Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,509

Posted
Posted

If Bolton testifies in open, Trump is going to throw a fit. I imagine that we will see Trump attempt to stop Bolton with the personal NDA that he requires everyone around him to sign. It may have to be formally determined whether the President can require personal NDAs on his staff and if it can be enforced or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8,712

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Bolton testifies in open, Trump is going to throw a fit. I imagine that we will see Trump attempt to stop Bolton with the personal NDA that he requires everyone around him to sign. It may have to be formally determined whether the President can require personal NDAs on his staff and if it can be enforced or not.

No court would issue an injunction preventing congressional testimony on the basis of that bullshit NDA. The only thing preventing Bolton from testifying is his own volition. The courts will definitely decide the President cannot legally stop his current and former staff from testifying, so it’s only a matter of “when”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15,764

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Bolton testifies in open, Trump is going to throw a fit. I imagine that we will see Trump attempt to stop Bolton with the personal NDA that he requires everyone around him to sign. It may have to be formally determined whether the President can require personal NDAs on his staff and if it can be enforced or not.

Bolton was witness to crimes and an NDA doesn't mean shit in that situation.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5,792

Posted
Posted

Super weird. I can't figure out why the WH didn't want these parts in the memo... 

 

Vindman fills in ellipses in July 25 call transcript

Vindman, who contends that the call transcript released by the White House is “very accurate, but not maybe flawless,” said there were two places where the transcript didn’t match his notes of the call.

In the first, Trump is asking Zelensky to look into the Bidens and speak to Attorney General Barr about the matter. Trump says, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution. So if you can look into it …. It sounds horrible to me.” Vindman filled in the ellipsis. Trump’s full remark, he said, was “there are recordings”of [Biden’s alleged boasting about getting the top Ukrainian prosector fired].

The other is Vindman’s contention that Zelensky specifically said he would look into “Burisma,” mentioning the company by name. The transcript had replaced “Burisma” with “the company you mentioned.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9,828

Posted
Posted

The Hill has a good timeline....

The curious timeline for taking down Trump

It’s three full years since President Trump was elected.

Among those who predicted he could never win the election — or that he might have been conspiring with Hillary Clinton all along, worked for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, would crash the U.S. stock market his first week in office, would ban all Muslims, would send illegal immigrants home en masse on buses and trains, and would start a nuclear war — there have been real concerns.

But to others, there are different concerns that have borne out. We continue to get evidence of an orchestrated effort among government insiders and the well-connected to take down President Trump at all costs. The public evidence indicates that the effort was hatched even before he took office.

Trump critics would argue that there was good reason to devise plots against him before he was inaugurated. His supporters would argue that the opposition has crossed the line into unlawful actions involving wiretapping and attempts to frame Trump and his associates.

In any event, we can build an oversimplified timeline to make the point:

Spoiler

Aug. 15, 2016: After FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texts Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.

October 2016: Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — writes, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” Wittes writes that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentions impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel. 

October 2016: The FBI begins a yearlong secret wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which would have allowed intel officials access to information and conversations involving other Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. Page was never charged with any offense. The FBI never apologized for the unwarranted privacy intrusions. The lawfulness of the wiretap has been questioned. 

Jan. 3, 2017: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly warns Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” 

Jan. 11, 2017: A Politico investigation concludes that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in the 2016 election with help from a Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee.

Jan. 30, 2017: Days after President Trump takes office, attorney Mark Zaid tweets that a “coup has started” and “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Zaid often deals with government investigations and clients in the intelligence community. 

A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweets: “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president” and “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Zaid also tweets that “as one falls, two more will take their place” and the “coup” would occur in “many steps.”

Zaid went on to represent the alleged whistleblower in the Trump impeachment effort. (Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a “coup” simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.)

May 17, 2017: Special counsel Robert Mueller begins investigating Trump. 

August 2017: Trump critic and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is hired as an analyst at CNN. He attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.  

Jan. 23, 2018: Former Vice President Joe Biden publicly brags that he got Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold U.S. aid. The prosecutor was investigating Burisma, an energy company where Biden’s son had served on the board since 2014, when his father was vice president.

Feb. 1, 2018: Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan is hired as an analyst for NBC and MSNBC, where he attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

March 22, 2019: The special counsel’s probe ends without concluding that Trump or his associates conspired with Russia, despite what critics such as Brennan and Clapper long had claimed. Democrats are unable to unite on an impeachment push over the findings.

