Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial

  
Via:  john-russell  •  one week ago  •  80 comments

Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial
Third, we must reject categorically falsehoods. The American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike did not cover up Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election; this is an entirely invented story. Former vice president Joe Biden was not freelancing on behalf of his son when implementing U.S. government policy — supported by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, Republican senators, and the Ukrainian anti-corruption nongovernmental-organization community — to seek the...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial


2041645.png


McFaul, Michael . The Washington Post (Online) , Washington, D.C.: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post. Jan 13, 2020.


During her testimony in the House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings last year, former National Security Council senior director Fiona Hill scolded U.S. representatives for believing and sometimes echoing Russian-inspired disinformation about alleged Ukrainian interference in our 2016 presidential election. She stated bluntly: "This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves."

In a matter of days, U.S. senators will be exercising one of their most solemn constitutional duties as they take part in the second phase of the impeachment process. When they do so, they — and the rest of us — should take heed of Hill's warning. By now it should be amply clear that Russian-style disinformation tactics, whether employed by Russians or Americans, represent a major threat to American democracy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies deploy several methods of disinformation to strengthen their power and influence. The first is to deny facts. For instance, Putin initially denied that Russian soldiers had seized control of Crimea in February 2014, denies Russian involvement in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014, and denies any Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

A second tactic is to deflect attention from the facts, also known as "whataboutism." When criticized about Crimean annexing Crimea, Putin's media shoot back, what about Kosovo? Or New Mexico? When criticized about civilian casualties from Russian military intervention in Syria, Kremlin defenders retort, what about Iraq, Vietnam or Hiroshima? When confronted with evidence of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, the Russian standard refrain is, you do it all the time.

A third practice is the dissemination of lies. Russian state media once asserted that President Barack Obama and former Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi embraced the same ideology. I may be more sensitive than most about this tactic, because when I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Kremlin media outlets accused me of fomenting revolution against Putin's regime; perhaps most disgustingly of all, a video was circulated suggesting I was a pedophile. When Putin met with President Trump in July 2018 in Helsinki, the Russian president again lied about me, claiming I had broken Russian law while working in the White House.

A cumulative effect of all these tactics is nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth. Putin is not trying to win the argument; instead, his propaganda machine aims to convince that there is no truth, no right and wrong, or no data or evidence, only relativism, point of view and biased opinion.

We must not let these Kremlin-style tactics distort our public deliberations during the Senate trial.

First, we cannot allow denials to confuse our understanding of the facts of Trump's withholding of military assistance to Ukraine. Trump denies he did anything wrong. We have heard extensive testimony from officials working in the Trump administration that clearly established the facts. Several current and former Trump administration officials, who have not yet testified, may know even more. Senators and the American people deserve to know them, too.

Second, senators and the media must avoid the temptations of whataboutism. At another time and place, a discussion may be warranted of the ethics of children of elected officials (Democrats and Republicans) being involved in businesses related to their parents' public work. Congress also should conduct hearings about the Trump administration's efforts to combat Ukrainian corruption. But neither of these issues has anything to do with impeachment.

Third, we must reject categorically falsehoods. The American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike did not cover up Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election; this is an entirely invented story. Former vice president Joe Biden was not freelancing on behalf of his son when implementing U.S. government policy — supported by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, Republican senators, and the Ukrainian anti-corruption nongovernmental-organization community — to seek the ouster of corrupt Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Indeed, because Shokin was not prosecuting corruption in Ukraine, his removal produced greater scrutiny, not less, of the now-infamous Burisma Holdings energy company on which Hunter Biden used to serve as a board member. As Shokin's deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, reported, "There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky [Burisma's owner]. … It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015." Trump's own political appointee, former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, confirmed, "The allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and non-credible."

Neutral reporting on false claims amplifies disinformation. Even those aiming to refute such falsehoods run the risk of spreading them more widely at the same time — a dynamic on which the purveyors of disinformation rely. At minimum, public figures and the media should resist the temptation to put false narratives at the center of their stories. Lies should be treated as such.

