Utopia Talk / Politics / Impeachment Hearing

kargen Member	Wed Nov 13 15:34:07 Today I learned that murder is a crime. I also learned a bunch of diplomats are butt hurt because conversations took place in an "informal" manner excluding them from the process. Oh and nobody could think of anything in the phone call that is/was illegal. They were asked several times to share what part of the phone call they thought was illegal and they just stared into space. And while they were sure murder is a crime they had to think a moment before deciding robbery was a crime and then one was only "pretty sure". So no murder cause that's a crime.
patom Member	Wed Nov 13 17:13:12 Unless Trump commits murder. Then it's legal.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 13 17:29:53 Well obviously. After all Hillary still gets a pass and it was her husband that was president at least in name.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 13 17:33:05 R's sure hammered home that the Trump admin has given more military aid to Ukraine than Obama... i don't see a lick of relevance, but whatever you have to be pretty stupid to think Trump was merely concerned about corruption in general... he doesn't mention anything but Biden & the DNC server nonsense in his call plus they wanted Zelensky to go on TV to note investigations into Biden... who does that sound like? (Trump also prepared a statement for Sessions to read [that's in Mueller Vol 2 for which Trump supporters can't seem to understand a word & is undisputed]... plus Trump wanted Comey to announce Trump wasn't under investigation) is Zelensky reading a statement about investigating Biden of importance to America? any mature adult mentally fit prez would've requested it? And Zelensky was set to do it, w/ an interview lined up... sounds like he felt pressure to me (canceling only after aid released & scandal revealed). Hunter Biden working for that company was not secret... why did it suddenly become of extreme importance to investigate? R's are awful... especially Nunes, Jordan & Ratcliffe
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 13 17:43:51 let's also note how incredibly stupid it is for R's to criticize that these witnesses didn't speak directly w/ Trump, yet Trump is preventing basically everyone who did from testifying & R's don't give a shit they definitely care about getting the truth... also, OBVIOUSLY it came from Trump, no one else would be obsessed w/ having Zelensky read a statement on TV
kargen Member	Wed Nov 13 18:09:46 Sure it is of importance. If Biden were a real contender for the office we would want to know what foreign entities he is beholden to. Isn't that why we had the collusion investigation? Thankfully we found out President Trump isn't beholden to Russia nor did he collude with them so that was put to rest. " Hunter Biden working for that company was not secret... why did it suddenly become of extreme importance to investigate?" You just being thick or do you really not know? This thread already shows how stupid and pointless the impeachment hearing is. Nobody can testify to an actual crime and all the rhetoric is not going to change minds on either side. I stand by my original opinion that this isn't about impeaching but about preventing President Trump from getting stuff done to undermine his 2020 bid for reelection. Nothing I saw today showed me this is an actual attempt to impeach.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 13 18:33:17 Kargen Congress will undoubtably impeach. We will see on how many grounds. There is still the obstruction of justice matter from an earlier investigation.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 13 19:02:03 why would Biden be beholden to Ukraine? Hunter doesn't even work there anymore (as i'm sure Fox doesn't mention) and if it was so serious, why didn't they do something when Biden was actually VP as to why impeachment: Trump was leveraging military aid to get campaign dirt (that would be abuse of power, & arguably bribery/extortion)... please cite any US agency concerned that the Ukrainians have the DNC server & that it wasn't Russia who hacked it... please cite any US agency investigating Biden's supposed Ukrainian corruption... why can't even the corrupt Barr AG's justice dept get on board? ========= “I think one of the mothers of all conspiracy theories is that the President of the United States would want a country that he doesn’t even like—he doesn't want to give foreign aid to—to have the Ukrainians start an investigation into Bidens” ~ capo Nunes anyone see a problem w/ that? Trump -definitely- was asking for an investigation of the Bidens, it's in his call transcript, plus Giuliani has confessed to it... it's not remotely in dispute total idiocy... i can see why they maneuvered to get capo Jordan onto the committee
