The Right Side of the News

quote:

---

Great timing for what? Is there some reason to trust any of the fake news outlets like the Washington Post about anything at all?

---

Well to us providing accurate information rather than rigt-wing propaganda IS a reason to trust them. Your opinion is the reverse, but that’s the topsy-turvy world you choose to inhabit.

quote:

---

I have no interest in defending the facts against revelation but I do have a problem with fake news masquerading as legitimate journalism which the Washington Post is known for, and especially "revelations" that have a political intent during this ongoing witchhunt againt Trump. Yes timing is the issue, plus the fake news nature of the Washington Post.

---

I know, you don’t consider publishing facts you want suppressed as legitimate journalism. And you are angry that people dare to tell the truth about Trump. That’s pretty much what I said.

quote:

---

No, I have no interest in suppressing the truth about anything

---

Sure you do. That’s what the fake news label means.There’s a lot of other stuff you want suppressed too. You don’t want people knowing that the Mueller investigation was justified - that the Russian government was supporting Trump, and that the Trump campaign had improper contact - and some dubious connections -with the Russians.Indeed what you mean by the truth coming out is the truth being suppressed so that the lies of the Right seem believable.You’ve made it quite plain that you don’t trust anyone who tells truths you don’t like. This is just more of the same.

The Independent

quote:

---

And there's plenty else that confirms it.

---

Like what? And perhaps you can explain why the surveillance on Carter Page counts as spying on the Trump campaign when he had already left the campaign?

quote:

---

Also, Barr or was it Durham, strongly disputes something that was leaked from the Horowitz report recently, the claim that there was good reason for the Mueller investigation in the first place. guess that will be coming out soon.

---

Well, we know not to trust Barr.

quote:

---

Trump will be the first president to be impeached who did nothing to betray, or upset most all of the people who voted for him. Not what the founders intended IMO.

---

I’m pretty sure that the Founders did think that abuse of power was grounds for impeachment. And if the people who voted for the President approved of that abuse they would consider it grounds for grave concern for the nation. I certainly don’t think they would consider it grounds to halt impeachment.

quote:

---

I've heard it said somewhere (no I can't prove it) that if the Democrat house gets by with this without getting themselves in trouble (as is likely), then there's little question that every president in the future will be impeached for something. Not what the founders intended, and not good for the country.

---

I’ve seen it suggested that the Republicans should get revenge by abusing the impeachment power of the House - and Faith supported it. I hope that the Republican Party has not yet gone that far in their hatred of democracy. I don’t see any reason to think that the Democrats would automatically impeach a President who didn’t deserve it.

We already know that Marc’s original meaning is what he wants it to say, even if the actual text clearly disagrees. I got a good laugh about him calling himself an originalist. And this latest silliness is nearly as funny.

quote:

---

Making it appear that a person said something he did not say is an enormous offense against justice

---

Obviously you fail to understand the concept of parody.But I’m sure that the real reason you’re angry is that Schiff accurately represented the subtext of the conversation.

quote:

---

Just because it is not specifically called for does not mean it can be ignored

---

The fact that the whistleblower does not count as an accuser - having provided no evidence in the impeachment process - is sufficient to answer that.

quote:

---

. It is a principle of American law, how about just a principle of American fairness

---

The right to trash and retaliate against anyone who has ever criticised Trump is not a principle of American law. This is just revenge and disruption. To pretend that this evil represents any form of justice is disgusting.The Republicans also tried to get Hunter Biden as a witness for similar reasons.

quote:

---

.... but because Trump is disliked, and there is no other reason for this whole charade of an impeachment than that, it is not granted to him

---

It certainly was granted to him. He refused. He’ll have another opportunity during the trial.

quote:

---

The way Trump is being treated is an offense against every principle of civility and fairness known to humanity, which would be bad enough if he were an ordinary civilian, but because he is the President of the United States the corruption, the rottenness, is the depths of injustice nad offense against the citizensw of the United States..

---

That seems to be your usual line about how liars deserve special privileges, and how it’s terribly wrong that anyone dare tell the truth about them.Nevertheless, Trump’s guilt has been established and all the lies and hate of the Right did not stop it. And should not be allowed to stop it.

quote:

---

Abuse of power that can be noticed in the everyday lives of the population. The Democrats current definition of "abuse of power" doesn't get anywhere near that.

---

You still provide zero evidence that the Founders agreed with you. Using Presidential powers to coerce a foreign nation to interfere with the US electoral process on the other hand, is as clear an example of abuse of power as you will get.

quote:

---

I'll be glad to give you a reason;

​

Page not found | IJR

---

The suggestion is that Trump has done or will do other things that deserve impeachment. Which is practically certain. So you’ve clearly failed. On the other hand Faith is all for impeaching a Democrat President - whoever it is - without any other reason at all.

quote:

---

Do you think the current Democrat party hates democracy? Polls show the majority of Americans don't support the current impeachment fiasco. They're the ones who democratically elected him.

---

Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More Americans support impeachment than oppose it. And the Republican Party is the party of gerrymandering, voter suppression and electoral fraud.

quote:

---

And no such thing happened, that's all made up, at best a misreading of the transcript of the phone call or a gross lack of knowledge of that kind of relationship Presidents always have with foreign leaders. Besides which Zelensky keeps saying there was no coercion of any sort.

