Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

LOL.. I can admit many negative aspects of the right, and of Trump... You guys are so focused on how horrible conservatism is, that is all you are focused on.

Our family has had two USMC officers within the last two generations. Needless to say, our backgrounds and attitudes ‘lean conservative’.

Don’t confuse wanting to improve your own with calling something ‘horrible’.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t know where Markk gets the ‘you guys’ thing from, since he’s been posting here for years. I have a lot of Conservative tendencies. I also have some fairly Libertarian views. I also have some fairly Progressive views. I also have some fairly regressive views.

edited: The point is there are a lot of diverse views here from the posters.

My problem with Trump is that he was wholly unqualified for the position* and about a hundred other things that’s been addressed and ignored. This can now be extended to the GOP as a whole, well, most of them really. When attempting to scrutinize the issues as they pop up what we see from Markk is someone who pays lip service to being open-minded, but I have yet to see him drop his support for Trump or the GOP. For example, if the DNC had elected a Trump equivalent (I have no idea who that’d be because Trump is Bond-villain ridiculous), and the Party as a whole acted like the GOP has been acting in the last three years I’d drop them and disavow them.

Instead, he acts like how he acts like. And the vortex swirls on. Jersey Girl called it.

* Note Trump’s syntax:

Last week the Fake News said that a section of our powerful, under construction, Southern Border Wall ‘fell over’, trying to make it sound terrible, except the reason was that the concrete foundation was just poured & soaking wet when big winds kicked in. Quickly fixed ‘forever‘,

This man is a half-wit. How people can support an obvious reprobate idiot as the President is mystifying.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

The bottom line in the Trump impeachment, to me, really boils do to whether or not the corruption is the Ukraine did or did not deserve an investigation.

Then you’ve missed the critical point of the impeachment, because it directly concerns Trump’s actions, and not anyone else’s.

Regardless of what someone thinks needs to be done (‘investigations into corruption’ being the example given here), there’s a right way to go about it, and then there are any number of wrong, stupid, or illegal ways to go about it. Trump chose from the latter categories. That’s why a case for impeachment was made.

[_honorentheos]

The bottom line in the Trump impeachment, to me, really boils do to whether or not the corruption is the Ukraine did or did not deserve an investigation.

Then you’ve missed the critical point of the impeachment, because it directly concerns Trump’s actions, and not anyone else’s.

Regardless of what someone thinks needs to be done (‘investigations into corruption’ being the example given here), there’s a right way to go about it, and then there are any number of wrong, stupid, or illegal ways to go about it. Trump chose from the latter categories. That’s why a case for impeachment was made.

Markk's statement isn't accurate, anyway. What he seems to mean is if there were activities on the part of the Bidens that warranted an investigation, then dot, dot, dot. But since it's been shown the reason Trump was withholding aid and demanding an investigation were based on:

1) A conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike + Russian agitprop trying to reframe the exposure of Manafort's ties and payments from the deposed pro-Russian president as Ukrainian attempts to interfere with the 2016 US election in favor of Clinton, and

2) The obviously fallacious claim that Joe Biden's demands that PG Shokin be removed due to his stalling investigations was an act the VP performed to help his son's client by misusing US loan guarantees as leverage.

...he's citing causes that don't align with the evidence directly tied to the impeachment investigation.

The problem I've seen with Markk is he can't look at these two obviously bogus claims that originated from corrupt Ukrainain sources feeding information to Rudy Giuliani without accusing everyone of overlooking the fact Burisma paid Hunter Biden and his associate to be on their board in a timeframe that shows Burisma was hoping to gain political benefit from having done so.

Of course Burisma was hoping to gain political favors and protection by hiring Archer and the junior Biden. And Hunter Biden was obviously using his connections and last name to sell his services. Frankly, I have no problem with anyone looking at that evidence and arguing the US should really start taking a hard look at how political office is benefiting the relatives and associates of those in office. It's a bipartisan issue and one that taints the promise of western liberal democracy.

