Why is Schiff Witholding Documents?

[JohnAshton]

How do you know? Don't We The People deserve to hear what he has to say? Doesn't Trump have the right to face his accuser? Or is only the president of the United States the only defendant in history to not have that right?

This is not a criminal trial.

 

[KCfromNC]

The voters are apparently saying different things: Romney loses GOP support in Utah after challenging Trump on impeachment

This article seems a bit confused - it is talking about polling results from before Romney supported having Bolton testify.

Or maybe Romney now also has access to the Obama time machine? Who knows, seems to be a requirement for so many far-right narratives these days it is hard to keep up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I highly doubt Republicans will be staying home on election day in 2020. Yeah, I know it's not a state election, but they'll still be more eager to have their voices heard when they vote for president. They know what the stakes are at the state level. They won't want to lose at the federal level.

I agree; Virginia will probably flip. But there are other states than Virginia.

It could have been the result of being complacent. Wasn't that why Clinton lost against Trump in 2016?

That's a possibility; November will be interesting if nothing else.

Or you simply vote in the direction that most closely reflects your own political values. Checking the box next to the name of a candidate really isn't that hard.

Again, a possibility... but how many voters have consciences?

What is he protected by that his "minions" aren't?

He's protected by his minions, of course -- Donald will survive the impeachment, and the GOP's classically conditioned hatred of the current Democratic presidential field means that, barring an extremely entertaining dark horse candidate entering late in the game, he'll handily win re-election.

But what works for Donald might not work for the GOP Congressmen... it certainly didn't work in 2018.

The Republican voters who want to keep Trump saw what the dem-controlled house did (impeach Trump), and they're seeing what the Republican controlled Senate is doing (not removing Trump).

And they're seeing that their own individual Senators are representing Donald's interests, which might not necessarily be their own.

Remember, a lot of those voters held their noses when they voted for Donald the first time... but you can only hold it for so long before the stench becomes overpowering.

I think Republicans are going to realize how important it is to keep our people in power.

Well, that's the bigger question: are they really your people, or are they his people?

Ask a farmer going bankrupt over Donald's trade war, or an ex-manufacturing worker who can't pay his rent with Donald's promises, how much they care about the impeachment...

Will democrats turn out in larger numbers out of anger of Trump still being in office. Time will tell.

As I said, November will be interesting -- not on the presidential level; Donald's got it in the bag. Not sure what'll happen in the House, but I doubt it'll flip. But the Senate could go either way...

 

[Aldebaran]

This article seems a bit confused - it is talking about polling results from before Romney supported having Bolton testify.

Or maybe Romney now also has access to the Obama time machine? Who knows, seems to be a requirement for so many far-right narratives these days it is hard to keep up.

At least read the article. Here's part of it that you clearly didn't read: "The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney, 72, going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday."

Good grief, that's located in the second paragraph which is only 4 lines into the article!

 

[KCfromNC]

At least read the article. Here's part of it that you clearly didn't read: "The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney, 72, going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday."

Speaking of reading it, here's the next sentence :

The poll shows the senator’s approval rating falling among Utah Republicans from September through December 2019
​

You were saying?

 

[Aldebaran]

I agree; Virginia will probably flip. But there are other states than Virginia.

Yes, and people in those other states will use the situation in VA as an example of what can happen in their own state if democrats gain power there.

Again, a possibility... but how many voters have consciences?

They have reasons. They have values. Otherwise, they wouldn't be voting.

And they're seeing that their own individual Senators are representing Donald's interests, which might not necessarily be their own.

Remember, a lot of those voters held their noses when they voted for Donald the first time... but you can only hold it for so long before the stench becomes overpowering.

That's assuming Trump hasn't done quite a bit that he promised to do, and it has benefited the country greatly. Some will deny that, but others recognize it.

Well, that's the bigger question: are they really your people, or are they his people?

Ask a farmer going bankrupt over Donald's trade war, or an ex-manufacturing worker who can't pay his rent with Donald's promises, how much they care about the impeachment...

