It's not a transcript.

[Econoline]

the traffic is likely t00 high , at the m0ment, check again later.....

https://cdn.qmap.pub/images/585be54cd0b ... bc1922.jpg

This image seems to be a screen capture of a Facebook post Adam Schiff made on Father's Day, containing a photo of Schiff with his dad, his son, and his brother, and the message,

• "Father's Day with my Dad, my son, and my brother. To all of the fathers and grandfathers out there, a very Happy Father's Day! Also, kids remember to do something nice for Dad today!"

I'm at a loss to understand why wes thinks this has anything to do with the false claims against Paul Pelosi, Chris Heinz, and whichever unspecified one of Romney's 5 sons they were accusing of unspecified wrongdoing. The debunking by Politifact seems to be extensively researched and well documented, and contains links to all of their sources. It's obvious that wes didn't even look at that article.

[Lord Jim]

Comrade Wesovich is spreading Russian FSB disinformatiat...

Just like his hero...

[wesw]

m0ssad T-shirt ?

strange....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Very popular. On Amazon (similar ones anyway). What's your point?

[Lord Jim]

research it f0r 5 minutes....

Wes has been participating here for more than five years, and still hasn't grasped one of the most basic protocols...

It is not Scooter's obligation, (or mine, or anyone elses) to go dig up links that support your argument...

That is the responsibility of the person making the assertion, not those who question it...

This is true as a general operating principle around here, but particularly true in your case where more often then not supporting information either doesn't exist to be found, or comes from highly disreputable sources with a proven track record for lying...

Which is probably why you so rarely provide source links...

[Scooter]

He gave us a cartoon, Jim. If that wasn't enough to convince us, then surely he would be wasting his time providing actual evidence.

[Guinevere]

Come *on* Scooter. Cartoons are recognized as authoritative, when setting forth "facts" on behalf of a cartoon President.

[wesw]

all yu guys have d0ne f0r three yrs is t0 put up silly little pictures.

yur s0 funny.

y0u all must ve been in the AV club at sch00l.

prjecti0nists n0t s0 extr0rdinaire......

[Lord Jim]

all yu guys have d0ne f0r three yrs is t0 put up silly little pictures.

Total, complete, absolute horseshit...

For the past four years (since Trump started to have a serious chance of getting nominated) myself and others here have presented dozens of (strike that; by this point it must be well into the hundreds) well-researched investigative articles from reputable sources documenting every aspect of Trump's criminality, corruption, cruelty, racism, connections to hostile regimes, his thousands of lies, unethical business practices, etc., etc., etc., both before and after he assumed the Presidency.,.. (if you can only recall "silly little pictures" that's more a commentary on your honesty and/or your reading comprehension skills than it is on the quality of the mountain of damning evidence against Trump that has been presented here.)

You have countered with meaningless and/or irrelevant YouTube videos, assertions pulled completely out of your (or Trump's) ass backed up by nothing of substance, diversions and deflections, discredited and debunked accusations, ad hominem attacks and smears against Trump truth tellers, and non-sequiturs and semi-coherent sentence fragments that make even Trump look literate by comparison...

Sad...

[Guinevere]

Exactly correct, Jim.

[wesw]

what if y0u threw an impeachment and n0b0dy came?

it impeachment p0rn.

there are n0 happy endings, th0....

[Burning Petard]

The Big Orange labels so much 'fake News" and "hoax" with no data points to support that judgement. I am forced to re-evaluate Hillary's big tactical mistake of a sound bite-"-basket of deplorables." Lots to data points to support THAT judgement.

snailgate

[wesw]

this is CNN....

...this is y0ur brain, 0n CNN

[wesw]

interesting interview.

Ukraine prsecuter speaks.

f0ll0w the m0ney

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6645WNCFwGmO/

[Bicycle Bill]

Regarding the site where you found that last 'informative video' — something called bitchute.com:

BitChute is a peer-to-peer content sharing platform. Creators are free to post content they produce to the platform, so long as they comply with our policies. The content posted to the platform is not reflective or representative of the views of Bit Chute Limited, its staff or owners. © 2019 Bit Chute Limited, Oxford House, 12-20 Oxford Street, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 1JB. United Kingdom. Company number 10637289.

A "peer-to-peer content sharing platform".  Hmmm......  wasn't that also what Napster was supposed to have been?

So now a website where literally any nutbar with a computer can post whateverinthehell they want is considered an authoritive source?
Well, I suppose in the Bizarro World of wesw and his friends it is.



-"BB"-

[wesw]

actual testimney fr0m an actual Ukrainian prsecuter that biden had axed.

s0 yeah, very inf0rmative.

take it f0r what it is w0rth, w0rth watching th0....

and BB, it is called free speech, available t0 any0ne at the m0ment.

d0n t y0u fav0r free speech?

free press?

it is f0r every0ne, n0t just CNN.

[wesw]

the senate trial will last mnths and m0nths.

it is unlikely t0 happen, in my view.

t00 much dirty laundry w0uld be aired.

maybe a simple dismissal 0f charges thru a simple maj0rity v0te.

[Lord Jim]

The Quislings and cowards just keep trying to delay the process (and I guess to try to get people to quit watching) with repeated and pointless faux "points of order"...

Embarassing...Pathetic...

[Bicycle Bill]

and BB, it is called free speech, available t0 any0ne at the m0ment.

d0n t y0u fav0r free speech?

free press?

I know I'm feeding the troll, but I can't help it.

Yes, wesw, I favor free speech and a free press.  Remember, though, that "free speech" and "free press" means that the GOVERNMENT may not put restrictions on speech or the press; not private entities — so if Facebook or Twitter decided to give whatshisname and his InfoWars site, for example, or any of the White Nationalist organizations the heave-ho, or if Gob himself were to decide that you have worn out your welcome and ban you, they (and he) have all the right in the world to do so.

And despite the First Amendment, the government CAN and does put restrictions on "free speech" and "free press" all the time.  Why do you think we were able to do so well in Desert Storm, or why Osama bin Laden was caught and killed?  It's because people who knew what was going to happen were told to keep their mouths shut and they did so — instead of taking to Twitter and posting the whole order of battle in 140-character chunks.

And lastly, while you and I and Alex Jones and Guin and BSG and everybody else has a right to free speech, we also have the right to

• 1) refuse to listen to your speeches.  Just because you have the right to talk out of your ass doesn't mean anyone has an obligation to listen! — and/or
  2) listen to them, weigh their merits, and then reject them as just so much verbal diarrhea — which is what the majority of us here have done, I think.  If anybody here seeks out your posts, I'm sure it's for much the same reason people rubber-neck at a car accident — or for comic relief ("let's see what the village idiot has to say about this").  It's NOT because we think you have anything worthwhile to say.

-"BB"-

[Econoline]

From NY Mag:

• Donald Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since he took office. The president’s high-crimes spree has ranged from accepting undisclosed payments from interested parties to obstructing justice, undermining the law, and sundry abuses of power. Precisely why Democrats have decided to impeach him over these latest offenses is a matter of some controversy on two flanks. Progressive Democrats are agitating for a wider impeachment encompassing a broader, if far from complete, list of Trump abuses. Republicans insist Democrats are only launching impeachment now because the Mueller investigation ended anticlimactically, leaving the opposition panicked at a prospective Trump reelection.
  
  The truth, however, is more anodyne. Democrats are impeaching Trump over the Ukraine scandal in large part because Republicans invited them to do just that.
  
  When the Ukraine scandal burst into the news, a widespread consensus agreed that the allegations were deeply improper, and quite likely impeachable. “I think it would be wildly inappropriate for an American president to invite a foreign country’s leader to get engaged in an American presidential election. That strikes me as entirely inappropriate,” pronounced Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. “If there is evidence of a quid pro quo, many think the dam will start to break on our side,” one Republican told the Washington Examiner in September. “Maybe if he withheld aid and there was a direct quid pro quo,” add another. Even a sycophant like Lindsey Graham conceded at the time that he might support impeachment “if you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.”
  
  Even as the White House has withheld most documentary evidence and testimony from central figures like Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and Trump himself, the case has been proved beyond any sliver of a doubt. Trump and his agents communicated to Ukraine through a variety of channels that they intended to trade a presidential meeting and military aid for the announcement of investigations into Trump’s domestic rivals. The terms of the deal are so obvious that even a fraction of the evidence was sufficient to establish it.
  
  The primary effect of the proliferation of evidence upon the Republicans has been to persuade them to change their standards as to what is acceptable presidential conduct. Oklahoma representative Tom Cole said in September that the whistle-blower complaint is “a serious matter, and I will continue to thoughtfully consider information as it becomes available.” But Cole quickly decided that he was tired of considering information thoughtfully. “It doesn’t matter much anymore,” he said last month.
  
  Many members of the mainstream media have defined this response as “partisanship.” A New York Times analysis noted that the parties in Monday’s hearings “presented radically competing versions of reality. CNN’s Chris Cillizza called the hearings “a bunch of adults yelling at one another over matters that almost no one watching understood or cares about.”
  
  The reality is that the parties have, if anything, converged on a shared set of facts, at least as it pertains to the Ukraine scandal. Whereas Republicans previously refused to connect the dots that showed Trump’s Ukraine extortion, they have increasingly accepted reality. They have simply redefined the unacceptable as acceptable.
  
  Ted Cruz, appearing on Meet the Press Sunday, denied that Trump had engaged in a high crime or misdemeanor, without denying the underlying conduct. “I believe any president, any Justice Department,” he insisted, “has the authority to investigate corruption.”
  
  The U.S. government has procedures in place to ascertain whether recipients of foreign aid have taken adequate steps to police corruption, and Ukraine passed the test. Indeed, Ukraine’s government is in the midst of a sweeping reform era, which is precisely why Trump — whose allies are working to recorrupt it — greeted the new regime so suspiciously. The “authority” Cruz is defending is ad hoc power to call any political opponent “corrupt” and demand an investigation. If Trump wants to ask Cuba to investigate Rafael Cruz for taking payments to help cover up the murder of John F. Kennedy Jr., by Ted Cruz’s reckoning, he has every right to do so.
  
  Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has just completed another trip to Ukraine where he is continuing to promote a series of crooked and Russophillic characters and is openly telling the government it needs to give him his favored investigations if it wants Trump’s favor. Trump supported Giuliani’s work by endorsing his demands on the White House lawn.
  
  Democrats have refrained from impeaching Trump to date because they concluded fatalistically that none of his conduct was sleazy or dangerous enough to drive Republicans out of his camp. They acted in response to his Ukraine scheme because Republicans explicitly signaled they had finally had enough. Instead they have reverted to form, meekly endorsing any abuse of power Trump commits. So they will maintain Trump in office, and he will commit more abuses of power.