impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I really want to picture hammer at his keyboard screaming with his fist in the air "BUT OBAMA"!!!!!

While you have an active imagination, I will simply restate my argument.

Obama wasn't abusing his office, even though he benefited politically, because it was a legitimate investigation. Trump wasn't abusing his office, because the Biden's are dirty and Trump's desire for an investigation was also legitimate.

The general principle is that while abuse of power is abhorrent and impeachable, pursuit of your duties as president requires you to do things which are sometimes politically beneficial. You cannot exempt politicians from being investigated merely because they are politicians. You still have to investigate them, even if it creates the appearance of a conflict.

Nothing I've said should be the least bit controversial.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[henrygandorf 29189]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

While you have an active imagination, I will simply restate my argument.

Obama wasn't abusing his office, even though he benefited politically, because it was a legitimate investigation. Trump wasn't abusing his office, but the Biden's are dirty and Trump's desire for an investigation was also legitimate.

The general principle is that while abuse of power is abhorrent and impeachable, pursuit of your duties as president requires you to do things which are sometimes beneficial. You cannot exempt politicians from being investigated merely because they are of the opposite party. 

Nothing I've said should be the least bit controversial.

but here's where you falter.  he didn't just gently nudge the ukranians in the direction of where he thought corruption may lie.  he didn't even send a detailed email using big strong words.  he withheld foreign aid that had been appropriated by congress.  he asked for consideration.  do you really not understand that is where this is all stemming from?  republicans are already on the record saying it's not ok.  giuliani was running the whole op on the side with one specific goal.  the story has already been corroborated.  it's over.

and if obama had done something like this, even on his way out - you really think the house and senate - both with republican majorities, would've sat on their hands?  

[mdmost 43001]

Well, and that whole foreign government aspect. NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION! YOU'RE COLLUSION!

[henrygandorf 29189]

Just now, mdmost said:

Well, and that whole foreign government aspect. NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION! YOU'RE COLLUSION!

but otherwise, totally identical.

[bolverk 29670]

One has to wonder which outweighs the other: a) the malignant stupidity or b) the stupid malignancy.

[henrygandorf 29189]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Why? The buffet is open and he's feasting. 

and sometimes it's fun to play video games on easy mode.

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

and sometimes it's fun to play video games on easy mode.

You're still losing. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

You're still losing. 

thanks dad.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

discussions with the mighty hammer of texas be like...

 

 

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Remember the “deliverable” Trumps team had been insistent on: not an investigation, but the public announcement of the investigation.  

 

that should clue you in to whether he was getting political advantage as an ancillary benefit to carrying out his duties, or if the political issue was the goal itself.  

Edited November 2, 2019 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[Message Board User 12395]

Yowzers….

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Some additional subpoenas handed out today:

John Eisenberg, NSC legal advisor, aka 'don't tell anyone but we're going to put this on the super secret server' is to testify on Monday as is

Brian McCormick, Rick Perry's Chief of Staff.

[henrygandorf 29189]

so i guess something in morrison's testimony has now led to rumors of a bunch of gop senators considering a statement basically saying "yes, we acknowledge the quid pro quo happened, but we don't think it rises to impeachment level stuff."

funny seeing trump this morning trying to lean on morrison's "yeah he did it but i didn't think it was illegal" statement.  "yeah, morrison was supposed to be their star witness, but things went horribly for them" or some shit.  

also apparently the 2-3 house gop members (meadows and jordan) have been reporting info from the hearings to trump's inner circle.  but i'm sure they're not violating any disclosure laws.  i can only assume if they spilled anything good, trump would've already tweeted it.  that should tell us a lot.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

20 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so i guess something in morrison's testimony has now led to rumors of a bunch of gop senators considering a statement basically saying "yes, we acknowledge the quid pro quo happened, but we don't think it rises to impeachment level stuff."

funny seeing trump this morning trying to lean on morrison's "yeah he did it but i didn't think it was illegal" statement.  "yeah, morrison was supposed to be their star witness, but things went horribly for them" or some shit.  

also apparently the 2-3 house gop members (meadows and jordan) have been reporting info from the hearings to trump's inner circle.  but i'm sure they're not violating any disclosure laws.  i can only assume if they spilled anything good, trump would've already tweeted it.  that should tell us a lot.

"Well, it's not like anyone got murdered or anything." I think they have the psyche of their base figured out pretty well. No body, no crime.

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Mrs Whiggins
Clarification

[JimmyJames 12271]

Some of y’all seem be sure Hammer no bot nor paid troll, just a fucking moron. Why so confident?  I can’t decipher which myself. 