Putin controls the media and dominates public discourse in his country; it is for precisely that reason that he will never face impeachment. But the United States is a democracy. In our society, independent media and elected officials have the opportunity to access facts and data as a means toward more accountable government. The propagation of disinformation degrades this valuable attribute of democracy. Let's not undermine this crucial principle of our republic — especially at this most serious moment in the life of our nation.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one week ago

Much of Trump's defense relies on falsehoods, bamboozling and outright lying.  Trump has lied 80 times about the whistleblower.  How long will America's (instigated from the right) "Alice In Wonderland' attitude about these issues endure? 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

You gathered your facts, and maybe, cuz we don't know about Madam Footdragger, you're off to a trial of those facts. But Ms Foot wants to run the trial from without and introduce, maybe, more select facts that would seem to run on like this story. The bullshit ain't from the right.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    one week ago

As if the House proceedings conducted by the most partisan member of congress were fair?  Talk about projection! Where was McFaul then?


A third practice is the dissemination of lies. Russian state media once asserted that President Barack Obama and former Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi embraced the same ideology.

Has anybody ever heard any of that?  I guess Russian state media did a piss poor job.


A second tactic is to deflect attention from the facts, also known as "whataboutism." When criticized about Crimean annexing Crimea, Putin's media shoot back, what about Kosovo? Or New Mexico? 

Wow, what an argument that was....another we never heard. A better one would have been the truth - OBAMA WANTS US (RUSSIA) TO HELP WITH THE IRAN DEAL< THEREFORE HE WILL ALLOW THE ANNEXATION OF THE CRIMEA


Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies deploy several methods of disinformation to strengthen their power and influence.

Um-hum. What a revelation! I hope McFaul isn't getting paid for this "news."

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.1  Larry Hampton  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one week ago

Would you like to see the truth about trump and the Ukraine?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Larry Hampton @2.1    one week ago

I thought that was the job of the House?  Didn't they conduct an investigation and write up two Articles of impeachment? 

I believe the duty of the US Senate is to now conduct a trial based on what the House presents - not to keep searching for a crime.

Let them either have a trial or dismiss the Articles as frivolous. If there is a trial there can only be one of two outcomes - guilty or Not Guilty!

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.2  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one week ago
I believe the duty of the US Senate is to now conduct a trial based on what the House presents

Well, Trump obstructed Congress and wouldn't allow some of the most important testimony. And the prosecuting team is working with the accused behind closed doors ... various members of the prosecuting team have publicly said that a) they won't bother reading the evidence because they refuse to even consider the possibility of guilt; b) they have no intention of being impartial jurors, and will quite openly violate their oaths ...

The GOP members should be expelled the minute they take their oaths, since violation of that oath is grounds for expulsion.

But the Trump toadies will keep on supporting the GOP and Trump's total disdain for our Constitution and our country.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one week ago
If there is a trial there can only be one of two outcomes - guilty or Not Guilty !

If trump was not guilty he would be demanding that all of his people testify and he would have submitted the paperwork subpoenaed by the House. As it is, he submitted NO evidence and blocked 12 people from testifying. 

Does that scream out, "not guilty" to you? Not one person that has claimed trump is innocent has testified....not....one. 

512

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.1.2    one week ago
Well, Trump obstructed Congress and wouldn't allow some of the most important testimony.

It's called "executive privilege" and other presidents have invoked it as well. When that happens the Court can settle the matter. The House didn't want to wait for a ruling, remember?

And the prosecuting team is working with the accused behind closed doors ... various members of the prosecuting team have publicly said that a) they won't bother reading the evidence because they refuse to even consider the possibility of guilt; b) they have no intention of being impartial jurors, and will quite openly violate their oaths ...

No, the Senate is not the prosecuting team. In this case the House is the prosecuting team and the Senate is the defense team. Unlike what the House did - the President will have rights in a Senate trial. Sorry, if it all seems so partisan, but this is the reality progressives created. 


But the Trump toadies will keep on supporting the GOP and Trump's total disdain for our Constitution and our country.

I support the Constitution, the nation, the rights of the President and your rights too!

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    one week ago
It's called "executive privilege" and other presidents have invoked it as well.

