impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

22 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Don’t understand why the dems haven’t been pounding that point harder.  “Release the REAL Transcript”.  They should be shouting this repeatedly.

I actually wonder if perhaps they have a copy they are sitting on.  

 

[Dnaguy 12,002]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I actually wonder if perhaps they have a copy they are sitting on.  

 

Your mom sat on it last night ... It was horrible for me.

 

Sorry. I couldn’t resist.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Dnaguy

[Lurch 5,931]

[4th&Five 41,565]

NO! READ THE TRANSCRIPT!!!!!

[Red Five 40,874]

The fucking thing says “this is not a transcript” on it and we’ve still got dems going on tv and calling it “the transcript”.

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

Don’t understand why the dems haven’t been pounding that point harder.  “Release the REAL Transcript”.  They should be shouting this repeatedly.

Because it could easily backfire and be an actual nothingburger.  What was released was extremely damaging.  Why focus energy on something not released that may not be much different from what's out there.

I'm honestly not sure the actual transcript will add much.  Not because I trust the Trump admin.  But because (1) what they put out there was already terrible for them and (2) the missing time could be attributable to some combination of interpreters, trump word salad, and bragging about his election victory, etc.  There's no point in pounding the table to obtain something that may not help with the impeachment.  Focus on the stuff that we know is terrible for Trump, of which there's a lengthy and ever growing list.

[shnsajax 3,591]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

Dayum.

 How long until Trump claims that he doesn’t know him and that people are just using his name to make money. 

[Message Board User 12,395]

No wonder GOPers are now saying quid pro quo is not a big deal - it’s basically their only defense at this point.

[Captainant 27,682]

Here's the direct link to the deposition transcripts and "key excerpts"

Glad I have a free half hour until my next meetings....

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

4 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

"Oh, that quid pro quo conversation, yeah I remember it now."

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

5 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

"Oh, that quid pro quo conversation, yeah I remember it now."

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

The tweets will be fun when he finds out about this/finds his iPhone after the interns hid it.  

[lemonlime 5,503]

12 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

No wonder GOPers are now saying quid pro quo is not a big deal - it’s basically their only defense at this point.

Especially with the quid pro quo discussion with Pence.  Hello, President Pelosi.

[Js1 85,439]

12 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

"Oh, that quid pro quo conversation, yeah I remember it now."

 

[Captainant 27,682]

Like I did with the last set of excerpts, here's some big and fucking bad highlights.

Starting with the Sondland excerpts:

• During an Oval Office meeting on May 23, 2019, with Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, and Secretary Perry, President Trump “just kept saying: Talk to Rudy, talk to Rudy.” (Page 61-62)
• State Department officials were “fully aware of the issues” with Mr. Giuliani, but “there was very little they could do about it if the President decided he wanted his lawyer involved.” (Page 356-358)
• Mr. Giuliani’s demands “kept getting more insidious” as Ambassador Sondland “became aware that there might be a link between the White House visit and aid to the Ukraine that was being held up.” (Page 91-92, 240, 253-254)
• With respect to President Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens, “whatever the Ukrainians were going to promise in any context, he wanted it public.” (Page 142-143)
• The demands that Ukraine investigate the former Vice President’s son were “improper.” (Page 308)
• Despite multiple accounts that Ambassador Sondland had stated to Ukrainian officials on July 10, 2019, that it was important for Ukraine to deliver specific investigations on the 2016 election and Burisma, he did not recall if the word “Burisma” was mentioned in the meetings. (Page 223-224)

And then the Volker excerpts:

