Jump to content

The Senate Trial of Donald J Trump 2020

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexArcher
TexArcher

Of course we're not getting witnesses and of course Trump is getting acquitted.  This was only going to end one way. Schiff was brilliant.  And none of the people who needed to hear it did.

Zavala
Zavala

DAMN YOU RUSSIA!

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

Posted Images

Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

so now we're admitting it's true, but calling him disloyal.

not a liar, not never-trumping scum, just disloyal.

sew a scarlet d on his chest and sign the fucking subpoena.  let's go.

My favorite part of the Schiff's closing was talking about how the defense would refer to the whistle blower as disloyal or a traitor.  That description only works if you believe Trump is the State.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85574

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tuco said:

My favorite part of the Schiff's closing was talking about how the defense would refer to the whistle blower as disloyal or a traitor.  That description only works if you believe Trump is the State.  

1. Rename Alaska “The State of Trump”

2. Retarded shit bags move there “to own the libs”

3. Republicans never win the electoral college again

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15539

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I hope Hunter and Joe agree to testify. Their opening statement should be something to the effect "We don't know why the fuck we're here, but are glad to answer any questions you have."

I think my next wedding toast will be "may you both be so successful that your children will be able to trade on your name to get lucrative positions on boards of directors."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this Pam Bondi?

 

Odds that’s Fruman’s iPhone taking that pic?  By now, every person who sees themselves in a photo like this with Lev has to recognize there’s also an iPhone voice recording.  These two are mobsters doing mob business.  Lev was the engaging one with good English, Igor was the sound guy you weren’t paying attention to.  Blackmail and kompromat 101.  Hi Pam!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

Just a reminder that, someone who would know better than anyone else on Earth, feels that Trump is a Russian agent:

 

 

through the years, when they went around the room, this particular kgb operative got mocked and ridiculed, because while other assets were producing results and climbing in their fields, his was toiling away bankrupting casinos and hosting reality shows.

but look who's laughing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

This current "but Obama" line of argument is mid bottling.

Not watching today, but I imagine they've said "MRE's and blankets" about 150 times. Because what the Obama administration did or did not do has a ton of relevance to the charges at hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Not watching today, but I imagine they've said "MRE's and blankets" about 150 times. Because what the Obama administration did or did not do has a ton of relevance to the charges at hand. 

A lot about the Bidens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LongestHorn

LongestHorn 759

Posted
Posted

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tonesky

Tonesky 948

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Would it be that hard for any of the media to pull the board of directors of the Fortune Top 20 companies and see who on each board is an expert in that field and what they are paid?  Pretty sure not everyone on the board of Exxon is a O&G person or UHCs board are experts on insurance, etc....plus they are probably paid more than 50K a month.  Not saying Hunter Biden is clean but this is complaining someone got a job because of their family name Or help from their parents which means we would have to go after most of the upper class in this country.

It took me about 5 minutes....  The 10 person ExxonMobil board of directors includes one person (a former ExxonMobil executive) with an oil and gas background. The other 9 board members come from academia, insurance, IBM/Xerox, pharmaceuticals, Caterpillar, and Food and Beverage. In 2018 their compensation averaged $366K.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85574

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LongestHorn said:

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

“Risk” acquittal? It’s just calling all your timeouts when the outcome is already known. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

Great. Do it. If I were the Dems i'd make the below offer. 

Joe for Bolton

Hunter for Mulvaney

Schiff for Pompeo

Wistleblower for Trump. 

Let all of the above sit for questioning. Tell the absolute truth and see who comes out clean. 

  • Like 10
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Or -- and this is an alternate explanation -- he's a piece of shit dinosaur with antiquated views on women and their worth in society, and on top of that, archaic moral views that add up to "she was asking for it by partying with a bunch of....you know...."

Don't discount that explanation.  Because it's spot-fucking-on.

 

To be fair, El Diablo said "part of."

why-not-both.jpg

 

And lawyers aren't great across the board by any stretch of the imagination, but in the last 20 years or so, where they're mostly frozen out of the c-suite, except for the GC, corporations haven't exactly distinguished themselves in the legality and responsibility department.

The financial mechanics that are currently de rigeur seem to be missing a bit of insight about the machines they are wrenching on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Tonesky said:

It took me about 5 minutes....  The 10 person ExxonMobil board of directors includes one person (a former ExxonMobil executive) with an oil and gas background. The other 9 board members come from academia, insurance, IBM/Xerox, pharmaceuticals, Caterpillar, and Food and Beverage. In 2018 their compensation averaged $366K.

Yeah.  Good post.  $50k/month is a bit rich, but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NameAlreadyInUse

NameAlreadyInUse 5125

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It's helpful to have a diverse skillset in the boardroom -- somebody who knows fundraising well, somebody who knows legal issues, somebody who knows marketing and communications, etc.  AND, lastly....it often doesn't hurt to have a recognized name on the board.  Like Royal, or Johnson, or....Biden.  It gets attention, it gives you some credibility with certain audiences.  That's just the way it is.  And yeah, it's even more so that way in economies that pay attention to shit like that, like Mexico, or Ukraine, or....the United States.

