Pelosi Delays Impeachment Trial: Ploy to keep Impeachment in Headlines . . and Away from IG Horowitz report or Barr/Durham coming investigation and indictments. It's working. Pelosi WINS !

[remake it + 288]

8 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

Precedent. look it up. It has a lot to do with trials and the way things are done in this country. 

It is people like you who unload a stream of ill-informed commentary into forums that give those not from the USA a good understanding of the nature of the predicament your country is facing.

[SERWIN + 749]

What predicament would that be? That Trump is going to get an equally fair trial by the Senate and will be exonerated quickly and we can get on with business? Then he will be re-elected and continue to tell China to go phuck themselves...

[Jabbar + 465]

Lawsuit involving Ciaramella.  Does not look good for Democrats.  Just my opinion.

Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against both the DOJ and CIA for communications of CIA employee Eric Ciaramella, who reportedly worked on Ukraine issues while on detail to both the Obama and Trump White Houses.

The lawsuit against the DOJ was filed after it failed to respond to November 2019 FOIA requests seeking communications between Ciaramella and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Attorney Lisa Page, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and/or the Special Counsel’s Office (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-03809)

Ciaramella is widely reported as the person who filed the whistleblower complaint that triggered the impeachment proceedings. His name reportedly was “raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry.”

“There is significant public interest, thanks to the Obama Spygate scandal and the related abusive impeachment of President Trump, in what Eric Ciaramella was up to,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “CIA operative Ciaramella is documented to be involved in the Russia collusion investigation, and was a key CIA operative on Ukraine in the both the Obama and Trump White Houses. Our lawsuits are designed to break through the unprecedented cover-up of his activities.”

Judicial Watch recently compiled an extensive list of persons Ciaramella met while in the Obama-era White House. That list includes, but is not limited to, Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine; Gina Lentine, formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations; and former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who had extensive involvement with Clinton-funded dossier. The logs also reveal that Alexandra Chalupa, contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, visited the White House 27 times.

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Jabbar

[SERWIN + 749]

And he will be re-elected to continue what he is doing now. I think Melania should run after his second term, she would have the benefit of Trump to guide her, she would be the first female president, and SHE could continue to tell China to go phuck themselves for us.... Oh wait, she isn't a natural born citizen....oh , but wait, our last president never proved he was either, but he came here to college on a student visa from another country, so I guess that doesn't matter anymore, and we won't know until some higher judge unseals the birth certificate.... but I'm sure Trump's son would be great at telling China to go phuck themselves as well, probably picked up some pointers from his dad over the last couple of years....

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 12/26/2019 at 6:52 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

At the end of the day, the Senate will not remove Trump from office, nor should they with the evidence presented in the House circus.

I think that is a virtual certainty.  And I would be surprised if the Senate spends any time on it, assuming the House formally forwards the Articles  (which I suspect they will not). Probably get dumped the next day. 

On 12/26/2019 at 6:52 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Pelosi and the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner now. If she does not forward the articles in a timely manner, her case looks weak. If she fails to forward on the Senate floor and declare that the President is impeached...it is arguable if he was ever actually impeached. 

And again you have hit on a key point.  I think a great legal case can be made that there is no "impeachment" on record if the Articles are not formally Presented to the Senate for its consideration.  the House can go pass all the resolutions it likes, so what?  The House can go pass a Resolution making the canola plant the National Plant, and again so what?  Means nothing.  Cheers. 

[Jabbar + 465]

10 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I think that is a virtual certainty.  And I would be surprised if the Senate spends any time on it, assuming the House formally forwards the Articles  (which I suspect they will not). Probably get dumped the next day. 

And again you have hit on a key point.  I think a great legal case can be made that there is no "impeachment" on record if the Articles are not formally Presented to the Senate for its consideration.  the House can go pass all the resolutions it likes, so what?  The House can go pass a Resolution making the canola plant the National Plant, and again so what?  Means nothing.  Cheers. 

If the Republicans win back the House the Republican Congress could vote to expunge the Impeachment.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Jabbar

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And again you have hit on a key point.  I think a great legal case can be made that there is no "impeachment" on record if the Articles are not formally Presented to the Senate for its consideration.  the House can go pass all the resolutions it likes, so what?  The House can go pass a Resolution making the canola plant the National Plant, and again so what?  Means nothing.  Cheers. 