April 2019: Ukraine elects a new president. Former Vice President Biden’s son Hunter Biden steps down from the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

July 25, 2019: President Trump calls the newly elected president of Ukraine and asks for cooperation in a probe involving long-standing corruption in Ukraine along with alleged ties to U.S. Democrats and the 2016 campaign. 

Aug. 12, 2019: Someone alleging to be a whistleblower files a complaint about the phone call with the intelligence community’s inspector general. The anonymous person alleges President Trump sought political dirt to use against Biden in 2020 as part of a “quid pro quo.” Quids pro quo aren’t inherently illegal or improper and are, in fact, a key component of most foreign aid. However, the whistleblower claims Trump is improperly withholding military aid from Ukraine for his own political purposes.

Sept. 9, 2019: The inspector general notifies the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Although Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) initially denies doing so, it turns out that he and his staff already had met with — or conspired with, depending on your view — the alleged whistleblower. 

Sept. 24, 2019: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces an impeachment inquiry based on the alleged whistleblower’s claims. 

On the same date, President Trump releases the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president. There is no mention of a quid pro quo, political dirt, withholding aid or campaign 2020. Trump’s critics counter that these things were implicit. There is no evidence, however, that Ukraine provided Trump with "dirt” on Biden — a necessary component of an alleged quid pro quo.

Sept. 25, 2019: The president of Ukraine says he did not feel pushed by President Trump to investigate Biden or to take other action.

Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.

It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline — from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN — factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.

On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump

 

looks like a duck, walks like a duck....

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5,076

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

 

She's the anti-vaxxer who now has a program on Sinclair television.

...writing for the media outlet that employs John Solomon, who worked with Lev and Igor on the Biden smear campaign.  (The Hill seems to be fairly indiscriminate, rather than conservative.) 

Here are some of her other articles with the Hill.  

October 1:

Quote

Ever since his inauguration, President Trump’s political opponents have been pushing to impeach him. They just hadn’t found the right excuse. In other words, they knew where they wanted to end up but they just hadn’t found the right vehicle to drive them down the road....

March 28

Quote

A friend of mine who is — I’ll just say it — a devoted Trump-hater recently was talking about President Trump’s obstruction and asked what I thought.

After listening to his views, I told him there’s plenty about which to criticize the president, as is true of any political leader. But the obstruction charge doesn’t make logical sense. I used an analogy to explain why. When I finished, this friend still hated Trump — but surprised me by saying, “Nobody’s ever explained it that way. That makes sense. You should write about it.”

March 25

Quote

With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.

However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties.

Dec 18th

Quote

Mueller's findings don't matter

In part, it’s the length of time that it’s taken that has rendered special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe functionally irrelevant. 

 

I could go on.  But it seems her main job writing opinion pieces for the Hill is to argue against impeachment.  I haven't seen any other subject she's published on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8,712

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

can you please point out the misstatements in the timeline?

You’re right. The President didn’t actually withhold millions of dollars in congressionally approved military aid in order to extort a vulnerable ally into politically interfering with the 2020 election. What a *curious* timeline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861

Posted
Posted

seriously though.  it's disappointing to see people put out bullshit articles like the one you posted as though you are just informing.  it's the source of everyone's cynicism these days.  they watch their fellow citizens willingly participate in propaganda and misinformation campaigns.  it's just sort of sad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33,866

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

seriously though.  it's disappointing to see people put out bullshit articles like the one you posted as though you are just informing.  it's the source of everyone's cynicism these days.  they watch their fellow citizens willingly participate in propaganda and misinformation campaigns.  it's just sort of sad.

and you can usually pinpoint with laser accuracy the age range of those perpetuating the most bullshit

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5,076

Posted
Posted

FYI, this is a pretty good article on Solomon and the Hill. 

ProPublica

 

Quote

Last March, a veteran Washington reporter taped an interview with a Ukrainian prosecutor that sparked a disinformation campaign alleging Joe Biden pressured Ukrainians into removing a prosecutor investigating a company because of its ties to the former vice president’s son. The interview and subsequent columns, conducted and written by a writer for The Hill newspaper, John Solomon, were the starting gun that eventually set off the impeachment inquiry into the president.

Watching from the control booth of The Hill’s TV studio was Lev Parnas, who helped arrange the interview.

....

Solomon’s interview and columns were widely amplified. Giuliani praised them, and Trump said he deserved a Pulitzer Prize. Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Lou Dobbs trumpeted them. They later become a key point in the CIA whistleblower complaint that set the impeachment inquiry in motion.

