I'm not assuming anything. I'm only telling you your arguments don't work.

That’s false. You’ve begged the question in all of your false analogies. Not only that but the argument that Trump pressured Zelensky is entirely relevant. In fact it’s one of the premises of the House managers.

Now you're just repeating yourself. Cute but not an argument. Trump's comments on the matter are even less relevant and he certainly cannot testify as to the mindset of others.

"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"

You just assume that Trump pressured Zelensky. All parties involved say the opposite. So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? Or are you question begging?

Retreat into your equations all you want. You’re assuming Trump pressured Zelensky without being able to prove it. All parties involved say there was no pressure.

Irrelevant. A defrauder isn't excused merely because his attempt at fraud fails.

Begging the question. Unless you can point to some other reason, the mere accusation of Schiff’s that Trump pressured Zelensky is all you have.

Distraction. It is not the reason Trump pressured Ukraine.

There was no pressure according to Ukrainian president and other officials.

Don’t take my word for it.

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

I accept that. That’s at least fair. But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken?

Either way, this is the politics of words. Anyone can talk. Any trained actor can read a script or recite a list of facts. But I think we’re done hiring people who can only talk and sing lullabies to their electorate. Those days are over.

Pam Bondi’s case against Hunter, complete with documents and congressional testimony, was pretty damning. I wouldn’t mind hearing the house Manager’s rebuttal, however,

Trump’s personal lawyer continues: House managers claim Biden story is “debunked”, “discredited”, even though the issue has never been investigated.

There has been zero investigations into Biden’s conflict of interest to this day.

Biden’s conflict of interest was brought up to Biden’s office by George Kent, according to Kent’s testimony to Congress.

According to documents presented to the senate Burisma payed Hunter Biden $83,333 a month without experience in natural gas, the energy sector, and without being able to speak Ukrainian.

Your speculation is modeled on a biased framework.

It’s a shame I don’t respect your opinions. I suspect them.

When it suits your lights it's fine to speculate about intention.

Check your bias.

I’m clearly speculating and not pretending otherwise.

Pam Bondi is now laying out the case against the Bidens in front of the senate. This is getting good.

He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.

I’m not convinced. The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with.

It's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting Parnas, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."

In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?

That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Me:

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive.

You:

A ridiculous statement.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Ridiculous.

Merriam-Webster:

lie noun (2)
\ ˈlī \
Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
the lies we tell ourselves to feel better
historical records containing numerous lies
2 : something that misleads or deceives

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.

Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.

He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.

The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. Maybe you can remember every name and every conversation you had wit people in 2018, but I wager Trump has had many more conversations and with many more people than you have. Yovanovitch was fired over a year after the Parnas conversation. During this time many allegations against Yovanovitch, whether true or false, were raised by former Ukrainian prosecutors.

I agree with Clinton on this one. His personal sex life should not have been aired in public. Privacy is important, even for the most public of figures.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said. But I wouldn’t accuse you of lying for doing so. Sure, you could be lying, acting in bad faith and harbor malicious intent for your sophistry, but for all I know you might have misread or simply do not understand the premise. This is because only you know your motives, only you know whether you are intending to deceive others, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than resort to pretending that I can be sure of your motives.

I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.

But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. But given that knowledge of those intentions are completely absent from our knowledge, the use of the term “lies” is itself a mistruth or falsity. Add on that the claim that the “lie” is “factually verifiable”, implying you do know the intention as a matter of fact, we have two mistruths and falsities in your use of the phrase “factually verifiable lies”.

I could be equally as critical of you as Trump’s critics are of his bluster, hyperbole and falsities, but then again I don’t really care to hold others to inhuman standards.

Kenneth's history lesson...well, 22 hours to go. :yawn:

At least the last presidential impeachment had the added bonus of sordid details and sexual deviancy.

The Senate trial begins for the day. The defense has 22 hours remaining to make their case.



Kenneth Starr of Clinton impeachment fame begins first.

Just when it's the democrat politicians lying, it's an outrage and shows their twisted ways...

Hah. To be fair lying in congressional hearings and senate trials is a big deal.

Always a convenient end-stop slogan for the infatuated.

What? No article to tell you how to respond?

The debate will continue after you've addressed the research from the Brookings Institute, referenced above.

What’s to debate? Correlation does not imply causation.

Trump’s words are so powerful he can manipulate matter. You believe in sorcery, friend.

Trumps words damage lives. That’s not the first stupid thing I’ve heard today, but pretty close.

Still waiting for an answer to this one...

No, not really. Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results.

You don't seem to know what this word means.

The words people say certainly tell us something about the people who say them. Do you dispute this fact?

I do not dispute that.

Quite a bit. But I've insulted you enough. I'll keep it to myself.

One thing I will mention: It means you value hilarity over veracity. That's just childish.

I’m not insulted at all. I love hearing people try to psychoanalyze others from afar. They insult themselves.

So you find nothing at all objectionable in his habit of making false and misleading statements?

I prefer the little falsities and misleading statements to the Big Lie of public relations politics. I like to know what my leaders are thinking, whether true or false.

Well. That tells us a lot about you as a person.

What does it tell you about me as a person?

Good to know.

So I'll ask you again: What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of making false and misleading statements?

Do you trust Trump?

I don’t trust politicians as a matter of principle. As long as what Trump says is interesting and hilarious I’m fine with it. So no I do not trust Trump but I do like what he says.

Then you must be in support of inviting witnesses - Bolton and Mulvaney, for starters - to testify. Do you support the call for witnesses?

I do, yes. I don’t trust the GOP and do not understand why the McConnell does not want witnesses. A long senate trial effectively removes Warren, Klobechar and Sanders from the campaign trail.

They may be right (it's up to the philosophers to decide that), but oh, how sweet this navel-gazing is.

If they only knew. It should be a part of early childhood education.

Navel-gazing, time wasted.

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.