Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Or they’ll just retreat to self-imposed ignorance and denial.

Like Lindsay.

 

 

This guy is completely dismantling his legacy. It’s something to behold. Watching a man completely throw a life’s work away for a conman is like staring at a terrible car accident. I want to look away b/c the grizzly scene is making me physically ill, but I can’t.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's actually not even a smart political move to do it this way.
if i was someone on the fence, and waiting to hear from big, powerful senators, i would much rather graham say, "we'll wait to see what the evidence shows us."  then afterwards, come out and say, "as we suspected, the dems had nothing, this is a witch hunt, and he's innocent, and we're voting to acquit.  the constitution works."
doing it this way makes them look bad, and they're only saying this shit to appease one person.  he's gonna get impeached anyway, it's gonna get to the senate, why even come out like this now?
(yes, i understand i'm talking like only sane, intelligent, logical people will be paying attention.  sigh.)


Lindsey’s main audience is Trump. He is saying what Trump wants to hear. I sometimes wonder in Lindsey thinks he can control Trump with flattery, then I realize I don’t really care why he’s a piece of shit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Lindsey’s main audience is Trump. He is saying what Trump wants to hear. I sometimes wonder in Lindsey thinks he can control Trump with flattery, then I realize I don’t really care why he’s a piece of shit.

 

his other "audience" is also the sc voters.  but all they care about is supporting trump, so yeah, all roads lead back to him.

but in this particular case, a prominent senator shouldn't be tweeting this bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

The GOP has nothing to defend Trump with, and they can’t even attack the testimony.  All Nunes can do is drag up Hillary shit.  

 

This went on throughout the Russian investigation years ago.  The Glenn Simpson testimony (that Feinstein ended up leaking) was most damaging to the Republicans asking the questions because they were clearly not interested in the facts or in search of the truth. They instead floated conspiracy theories and intimidate witnesses by attacking their credibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Or they’ll just retreat to self-imposed ignorance and denial.

Like Lindsay.

 

Has anyone in the Senate from either party had the common sense and fortitude to simply say, "To comment at this time would be inappropriate, so I will not do so until and unless the President is impeached and the evidence is presented to us in the Senate."  Maybe they have and I missed it.

Everything is being tested in the court of public opinion right now, and I think that type of fight favors Trump.  At least it worked to dampen the impact of Mueller's report and make it ignorable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Has anyone in the Senate from either party had the common sense and fortitude to simply say, "To comment at this time would be inappropriate, so I will not do so until and unless the President is impeached and the evidence is presented to us in the Senate."  Maybe they have and I missed it.

Kinda of hard to take that seriously when Trump is betraying his oath and committing crimes in broad daylight.  I think I heard Kamala try to straddle the situation by saying something like, “I have eyes and ears you know, the evidence is already public knowledge but I’m duty bound to let this process play out.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 12:46 PM, JimmyJames said:

Using the full name of Barack Hussein Obama is a Swam bit. The president done stoled it. Swamy should sue. 

I wonder where that retard is sucking the government tit.   Which ship has engaged his services to edumacate the crew, and how many new work related injury claims he has filed? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2019 at 7:00 PM, Thetexashammer said:

 

He got an investigation aimed at damaging his political rival. Exactly the same thing Trump was seeking.

Now that Swam is gone, you've got to be the stupidest, most woefully ignorant, singularly partisan-governed-yet-bereft-of-actual-facts poster on this site.

So...kudos.    

For the record, Obama did not instigate or lead it, and it was not aimed at Trump for partisan purposes.  It was because our allies intel communities thought Trump to be in cahoots with - ya know - the very people he turned out to be in cahoots with.     <mind blown gif>

 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

 


I have a masters degree with a minor in economics. I’m not going to waste any more time in this thread helping you understand growth curves and rates. No one disagrees with the assertion that Trump hasn’t done anything special with the economy. In fact he’s just using deficit spending to fuel what growth there is. He sucks. You just are using a flawed job growth analysis to support your position.

 

Guess I will just go with my Economics degree.  You may disagree but there is no BETTER way to simply compare on job growth figures. It's not perfect, but it is the most representative. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Of course you are right.  But I think there is political value in highlighting the hypocrisy.  If you can get them released it is much more powerful for the general public to see Trump’s words directly then to hear 100 others say what they heard.  There is also political value in highlighting Trumps inevitable refusal to release the true transcript.  We live in a word of soundbites.  When they yell “ Read the transcript” the retort of “Then Release the Real Transcript” is stronger then  “Several 1st hand witnesses have testified that they heard something different then the highly edited and incomplete summary that was released” 

I agree with this. There is a lot of value in highlighting the hypocrisy and the full transcript is presumably more damaging than the memo. It's also harder to defend than "those Never-Trumpers are just lying behind closed doors." But...

21 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Because it could easily backfire and be an actual nothingburger.  What was released was extremely damaging.  Why focus energy on something not released that may not be much different from what's out there.