To that point, I work for a growing company that went public almost 2 years ago.  Part of what we started doing to beef up our board before we went public was to expand the areas of expertise.  We included NO ONE who was good at the thing we do as a company.  Why? Because we're good at that already.  We brought on people for 2 reasons.  They had some area of expertise in business that we needed some advice on and/or, their resume gave us a little reflected gravitas because they are now on our board.  We weren't then and aren't now in the business that a celebrity name was going to do it, and I mean celebrity in the way that Hunter Biden is a celebrity, but we are in the business that having someone from Salesforce or Tableau or Boeing sitting on our board makes us more legitimate in the eyes of certain investors.  So that's what we did.  Celebrity or resume board members that bring that credibility are a net positive for a board even if they don't know anything about your specific space.  That's the way that boards work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, LongestHorn said:

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

If I were the Senate Democrats I would respond to that offer with a giant fuck off. We will call our witnesses and you can call whoever you want, up to and including Santa and the Easter bunny. And if you don’t want to hear from our witnesses, go on television and the net and tell the American people why not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted

just got back in front of a tv, and holy shit - the last guy - hershmann (??) was laying out the defense that the entire reason the dems are holding this impeachment trial is to get trump off the ballot in 2020, because they're scared the country will reelect trump, because...wait for it...he's a really good president.

that's their defense?

also, i'm not one for promoting style over content in these types of proceedings, but this last dude could barely string 3 words together without fucking up.  so he's saying something stupid while also sounding like a fucking idiot.  i get it, they're nervous.  but they're attorneys, right?  they've spoken english before?  out loud?  in front of people?  they would've been better off just hiring actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shakahorn

shakahorn 1645

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

To that point, I work for a growing company that went public almost 2 years ago.  Part of what we started doing to beef up our board before we went public was to expand the areas of expertise.  We included NO ONE who was good at the thing we do as a company.  Why? Because we're good at that already.  We brought on people for 2 reasons.  They had some area of expertise in business that we needed some advice on and/or, their resume gave us a little reflected gravitas because they are now on our board.  We weren't then and aren't now in the business that a celebrity name was going to do it, and I mean celebrity in the way that Hunter Biden is a celebrity, but we are in the business that having someone from Salesforce or Tableau or Boeing sitting on our board makes us more legitimate in the eyes of certain investors.  So that's what we did.  Celebrity or resume board members that bring that credibility are a net positive for a board even if they don't know anything about your specific space.  That's the way that boards work.

You guys are trying too hard using common sense and logic and all of that.  I bet you think you're so smart and better Americans because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
If I were the Senate Democrats I would respond to that offer with a giant fuck off. We will call our witnesses and you can call whoever you want, up to and including Santa and the Easter bunny. And if you don’t want to hear from our witnesses, go on television and the net and tell the American people why not. 

Yep. Biden isn’t writing a book, Bolton is. His information is coming out regardless. The Senate Republican choice is a simple one: do they want that information public before they vote, or do they want to hide it until after their vote. Biden’s got nothing to do with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105336

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

To that point, I work for a growing company that went public almost 2 years ago.  Part of what we started doing to beef up our board before we went public was to expand the areas of expertise.  We included NO ONE who was good at the thing we do as a company.  Why? Because we're good at that already.  We brought on people for 2 reasons.  They had some area of expertise in business that we needed some advice on and/or, their resume gave us a little reflected gravitas because they are now on our board.  We weren't then and aren't now in the business that a celebrity name was going to do it, and I mean celebrity in the way that Hunter Biden is a celebrity, but we are in the business that having someone from Salesforce or Tableau or Boeing sitting on our board makes us more legitimate in the eyes of certain investors.  So that's what we did.  Celebrity or resume board members that bring that credibility are a net positive for a board even if they don't know anything about your specific space.  That's the way that boards work.

QFFUCKINGT.

Again, my examination at trial will include me going through a list of major Republican donors who 1) sit on the board of a company and 2) have no experience in the industry of that company.  I will devote special attention to relatives of current GOP officials.  Special attention also to those companies that have international operations.  Just for fucking examples, Elaine Chao -- whose expertise is in economics and banking -- served on the boards of News Corp (Fox News, oh the fucking irony) and Dole Foods.

Wanna fucking play, you crooked fucking fucksticks?  Let's fucking PLAY.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38066

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LongestHorn said:

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

This is like playing 5 card draw and knowing the opponent has a straight flush to the jack while we have an ace and four unconnected rags, then suggesting we just shove all our chips in the middle and only play for high card.

"See, we made a reasonable offer and those Dems just want everything their own way.  You can't reason with these people!"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38066

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LongestHorn said:

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

This is like playing 5 card draw and knowing the opponent has a straight flush to the jack while we have an ace and four unconnected rags, then suggesting we just shove all our chips in the middle and only play for high card.

"See, we made a reasonable offer and those Dems just want everything their own way.  You can't reason with these people!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
16 minutes ago, Tuco said:


Yep. Biden isn’t writing a book, Bolton is. His information is coming out regardless. The Senate Republican choice is a simple one: do they want that information public before they vote, or do they want to hide it until after their vote. Biden’s got nothing to do with it.

 

--->  "Keep in mind that when you hear reports saying GOP Senators are “blindsided” by accounts from Bolton’s book, they are not saying they are blindsided by the facts. They knew the facts.

They are blindsided by the failure of the coverup to hold through the end of the trial."  

 

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38066

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LongestHorn said:

Toomey Proposes a ‘One-for-One’ Deal on Witnesses

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA), an influential conservative in the Senate, has spoken with several colleagues in recent days about possibly summoning just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial, with one called by Republicans and one by Democrats, the Washington Post reports.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called… He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump.”

This is like playing 5 card draw and knowing the opponent has a straight flush to the jack while we have an ace and four unconnected rags, then suggesting we just shove all our chips in the middle and only play for high card.

"See, we made a reasonable offer and those Dems just want everything their own way.  You can't reason with these people!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

JFC, so according to Dershowitz, only treason and bribery are impeachable, abuse of power is campaign material. 

Also asking a country to change human rights abuses they commit internally and asking a country to interfere in a US election are the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...