....

More than a year before his Ukraine columns published, The Hill had serious concerns about Solomon’s credibility and conflicts of interest. Hill staffers began raising alarms, including the paper’s publisher at the time, who warned in an internal memo that Solomon was engaged in “reputation killing stuff” by mixing business with journalism.

In response, The Hill’s management took steps to limit Solomon’s reporting — rebranding him as an opinion writer — but did not prevent him from writing his Ukraine series.

....

Parnas watched Lutsenko’s interview live, inside the control room of The Hill’s TV studio. Solomon explained that he called in the businessman to act as a translator, but in the end his services were not needed.

Solomon recalls first encountering Parnas through Pete Sessions, the once-powerful Texas Republican member of Congress who is now in the middle of the Trump impeachment inquiry. Sessions accepted campaign donations from Parnas and Fruman, and had met with the two men as they sought to oust an American diplomat in Ukraine. Later, Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging him to replace the envoy Marie Yovanovitch, who had been the subject of extensive criticism in the conservative media. She was later fired and is a key witness for House Democrats trying to impeach the president.

Sessions, who has denied knowledge of the campaign finance scheme laid out by prosecutors, told ProPublica that he has no connection to Solomon.

“I don’t know John,” he said.

Solomon says his personal attorneys, Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, a husband-and-wife legal team that regularly represents conservative luminaries, set up his first formal meeting with Parnas. He asserted that his editors “were aware” that he was seeking help from diGenova and Toensing on matters concerning Ukraine.

...

Solomon defended his work, including his reporting on the so-called do-not-prosecute list, which he said he went through “enormous efforts” to verify. “At the end of the day,” Solomon said. “it doesn’t matter what Lev Parnas did. It matters what I did.”

But a month after Lutsenko’s Hill TV appearance, the former Ukrainian prosecutor backed off of his allegations. He told a Ukrainian-language publication that he himself was the one who asked the U.S. ambassador for the list of supposedly untouchable figures. The State Department said there was never any list, calling it an “outright fabrication.” And Lutsenko told the Los Angeles Times last month that he saw no evidence of wrongdoing that would justify an investigation into Biden’s son’s business dealings in his country.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,072

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
29 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The Hill has a good timeline....

The curious timeline for taking down Trump

It’s three full years since President Trump was elected.

Among those who predicted he could never win the election — or that he might have been conspiring with Hillary Clinton all along, worked for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, would crash the U.S. stock market his first week in office, would ban all Muslims, would send illegal immigrants home en masse on buses and trains, and would start a nuclear war — there have been real concerns.

But to others, there are different concerns that have borne out. We continue to get evidence of an orchestrated effort among government insiders and the well-connected to take down President Trump at all costs. The public evidence indicates that the effort was hatched even before he took office.

Trump critics would argue that there was good reason to devise plots against him before he was inaugurated. His supporters would argue that the opposition has crossed the line into unlawful actions involving wiretapping and attempts to frame Trump and his associates.

In any event, we can build an oversimplified timeline to make the point:

  Reveal hidden contents

Aug. 15, 2016: After FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texts Page that they couldn’t take the risk of Trump getting elected without having “an insurance policy” in place.

October 2016: Benjamin Wittes, founder of a left-wing liberal blog called “Lawfare” — as in the “use of law as a weapon of conflict” — writes, “What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald Trump’s actually winning the Presidency.” Wittes writes that his vision of an “insurance policy” would rely on a “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the courts as a “tool” and Congress as “a partner or tool.” He even mentions impeachment — two weeks before Trump is elected.

Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey. He spoke to a New York Times reporter about Comey’s interactions with President Trump right after Robert Mueller's appointment as special counsel. 

October 2016: The FBI begins a yearlong secret wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which would have allowed intel officials access to information and conversations involving other Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. Page was never charged with any offense. The FBI never apologized for the unwarranted privacy intrusions. The lawfulness of the wiretap has been questioned. 

Jan. 3, 2017: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) publicly warns Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” 

Jan. 11, 2017: A Politico investigation concludes that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in the 2016 election with help from a Ukrainian American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee.

Jan. 30, 2017: Days after President Trump takes office, attorney Mark Zaid tweets that a “coup has started” and “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Zaid often deals with government investigations and clients in the intelligence community. 

A few months later, still in 2017, Zaid tweets: “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president” and “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.” Zaid also tweets that “as one falls, two more will take their place” and the “coup” would occur in “many steps.”