There are different people in various situations. Everyone will vote according to their own individual values. Collectively, those with conservative values will vote for Trump--not Warren, Biden, Sanders or Pete.

 

[Aldebaran]

Speaking of reading it, here's the next sentence :

The poll shows the senator’s approval rating falling among Utah Republicans from September through December 2019
​

You were saying?

What part of:
"...going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday." are you not seeing (or ignoring)?

 

[Aldebaran]

This is not a criminal trial.

Does that mean the president shouldn't even enjoy the rights that a person accused of a criminal offense does?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why is it the Democrats get to define all aspects of any topic using a sliding scale to their own benefit,

Determine what is true or false for all of society, demand only what they have determined will be discussed is discussed

and completely ban the discussion of any topic they have determined false... which completely renders any facts contrary to their position unusable?

They get to ban and censor the speech of anyone that doesn't agree with them.

I have no idea what you're going on about. I haven't banned or censored anything. Pointing out the irrelevancy of the connections between Schiff and the whistleblower is just that - pointing out that it's irrelevant. The whistleblower himself is, at this point, irrelevant. As I posted elsewhere, he wasn't the one responsible for investigating the claim, or for reporting it to congress, or for providing transcripts of calls, or for providing witness testimony. He's merely the one who made the initial phone call (figuratively speaking) - everything that happened downstream of him was out of his hands - and it's all the downstream stuff that's the reason we're having this discussion.

The reason I called the focus on the whistleblower a "weak, simple-minded red herring" is because that's exactly what it is. If people don't want me to point out the vacuous, manipulative, morally-bankrupt, arguably-corrupt nature of their positions, then they ought to take better, more virtuous positions on things. This whole focus on the whistleblower is stupid, shortsighted, and disgusting and all of you ought to be ashamed of it.

 

[JohnAshton]

Does that mean the president shouldn't even enjoy the rights that a person accused of a criminal offense does?

He had the right to appear and answer questions. He had the right to have witnesses. This is a political trial run under Article II not VI.

 

[JohnAshton]

Trump bragged about hiding evidence, and you think that is going to gain him votes in November.

 

[rjs330]

I am? Where did I write that? Sounds like a "fixed it for you" post to me, given that I said nothing of the sort.

Anyway, of course people are presumed innocent. But that's before there's there's hours of testimony showing the opposite, as happened during the House hearings. So it really has nothing to do with the facts in this case, and does nothing to address what I actually did write.

Then why are you so anxious for more testimony. Wasn't the testimony in the house enough? If there is mountains of evidence that Trump committed an offense then why do we need more?

 

[JohnAshton]

Lamar Alexander said the evidence was overwhelming: guilty.

Alexander said the Senate will find him acquitted.

The American people will decide his fate this fall.

If Trump is defeated, he will die in jail.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, and people in those other states will use the situation in VA as an example of what can happen in their own state if democrats gain power there.

That might cause a few states that flipped blue to possibly flip back insofar as gubernatorial or state assemblies are concerned... if the GOP spins it that way (which they probably will)... but the 2nd Amendment vote alone might not save the Senators...

They have reasons. They have values. Otherwise, they wouldn't be voting.

They hate the left.

That's assuming Trump hasn't done quite a bit that he promised to do, and it has benefited the country greatly. Some will deny that, but others recognize it.

Donald didn't promise to bankrupt farmers, or to watch the factories he claimed to have saved quietly shut their doors. All politics are local, after all.

There are different people in various situations. Everyone will vote according to their own individual values. Collectively, those with conservative values will vote for Trump--not Warren, Biden, Sanders or Pete.

Never said otherwise. For the nth time, Donald's got re-election in the bag...

The likes of Graham and McConnell, however... their values change with the tide; do their constituents'?

