Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - scifibum

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Comments / hey moderator
« on: October 17, 2019, 04:01:38 PM »
Please unregister me.

You Trumpists who want to live in a post-truth society, gfy!

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 17, 2019, 04:00:14 PM »
"It was very far from an international priority."

Sure, you can make lying assertions all day long and we can attempt to demonstrate that is what you are doing. Trump playbook; you really look up to him don't you.

General Comments / Re: G7 2020
« on: October 17, 2019, 03:57:49 PM »
You're nothing if not reliable.

Self dealing by the president is now a "yawn", presumably because Trump has been doing it already for 3 years.

Hunter Biden was not the president. Hunter Biden was not making decisions on behalf of the US Government. Idiotic question, but you seem to need these things explained.

General Comments / G7 2020
« on: October 17, 2019, 01:03:43 PM »
No, not Crunch's nth incarnation.

Has the White House circulated talking points yet? What's the GOP excuse for blatant self dealing by the POTUS? Does the party accept that Trump's resort is objectively the best place?

General Comments / Re: The insanity of the left
« on: October 17, 2019, 01:01:17 PM »
Yeah, everybody knows corporations are unlikely to do anything unethical.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 17, 2019, 12:59:32 PM »
Or it could be Biden openly bragging about it and actually getting the guy fired. Maybe?

People that brag about doing things that if not crossing a line walk on it suck and doing so = guilt.
Good Thing Biden is the only guy doing that. 

Its hypocrisy that we only care about now right?
Truth, ethics, morality as it concerns character and virtue don't matter, crime doesn't matter but Hypocrisy that we cannot abide... humm that statement kind of feeds on it self as being hypocritical.
You can't be offended by hypocrisy when crime, truth and ethics don't matter to you or your being a hypocrite and offending yourself.

You're over-analyzing the point. If you boast publicly about doing something, there's a higher chance you actually did it. Not much deeper than that.

Not sure why rl22 is engaging in this fashion, because Biden did get the guy fired, that's undisputed.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 17, 2019, 12:58:40 PM »
Whats interesting to me is how quickly the guilt of Biden and his sun was taken at face value while I'm guess if the same type evidence if pointed to Trump would have been argued as not relevant. 

That so many of Trumps followers don't see that or the implications of the arguments they are presenting should be concerning.

Perhaps. But it may also be the case that people hate hypocrites more than criminals.

Or it could be Biden openly bragging about it and actually getting the guy fired. Maybe?

Nobody disputes that Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the guy. He did. He did it at the behest of Obama. It was an international priority. Nobody was against it at the time. This was not because Republicans were reluctant to criticize the Obama administration.

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: October 16, 2019, 05:15:58 PM »
I'm not sure Sanders isn't promising to accomplish these things, although I agree he (and everyone else making promises) probably doesn't expect to get everything promised through Congress and it would be wrong of people to anticipate total success.

This is more or less typical of all presidential candidates.

General Comments / Re: The insanity of the left
« on: October 15, 2019, 03:12:57 PM »
There's an investigation into whether the shortage danger is real or just a negotiating tactic on the part of the company, which might provide some clarity.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 15, 2019, 03:10:22 PM »
"It’s as hard a fact as they get."

No, Shokin wasn't investigating, the investigation was dormant. The Brits were complaining about how much that particular investigation was not being done. The investigation that wasn't being done was about events that predated Hunter Biden's appointment to the board. Joe Biden was pushing for the appointment of a prosecutor who would more actively pursue corruption and there was no requirement that the new prosecutor leave his son or that company alone (as Shokin was leaving them alone at the time).

One can make the argument that Hunter had a position he didn't earn and that he got it because his dad was the VP. But that doesn't require any corrupt action from either Biden. It actually pales in comparison to Trump's conflicts of interest that involve most of his adult children and his businesses.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 14, 2019, 02:16:35 PM »
"The whole thing was about the quid pro quo but suddenly it’s not."

For non-Trumpists, the whole thing is about an ongoing investigation. We'll see what comes out about an explicit quid pro quo. There's clearly an implied one just in the phone call, but there could always be more to learn. 

For Trumpists, it's been about throwing up distracting smokescreens, making up things about the process so they could pretend the process invalidates the inquiry. Even the "no quid pro quo" is a smokescreen. Trump doesn't get to ask other countries to attack his political rivals; the act isn't whitewashed by the lack of an explicit quid pro quo. The quid pro quo would only be additional wrongdoing.

