Steve VS Hogan
starting at 38 seconds
ending at 5 minutes 25 seconds
Steve: Does the house process make the impeachment process any more fair?
LOGIC: #1 asking about "fairness" is OPINION NOT FACT (CRITICAL ERROR, FLAG ON THE PLAY, BUG IDENTIFIED). #2 It is the same process the republicans used to impeach Clinton so it stands to reason that (IFF) it was fair enough for Clinton (THEN) it must also be fair enough for Trump. It would be categorically UNFAIR to use a different process.
Hogan: 2 things, 1st thing, I dispute your premise, Trump was primarily concerned about Ukrainian Government Corruption. Ukraine was rife with corruption.
LOGIC: ABSOLUTELY 100% DODGES THE QUESTION (ABOUT FAIRNESS). You can dispute a premise, but you then need to explain exactly what you think that premise is and your REASONS for disputing it. Simply saying "i dispute the premise" is not CARTE BLANCHE to just ignore the interviewer and start SPOUTING YOUR TALKING-POINTS.
Steve: Just to be perfectly clear, you said the premise was incorrect? I've carefully reviewed the transcript, and the president asks about a couple of specific things. #1 a conspiracy theory involving crowdstrike and the DNC server, and #2 involves Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Those are the ONLY things the president asks about regarding Ukrainian Government Corruption.
LOGIC: Steve mentions "the premise" (still unspecified), and then forgets all about his fairness question (1st interview question!) and instead follows Hogan's RED-HERRING. And then pointedly questions Hogan's bald assertion that Trump is very concerned about Ukrainian Government Corruption. Crowdstrike is not part of the Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden is not part of the Ukrainian Government. (IFF) you are concerned about UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION (THEN) you should be investigating UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
Hogan: What he didn't talk about were his political rivals for 2020. I remember when democrats used to care about what happened in the 2016 election, that's what he was talking about and quite frankly [TALKING-POINT] this is what the president ran on and won on in 2016 [/TALKING POINT] which is making sure the money we give to our allies is spent wisely. I understand that democrats don't care how we spend taxpayer dollars at home much less abroad, but this president does.
LOGIC: Hogan throws down another RED-HERRING. Trump never mentioned 2020. This is a non-sequitur. Nobody is claiming that "Trump mentioned 2020". The actual implicit claim is that Trump IS THINKING ABOUT 2020 A LOT, SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THE WORDS 2020. The "fact" that Trump never mentioned 2020 on the call is 100% MOOT. Hogan throws down another RED-HERRING.
POSTULATE WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED. Hogan, out of the blue, says he remembers when democrats used to care about 2016. This is a statement of opinion which is stated as fact, conflating opinion with fact. It is also PROVABLY FALSE. Just ask one person, any person who calls themself a democrat, just ask them if they "care about what happened in 2016" and see if their answer contradicts Hogan's opinion stated as fact.
Wildly off-topic, [TALKING-POINT] this is what the president ran on and won on in 2016 [/TALKING POINT].
Are you sure you want to talk about that? Is this the same president who lost the popular vote by over 2 million? Can you perhaps answer the very first question of this interview mr. "landslide"?
We need to make sure our allies spend the money we give them wisely. That sounds nice, but the problem is it is a statement of PURE 100% OPINION. There is absolutely no way anyone can determine if American allies will spend the money they are given "wisely" or not. There never has been and there never will be. Is it wise to pursue a conspiracy theory about the hacking of a DNC server in 2016? Is that really the wisest way the UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WHO IS BASICALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA AT THE MOMENT, is that really the most important thing for them to be doing?
If Trump is really super concerned about a DNC server hack from 2016, why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION??????????????????????????????????
Hogan closes his statement with another RED-HERRING, POSTULATE WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED, the democrats don't care about how tax money is spent. Same as before, this statement, bald-assertion, opinion stated as fact, IS PROVABLY FALSE.
Steve: Please wait a second, we've gotta correct a fact here, you said the president did not ask about a 2020 rival, the record shows, the white-house record of the call, the record you released says, Trump asked about Joe Biden, so that is totally false what you just said. Why did you say that false thing?
(1) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Hogan: In relation to the 2016 corruption, he wasn't talking 2020 and you and your listeners knw that.
(2) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Steve: How iis Joe Biden involved in the crowdstrike thingxactly?
(3) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Hogan: If yoyou're talking about the 2016 election and you're talking about the corruption as it related to Ukraine, you talk about the person who dealt with Ukraine and that was Joe Biden. I'm sorry, but running for president doesn't insulate you from any criticism or any investigation iny way.
(4) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Steve: That at is certainly true. Let's go on to your question about the process now. Because you wanted to make a point about the process and whether or not it's mfair.
(5) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Hogan: Rightight, it's not. What the democrats have done is run a sham impeachment process, all behind closed doors, without any sunlight whatsoever, selectively leaking pieces of information without full testimony, to try and build a narrative moving into the second round. The vote yesterday did nothing except say we're going to make portions of the next part public after we've already tried to tie your hands, bound your feet, bind-folded you put you in a closet and beat you senseless, then we're just gonna take the blindfold off for round 2. Round 3 is when we're gonna take you in front of the judiciary committee, and we expect though that you're gonna be bloodied up enough that it won't matter. The problem is, who they're fighting against is Donald Trump, he's gonna stand up by round 3 and fback.
(6) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Steve: That'That's interesting, I think democrats would characterize it differently, but there is an element of truth in what you said, that they would have to admit, which is that they have just taken a bunch of testimony in these private hearings and they're going to call those witnesses back in public and expect them to stand behind those stories, which we largely know. Is that going to make it challenging to defend the presidepublic?
LOGIC: (7) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Hogan: Right Right, and face cross-examinatio agree.
LOGIC: (8) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Steve: Do yoDo you think there's going to be difficulty defending that case given that so much of it is already on record?
(9) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Hogan: No, bo, because you're only hearing selected pieces of one portion. And then also yesterday for example, a lot of things they're doing in private is beginning to back-fire. There are reports of Mr. Morrison's testimony are that he felt that the president had done nothing wrong, nothing illegal. So there are all types of things coming out of these hearings and you're kinda making my point which is it'd be really nice for the American People to get to see this, out in the open and in public. If you get a parking ticket, you are afforded due process, you can confront the policeman who gave it to you, you can talk to the judge about it, you can submit evidence, you can ask quns.
(10) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Steve: Ave: Although, as you know, the police might investigate that in private first, then you get a trial, which could be coming, who knows?
Hogan Gidly, thanks so much, really appreciate itIC:
Hogan: Thanks for the time.
LOGIC: (11) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Hogan: Thanks for the time.
LOGIC: (12) ENTER YOUR LOGIENTS.
FOR THE STEEM-BOUNTY - THIS IS WHAT AN ACTUAL DISCUSSION LOOKS LIKE LINK TO CONVO
- <cen BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Your scathing critique is requested.