• After learning that Rudy Giuliani intended to pursue allegations raised by Prosecutor General Lutsenko, Ambassador Volker warned Mr. Giuliani that “Lutsenko is not credible.” (Page 226-227)
• When Vice President Joe Biden encouraged Ukraine to fire former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, he was “executing U.S. policy at the time and what was widely understood internationally to be the right policy.” (Page 330)
• On May 23, 2019, Ambassador Volker, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland recommended that President Trump schedule an Oval Office meeting with the newly elected President of Ukraine, but President Trump stated that Ukrainians “tried to take me down” and that they should “talk to Rudy.” (Page 279, 304)
• On July 3, 2019, Ambassador Volker met with President Zelensky in Toronto, Canada, and explained to him that Mr. Giuliani was amplifying “a negative narrative about Ukraine” that was “counteracting” President Zelensky’s efforts. (Page 242-243)
• Ukrainian officials “asked to be connected to” Mr. Giuliani as a direct conduit to President Trump. (Page 47)
• On July 18, 2019, Ambassador Volker became aware that the Office of Management and Budget had placed an “unusual” hold on security assistance to Ukraine, but he was unable to obtain an explanation for the hold. (Page 79-80, 121)
• On July 19, 2019, during a breakfast meeting at Trump Hotel with Mr. Giuliani and Lev Parnas, Ambassador Volker warned that allegations against Vice President Biden were “simply not credible” based on his personal knowledge. (Page 202-203, 228-231)
• Ambassador Volker explained a text message exchange in which Ambassador Sondland wrote that President Trump “really wants the deliverable.” (Page 183)
• Mr. Giuliani insisted that a draft statement to be issued by Ukraine had to include explicit references to “Burisma and 2016.” (Page 71-72, 113)
• Ambassador Volker discovered that the Department of Justice had not officially asked Ukraine to launch the investigations being promoted by Mr. Giuliani. (Page 196-197, 45)

And finally, key excepts from the text messages between Volker and Sondland

• In late April 2019, after Marie Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled from her post as the Ambassador to Ukraine, Ambassador Taylor relayed his conversation with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent about becoming Chargé d’Affaires
• Nearly one month later, Ambassador Taylor continued to struggle with the decision to go to Ukraine and voiced concern about the “Guliani-Biden issue”
• On May 28, 2019, Ambassador Taylor expressed concern about a “non-normal world” in which White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney is involved with an invitation to the Ukrainian President for a White House visit, but not the National Security Council
• On July 7, 2019, three days before a meeting at the White House between a Ukrainian delegation and National Security Advisor John Bolton, Ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland discussed calling White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney
• On the morning of July 10, 2019, Ambassador Volker met with President Zelensky’s top advisor, Andrey Yermak, at the Trump Hotel before the White House meeting
• Just before he met Mr. Yermak for breakfast on July 10, 2019, Ambassador Volker highlighted an “opportunity” for Mr. Giuliani “to get you what you need,” and Mr. Giuliani responded that he had “some suggestions”
• On the same afternoon as the meeting between John Bolton and the Ukrainian delegation, on July 10, 2019, Mr. Yermak sent a text message to Ambassador Volker noting that Mr. Giuliani was “the key for many things”
• On the evening of July 10, 2019, Ambassador Volker provided an update on meetings at the White House with the Ukrainian delegation, saying it was “not good”
• On July 22, 2019, Ambassador Volker and Mr. Yermak discussed a potential call between President Trump and President Zelensky and the importance of speaking with Mr. Giuliani first
• On August 11, 2019, Ambassador Volker contacted Mr. Giuliani about a “statement” from President Zelensky
• On August 12, 2019, Mr. Yermak sent a draft statement to Ambassador Volker announcing an “investigation,” without mentioning Burisma or the 2016 elections
• On August 13, 2019, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland proposed to Mr. Yermak that the statement also include “2 key items”—“Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections”

 

To borrow a phrase,

If this is too much of a longcat post, bitch at me and I'll put it into spoilers. I just know that lots of yall won't have the time to click through and read at least the excerpts for yourself so I'm verbatim copying the high points into here.

 

EDIT: just realized I left out one of the biggest things from this new testimony - Zelensky discussed the suspension of aid directly with Mike Pence.