(I'm not bothering to engage with the fantasy that Trump had legitimate reasons to ask for the investigations. Crowdstrike/Ukraine/server is a 4chan invention, and Joe Biden didn't kill an investigation into his own son. If Trump believed those things it's just more evidence he's unfit for office.)

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 11, 2019, 06:10:53 PM »
The Washington Examiner can now can confirm that, among the many indicators of extreme bias, the leaker worked for Joe Biden.

So what we have is Democrat loyalists within the intelligence community, having failed in the Russian collusion operations, now running the exact same operation again but with Ukraine this time. All in an effort to overturn the 2016 election.

He did not work "for" Joe Biden even according to the Washington Examiner.  They are quoting sources who say they are pretty sure he would have worked with Joe Biden at the WH. Note this WB was ALSO DETAILED TO THE TRUMP WH SO IT IS JUST AS ACCURATE TO SAY HE WORKED "FOR" PENCE. That a career CIA analyst would have occasion to work with a VP is not news.

But nothing will stop Crunch from pretending that a bias on the part of the WB somehow alters the facts of what the President did or why he did it.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 06:30:57 PM »
So, some of the guys helping Giuliani dig up dirt on Biden were also funneling illegal foreign political donations, according to an indictment. Arrested last night.

They were on their way to Vienna, and Giuliani let slip yesterday - before the arrests - that he was also planning to head to Vienna today.

The only way this is a crime is if Trump is asking them to make something up. 

Gee, there's no chance of that, right? Trump cares deeply about accuracy.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:57:14 PM »
Those of you who think the impeachment inquiry needs to have a lot of process including an adaptation of the adversarial trial system should read this:

Of note:
Articles of impeachment can be introduced without any process at all. The House can vote to impeach without any inquiry. There's nothing unconstitutional or illegal about that.

All the House has to do is follow its own rules.

If the House could by itself and by majority vote oust a president, then there would be good reason to demand a robust process before reaching that decision. If the Democrats held it within their power to remove a sitting president, then there would be good reason to object to a partisan process that did not give a fair hearing to the other side. But as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been sure to point out, the Democrats do not have it within their power to remove the people’s choice of a president without Republican cooperation.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:49:42 PM »
Except the rights missing were in the other Presidential impeachments.

Yeah...right. Clinton's impeachment came about as a result of the Starr report.  I really think you're confusing the impeachment with the trial.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:45:34 PM »
I believe this is because the evidence for suggesting the WB was working in a highly coordinated effort with democrats is literally stronger than the complaint itself.

As of now a memo written by the WB on July 26 is public. It has all the same stuff as the WB complaint. Does the conspiracy theory now require that Schiff was involved the day after the call?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:09:01 PM »
Seriati, your position boils down to "I believe Trump". You have a lot more time to cite the right wing talking points than I have to respond to them.

"If you can't answer anything else, explain directly, why you believe the House process doesn't need to be fair and comply with Constitutional protections."

The GOP has now invented a constitutional standard for impeachment inquiries that is not defined in law or the Constitution. The trial in the Senate would be where such things as cross examination and calling witnesses for the defense would happen. The letter from WH counsel is a political document.

There is a ton of direct hypocrisy from GOP members of congress on this one. Lindsay Graham has a lot of choice quotes from the Clinton impeachment, including that refusing to comply with an impeachment inquiry is itself an impeachable offense.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 08, 2019, 06:37:58 PM »
There's no reason to think that the WB was lying. You're equating a bias with evidence of lying. Keep it up, you might get yourself into elected office.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 08, 2019, 05:04:32 PM »
BTW, Sondall's "LET ME BE CLEAR WE ARE NOT COMMITTING A CRIME HERE" texts are laughable as a defense.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 08, 2019, 05:01:38 PM »
Crunch, I know it's hard, but you're going to have to try to understand that "Democrat" does not equate to "Not Allowed To Do Anything". So far, it looks like the allegations in the complaint are holding up just fine. It does not matter if the whistleblower had a bias, what matters is what Trump did and why. There are other witnesses and documents that will help show the truth of the matter.

So far, we have Pompeo asking if he's allowed to punish people for cooperating with the inquiry. We have text messages that show diplomats had reason to believe Trump was asking a political favor and might have been holding back military aid until the favor was promised. We have witnesses to the call that the ICIG interviewed and found consistent with the WB complaint. We have the WH ordering people not to comply with the inquiry. We have Trump engaging in the least believable clowntown attempt to portray himself as concerned about "corruption" but unable to identify any potential corruption that isn't a political opponent. We have many accounts from people inside the administration that acknowledge internal alarm at Trump's communications with Ukraine's president.

