impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[horncyclist 1387]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

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

Dems should invite Green shirt guy in for every session.

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

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.

Using the full name of Barack Hussein Obama is a Swam bit. The president done stoled it. Swamy should sue. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

2 hours ago, Prepuce of Doom said:

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

They, like the GOP, are terrified of two things:

- The various testimonies going public in the House.  

- Impeachment trial happening in the Senate.   

You would think they would be 100% confident if Trump and Co were innocent, about all of the testimony hitting the public, and about the Senate voting favorably to Trump.    

Instead, they are terrified of the testimony hitting the public airwaves, and they want it stopped before it hits the Senate.   

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Good looking out, Texas.

 

Republicans in Texas are in full blown panic mode. This is still a Republican state in a GWB sort of way but even a ton of Republicans here don’t like (now former) New Yorker trump (get a rope). 

Texas will most definitely be a swing state in 2020 and could go either way.

Democrats are even seriously challenging for openings on the Texas Supreme Court, which says it all. Except for lawyers, everyone in the state votes for those positions based strictly on party lines. In 2018 it was 53-47 Republican. It’s expected to be much closer this go around. 

[triplehorn 2664]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I'd call it extortion. 

Extortion, yes.  QPQ, no. 

And that doesn't nearly capture all of it:

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Extortion, yes.  QPQ, no. 

And that doesn't nearly capture all of it:

 

Although that is what the inquiry is focused upon, it doesn't even include that Giuliani was talking to Turkey/Erdogan even though he has not been registered as a foreign agent. Has anyone ever subpoenaed that man's flight records? He's been globe-trotting for Trump for quite awhile. That type of shadow policy affects taxpayer resources at a number that is staggering simply due to the military and other costs as a result.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Republicans in Texas are in full blown panic mode. This is still a Republican state in a GWB sort of way but even a ton of Republicans here don’t like (now former) New Yorker trump (get a rope). 

Texas will most definitely be a swing state in 2020 and could go either way.

Democrats are even seriously challenging for openings on the Texas Supreme Court, which says it all. Except for lawyers, everyone in the state votes for those positions based strictly on party lines. In 2018 it was 53-47 Republican. It’s expected to be much closer this go around. 

And with the loss of straight ticket voting (dumb move Abbott, Patrick) the Texas 2020 election ,especially down ticket races ,will all be about motivated voters. And usually mad voters are more motivated that people happy with the status quo.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Quote

Previously, the whistleblower had offered to answer questions under oath and in writing if submitted by the House Intelligence Committee as a whole. This new offer would be a direct channel of communication with the Republicans who are in the minority on that committee. Republican leadership has complained that the process is unfair and overly restrictive on their ability to question witnesses.

 

 

[sachick 1189]

22 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

 

Ummm... didn't Trump only submit answers to written questions during the Mueller investigation and according to Republicans that was perfectly fine.

[sachick 1189]

They've got a busy Monday this week.

[shnsajax 3591]

[shnsajax 3591]

[CowboyFred 1151]

 

1 minute ago, shnsajax said:

 

please don't fuck this up Supreme Court.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

Looks like the Dems are going the "death by a thousand cuts" method. I like it.

 

Also, fucking covfefe is trending again. Distraction tweets (tits)!

[henrygandorf 29189]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Looks like the Dems are going the "death by a thousand cuts" method. I like it.

 

Also, fucking covfefe is trending again. Distraction tweets (tits)!

last week, somebody on cnn asked schiff (or someone) about the release of the transcripts.  he said "soon".  and then it was like, "ok, so they'll all come out next...monday?  tuesday?"  and he was like, "we're gonna stagger them out, so that people can actually read through them and not be overwhelmed."

seems like there is an actual plan.  how refreshing.

[tantric superman 4667]

Shouldn't we release them first to Barr, so he can do a summary?

[kevwun 15774]

I can't wait to see how this Kushner mess is going to be spun.

[hayden_horn 11362]

11 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I can't wait to see how this Kushner mess is going to be spun.

i hate to say this, because it connects so many dots, but: it does not matter.

we kind of already knew this, even if we didn't know WHO the assenting party in the administration might be. all the behavior following the murder and dismemberment of a resident of the united states and member of the media pointed to the administration giving the okay.

it's unprecedented in the history of our politics.

but it doesn't matter. we've let the government separate families and put babies in jails. we've watched as the administration burns bridges with allies and sidles up to the harshest dictators in the world. we're letting it all happen in our name. i've nevre felt more politically hopeless than i do these days. it really constantly weighs on my mind.

[Red Five 40852]

I can't wait to see how this Kushner mess is going to be spun.

“It’s just diplomacy. Happens all the time. Get over it.”