I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with [Ukrainian official] Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of US aid to Ukraine directly with VP Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Captainant

[jimmyjazz 45,990]

I don't get what the big deal is, this is Politics 101, everyone does it.  Plus, what about Hillary's emails?  And Benghazi?

[shnsajax 3,591]

I don't get what the big deal is, this is Politics 101, everyone does it.  Plus, what about Hillary's emails?  And Benghazi?

Hammer will be saying soon.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,876]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't get what the big deal is, this is Politics 101, everyone does it.  Plus, what about Hillary's emails?  And Benghazi?

don't forget the selfie stick!

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

EDIT: just realized I left out one of the biggest things from this new testimony - Zelenskiy discussed the suspension of aid directly with Mike Pence.

I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with [Ukrainian official] Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of US aid to Ukraine directly with VP Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.

In a just world, this would be YUUUUGE.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

In a just world, this would be YUUUUGE.

ah! well. nevertheless,

[atomheartbevo 89,735]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't get what the big deal is, this is Politics 101, everyone does it. 

This gets lost in the shuffle - we talk about how Trump is what a poor person thinks rich people say and act like, etc.

This whole Ukrainian/Russian thing is exactly how somebody who is used to greasing the palms of various local officials would act on the world stage - thinking they should be able to cut out various people/organizations and go directly to whoever they want to do their bidding, and operating in the belief that your personal lawyer should be able to handle anything for you.

Edited November 5, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[lemonlime 5,503]

In case anyone was wondering if the GOP was serious in their supposed due process concerns.  My favorite line of questioning of Volker is from Mark Meadows who complains he's not allowed to ask questions.  Is told by the chair he can ask questions.  Meadows complains some more about not being allowed to ask questions, and then doesn't ask any questions.  Page 171 of the transcript.

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

This gets lost in the shuffle - we talk about how Trump is what a poor person thinks rich people say and act like, etc.

This whole Ukrainian/Russian thing is exactly how somebody who is used to greasing the palms of various local officials would act on the world stage - thinking they should be able to cut out various people/organizations and go directly to whoever they want to do their bidding, and operating in the belief that your personal lawyer should be able to handle anything for you.

People wanted him to run the country like his business... I guess he has been 

[sachick 1,189]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

Ultimately I see Trump stating that he can't be responsible for what Giuliani says.  "Ask Rudy. I didn't tell him to act in that way." 

The White House has a lot of buffers.  - Willie Cicci

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

15 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

In case anyone was wondering if the GOP was serious in their supposed due process concerns.  My favorite line of questioning of Volker is from Mark Meadows who complains he's not allowed to ask questions.  Is told by the chair he can ask questions.  Meadows complains some more about not being allowed to ask questions, and then doesn't ask any questions.  Page 171 of the transcript.

You could see that happening back when the interview with Maguire was released regarding the whistleblower complaint. Nunes was the first to speak after Pelosi, and spent most of his time grandstanding for the record. They knew back then that this was a bad act by the President but decided to go all in instead of acting with integrity. Just like Lindsey saying that he will vote no on impeachment. What happened to weighing the evidence like a jury? Can they take away his ability to practice law?

[hayden_horn 11,362]

21 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

In case anyone was wondering if the GOP was serious in their supposed due process concerns.  My favorite line of questioning of Volker is from Mark Meadows who complains he's not allowed to ask questions.  Is told by the chair he can ask questions.  Meadows complains some more about not being allowed to ask questions, and then doesn't ask any questions.  Page 171 of the transcript.

haha, holy shit that is priceless. it's even worse than your characterization. i wish i could cut and paste from somewhere without the wonky format. that's just fucking absurd. i hate that dude. swallwell owned meadows there, but it doesn't matter.