[TexArcher 37774]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Some of y’all seem be sure Hammer no bot nor paid troll, just a fucking moron. Why so confident?  I can’t decipher which myself. 

I seriously doubt he's a bot or paid troll.

But he is absolutely interested in twisting a serious conversation into a ridiculous one.

Maybe he's hoping to parlay his internet work into a job on Fox News?

[Ted Lange 16084]

On 10/31/2019 at 9:30 PM, Thetexashammer said:

The Biden's are shady as fuck. Joe used his influence for personal gain and probably got an investigation stopped on behalf of his son.

You don't want to get investigated? Don't trade policy for personal favors.

You just perfectly described Donald Trump.   

[DDD Dad 14335]

thanks dad.

Someone called?

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

Color me (not) surprised.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

 

Quote

A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.

In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.

 

Quote

But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter. 

 

Quote

The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump’s doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.

 

Quote

Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is “corrupt intent” and echoed Kennedy’s argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.

“To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”

The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.

And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP’s complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.

Meanwhile, the president has frustrated Senate Republicans by seeming to change his messaging strategy every day rather than present a coherent defense of his actions, said multiple Senate GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment frankly.

On Thursday, Trump told the Washington Examiner that he wanted to do a series of “fireside chats” — as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously did during the Great Depression and the early part of World War II — to defend himself. He said he perhaps would read aloud the transcript of the July 25 telephone call in which he asked Zelensky to do him a “favor.”

The willingness of some Senate Republicans to acknowledge a quid pro quo while dismissing the offense comes just two weeks after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had to walk back a similar assertion. Mulvaney argued in a long-winded news conference on Oct. 17 that quid pro quos are a common feature of foreign policy and that the media should “get over it.”

Indeed, a strategy that includes acknowledging a particular kind of reciprocity with a foreign government would almost certainly unnerve moderate Republicans such as Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who faces reelection next year in a Democratic-leaning state and has said it was “completely inappropriate” for Trump to invite China to investigate Joe Biden, which the president did after the Ukraine controversy began. Collins has repeatedly declined to comment on Ukraine, arguing that she probably would be a juror in a Senate trial of the president.

One senior Republican aide cautioned that acknowledging a quid pro quo is unlikely as a strategy for the Senate GOP, even if some conservatives like the idea.

Such a step would also undercut Trump’s central talking point on impeachment — and would clash with House Republicans’ strategy. Trump’s Capitol Hill allies and Republican leaders, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.), are sticking with Trump’s line that there was no proposed trade-off with Ukraine.

“You can’t have been in [the impeachment depositions] with 10 different witnesses and come out with any credible belief that there was a quid pro quo for aid. … It’s just not accurate,” said top Trump ally Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) “I’ve heard people say, ‘Well even if he did it, it’s fine.’ The problem with that is: I know that he didn’t do it.”

In the Senate, however, some Republicans aren’t as confident and have expressed concerns about the endless drip of embarrassing headlines from daily witness testimony that the U.S. aid and a White House visit for Zelensky hinged on the Biden probe.

The Senate lunch, according to those in attendance, also focused on how best to rally to Trump’s defense if he is impeached. Under the constitutional process, the Senate would hold a trial, with conviction requiring the votes of two-thirds of the senators present.

While some Senate Republicans have argued for a quick trial, most other senators believe that moving quickly could backfire. Senate Republicans, especially those up for reelection next year in Democratic-leaning or swing states, could face criticism that they did not take the charges seriously.

During last year’s contentious battle to confirm now-Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Republicans thought that the more thorough process, including a new FBI investigation in the final days of the confirmation fight, arguably helped to win more support, including that of Collins and then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Some Republicans suggested a longer trial could help the president by giving the GOP the opportunity to try to poke holes in the Democrats’ case. Among those who made a case for thorough proceedings was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who responded to a remark from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) that while, in theory, White House attorneys could move every day to try to dismiss the case, the administration would be advised not to do that.

Cramer appeared to agree with that argument.

“This may be his only opportunity to change what the public sees and hears if they’re gonna continue with their very one-sided process over in the House,” Cramer said, later adding: “In my view, [it is] in the president’s best interest to have the whole thing played out. I don’t mean five weeks, but at least the case so at least the public gets to hear his case.”

Cramer also subscribed to the idea that “there’s lots of quid pro quos” in U.S. foreign policy, pointing to stipulations on assistance for Venezuela and other nations.

