1. #12221
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.
    Not really. There was no evidence of wrongdoing with Benghazi, but there was PLENTY of wrongdoing with Trump and Russia, that is why so many Trump surrogates and campaign members went to jail.

  2. #12222
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.
    Except the Democrats haven't opened 6 taxpayer funded, Democrat run, investigations into the same thing in the hopes of finding something.

    Mueller, a non-Democrat and non-member of Congress, led that primary investigation, and House Democrats haven't seemed particularly interested in re-hashing it. They're investigating related matters, but that's neither the focus of their efforts nor are they specifically re-hashing the Mueller investigation.

    What's so similar about the two in your eyes?

  3. #12223
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.
    How are they similar in any way?

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  4. #12224
    Quote Originally Posted by Dontrike View Post
    How are they similar in any way?
    He thinks they didn't find anything with the Mueller investigation. It is only that way if you ignore the 2 instances of collusion in the report, and the 10 instances of obstruction that he outlined.

  5. #12225
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    No, because those are opinions that didn't matter. Nothing came of the calls from some Democrats to impeach Trump.
    Except cheers when after years they finally impeached him. They tried year after year. I like how you guys are sugar coating impeachment that they tried for years. I guess The democratic senators who have not heard the trial yet and are saying they will vote to impeach are opinions too. So many hypocrites. You can pretend they did not say it, but what is the difference between democratic senators who have not seen allt he evidence saying they will impeach versus the republican senators saying they will not. Not a damn thing, you guys are just hypocrites.

  6. #12226
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    What's so similar about the two in your eyes?
    I guess it's just how we can't all move on from the investigations' conclusions. When the Benghazi report was released and it was all over, I just accepted that the system had worked. Sure, there's plenty of unflattering stuff in the report, but the ordeal is concluded. To this day there are still Republicans saying she should have been nailed to the wall. And they're entitled to that opinion, not speaking for or against it. But me? Just moved on, same as Comey as I read his exoneration of Clinton's emails, on lunch break at an Irvine data center. "Whelp, that's the way it is."

    But you see the same sort of reaction from Democrats in Trump/Russia. The investigation concluded by one of our best, and the system worked. Luckily, Trump and his campaign were not found to have "conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" in the report, but that hasn't stopped his critics. He was too slippery for Mueller, it actually happened just not enough, and on and on. This refusal to just admit that if there was something damning, it would get brought to light, same as Watergate, same as Monica Lewinksy. The system investigated and these were the results.

    But when you look at Republicans and Democrats, as much as it pains people to hear it, they can be very much alike.

  7. #12227
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Except cheers when after years they finally impeached him. They tried year after year.
    If you're talking about the moment of celebration, Pelosi warned them against that and put an immediate stop to it after it started.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    I like how you guys are sugar coating impeachment that they tried for years.
    They didn't. Isolated Democrats did, but there was never a lick of support writ-large for any of them. And again, if what you say is true then why weren't the articles voted on in January back when the Democrats took the House? Why wait until November?

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    I guess The democratic senators who have not heard the trial yet and are saying they will vote to impeach are opinions too.
    I disagree with them, actually. I don't think any Senator should make up their mind until the trial, on either side of the isle.

  8. #12228
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Diplomatic compound*

    You're right, but I fear this is splitting hairs over minutia.
    I'm just saying, the congressman said there were no embassy attacks, and he's correct. And it should matter when you think about it. If a US embassy was understaffed, unprotected, and burned to the ground killing Americans in the process, people should be SEETHING MAD at whoever was responsible, embassies represent the nation afterall. However, if small consulate (of questionable nature) gets attacked, its not really the same thing. Its like the difference between someone robbing a major bank, and someone robbing a small local bank branch inside of a Walmart.

    I know it hardly matters anymore. I'm just tired of people consistently bringing up Benghazi to make some kind of point, and not know the first thing about what happened. Its been 8 years now, everything can be fact checked, people should know what and where an embassy is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Now that is just quibbling. It was an attack on embassy personnel in US diplomatic compounds, and the ambassador was killed. I count the attacks in Herat as attacks on an Embassy too, even though the actual embassy there is in Kabul.
    An embassy, and a consulate are not the same thing. One serves as a major diplomatic post and represents our nation inside a foreign country, providing a direct diplomatic line to and from the President of the United States, and deals with deals with diplomatic and sensitive intelligence in the host nation (that is what marines in embassies protect btw). The other one represents the people, serving US citizens residing in the host nation, and promoting trade and friendship with the host nation. Guess which one gets most of the security, and marines, and protection from the host country. The ambassador should have been evacuated to the embassy at the first sign of trouble in the region.
    Last edited by For_The_Horde; 2020-01-14 at 02:26 AM.