I'm honestly not sure the actual transcript will add much.  Not because I trust the Trump admin.  But because (1) what they put out there was already terrible for them and (2) the missing time could be attributable to some combination of interpreters, trump word salad, and bragging about his election victory, etc.  There's no point in pounding the table to obtain something that may not help with the impeachment.  Focus on the stuff that we know is terrible for Trump, of which there's a lengthy and ever growing list.

It wouldn't be a nothingburger. It if were, Trump would've released it. But you may be right that it wouldn't add much. Even if the transcript IS much worse, we know the Rs will still spin it into a sound bite about it not mattering. It's also one of those lawyerly situations. Don't ask a question you don't know the answer to. The memo already tics off the elements of the crime(s). Getting the full transcript is only necessary if you didn't already have those boxes checked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

With the hearings officially being public next week, is it going to be infrastructure week as well?

tweets will be awesome.  He will have nothing but executive time scheduled.  

Nah. The hearings won't be broadcast on Fox so he won't see anything other than a few out of context sound bites. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Nah. The hearings won't be broadcast on Fox so he won't see anything other than a few out of context sound bites. 

Fox News and probably Fox proper will broadcast them.  No way Murdoch risks losing eyeballs.  The MAGAts are going to be glued to the hearings.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I see we've moved to the Trump administration is too stupid to do a quid pro quo defense. I'm sorry your honor, my client was too stupid to know  that going into a bank with a gun, pointing it at the teller, and saying give me the money, was really robbing a bank. Oh, ok then, case dismissed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:
So I see we've moved to the Trump administration is too stupid to do a quid pro quo defense. I'm sorry your honor, my client was too stupid to know  that going into a bank with a gun, pointing it at the teller, and saying give me the money, was really robbing a bank. Oh, ok then, case dismissed.

Lindsey Graham is a lawyer.  He knows, at a base level, that ignorance is no defense.  Intent of action trumps ignorance except in special instances.

"Are you aware that robbing a bank is a crime?"

"No, your honor."

"But you intended to rob the bank, and followed through?"

"Yes, your honor."

"OK, you're guilty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

So I see we've moved to the Trump administration is too stupid to do a quid pro quo defense. I'm sorry your honor, my client was too stupid to know  that going into a bank with a gun, pointing it at the teller, and saying give me the money, was really robbing a bank. Oh, ok then, case dismissed.

That's been the defense by some regarding the whole Russian collusion matter, which was reinforced by Mueller refusing to prosecute over the Trump Tower meeting.

"The campaign was filled with too many bumbling idiots to collude."

"Don Jr. and the Kush were too stupid to realize they were breaking the law."

It's got a history of being effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That's been the defense by some regarding the whole Russian collusion matter, which was reinforced by Mueller refusing to prosecute over the Trump Tower meeting.

"The campaign was filled with too many bumbling idiots to collude."

"Don Jr. and the Kush were too stupid to realize they were breaking the law."

It's got a history of being effective.

If this works we should nuke ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there's no logic to any of this, but what is the point of harassing the whistleblower at this point? Like if the firefighters are all working on putting out the fire, and a few assholes are going "so where is the son of a bitch that called 911! Coward!!". 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I know there's no logic to any of this, but what is the point of harassing the whistleblower at this point? Like if the firefighters are all working on putting out the fire, and a few assholes are going "so where is the son of a bitch that called 911! Coward!!". 

Because the whisletblower is a deep state swamp rat libtard that started all this and they are the problem , not our benevolent chosen one orange overlord. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obligatory link to the Taylor testimony and key excerpts here, and notable highlights from key excerpts below:

