If it’s misinformation it should be easy to refute — NOS4A2

You're an idiot. There are a whole slew of claims that are known to be false but cannot be falsified. Knowing that allows us to also know that not all false claims can be falsified. Misinformation is not always false or falsifiable. Sometimes it can be true but irrelevant...

In any case... you're an idiot for suggesting that misinformation can be easily refuted.

Focus on the relevant facts.

“ However, Mueller did not allege any crimes directly connecting the two — that is, that Trump advisers criminally conspired with Russian officials to impact the election.

Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — also did not result in any charges.” — NOS4A2

Yet another prima facie example of misinformation...

The Mueller investigation would not charge anyone with anything. It was not in the purview. They did however find adequate evidence to warrant subsequent measures by the appropriate officials on several fronts, including obstruction by the president as well as cooperation of Trump family members and friends with foreign(enemy) entities for the expressed written purpose of gaining political advantage over a political opponent...

There's that pattern behaviour again...

Yeah. So you can just fuck off.

What if the impeachment inquiry was unfair and unjust, violating due process and the constitution? — NOS4A2

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.

Complaining about fairness in this process seems similar to complaining that a participant in a street fight isn't following the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. But lets consider it anyway. Is it fair for a President to block access to witnesses and documents by asserting executive privilege (and remember, that's the context we're discussing); it's contrary to the rules for discovery in standard cases. That "unfairness" is balanced against the "unfairness" of Congress' powers.

Besides that, there is no such thing as due process in the grand jury process that leads to an indictment. An impeachment is analogous to an indictment. The President is being granted all traditional due process rights in the Senate Trial, so current Republican complaints about that are unwarranted.

You're an idiot. There are a whole slew of claims that are known to be false but cannot be falsified. Knowing that allows us to also know that not all false claims can be falsified. Misinformation is not always false or falsifiable. Sometimes it can be true but irrelevant...

In any case... you're an idiot for suggesting that misinformation can be easily refuted.

Focus on the relevant facts.

I presented the relevant facts and you evaded them, even now. I’m easily refuting you’re misinformation as we speak.

Yeah. So you can just fuck off.

So touchy, probably because even you know your misinformation is bunk.

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.

Complaining about fairness in this process seems similar to complaining that a participant in a street fight isn't following the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. But lets consider it anyway. Is it fair for a President to block access to witnesses and documents by asserting executive privilege (and remember, that's the context we're discussing); it's contrary to the rules for discovery in standard cases. That "unfairness" is balanced against the "unfairness" of Congress' powers.

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent.

The fact that due process does not apply is not a good enough reason to avoid giving due process and applying justice. And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate.

Yeah. So you can just fuck off.

So touchy, probably because even you know your misinformation is bunk. — NOS4A2

Awww...

...and you're cute too? Make my heart flutter.

That's not me being touchy. That's me being frank.

Now you're mimicking yet another common behavioural pattern of those who offer Trumpian apologetics. The application of a double standard.

the case is already doomed in the senate. — NOS4A2

The case is "doomed in the [Senate]" because McConnell is happy to subvert his oath to be an impartial juror. He said it himself: "I'm not an impartial juror."

There is more than enough adequate evidence for us to confidently conclude that Trump has acted and continues to act deliberately to the following end... stop any and all the investigations that he doesn't like.

If that does not count as adequate evidence to warrant charges and/or conclude the president is guilty of obstruction of congress, then nothing can.

It is that simple people.

There's another well established and readily verifiable pattern of Trump's behaviour that can be established. Strong arm tactics. Look at the suits he has filed, look at the agreements made, with and against people legally forbidding them to tell the truth.

A notable local reporter did a simple rough financial analysis of the Taj, saying that it is basically doomed to fail; that someone somewhere did not do the math. He did so quite publicly, and was quickly threatening with legal suit if he did not redress, apologize, and rescind... or something along those lines.

That guy was telling the truth.

He said it himself: "I'm not an impartial juror." — ZzzoneiroCosm

Really?

:yikes:

No. Surely not.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/17/sen-mitch-mcconnell-im-not-an-impartial-juror-sot-vpx.cnn

Did not work for me. No video. No audio.

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?

The case is "doomed in the [Senate]" because McConnell is happy to subvert his oath to be an impartial juror. He said it himself: "I'm not an impartial juror."

It’s doomed because the case is wholly inadequate, without evidence, and mostly fabricated by those who know they cannot win in the next election.

It’s doomed because the case is (1) inadequate, (2) without evidence, and (3) mostly fabricated by (4) those who know they cannot win in the next election. — NOS4A2

Four parts: An opinion, two lies and an opinion.

Fox News is looking for new recruits. Time to cash in on your parrot-mind.

Yes, he said it. That was a video of him saying it. Let me try again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfvle0OdlgM

Give us another CNN and Vox link.

Give us another CNN... link. — NOS4A2

Is it your position that it's fine and dandy for McConnell to set impartiality aside for this trial? Any concerns with the precedent this sets?

Try to respond without resorting to puerile whataboutism.

It ought not be possible for that to be the case.