But items 1 and 2 above are obviously not intertwined with the apparent shadiness of Hunter Biden's hiring. Burisma was hurt, not helped, by the removal of Shokin. Shokin's own claims get cited by the sources in both mikwut's and Markk's books (yes, I spent the time and money to read them) but overlook the fact Shokin was corrupt, his associates who we have very good reasons to see as fighting corruption contradict his claims he was on the verge of investigating Burisma which is why Biden demanded his removal. Every anti-corruption individual or group that had any awareness of what was going on viewed Shokin's role as resisting anti-corruption investigations and efforts. His removal was hailed as a positive sign the Ukraine was serious about fighting corruption.

So if Markk is sincere that the bottom line for him, "really boils do to whether or not the corruption is the Ukraine did or did not deserve an investigation" then the answer should be obvious to him. Trump was using the office of the President for personal political gain because the conspiracy theory and the attack on Joe Biden were not valid reasons for seeking an investigation on the part of the Ukraine, and Markk's own position doesn't hinge on either of them. Instead, Markk's position sits only tangentially to the reasons Trump claims he was justified in abusing his office for personal political benefit.

[_Res Ipsa]

The bottom line in the Trump impeachment, to me, really boils do to whether or not the corruption is the Ukraine did or did not deserve an investigation.

Then you’ve missed the critical point of the impeachment, because it directly concerns Trump’s actions, and not anyone else’s.

Regardless of what someone thinks needs to be done (‘investigations into corruption’ being the example given here), there’s a right way to go about it, and then there are any number of wrong, stupid, or illegal ways to go about it. Trump chose from the latter categories. That’s why a case for impeachment was made.

Best example of motivated reasoning ever. Pick a bottom line that lets you avoid all the pertinent facts and guarantees the result you want to believe. Markk might as well have picked “is there air in Ukraine” as a bottom line.

[_Jersey Girl]

Instead, he acts like how he acts like. And the vortex swirls on. Jersey Girl called it.

Which is why I spend hardly any time at all on him. It's a road paved with obnoxious equivocation and insults, that ultimately leads to a dead end.

He screwed up on the Impeachment issue the second he injected the Bidens into the discussion. The Impeachment had absolutely nothing to do with the Bidens. It had to do with Trump using the aid to leverage a public announcement out of the Ukraine (is it proper to say the Ukraine these days or is it just Ukraine?) in order to gaslight the American public by smearing his perceived political rival and therefore undermining Biden's reputation in the minds of the people.

Leaning on the Ukraine is a mid- level Mafia move. Don't for a single second think that the White House hasn't become ground zero for organized crime because it has.

Markk doesn't get that. Markk never got that. Markk still doesn't get that.

And even if Markk did get that, he'd never admit it here because ego.

[_Jersey Girl]

* Note Trump’s syntax:

Last week the Fake News said that a section of our powerful, under construction, Southern Border Wall ‘fell over’, trying to make it sound terrible, except the reason was that the concrete foundation was just poured & soaking wet when big winds kicked in. Quickly fixed ‘forever‘,

This man is a half-wit. How people can support an obvious reprobate idiot as the President is mystifying.

- Doc

Yeah, I wonder what Markk thinks about that statement? The concrete was soaking wet? You mean the so-called wall was just sitting there in wet concrete with no support?

Kill me.

I own buildings. I'm a builder; I know how to build. Nobody can build like I can build. Nobody. And the builders in New York will tell you that. I build the best product. And my name helps a lot. ~ DJT

[Guest]

* Note Trump’s syntax:

Last week the Fake News said that a section of our powerful, under construction, Southern Border Wall ‘fell over’, trying to make it sound terrible, except the reason was that the concrete foundation was just poured & soaking wet when big winds kicked in. Quickly fixed ‘forever‘,

This man is a half-wit. How people can support an obvious reprobate idiot as the President is mystifying.

- Doc

Yeah, I wonder what Markk thinks about that statement? The concrete was soaking wet? You mean the so-called wall was just sitting there in wet concrete with no support?

Kill me.

I own buildings. I'm a builder; I know how to build. Nobody can build like I can build. Nobody. And the builders in New York will tell you that. I build the best product. And my name helps a lot. ~ DJT

LOL...this is why you can't be taken serious at all, and like I said you are a follower.


https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... ig-llr.cnn

You will have to focus here...watch the video.