---

Rubbish. In the phone call Trump responded to the mention of the aid by asking for personal favours. Trump did halt the aid without offering any adequate explanation to even the Republicans in the Senate. Then there is the whole question of Giuliani’s involvement. Further there is witness testimony. Not to mention the fact that announcing an investigation which never happens is hardly a blow against corruption, nor is it plausible that Biden should be such a high priority to the Ukraine.So all you’ve got is Zelensky’s say-so despite all the other evidence. And Zelensky is still hoping for a meeting in the White House, not to mention how admitting to the coercion might affect the future relationship with Trump who still has a good chance of remaining in office.

quote:

---

Uh yeah, that's how they think sort of except in reality they have to hallucinate or invent the impeachable offenses as they've been doing for three years now.

---

Except that they haven’t. Trump is a crook. Everyone knows that. It’s no surprise that he committed an impeachable offence.

quote:

---

They didn't find Russian collusion so they tried to concoct obstruction of justice and then that didn't work either so then they invented a quid pro quo in the phone call to Zelensky although the only quid pro quo found was by Joe Biden

---

Mueller - not the Democrats - did find obstruction of justice, but the Democrats decided not to act on it. So to say that the Democrats tried it is bizarre. And no personal quid pro quo has been shown in Biden’s case - but Trump was asking for one.

quote:

---

Becauswe Trump is being impeached without any reason and that would be the only way to try to undo the damage done by the Democrats to our Constitutional Republic over the last few years.

---

But Trump is being impeached for a valid reason. And there is no way that abusing the impeachment power would undo any damage. It would just do more damage.It is at best a petty act of revenge that would grievously hurt the Republic. At worst an intentional attempt to destroy the Constitutional checks and balances. And you support it.

quote:

---

Levin proposed it and I don't know if it would work but I get his idea that it is needed in order to demonstrate the debths of depravity engaged in against Trump and the need to put the government back on a Constitutional footing.

---

It would demonstrate that the Republicans had hit new depths of depravity and it would greatly damage the Constitution.

quote:

---

It would only work if at every step the shame nature of the proceeding was pointed out and the comparison made to the current witch hunt.

---

The hypocritical lying would certainly illustrate Republican depravity, so I suppose that part really is intentional.And to deal with a point you’ve added by edit

quote:

---

I'm also in favor of impeaching a clew of Dem House members, ub this case not for no reason but for a witch hunt against a President.

---

Yes, you are all in favour of persecuting political opponents on false grounds. You’ve already made that plain. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You are making perfectly ordinary standard communications into something criminal.

---

Because it is perfectly ordinary for a President to ask another country to damage his political opponents ?No, it is at best highly inappropriate especially with the aid question hanging in the balance.This is a better account The dueling US foreign policy approaches to Ukraine pose a risk for Kyiv by Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institute.Pifer picks up on exactly the things I saw in the transcript. For instance: And, of course, investigation has confirmed the suspicions raised by the transcript.Maybe you should have applied basic critical thinking to the transcript instead of blindly refusing to see the serious issues it raised.

Typo. Corrected now. But if Hilary Clinton got the nomination again, I’d have to reconsider :-)

quote:

---

No because that isnh't what he was doing

---

Yes it was. It’s right there in the transcript.

quote:

---

He was prodding Zelensky to do what Zelensky had won his election to do, root out corruption in his country, and check particularly on how they interfered in the 2016 American election against Trump and then as a sort of afterthought look into the Biden quid pro quo on behalf of his son.

---

The whole story of Ukrainian interference - which was minimal - is intended to help Trump (and the Russians). And Zelensky certainly wasn’t elected to go off on a wild goose chase, trying to clear the GRU of hacking the DNC!And Trump makes no mention of going after corruption in general - just going after Biden.

quote:

---

Biden not the candidate, and would hardly be a threat to Trump anyway, ridiculous to think it had anything to do with the upcoming election.

---

Biden is a front-runner for the nomination and widely considered to be one of the most electable candidates.

quote:

---

Aid is customarily withheld from corrupt countries.

---

Except that obviously isn’t what is going on. Trump didn’t talk about corruption - he was meant to, but he dropped that part completely. Nor does it explain the secrecy about the withholding of aid.If you were any good at critical thinking you’d know these lame excuses wouldn’t fly.

quote:

---

No, you don't know how to read the transcrip6

---

By which you mean I’m not desperately trying to exonerate Trump.

quote:

---

You have no idea what is being said in the transcript

---

Since I accurately reported on what was said in the transcript that is obviously untrue.

quote:

---

you have no idea what is normal communication between heads of state

---

And nor do you. But I’m not the one trying to argue about that.

quote:

---

Trump is saying is absolutelty normal communication.

---

He is still asking for personal favours, and in context it looks very much as if he is implying that the military aid is dependent on those favours.

quote:

---

The idea that he did anything wrong is just a bizarre misreading at best or an intentional lying mispresentation.

---

Then you don’t think that there is anything wrong in withholding aid from an important ally just to get personal favours.