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 13 20:22:04 "There is still the obstruction of justice matter from an earlier investigation." Good luck A prosecution brought under the federal obstruction of justice statute that impermissibly interfered with the president’s constitutional authority would be, as applied to such a case, unconstitutional. (I offered a similar analysis concerning regulations that purport to limit the president’s power to remove the special counsel.) The difficult question, though, is on which side of the Morrison v. Olson line such a prosecution would fall. Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s majority opinion affirmed the Ethics in Government Act because it gave “the Executive Branch sufficient control over the independent counsel to ensure that the President is able to perform his constitutionally assigned duties.” This line—which may or may not be supported by five justices on the current Court—is the clearest line we have. If such a criminal prosecution disabled the president from “perform[ing] his constitutionally assigned duties,” the obstruction statute, as applied, would be unconstitutional. A different analysis would pertain if the Senate, sitting as a court, alleged that the president’s interference with an investigation amounted to a “high Crime[] and Misdemeanor[].” This charge would not present the problem of a statute conflicting with the Constitution; in every such case, the Constitution prevails. Rather, it would present a clash within Article II, between the president’s assertion of authority under Sections 1 through 3, and the impeachment clause in Section 4. What happens when one provision of the Constitution conflicts with another? Specific grants of powers must prevail over less specific restrictions on power. That is, the president’s enumerated authority to take care that laws are faithfully executed—which embraces the unenumerated removal power—takes precedence over the undefined genre of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” http://www...-justice-and-presidency-part-i
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 13 20:36:06 that sounds like it's about firing Comey there's no way all his corrupt obstructive acts in Mueller were just him 'performing his duties' (unless just arguing he's above the law) plus impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 13 21:29:31 Jergul, impeached? Definitely...but thats it...no penalty...if anything this impeachment is helping him...even most democrats think this a way fornthe DNC to attack Trump cause they know no one can beat him as of yet in the 2020 election.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 13 21:41:25 The worst part about this for Democrats is nobody mentioned Iowa today. Hard to build up momentum when nobody gives a shit.
Dukhat Member	Wed Nov 13 22:14:53 Cuckservatives sound so fucking stupid when they try to predict the future or say they know how other people think. You live in facebook echo chambers that constantly discuss the past like Hillary. You guys are fucking clueless.
Dukhat Member	Wed Nov 13 22:22:29 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo Some actual polling data on it. The people who want to impeach have really hard feelings about it whereas only a majority of Republicans have very hard feelings about not impeaching. The battle will be decided by independents who are more evenly split but don't have very strong feelings. That will change as more facts are revealed which is why Republicans are trying so hard to gaslight the hearings.
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Thu Nov 14 01:57:11 "They were asked several times to share what part of the phone call they thought was illegal and they just stared into space". A witness is no judge or lawyer. Such questions are only distractions.
American Democrat Member	Thu Nov 14 04:40:16 "Today I learned that murder is a crime. I also learned a bunch of diplomats are butt hurt because conversations took place in an "informal" manner excluding them from the process. Oh and nobody could think of anything in the phone call that is/was illegal. They were asked several times to share what part of the phone call they thought was illegal and they just stared into space. And while they were sure murder is a crime they had to think a moment before deciding robbery was a crime and then one was only "pretty sure". So no murder cause that's a crime. " Selective hearing much? The point of the line of questioning asking if "-attempted- murder" is a crime or "-attempted robbery" is a crime is to counter the argument that the republicans are posing that since nothing happened there is nothing to see here. But considering the circumstances there was an attempt does not itself exclude the president of any wrongdoing or potentially illegal.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 14 04:48:10 Forwyn ""There is still the obstruction of justice matter from an earlier investigation." Good luck" Congress can most certainly impeach the president for obstruction of justice.
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Thu Nov 14 05:12:46 "They were asked several times to share what part of the phone call they thought was illegal and they just stared into space". Can't find it in the transcript: http://www...orge-kent-testimony-transcript
Habebe Member	Thu Nov 14 12:00:51 Dukhat, Honestly do you think Biden or Warren have a real chance? Maybe Bloomberg...but thats a big maybe.