  9. #12229
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Given that neither statement contradicts the other, you apparently need to be reminded that your overactive imagination is not actually evidence.

    Pelosi is confident in the case made in the Articles of Impeachment.
    Schumer thinks more Articles can, and should, be drafted.
    No contradiction whatsoever.



    Without even reviewing the evidence and arguments, you know the Senate won't remove Trump from office, eh?

    That's a straight-up admission that you know Senate Republicans will vote the partisan line rather than honestly considering the facts and evidence, as basic ethics would require. You're admitting that they're dishonest cheats who won't do their job and will put party ahead of country.

    Which, y'know, just proves Pelosi right. You're admitting that she is.



    Bill Clinton wasn't up for re-election. And given that the next election went to the Republican candidate, yeah. It hurt the Democrats.
    How doe sit hurt Trump? he si going to win again against a very lackluster candidate no matter who it is. Please explain why it's okay for adam schiff to take over impeachment from the judiciary and not allow witnesses Republicans want, but shameful and a coverup as Pelosi calls it for McConnell to not allow witnesses that democrats want? It's the exact same thing, partisan politics...please explain why they are upset for getting treated the same way they treated Republicans?

  10. #12230
    @Dacien I get it, you're confusing Mueller's investigation with the Ukraine situation. Ukraine and Russia aren't the same thing, no matter how much Trump and Putin wish they were.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  11. #12231
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,505
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    How doe sit hurt Trump? he si going to win again against a very lackluster candidate no matter who it is.
    Where'd you buy your crystal ball, incidentally? And do you have next week's lottery numbers, while you're at it?

    Please explain why it's okay for adam schiff to take over impeachment from the judiciary and not allow witnesses Republicans want, but shameful and a coverup as Pelosi calls it for McConnell to not allow witnesses that democrats want?
    Impeachment isn't a judicial process, to begin with; Adam Schiff did not "take over" anything from the judicial branch.

    The Republicans were able to call witnesses. The only ones denied were, from what I recall, people who had no firsthand knowledge. Including the whistleblower, who was additionally excluded because Congress is legally required to protect their identity. Which forcing them to testify would, obviously, have breached. Anyone asking for the whistleblower was attempting to end-run around the law, for goals rooted in malice and dishonesty.

    Which is why there's no inconsistency in Pelosi expecting the same considerations from the Senate. The House's process was fair and by the book.

    It's the exact same thing, partisan politics...please explain why they are upset for getting treated the same way they treated Republicans?
    That's what they're asking for.

    You are lying about the facts. That's what gets people upset; bald-faced lying about basic shit like this.

  12. #12232
    Quote Originally Posted by For_The_Horde View Post
    And? Is he wrong? I mean there have been attempts at attacks sure, there are several every year, but they usually just amount to vandalism or minor damage to a wall or guardhouse. Can you name a single attack on an embassy during Obama's presidency where Americans died or were seriously injured?
    Wow thanks for moving the goalpost. Technically, it's not an embassy but the Ambassador and American contractors died there. I guess you have to dig deep to get a win. I stand corrected, you and your buddies can pat each other on the back because you really got me on that. You should be proud that you think the difference is so huge. Pathetic.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Where'd you buy your crystal ball, incidentally? And do you have next week's lottery numbers, while you're at it?



    Impeachment isn't a judicial process, to begin with; Adam Schiff did not "take over" anything from the judicial branch.

    The Republicans were able to call witnesses. The only ones denied were, from what I recall, people who had no firsthand knowledge. Including the whistleblower, who was additionally excluded because Congress is legally required to protect their identity. Which forcing them to testify would, obviously, have breached. Anyone asking for the whistleblower was attempting to end-run around the law, for goals rooted in malice and dishonesty.

    Which is why there's no inconsistency in Pelosi expecting the same considerations from the Senate. The House's process was fair and by the book.



    That's what they're asking for.

    You are lying about the facts. That's what gets people upset; bald-faced lying about basic shit like this.
    Wow, you actually believe the shit you are shoveling. Even though you admit they disallowed witnesses, I am lying? And wow, you said they disallowed witnesses without first hand knowledge but then let over a dozen without first hand knowledge testify. How can you say that with a straight face? Please also link me the citation for breaking the law by having the whistleblower testify. You call me a liar , then pretend that Republicans were allowed to call witness, which could only be if Schiff approved of them, and you consider that a strong truthful argument. That only if they were allowed could they call witnesses. Only if Schiff allowed makes you a liar, I doubt you will admit it, but it does make you a liar. As usual, the truth as you see it, not as it is. Conditional witnesses. I am sure you will try to twist that in to your truth as you see it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The fact that you think those two things are hypocritical demonstrate how out of touch you are with the facts of the situation.
    Fact: Republicans could only call witnesses if Schiff allowed it.
    Fact: Democrats could have went to court to get the witnesses Schumer wants, but did not.
    Fact: Pelosi said that if they did not allow witnesses , it was a Republican cover up.

