LA Times Opinion: Impeachment could be history's takeaway on Donald...

TLK Valentine said:

I'm not even ok with the punctuation and sentence structure of the question... try again?

Click to expand...

No need to your lame excuse for avoiding the question is answer enough for me.

Halbhh said:

What does this seem to you to be communicating:

"They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Click to expand...

What it says, just as when it was first said but not as people in the media punctuated it and told everybody how it should be understood was this:

Some immigrants are criminals although many are not.

You're welcome.

Albion said:

What it says, just as when it was first said but not as people in the media punctuated it and told everybody how it should be understood was this:

Some immigrants are criminals although many are not.

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

Ok and the other direct quote, from Trump, with his own punctuation?

This is apparently an old view of Trump:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics-a tough subject-must be discussed.
1:05 AM - 5 Jun 2013

The idea: crime is racially caused (instead of the normal view that crime comes from neighborhoods, regardless of race, even white neighborhoods sometimes, etc.)

Doesn't this concern you? I asked you above: why do you put an extreme loyalty or faith in Trump of all people?

Albion said:

Testimony and credibility doesn't count for much if its all second-hand, third-hand, opinion, and/or contrary to the evidence. And it isn't even credible if whatever is said is not given in open hearings.

Click to expand...

Think about the fact that testimonies are always under oath. Bill Clinton got in huge trouble for perjury. If testifying against Donald Trump would just be a political sham, nobody would do it. Therefore the fact we will even watch testimonies against Trump at all is proof they will be 100% credible.

Albion said:

Testimony and credibility doesn't count for much if its all second-hand, third-hand, opinion, and/or contrary to the evidence. And it isn't even credible if whatever is said is not given in open hearings.

Click to expand...

Funny how that changed when the person giving written answers was no longer 'Trump and The Perjury Trap! (TM)'

Albion said:

What it says, just as when it was first said but not as people in the media punctuated it and told everybody how it should be understood was this:

Some immigrants are criminals although many are not.

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

What was the media spin on his “s***hole countries” comment?

grasping the after wind said:

Trusting the House's judgement over mine is most likely a mistake. You see I am not invested in a political agenda or trying to advance my personal political fortune in any way while the House leadership is.

Click to expand...

I trust the professionals because I’m not an expert on constitutional law and not knowing you personally, you very well could be someone heavily invested in a political agenda and trying to push it through various media platforms. For the record, I don’t think you are but the possibility is certainly there. It’s not out of the question to assume that at least some people on sites like these are purposely trying to put out misinformation and push an agenda.

Albion said:

What it says, just as when it was first said but not as people in the media punctuated it and told everybody how it should be understood was this:

Some immigrants are criminals although many are not.

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

No. I read and heard what he said. Its easy to find, and anyone can verify for themselves that its not at all what you said above.

Halbhh said:

Ok and the other direct quote, from Trump, with his own punctuation?

This is apparently an old view of Trump:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics-a tough subject-must be discussed.
1:05 AM - 5 Jun 2013

The idea: crime is racially caused (instead of the normal view that crime comes from neighborhoods, regardless of race, even white neighborhoods sometimes, etc.)

Click to expand...

C'mon. Every Liberal knows that violent crime is higher in the inner cities than elsewhere and also who lives there. It's on the evening news. This is fact. It is not a claim about the inherent worth or criminal tendencies of any race. Any Sociologist will say that the poverty suffered by inner city residents leads to more crime, almost inevitably. Are they racists for saying so?

Liberals run for office claiming that inner city schools, majority black schools, are of less quality than other ones (and the candidates want to correct that). And they say they want equality--for whom? Is it unidentified people? NO! They mention the effects of slavery; they explain how racial profiling is unfair, etc. RACIAL profiling. Get it?

So we have the president of the United States addressing a problem that everyone knows exists and speaks freely about--racial terms included--but let THIS president who is the target at every opportunity for some vile attack, say the same thing as Liberals say and want to solve the problem...and it's "racism." It's bunk. It's partisan politics.

Doesn't this concern you? I asked you above: why do you put an extreme loyalty or faith in Trump of all people?

Click to expand...

First, I do not do that.

Second, who is better? Hillary? Sanders? As I've noted before, St. Francis of Assisi appears not to be running this time.

and Third, I feel a need to defend anyone who has been viciously, relentlessly, and wrongfully vilified.

I am like other moderate voters--the more the fabrications, the hate, and so on are thrown at him, the more that the moral imperative is felt by fair-minded people to resist that sort of thing.

If "they" had given him the minimum of respect that ANY president deserves and EVERY one before Trump has received, and if they had not announced from before his inauguration that they would do whatever was necessary to get him out of office, there would have been a good chance of him now losing support rather than gaining as is happening.

grasping the after wind said:

You missed a word there when you explained what he characterizes. He clearly only characterizes illegal immigrants as such. Who is it that he characterizes as the best and finest? Is he speaking of legal immigrants? I don't know as your quote is insufficient for me to find that out. He even allows that some illegal immigrants, despite the fact they are lawbreakers, are good people. I don't know why he assumes that as many people would say, (not me as I am not about to be that judgmental) if one is a lawbreaker they ought not to be considered good people

Click to expand...

You are correct. He characterizes the vast majority of illegal Mexican immigrants as "bringing drugs, bringing crime, and are rapists". The facts regarding illegal aliens from Mexico don't align with his characterization of those people.

