You don't post any evidence and merely make claims that are impossible to verify, mostly because they are opinions. Screaming "fake news" and your newly minted "MSM bot" as a response to my typical viewpoint with linked article isn't a rebuttal but rather a tacit admission that you have no rebuttal or are simply incapable of mounting an argument, which is usually the case. It's an attack on me, not the viepoint which demonstrates a unconscionable level of shallowness. You are an expert on usage of excrement emojis so I'll acquiesce on issues related to excrement. You're the expert there. With all that said, this is an impeachment thread so let's return to the topic. If you don't have new information or a novel viewpoint than my recommendation would be to stay quiet and learn.
LOL! I post plenty of evidence. The problem is you don't listen to anything beyond what the MSM tells you to think. Stay quiet and learn? From you? You've become a joke since TDS destroyed you.
Did you miss the part where the NOAA administrator agreed with Trump and shot down that conspiracy from the NYT that said the administration threatened the NOAA? That's rich from someone like you who falls for every fake news story that promises to get Trump.
That is your answer to anyone who disagrees with you. That is why discussions with you don't go anywhere. Bias. That is it. Once you claim that, in your mind, you don't have to judge whether it is true or not. It is really lame. Government resources are never to be used to investigate corruption? If you really believed that government resources weren't to be used for political reasons, you would have said something about the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign. But you really don't care. You only care about Team Blue.
Yeah, the same administrator that also praised the Birmingham office. Nabbed this from an extremist source that you might prefer. It's actually the same thing posted in the MSM too. Btw- that's an example of supporting an argument. You should try it as more than the rare exception. It doesn't take much time if you know how to use the Internet.
Wait..you started by accusing me of unable to see trough my bias then get ruffled when I throw it back? Yeah...THAT'S why people don't like to have discussions with me. On this we may agree. I specifically stated there are elements of the government that are in charge of investigations. The DOJ specifically plays that role as an impartial group of career employees, read not politicians. If evidence arises in Barr's investigation on the genesis of the Russia investigation that ties it back to the Obam Whitehouse that will reinforce my view. Politicians need to keep an invisible wall between law enforcement and themselves. That wasn't a novel concept until Trump blurred the line.
Both being correct isn't exactly mutually exclusive. You also didn't mention the part where the administrator said that the "news" from the NYT wasn't real. Once again you fell for fake news.
Link? Not in the article I posted. HERE is an example where you can support your claim and make us all smarter. Absent that you are pissing in the wind which may fit with your infatuation with excrement emojis. No judging.
What is my post accuracy? Talking put of your *** over and over and over is no way to demonstrate any measurable insight. It's just like opinions and ********...
Selective memory. I started by asking the question, "isn't it better to get the truth even if those bringing it are motivated improperly." Inherent within the question was agreement that there was political motivation and maybe even conflict of interest. But to me truth is the most important thing. Then you accused me of bias. Then I pointed out yours.
Now we are cooking with gas. Thank you. I can appreciate the Administrators challenging situation. When he voiced support for Birmingham employees he was presenting in a national conference, opened to boos, and took the stage with the knowledge that NOAA's Chief Scientist had opened their own investigation to who issued the unsigned Press Release. Jacobs had a mutiny on his handa. With all that said, would you expect him to admit that jobs would be at stake? His claim doesn't automatically invalidate the NYT article. Hopefully the Chief Scientists investigation will give some insight but I'm not hopeful. Do you notice that you called something Fakenews that can't be validated or dispelled? You simply didn't like the news.
Yeah, you started down that road the took a very partisan right turn. Lets revisit... Do you want to revisit your selective memory allegation and return to a fruitful, insightful discussion? As an aside, I don't think "truth" is the desire the Buden investigation. If there was a smidgen of wrongdoing law enforcement authorities would open the investigation, not a couple of political hacks. The fact that they are pushing Ukraine to open the investigation is unethical if not illegal. If then was a modicum amount of evidence of Biden I'd have no problem with a law enforcement investigation. All the evidence to date is the opposite. The accusations are founded on discredited politicians and conspiracy theories.
I never disagreed with you about who should be doing the investigating. But your statement completely ignores my starting question. Am I to imply that you want truth withheld from you if the source doesn't sit in the "correct" office or have pure motives? But even your statement is false. DOJ bureaucrats are not impartial. You know why? Because human being are not impartial. Some are better than others, but in the last 3 years example upon example has been exposed of very, very partial DOJ and NSA career employees. The public has seen that the world of Executive Branch Agencies is full of political intrigue and loyalties. Do you mean the opposite in your first statement? That should get you to reconsider your view. Sure seems like Obama was involved though doesn't it? There is no direct evidence but there sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence. Do you really think DOJ officials in the Obama administration were acting outside of Obama's directive? Like Susan Rice and Eric Holder? Holder held up investigations all the time that looked like they might be related to his boss. I don't see Trump as unique. I see him as a very normal President in many ways. Except he is less of a warmonger, but way more crude and egotistical publicly.
Is that what you call debate? Tisk tisk. Is now the moment I should bring up you citing a new source that you consistently scream is fake? What are the rules on when a news source can be believed and when its fake? Do they mirror your viewpoint?
I have to go with the response I am getting. No one came back and said, "of course we want the truth no matter what". You specifically brought the source and the motivation. I drew the only logical conclusion available with the data you gave me. That isn't me being partisan for Trump. That is me thinking through your biased response.
I guess you are incapable of even understanding the question I asked. Once again you move right past it to criticize the motivation and source. You seem convinced about who is correct and who is what the evidence is and exactly who is discredited and making up false theories. Sounds like all involved need to give you a call so you can clear things up.
Okay first off it was a leak that was false Then to get protection from leaking he’s now trying to claim whistle blowing status. He’s still a leaker that gave info that didn’t match the transcript. You never bring facts to the table then pat yourself on your back like you made a Perry Mason moment while the rest of us are looking at you like WTF?
First, thank you for the response. Please know some of the following toungue in cheek responses are not intended to mock you but rather to show that we each have our biases and can apply the exact same partisan lense towards each other. I have to go with the response I'm getting. I don't recall you standing up and proclaiming "of course, I want the truth no matter what" regarding Trump's attempts to influence Ukraine to open investigations on Biden and the DNC server. I drew the only logical conclusion available with the data you gave me. That isn't me being a Trump dissenter. That is me thinking through your biased question and response. I do need to point out the sequence of this topic... 1. Monahorn raises a question and immediately answered your it via a strawman claiming the reason was bias. 2. Seattlehusker answers and points out Monahorns bias (we all have them). 3. Monahorns guffaws at the accusation of bias and accuses Seattlehusker has selective memory and used the postvto slam SH. 4. Seattlehusker points to Monahorns initial claim of bias and pinpointed only one side! 5. Monahorns then shifts the argument to ignore that he started the topic by claiming bias. 6. Seattlehusker attempts to hold up the mirror with this post.
There are a few posters which I know are knowledgable and recognize I need to be careful when engaging in a debate. You and Garmel are not in that group.
This is from the Ukraine News Agency and so far there is no verification. " KYIV. Oct 9 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials. Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday. "This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," Derkach said. ing political and economic levelers of influencing Ukrainian authorities and manipulating the issue of providing financial aid to Ukraine, Joe Biden actively assisted closing criminal cases into the activity of former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the founder and owner of Burisma Group," he said. "Biden's fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7-8, 2015 was devoted to making a decision on the resignation of [then Ukrainian Prosecutor General] Viktor Shokin over the case of Zlochevsky and Burisma. Loan guarantees worth $1 billion that the United States was to give to Ukraine was the point of pressure. Biden himself admitted exerting pressure in his speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin 'son of a ***** who was fired'," Derkach said. The timeline of events proves that the U.S. linked the Zlochevsky case to loan guarantees, he said. After the decree dismissing Shokin was published on April 3, 2016, the governments of the United States and Ukraine signed a loan guarantee agreement worth $1 billion, several months later, on June 3, he said." More at link Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 for lobbying – Ukrainian MP If true this is the first I have seen of Joe benefitting directly.
Like I said if you ever feel brave enough we can do comparisons about what you've been right about vs. me over the last few years. You'll be on the losing side, son.