    Am I out of touch with these facts or are they real? All of those happened.

    So if Republicans do not allow witnesses the democrats did not go to court to get, it's a cover up. But if Republicans are not allowed witnesses they ask for, it's not a cover up?

  13. #12233
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,367
    Quote Originally Posted by For_The_Horde View Post
    An embassy, and a consulate are not the same thing. One serves as a major diplomatic post and represents our nation inside a foreign country, providing a direct diplomatic line to and from the President of the United States, and deals with deals with diplomatic and sensitive intelligence in the host nation (that is what marines in embassies protect btw). The other one represents the people, serving US citizens residing in the host nation, and promoting trade and friendship with the host nation. Guess which one gets most of the security, and marines, and protection from the host country. The ambassador should have been evacuated to the embassy at the first sign of trouble in the region.
    Dude, the Ambassador died. It doesn't much matter if his house is fine. I agree that he should have been evacuated to the embassy. EVERYONE agrees he should have been evacuated to the embassy. We have had about a thousand investigations into why that didn't happen.

    I know the difference between an embassy and a consulate, but it is really nitpicky to pretend attacks on consulates don't count. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it is a weird one. It is like if Camp David got overrun and the President was killed, and you claimed it was ok, because the White House wasn't attacked. That really isn't a useful point.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  14. #12234
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    Dude, the Ambassador died. It doesn't much matter if his house is fine. I agree that he should have been evacuated to the embassy. EVERYONE agrees he should have been evacuated to the embassy. We have had about a thousand investigations into why that didn't happen.

    I know the difference between an embassy and a consulate, but it is really nitpicky to pretend attacks on consulates don't count. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it is a weird one. It is like if Camp David got overrun and the President was killed, and you claimed it was ok, because the White House wasn't attacked. That really isn't a useful point.
    First, that's not even a remotely close comparison between the who events. Second I'm not saying consulates don't matter, I'm saying embassies are politically more important, built like fortresses, and (as far as I see) there has been no successful attack on an embassy since 1998. Someone was attacking the statement of a congressman when he's technically correct, that's all I'm arguing about.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Wow thanks for moving the goalpost. Technically, it's not an embassy but the Ambassador and American contractors died there. I guess you have to dig deep to get a win. I stand corrected, you and your buddies can pat each other on the back because you really got me on that. You should be proud that you think the difference is so huge. Pathetic.
    If I moved any goalpost, I only moved it back to where it was before conservatives picked it up and ran off with it 8 years ago. Your narrative is false, your facts are fiction, you can't even get the first sentence of your story right. Ambassador Stevens died at the Benghazi Medical Centre from cardiac arrest after being brought there by locals outside (possibly from the protester crowd, unclear) who braved the fire (and terrorists) to look for survivors.

    Also, people who intentionally spread misinformation to generate outrage and manipulate that outrage for their own gain are the most pathetic of all. Remember that.
    Last edited by For_The_Horde; 2020-01-14 at 02:58 AM.

  15. #12235
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Did it complicate the process when democrats came out for several years saying they want to impeach the motherfer? They want him gone, no matter why, that is why it was always going to be impeachment. It was a completely partisan vote to impeach. It's going to be a bipartisan vote to not remove. You can't whine that one party is doing exactly the same thing the other party is doing, voting party lines. But keep being a hypocrite.
    Well DocSavageFan,

    You forget that Trump actually swore into office committing impeachable offenses with his emoluments clause and the main thing that protected him then was the GOP controlling congress and refusing to do their job as acting on a check and holding him accountable.

    When you have someone come in WHILE committing crimes, you can't help but have people wanting to get him on those crimes. It wasn't like Obama where they wanted to impeach him on nothing.

    If Bill Cosby came into office while drugging and raping women openly and the majority in congress kept protecting him, could you really be surprised that a decent number of the majority would think they should start looking into all those drugged women leaving his place and hold him accountable for it?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DocSavageFan View Post
    It's a crying shame that their Trump/Russia conspiracy theory didn't pan out. Now they have to settle for less...much, much less.
    Well, TexasRules, sounds like you didn't read the Mueller Report.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  16. #12236
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,933
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Fact: Republicans could only call witnesses if Schiff allowed it.
    Fact: Democrats could have went to court to get the witnesses Schumer wants, but did not.
    Fact: Pelosi said that if they did not allow witnesses , it was a Republican cover up.