And we have a flood of disingenuous defenses that amount to making up rules about the WB process and then pretending they were violated.

General Comments / Re: Heart-Bern?
« on: October 08, 2019, 02:28:41 PM »
I don't think Warren is Hillary 2.0. I like her background in bankruptcy law, finance, and financial oversight. Her party change doesn't look to me to have been opportunistic or insincere and I don't expect someone to have always been right to be right now. The Native American boondoggle is really not a big issue, I don't think it'll sway votes in the general. She's quite opposite to Trump (whereas Biden has some overlap).

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 07, 2019, 02:36:14 PM »
I see some of you are still trying to go with the theory that the WB complaint doesn't count if Schiff or his aides talked to the WB before the report was filed through ICIG. Fascinating. Jim Jordan level reasoning there.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 07, 2019, 01:49:46 PM »
Seriati, you're divorcing your argument from the facts. Let's start here:

However, when you have a whistle blower report that didn't hear the statement, and the statement itself is available and contradicts the whistle blower it undermines the evidentiary value.

The "statement" meaning the call summary IS consistent with the WB report.

You're also apparently ignoring the text messages that corroborate and bolster the quid pro quo angle. Although it's not required for there to be a quid pro quo regardless. Just asking a foreign country to open an investigation into your political opponent when there's no national interest involved in that request is an impeachable abuse of office. Your denials and obfuscations are right in line with the ones Hannity and others are using, so perhaps you are mistaking their advocacy for reality.

General Comments / Re: Heart-Bern?
« on: October 07, 2019, 01:44:04 PM »

You know why we don't trust Warren? She used to be a Republican. That's reason enough.

Nevermind her ridiculous Native American claims and the never ending *censored*e that will be called upon her in a general election campaign.

You can pretty up your celebration all you want, Scifi, but the fact is Sanders has been on the forefront for progressive ideals for decades. And at the very same time, Warren was voting R.

I wasn't celebrating. I'll gladly support Sanders if he's the nominee. I don't feel any enmity toward Sanders supporters, but I'm getting a different vibe from you right now.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:23:38 PM »
I can't believe so many people are willing to bend their standards to ANYTHING this president does.

That's why he's going to win again. The left simply can't fathom why so many would hold their nose in favor of the transparently crude over the covertly slimy, posing as virtuous.

boor > worm

You're summing this up as "crude"? It makes you look pretty misinformed.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:17:30 PM »
Isn't hearsay literally not evidence? Doesn't the whistleblower report outright say that the author of it did not personally witness the events in question, but only heard others say they heard it?

No to both questions.

Hearsay is evidence and is used to start investigations and obtain warrants and even indictments all the time. It can't be used in court, generally, as proof of the truth of the statement, but there are exceptions where it can even be used in a trial. "Hearsay" is a deliberate distraction, and is not a valid objection to investigating.

The WB complaint indicated BOTH secondhand and firsthand information, and the ICIG found both claims credible.

"So what's the crime?"

Come on. You have to know that "High crimes and misdemeanors" was never supposed to map to the criminal code. The "high crime and/or misdemeanor" is, at least:
1) Conducting foreign policy for personal benefit
2) Soliciting interference from a foreign country in our domestic politics
3) Obstructing and interfering with Congressional oversight

There may be conduct that DOES map to the criminal code, but there doesn't have to be.

By the way, Volker's document production included a lot of text messages that corroborate some of the whistleblower's allegations. If you haven't read those text messages you might be in danger of making misinformed claims about the nature of the conduct and the validity of the WB report. That's the FIRST GUY that cooperated with the investigation, and there's already corroboration. Not to mention Giuliani has helpfully been making public statements that also corroborate the allegations.

Yet we'll continue to see people arguing that there's no evidence, no real justification for an investigation. Because they wrote the story in their minds long ago and the evidence before their eyes doesn't matter.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 03, 2019, 10:25:53 PM »
Republicans: We have SERIOUS CONCERNS about minutiae of the whistle blowing process. So serious, in fact, that we are prepared to refuse to consider the contents of the complaint.

Also Republicans: It's sensible, even laudable, to have Giuliani conducting foreign policy with Ukraine instead of using normal diplomatic and law enforcement mechanisms, as established under treaty.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 03, 2019, 10:05:12 PM »
Trump IS corruption. His own daughter, working in the White House, has gotten favors from the Chinese government. Anyone who thinks he's concerned about corruption is living in a fantasy world.