 

[LostMarbels]

I have no idea what you're going on about. I haven't banned or censored anything. Pointing out the irrelevancy of the connections between Schiff and the whistleblower is just that - pointing out that it's irrelevant. The whistleblower himself is, at this point, irrelevant. As I posted elsewhere, he wasn't the one responsible for investigating the claim, or for reporting it to congress, or for providing transcripts of calls, or for providing witness testimony. He's merely the one who made the initial phone call (figuratively speaking) - everything that happened downstream of him was out of his hands - and it's all the downstream stuff that's the reason we're having this discussion.

The reason I called the focus on the whistleblower a "weak, simple-minded red herring" is because that's exactly what it is. If people don't want me to point out the vacuous, manipulative, morally-bankrupt, arguably-corrupt nature of their positions, then they ought to take better, more virtuous positions on things. This whole focus on the whistleblower is stupid, shortsighted, and disgusting and all of you ought to be ashamed of it.

Im pointing out the fact Democrats have appointed themselves the arbiters of truth. Democrat acts as if they can deem entire topics as conspiracy theory and control all speech concerning it.

There is no law, no punishable offense for outing the whistleblower. It is not illegal. An yet, throughout all social media. All news media the dude is voldemort. 'He who shall not be spoken'. Even tho we all know who it is.... No one is fooled.This man is being hidden to protect intentions. And not just his.

This whole focus on the whistleblower is stupid, shortsighted, and disgusting and all of you ought to be ashamed of it.

Get over yourself Sir. I do not reconise your assumed moral superiority.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Im pointing out the fact Democrats have appointed themselves the arbiters of truth. Democrat acts as if they can deem entire topics as conspiracy theory and control all speech concerning it.

We’re not the arbiters of truth. However, Republicans, unfortunately, seem to have abdicated en masse any respect for the truth at all. Every day I read the news or come here and have one TrumpFan after another feeding me some easily-falsifiable nonsense that, at best, demonstrates how little effort that person has put into verifying their perceptions, and quite often (depending on the person), how little they care to be accurate so long as their delusion provides them with a sense of “winning” or “pwning the libs”. I would argue that a great number go even beyond pushing falsehoods and engage in behavior that would qualify as psychologically abusive. And that’s kinda where I start getting angry. I don’t have a high opinion of Democrats - and tbh, I’m not confident they won’t go down the same path eventually- but at least right now, the Republican party is a mindbogglingly vapid cesspool where virtue is scorned and all manner of human failings are celebrated.

There is no law, no punishable offense for outing the whistleblower. It is not illegal. An yet, throughout all social media. All news media the dude is voldemort. 'He who shall not be spoken'. Even tho we all know who it is.... No one is fooled.This man is being hidden to protect intentions. And not just his.

I don’t give two hoots about who is and isn’t legally prohibited from outing this guy. What I care about is the principal of all of it. We have whistleblower protections (as weak as they are) for a reason - we WANT people to speak up when they see something wrong. We WANT people in positions of power to be held accountable. What you all are doing undermines all of that. It shouts to every peon who sees something that they’re on their own, that they oughta shut up and look the other way while the crooks just go on being crooked. And for what? So you can help save face of a babbling narcissist who’d sell you out in a heartbeat if he thought it’d make him a buck?

Get over yourself Sir.

No, I’m not going to get over myself. We may not be the arbiters of truth, but neither are you, and these cockamamie conspiracies conjured deep in the bowels of the internet don’t magically become true just because they comport to your preferred narrative.

If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. The solution to that is not to complain about the people pointing out your errors, but to just stop being wrong.

I do not reconise your assumed moral superiority.

You may not recognize it, but I do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Lamar Alexander said the evidence was overwhelming: guilty.

Alexander said the Senate will find him acquitted.

The American people will decide his fate this fall.

If Trump is defeated, he will die in jail.

Marco Rubio summed up the GOP's "values" in a nutshell:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office"

Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed

 

[LostMarbels]

We’re not the arbiters of truth.

And yet are able to dictate what is socially acceptable as truth, and the set narrative. If the dems define something as truth, how dare someone speak against it?! They must be silenced! Their speech must be corrected to follow the true belief!

However, Republicans, unfortunately, seem to have abdicated en masse any respect for the truth at all. Every day I read the news or come here and have one TrumpFan after another feeding me some easily-falsifiable nonsense that, at best, demonstrates how little effort that person has put into verifying their perceptions, and quite often (depending on the person), how little they care to be accurate so long as their delusion provides them with a sense of “winning” or “pwning the libs”. I don’t have a high opinion of Democrats - and tbh, I’m not confident they won’t go down the same path eventually- but at least right now, the Republican party is a mindbogglingly vapid cesspool where virtue is scorned and all manner of human failings are celebrated.

What is voldemort even implicated for? Who is he, and what role has he played in current ongoing investigations, the impeachment, and current political realm?

Do you even know?? Because to quote you:

"another (person) feeding me some easily-falsifiable nonsense that, at best, demonstrates how little effort that person has put into verifying their perceptions, and quite often (depending on the person), how little they care to be accurate so long as their delusion provides them with a sense of winning”

I would argue that a great number go even beyond pushing falsehoods and engage in behavior that would qualify as psychologically abusive. And that’s kinda where I start getting angry.

Then you understand my own ire. We both hold the same perceptions, one of another.

I don’t give two hoots about who is and isn’t legally prohibited from outing this guy. What I care about is the principal of all of it.

That is apparent. I am pointing out Democrats will silence speech of another to afford them selves that 'principle'.

Instead of debate, just label it a wacky conspiracy, and silence it outright. Through all of society. literally, controlling all 'speech', written or verbal in all forms of media, even on the world wide web. A complete, and total world wide censorship. How did the Dems even get such power? And by your own admission, not caring if it is legal or not either. All that is cared about is it offends some sensibilities held to, and how it must be made to conform to those emotions, or silenced.

Want to discuss a 1984 Orwellian society? Take a look at what power democrats suppose themselves to weild.

We have whistleblower protections (as weak as they are) for a reason - we WANT people to speak up when they see something wrong. We WANT people in positions of power to be held accountable. What you all are doing undermines all of that. It shouts to every peon who sees something that they’re on their own, that they oughta shut up and look the other way while the crooks just go on being crooked. And for what? So you can help save face of a babbling narcissist who’d sell you out in a heartbeat if he thought it’d make him a buck?

This 'whistleblower' is protected for a reason all right.....

Do you even know why?

No, I’m not going to get over myself.

That is to be expected.

We may not be the arbiters of truth, but neither are you, and these cockamamie conspiracies conjured deep in the bowels of the internet don’t magically become true just because they comport to your preferred narrative.

Neither are they false even tho an army of 'fact checkers' twist meanings, and set narratives all the while speech is censored to quel rebuttals, and hide inconvenient truths.

If you’re wrong, you’re wrong. The solution to that is not to complain about the people pointing out your errors, but to just stop being wrong.

I like this. 'If you would just agree with me you would no longer be wrong'. Gave me a chuckle.

You may not recognize it, but I do.

Don't even get me started.

 

[jgarden]

Why is Schiff Witholding Documents?

Trump is a "counter puncher" so his response to criticism is not to respond at all, but to regain the initiative by inventing a counter narrative that places his opponents on the defensive!

The recipients of Trump's counter punches make the fatal assumption that their opponent, no matter how misguided, is actually arguing in good faith, and therefore invest the time and effort to provide a coherent response

What they fail to realize ts It doesn't matter that these narratives can be disproved, because before they finish investigating one, Trump and his supporters have already invented 2 or 3 more false accusations to replace it!

This President's strategy is analogous to placing his critics on treadmill that keeps on spinning, until they either collapse from exhaustion, or smarten up enough to realize that the only rule to remember when dealing with Trump is that there are no rules!

 

[KCfromNC]

What part of:
"...going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday."

I'm missing an explanation of how a poll from 2019 measured the results from something he did in 2020. Or more accurately, the article is. I mean sure, it asserts it but that's just a sign not to take it seriously.