Forwyn Member	Thu Nov 14 12:21:55 "Congress can most certainly impeach the president for obstruction of justice." And the executive can certainly sue for injunctions against encroachments on Constitutionally delegated authority.
jergul large member	Thu Nov 14 13:40:56 Forwyn Have the USSC overturn an impeachment you mean?
Forwyn Member	Thu Nov 14 14:40:01 I have very little doubt a Senate conviction would result in a court battle; debating the definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors", versus the Constitutionally unitary powers of the Executive.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Nov 14 15:37:05 "On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress" http://en...._process_against_Richard_Nixon sounds just like Trump
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Nov 14 15:42:26 Pelosi explains 'exculpatory' to Trump: http://twitter.com/RonWaxman/status/1195013282341539840 not sure she's even trolling, she may just be accustomed to him not understanding anything in meetings & having to explain it even Kellyanne Conway naturally treats Trump like a child context of Pelosi's comments is probably about letting people testify who are currently not cooperating (but he's guilty, as is obvious, so won't)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Nov 15 12:11:50 the lawyer R's picked is terrible at questioning probably why shitbag Nunes (also terrible at questioning... & at being a congressman) tried to bypass the rules & pass the time to the Trump clowns on the committee
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Nov 15 13:01:32 Chris Stewart (R): 'Are you aware of any evidence of Trump accepting a bribe?' well done, you piece of shit! NO ONE is claiming he accepted a bribe here, it was offering the bribe (Stewart didn't ask that version of the question, of course) also, now he's back talking about corruption (as he also noted yesterday on TV) saying it makes sense to make sure no corruption before sending aid... he ignores that process was already completed & signed off on & it is not remotely related to what Trump was asking about so many garbage people...
Habebe Member	Fri Nov 15 19:34:02 Tumbleweed, The thing is that this trial will be decided by public opinion and from what ive seen this has been an epic fail for pelosi. The Dems are coming off as desperate assholes....
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Nov 16 01:32:41 are you watching Fox News? the R arguments are all clear nonsense & misleading bullshit, plus common sense says he did it (+ all the evidence) yes, the Senate R's will ignore everything as they know their constituents only watch Fox News, doesn't mean he shouldn't be impeached... history should show an effort to toss this shitbag... plus R's should have to go on record saying his behavior is a-ok
jergul large member	Sat Nov 16 05:14:39 habebe Fox news has 1.4 million total day viewers. The impeachment process (and he will be impeached by the house of representatives) may very well lead to voter fatigue amongst moderates who held their noses and voted Trump/GOP last election. All the process has to do is inflame democrats and disillusion moderates. Disparate voting rates will do the rest.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 16 05:15:50 Oh, and a president livetweeting as people give evidence is definitely obstruction of justice.
patom Member	Sat Nov 16 06:09:07 Marie Yovanovitch, stood up very well to the combined assholery of the Trump and his Trollops. I'm sure it must infuriate Trump that a mere woman isn't trembling at the mention of his name. When was the last time a witness in a Congressional inquiry received a standing ovation when they were done.
Daemon Member	Sat Nov 16 06:17:59 "The Dems are coming off as desperate assholes...." One day they will even reach the low level of Trump.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 16 08:22:31 "Oh, and a president livetweeting as people give evidence is definitely obstruction of justice." Lulz, you fucking retard
jergul large member	Sat Nov 16 08:49:14 Fowyn You are such a smooth operator. He is arguably the most powerful man on the planet by virtue of his office live-tweeting his active dislike of a witness actively giving her disposition. It would be less intimidating to dump a horse head in her bed.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 16 09:08:27 Right, because his tweets are broadcasted on a big screen in front of her face while she gives said disposition. You fucking retard
jergul large member	Sat Nov 16 09:28:56 Forwyn Soo smooth. She was aware of the ongoing tweet-barrage. The barrage went gainst the strategy and advice of WH council I suppose we should add. The house of representatives will impeach the president as I am sure you know. The only question is on how many points. That depends entirely on what degree of self-control the president can muster.