I can't believe so many people are willing to bend their standards to ANYTHING this president does.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 07:07:42 PM »
See also:

Urgent concerns about Biden's son's past business activities, ZERO concern about Trump's children's CURRENT business activities.

Treating wild-ass conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike that originated on 4chan as a legitimate national interest basis for twisting Zelensky's arm.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 07:00:37 PM »

So much effort to make this NOT about whether the President is abusing his office for personal gain. Yet, that is what it's about.

Sorry you went to all that effort?

General Comments / Re: Welcome to the New Ornery American Forums!
« on: October 02, 2019, 05:37:22 PM »
Maybe you need to click the top level category. It can be collapsed or expanded.

General Comments / Re: Heart-Bern?
« on: October 02, 2019, 01:07:38 PM »
Many of us who support Warren have been wanting Bernie to drop out and endorse her. I suppose this makes it more likely, although I would prefer it not be due to this kind of circumstance.

That's a fair point yossarian.

I would still like to understand better what kind of trouble people are in here. The article referenced some people who were cleared of culpability after review. Did it come up with examples of people who were found culpable after a full review? Just scanned through it again and I'm not seeing that.

Some of the bureaucrats who feel threatened and offended by the process might be reacting to the way Republicans have consistently overblown the scandal, and want to get a dig in based on that.

The article is poorly structured, jumping back and forth between different points of view in a way that doesn't seem to have any narrative value.

If it's true that people aren't getting punished in any way, and the process is set up to protect against political bias, then it's just a hassle, indeed Hillary's fault, and it shouldn't concern us too much at this point (except that we all rue the expense and time lost to this issue).

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 01, 2019, 02:55:44 PM »
"This isn't actually about Donald Trump."

You're completely wrong. Donald Trump is a national embarrassment and is dangerous. Look at his response so far to the mere stirrings of the House against him: suggesting that Schiff be arrested for "Treason" - in total ignorance of Constitution. Saying he's trying to out the whistleblower, in violation of the law. Suggesting that "spies" in the administration should be dealt with the old fashioned way.

Imagine what he's willing to do if it looks like he's going to be removed from office?

The article is confusing. If materials are retroactively classified, it might make sense for there to be a check of unclassified systems (including email) to see where that information exists and try to move it into classified systems. Such efforts would likely be automated in part.

It's also kind of routine to call information being stored improperly a "security incident".

Are people getting notified that their "Sent" folder contains retroactively classified information and being asked to take some action to correct that? Or something else? I don't think the article's author explained what these people were being asked to do.

It also seems reasonable that efforts to retroactively control sent emails are largely pointless and could be absurd. But absurdities do result from regulations and bureaucracy.

I don't feel like this is very clear.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 30, 2019, 06:10:16 PM »
Couple of points from the above:

1) Requiring a WB to have direct knowledge would not be consistent with the law.

In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.

So, this language (which was indeed provided to the WB) was not consistent with the law:

If you
think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the
complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

As the statement elaborates, the ICIG can and should investigate WB complaints which contain secondhand information - which might include talking to people who told the WB information.

2) It further explains that the WB checked both boxes - both first and secondhand information. They confirmed that the WB had primary access to some of the information in the complaint, and interviewed other people who had direct knowledge of events described in the complaint.

3) They realized that language indicating they couldn't accept or process complaints that didn't depend on direct knowledge wasn't consistent with the law, so they updated some forms to clear up the confusion.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 30, 2019, 12:30:42 PM »
I want people to know that the law governing WB reports never required only "first hand" information, and also that disclosure forms prior to August 2019 had explicit checkboxes for both types of information.

The Federalist (consider your sources people) story that there was a secret conspiracy to remove the requirement for firsthand information is a silly red herring.

Informative thread:

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 29, 2019, 12:32:06 AM »
Actually the WB report is totally consistent with the call summary. And it was already public knowledge that Giuliani was running around Ukraine trying to get people to investigate Biden and the 4th-rate conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike's server, because it would be "helpful to his client" (who is not the U.S.). And lots of other corroboration exists.

That's why the play is "deeeeeep staaaaate" - because the allegations are true, and the only hope is to try to make people believe that they are somehow negated if people in the government personally want Trump out.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 27, 2019, 11:36:44 PM »
It's hilarious that you think this is exculpatory for Trump. Not whether the allegations are true, mind you, but whether the form upon which the allegations were recorded was changed recently.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 27, 2019, 04:41:34 PM »
Wow, you seem really confused on the basics of what has happened here, Seriati. I suggest you read the news reports again, more carefully. Also the statute. There was NOT a clear authorization for the WB to transmit the report to the committees when both
1) It had been found urgent and credible by ICIG.
2) DNI refused to transmit.

And there's zero evidence that Schiff had the complaint in hand before it was publicly released to him.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 07:08:10 PM »
"There absolutely should be criticism of the benefits to his son."

There would need to be some evidence of benefits for his son, I would think. What the evidence seems to show is that Shokin wasn't doing anything that remotely threatened Hunter Biden.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 07:04:52 PM »
I see that Crunch is stuck on repeat. He's even got himself a new catch phrase to help quiet the cognitive dissonance.

All the noise doesn't change whether this impeachable offense happened: Trump apparently abused his office to try to get a foreign country to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. And he's trying to suppress the whistleblower's report.

(This of course is only one additional impeachable offense on top of the others still under investigation - investigations which Trump is trying to block of course.)

If it's nothing, then let it all come out. But that one call "transcript" (note: calls aren't "transcribed") isn't all of it.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:13:24 AM »
"So congress has no grounds to demand *censored*. The president really does have authority to talk to foreign leaders. He can talk to them about anything he wants."

Yeah, the law isn't the law. Trump can do what he wants. There's no law that says the DNI "shall" forward the complaint to Congress after the ICIG finds it credible and urgent, after all Trump can talk to foreign leaders, right? That changes the text of the law! That means the DNI doesn't have to do what the law says. Even better when there's reason to think the report contains damning information about the President - all the more reason the law doesn't apply, right?

The POTUS definitely has constitutional authority to defy election law and withhold duly appropriated funds in order to try to coerce a foreign country to pretend it has dirt on his election opponent. Congress can't do *** about that!



General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 23, 2019, 11:27:51 PM »
wasn't Biden's son part of a huge scandal where Biden basically leveraged his political position into money and influence for his son in Ukraine

Wasn't he? No, he wasn't. What are you talking about? The frothy Fox News version is that Biden got a prosecutor fired to protect his son from an investigation - there's no evidence for this - but what you're describing is based on...?

Crunch is being ridiculous, as usual. The whistleblower complaint was vetted through the ICIG, who found it to be "urgent" and "credible". The ICIG is a Trump appointee.

This nonsense about a deep state liberal whatever reporting 3rd hand hearsay is completely baseless. The ICIG would have killed it if that was what was going on. The ICIG is not required to pass along frivolous complaints.

how does the ICWPA define “urgent concern”? The statute defines it as

(A) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters[;]

(B) A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity[; or]

(C) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this section.

And, of course, what Congressional democrats are insisting on is reviewing the facts - of the whistleblowing report, and of course any surrounding documentation and testimony. Crunch prefers to say "no need to look at the facts" to cover up for the fact that the administration is trying desperately to hide the g.d. facts.

"The lack of the latter would seem to disqualify the validity of the former, regardless of any other information on the matter."

Sure, that makes sense. Let's ONLY hold the president accountable for impeachable offenses if the GOP is satisfied that we've sufficiently punished Biden for something else that they merely claim is equivalent in some way, regardless of the facts. This is why we only send murderers to prison if they are ALL convicted in their separate trials.

Trump's attacks on the media seem credible to people like you, so when he lies about the fakeness of news it's important to point that out. How about you quit making excuses for his lies? If his position changed he can fit that in a damn tweet.

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 18, 2019, 01:52:23 PM »
It's from Corey Lewandowski's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. 

He also refused to answer many questions because he was "instructed" not to by the White House. This would be an entirely novel scope for executive privilege - the ability to hush any private citizen on what conversations they had with the President or his appointees. It's ridiculous.

General Comments / Re: Nice business you have there
« on: September 10, 2019, 11:48:50 AM »
How about the various gun enthusiasts encouraging a boycott of Walmart in protest of its decision to ban open carry and limit sales of guns and ammo? Is that a mobbed up street action? What distinguishes a politically motivated boycott from a mobbed up street action?

I think I know the answer: the GOP has settled on "we are being persecuted" as one of the core messaging principles.

General Comments / Re: Nice business you have there
« on: September 05, 2019, 02:39:47 PM »

It would be really easy to avoid the media circus on this kind of gaffe if Trump was able to admit error. He's not, and he keeps it alive by making it too ridiculous to ignore.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10