It is a confirmed fact that Trump has hired illegal aliens at his properties. That is breaking the law. If you hold by "if one is a lawbreaker they ought not to be considered good people", then you'd have to assess Trump as "not a good person" by the same reasoning you feel confident in assessing illegal immigrants.

Personally, I don't agree with that metric. Anecdotally, as someone who used to work in the food service industry, there seemed to be plenty of "good" illegal immigrants, who stayed out of trouble, worked jobs that Americans generally didn't want, for low wages. Similarly, there seems to be a decent number of "good" illegal immigrants in the construction industry.

Albion said:

Testimony and credibility doesn't count for much if its all second-hand, third-hand, opinion, and/or contrary to the evidence. And it isn't even credible if whatever is said is not given in open hearings.

Click to expand...

Which testimony was second hand or opinion?

grasping the after wind said:

Would you be ok if I answered questions in writing if I accused you of doing something wrong because someone else told me you said something ? Would you be ok if I was allowed to do that and no one was allowed to know where I got my information or who I was? Would you be ok that your Constitutional right to face your accuser was removed from you?

Click to expand...

The whistleblower is no different than an anonymous tip the police receives, which leads the police to actual evidence and/ or witnesses. Trump will get to face all of the actual witnesses in the senate hearing.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I trust the professionals because I’m not an expert on constitutional law and not knowing you personally, you very well could be someone heavily invested in a political agenda and trying to push it through various media platforms. For the record, I don’t think you are but the possibility is certainly there. It’s not out of the question to assume that at least some people on sites like these are purposely trying to put out misinformation and push an agenda.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is not out of the question. It is also not out of the question that politicians will act like politicians and pursue their party's interests over the country's interests. As the evidence suggests the Chairman of the intelligence committee has said things that he does not back up, has misrepresented and misquoted in purporting to read the transcript of the phone call in question and that he or his staff had consultations with the alleged whistle blower prior to any investigation, I just find it harder to believe that this investigation is an honest attempt to get at the truth than it is a political maneuver.

Sparagmos said:

The whistleblower is no different than an anonymous tip the police receives, which leads the police to actual evidence and/ or witnesses. Trump will get to face all of the actual witnesses in the senate hearing.

Click to expand...

There are significant differences between the whistle blower and an anonymous tipster. The police do not start grand jury proceedings on the word of an anonymous tipster alone . The police do not call in witnesses based solely upon a tip from an anonymous tipster. Most anonymous tipsters are not assumed to be credible until what they allege to have occurred is found to be factual. If the police were to learn the identity of the anonymous tipster they would check out that person's motives for tipping them off and question the tipster vigorously to see how credible that tipster was.

grasping the after wind said:

There are significant differences between the whistle blower and an anonymous tipster. The police do not start grand jury proceedings on the word of an anonymous tipster alone . The police do not call in witnesses based solely upon a tip from an anonymous tipster. Most anonymous tipsters are not assumed to be credible until what they allege to have occurred is found to be factual. If the police were to learn the identity of the anonymous tipster they would check out that person's motives for tipping them off and question the tipster vigorously to see how credible that tipster was.

Click to expand...

Have you heard of the practice of “swatting” wherein the police receive an anonymous tip and descend on an innocent person’s house in full swat gear and guns drawn? It works specifically because police take anonymous tips seriously every time they get one.

grasping the after wind said:

I agree that it is not out of the question. It is also not out of the question that politicians will act like politicians and pursue their party's interests over the country's interests. As the evidence suggests the Chairman of the intelligence committee has said things that he does not back up, has misrepresented and misquoted in purporting to read the transcript of the phone call in question and that he or his staff had consultations with the alleged whistle blower prior to any investigation, I just find it harder to believe that this investigation is an honest attempt to get at the truth than it is a political maneuver.

Click to expand...

Like I said... We’ll find out soon enough just how credible the charges really are.

grasping the after wind said:

There are significant differences between the whistle blower and an anonymous tipster. The police do not start grand jury proceedings on the word of an anonymous tipster alone . The police do not call in witnesses based solely upon a tip from an anonymous tipster.

Click to expand...

How else do you verify the accuracy of a tip besides talking to witnesses? Besides, this step was taken by the Inspector General, who investigated the whistleblower report and found it credible and of "urgent concern". It was only after the IG made his assessment that it was delivered to Congress and they began to call witnesses.

Most anonymous tipsters are not assumed to be credible until what they allege to have occurred is found to be factual.

Click to expand...

In this case, the whistleblower's claims have been found factual so far.

If the police were to learn the identity of the anonymous tipster they would check out that person's motives for tipping them off and question the tipster vigorously to see how credible that tipster was.

Click to expand...

A whistleblower's motives are not of primary concern if the facts check out.

durangodawood said:

I trust Chief Justice Roberts to run a fair trial, even if I dont trust the senate to vote a-politically. That's where we'll see what's what regarding the case itself.

As for the House, I'm perfectly fine with closed door hearings and written transcripts in the inquiry phase so long as the Republicans aren't shut out.

Click to expand...

Republicans are not being shut out of closed door hearings. They can't ask questions because of the rule I understand they made up in 1998. They are getting what they wanted and complaining about it.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Nixon lived in a time before Fox News.

Click to expand...

Fox News is fake news. Notice every Fox News video posted in this forum is 100% conservative. They are good at telling only one side of the story on purpose. So it would make no difference if Fox existed during the early 1970s. They would be all for Richard Nixon like stealing sensitive information is legal.