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

Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32,997

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so, the democrats have really missed the bus with turley on this front. "you wish to see more evidence. would you like to see this document?" yes "has the white house obstructed us from accessing that document?" boom, you've got him. over and over again, with the documents withheld, and with the witnesses blocked from testifying.

"Our Republican colleagues have listed numerous documents and witnesses that we aren't seeing that they say could exonerate the President. These so-called fact witnesses would be able, under oath, to testify as to whether the President committed these impeachable offenses. In effect, the President's guilt could be proven or disproven by these documents and witnesses.

So why exactly is the White House withholding these documents from and instructing these witnesses not to testify before this committee? These documents and witnesses can either prove or disprove Mr. Trump's guilt. So the question is this: if you control access to documents and witnesses that will either prove you guilty or prove you're not guilty, why would you refuse to allow those documents and witnesses to be seen by the American people? The answer is obvious."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,976

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

eh, she might have gone full mama bear, but got her spokeswoman to compose it up. it was a regretful comment by the professor. 

I can only assume Melania was just as livid about the NRA targeting Secret Service protection of the Obama daughters.

Fuck Melania Trump.  Not literally.  Wouldn't want to catch something.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

eh, she might have gone full mama bear, but got her spokeswoman to compose it up. it was a regretful comment by the professor. 

There's nothing inappropriate about what she said. As per usual, the GOP is tilting at windmills. 

""The Constitution doesn’t allow titles of nobility," she said. "The president can name his son Barron, but he can’t make him a baron."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11,362

Posted
Posted
Just now, suddenly shaggy said:

There's nothing inappropriate about what she said. As per usual, the GOP is tilting at windmills. 

""The Constitution doesn’t allow titles of nobility," she said. "The president can name his son Barron, but he can’t make him a baron."

look, i'm about as biased as they come, but leave the kid's names out of it. i find it distasteful, and i'm as anti-trump as they come.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
threesheets

threesheets 1,673

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Cosimo de' Medici said:

I love this circle jerk thread of loudmouth fucktards who enjoy spending the middle of a workday bitching and moaning. Know the silent majority is laughing at you. Silent only because we are busy contributing to the economy and society.

You're silent because you're a bunch of pussies that don't want anyone to know how shitty you are. 

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Side bar- What jobs do y’all have that allow you to watch and comment on these hearings so thoroughly?

I'm a farmer.

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

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

sigh. whatever. it gives ammo. it's an unforced error. 

i've made my thoughts clear, yall can disagree.

I'm not sure it is. The GOP and FOX are going to gaslight. Dems are just picking what topic the GOP is going to lie about.

Let them spin their histrionics on it. It's pretty easy to show they are massively overreacting by showing people what she actually said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3,362

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

I'm not sure it is. The GOP and FOX are going to gaslight. Dems are just picking what topic the GOP is going to lie about.

Let them spin their histrionics on it. It's pretty easy to show they are massively overreacting by showing people what she actually said. 

Oh it’s pearl clutching faux outrage for sure. It’s just silly to give them that ammo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,976

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

Oh it’s pearl clutching faux outrage for sure. It’s just silly to give them that ammo. 

Yep, but she's a witness.  She's not expected to be a political animal.

It's similar to Schiff's paraphrase of Trump's call with Zelensky.  To this day it continues to provide a talking point for the right to muddy the water.  Would they have found something else?  Sure, but don't serve up high hanging curve balls.  Be better (so to speak).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)

It takes a lot to surprise me at this point. Finding out Giuliani met with BOTH of the disgraced, corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors THIS week surprises me. Both Shokin and Lutsenko.   

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473014-giuliani-meets-with-fired-ukrainian-prosecutor-who-pushed-biden-2016

Edited by suddenly shaggy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,154

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Terrorists in Iraq got more rights than Trump?

LOL

Well, we just took out two guys in the region with a missile that doesn't explode, but rather sticks out huge swords from all sides.

So, unless and until Trump is subjected to airstrikes with a flying blade stick with no warning, I'ma say "yeah, gonna have to disagree with y'all there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4,085

Posted
Posted

Clearly it's wrong to invoke a pol's minor child by name, especially in a charged atmosphere like impeachment hearings.

I'm not proud to admit that part of me doesn't care. That part knows the GOP could give a shit about what's wrong, remembers Chelsea the family dog, and is tired of any semblance of playing nice. Trump gleefully skullfucks what's "right" at every turn. 

That doesn't make it right or smart though. If the point was important, it could have been made more artfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4,085

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

steube, in my opinion was intentionally absent when his turn came up to disrupt the order of questioning so the democrats wouldn't have the floor for the last line of witness questioning

If he was absent due to cramps, Steube is a natural for the LSU football staff

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deech

deech 2,291

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yep, but she's a witness.  She's not expected to be a political animal.

It's similar to Schiff's paraphrase of Trump's call with Zelensky.  To this day it continues to provide a talking point for the right to muddy the water.  Would they have found something else?  Sure, but don't serve up high hanging curve balls.  Be better (so to speak).

Or - fuck them and their bullshit faux outrage.  Look I get the outrage about the paraphrasing.  1.  It's Schiff, he's leading the committee.  2.  You are making shit up on the very topic that you are impeaching him.  It was dumb. 

Some witness saying that the President can't use his powers to get his son a royal title is a non-issue of the highest magnitude.  She was not commenting or criticizing or talking about any characteristic of Baron other than he is the President's son.   It's political got-you bullshit of the highest magnitude.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29,192

Posted
  • Author
Posted

is there video of that florida moron grandstanding, getting revved up, and eventually getting to his big finish of "the american people are smarter than that" but mispronouncing 'smarter'?

i haven't watched it all, but that's been one of my favorite parts, and reminds me of...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,976

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, deech said:

Or - fuck them and their bullshit faux outrage.  Look I get the outrage about the paraphrasing.  1.  It's Schiff, he's leading the committee.  2.  You are making shit up on the very topic that you are impeaching him.  It was dumb. 

Some witness saying that the President can't use his powers to get his son a royal title is a non-issue of the highest magnitude.  She was not commenting or criticizing or talking about any characteristic of Baron other than he is the President's son.   It's political got-you bullshit of the highest magnitude.

I'm not arguing any of this.

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...