jergul large member	Sat Nov 16 09:35:47 "What makes the moment historic is that Committee Chair Adam Schiff gave Yovanovitch a chance to refute the president's tweet almost in real time. Democrats are already characterising the president's behaviour as witness intimidation - and the latest attack by the president against one of his own government employees. Republicans, whose reported strategy was to avoid directly impugning the reputation of a long-serving, well respected diplomat, will once again find a president who has changed the rules of engagement on the fly." BBC
patom Member	Sat Nov 16 11:11:36 Trump tried to duplicate his stalking of Clinton in the debates via tweet. Typical punk who needs to be knocked on his ass.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Nov 16 11:48:40 Trump tweeted that Manafort was being treated unfairly before trial, during trial & even during jury deliberation grossly unfit for office
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Nov 16 11:50:35 ...+ called Cohen a rat & suggested cops look into his father... hard not to call that intimidation
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 16 14:21:23 Tumbleweed, I watched it on PBS. Did he do it? PROBABLY. Is what he did wrong? Debatable. Does anyone who already didn't hatr him care? No...it has swayed no one. Moderates see this as just another attempt to find a way to get Trump...something they've been trying to do from day one. I'm not saying the reps didn't do similar shit with Obama...they did.
superdude Member	Sat Nov 16 14:23:44 The Republicans were easy on Obama.
hood Member	Sat Nov 16 14:26:10 That last line should be the concerning part. Republicans were relentless in their assault of Obama. Nothing came of it. Democrats have been repeatedly downplaying the perceived bloodlust that the right has ascribed to them. And yet there are how many convictions and enough evidence to hold impeachment investigations? Supporting the right is to live in a fantasy land and hope (sadly, with moderate success) that the hallucination is simultaneously shared by a critical mass of people.
obaminated Member	Sat Nov 16 14:51:05 Lol. Hood thinks the right was as vindictive towards Obama as the left is trump. He thinks this because he is stupid.
hood Member	Sat Nov 16 14:58:50 tard is confusing politics with general sentiment among the population because he is stupid.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 16 16:59:35 "And yet there are how many convictions" Almost all of them for entirely unrelated shit, mostly lying, but sprinkled with some mortgage fraud, etc.
hood Member	Sat Nov 16 17:13:25 It's like criminals lie to hide their criminal activity.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 16 17:30:57 Yeah, they should have just stonewalled the ludicrous investigation.
hood Member	Sat Nov 16 17:35:39 They did, dumbass. And they were caught in both those lies and more serious charges that they all plead down from.
Forwyn Member	Sat Nov 16 17:53:03 Lying is not stonewalling.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Nov 17 13:44:27 Steve Scalise (R) on Chris Wallace was dismissing all the people as 'Schiff's witnesses'... also known as -the- witnesses... people working for the Trump admin who have knowledge of events, but Schiff called them so they must all be lying i guess? the only people R's have requested that have been denied are people that add nothing, like Hunter Biden or the whistleblower
Habebe Member	Sun Nov 17 16:14:09 Tumbleweed, They do add something.Perhaps not to hearing (aybe they would have?) But....They definitley add something for the Trump/REP. Story which is to say they can comw out and say " we weren't allowed many of our witnesses" "Once again Trump is getting attacked, but we can not hear anything about Biden" etc.