“We’ve done quid pro quos a lot of times,” he said. “... The question isn’t whether it was quid pro quo; the question is: Was it corruption?”

Kennedy argued that there are two views on Trump’s actions: that he pushed for an investigation of a political rival; or that he pushed for an investigation of corruption in a country that has a history of missteps — and the request just happened to include the Bidens. Kennedy, an ally of Trump’s, said he expects the president’s lawyers to argue the latter during a Senate trial.

Trump asked Zelensky in the call to look into the Bidens, referring to allegations that Joe Biden pressured Ukrainian officials to fire a prosecutor who was probing the company where Hunter Biden served as a director. Former Ukrainian and U.S. officials say the prosecutor’s investigation into the company was dormant.

“He honestly believes that there may have been corruption in Ukraine, and before he turns over $400 million of American taxpayer money, he’s entitled to ask,” Kennedy said, later adding, “The issue to be litigated … is going to be: Did the president have a good-faith reason to believe that Hunter Biden may have been involved in corruption? And if I’m correct in my analysis, then there will be a lot of time spent on what Mr. Biden did for the money.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who has been heavily involved in the Ukraine saga and is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe and regional security cooperation, argued that the United States often puts conditions on foreign aid. 

Johnson also said that Trump would not allow him to promise Ukrainian officials military aid earlier this year because of other reasons, including concerns about corruption and the desire for European nations to do more to help Ukraine.

“My point is those are legitimate reservations,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. … That’s not impeachable.”

 

[atomheartbevo 89655]

I’d love for hammer to explain why Trump’s personal attorney has so many Ukrainian/Russian ties, and why Trump’s personal attorney was running what sounds like a deep state conspiracy to bypass the normal diplomatic channels.  

[henrygandorf 29189]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’d love for hammer to explain why Trump’s personal attorney has so many Ukrainian/Russian ties, and why Trump’s personal attorney was running what sounds like a deep state conspiracy to bypass the normal diplomatic channels.  

because obama.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

20 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Color me (not) surprised.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

It’s the best defense they have and I hope Ds have been working on how to counter it.  Best is to workshop the best one sentence summary of the act in terms that are obviously corrupt.  “We cannot allow a president to [undermine elections] by [inviting foreign interference] [trading our military for political favors]”. Something that no one can dismiss as innocent. Workshop it, repeat it ad nauseum. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[Pasken 1309]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’d love for hammer to explain why Trump’s personal attorney has so many Ukrainian/Russian ties, and why Trump’s personal attorney was running what sounds like a deep state conspiracy to bypass the normal diplomatic channels.  

Who cares about hammer? He’s either a moron or a troll. Just ignore him. He distracts from useful updates about this saga.

[mdmost 43001]

The old jury nullification defense. Amusing given they are the jury.

[Pasken 1309]

20 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Color me (not) surprised.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with the investigating  corruption Defense is you gave at least once witness saying all trump wanted was an announcement of an investigation on CNN. He didn’t care about an actual investigation. 

[deech 2274]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

so i guess something in morrison's testimony has now led to rumors of a bunch of gop senators considering a statement basically saying "yes, we acknowledge the quid pro quo happened, but we don't think it rises to impeachment level stuff."

funny seeing trump this morning trying to lean on morrison's "yeah he did it but i didn't think it was illegal" statement.  "yeah, morrison was supposed to be their star witness, but things went horribly for them" or some shit.  

also apparently the 2-3 house gop members (meadows and jordan) have been reporting info from the hearings to trump's inner circle.  but i'm sure they're not violating any disclosure laws.  i can only assume if they spilled anything good, trump would've already tweeted it.  that should tell us a lot.

Nearly every single witness admitted there was a quid pro quo.  Except Sondland.  Who then came back and amended his testimony to admit their was a quid pro quo.

So it's time to pivot to it's not illegal.  Then they will pivot to the Clinton's/Obama did the same thing next.

[henrygandorf 29189]

14 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The old jury nullification defense. Amusing given they are the jury.

they've tried so hard to make people think this is an actual trial like they see on tv.  where is his due process?  why doesn't he get his lawyer in there?  why aren't we allowed into the hearings?

meanwhile, before the trial begins, the jury is starting to release statements about how what he did was bad, but not impeachment bad.

all totally normal.

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

38 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’d love for hammer to explain why Trump’s personal attorney has so many Ukrainian/Russian ties, and why Trump’s personal attorney was running what sounds like a deep state conspiracy to bypass the normal diplomatic channels.  