The House voted to impeach and that is a matter of public record that cannot be undone while the Senate has the power to write the rules so as to accept that outcome and try the matter as they too see fit so your conjectures have the usual underpinnings of those here who do not understand what the Constitution allows. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Jabbar said:

If the Republicans win back the House the Republican Congress could vote to expunge the Impeachment.

That would be an interesting twist.  If the Articles had not been forwarded to the Senate, then it likely could.  If the Articles had been forwarded, then who knows?  Personally, my guess is that it could not be expunged after formal Presentation.  There is nothing in the Constitution that stands for the proposition that the House can say, "Oops, we goofed, sorry about that.  We take it all back."  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

so your conjectures have the usual underpinnings of those here who do not understand what the Constitution allows. 

As if some Chinese robot knows more than I do.  What an idiotic operation that IA Bot control is. 

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

As if some Chinese robot knows more than I do.  What an idiotic operation that IA Bot control is. 

To your legendary credit Donna says you get it half write.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

"To your legendary credit Donna says you get it half write."

Readers may note that the above quote, which is from the Chines military propaganda Bot post above, reflects that I wrote "artificial Intelligence" by the initials, reversed, which I did deliberately to void scanning identification by the Bot and force the Handler out to write the response, which I anticipated was coming soon enough.  And, as usual, that is exactly what happened. 

Readers are cautioned not to get involved in some intellectual argument with a Bot, that is an exercise in futility, but you can scorn, manipulate, heap opprobrium on, or otherwise belittle any Bot.  Bots are fair game for all your spleen, folks, so go for it!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Jan, are you sure you want to get into a game of back and forth in the comments here?

 

/ edit    Oops never mind, just saw your last comment after I posted the ping pong gif

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Readers are cautioned not to get involved in some intellectual argument with a Bot, that is an exercise in futility, but you can scorn, manipulate, heap opprobrium on, or otherwise belittle any Bot.  Bots are fair game for all your spleen, folks, so go for it!

Your point is valid but sadly your knowledge remains skewed to what you prefer to believe and this conditions your responses rather than logic or in this matter facts.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

3 minutes ago, remake it said:

Your point is valid but sadly your knowledge remains skewed to what you prefer to believe and this conditions your responses rather than logic or in this matter facts.

Readers take note:  an AI Bit never quits, it just keeps chugging along.  A Bot is driven by computer algorithms, so it will continue to scan anything and everything posted, anywhere, and the algorithms spit out some babble answer, whatever the supervisors in the propaganda department of the Chinese military have approved.  In the Bot Control, it is never Miller Time, it is Babble time!

[remake it + 288]

Care needs to be exercised in assessing any poll however in markets the concept of momentum is key to profits so Pelosi's tactic while being a double edged sword has pointed the sharper edge where it needs to cut deepest.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

You guys knew after Hillary took all the grief and the Rep’s came up with nothing that quid pro quo would happen. When McConnal promised Obama a one term president right after the election that the Dem’s would forgive and forget? 
Btw, this charge that the Dem’s control 90% of the press sounds like crying bs. Let’s see your sources or fact check sources. Are your billionaires that cheap and underfunded? I think not.

 Are you unfamiliar with the Harvard study concerning MSM bias? Care to look it up or do I need to do your work for you? 

[remake it + 288]

31 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 Are you unfamiliar with the Harvard study concerning MSM bias? Care to look it up or do I need to do your work for you? 

It is true that the media will always have measurable biases (depending on topic and methodology) but it should be our job to sort the wheat from the chaff and in this regard we can be helped out by referencing fact checking sources or the origination of the commentary which nowadays is increasing more possible than ever before.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, remake it said:

It is true that the media will always have measurable biases (depending on topic and methodology) but it should be our job to sort the wheat from the chaff and in this regard we can be helped out by referencing fact checking sources or the origination of the commentary which nowadays is increasing more possible than ever before.

"These aren't the droids you're looking for"

[remake it + 288]

18 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

"These aren't the droids you're looking for"

In the vernacular your President is an avid liar and many sites sourcing the truth are able to show exactly why so you could try to sort fact from fiction yourself and avoid the transgressions of headline seekers.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

In the vernacular your President is an avid liar and many sites sourcing the truth are able to show exactly why so you could try to sort fact from fiction yourself and avoid the transgressions of headline seekers.

< sigh >

Here, have a helpful cheat sheet for sorting fact from fiction.  Go ahead and blow a logic circuit when you finally realize the bulk of Mainstream Media is fiction, or at the very least, fictionesqe infotainment.

 

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Readers take note:  an AI Bit never quits, it just keeps chugging along.  A Bot is driven by computer algorithms, so it will continue to scan anything and everything posted, anywhere, and the algorithms spit out some babble answer, whatever the supervisors in the propaganda department of the Chinese military have approved.  In the Bot Control, it is never Miller Time, it is Babble time!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 Are you unfamiliar with the Harvard study concerning MSM bias? Care to look it up or do I need to do your work for you? 

Or....you could watch the news and read the various ‘newspapers’ yourself. If that does not convince you then it is pointless to debate the issue here.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Or....you could watch the news and read the various ‘newspapers’ yourself. If that does not convince you then it is pointless to debate the issue here.

The poor AI can't "read" the various newspapers itself, nor glean meaning from content. 

How it's designed is through a matrix of tensor strings, which gives it the "context" of phrasing. Think of a multidimensional spreadsheet of binary large objects (BLOBS) instead of cells. In fact a "cell" could even be a whole spreadsheet. 

Think of it this way, a computer is excellent at doing certain things. However, if I give the CPU as input the collected works of Shakespeare, and it "organizes" it by alphabetising all the words, what happens to the context? No more plays, no more sonnets, just easily retrieved words in lexicographic order. Now when the algorithm "hears" a word like Juliette, it can have pointers back to the original, and quote at some length from there, but the artistry of William is completely alien to it, even though someone reading the lines unfamiliar with the Bard might believe the computer has done something really clever. Nuance? Thinking? Fuhgeddaboutit. 

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The poor AI can't "read" the various newspapers itself, nor glean meaning from content. 

As fascinating as your comments appear to yourself this topic has a different bent and those who reckon they have an understanding what the Constitution entails are instead showing why there are so many ill-conceived ideas supporting a President who on the evidence of his many false and misleading claims appears to be a chronic liar.

[Papillon + 485]

It appears the bot nonsense will continue into the new year gentlemen, presumably with debate among users as to whether it is a bot or not. Mr Kirkman himself, a moderator, says he is unsure. The user Otis says he is unsure. Mr van Eck and Mr Smith are sure, and yet converse everyday with this user. The website itself allows the user to post every single day. What a bizarre place this is. 

It seems when people have no argument, the accusations start. Have a quick think about why that is. Any link or evidence given by him is instantly dismissed, whereas others' links in return are clearly fact. I sincerely hope users can see the hypocrisy of this site and how ridiculous it is much of the time. If you have a vaguely opposing view you are accused of being a bot or an apologist. This is the level of arrogance some have reached in America - ''how can anyone possibly criticise our amazing system? They must be Chinese.'' 

As I have stated before, many American users here seem to believe they live in some form of wonderland. When I mentioned some of the domestic issues the USA faces (as it seems self reflection is a quality most users lack here), I was told by Mr van Eck that this is a site about oil, and so maybe those discussions would be better suited to a Russian news outlet. However, at the same time, it is absolutely fine to discuss topics such as the removal of organs in China, as the link to the oil industry is so obvious. Again, nothing but hypocrisy and whataboutism, anything but self reflection here. It is rather odd, ignorant and verging on moronic. 

Even when domestic issues may arise, it will be in the context of what Democrats have done or are doing, so even within their own self reflection there is whataboutism to the party they oppose. It is laughable here in all honesty. DayTrader perfectly quotes their politics as being a circus, they have people emptying their bowels on the street, levels of homelessness and drug abuse through the roof, and hundreds of other issues, but they are not mentioned ever as I say, as it distracts from their version of wonderland, and users are too busy wishing to discuss a bot or China to own a metaphorical mirror and turn it around. As long as it is geopolitical but doesn't address American issues other than the circus then anything goes. Even then, just criticise Democrats. Unbelievable.

Let's hope next year the levels of ignorance, stupidity and hypocrisy can be minimised slightly. Let's hope people can be fed and clothed in the land of the free, rather than being too busy spending money on the military (when China does this, they are criticised, when the USA does it it is absolutely fine ... - this dynamic here is constant, look out for it ). Joking aside, look for any criticism of another nation and I guarantee it will be tinged with hypocrisy. The arrogance has hit worrying levels. Luckily the website seems to be full of users who feel they make a difference by whining to each other about a range of topics, from the environment to Democrats to China to a bot to a small girl. I think I need to ponder a resolution for the new year. With a respect that is dwindling due to feeling like I am talking with children, Papillon. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Papillon