Zaid went on to represent the alleged whistleblower in the Trump impeachment effort. (Zaid has stated, in his own defense, that his mention of a “coup” simply referred to what he saw as a lawful attempt by attorneys to remove an unlawful president from office.)

May 17, 2017: Special counsel Robert Mueller begins investigating Trump. 

August 2017: Trump critic and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is hired as an analyst at CNN. He attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.  

Jan. 23, 2018: Former Vice President Joe Biden publicly brags that he got Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold U.S. aid. The prosecutor was investigating Burisma, an energy company where Biden’s son had served on the board since 2014, when his father was vice president.

Feb. 1, 2018: Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan is hired as an analyst for NBC and MSNBC, where he attacks Trump regularly, at times with incorrect information.

March 22, 2019: The special counsel’s probe ends without concluding that Trump or his associates conspired with Russia, despite what critics such as Brennan and Clapper long had claimed. Democrats are unable to unite on an impeachment push over the findings.

April 2019: Ukraine elects a new president. Former Vice President Biden’s son Hunter Biden steps down from the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

July 25, 2019: President Trump calls the newly elected president of Ukraine and asks for cooperation in a probe involving long-standing corruption in Ukraine along with alleged ties to U.S. Democrats and the 2016 campaign. 

Aug. 12, 2019: Someone alleging to be a whistleblower files a complaint about the phone call with the intelligence community’s inspector general. The anonymous person alleges President Trump sought political dirt to use against Biden in 2020 as part of a “quid pro quo.” Quids pro quo aren’t inherently illegal or improper and are, in fact, a key component of most foreign aid. However, the whistleblower claims Trump is improperly withholding military aid from Ukraine for his own political purposes.

Sept. 9, 2019: The inspector general notifies the House Intelligence Committee about the complaint. Although Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) initially denies doing so, it turns out that he and his staff already had met with — or conspired with, depending on your view — the alleged whistleblower. 

Sept. 24, 2019: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces an impeachment inquiry based on the alleged whistleblower’s claims. 

On the same date, President Trump releases the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president. There is no mention of a quid pro quo, political dirt, withholding aid or campaign 2020. Trump’s critics counter that these things were implicit. There is no evidence, however, that Ukraine provided Trump with "dirt” on Biden — a necessary component of an alleged quid pro quo.

Sept. 25, 2019: The president of Ukraine says he did not feel pushed by President Trump to investigate Biden or to take other action.

Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.

It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline — from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN — factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.

On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump

 

looks like a duck, walks like a duck....

Oh....that's FANTASTIC.

Let me summarize:

Part 1:

Lots of people were alarmed by Trump's possible election and then election.

[Well, no shit.  That's how sane people react when the see the seat of power of the most powerful nation on earth, and our home country, about to be given to a deranged narcissist.  Anyone worth a shit thought he was a deranged narcissist LONG before he announced a presidential run.]

Part 2:

Oh, let's break this one down:

Quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announces an impeachment inquiry based on the alleged whistleblower’s claims. 

On the same date, President Trump releases the transcript of his call with Ukraine’s president. 

False.  No transcript has been released.  1) It says right on the document that it's not a verbatim transcript. 2) Testimony of witnesses with knowledge of the call says that significant portions of the conversation were omitted.

Quote

There is no mention of a quid pro quo, political dirt, withholding aid or campaign 2020. Trump’s critics counter that these things were implicit. 

First problem: straw man.  While the issue of the quid pro quo creates an ADDITIONAL crime, the initial crime is the mere solicitation of foreign assistance with a campaign issue.  So, she's over there attacking one issue (poorly -- we'll get to that) in order to distract from another.

Second problem: if the standard for convicting someone for bribery is "he has to say 'I hereby want to BRIBE you by offering you THIS MONEY RIGHT HERE in exchange for FAVOR X," then there would be zero bribery convictions in US history.  Instead, there are many such convictions.  And they are based on conduct EXACTLY like what we see reflected in the document discussing the call.  

Zelensky's part:

I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump's response:

I would like you to do us a favor though [I'm pausing here, because note the word "though" -- that is a conditional word.  It has meaning.  It connects this part of the exchange with what Zelensky said immediately before.] [skipping over the first part, where he discusses the Crowdstrike nonsense]

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

So, the sequence here -- and remember, this is language team Trump FAVORABLY selected -- is 1) Zelensky says we want to buy weapons, 2) Trump says I want you to do me a favor, THOUGH, and 3) a portion of that favor is to investigate Biden, his primary political rival in the upcoming election.