Quote

MR. MEADOWS: Mr. Ambassador, it's Mark Meadows from
North Carolina, and I'm not going to ask questions because
the majority has indicated that they don't want members to do
that. But I want to go on the record and in three djfferent
ways.
I'm going on the record to indicate to the majority that
we need to make sure that we clarify the ru1es, and members
should be allowed to ask quest'ions. And I can tel1 you that,
from my standpoint, it is critically important that we
establish this going forward.
And I wi sh Chai rman 5ch'if f were here. And I 'm not
asking you to comment. This is for the record, and I can
tel1 you that I object to the way that this deposition
transcribed interview has been conducted in terms of the
overall ru1es.
Mr. Ambassador, I want to go further, because I want to
say thank you. 0n behalf of the American people, it is a
great loss that you are going back to your passion. I can
tel1 that you have done an incredible job of representing our
count ry .
You've represented the State Department and our Foreign
Service personnel in such a gracious way today that I just
171

want to say thank you. And your testimony here today has
given me such great encouragement that, regardless of the
outcome of what you bel i eve or d'idn ' t bel i eve, you 've come
across in an unbelievably transparent and authentic way, and
I just want to thank You for that.
MR. SWALWELL: Mr. l4eadows, I just want to clarify
MR. MEAD0WS: It's my time. I didn't interrupt you.
MR. SWALWELL: I just want to clarify, you can ask
questions. You said that you're not allowed to. We are
affording you the opportunitY. So
MR. MEAD0WS: At the verY beginning
MR. SWALWELL: You have 6 minutes.
MR. MEAD0WS: -- what I would love for us to do is,
goi ng forward on these transcri bed i ntervi ews, i s let's set
out what -- because at the very beginning, we were saying:
We di scourage members from aski ng questi ons.
MR. SWALWELL: I'm telling you, you can ask quest'ions,
SO
MR. MEADOWS: I appreciate that. And when I hear it
f rom the cha'i rman
MR. SWALWELL: I'm acting as the chairman for the rest
of the day, So you can ask questions. You'Ve got 5 minutes.
I"1R. MEADOWS: We11, I apprecjate it. And so I assume
that that's going to be the way for every transcribed
interview? Are you on the record as saying every transcribed
172

interview members can ask questions as many as they want?
MR. SWALWELL: We've got the witness here. You can ask
questi ons, so
MR. MEAD0WS: I 'm aski ng goi ng forward because that' s
why I put i t on the record, l'4r. Swalwell. You know. L'isten,
this is not your first rodeo, nor mine. So are you saying,
going forward, members are going to be allowed to ask
questions, as the acting chairman?
MR. SWALWELL: Today, you can ask questi ons . I 'm not
going to speak for the chairman for tomorrow.
MR. MEADOWS: Yeah. We11, when Cha'i rman Schjff gets
back, we'11 ask someone who is reatly in Charge.
MR. SWALWELL: 0kay. You've got 4 minutes.
MR. MEADOWS: And so here is the last thing I would say:
You've done a great job of answering as a fact witness, and I
think that that's critically important, that jn the context
of all of th'is f or the record 'is, when there's a f act, you
have answered those to the best of your ability.
Now, I would say my friends opposite have tried to tead
you down a road where you're supposed to get in the mind of
everybody else that was on a text message and have you opine
on what they thought. And if we were in a court, it would be
thrown out immediately. And I think all the counselors
around here realize that it would be leading the witness.
But I want to say thank you for sticking to the facts
173

and allowing us and, more importantly, the American people to
see exactly the kind of career diplomats that we have
servicing and sacrificially serving our country. And I want
to just say thank you for the record, Ambassador.
And I'11 give it back to Steve.

 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

the first time some gop stooge said, "let's spin this as trump just wanting to clean up corruption", how long do you think it took for everyone in the room to stop laughing?

[Horn Dog 9,877]

It is truly amazing what an incredible advantage the GOP has with such a stupid irrational base with zero logical skills.  No matter was industry you are in, just imagine how much easier it would be if your clients/customers bought anything you told them without any analysis.

[Message Board User 12,395]

LMAO.