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i hate to say this, because it connects so many dots, but: it does not matter.

we kind of already knew this, even if we didn't know WHO the assenting party in the administration might be. all the behavior following the murder and dismemberment of a resident of the united states and member of the media pointed to the administration giving the okay.

it's unprecedented in the history of our politics.

but it doesn't matter. we've let the government separate families and put babies in jails. we've watched as the administration burns bridges with allies and sidles up to the harshest dictators in the world. we're letting it all happen in our name. i've nevre felt more politically hopeless than i do these days. it really constantly weighs on my mind.

and to think there are still people who firmly believe Hillary was the worse of the two. I mean, she sucked shit through a straw, but goddamn. 

[skeeter 454]

1 hour ago, sachick said:

Ummm... didn't Trump only submit answers to written questions during the Mueller investigation and according to Republicans that was perfectly fine.

I argued this point with my MAGAt brother-in-law ... he states it's not the same since the whistle-blower instigated an investigation and Trump was the target of Mueller's investigation.  I countered that Mueller was tasked to investigate connections/collusion between the Russian government and individuals involved with Trump's 2016 campaign. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

 

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

49 minutes ago, skeeter said:

I argued this point with my MAGAt brother-in-law ... he states it's not the same since the whistle-blower instigated an investigation and Trump was the target of Mueller's investigation.  I countered that Mueller was tasked to investigate connections/collusion between the Russian government and individuals involved with Trump's 2016 campaign. 

I'm sure whatever you posted was important, but I couldn't stop staring at your avatar long enough to read it. 

[horn4life 3760]

56 minutes ago, skeeter said:

I argued this point with my MAGAt brother-in-law ... he states it's not the same since the whistle-blower instigated an investigation and Trump was the target of Mueller's investigation.  I countered that Mueller was tasked to investigate connections/collusion between the Russian government and individuals involved with Trump's 2016 campaign. 

My new fun thing to ask the purposefully ignorant Trump supporter, whose defense in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE comes back to the "great economy" justifying whatever. 

I now agree with them, saying this is a very, very good economy.  And ask them about what makes it so great... (baiting) increased employment?  Which of course the low information trump supporter will jump on.  It's so fucking funny and easy.  Then I go... nah... I think Obama produced more jobs in the economy he handed off.  To which they of course will state, that scenario is an impossibility. Then I ask them if maybe they would want to bet $1 per 10,000 more jobs created?  We can use the official government Employment numbers....

It's a good bet if you know what you are talking about factually, as back in July Forbes had Obama ahead by 1,500,000 jobs from the economy Trump INHERITED.  You know you are not going to get paid the $150 by the sucker who thinks Trump's economy is so great (it is very good, nearly as good as the one he inherited) because honor and Trump support don't seem to be a combination seen any more than unicorns at the coast.

This Thanksgiving ask all your Trump Economy loving family if they would like to bet with you $1 per 10,000 jobs on which President produced more jobs.  It will be fun to educate the uneducated, and then shame them for their unwillingness to pony up after the loss. It's a fun bet to win $150 per bet with no risk!!!! Knowledge and facts are actually cool to have!

If you are a complete sadist you can give them an opportunity to make their money back betting on Trump's smaller budget deficits....

Edited November 4, 2019 by horn4life

[Dbeasy 15047]

My new fun thing to ask the purposefully ignorant Trump supporter, whose defense in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE comes back to the "great economy" justifying whatever. 
I now agree with them, saying this is a very, very good economy.  And ask them about what makes it so great... (baiting) increased employment?  Which of course the low information trump supporter will jump on.  It's so fucking funny and easy.  Then I go... nah... I think Obama produced more jobs in the economy he handed off.  To which they of course will state, that scenario is an impossibility. Then I ask them if maybe they would want to bet $1 per 10,000 more jobs created?  We can use the official government Employment numbers....
It's a good bet if you know what you are talking about factually, as back in July Forbes had Obama ahead by 1,500,000 jobs from the economy Trump INHERITED.  You know you are not going to get paid the $150 by the sucker who thinks Trump's economy is so great (it is very good, nearly as good as the one he inherited) because honor and Trump support don't seem to be a combination seen any more than unicorns at the coast.
This Thanksgiving ask all your Trump Economy loving family if they would like to bet with you $1 per 10,000 jobs on which President produced more jobs.  It will be fun to educate the uneducated, and then shame them for their unwillingness to pony up after the loss. It's a fun bet to win $150 per bet with no risk!!!! Knowledge and facts are actually cool to have!
If you are a complete sadist you can give them an opportunity to make their money back betting on Trump's smaller budget deficits....

While the Trump believers are idiots, it’s also stupid to compare job growth between Trump and Obama. Obama was building from the financial collapse of 2007.

[SaucyJack 3488]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Shouldn't we release them first to Barr, so he can do a summary?

