Why the Senate SHOULD vote to convict

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You poor boy, claiming to be horrified and called deplorable like Floridaman does while calling others human scum.

You said that I assumed Byron York was correct, when I pointed out that I did not assume that, you slid out of that lie by claiming that my response was "nothing" and then wandered into the notion that one is defined by those he associates with implying that Trump was defined by those he knew and were indicted or went to prison.

When I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned, and that I had associated with some who had been, you replied that it was understandable since I supported Trump.

When I pointed out that your reply implied that all trump supporters were, per that association, the various deplorables that you characterize Trump to be, you deflect from that lie by throwing a quote back at me.

When I asked, then, "what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman?", you said that I claimed to be a victim.

When I debunked that lie, you switched to me claiming that I was horrified, which I never claimed--yet another usual lie by you.

That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You keep sliding from lie to lie, into other narratives as escape routes, from one lie into another rather than having an honest conversation.

It is ironic, maybe projection, that you constantly refer to Trump as a liar.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned,

it's amazing how low the bar has bc with Repubs. and Pres.Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

it's amazing how low the bar has bc with Repubs. and Pres.Trump--response to quote originally Posted by detbuch: "I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned,"

Can you point out why my quote has lowered the bar?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Can you point out why my quote has lowered the bar?

go back and reread it. Pointing out that the vast majority of the people he associated with have not been indicted as if that's something to brag about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

go back and reread it. Pointing out that the vast majority of the people he associated with have not been indicted as if that's something to brag about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't bragging. It was a counterpoint to PeteF's notion that you are defined by those you associate with (ergo the few who Trump associated with and who were indicted supposedly defined Trump). If the vast majority of people you associate with are not criminals or liars or sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, or all-around vulgar, nasty people, how are you then defined by the vast minority of those who were indicted and you associated with?

On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It wasn't bragging. It was a counterpoint to PeteF's notion that you are defined by those you associate with (ergo the few who Trump associated with and who were indicted supposedly defined Trump). If the vast majority of people you associate with are not criminals or liars or sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, or all-around vulgar, nasty people, how are you then defined by the vast minority of those who were indicted and you associated with?

On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.

Retreat to a whatabout, typical Trumplican/Putin tactic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Retreat to a whatabout, typical Trumplican/Putin tactic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What ??!! Are you serious? There is something wrong with your brain.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Ukraine had met all the required corruption criteria and his administration had certified it to Congress May 23, 2019 prior to Floridaman's call to Zelensky and Colludy's meeting with Yermak in Madrid.

The certification is why Congress was asking why the funds had not been transferred.

Zelensky's administration was not the corrupt actor in this case, it was Trump's that attempted to corruptly bribe Ukraine with Congressional appropriated funds in return for the investigation of his political opponent.

Testimony and documents show that the Zelensky administration knew that the funding was being withheld prior to the second Trump-Zelensky call.

Perhaps he can use the excuse that he did not know what his administration was doing, that would be believable but hardly exculpatory.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

Originally Posted by detbuch

That precisely agrees with the Byron York article that I linked, and so with the York "theory."

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch

You said that I assumed Byron York was correct, when I pointed out that I did not assume that, you slid out of that lie by claiming that my response was "nothing" and then wandered into the notion that one is defined by those he associates with implying that Trump was defined by those he knew and were indicted or went to prison.

When I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned, and that I had associated with some who had been, you replied that it was understandable since I supported Trump.

When I pointed out that your reply implied that all trump supporters were, per that association, the various deplorables that you characterize Trump to be, you deflect from that lie by throwing a quote back at me.

When I asked, then, "what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman?", you said that I claimed to be a victim.

When I debunked that lie, you switched to me claiming that I was horrified, which I never claimed--yet another usual lie by you.

That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You keep sliding from lie to lie, into other narratives as escape routes, from one lie into another rather than having an honest conversation.

It is ironic, maybe projection, that you constantly refer to Trump as a liar.

You started with a story by York that has a possibility of being true and fits your narrative.
When I point out there is additional evidence that at a minimum casts doubt on the York tale, you erupt in a barrage of chaff-like verbiage and claim that you didn't believe or assume it was true but you liked it.
Like it all you want and generate as much smoke as you would like, sooner or later the cleansing rays of light will reach the Floridaman administration's machinations that seek to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. He is a con man and always will be.