1) you're wrong. None have said they personally heard Trump explicitly tie the aid to his demands, but many have said he himself tied the white house meeting to his demand for a political gift, which is a crime, and just as many have said it was clear the funding was tied too, and never did anyone at the Whitehouse contradict that in any way, even when asked directly, until they knew they were under investigation.
2) trump himself released the summary transcript in which he ties the funding to the investigations of political rivals and nothing else. Even your stage 5 cranial rectosis can't shield you from that inconvenient truth.

A majority still say he should not only be impeached, but removed from office.

*facepalm. The lack of direct witnesses is because of Trump's obstruction, telling subordinates to ignore subpoenas. That alone is impeachable.
You probably mean they can call unrelated red herrings like Biden who has zero bearing on the charges.
1/2 the republican question time was wasted by them giving whining speeches about how they can't ask questions, and 1/4 spent whining that they can't use this time to investigate Biden....who has never been accused of anything illegal you might note. Edit: ....and the whistleblower, because clearly it's important to know who they are in order to destroy their lives, but not for any other possible reason.
Using impeachment to investigate political rivals and harass whistleblowers instead of investigating the president isn't going to help win independents, the only voters in play. Lose the Senate, which is likely, and Trump will be the first president to be impeached twice if he remains in office.

Oh Bobby, who cried the last two election nights? Not Democrats. I wasn't even surprised Trump won. I called that in spring 2016 when the DNC was caught helping Clinton and screwing Sanders.

You are right on one point, when the Turtle gets the case, he's going to tank it and Trump won't even get a slap on the wrist, but only because party loyalty is far more important to Republicans than national loyalty or rule of law, not because he didn't commit more crimes. In that sense, Democrats have lost. We all have.

But I don't write to you, it's for others who maybe wouldn't watch Trump rape and murder young boys then defend him. There is literally nothing he could do to make you stop riding his dick. Absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to convince you. You're a lost cause....and likely a Russian troll.

MAGA=Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

Lol. Oh Bob. I see you didn't get that help you are crying out for.

Schiff isn't the one saying it.
It's the over a dozen Trump administration officials, you know, like the people who gave him a million dollars towards his election campaign to then be installed in his cabinet with zero experience, people that he now calls never trumpers...them, and idiot Trump himself who released a heavily redacted call summary, called it a transcript, and inexplicably left in the parts where he insisted on investigations into political rivals (and no one else) in exchange for releasing congressionally approved aid.

If Trump drained the swamp, it was only to turn it into the world's largest and most ecologically disastrous sewage holding pond.

Great job? On what? Destroying our international standing and standards? There he IS simply the best. Sucking up and capitulating to our enemies while abandoning and distancing our allies? Yep, better than all the rest. Lying to the American people? Better than anyone else. Running a criminal administration for his personal enrichment? No one else could pass the test.

If you call his disastrous work a "great job", what will you call his removal? The best job ever? You are so delusional that just last week you claimed Republicans run the house and Democrats run the Senate so you could blame our badly flawed paperless voting system on those evil Senate Democrats. *facepalm

Wasted billions on 70 miles of new wall.....that's really replacement fence that can be cut through in under a minute with a reciprocating saw, and only where barriers existed. Great. Increased illegal immigration exponentially. Great. Tax cuts/government welfare for the rich but not the needy that exploded the deficit and debt. Great. Failed trade agreements that have cost tens-hundreds of billions only to put us in a far worse position than before he started. Great. Zero investment in infrastructure. Great. Total decimation of environmental laws.
Great. Abandoning our best allies against terrorism to cozy up to dictators. Great. Best of all, he's widened the divide in America more than all administrations in the last 150 years combined, and recently began calling for preparation for civil war if he's not re-elected. Great.

Um...if he's removing deep state operatives, why are they all his people being jailed? More than even any two term administration ever, beating Nixon's indictment and conviction rates in under two years, before the Mueller fallout. Indeed, in that time he has had more than twice the convictions of all Democratic administration officials since 1970....again, before most Mueller convictions. (It bears noting that Republican officials are convicted at a rate >91 times that of Democrats).

What you really meant to say.....No matter what Trump says it is guaranteed to be a lie.

He stupidly admitted there was a stenographer on the phone call, so unless they destroy it, there is a word for word transcript of the entire call that's already been subpoenaed, including the missing majority of the call not included in the summary they produced.

Also we now have confirmation of the quid quo pro in the form of emails directing the ambassador to set up a face to face meeting only if the Ukrainian president agrees to publicly investigate Biden.

Also, today Rick Perry resigned and declared his intention to cooperate fully with the investigation. That does not bode well for Trump.

Sadly, since the Senate majority doesn't care about the law or country, only protecting themselves from Trump's wrath and his terroristic followers, there's not a chance he will be removed, but not a chance he won't be exposed as a treasonous traitor either.

Hilariously it's actually only the summary of the so far unreleased word for word transcript ....and still it totally shows the president in his official capacity asking for foreign political help in the form of a baseless investigation of his political rival by a foreign leader.
One wonders what's in the word for word transcript they continue to hide that would make releasing this damming summary seem smart by comparison.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

My dad flies a one-seater electric LSA he kit-built himself. Based on his summary, I always described the "sport" designation to curious friends this way: "as long as you only kill yourself, the FAA doesn't care". I am surprised and unnerved to see carrying one passenger is indeed allowed under current regulation... that ain't right.

Funny how the left can't get over the fact that Trump won and the Muller witch hunt came up with nothing. Fake news just can't let go of their Hillary will win by a land slide dream.

Those who get their news from CNN/ late night have been lied to.

Muller letter wanted 19 more pages released at initial 4 page summary Barr release. Barr released the full report that includes the 19 pages few weeks later when Muller's team was done redacting parts.

Sour grapes, sore loser.

What happened to the Deep State?

Also, we have a redacted 400 page report and Barr's word as to what's in there (he has a history of outright lying in his summaries, so this can't be taken at face value).

We also have investigators for the Muller team saying Barr's conclusion does not follow from the report they handed him.

Incidentally, even Barr, as deep in the tank as he is for Trump, had to define "collusion" as equivalent to a criminally provable conspiracy in his summary to make it deniable. Clearly he wouldn't have needed to redefine the word if the President wasn't guilty under the standard definition. Ergo, clearly the President and his team DID collude with Russia. It may not amount to a federal crime, but they absolutely did collude. Hell, they've even admitted it publicly (after getting caught).

Redacted. Telling that story left me feeling nauseous.

Summary: All cops suck. They're either violent animals or covering for violent animals. That makes them all criminals.

At last, we agree. I get pissed every time I hear someone call it a "Summary"

All 9 make sense when you remember Barr was chosen for this position in order to protect Trump from the findings, specifically because he repeatedly proclaimed Trump immune from prosecution and the investigation illegal, politically motivated, and purely partisan before being considered for the position.

The "summary" from Barr replaced the clear, sanitized summaries the investigators wrote themselves and included with the report with the intention being their summaries would be released immediately with no need whatsoever to redact them. This has so angered the professional investigators that they have told acquaintances (who then told the press) it's a pure partisan whitewash, totally misrepresenting their findings and the evidence....and that there is clear, damming, prosecutable evidence of obstruction.
Note, there were zero leaks from this team until they were forced to defend the contents and summaries of the investigation from partisan lies and attempts to misrepresent and hide the findings.

Don't believe the known liars, we don't know a thing until the entire report is public...only propaganda from a dishonest administration.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5784098-AGLetter32919.html
"I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019 supplemental notification as a "summary" of the Special Counsel's investigation and report."

"My March 24 letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of the Special Counsel's investigation"