hood Member	Sun Nov 17 16:26:09 Biden is not the subject of the investigation.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Nov 17 18:28:55 yes it adds bullshit for R's, it adds nothing of substance... the R's are criticizing people being 2nd/3rd-hand yet want the whistleblower who is further out than any witness & has no information that they don't & Biden is not relevant at all to Trump's shakedown my point is Scalise is proven to be trash (like so many others) by calling these people just 'Schiff witnesses' as if there are people involved that can exculpate Trump that are not being called... there are ZERO of those ---------- so Sondland... he either comes back & confesses (which is a 1st-hand direct Trump connection)... or he takes the Fifth either way, R's will paint him as a liar for lying originally (even though originally it was just to protect Trump as he's a shitbag Trumper)... it will be just like with Cohen, Trump being protected by always using weasels & liars as his associates so if they turn you can call them weasels & liars although this time it will be Sondland confirming what other witnesses are saying (unless taking Fifth) so there is -strong- reason to believe it (even though R's won't admit that for a second)
kargen Member	Sun Nov 17 20:13:38 "Biden is not the subject of the investigation." Neither is Marie Yovanovitch but she testified.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Nov 17 21:19:36 why did republicans in congress approve the aid without needing a Biden investigation? why did they do no Biden investigation at any point in the past 5 years? why is there still no Biden investigation being done? perhaps Hunter Biden wasn't a real concern... until we need to pretend he was after Trump acted corruptly
kargen Member	Sun Nov 17 22:39:07 Why did the democrats feel Marie had to testify? She is less relevant to the investigation than Hunter is.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 18 01:10:57 how about you give a reason why Trump fired her & smeared her was all part of Rudy & his pals from Mafia Corp. & Fraud Inc.'s criminal antics
jergul large member	Mon Nov 18 15:11:10 http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/
kargen Member	Mon Nov 18 17:41:57 Because he didn't like her? That would be reason enough. Even she admits it was within the president's authority to remove her. President Trump and the President of Ukraine thought she wasn't a fit for the job so President Trump recalled her. And since this is all about the phone call and she was relocated months before the phone call I don't see that she is at all relevant to the investigation. She was brought to testify because Democrats were hoping people watching would feel sorry for her. She couldn't add any facts to the investigation. All she could do is tell us how she felt.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 18 18:52:03 could you put some thought into your stupid defenses please? why would Trump think she was 'bad news'? answer: -only- if he heard she was anti-Trump or interfering in his schemes... (please give any other reasonable explanation) there's no public evidence she was acting against Trump, so it would have to come from Giuliani (or from watching Hannity... & i assume it was Giuliani who got Hannity to smear her unless Hannity is mixed up w/ the Fraud Mafia criminals too as, again, there's no actual evidence of her being anti-Trump) in any case there's no reason for Trump to dislike her beyond hearing smears from untrustworthy criminal types -------- "And since this is all about the phone call..." WRONG... you are so uninformed all the time... why is -any- witness being called if it's only about the phone call? This scheme clearly was going on for awhile.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 18 19:00:11 via Wikipedia: " While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy-driven smear campaign, amplified by President Donald Trump and his allies. In May 2019, Trump abruptly recalled Yovanovitch from her post following claims by Trump surrogates that she was undermining Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former vice president and 2020 U.S. presidential election candidate Joe Biden. " yeah, wikipedia isn't proof... but why is that the entry that's there? because there isn't any alternative theory you have to have a reason he actively dislikes her even though he's never spoken to her... good luck finding a credible one (that would be one based on something rather than your usual made-up excuses) we already know the smear campaign is factual & included Hannity who Trump watches... & has dinner with... & calls late at night...
kargen Member	Mon Nov 18 19:06:08 Yeah I don't actually believe it is just about the phone call either but some Democrats have made that claim as they made the talking head circuit. The phone call is just the current waste of time and when they fail with this they will move on to some other asinine investigation. Either way the Marie really has nothing to do with the investigation. We all agree President Trump could remove her. Removing her was not a crime and her testimony was all about her feelings. I think Democrats were hoping she could manage a few tears. What is really going on is Democrats are doing all they can to affect the 2020 election by undermining the president through this investigation and the daily spin the media spews for them and preventing bills they supported before he was president to come to the floor for a vote.