Which doesn't apply if it's used to cover up a crime. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.5    one week ago

The principle of executive privilege has nothing to do with alleged crimes. It something a court decides. Biased democrats couldn't wait. They admitted it!

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.1.7  Larry Hampton  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one week ago

Sorry for the miscommunication...

Do you , personally, want to see what actually happened vis-a-vis Trump and the Ukraine?

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    one week ago
Biased democrats

They aren't the ones wanting a rigged trial. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  Larry Hampton @2.1    one week ago

I don't think you would accept the truth, LH. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Larry Hampton @2.1.7    one week ago

Do you , personally, want to see what actually happened vis-a-vis Trump and the Ukraine?

Can't speak for Vic, but it's painfully obvious the right knows trump is guilty, but they don't want it exposed because that would cost trump the election. On top of that, all the repubs that stonewalled for trump, would likely be voted out in November. McConnell is likely going to lose his seat in November as it is. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.11  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.5    one week ago

Which doesn't apply if it's used to cover up a crime.

There is no evidence of a crime, let alone proof of one.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.8    one week ago
They aren't the ones wanting a rigged trial. 

They already rigged it!!!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.10    one week ago
but it's painfully obvious the right knows trump is guilty

Guilty of .….. What ?

Hurting "Feelings" ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.11    one week ago

There is no evidence of a crime, let alone proof of one.

There is more evidence that there was a crime than there is evidence that there wasn't. Why? Because trump has provided absolutely NO evidence that he is innocent.

As has been pointed out a couple times on this thread alone. Trump has blocked any and all evidence regarding the impeachment proceedings. 

Don't you think that if trump was innocent, he would be screaming for people to testify? Most people who are actually innocent would do that. Weird that trump isn't. 

In this case, "no evidence" supports the assertion that trump DID commit a crime. And let's not forget...

"I we had found that the President of the United States committed no crime, we would have said so."

----Robert Mueller. 

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.1.15  Larry Hampton  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.9    one week ago

Really?

jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

I, perhaps more than any other member you have ran into here on the NTer's, has learned, changed, and grown precisely because of my on-line experiences just like this. You would be surprised if you read my stuff just a few years ago. Go ahead, ask any of the ol' timers here how much searching for truth has changed my perspective.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.3    6 days ago
If trump was not guilty he would be demanding that all of his people testify and he would have submitted the paperwork subpoenaed by the House. As it is, he submitted NO evidence and blocked 12 people from testifying. 

Donald Trump was demanding witness testimony.  Mitch McConnell convinced Trump to not go down that path.

Trump openly declared his intention to fight House Democrats during the Senate trial.  Trump openly declared his intention to turn the Senate trial into a public spectacle.  Trump signaled his intent to call witnesses that would politically damage Democrats.

The whole impeachment episode has been a nakedly political stunt intended to influence the 2020 election.  Trump was going to use the Senate trial in a political manner to influence the 2020 election toward Democrats losing the House.

Mitch McConnell doesn't want the Senate to be used for a purely political circus.  The reality is that Democrats have already politically damaged themselves; there isn't a need for a public spectacle.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.17  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.16    6 days ago
Trump was going to use the Senate trial in a political manner to influence the 2020 election toward Democrats losing the House.

Interesting take. It could also be argued that McConnell will not call witnesses in the upcoming rubber-stamp of a trial to save trump from himself, and more importantly, keep the GOP from losing the Senate. Also "a nakedly political stunt', but those are the times in which we find ourselves. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.18  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    6 days ago
and the Senate is the defense team

Not true - well, in this case they are, but they're not supposed to be. They are supposed to be impartial. Trump has his own defense team and it is NOT the Senate.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.17    6 days ago
Interesting take. It could also be argued that McConnell will not call witnesses in the upcoming rubber-stamp of a trial to save trump from himself, and more importantly, keep the GOP from losing the Senate. Also "a nakedly political stunt', but those are the times in which we find ourselves. 

More importantly McConnell doesn't want the Republican Party to become populated by Trump Republicans.  Donald Trump has not been a friend of the Republican establishment.