  • Rudy Giuliani, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and Ambassador Kurt Volker operated “an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policymaking with respect to Ukraine.” (Page 23-24)
  • During a meeting on May 23, 2019, President Trump made clear to those in the “irregular channel” that, in order for President Zelensky to get an Oval Office meeting, “they needed to work with Rudy Giuliani.” (Page 24, 59, 113)
  • As Ambassador Sondland was preparing for a call between President Trump and President Zelensky on June 28, 2019, he “cut out” the regular interagency participants and “requested that the call not be transcribed.” (Page 126-128, 128)
  • In July, Ambassador Volker advised President Zelensky and his Chief of Staff “how President Zelensky could prepare for the phone call with President Trump” and “suggested to President Zelensky that President Trump would like to hear about the investigations.” (Page 64-66)
  • National Security Advisor John Bolton abruptly ended a meeting with Ukrainian officials on July 10, 2019, after Ambassador Sondland raised “investigations,” which “triggered Ambassador Bolton’s antenna, political antenna, and he said, we don’t do politics here.” (Page 163-164)
  • Ambassadors Volker and Sondland told Ambassador Taylor that President Trump “wanted to hear from Zelensky” before a meeting would be scheduled in the Oval Office. (Page 125-126)
  • Ambassador Sondland explicitly “connected ‘investigations’ with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelensky” during the meeting with Ukrainian officials on July 10, 2019. (Page 133-134)
  • Ukrainian official “believed that opening those investigations, in particular on Burisma, would have involved Ukraine in the 2020 election campaign.” (Page 135-136)
  • On July 18, 2019, Ambassador Taylor and others “sat in astonishment” as an OMB official revealed during an inter-agency call that President Trump ordered a hold on military assistance to help Ukraine counter Russian aggression. (Page 27-28, 131)
  • Both the military assistance to Ukraine and the White House meeting with the President “got blocked by this second channel.” (Page 150)
  • It was the “unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion” that the security assistance should be resumed “without delay.” (Page 132)
  • President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that “he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.” (Page 35-36, 141-142, 36-37) 
  • According to National Security Council Senior Director Tim Morrison’s readout to Ambassador Taylor, President Trump insisted on a September 7th call with Ambassador Sondland that the President of Ukraine “go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.” (Page 38) 
  • The next day, Ambassador Sondland told Ambassador Taylor directly that “President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public,” and “if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate.” (Page 39) 
  • Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker understood that “if President Trump was going to sign the check for military assistance,” the Ukrainians “needed to pay up first and that pay-up was a public declaration of these two political investigations.” (Page 146-147)
  • It would be a “nightmare” if the Trump Administration withheld military aid after the Ukrainians announced the investigations because the “Russians are paying attention to how much support the Americans are going to provide the Ukrainians,” and that “humiliation” would “give the Russians a freer hand, and I would quit.” (Page 209-210)
  • On September 28, 2019, John Bolton suggested that Ambassador Taylor write a “firstperson cable” directly to Secretary Pompeo about President Trump’s hold on aid to Ukraine “to get attention back there.” (Page 229-230)
  • The State Department refused to produce to the Committees documents that Ambassador Taylor provided to the Department. (Page 45-46)

 

This is pretty fucking serious shit, corroborated by paper trails, and I would argue shows an understanding that what they are doing is wrong by the fact they went out of their way to hide their actions, and pompeo/state dept failed to provide documents that Taylor did provide. This is worse than quid pro quo. This is a textbook example of extortion. 

Edited by Captainant
holy formatting fail, batman
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFC

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:
  • President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that “he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.” (Page 35-36, 141-142, 36-37)
  • According to National Security Council Senior Director Tim Morrison’s readout to Ambassador Taylor, President Trump insisted on a September 7th call with Ambassador Sondland that the President of Ukraine “go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference.” (Page 38)
  •   The next day, Ambassador Sondland told Ambassador Taylor directly that “President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public,” and “if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate.” (Page 39)
  •   Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker understood that “if President Trump was going to sign the check for military assistance,” the Ukrainians “needed to pay up first and that pay-up was a public declaration of these two political investigations.” (Page 146-147)
  • It would be a “nightmare” if the Trump Administration withheld military aid after the Ukrainians announced the investigations because the “Russians are paying attention to how much support the Americans are going to provide the Ukrainians,” and that “humiliation” would “give the Russians a freer hand, and I would quit.” (Page 209-210)
  • On September 28, 2019, John Bolton suggested that Ambassador Taylor write a “firstperson cable” directly to Secretary Pompeo about President Trump’s hold on aid to Ukraine “to get attention back there.” (Page 229-230) The State Department refused to produce to the Committees documents that Ambassador Taylor provided to the Department. (Page 45-46)

JFC that fourth bullet point.  Hell, all of them.

Burn it to the ground.  

BrokenRespectfulHoneybadger-size_restric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lurch said:

They can’t begin the character assassination until he’s outed. Once they accomplish that, they’ll claim fruit of poison tree.

That’s it. That’s the whole plan.

Ruining an innocent man's life for no reason. That will play well with the hard core Trumpers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

JFC

JFC that fourth bullet point.  Hell, all of them.

Burn it to the ground.  

BrokenRespectfulHoneybadger-size_restric

The Q/A from that portion ain't great either. I tried to include it in my original post but it made surly go surly

Quote

Q: On page 13, the middle paragraph, you’re talking about the text messages, and you testified: “Before these text messages, during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.” Now, when Ambassador Sondland described to you this signing of the check, did you take it by that he was referring to signing the check for the military assistance?

A: Yes.

Q: You go on in the next sentence to say, “Ambassador Volker used the same terms several days later when we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference.” Did he use the same “signing the check” term?

A: Yes.

Q: Did that strike you as remarkable, that the same analogy was used by both ambassadors?

A: No. It struck me—I concluded that they had had a conversation.

Q: And that they both understood that if President Trump was going to sign the check for military assistance then they needed to pay up first and that pay-up was a public declaration of these two political investigations?

A: That was the parallel.

EDIT: Just realized the fucking headline quote from the excerpt doc is pretty damning too

Quote

Q: And when you say that, this was the first time I heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigation, when you talk about conditioned, did you mean that if they didn’t do this, the investigations, they weren’t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance?

A: That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation.

Q: So if they don’t do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that?

A: I am.

Fucking spelling it out for the simpletons in the back

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...