Wow. Talk about unabashed dereliction of sworn duty...

:confused:

Justice Roberts better do his job here. That juror(Mr. McConnell) must be removed. He ought be compelled to recuse himself, at the very least. Anyone else who so believes that they cannot be an impartial juror. Fer fuck's sake, this is perhaps the most important of all responsibilities bestowed upon the members of the Senate. It is one that only they hold... only they wield... they must be able to honor and execute their responsibilities; their sworn duty.

Cannot take them at the word... can we?

:brow:

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. — NOS4A2

Can you explain this better? Are you saying that the House (as an entity) must pass judgement on impeachment, before any request for evidence is valid?

He's repeating the apologists procedural argument.

Isn't it the case, that when the House (as an entity) decided to begin impeachment proceedings, demands for evidence were valid?

Justice Roberts better do his job here. That juror(Mr. McConnell) must be removed. He ought be compelled to recuse himself, at the very least. Anyone else who so believes that they cannot be an impartial juror. Fer fuck's sake, this is perhaps the most important of all responsibilities bestowed upon the members of the Senate. — creativesoul

I'm telling you they don't care. They have Fox News and Facebook buttressing a rightist simulacra (a la Baudrillard) and they're just fucking going for it: Foisting a universe of alt-facts on the millions of dumbed-down a-historisic gullibles disgracing the Union. All the prep-work is done: The US broadly is dumb as fuck and gullible as fuck and Facebook has asceneded to the simulacric lodelight.

Adam Curtis describes the Russia of the late 20th Century as undergoing a similar devolution in the documentary film Hypernormalisation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM

Isn't it the case, that when the House (as an entity) decided to begin impeachment proceedings, demands for evidence were valid? — Metaphysician Undercover

He... and the defense are trying to import civil rules to this... not civil case.

There is no excuse for failing to honor a subpoena to testify as a witness on these matters of such national importance.

The relevant precedent(regarding the first article) is found during the Nixon administration. Trump has openly admitted to soliciting a foreign government to conduct an investigation on an American citizen, and he did so while refusing to follow the advice of the head of national security counsel. That American citizen just also happens to be a political opponent of Trump. Trump actually hired an outside counsel to publicly speak and/or act on his behalf about Ukrainian matters, long before this became public and people began resigning and whistle-blowing.

Trump got his side of the story out first.

There are several key witnesses all of whom had conversations with Trump and/or each other and all of their stories corroborated. Trump said "No quid pro quo" while continuing to hold back the funds and continuing to make a concerted attempt for Ukraine to do what Trump wanted, which - in and of itself - was for the Ukrainian government to interfere with an American presidential candidates life during election season.

That investigation has been performed and closed by the appropriate American institutions.

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent. — NOS4A2

By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional.

The fact that due process does not apply is not a good enough reason to avoid giving due process and applying justice. And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate.

When you say it's "not a good enough reason" - are you again talking about fairness? Fairness and constitutionality are two different things, and it seems to me you resort to Constitutionality when it helps your case (defending Trump's expansive use of executive privilege - clearly going beyond past boundaries, ignoring its unfairness), and then shift over to fairness when Constitutionality doesn't give you what you want. What could be more partisan than that?

I'm telling you they don't care. They have Fox News and Facebook buttressing a rightist simulacra (a la Baudrillard) and they're just fucking going for it: Foisting a universe of alt-facts on the millions of dumbed-down a-historisic gullibles disgracing the Union. All the prep-work is done: The US broadly is dumb as fuck and gullible as fuck and Facebook has asceneded to the simulacric lodelight. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I like to think that this very situation will cause change in the right direction...

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent.
— NOS4A2
By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional. — Relativist

Unfortunately they can and do... and in doing so convince some who do not know better.

I asked NOS4A2 why the request for documents was deemed invalid.

The demands for document were deemed 'invalid' by Trump and his flunkies on spurious grounds and his refusal to provide them is one of the two charges against him. All of the demands of the Impeachment enquiry were well-gounded in fact and law, questioning that is just another red herring and smokescreen.

The Republican Senate members have a leader who is - by any and all reasonable accounts - siding with the defense(holding the same position as the president) and was prior to the start of the trial in which he has sworn an oath...

...to be an impartial juror during an impeachment trial.

That is itself a dereliction of duty. HE ought be removed. He is admittedly unfit - unable - to successfully execute his responsibility in this situation as it is clearly demarcated in the Constitution.

HE ought be removed. — creativesoul

I'm sure the Senate Ethics Committee will get right on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress

The Republican Senate members have a leader who is - by any and all reasonable accounts - siding with the defense(holding the same position as the president) and was prior to the start of the trial in which he has sworn an oath...

...to be an impartial juror during an impeachment trial. — creativesoul

This ain't news, Creative, McConnell himself said on live TV that there is zero chance of Trump being convicted and it's why the accepted wisdom is, no matter how damning the facts, Trump will be acquitted in the Senate. I'm still holding out hope that something so outlandish will surface that it undermines this outcome, but nobody thinks it likely.