Remember when Trump challenged the Republican controlled Congress to repeal Obamacare as they had been promising?  Trump used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to declare Congressional Republicans liars.  Trump stripped the Republican establishment naked and forced them to run the gauntlet of public opinion.

The idea that Mitch McConnell wants to protect Trump from himself doesn't pass the smell test.  Donald Trump has completely and utterly destroyed Republican conventional wisdom.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.20  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.5    6 days ago

So you were against Obama using Executive Privilege to prevent Holder, and Holder's wife, when it came to Fast & Furious?

Obama claimed Holder never spoke to him about Fast & Furious; and he had no knowledge of it. Which prevents Executive Privilege from being used.

Holder was held in contempt of Congress. Fat lot of good it did since he was DOJ.

According to Democrat standards the Republicans should have impeach Obama for obstruction. Instead of taking the matter to court to get all relevant documents released.  Holder never did testify. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.1.18    6 days ago
They are supposed to be impartial.

And so was the House. Do you realize the precedent that has been set?  Suppose Bernie Sanders became President?  We might just impeach him with nothing but catch phrases like "obstruction of congress."  I'd be posting seeds claiming that he was unfit.  I hate it being this way but progressives got us here and as far as I'm concerned they need to be removed from power. Sound familiar?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    one week ago

What do you call a trial that has no evidence, no witnesses and the judge has had behind closed door meetings with the accused, whom he has close ties to?

"Rigged".

The right can spin it all it wants, but that's what this sham trial will be. 100% rigged. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3    one week ago
What do you call a trial that has no evidence,

The evidence is supposed to be supplied by the House. It was supposed to be "overwhelming", right?


 no witnesses

There will be witnesses. There are already at least 4 Republican Senators in favor of it.


and the judge has had behind closed door meetings with the accused, whom he has close ties to?

You mean Chief Justice John Roberts?  He will be referee & judge. The House team will be the prosecution and please try to understand - THE PRESIDENT DOES GET A DEFENSE!!!!


Today's civics lesson is over.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one week ago
The House team will be the prosecution and please try to understand - THE PRESIDENT DOES GET A DEFENSE!!!!

The PROSECUTION does not provide the defendant's defense!

Except in corrupt Trumpland.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one week ago
The evidence is supposed to be supplied by the House. It was supposed to be "overwhelming", right?

No, the Senate is where the TRIAL is. TRIALS have witnesses and evidence. Can you imagine a murder trial with no witnesses and no evidence? No, it has never happened and it never will. In fact, I can think of NO trials that have had no witnesses and no evidence. 

There will be witnesses. There are already at least 4 Republican Senators in favor of it.

Lets hope so. It will be interesting to see if any of the 12 people trump ordered not to testify will actually testify. My guess is it will not happen. 

THE PRESIDENT DOES GET A DEFENSE!!!!

Which would entail him testifying under oath. And no lawyer in their right mind would allow a client like Trump to testify. And honestly, if trump is so transparent, as he claims, why did he block everything the House subpoenaed? Why block all these witnesses if they will exonerate him? That makes NO sense at all. 

Today's civics lesson is over.

Today's common sense lesson is over. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @3.1.1    one week ago
The PROSECUTION does not provide the defendant's defense!

Correct.... The Senate is the defense!

The House has to make their case!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.2    one week ago
Lets hope so. It will be interesting to see if any of the 12 people trump ordered not to testify will actually testify. My guess is it will not happen. 

You do understand that the House can call witnesses, but the SENATE WILL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT!!!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @3.1.1    one week ago
The PROSECUTION does not provide the defendant's defense!

Correct.

Haven't seen a Prosecution "Actual" witness yet.

Have you ?

I "Felt" doesn't seem to be a very "Specific" testimony.

I'll bet My "Feelings" are "Different" than your "Feelings". Would you agree ?

I wonder which "Feeling" Adam Shifty Schiff would choose, if either of us were looked at as a "Witness" FOR the "Prosecution. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  katrix @3.1.1    one week ago
The PROSECUTION does not provide the defendant's defense!

God I hope it's Rudy... He has incriminated Trump half a dozen times already, on live tv. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    one week ago
Correct.... The Senate is the defense!

