I love when you guys pat each other on the back. Very cute.

No props for Relativist? He’s the only one making coherent arguments. If you need someone to copy and paste articles you can find that on Twitter.

Would you care to place a small wager on whether or not Bolton's book, and or his testimony, will be consistent with this reporting?

Be careful. They say this is based on multiple sources, and Bolton's attorney has essentially acknowledged it.

As I often say when debating Christians: faith is an obstacle to truth.

No wagers from me. What I would question is the editorializing and lack of direct quotes of the manuscript itself. It takes faith to trust in a 3rd-hand account of someone’s book.

The NYT publishes rumor as written by a go-to journalist for the DNC. Consider me shocked.

Right... So that constitutes control and power over the structures doesn't it. That they can vote people into positions of control, based on their intentions to exercise such control, constitutes de facto control.

Let’s say you and I team up to affect democracy and the rule of law. Since we have de facto control over both, how would you and I go about doing that?

What barriers are in the way then? Voting in an election couldn't be easier really. Standing for election is slightly harder but still no more so than the average business career.

Voting is one thing, but to “simply elect someone” is quite another. You can’t “simply elect” your neighbor for instance.

The private citizen elects the state in almost full knowledge of their intentions. How is that not power to affect such structures?

I’m only saying the private citizen has no control or power over the structures. In order to affect those structures they must vote people into those positions. I’m not saying they cannot vote people into those positions.

The word “process” is a noun, but it is series of actions. These actions are reified into a noun. For instance the word “jog” can be used as a noun. “I went for a jog”. But is a jog a thing? I think the grammar leads to confusions and unnecessary reifications.

. This is clearly not true because if private citizens wanted to make such a purchase, they would simply elect someone (or themselves stand for office) such as to make such an opportunity available.

That’s clearly not true because it is not easy for any one private citizen to get someone elected or to get elected himself.

Only the state has the power to usurp ideals like democracy and the rule of law because they are in direct control of, and in power over, the structures of democracy and the rule of law. The private citizen has no such power.

The categorical distinction is beside the point. I'm not denying the it is possible to classify people on the basis of their job, but your categories are not mutually exclusive. The point is that those who are in positions of power are drawn from, and maintained in those position by, private citizens, so saying that power structures are not made by private citizens simply because they cease to be labelled as such when they are thus enabled is tautologous.

I’m mostly speaking about the positions and structures and not necessarily the various people who occupy them. Anyone who occupies those positions are bestowed a power not available to those who don’t.

I think he might mean that “life” and “consciousness” should not be nouns because they aren’t persons, places and things. I don’t think it is beyond reason to suspect the grammar itself could lead to strange theories and conclusions, for instance vitalism.

Are you suggesting private citizens are barred from being public officials?

In English we differentiate between those who hold official power conferred by the state—judges, bureaucrats, police etc.—and those who don’t by using those phrases.

Let them eat cake.

The legislature and enforcement bodies are constituted of private citizens and in most modern cases the rule makers are elected by private citizens in at least partial knowledge of exactly what they intend to do, so I'm not sure (apart from historically) what point you're making.

One becomes a public official when he is in a position of official authority conferred by a state. A private citizen has no such power. I’m saying the wealthy are the latter not the former; and it is the former who are usurping ideals like democracy and the rule of law.

Good explanation. It is a horrible idea. One can be technically wealthy but effectively poor and your farmer example is a good one.

I feel the same way about any inheritance tax. There is actually a homeless guy in my town who recently became very wealthy when his grandmother passed away. The point is not every wealthy person was born in the lap of luxury and privilege.

I don’t like taxation at all but any “tax the wealthy” proposal reeks of envy and animus.

You're thinking too simplistically in terms of buying influence with direct payments. This is only a tiny fraction of the mean by which money can buy influence.

Tax breaks for the wealthy, for example, are rarely just 'bought'. They're part of a package in right-wing governments which also includes populist legislation. Control of what constitutes popular opinion is disproportionately held by the wealthy.

I’m just writing simplistically. My point is that if the State or King never made these advantages available in the first place, others would be unable to acquire them. In this sense it isn’t the private citizen who usurps democracy or the rule of law, it is whomever legislates and enforces it. The result is a two-tiered justice system, rigged elections, unequal application of law and so on.

We tend to blame the those at the upper echelons of the private sphere for having the means to acquire power through purchasing advantage. I think this is the wrong approach because the vast majority of us operate in the same private sphere. The rich, like the poor, are private citizens.