But it's okay, here analysis gets even dumber.

Quote

There is no evidence, however, that Ukraine provided Trump with "dirt” on Biden — a necessary component of an alleged quid pro quo.

The solicitation is the crime.  Her argument is the absolutely ludicrous position that soliciting a bribe isn't a crime if the other party doesn't actually end up paying.  This is how these simpletons think, folks.

Oh, and nevermind that the testimony since -- which she ignores, as the entire Trump defense strategy requires -- indicates that Trump wasn't even asking for an actual investigation of Biden.  He just wanted a public ANNOUNCEMENT of such investigation.  Which of course has zero anti-corruption value, but complete political campaign value.

Wait, maybe she wants to pivot later to an argument that "well, anything Rudy was doing was on his own, the president didn't know."  I hope she does.

Quote

Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.

She's a twit doing nothing more than continued deflection, zero discussion of actual facts, and pathetic misstatements of law and logic that simply expose her as a drooling simpleton.  So, in that respect, I can see why the Trumpkins adore her as one of their own.

"She talks like us!"

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,628

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, shnsajax said:

Might be his way in trying to sway the current lawsuit against McGahn lawsuit in favor of the house.

Given how much his lawyer said, it sounds like a huge “fuck you” to Trump, combined with a “seriously guys, get the court order and I will sing like a canary!”  It’s masterful trolling to put that out there.  Trump has got to be foaming at the mouth.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,526

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

the biggest dunking of a chicken sandwich since the first batch of chick fil a sauce rolled off the line in 1993.

I honestly can't fathom how someone so dumb doesn't drown when drinking a glass of water. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly can't fathom how someone so dumb doesn't drown when drinking a glass of water. 

His posting history suggests severe brain damage. I think it's safe to assume he's drowned numerous times and been revived with varying degrees of success. 

He's like a Beric Dumbdarian. Every time he drowns and is revived, he comes back a dumber version of himself. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29,655

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

His posting history suggests severe brain damage. I think it's safe to assume he's drowned numerous times and been revived with varying degrees of success. 

He's like a Beric Dumbdarian. Every time he drowns and is revived, he comes back a dumber version of himself. 

I'd be curious to know if his drownings occurred when he swam for Texas.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,665

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The solicitation is the crime.  Her argument is the absolutely ludicrous position that soliciting a bribe isn't a crime if the other party doesn't actually end up paying.  This is how these simpletons think, folks.

This was also the argument used in defense of the dotard tower meeting, IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29,655

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This was also the argument used in defense of the dotard tower meeting, IIRC.

This, plus the "they didn't know they were breaking the law" excuse put forward by Mueller in not pursuing charges ended up being one helluva an effective strategy at the time.

Let's see if it holds up Round 2 of Stupid Watergate: Electric Boogaloo Too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This, plus the "they didn't know they were breaking the law" excuse put forward by Mueller in not pursuing charges ended up being one helluva an effective strategy at the time.

Let's see if it holds up Round 2 of Stupid Watergate: Electric Boogaloo Too.

The coverups show consciousness of guilt. They knew at the time, or immediately after every time, that it was wrong. 

They just don't give a shit. You are right though, they've been astoundingly effective at moving the goal posts time after time. 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29,655

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, suddenly shaggy said:

The coverups show consciousness of guilt. They knew at the time, or immediately after every time, that it was wrong. 

They just don't give a shit. 

Agreed. The same principle applies to the Trump Tower meeting and subsequent actions, but it still fucking worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29,189

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, suddenly shaggy said:

The coverups show consciousness of guilt. They knew at the time, or immediately after every time, that it was wrong. 

this is why perfect-call transcripts get moved to codeword servers and people get told “best not to discuss” with others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13,509

Posted
Posted

I don’t see how the courts can allow executive members to ignore congressional subpoenas for an impeachment hearing. Presumably that sets up the ability for the president to never be impeached on criminal acts by ensuring that he only speaks to loyal people that will not talk.

for example if sondland has only spoken with Mulvaney, but Mulvaney refuses to testify, an impeachment investigation basically could stop right there.

i guess that one bright spot is that all of those refusing to talk can be arrested when the next Admin comes in. Besides risking jail time, you would think the lawyers in the group, like don McGahn, would be concerned about losing their law license.

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...