Wrong. The Senate is the jury. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.7    one week ago

Not this time. Don't like it...Too bad! You made it that way!

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    one week ago

You do understand that the House can call witnesses, but the SENATE WILL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT!!!!

The rules for the trial are set by the majority leader, in this case, McConnell, who has already said rather clearly that he wants no witnesses and no evidence presented. And lets be honest, Vic, that's because McConnell KNOWS trump is as guilty as homemade sin. If witness's ARE allowed, the House will likely call every one of the people trump has blocked from testifying. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.9    one week ago
The rules for the trial are set by the majority leader, in this case, McConnell, who has already said rather clearly that he wants no witnesses and no evidence presented. And lets be honest, Vic, that's because McConnell KNOWS trump is as guilty as homemade sin. If witness's ARE allowed, the House will likely call every one of the people trump has blocked from testifying. 

There will be a vote on witnesses. A simple majority is all that is needed. The Republicans already have the necessary 4 in favor.

Don't they report that on CNN?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.11  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.9    one week ago

Will you be happy, if witnesses are called, and they exonerate Trump, or will you say the trial is fixed??

As it stands now, there is not sufficient evidence to convict, even though the House inquiry was rigged.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    one week ago

Not this time. Don't like it...Too bad! You made it that way!

It always is. That's why Senators have to take an oath to be impartial, (which McConnell openly said he isn't). Remember, their oath is to the constitution, not trump. They have to take an oath to be impartial, they are not there to defend trump, that's his lawyers job, whoever that is. Same with the DOJ and the SCOTUS. They don't exist to support the president...(Barr apparently didn't get the memo).  

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.10    one week ago
There will be a vote on witnesses. A simple majority is all that is needed. The Republicans already have the necessary 4 in favor.

You say that like the republicans want witnesses, which the VAST majority do not. 

Don't they report that on CNN?

Yes, they do. Why do you ask? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.11    one week ago
Will you be happy, if witnesses are called, and they exonerate Trump, or will you say the trial is fixed??

Yes, but I would still ask why all 12 of them never showed up in the House Impeachment proceedings. 

As it stands now, there is not sufficient evidence to convict, even though the House inquiry was rigged.

How was it rigged? Trump and his lawyer were invited twice and never showed up, (after weeks of trump complaining that his due process was being denied). 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.12    one week ago
That's why Senators have to take an oath to be impartial,

Does that include the 4 democratic Senators who are running for president?  Will they be "impartial?"

I'm wager a month's self imposed suspension that all 4 vote guilty. Any takers?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.15    one week ago
Will they be "impartial?"

Have they indicated that they will not be, like McConnell has done? No. You are straying from the point though. You said the Senate is there to defend trump, and they are not. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.16    one week ago

Always moving the goal posts.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.13    one week ago
You say that like the republicans want witnesses, which the VAST majority do not. 

I'm only saying it to let you know that there will be witnesses. I'm with the majority who don't want them. The House did the investigating and talked to witnesses. Now it's time to look at all of that and see if it supports the articles of impeachments.


Why do you ask? 

Because I was wondering why you didn't seem to know that there would be witnesses.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.17    one week ago
Always moving the goal posts.  

"If the existing case is strong, there's no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place"......Mitch McConnell

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.20  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    6 days ago

All of your last few posts,  which revolve around the idea that witnesses shouldnt be called because they didnt appear before the House, are just ... silly. 

If Trump had not gone to court to prevent White House people from testifying, the whole thing may have been over by now.  He doesnt want any of them testifying, which once again begs the question  - if Bolton or Mulvaney can demonstrate Trump's innocence, why isnt he begging for them to testify? That is what an innocent person would do in a heartbeat. 

Simply saying "the House missed its chance" is a non-response. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    6 days ago
If Trump had not gone to court to prevent White House people from testifying, the whole thing may have been over by now.  He doesnt want any of them testifying, which once again begs the question  -

The House could of waited for a court decision, but they didn't! Why not? What was the rush?


 if Bolton or Mulvaney can demonstrate Trump's innocence, why isnt he begging for them to testify?