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

1 hour ago, skeeter said:

I argued this point with my MAGAt brother-in-law ... he states it's not the same since the whistle-blower instigated an investigation and Trump was the target of Mueller's investigation.  I countered that Mueller was tasked to investigate connections/collusion between the Russian government and individuals involved with Trump's 2016 campaign. 

Maybe remind him that Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury for more than four hours. I remember seeing Rudy Giuliani on some news program during the Mueller investigation crying that Clinton was only questioned for four hours so Trump shouldn't be questioned any longer than that. Anything more would be unfair. (Such victims.)

Ultimately Trump's lawyers won out by admitting that Trump was incapable of speaking without lying so he had to be allowed to provide written testimony. Mueller acquiesced because he didn't want to go through a lengthy legal battle to force the issue and because he thought, incorrectly, that he had enough information from other sources that he really didn't need in-person testimony from THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN THE WHOLE FUCKING INVESTIGATION.

So he got the Reagan defense: "I don't recall." Over and over again. From a guy who boasts at his campaign rallies that he has the greatest memory. Mueller got played; Trump successfully obstructed and escaped justice. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Subpoena Hannity

[Tuco 5076]

The Yavanovitch transcript mentions a John Solomon hit piece in The Hill.  That article also mentions everyone's favorite Texas ex-Rep Pete Sessions, who is currently being subpoenaed in relationship to Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman.  

 

Quote

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute list during their first meeting.

“Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,” Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told Hill.TV last week.

“My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,” he continued.

The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an outright fabrication." 

“We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive projects."

Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.

Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never received."

“At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue,” he said. "At that time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption policy."

“Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied there was no problem."

“The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it,” he said.

Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.

Former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who was at the time House Rules Committee chairman, voiced concerns about Yovanovitch in a letter to the State Department last year in which he said he had proof the ambassador had spoken of her “disdain” for the Trump administration.

— Hill.TV Staff

 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

22 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The Yavanovitch transcript mentions a John Solomon hit piece in The Hill.  That article also mentions everyone's favorite Texas ex-Rep Pete Sessions, who is currently being subpoenaed in relationship to Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman.  

 

 

 

Don't forget who John Solomon's lawyers are.  

[jimmyjazz 45898]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

 

While the Trump believers are idiots, it’s also stupid to compare job growth between Trump and Obama. Obama was building from the financial collapse of 2007.

 

Except almost every financial and economic metric holds water even if you just count backwards from inauguration as far back in Obama's Presidency as you count forward into Trump's Presidency.  It's not a perfect science, you win some, you lose some, but it's not at all true that one needs to start in January 2009 to see the same performance in most cases.

[BrickHorn 18218]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

 

But her Benghazis!

[Bama Chick 28596]

This is going to make some Trump folks nervous.

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

This is going to make some Trump folks nervous.

 

I just heard Giuliani shit his pants. 

[hookemATL 11714]

Any resident cultists gonna stop by and offer up their surely insightful opinions/fact-based arguments in Trump’s defense?  Nope?  Didn’t think so. Fucking cowards and pussies.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

15 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I just heard Giuliani shit his pants. 

he'll be smearing it on the walls in 5 minutes. 

[sachick 1189]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

14 minutes ago, sachick said:

 

That OMB director would be a good one to question because of the timing of the aid he was instructed to place on hold (July 18 IIRC). Jail them. Jail them all.

[henrygandorf 29189]

and since it's an official impeachment inquiry, can't they (a) actually do something legal to the people who don't show up and (b) imply some sort of guilt (there's a term i can't remember) basically saying "we're assuming since you're not showing up, that what you were going to say was super fucking damning"?

[atomheartbevo 89648]

1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

he'll be smearing it on the walls in 5 minutes. 

Cousin fuckers aren’t known for their sophistication.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The tweets, the meltdowns will be delicious.  

[henrygandorf 29189]

34 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

tens of thousands of lies, and "i don't even know him" will end up fucking him the most.

[DigglerontheHoof 21186]

51 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

I really hope this is as devastating as it sounds.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

2 hours ago, sachick said:

 

I'll believe it when I see it.  You have to actually do something Schiff, not just threaten.

[David Dennison 18854]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'll believe it when I see it.  You have to actually do something Schiff, not just threaten.

See what? It says what he's going to do right there in the tweet.

[Biff Tannen 45673]

Just now, David Dennison said:

See what? It says what he's going to do right there in the tweet.

Jail those motherfuckers.  Oh no!  He's going to "add us to the body of evidence"!  You think the average American gives a shit?  Examples must be made.

[henrygandorf 29189]

yeah, so you add it to the obstruction article, which makes it airtight...and still the gop senators will vote to acquit.

not sure what schiff can even do here.

[David Dennison 18854]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Jail those motherfuckers.  Oh no!  He's going to "add us to the body of evidence"!  You think the average American gives a shit?  Examples must be made.

That's not going to happen. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

I thought Bolton had agreed, or was that only for public testimony?