With this type of fence or wall, a deep footing is first dug, the fence section is then raised up by a crane, and braced with a long steel diagonal brace, rebar might also be tied to the fence posts in the footing...then the concrete is poured in the footing, around the fence that extends deep into the footings.

The braces are commonly called a "tilt up brace"...they have a threaded portion that allows the brace to be moved in and out to plumb the wall once the wall is close to vertical. The top part of the brace in this case, is connected to the top of the fence with some sort of temporary "brace point" connection, in concrete walls they are embedded and tied to the rebar, I can't see how this is secured but it is most likely a weld plate of sorts with a through bolt.

The bottom part of the brace, in this application, is connected to what is called "dead man". It is a huge solid concrete block that sits on top of grade, and supports the wall in vertical position until the concrete is cured, and the engineer/inspectors okay the braces to be removed.

Look at the video, yo can see the green "reach fork" picking up and moving the "dead man" out of the way, you can see the brace also, that it was once connected to. If you look to the left of this you can see a brace connected to the dead man, in front of the yellow excavator.

What happened based on what I see is that wind pressure against the fence pulled the dead man and brace forward. It is that obvious.

Also look at the very tail end of the video, you can see a concrete truck on another section which tells us that the concrete was about to poured or had just been poured, and was soaking wet.

The wall might stand in a upright position, temporarily braced, for several days while the foundation reinforcements and inspections are in progress.

Also, concrete typically does not reach it's max. strength until 28 days, unless they use a accelerated mix design. It is best for concrete to dry slow, so 28 day mix is generally the standard...and, after the 28 days is typically when the engineer will release the braces to be removed. Typically the the engineer directs that core samples be taken, and then have them broke and tested at a combination of 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 day "breaks," so as to make sure the design meets its intended values.

This is what you do most always, just blather about things you now nothing about, being a total follower, parroting talking points you are told to believe. .

Trump was 100% correct on this, and the news took it, twisted it, politicized it, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker, just like the others.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yeah Markk?

There was exactly no 'parroting' nor 'talking points' in my response to Cam. See the little squiggly marks at the end of the sentences? Those are questions.

Further, do you know how i approach posts that touch on my own field where someone could use more information?

I supply the information that they need in order to increase their insight and understanding of an issue. Without attempting even once to degrade them for what they are yet to learn.

Keep it classy, Markk.

[_Markk]

canpakes wrote...Nice try, but it's not a 'he said, she said' situation, given that the following is what Sondland said:

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks"


Image


Now you can toss that argument of yours into the trash bin. Thanks. And you can now answer my question directly, yes? Here it is, again:

"Given your inability to answer why Trump did not engage the DoJ in pursuing corruption that you claim he was sure existed because “he was sure that it existed”, then why would Trump need to ask Zelensky to look into any corruption claim, or make a public announcement about same?

After all, there would be no need to ask Zelensky to do anything, either, right?"

You should have pasted the next paragraph also...and the video of Sondland saying this was his opinion by presumption. And Yermek denying what Sondland said. Again, he said she said...and this is why i asked for a context, which ironically keeps moving around.

canpakes wrote...Here, let me not 'duck' this question for you: I'm saying that if the President felt that he had credible evidence of corruption that warranted an investigation, then he should have asked the DoJ to investigate. Your question here is more for Trump - why didn't he want an investigation for corruption in Ukraine, given that he would not ask the DoJ for this?

It is being investigated by the DoJ for one thing, and he had Rudy taking the lead to gather evidences, very similar to Biden taking the lead for Obama, except Joe had a Check book and is on video admitting to a quid pro quo.

Your answer to the question is that there was not enough evidence, my answer is there was, and he did not need to ask the DOJ.

Z was elected by the Ukrainian people to cleanup the corruption, that is what he ran on, and Trump is asking him to do what he was elected to do, why, because we were going to give them billions, and as the transcript reads, he asked Z to do "us" a favor, and I hope he does...and investigates any and all corruption including Joe and his son.







You should try answering that question, or the original version of it, which you have ducked for some twenty pages or so: Why didn't Trump as the DoJ to investigate?[/quote]