Tune into Fox News. Get his opinions from the source.

[triplehorn 2664]

11 minutes ago, Pasken said:

The problem with the investigating  corruption Defense is you gave at least once witness saying all trump wanted was an announcement of an investigation on CNN. He didn’t care about an actual investigation. 

importantly, he and Rudy also didn’t want the Ukraine president to announce an investigation as being an effort initiated with any involvement associated with TrumpCo.  Apart from bribery, Trump’s plan attempted to use covert manipulation of the American public.  It’s black propaganda, and it’s a separate statutory crime.

”The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

24 minutes ago, Pasken said:

The problem with the investigating  corruption Defense is you gave at least once witness saying all trump wanted was an announcement of an investigation on CNN. He didn’t care about an actual investigation. 

Just like when he was making false claims that he had a team in Hawaii investigating Obama's birth and they were finding out incredible things. He didn't have a team there, let alone one that was discovering anything about Obama not being born there. He just wants to create the impression of a scandal or some sort of wrongdoing. An actual investigation wouldn't yield the result he's looking for. But if he can get Zelensky to say they're investigating Democratic corruption in Ukraine, the hoi polloi will think there was actual Democratic corruption in Ukraine. If he wins reelection then the phony investigation disappears just like the phony birther investigation did after Obama got reelected. (And after that all "investigative" efforts turned toward Hillary, the presumptive Democratic nominee in the next election.)

[Horn Dog 9818]

4 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

There was no quid pro quo, obviously, but you can keep going down that path for as long as you want. 

 

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Color me (not) surprised.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

 

 

 

 

 

Quoted for reference since the trumpkin talking points are now changing from “No Quid Pro Quo” to “Hell yea Quid Pro Quo, but totally normal”.  Absolutely fascinating to watch in real time. 

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, Message Board User said:

Yowzers….

 

How, if this is linked to Trump, is this not high crimes and misdemeanors? 

[Horn Dog 9818]

Cause Obama did the exact same thing... obviously.  

[triplehorn 2664]

Use “bribery” for every instance when “quid pro quo” is used re Trump/Zelensky.

One can argue that Trump engaged in bribery or attempted bribery, or not, but commit to using the relevant term.

It’s the POTUS engaging in a bribery scheme.

[VRHorn 718]

5 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

So if you direct an investigation towards a political opponent, you should probably be impeached? Say, if you use the IRS to target your opponents?

I negged you because you are a dishonest asshole. I responded to your bullshit because I want to shine a light on you fucktards.

The IRS thing is bullshit and has been disproven 1000 times. So yes, it is problematic to do that.

The bullshit you are pedaling is much more toxic and ignores the fact that a US official was asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent.

You should be in a camp.

[Ted Lange 16084]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’d love for hammer to explain why Trump’s personal attorney has so many Ukrainian/Russian ties, and why Trump’s personal attorney was running what sounds like a deep state conspiracy to bypass the normal diplomatic channels.  

I’d love for him to explain why it isn’t OK to investigate trumps obvious corruption . He is fine with Trump abusing his office to investigate Biden but when Trump is investigated it is just a witch hunt..

[triplehorn 2664]

Re eventual Senate impeachment votes, these 5 Republican Senators are up for re-election:

Susan Collins (ME) 
Corey Gardner (CO) 
Joni Ernst (IA) 
Martha McSally (AZ) 
Thom Tillis (NC)

think about recent trends and the relative ‘purpleness’ of those states. Now consider each having to face a vote for or against convicting Trump.  Because in every case, they may not be able to survive losing either Trump base by voting ‘for’ or losing supportive independents voting ‘against’ impeachment.  Talk about a dilemma.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Good looking out, Texas.

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

8 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Use “bribery” for every instance when “quid pro quo” is used re Trump/Zelensky.

One can argue that Trump engaged in bribery or attempted bribery, or not, but commit to using the relevant term.

It’s the POTUS engaging in a bribery scheme.

I'd call it extortion. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

I wonder if Obama's indictment of "woke" culture will move the needles on impeachment. 

Quote

 

Barack Obama challenges 'woke' culture

Mr Obama said that calling people out on social media did not bring about change, and that change was complex. . . . 

Mr Obama told the audience: "I get a sense among certain young people on social media that the way of making change is to be as judgemental as possible about other people. . . .

"That's enough," he said. "If all you're doing is casting stones, you are probably not going to get that far."

Mr Obama added that "people who do really good stuff have flaws".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261 (concise/fair/status quo tilt)

That did not make conviction any easier for him to say that - at this time. But it is forward looking. And it is a path that needed to open for national reconciliation.

