Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

Didn't their parent's ever tell them that life isn't fair.

Trump fan: “It’s not fair! All the facts about my guy are incriminating!”

These guys whine that it’s not fair when the team playing their team is light years better than theirs. Fuck em. They’re fucking losers. It’s their fucking brand.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump saying "I'm too busy to watch this", and then live-tweeting it, is very on brand for him. Fucking idiot. 

When Ken Starr calls the live tweet ill advised and would be against any counsels advice to him, the President may have a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Trump fan: “It’s not fair! All the facts about my guy are incriminating!”

These guys whine that it’s not fair when the team playing their team is light years better than theirs. Fuck em. They’re fucking losers. It’s their fucking brand.

Yup. Only losers complain the game isn’t fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Trump fan: “It’s not fair! All the facts about my guy are incriminating!”

These guys whine that it’s not fair when the team playing their team is light years better than theirs. Fuck em. They’re fucking losers. It’s their fucking brand.

Is it deliberate that they aren’t recruiting somebody of Goldman’s caliber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what it looks like when you’re scared shitless and have a shaky game plan.    Their game plan consists of
a) Keep the Trump base riled up and hopefully voting a year from now,
b) Scare other Republicans in Congress into voting not to impeach
c) Pray that enough non-Trumpkins actually buy into the shit that’s being smeared on the walls and don’t show up and vote for Ds next November


You do realize that strategy has a decent chance of being successful right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Lurch said:

LO FUCKING L
 

of course. I imagine the released summary in April was based on the talking points that the state dept and/or national security rep wanted Trump to stick to. It was in the notes for him to review in advance. Instead he could only discuss what he knows about Ukraine: their contestants in the Miss Universe pageant.

I'm also starting to see that Trump has a rather limited vocabulary for a guy with his education and experience. But I'm very impressed that he can talk at these rallies for as long as he does with using about 100 total words in different sentences. It's amazing to blather on about nothing with few words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

You do realize that strategy has a decent chance of being successful right?

 

For Trump skating due to the Senate Rs, sure.  

Election in next year?  No, 2018 and this year proved that.   

Edit: Trump’s and the Rs lack of confidence, and the amount of fear and anger they display also proves they are worried.  

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree that a President can remove an ambassador for basically zero reason. However that doesn't mean they can fire them without repercussions especially when it appears she was fired for actually sticking to the stated goals we have with Ukraine.

How much money was Giuliani paid to have her removed? I don't believe this was only because of the Biden/Burisma issue. Someone got paid for this.

Besides how sad is it that Giuliani is able to get an ambassador fired.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Trump fan: “It’s not fair! All the facts about my guy are incriminating!”

These guys whine that it’s not fair when the team playing their team is light years better than theirs. Fuck em. They’re fucking losers. It’s their fucking brand.

Yup. Only losers complain the game isn’t fair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Is it deliberate that they aren’t recruiting somebody of Goldman’s caliber?

When the client is virtually un-defendable, setting it up for the sympathetic faction of the public to blame the counsel instead of the client is not an entirely insane tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer my own question from earlier, the April call was UNCLASS/FOUO.  The July call that was hidden on the NSC system was classified S/NOFORN.  Its almost like someone realized how different the calls were and tried to hide the latter one.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It really is amazing that we have a president interjecting electronically to sully the reputation of a witness during his own impeachment hearing. It's an unfortunate confluence of technology and low character. 

 

Impeachable offense committed during an impeachment inquiry. Add it to the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caller from Tennessee was on fire. Told America to wake up to what Trump is. 

 

I want counsel to ask her about Danylyuk(?) He was the finance guy and then Ukraine NSC counterpoint (or something like that) who left or was forced out supposedly for trying to force reforms. He was in the spring meetings with Bolton, et al. when Ukraine had heard rumors about aid (due to Guiliani interference).

What does she know about him and that? She was in position during both his tenures so I want to hear her assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...