Impeachment Hearings

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So...I'm just a simple, country engineer...but this except from Sondland's Opening Statement...


Is this not everything we need? I'm not sure I understand what else there is to discuss...

So, here is one of the things in the messaging that hasn't been discussed, much. The GOP focuses almost entirely on the quid pro quo for the aid. However, the quid pro quo for the meetings is essentially ignored by them because there is overwhelming evidence that this occurred. They downplay that as insignificant, even though this is still an abuse of power.

[Belsnickel]

Sondland confirms that Trump did not really care about corruption in Ukraine, only so far as it pertained to him.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 12:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can't wait to see how he is a Never Trumper or member of the Deep State.

He’s a Trump donor appointed to that position by Trump but other than that good tweet https://t.co/seIpylts6w

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 20, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 12:28 PM)GMDino Wrote:

He’s a Trump donor appointed to that position by Trump but other than that good tweet https://t.co/seIpylts6w

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 20, 2019

 

The greatest thing about that is he is the "Founder and President of the Media Research Center. Publisher of NewsBusters and CNSNews.com." Seems his research is a bit lacking.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The greatest thing about that is he is the "Founder and President of the Media Research Center. Publisher of NewsBusters and CNSNews.com." Seems his research is a bit lacking.

"research"?

It's just a tic.  Say Trump did something wrong/committed a crime or "made a mistake" (lol) and you are thrown in with the Never Trumper/Deep State/Haters/Losers.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The greatest thing about that is he is the "Founder and President of the Media Research Center. Publisher of NewsBusters and CNSNews.com." Seems his research is a bit lacking.

He deleted the tweet.

However nothing is ever gone on the internet.

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is one of the things in the messaging that hasn't been discussed, much. The GOP focuses almost entirely on the quid pro quo for the aid. However, the quid pro quo for the meetings is essentially ignored by them because there is overwhelming evidence that this occurred. They downplay that as insignificant, even though this is still an abuse of power.

Yea...The aid being withheld is definitely an aspect of the illegal quid pro quo...But proving that would just be expanding on the Quid Pro Quo regarding the White House Meeting.

From my perspective, it'd be great if the Democrats could prove the aid was contingent on the announcements, but we already got the visit being contingent on the announcements.

If we have an impeachment sundae, and we already got the ice cream, the chocolate sauce, the whipped cream and the cherry, why are the Republicans trying to argue that the nuts aren't there? Those are personal preference anyway!

[Belsnickel]

So, Nunes starting off sounds like he's just trying to justify Trump's actions, not disputing they occurred.

[CJD]

Nunes's statement appears to be "Are you aware that the people who didn't like Trump for his perceived penchant for corruption, lying and underhanded tactics during his presidency run are now the people that are speaking ill of his corruption, lying and underhanded tactics today? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me."

Very interesting choice. I guess when life gives you really incriminating lemons, you're forced to just drink whatever is leaking out of that tree over there. Hopefully, it's safe.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 01:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, Nunes starting off sounds like he's just trying to justify Trump's actions, not disputing they occurred.

(11-20-2019, 01:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Nunes's statement appears to be "Are you aware that the people who didn't like Trump for his perceived penchant for corruption, lying and underhanded tactics during his presidency run are now the people that are speaking ill of his corruption, lying and underhanded tactics today? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me."

Very interesting choice. I guess when life gives you really incriminating lemons, you're forced to just drink whatever is leaking out of that tree over there. Hopefully, it's safe.

All of this.

People said not nice things about Trump so it's okay that he illegally withheld funds until he got something in return against a political opponent.

[GMDino]

Today:

.@POTUS is now standing on South Lawn reading - from handwritten notes - quotes from Sondland testimony: pic.twitter.com/9LqG1k4Bpt

— Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) November 20, 2019

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 12:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can't wait to see how he is a Never Trumper or member of the Deep State.

"I barely knew the guy", he read from a notepad.

Sidenote:  Same guy who once said that if you have to read from a teleprompter you shouldn't be President.

TRUMP on Gordon Sondland, who he described as "a really good man and great American" last month and who gave $1 million to his inaugural: "I don't know him well. He was with other candidates ... not me. Came in late." pic.twitter.com/oy9TUbwPpf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 20, 2019

 

[Dill]

(11-20-2019, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I think we're done here.  Sorry I didn't meet your lofty standards for acceptable discourse professor.

LOL Correct. You have not met the bar. But here it is again, should you ever get serious about the free speech issue.

"...truthfully, you'd better off researching the political/legal history of free speech rather than wielding your own unexamined definition like some international legal touchstone. Until you do that research, you are just sharing impressions, however dogmatically asserted and accompanied by ever so many adjectives. And that research would have to include "irrelevancies" like the relation of free speech to non-government authorities, or questions like 'Can the US really have more free speech than Sweden if Sweden's press is freer?' and the like."

Show you can navigate such questions beyond bald counter-assertion. . .followed by assessments of the people who don't agree.  

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote:

"I barely knew the guy", he read from a notepad.

Sidenote:  Same guy who once said that if you have to read from a teleprompter you shouldn't be President.

TRUMP on Gordon Sondland, who he described as "a really good man and great American" last month and who gave $1 million to his inaugural: "I don't know him well. He was with other candidates ... not me. Came in late." pic.twitter.com/oy9TUbwPpf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 20, 2019

 

hehe, he said he's always in a good mood.

What a silly thing to lie about. It's almost like words don't even mean anything to Trump.

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(11-20-2019, 01:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Nunes's statement appears to be "Are you aware that the people who didn't like Trump for his perceived penchant for corruption, lying and underhanded tactics during his presidency run are now the people that are speaking ill of his corruption, lying and underhanded tactics today? Sounds like a conflict of interest to me."

Very interesting choice. I guess when life gives you really incriminating lemons, you're forced to just drink whatever is leaking out of that tree over there. Hopefully, it's safe.

When I put my Republican ears on, sounds like you are saying "Trump has an unorthodox style which many professional bureaucrats find abrasive."

[GMDino]

The GOP counsel seems to be taking the attack that since the notes and calls won't be released there is no proof...so we can't trust the people that were there and talked about it directly either.

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: When I put my Republican ears on, sounds like you are saying "Trump has an unorthodox style which many professional bureaucrats find abrasive."

Lying and corruption are, indeed, very unorthodox and abrasive, at least when they are presented as obviously as Trump does (not implying that other politicians are never lying or corrupting in their official capacities).

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They didn't do anything to shut down an investigation. Mostly because there was no investigation into Biden or his son, but also because that decision is up to Ukraine, not the US.

The investigation into Burisma was for activities that occurred prior to Hunter Biden being a part of the board. Joe Biden was acting on behalf of the administration with bipartisan support from Congress to seek removal of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he was not investigating corruption and there was evidence of corruption on his part. There is zero, I repeat zero, evidence of wrong doing by Joe Biden in this situation and there was never any investigation into that.

In addition, the whistleblower has offered to answer written questions from the committee. This was not satisfactory to Republicans.


I'm okay with an investigation into Hunter Biden. That's a job for the DoJ, though, and really has nothing to do with this. Regardless of the Burisma investigation not having anything to do with him, it was some shady shit.

Ok, let's play the game. Can we go with: Does this person have something to gain by stopping an investigation.

I will tell you, that if by the off chance Biden takes the Whithouse. The next four years are going to be as dysfunctional as the last 4. It's just everybody will have to change hats

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 02:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ok, let's play the game. Can we go with: Does this person have something to gain by stopping an investigation.

I will tell you, that if by the off chance Biden takes the Whithouse. The next four years are going to be as dysfunctional as the last 4. It's just everybody will have to change hats

Only if Biden is as corrupt as Trump.

Then he will be held to the same standards.

But how about a game where you try to refute what has been said and shown and proven about Trump instead?