Trump has a window to accept the overture. Not sure what the terms would be, but most likely would involve a decision by Trump to not run for reelection (akin to LBJ's decision to not seek reelection because of Vietnam).

I do not know whether Trump would accept that, but then Pence would be the prohibitive favorite. He has been solid on the ground for the Republicans. The election would focus on his faith and how that would influence his decisions as President. Whether Pence wins is up in the air, but it would reestablish old political connections, i.e., the status quo of the stable Bush/Obama division.

Perhaps Obama is the perfect person to say "knock it off" and give Trump a chance to match his tone. Trump's atonality with established thought draws most of the barbs from the Beltway. Whatever happens in Washington leads these days. It is a good measure of President Obama's impact to see if leaders seek a way around a likely acquittal in a Senate impeachment trial in the Senate. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I wonder if Obama's indictment of "woke" culture will move the needles on impeachment. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261 (concise/fair/status quo tilt)

That did not make conviction any easier for him to say that - at this time. But it is forward looking. And it is a path that needed to open for national reconciliation.

Trump has a window to accept the overture. Not sure what the terms would be, but most likely would involve a decision by Trump to not run for reelection (akin to LBJ's decision to not seek reelection because of Vietnam).

I do not know whether Trump would accept that, but then Pence would be the prohibitive favorite. He has been solid on the ground for the Republicans. The election would focus on his faith and how that would influence his decisions as President. Whether Pence wins is up in the air, but it would reestablish old political connections, i.e., the status quo of the stable Bush/Obama division.

Perhaps Obama is the perfect person to say "knock it off" and give Trump a chance to match his tone. Trump's atonality with established thought draws most of the barbs from the Beltway. Whatever happens in Washington leads these days. It is a good measure of President Obama's impact to see if leaders seek a way around a likely acquittal in a Senate impeachment trial in the Senate. 

Lol.

you should get some sleep.

[DigglerontheHoof 21192]

3 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Lol.

you should get some sleep.

Stupid never sleeps.

[triplehorn 2664]

Rise and shine lol

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Mr./Ms Washparkhorn- do you follow the news enough to realize that the President would never ever ever, as in Church Lady never concede anything positive about former President Obama? Trump spent several hours last night in Tupelo, Mississippi calling the former President by his full name, draaaawing out the middle name like it was a pejorative and repeatedly calling him lazy and other tropes designed to stir up his electorate's hatred. When you say 'I do not know whether Trump would accept that," you are not being truthful.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

Nearly every single witness admitted there was a quid pro quo.  Except Sondland.  Who then came back and amended his testimony to admit their was a quid pro quo.
So it's time to pivot to it's not illegal.  Then they will pivot to the Clinton's/Obama did the same thing next.

Ha—yeah, Trump didn’t know it was illegal. That’s totally why he tried to cover it up by moving it to a secure server and has since spent every waking moment denying a quid pro quo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tuco 5076]

Ha—yeah, Trump didn’t know it was illegal. That’s totally why he tried to cover it up by moving it to a secure server and has since spent every waking moment denying a quid pro quo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not positive he is smart/sane enough to know it was illegal. But, to me, that’s more reason to remove him. Impeachment isn’t about justice; it’s about protecting the country. Having a President who is unable to even understand the laws is frightening.

[Prepuce of Doom 21067]

I'm beginning to suspect that Hammer is Devin Nunes. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

13 minutes ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

I'm beginning to suspect that Hammer is Devin Nunes. 

A little rough on Devin, don't you think?

[horncyclist 1387]

This been posted yet? Shifting from the "this court is out of order" phase to the "yeah, I did it, so?" phase.

Kennedy argued that there are two views on Trump’s actions: that he pushed for an investigation of a political rival; or that he pushed for an investigation of corruption in a country that has a history of missteps — and the request just happened to include the Bidens. Kennedy, an ally of Trump’s, said he expects the president’s lawyers to argue the latter during a Senate trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-gop-senators-consider-acknowledgingtrumps-quid-pro-quo-on-ukraine/2019/11/01/72084a3e-fcc4-11e9-9534-e0dbcc9f5683_story.html

John Neely Kennedy

Ted Dickface Cruz

Remember these traitors' names for the history books. And they both claim to be constitutionalists. Everyone should be outraged. 

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by horncyclist

[Red Five 40854]

The moment a lawyer claims that Donald Trump was concerned about corruption, in Ukraine, the entire room should burst out into laughter.