Private citizens, rich and poor, would not purchase power or advantage if there wasn’t first someone selling it. Wherever there are those that legislate and administer the law lies the problem.

Too vague to be considered a rebuttal. Your rebuttal doesn't address the specific facts in my fact check. To continue the discussion, please address the specific facts in my fact check.

Also: Again: What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements? Do you trust Trump?

You don’t even know your own “fact checks”. Sorry, pal, but this isn’t going to work.

If you had read my fact check, above, you would know. Go ahead and give it a read.

I already did, hence my rebuttal. I just want to see if you know your own “fact checks”.

Vague, unsupported opining.

You are unable to even name the persons who said otherwise. Give it a shot.

It's above, in my fact check.

Your fact check is wrong.

So-and-so say it's so. So-and-so say it's not. So it's arguable. But you've made up your mind. Because you're a fanatic and have an emotional weakness for Trump. You're infatuated, in a word.

Who says it’s not? Because they address that as well. Of course you’d have known this had you watched the arguments.

You’re being misled to believe piffle, friend. Go watch the arguments and try coming to your own conclusions.

Rather, psychology 101.

Spin and nonsense 101.

Reference please.

Purpura‘s arguments lay it all out, and includes videos of each of those men saying so. But you would have known that had you watched it.

Again, I won't try to convince you.

Trump is a well-documented liar. You don't seem to care. That's on you. Ukraine had every motivation to lie and no motivation to tell the truth.

History is the tale of politicians telling lies.

So much for facts.

I'm not going to try to convince you. See my fact check, above. Make up your own mind.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

Because your claims are unconvincing.

The transcript (which the White House said is not verbatim) shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. (Misleading, especially in the context of ensuing testimony. Noted in my fact check above.)

Then where in the transcript did he condition security assistance or a meeting on anything? Testimony from the only people who spoke to Trump proves the opposite.

Ukrainians have said there was no quid pro quo.(Maybe true, but they have every motivation to lie about this. For reasons I would assume are obvious: Self-preservation, in a word.)

Presumption and mind-reading. Both the president’s and Ukrainian’s words tell the opposite story.

Ukraine did not know security assistance was paused until a month after the 25 July call. (False. See Fact Check above.)

Testimony from Volker, Morrison, Kent and Taylor say otherwise. All four testified that it was only after an August 29th Politico article (which was forwarded by the Ukrainians with their concerns) that they knew about it. During July there was numerous meetings between Ukrainian and American officials, and during exactly zero of those meetings was the topic of frozen aid brought up. The fact check isn’t a fact check at all. You’re being misled.

No Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden took place.(Because of the whistleblower. Trump and Co. got caught.)

Speculation and conspiracy theorizing.

Trump has been a bigger supporter of Ukraine than his predecessor, Barack Obama.(Irrelevant.)

Except in the context of the House’s claims to the opposite, it is completely relevant.

So much for facts.

This isn't about mustering thoughts. That's called spin.

This is about facts.

Many facts were presented. Do you dispute any of them?

I doubt I'll hear anything Fox News hasn't presented as decimating the Democrat's case.

When you want to try mustering you’re own thoughts on the arguments presented I’ll be here.

Not yet.

If you have a compelling fact to present, I'm all ears. I'm a huge fan of facts and my mind can be changed.

Then let me know when you do and we could discuss it. Until then...

Unsupported broadbush opining. Facts, please.

You should watch the entirety of the arguments. But you admitted you haven’t.

I caught the first lie ("Republicans were locked out...") on the way to work. Noted above in the fact check. I'll catch the rest over the next few days.

Unfortunately that “fact check” completely mischaracterized Philbin’s argument and left most if it out.

Did you not watch the defense’s case?

Well, after the Whitehouse counsel’s dismantling of the House’s case, let’s watch the spin shall we?

On the other hand, he's probably the only one of us making any money. :cry:

I’m retired. Money is already earned, friend. Unfortunately that’s something they won’t teach you in certain circles. :wink:

Have you read the Horowitz report?