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

Ultimately I see Trump stating that he can't be responsible for what Giuliani says.  "Ask Rudy. I didn't tell him to act in that way."  The White House has a lot of buffers.  - Willie Cicci

 

Except it's been outlined by everyone (State Dept. DoD, Budget/Appropriations office) that they knew Rudy was involved and running the show at the President's direction. Hell, State Dept was too scared to step in b/c of a potential backlash from Trump. 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

14 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

It is truly amazing what an incredible advantage the GOP has with such a stupid irrational base with zero logical skills.  No matter was industry you are in, just imagine how much easier it would be if your clients/customers bought anything you told them without any analysis.

That's what is so vexing about all this.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

1 minute ago, Message Board User said:

LMAO.

 

In our family, it is tradition that when each child is required to read "A Separate Peace" by John Knowles for their high school English class,  after reading the novel they weigh in with their opinion on Gene and Phineas and the scene in what our family refers to as "The Branch Incident." Never mind what the analysis or Cliffs Notes or what the teacher says, the question is posed, "Did Gene 'jounce' the branch on purpose?" I don't know how it got started, but it ended up being something that has generated more laughs and great discussion over the shared experience that has spanned from our own hs days to that of our children.

When you posted this tweet, I immediately thought of that scene and our family dinner table. I can't wait to discuss this one...and the question is, does Bolton know how to climb trees?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

19 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Except it's been outlined by everyone (State Dept. DoD, Budget/Appropriations office) that they knew Rudy was involved and running the show at the President's direction. Hell, State Dept was too scared to step in b/c of a potential backlash from Trump. 

 

 

But no one but Rudy and Trump know what was said between them. Was rudy acting on his own, was Trump directing him? Trump has the mafia don defense that he didn't order no one to do nothing.

This will a defense point from Trump whne its determined that Rudy did something wrong.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

But no one but Rudy and Trump know what was said between them. Was rudy acting on his own, was Trump directing him? Trump has the mafia don defense that he didn't order no one to do nothing.
This will a defense point from Trump whne its determined that Rudy did something wrong.

Well you forget that crazy Rudy has been on TV stating he was acting on his client's behalf. Who's Rudy's client? Donald Trump, Super Genius.

[Player 4,575]

When Rudy realizes he's the scapegoat does he sing like a canary, or hope that a pardon will save him? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

5 minutes ago, Player said:

When Rudy realizes he's the scapegoat does he sing like a canary, or hope that a pardon will save him? 

Rudy isn't in the same danger as Trump. Rudy can't be impeached, obviously. the DOJ isn't going to indict him. And Trump is going to pardon 100s of people on his way out.  His only fear would be Trump suddenly dying or being blindsided with an impeachment conviction.

I don't think we will face this situation but does the Constitution actually address the steps after a president is impeached and convicted? Is it immediate ending of their presidency? Is the VP (or next in line) sworn in seconds after the conviction? Is there a hand-over period? Even though it never looked like Clinton was going to be convicted, I can't recall if the details were spelled out.

[Tuco 5,076]

31 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

33 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

But no one but Rudy and Trump know what was said between them. Was rudy acting on his own, was Trump directing him? Trump has the mafia don defense that he didn't order no one to do nothing.
This will a defense point from Trump whne its determined that Rudy did something wrong.

Well you forget that crazy Rudy has been on TV stating he was acting on his client's behalf. Who's Rudy's client? Donald Trump, Super Genius.

Maybe Rudy was referring to Lev and Igor, the best paid translators in the world. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

33 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

But no one but Rudy and Trump know what was said between them. Was rudy acting on his own, was Trump directing him? Trump has the mafia don defense that he didn't order no one to do nothing.