hood Member	Mon Nov 18 19:13:44 The phone call is the direct evidence that Trump was abusing his power. The ambassador can testify to this (prolonged) instance of Trump abusing his power. She is a direct witness.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Nov 18 20:38:57 I'm sure Trump appreciates how little you care about learning the facts and buying the idea it's all nonsense... even though plenty of Rs and neutral career officials were concerned and think it was wrong thus PROVING you are wrong. There -has- to be a reason Trump disliked her so much as to smear her... and his info wasn't coming from any respectable channels (as usual). Pompeo even had to ask Giuliani & Hannity why they were smearing her.
kargen Member	Mon Nov 18 21:55:31 "She is a direct witness." To what? Did she actually hear a phone call or conversation or just later read the transcript like the rest of us did? What did she witness? We know what was done to her we don't need to know what she felt about it. I want to learn the facts and one glaring fact is she was not in a position to provide any facts. She was asked about her feelings several times and her opinion some but not so much could she provide any facts.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 19 01:10:35 Tumbleweed, you do agree though that he could have fired her because she chews her star bursts funny if he so chose....if the only evidence against him is a lack of a reason to fire her thats a weak argument. As for smear campaign....other than calling her " bad news" how was she smeared prior to the hearing shit? I mean ive fired an attorney because he showed up with dirty fingernails ( amongst other issues, he kept repeating the worst judge dress joke)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 02:12:10 he can fire her for any reason, he's not being impeached for firing her I care about what makes sense as to how he came to want her gone given my knowledge of Trump (which will lead to the whole corrupt campaign going on as the truth seems to be criminals in Ukraine wanted her gone) no one suggests they've ever interacted, so how did he come to dislike her? she did nothing publicly to denounce him so he must have heard something from others (and not from boss or her coworkers as Pompeo saw no issue). That's basically the only option given what we know about the petty idiot child. And we do know Trump gets his info from shows like Hannity Hannity ran negative stories on her (probably fed to him either by Giuliani or the same person who fed them to Giuliani as we know Hannity isn't too concerned about truth, he's a sucker for a good story of supposed deep staters hating Trump) Then Pompeo asked Hannity wtf he was talking about and apparently there's no good answer as we haven't heard it. I assume we will hear more of that story unless they just want to highlight how unfit Trump is in dumping decent people based purely on single foreign source smears.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 19 02:13:56 Abuse of power simply needs to establish a connection between pressuring Ukraine on Biden's son and her dismissal.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 02:21:43 true and that seems established fact at this point... Ukraine definitely felt pressure and investigating Biden (with public announcement) was the explicit request not simply general corruption ...also to amend above, obviously Giuliani could be the one to smear her to Trump, doesn't have to be Hannity... point being I see no possibility of it being a legitimate person with legitimate concerns bringing them to Trump (i don't believe anyone's even claimed so, which they would've by now)
kargen Member	Tue Nov 19 05:33:02 " given my knowledge of Trump" your knowledge of President Trump is based on hallucinations and wishful thinking. You've been all but claiming you could read his mind for two years now. "Abuse of power simply needs to establish a connection between pressuring Ukraine on Biden's son and her dismissal." You are leaving out a crucial step in that abuse of power charge.
patom Member	Tue Nov 19 06:40:15 In the back of all this, I have a lingering question. Why is it that the EU isn't pumping money into Ukraine to help them fend of the Russians? Not that I contribute a lot in tax dollars anymore. But the last time I looked the Ukraine is part of Europe.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 11:27:07 use your own knowledge of Trump then... have you noticed NO alternative theory is around? how in your mind did Trump come to actively dislike her enough to attack her? specifics... a believable reason... & why is no one presenting it
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 19 12:16:37 Because she's an Obama appointee? Because Ukraine engaged in MUH RUSSIA tactics in favor of Clinton and she was quiet about it?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 13:46:17 has Trump gone out of his way to specifically call every Obama appointee employee in the government "bad news"? as to your 2nd point... what's your evidence Trump cared about her specifically in that regard? again, if he has some legitimate reason, why isn't it being stated whereas, him watching Hannity or hearing from Giuliani is completely believable... even expected... almost everything he talks about is something he heard on Fox News but we can move on from her, you Trump defenders will never notice anything odd... or care Sondland is the real show
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 19 14:20:39 Yes, undoubtedly someone else brought his attention to her, I doubt he did enough research to know of her beforehand. But that's not necessarily nefarious, just shows how shallow his depth of knowledge he is, and his ease of manipulation.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 16:42:15 "shows how shallow his depth of knowledge he is, and his ease of manipulation" great qualities is a fit president (i realize you aren't a Trump defender like kargen... who apparently is an ashamed Trump defender as he can't really admit it)
kargen Member	Tue Nov 19 16:55:17 http://www...ym2Af7fVrNZVx6wPDnjAJxdls7kF3U Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they've been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act. Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General's International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington. "We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States," Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. "However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn't explicitly deny our visa, but also didn't give it to us."