Wikipedia:

Second, the memo alleges that the FISA application relied "extensively" on a Yahoo! News report from September 2016 by Michael Isikoff, which referenced Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow and used information from Steele.[32] It asserts that the article was "derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News." Isikoff has stated that the information he got from Steele was actually information that the FBI already had. He also described Steele as serious and credible.[32]

Horowitz Report

On September 23, 2016, Yahoo News published an article entitled, "U.S.
Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Advisor and Kremlin." The September 23 article described efforts by U.S. government intelligence agencies to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. Steele told us that because his briefing with Yahoo News was "off-the-record," he did not believe that he was the source for the article. He stated that it was his understanding based on discussions with Simpson that the sourcing for the article came from within the U.S. government. However, portions of the article align with information contained in Steele's Report. For example. The article stated that U.S. officials had received intelligence reporting that Page had met with Igor Sechin, Chairman of Rosneft, and Igor Divyekin, Deputy Chief in the Russian Presidential Administration. The article cited "a well-placed Western intelligence source" for this information, and the article's author has confirmed that Steele contributed information for the article and that Steele was the "Western intelligence source."

Wikipedia

Third, the memo accuses Steele of being biased against the candidacy of Donald Trump, stating he was "desperate" and "passionate" that Trump would lose. It goes on to say Bruce Ohr knew about this bias and that it was not reflected in the FISA applications.[27][33] Ohr however did not work on counter intelligence matters and had no role in obtaining the FISA warrants on Page.

Horowitz Report

Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, which was conducted 2 months after the final Carter Page FISA renewal application was submitted to the court, also revealed bias against Trump. According to the FBI FD-302 of the interview, Steele and his business colleague described Trump as their "main opponent" and said that they were "fearful" about the negative impact of the Trump presidency on the relationship between the United States and United Kingdom. The Supervisory Intel Analyst stated that he viewed Steele's description of Trump as the "main opponent" as an expression of "clear bias." Steele told us that he did not begin his investigation with any bias against Trump, but based on the information he learned during the investigation became very concerned about the consequences of a Trump presidency.

...

In addition, as we also discuss in Chapter Eight, Renewal Application No. 1 and the subsequent renewal applications did not describe information that the FBI obtained from Department attorney Bruce Ohr regarding Steele's possible motivations and bias.

Wikipedia

The report found that the FBI had a legal "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication" to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser."

Horowitz Report

We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.

Your bolds are fake news—lies—because that phrase applies to Crossfire Hurricane, not the surveillance of carter page. But you would have known that had you read the report instead of Wikipedia.

OK, here's an analogy then, tell me what's wrong with it. The police show up at your door and ask to search your house for evidence of a crime. You refuse them, and send them away because they have no legal warrant. They return later with a proper warrant, but you refuse again, saying that the warrant is invalid because they came first without a warrant.

It’s not analogous, is what’s wrong with it.

When you step out of your madness I’ll be here for you.

Schiff is simply an honest man. Everything you’re saying is a product of the trump world disinformation engine.

Say what you want. I’ll still be here defending you from the snakes, even if you lay with them.

Kompromat is Russian for compromising material, and in this case it contained nude photos. He wanted it to go not only to the FBI, but also the intel committee and his staff, where it would be undoubtedly leaked.

But my point is that Schiff isn’t only a liar but a dupe, and those who believe him are also dupes.

He also believed in and defended the dodgy dossier, which was actual political dirt payed for by the DNC and sourced from Russian intelligence.



He also misled the public about the FISA warrants both with his intelligence memo and his lying mouth.



As we now know from the IG report the Nunes memo was proven to be largely correct and the Schiff memo riddled with falsities. How can two people look at the same evidence and come with two, drastically different conclusions?

Mr. Schiff had access to the same documents as Mr. Nunes. His decision to misrepresent the FBI’s actions shows he is willing to distort the truth for political purposes. He gets away with this because he has a willing echo chamber in the Washington press corps.

But at the time Schiff and his media crooks panned the Nunes memo as a a joke and a sham, fake, or that it makes no sense.

And now we get to watch as these same dupes, the same media, follow Schiff’s every breathless word as if he was the pied piper.

My ignorance is capacious, and contains multitudes. But you call Schiff a hypocrite and a liar. What lie? What hypocrisy? And if truly irrelevant for your purposes, then step away, before I find myself compelled to remark on the brand of combat boots your mother wears. Which is the trouble with irrelevancies: they tend to explode arguments. Is that your purpose, to explode any discussion of any faults of your favourite?

That’s the convenience of coming into an argument late or otherwise sniping from the sidelines: you can ask questions that were already asked and answered in the vain hope I that I might reiterate them for you, then feign innocence when I do so. Luckily it is all in the database for everyone to see.