Proving innocence?  What is this the Soviet Union?  How about proving guilt?


Simply saying "the House missed its chance" is a non-response. 

Oh, I'm afraid so. You wanted to impeach for 3 fucking years. You finally did it, now you got to prove your case!

 
 
 
squiggy
4  squiggy    one week ago

From the beginning, the House Ruse was assured of not getting 2/3 of the Senate to fall for firing Trump for anything it wanted to conjure. Any surprise today is a mark of ignorance.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    one week ago

So the right said that trump wasn't impeached because Pelosi didn't deliver the articles to the Senate. Ok, so what will be the excuse when they are delivered tomorrow or Thursday? Should be entertaining to watch the right twist itself into knots trying to come up with another reason why trump wasn't, 'really' impeached. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1  katrix  replied to  MrFrost @5    one week ago

There reason will simply be that to them, facts are useless, our Constitution is unimportant, oaths don't matter, and all that matters is what their emperor and their corrupt rulers in the GOP tell them to think.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  katrix @5.1    one week ago

The term, I believe is, "alternative facts", which is what is used when real facts prove them wrong. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1    one week ago

I'm surprised at you Kat.

Do you want a trial with witnesses?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.1    one week ago
The term, I believe is, "alternative facts",

The term is "blatant bias!"

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.3    one week ago

The term is "blatant bias!"

Blame Kellyanne Conway, she is the one that came up with it. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.5  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    one week ago

Of course I do. And I want the members of the House to honor their damn oaths. They're not there to defend the President, they are there to conduct a fair trial. All those people who Trump didn't allow to testify - get them in there.

Why would you be surprised that I want the truth? I'm not a partisan hack.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.5    one week ago
Of course I do.

Good.  Do both the House and Senate have the right to call witnesses?   

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.7  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.6    one week ago

They'd have to prove the material value of each witness, I would assume. Otherwise McConnell and Trump would turn it into a conspiracy theory shitshow. I want a fair trial that stays on topic. There would be no reason for Hunter Biden or Schiff to testify that I'm aware of. The Hunter Biden/Burisma conspiracy theory has already been debunked; fake news shouldn't be allowed to derail a trial.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @5.1.5    one week ago
they are there to conduct a fair trial. All those people who Trump didn't allow to testify - get them in there.

You mean like conducting a fair inquiry in the House...I mean...talk about being rigged and unfair.

The Dems don't want a fair trial, they want a conviction.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.7    one week ago

Then you want a biased one sided trial. The House, when it did it's investigating, refused all House Republican requests for witnesses. The Senate is run by Republicans and you think they are that dumb, that they will allow democrats to decide on witnesses?  

The Hunter Biden/Burisma conspiracy theory has already been debunked

What theory?  What was debunked?

Why was Hunter Biden hired? Why was a Ukrainian prosecutor fired?  Wasn't that what Trump wanted to know about?  Why is it off the table?  You said you were looking for the truth!


fake news shouldn't be allowed to derail a trial.

Nothing gets in the way of the progressive narrative?


The House wrote up two articles of impeachment. They are indefensible. 


 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.8    one week ago

The Dems don't want a fair trial, they want a conviction.

It's not the Dems that are insisting that the trial have no witnesses and no evidence. 

The repubs don't want a fair trial, they want an acquittal with no witnesses and no evidence and....no trial. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.11  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.9    one week ago
What theory?  What was debunked?

Go look it up. And not on fake news sites like Fox or Infowars.

Why was a Ukrainian prosecutor fired?

You can't be serious. After all this time, you aren't aware of the facts here? He was fired for not fighting corruption. Pretty much everyone but conspiracy theorists are well aware of these facts and the timelines surrounding the events.

Then you want a biased one sided trial. 

Nope. I want one that's on topic. Trump and the corrupt GOP folks like McConnell are trying to derail the trial by introducing conspiracy theories instead of facts. Since McConnell has already made it clear he's corrupt and will not be a fair juror, I don't understand why he isn't forced to recuse himself.

Wasn't that what Trump wanted to know about?

Nope, it's what he lied and claimed he wanted to know about. But from the testimony and documents, it's clear he had no interest in addressing corruption in the Ukraine (unlike Joe Biden, who got the prosecutor fired for not fighting corruption, in accordance with our government's official policy and that of other Western countries). Trump was trying to get a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election for his own personal gain.

If you truly think the Bidens did something wrong, then get the DOJ to investigate them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.11    one week ago
Go look it up.

Come on, you and I don't do that. You made the claim...show me!

You can't be serious.

Oh, but I am. 


He was fired for not fighting corruption.

So, Iv'e heard. I think that fact needs to be established in the trial. Let's settle that once and for all. Right?


 I don't understand why he isn't forced to recuse himself.

Would you prefer that all the Republicans recused themselves?    


 Trump was trying to get a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election for his own personal gain.

That's a matter of opinion. I think he was trying to get some confirmation that the Ukraine's former government was trying to interfere in the 2016 election. Can you blame him? Look at what has been done to the man for 3 years.


If you truly think the Bidens did something wrong, then get the DOJ to investigate them.

John Durham is already looking at it along with a multitude of other things.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.13  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.12    6 days ago
Would you prefer that all the Republicans recused themselves?

Nope, just the ones who have publicly announced that they will violate their oaths.

I think he was trying to get some confirmation that the Ukraine's former government was trying to interfere in the 2016 election

The Russians interfered. The Ukraine did not. It's just more fake news and conspiracy bullshit Trump uses to gaslight the gullible.

 Look at what has been done to the man for 3 years.

Nothing he hasn't brought on himself. Look what was done to Hillary with far less reason (other than the email server thing, which she brought on herself). And I'm no Hillary fan.

So, Iv'e heard. I think that fact needs to be established in the trial. Let's settle that once and for all. Right?

It has been established. The GOP is just trying to turn this into a trial of Biden instead of Trump, to confuse people.

So, Iv'e heard

You say "show me" and then you say you've heard. But clearly, you believe what Trump's toadies tell you instead.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1.14  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.10    6 days ago
It's not the Dems that are insisting that the trial have no witnesses and no evidence. 

The House inquiry and investigation had scads of witnesses and alleged evidence. On the very slim chance that Bolton or the others have some up to now hidden bombshell factoid, is the only reason the accusers want even more witnesses, documents, and hours and hours of more testimony. This shows that they don't think they have a case against Trump....which is true. The should vote to dismiss right off the bat....or, prolong this clown show up to and including the Iowa caucuses.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @5.1.13    6 days ago
The Russians interfered. The Ukraine did not.

I'm sure both did as well as China. Didn't the Ukrainian Ambassador to the US denounce Trump? You do recall the famous Politico article:   “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire?" In that investigative report we found out about Alexandra Chalupa:

"
Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.

In an interview this month, Chalupa told   Politico   she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well."

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446


It has been established.

Nope. Far from it. The fairness you want involves both sides being able to call witnesses. I prefer none. The Articles are such a sham!


You say "show me" and then you say you've heard. 

That's right because I wanted to go through it with you.


But clearly, you believe what Trump's toadies tell you instead.

I believe the impeachment was the democrats 2020 campaign, paid for by the American taxpayer!. The vote shall be Not Guilty. The President will be exonerated!

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.14    6 days ago
The House inquiry and investigation had scads of witnesses and alleged evidence.

That was not a trial and trump provided no evidence and blocked 12 people from testifying. Why? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7  Vic Eldred    one week ago

We should be having all the witnesses the House already had PLUS John Bolton, whom the House wants AND Hunter Biden & Adam Schiff that the Senate wants PLUS whoever the President wants.

Unlike the way the House did business

Jay Sekulow will be there to defend the President!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one week ago

As one of their consultants said the other day, Democrats don't actually want witnesses. They want to complain the trial was unfair.  Like everything else in Washington, it's about talking points, not actually accomplishing anything. 

The result will be the same either way, but if Dems get witnesses and still don't come close to removal (which will be the result either way) they lose their only talking point. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1    one week ago
They want to complain the trial was unfair.

Actually they have one last gambit to play. The results of the House investigation of the President do not support the two articles of impeachment they wrote up, which by the way are not crimes. They know the President as it stands will likely be found Not Guilty. What Schumer hopes to do is poke around a bit more and do a little more investigating in the hopes of uncovering something.

It's part of TDS. They believe that if they can only keep digging they will find something. 

That's why I was a bit unhappy with the 4 Republican Senators calling for witnesses. IMHO the House made it's case, let's vote on it. Bringing in more witnesses in a Pandora's box. Fortunately, there are two votes on witnesses. The first one limits it to those the House already called. The second allows for new witnesses.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1    one week ago
The result will be the same either way, but if Dems get witnesses and still don't come close to removal (which will be the result either way) they lose their only talking point. 

And Donald Trump will be exonerated!

Sen. Mitch McConnell: "The Speaker bragged that this President 'is impeached for life regardless of what the senate does' -- regardless of what the Senate does, as if the ultimate verdict were sort of an afterthought."

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one week ago
AND Hunter Biden & Adam Schiff

Why? Was Hunter Biden in on the call between trump and the Ukraine? And Adam Schiff? Why? Was he in on the call between trump and the Ukraine? Hey Vic? I'll give the right credit for convincing me to not vote for Hunter Biden in 2020. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7.2    one week ago
Why?

Fairness - Remember....It's what you say you want!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.2    6 days ago

Hunter Biden goes to Trump's motivation. His actions are directly relevant to Trump's defense.  We all know Biden was only given the job because of his last name, and the fact that his father was overseeing  America's Ukrainian policy at the same time he was taking millions for a job he was patently unqualified for creates a solid inference of corruption. Exposing such corruption is a valid use of Presidential power, even if the exposure also would benefit Trump politically. 

Trump is entitled to show Biden is corrupt and that  a solid basis in fact existed  to ask for an investigation. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    6 days ago

Neither of them have anything to do with trump's call to the Ukraine. They are nothing more than a rather poor attempt at distraction. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.3    6 days ago

If you want witnesses, Republicans get to call them too. That means Adam Schiff, Alexandra Chilupa, Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and maybe even Joe Biden.  I'm sure you don't like anyone of them being called. It's called fairness!

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2.2    6 days ago
Hunter Biden goes to Trump's motivation.

No, it actually makes him look even more guilty. If trump had an issue, he could have gone to our very own DOJ. That's what they are there for. But we all know why trump didn't go to the DOJ for this...

His actions are directly relevant to Trump's defense. 

It makes no difference at all if Hunter is guilty or not. He didn't hold a gun to trumps head and demand trump call the Ukraine, trump did that all on his own. You knew that all of this fake news about Hunter Biden happened almost 5 years ago, right? Why didn't trump go after this stuff when he took office? Why wait until just a week or two after Biden announced he is running for president? Oh wait, because he wanted to create doubt, just like he did with Hillary in 2016. It may have worked back then, but this time, he got caught. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.4    6 days ago
If you want witnesses, Republicans get to call them too.

Um, yes, we know that. Relevant witnesses should be called. Hunter Biden literally has NOTHING to do with trumps actions. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.6    6 days ago
Relevant witnesses should be called.

This is the Senate now. You guys got to determine what relevant was during the House kangaroo court. Now you are in the minority. You were hard rulers. You deserve the same.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.5    6 days ago
No, it actually makes him look even more guilty. If tru

Biden being corrupt makes Trump look even more guilty? UMMM okay.  Might want to think that through.  What would make Trump look guilty is asking for an investigation into something without a plausible basis, like asking Ukraine  for an investigation into Elizabeth Warren's house flipping.

e could have gone to our very own DOJ

He asked Ukraine to coordinate with our very own DOJ. Strike 2. 

It makes no difference at all if Hunter is guilty or not

Hunter's corruption makes all the difference in the world. I'm sorry you are unable to see that. 

ou knew that all of this fake news about Hunter Biden happened almost 5 years ago, righ

What fake news? Good luck arguing he would have gotten that job if his name was Ted Smith with a firefighter for a father. Please tell me you aren't going to try and argue that. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




31 visitors