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 19:00:11 a little weird that article is written by an opinion guy also Kulyk worked w/ Lutsenko who is the guy who fed Giuliani (& possibly Hannity) the smears about Marie Yovanovitch & has his own credibility problems i find it hard to believe they have damning evidence against Dems but just can't do anything because they can't get a visa... Trump would have Pence hand deliver one
kargen Member	Tue Nov 19 19:50:42 That is okay. The Democrats actually put opinion pieces into the official record of the hearing testimony.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 20:32:30 perhaps their 'evidence' was included in that mystery package of amateurish nonsense Giuliani delivered to Pompeo w/ weird handwritten indication it was from the White House
kargen Member	Tue Nov 19 21:51:13 They were actually interrupting Republicans when it was their turn to question with a point of order. Schiff would allow the point of order then the Democrat would state I would like submitted into the record... Sometimes it was a news article and sometimes it was an opinion piece. Schiff allowed them to be entered and did not return any lost time to the Republicans. When a Republican tried a point of order Schiff said the Republican was not recognized and returned time to the Democrat. Oh and Schiff fucked up and admitted he knows who the whistle blower is by accident. The witness claimed to have talked to two people. When asked the identity of one he was allowed to answer when asked the agency of the other Schiff interrupted and said he wouldn't allow questioning that could out the whistle blower. The only way he would have known that giving the agency the 2nd person worked for would possibly out the whistle blower is if he knows the identity. Schiff has been lying for a while now.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 22:54:53 do you have an example of Dems using up an Rs time? and if I stipulate the whistleblower is Hillary & Joe Bidens lovechild, please explain what it changes
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 22:56:47 if I'm not mistaken, every single witness has now testified they were concerned by the shakedown, including the ones Rs were touting
kargen Member	Tue Nov 19 23:13:48 Nah I can't post an example because they are buried deep behind a multitude of articles on how evil President Trump and the Republicans are and I don't want to read the transcripts again. You can watch the hearings or read the transcript though. To be fair Republicans do the same thing when they have control and did their best to disrupt Democrats. Schiff though can and does give time back to Democrats where he hasn't for the same type of interruption when the Republicans are on the clock. I still doubt Nancy is going to let this get to the Senate but if it does I expect the Democrats are going to be howling when they receive the same treatment they are now dishing out. and no the who the whistle blower is does not matter at all for legal matters. His/her testimony at this point would be as worthless as all the testimony we have heard so far. We have the transcript and we don't need to know how people felt about it. What does matter is Schiff has claimed several times he doesn't know the identity of the whistle blower and it is now clear he does know. He is lying to influence the outcome of the hearing and that should be a concern. He should have recused himself because as it turns out he is actually more involved than most the witnesses we have seen so far.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 19 23:30:49 are you going to say Sondland is unimportant too? he's tomorrow, if anyone can crack your craziness shell i assume it'd be him (given that Trump won't let Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc. testify even though according to you people they'd all clear Trump... yet for some reason R's couldn't care less that they won't testify) or perhaps you'll just join the 'well, he's a liar' refrain if Sondland does come clean & implicate Trump further
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: