Impeachment Hearings

[CJD]

(11-19-2019, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: What will be interesting to watch will be how the "support the troops" Right Wing attack him over and over.


btw, this is first hand knowledge...not "hearsay".

VINDMAN: "When I reported my concerns...I did so out of a sense of duty. I reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country" pic.twitter.com/xC3w39qsUT

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 19, 2019

 

You can see his hands shaking as he is holding that paper and you can hear his voice quiver.

I have given presentations to my company and, while in school, to my classmates in the past where I've had this similar shaking, so I can definitely relate to the pressure he's under at this moment, even though the pressure he's experiencing is exponentially higher than any that I've ever personally experienced.

[GMDino]

Maybe give it a couple days chief.

This lieutenant colonel is a politician, and is disloyal to his Commander in Chief @realDonaldTrump.

— Clint Lorance (@LoranceClint) November 19, 2019

 

[CJD]

I...kind of hate Swalwell's line of questioning here. As soon as you bring in hypothetical comparisons, the water gets muddied real quick.

[GMDino]

Here is @RepChrisStewart making a case that because Trump was never in the military he doesn't understand why asking for a "favor" is akin to ordering someone to do something pic.twitter.com/qdJ63mSQYl

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 19, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Oh my, the Russians weren't lying. They knew what was taking place behind-the-scenes. The #WhistleblowerComplaint revealed that Trump personally instructed Pence not to attend the inauguration. https://t.co/VB7mEabf7Z

— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) September 26, 2019

 

[GMDino]

At least it wasn't on his personal account this time.

Your taxpayer dollars: pic.twitter.com/aaAfYq8D3u

— Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) November 19, 2019

 


Yes, this is an actual tweet from the official White House Twitter account during the testimony.

Tim Morrison, Alexander Vindman's former boss, testified in his deposition that he had concerns about Vindman's judgment. pic.twitter.com/xwHOt4bsHS

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 19, 2019

m.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">

[CJD]

Woooo boi, Jordan went ALL IN on Vindman there XD.

[CJD]

Appreciate the recap of the last few years, Jordan.

I think this guy is allergic to asking the witnesses questions hahaha. All he knows how to do is tell stilted, biased history lessons.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 03:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Appreciate the recap of the last few years, Jordan.

I think this guy is allergic to asking the witnesses questions hahaha. All he knows how to do is tell stilted, biased history lessons.

They don't like the answers so they stopped asking questions.

[CJD]

Congressman Welch: "Trump, if you want to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, go ahead. Just don't involve foreign governments."

Hunter and Joe Biden sitting at home: "Hol up, what?"

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 03:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Congressman Welch: "Trump, if you want to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, go ahead. Just don't involve foreign governments."

Hunter and Joe Biden sitting at home: "Hol up, what?"

Yeah, I was listening to the questioning on NPR in the background today merely for entertainment purposes. I found that blurb to be surprising. I found the Reps trying to belittle the LTC's service as appalling, I found the LTC's demand that he be addressed by his rank from a civilian as petty, I found the Congressman who turned the LTC's assertion of demand against his as he tied it to what one in the military may perceive over what a civilian would as a smart move.  

The female was pretty cut and dry.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 03:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Congressman Welch: "Trump, if you want to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, go ahead. Just don't involve foreign governments."

Hunter and Joe Biden sitting at home: "Hol up, what?"

And that's the jist of it all.  DJT asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival is impeachable

The rest is noise from the right that refuse to admit it or scoff it as entertainment.

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I found that blurb to be surprising. I found the Reps trying to belittle the LTC's service as appalling

It was, as was questioning his loyalties or the accusations that he did not follow chain of command. I also found it appalling how they try to out the whistleblower. This guy and his anonymity is protected by law! And has nothing to add that wasn't already confirmed... outing him follows the sole purpose of offering him up to Trump's wrath, willfully ignoring all the protections of whistleblowers that were put in place. I also found it appalling how they accuse the witness of colluding with Schiff, and all the other totally unfounded accusations and conspiracies they put out there for FOX to repeat, from Russia hoaxes to Dem insurance policies and illegal spying and whatnot, a salad of pure BS.