This will a defense point from Trump whne its determined that Rudy did something wrong.

dave urban was on cnn not long ago basically saying that since nobody heard anything directly from trump's mouth, that everything was cool.

the entire panel then asks him about all the times trump said, "talk to rudy" (including the "transcript").  his response was that "yeah, he could've been talking about anything, there were a lot of times he said to talk to rudy."

until trump is recorded saying "quid pro quo" followed by "or else" while he's making a sleazy deal, these idiots will never admit a thing.  and even then it's 50-50.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Or they’ll just retreat to self-imposed ignorance and denial.

Like Lindsay.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

Or they’ll just retreat to self-imposed ignorance and denial.

Like Lindsay.

 

exactly what you want to hear from one of the jurors.

"he deserves due process!  he deserves to face his accuser!  this is unamerican!"

oh, the evidence?  nah, not interested.

[jimmyjazz 45,990]

I'm serious, he should be forced to recuse himself from an impeachment trial.  Nobody would actually make him do that, but fuck Lindsey and every other Senator who as GONE ON RECORD as saying an impeachment trial isn't gonna have a desirable outcome for the Democrats.

[David Dennison 18,935]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm serious, he should be forced to recuse himself from an impeachment trial.  Nobody would actually make him do that, but fuck Lindsey and every other Senator who as GONE ON RECORD as saying an impeachment trial isn't gonna have a desirable outcome for the Democrats.

I would agree if this were a legal proceeding, but it isn't. It's completely political by design.

[jimmyjazz 45,990]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I would agree if this were a legal proceeding, but it isn't. It's completely political by design.

I realize it's "political", but they have an obligation and they are outwardly flaunting the fact they will not vote to impeach, regardless of evidence.

Why not just amend the Constitution to do away with impeachment if this is the way it's gonna go?  It didn't use to be like this.  It's widely accepted that Nixon would have been thrown out of office had he not resigned.  There were at least a dozen Republicans expected to step up and vote for removal.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

I'm serious, he should be forced to recuse himself from an impeachment trial.  Nobody would actually make him do that, but fuck Lindsey and every other Senator who as GONE ON RECORD as saying an impeachment trial isn't gonna have a desirable outcome for the Democrats.

He's just trying to survive it all

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I realize it's "political", but they have an obligation and they are outwardly flaunting the fact they will not vote to impeach, regardless of evidence.

Why not just amend the Constitution to do away with impeachment if this is the way it's gonna go?  It didn't use to be like this.  It's widely accepted that Nixon would have been thrown out of office had he not resigned.  There were at least a dozen Republicans expected to step up and vote for removal.

Seriously.  Dennison's "it's all politics" schtick is so fucking old.  If the system allows this, then the system should be fucking fixed.  You don't get to just wave something away and blame it on "politics".  There's still right and wrong.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

it's actually not even a smart political move to do it this way.

if i was someone on the fence, and waiting to hear from big, powerful senators, i would much rather graham say, "we'll wait to see what the evidence shows us."  then afterwards, come out and say, "as we suspected, the dems had nothing, this is a witch hunt, and he's innocent, and we're voting to acquit.  the constitution works."

doing it this way makes them look bad, and they're only saying this shit to appease one person.  he's gonna get impeached anyway, it's gonna get to the senate, why even come out like this now?

(yes, i understand i'm talking like only sane, intelligent, logical people will be paying attention.  sigh.)

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

it's actually not even a smart political move to do it this way.

if i was someone on the fence, and waiting to hear from big, powerful senators, i would much rather graham say, "we'll wait to see what the evidence shows us."  then afterwards, come out and say, "as we suspected, the dems had nothing, this is a witch hunt, and he's innocent, and we're voting to acquit.  the constitution works."

doing it this way makes them look bad, and they're only saying this shit to appease one person.  he's gonna get impeached anyway, it's gonna get to the senate, why even come out like this now?

(yes, i understand i'm talking like only sane, intelligent, logical people will be paying attention.  sigh.)

I thought their talking point was that they haven't read the transcript (sic) of the phone call or any of the deposition transcripts because they will have to be the "jury" later on.  If they've already made up their minds today (and of course they have), they should be forced to go on the record about the evidence so far.