    Am I out of touch with these facts or are they real? All of those happened.

    So if Republicans do not allow witnesses the democrats did not go to court to get, it's a cover up. But if Republicans are not allowed witnesses they ask for, it's not a cover up?
    Fact: those points above, and your lack of honesty about the rest of the process, demonstrate my original point.
    Fact: You clearly do not understand how witnesses work after depositions, or maybe if you bothered to take off your MAGA hat, you could see things more objectively.
    Fact: Your last two sentences above makes literally no sense whatsoever.

    Fact: You're just doing the usual, parroting what you're told to think without ever questioning the words coming out of your mouth. The entire process was on live television, and the GOP is on record saying no witnesses in the Senate, with the Senate vote predetermined, but somehow you think it's a "cover up" by the Democrats.

    You're adorable. Still chuggin' that kool-aid eyes closed I see.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Well DocSavageFan,

    You forget that Trump actually swore into office committing impeachable offenses with his emoluments clause and the main thing that protected him then was the GOP controlling congress and refusing to do their job as acting on a check and holding him accountable.

    When you have someone come in WHILE committing crimes, you can't help but have people wanting to get him on those crimes. It wasn't like Obama where they wanted to impeach him on nothing.

    If Bill Cosby came into office while drugging and raping women openly and the majority in congress kept protecting him, could you really be surprised that a decent number of the majority would think they should start looking into all those drugged women leaving his place and hold him accountable for it?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Well, TexasRules, sounds like you didn't read the Mueller Report.
    My hero. /cheer

    And solid points about the history of this process. People conveniently forget Trump was under FBI investigation before he even started running for office. This Impeachment is showing that con-men never stop being con-men.
    No one is above the law!

  17. #12237
    Banned Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    4,737
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    How doe sit hurt Trump? he si going to win again against a very lackluster candidate no matter who it is. Please explain why it's okay for adam schiff to take over impeachment from the judiciary and not allow witnesses Republicans want, but shameful and a coverup as Pelosi calls it for McConnell to not allow witnesses that democrats want? It's the exact same thing, partisan politics...please explain why they are upset for getting treated the same way they treated Republicans?
    For an American, you’ve done a shit job of reading the constitution. The power of impeachment lies solely in the legislative branch. Schiff didn’t take over anything.

    Sounds like you’re a fake American. Who knows nothing about our laws. Or you’re lying, or you would never have passed the civics test to become a citizen. You’re just sad.

  18. #12238
    The Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens, according to an American security official. https://t.co/O4y5O5Z7QX
    https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/...458923010?s=19

    Seems Russia was trying to dig dirt on Biden.

    Hmm? I wonder who else was looking for dirt on Biden in Ukraine?
    Artist formerly known as Shon237

  19. #12239
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    How doe sit hurt Trump? he si going to win again against a very lackluster candidate no matter who it is. Please explain why it's okay for adam schiff to take over impeachment from the judiciary and not allow witnesses Republicans want, but shameful and a coverup as Pelosi calls it for McConnell to not allow witnesses that democrats want? It's the exact same thing, partisan politics...please explain why they are upset for getting treated the same way they treated Republicans?
    You do realize that Republicans called Ambassador Taylor and Sondland right? Thinking they were going to exonerate Trump, right? Of course you don't.

  20. #12240
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,505
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Wow, you actually believe the shit you are shoveling. Even though you admit they disallowed witnesses, I am lying?
    When you claim it was because of partisan reasons, yes.

    They were disallowed because they had nothing to potentially contribute to the inquiry. They had freely acknowledged they did not have firsthand knowledge of the issues in question.

    And wow, you said they disallowed witnesses without first hand knowledge but then let over a dozen without first hand knowledge testify. How can you say that with a straight face?
    The people brought in had some personal knowledge of value to the investigation.

    This was not true of the witnesses that were denied.

    Please also link me the citation for breaking the law by having the whistleblower testify.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisette.../#1ef7709b511b

    They source every point. This information has been readily available for months. It isn't a surprise.

    You call me a liar , then pretend that Republicans were allowed to call witness, which could only be if Schiff approved of them, and you consider that a strong truthful argument.
    . . . it is.

    That's exactly the process. The chairman has to approve witnesses. You keep claiming this was partisan, and you've provided fuck-all to back that assertion up.

    Where's your furor over Trump actually blocking legitimate witnesses from testifying?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •