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.

It's the simultaneous doubt about and certain knowledge of the existence of our minds that's the problem. Using the cogito ergo sum argument everyone's existence is certain but solipsism would have the existence of everyone in doubt. We can actually use the cogito ergo sum argument against solipsism by saying that because everyone doubts the existence of others, a doubter, obviously a thinker/I exists in everyone.

The problem begins when one identifies with this “thinker” and nothing else. Doing so one has no choice to believe in solipsism as a logical conclusion because the body is a sort of buffer or shroud that exists between him and the rest of reality. So, despite all evidence to the contrary, he believes himself to be not unlike a little man in his own head observing the Cartesian theater. We need not prove these little men, these “thinkers” and “doubters”, and leave solipsists to their own devices.

That remains to be demonstrated. but to adduce it here - true or not, even without respect of circumstance or anything else - is just the fallacy of the tu quoque argument, the "you too." It's as if to say that all of your arguments depend on whether or not you're a dick. Hmm, of some merit in this latter case.

I have never said anywhere nor even implied that Schiff’s hypocrisy makes his arguments regarding Trump false or flawed, not have I ever used Schiff’s hypocrisy to evade his arguments in impeachment. Actually the opposite is the case. Further my point about Schiff’s hypocrisy was in the context of describing Schiff’s lying mouth, not to defend Trump or impeachment. So your ignorance around the fallacy is only superseded by your ignorance in general.

It’s not exculpatory. All I’m saying is Schiff engaged in the activities he accuses of others.

Trump was trying to manufacture dirt by way of a public statement from Ukraine's president.

Creating fictitious dirt isnt a new activity in American politics. Its just been so long ago that it happened that we're all aghast.

That's the argument. But no evidence points to any mens rea. Given that no public statement of that nature occurred, that no investigations against political opponents were started, that no such "dirt" was produced, that no statement from Trump proves his desires to do this, and that Trump has taken issues with corruption in Ukraine going back to 2017, proving a guilty mind or intent to produce political dirt for the purposes of influencing an election is nearly impossible. Given this, we can say that this assumption is fabricated from thin air.

You either don't understand whataboutism or you're running on emotional fumes.

Instead of addressing the facts of the case (Trump's impeachment) you've accused Schiff of hypocrisy.

That's exactly whataboutism.

I merely showed that Schiff sought Russian political dirt on his opponent. I did so after spending countless pages addressing the case and refuting Schiff’s arguments.

When I presented Schiff’s hypocrisy you said “Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies.”, presumably to discredit my argument.

Is that not whataboutism?

You look it up. I have not charged you with hypocrisy to discredit your position. Another lie.

Directing your interlocutor from the facts of the case to the personalities presenting the facts is whataboutism par excellence.


"Trump committed act X."

"What about Schiff?"

I never said that. Another lie. Trump never did what Schiff did.

This impeachment isn't about Schiff. It's about the facts.

Like every politician, Schiff is a hypocrite. So was Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and respective meinies. Does that mean Trump is above the law?

That’s whataboutism, a logical fallacy.

Schiff is the prosecution and he is lying in order to impeach a president. He lied to Congress with his “parody”. He lied about his ties to the whistleblower. He’s lying that Trump is “corruptly” doing this or that,

Yeah, I've seen it. It's troublesome.

It's also whataboutism. A logical fallacy.

It’s not whataboutism to point out Schiff’s hypocrisy.

I don't believe you.

I don’t care.

Here’s Schiff being duped by Ukrainians into wanting nude pictures of Trump—political dirt.

Parroting involves repeating transfactual, emotion-laden statements popularized by the mass media - in your case Fox News.

Let me know when you can muster your own thought. I don’t watch Fox News; you do.

Please provide details and source material to support this accusation.

“Proving the double standard about withholding aid...is the easy part.”

Can you provide a reference detailing the scope and substance of "Schiff's lies?"

His question begging, for one.

His lie that his committee had no contact with the whistleblower.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/schiffs-false-claim-his-committee-had-not-spoken-whistleblower/

His lies about Parnas

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/schiff-parnas-trump-evidence-101832

His lie about the Trump’s phone call is the obvious one.

Here you go, padding your thought with the thought of someone else’s, like a good parrot. And cherry picking too.

is Pro-Trump sophistry somehow exempt of hysteria?

I’m not sure how sophistry can have hysteria.

Fat chance of that. The defense will willfully eschew direct confrontation with the facts. Expect a cocktail of Kavanoise and whataboutism.

Proving the double standard about withholding aid and stonewalling congress is the easy part. There is video of everyone, both republican and Democrat, saying the exact opposite of what they say now. It will also be easy pointing out Schiff’s lies and sophistry given the documented evidence of them.