsupported accusations. Ignoring. But unlike you, I can prove what I say is true. For any particular adjective you'd like to challenge I'll have no trouble finding a post from me documenting Trump displaying that exact trait. Perhaps you'd like to start with "cruel" (treatment of illegal immigrants at the border). How about "vengeful" (so many examples, I'll chose just one, tweeting insults at Yavanovich while she was testifying). Maybe you prefer "misogynistic" (can objections to this even be raised?). Then there's "racist" (Charlottesville). And "scheming" (the plot to force Ukraine to investigate a domestic political rival). Pick your adjective, they're all easily proven. You're the one watching ABC World News Tonight every night, not me. If you can't prove what you say, don't say it. So even Fox News isn't an acceptable source for you? You're going to have to tell me your supposedly legitimate unbiased news sources. ABC World News Tonight averages about 8.6 million viewers nightly, which is about 3.4% of the adult population. It is not "the only news source for many Americans." Like I said, the reason you say so many incorrect things, nearly everything you write, is because you never take the trouble to check whether what you think has any factual basis. You need serious help with logic and analysis. Trump sought to pressure Ukraine to make a public announcement of an investigation of Biden corruption to hurt Joe Biden's chances of obtaining the Democratic nomination. That doesn't suddenly become untrue if Biden doesn't become the Democratic nominee. We only have your word for that. Prove it. Since 3.4% of American adults watch ABC World News Tonight, that means that there's probably a couple other people here who also watch it. Can anybody out there back Marc up on this? Did ABC World News Tonight give Biden a free pass on the town meeting where he called an older gentleman a "damn liar?" Or maybe, Marc, you could provide a link and a timestamp for that particular broadcast? All their broadcasts are available online. I think that they intended for Congress to properly deal with a president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors no matter the degree to which he's bamboozling a significant proportion of the voting public. Of course you can't prove it. You're using a Trumpism, just like the one Trump used in the White House transcript of the phone call with Zelensky where he says, "They say Crowdstrike." Who's "they?" Trump does this all time. "They're saying this" and "they're saying that" when the only person saying it is Trump. This is what he does when he's making things up and can't prove what he's saying. That's why you just now had to add that you can't prove what you're saying, because saying stuff like "I've heard it somewhere" is not only not proof of anything, it's just a false way of trying to lend weight to something with no evidence.Now, moving on to address what you heard that you can't prove: If moving forward on impeachment is only going to hurt them, then you should be delighted that the Democrats are doing this. It's not just you saying this, many Republicans and many voices in the conservative media are claiming that impeachment just hurts the Democrats. In that case you should all be urging the Democrats on in their self destructive ways.But you're not, because at least inside you understand that the Democrats' actions hurt Trump. They hurt themselves, too, because a significant proportion of the electorate believes Trump did nothing wrong. We don't want to be impeaching every president, but then we also don't want future presidents to preside as if they were kings.--Percy

For Trump supporters with the courage to watch it, here's the video of Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) conducting a cross examination of lawyers Daniel S. Goldman (representing Democratics) and Stephen R. Castor (representing Republicans): --Percy

Realliy? What about, for a recent example, Elon Musk wins defamation trial over ‘pedo’ remarks | Engadget?--Percy

Probably earlier in the session, before Representative Swalwell had the floor, Mr. Castor, the Republican lawyer, had stated that reviewing 8000 documents would represent a significant burden for House staff. Representative Swalwell's question to Mr. Goldman, the Democratic lawyer, was likely just a followup to that.--Percy

I was able to embed the video. There are three places where the 8,000 documents are mentioned:

• 1:37:55: Representative Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) interrupts to raise a point of order but then goes on to note that 8000 documents were made available less than 48 hours ago and objects that there hasn't been enough time to review them all. This isn't a point of order, and so Nadler ruled him out of order.
• 7:35:27: Representative Mike Johnson (R-LA) again raises the objection about the 8000 documents but was able to provide more detail since he wasn't out of order. Apparently over a month ago Republicans requested from the chairs of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees all documents having to do with the impeachment investigation. 8000 pages of documents were made available to committee members only over the last 48 hours (Johnson implies he is only speaking on behalf of Republican members, but I assume the documents were made available to all committee members at the same time). Representative Johnson objects that that is insufficient time to review all the documents.
• 7:38:29: Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asks lawyer Daniel S. Goldman if he would welcome the problem of being given 8000 documents by the White House. He's reminding Representative Johnson and the Republicans that the White House has provided 0 documents.

--Percy

Your misplaced criticism from Message 3801 that I attempted to address in Message 3805 and that JonF provided information about in Message 3807 is answered in much greater detail in Message 3812. Here's the relevant video again in case you'd like to continue your critique: --Percy

I assumed as much. That's why I provided a link. What part about clicking on Elon Musk wins defamation trial over ‘pedo’ remarks | Engadget is causing you difficulty?The point is that your claim that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow misrepresentation is apparently untrue. Elon Musk can call a man who rescued children trapped in an underwater cave a "pedo guy," and Trump can call a House committee chairman a "maniac" and "a deranged human being" and "a very sick man" and a liar, and it's all okay.But just to get a measure of your thinking, could you cite the portion of the 1st Amendment that prohibits misrepresentation?--Percy

And you can add to those facts the ones of the testimony before Congress and the Giuliani admission.--Percy