The whole Trump defense banks on the fact that folks do believe their tribe and not care any further than that. Truth be damned, it's only about us vs. them. And whoever is caught in the crossfire because of his moral or duty - ah, just sacrifice those guys so others do not follow their exaple, as long as it's good for us that's the way to go. This is promoting authoritarianism.
The world is watching and is seeing a party that has no issue with lieing and with an extorting, corrupt US leadership and rather would silence anyone that stands up against it.

So sad.

[GMDino]

I wonder if Rudy will even have time to smell the fumes as this bus he's being thrown under rumbles atop him?

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 05:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: It was, as was questioning his loyalties or the accusations that he did not follow chain of command. I also found it appalling how they try to out the whistleblower. This guy and his anonymity is protected by law! And has nothing to add that wasn't already confirmed... outing him follows the sole purpose of offering him up to Trump's wrath, willfully ignoring all the protections of whistleblowers that were put in place. I also found it appalling how they accuse the witness of colluding with Schiff, and all the other totally unfounded accusations and conspiracies they put out there for FOX to repeat, from Russia hoaxes to Dem insurance policies and illegal spying and whatnot, a salad of pure BS.

The whole Trump defense banks on the fact that folks do believe their tribe and not care any further than that. Truth be damned, it's only about us vs. them. And whoever is caught in the crossfire because of his moral or duty - ah, just sacrifice those guys so others do not follow their exaple, as long as it's good for us that's the way to go. This is promoting authoritarianism.
The world is watching and is seeing a party that has no issue with lieing and with an extorting, corrupt US leadership and rather would silence anyone that stands up against it.

So sad.

I believe the identity of the whistleblower should be made known to an unbiased source to address conflict of interest.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe the identity of the whistleblower should be made known to an unbiased source to address conflict of interest.

That would make sense if what they said hadn't been collaborated by everyone including Trump himself.

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe the identity of the whistleblower should be made known to an unbiased source to address conflict of interest.

Why?
All his information checked out to be true and is corroborated. What does his bias or a possible conflict of interest have to do with anything?

[*bfine32*]

(11-19-2019, 06:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: That would make sense if what they said hadn't been collaborated by everyone including Trump himself.

(11-19-2019, 06:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Why?
All his information checked out to be true and is corroborated. What does his bias or a possible conflict of interest have to do with anything?

IMO it sets a bad optic and one either side can use with ease. Of course the identity doesn't need to be made public, but it should be shared  If you guys don't think the identity of the accuser should be known to a neutral source that's your decision; I just feel it should. 

You guys don't feel the whistleblower should be subject to questions by the defendant's side?

[CJD]

(11-19-2019, 07:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO it sets a bad optic and one either side can use with ease. Of course the identity doesn't need to be made public, but it should be shared  If you guys don't think the identity of the accuser should be known to a neutral source that's your decision; I just feel it should. 

You guys don't feel the whistleblower should be subject to questions by the defendant's side?

As the Republicans have made abundantly clear, the whistleblower is only working off second hand information. Asking him questions would be 100% pointless because the only things he knows are what others, such as Vindman, have told him about the call. 

The whistleblower complaint was not 100% accurate, but it was accurate enough (maybe 90%?) to the transcript that it's obvious that the complaint wasn't filed in bad faith. There's really nothing else to be learned from the whistleblower. Even if he were Joe Biden himself, it wouldn't make a difference. There is no new information to be mined there.

The only reason the Republicans want his name is so they can claim he's a partisan and therefore negate his complaint. Problem is we're well past that point. That would have been useful to the Republicans maybe 4 or 5 testimonies ago. Not anymore.

If they wanted to find a neutral person to reveal the identity to, I guess that'd be mostly fine...but as Trump has shown, the second you disagree with him on anything, you're a partisan never Trumper, so if the neutral person said the whistleblower checks out as an honest operator, Trump would just call the neutral person a never Trumper, so what would be the point? 

To Trump, the fact that the whistleblower was concerned about his corruption makes him partisan.

And I'm not even 100% certain you can find a more neutral person than Taylor or Vindman, both of whom have corroborated and expanded upon the whistleblower's complaint already. If they aren't neutral enough for Trump, then I have my doubts that anyone is.

[Belsnickel]

(11-19-2019, 06:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I believe the identity of the whistleblower should be made known to an unbiased source to address conflict of interest.

That's what the IG process is about, though. The IG is there to, in theory, assess the credibility of the whistleblower and their claims. Even though they are appointed by POTUS, they are outside of the normal chain of command. The IG found the report credible, so this process has alread done.