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

Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If anyone deserves a kick in the balls, it's Gym Jordan.

That’s my go to, but IMO, someone has gotten there first because he has a squeaky voice. It’s why he yells so much. 

Barstool across a cauliflower ear would be painful but something tells me he has a hard head. 

 

So are the talking points for Fox sorted out yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11171

Posted
Posted

I wish the Dems would go a little harder to the hoop.  

For example, when the Rep from Washington (I think) talked about the pardons of war criminals juxtaposed against trump sending out Tweets going after Vindman, I think they should have gone further to remind folks that Trump is a draft dodger who compared his experience during 70's hanging out with models in the NYC social scene with his own personal Vietnam.

And when Gym kept talking about the election and the 63 million votes trump got, and how the Dems are afraid of the voters, Schiff should have mentioned "for the record" that trump's opponent got 66 million votes.

I would have also loved if Vindman would have interrupted Gym to ask if there was a question coming or if he could go to the restroom while Gym continued to grandstand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89409

Posted
Posted

If you had told me 20 years ago that in the future,  the Democrats would be opposed to the Russians, and the Republicans would be siding with the Russians, I would have joked “sure, sure, and let me guess, the Astros are going to switch to the AL and make two appearances in the World Series, LOL”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I haven't been able to watch the whole thing, but have heard repeated references to the transcript by the gop.  Has anyone pointed out the elephant in the room...namely that there is no transcript available?

I don't recall anyone saying it, but what would be the point?  It's a semantic argument.  The fact is the memo points to all the holes in the Republicans' argument that the call was innocent and perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I haven't been able to watch the whole thing, but have heard repeated references to the transcript by the gop.  Has anyone pointed out the elephant in the room...namely that there is no transcript available?

While an unedited transcript would be important to see, at this stage, it's a shiny object dangling at the opening of a rabbit hole leading to a time consuming labyrinth in the courts.  It's also noteworthy that firsthand witnesses to the July 25th Trump/Zelensky shakedown, Willaims and Vindman, didn't sound the alarm that there was a whole lot of extra damning shit left out of the released transcript.  The inappropriateness/bribery/extortion already plainly visible is enough.  Maybe there is more that was edited out and Williams and Vindman simply didn't take it upon themselves to shout about it out loud in the hearing.  It's hard to blame them if that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3755

Posted
Posted

Can you imagine what would happen if you could actually get Perry, Pompeo and Bolton to testify TRUTHFULLY?

The if course Perry could only take the 5th, unless he was given immunity.  The one real missed opportunity today with Vindman was nobody asked if he was aware that a huge Ukranian gas contract had been awarded to two Rick Perry donors.

The secret after the hearings is to see Fox rail to try and turn the tide.  Same old Prez, same old repetitive attacks on the Media and a stack of lies.  But even if you love the President you have to be getting tired of hearing the exact same things over, expecially his endless bluster on China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11171

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't recall anyone saying it, but what would be the point?  It's a semantic argument.  The fact is the memo points to all the holes in the Republicans' argument that the call was innocent and perfect.

The point is that the president (and his minions) continues to say, "read the transcript"  I think it's important to call that out as a lie.  They can say, we'd love to read the transcript, but it's locked in a secure server. 

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

While an unedited transcript would be important to see, at this stage, it's a shiny object dangling at the opening of a rabbit hole leading to a time consuming labyrinth in the courts.  It's also noteworthy that firsthand witnesses to the July 25th Trump/Zelensky shakedown, Willaims and Vindman, didn't sound the alarm that there was a whole lot of extra damning shit left out of the released transcript.  The inappropriateness/bribery/extortion already plainly visible is enough.  Maybe there is more that was edited out and Williams and Vindman simply didn't take it upon themselves to shout about it out loud in the hearing.  It's hard to blame them if that's the case.

To me it's not about the content of the unedited transcript, I think the one they released is pretty damning, but I'd bet 70% of the country believes the transcript was released by the White House.  i'd like to see them keep hammering home the fact that we don't have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

The point is that the president (and his minions) continues to say, "read the transcript"  I think it's important to call that out as a lie.  They can say, we'd love to read the transcript, but it's locked in a secure server. 

To me it's not about the content of the unedited transcript, I think the one they released is pretty damning, but I'd bet 70% of the country believes the transcript was released by the White House.  i'd like to see them keep hammering home the fact that we don't have it.

Except what they released is incredibly damning.  Why even suggest it's incomplete or inaccurate?  Especially when it's close to being accurate and complete. Trump has told 13,000 lies in his presidency, and the list of impeachable offenses is in the hundreds.  No need to focus on this red herring.  

My understanding is that the "transcript" does not exist.  And if it did it would be largely similar to what was released.  The dems need to focus on being the adults in the room, not fighting over the little things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3360

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The point is that the president (and his minions) continues to say, "read the transcript"  I think it's important to call that out as a lie.  They can say, we'd love to read the transcript, but it's locked in a secure server. 

To me it's not about the content of the unedited transcript, I think the one they released is pretty damning, but I'd bet 70% of the country believes the transcript was released by the White House.  i'd like to see them keep hammering home the fact that we don't have it.

Technically, even that isnt a verbatim transcript since it was generated by a computer, and then edited by whatever group they come up with from the listening party.  The Colonel admitted that the redactions/ellipses arent really significant.  The damaging stuff is already out there on the transcript the WH released.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

My understanding is that the "transcript" does not exist.  And if it did it would be largely similar to what was released.  The dems need to focus on being the adults in the room, not fighting over the little things.

Yep.  And if they make a stink out of the full transcript, the conservative media would call it a dud if it contains anything less than "I am asking you to give me a bribe in order for me to execute the legislation Congress passed.  That bribe is for you to provide assistance to my campaign by fabricating dirt on Joe Biden, and lying about the origins of the investigation.  And I'd like you to execute Joe Biden.  Umm...Rosemary, could  you delete that last part." 

There is no reason to add a variable to the current narrative.  Focus on getting Mulaney, Bolton, and Pompey. 

Edited by Tuco
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11171

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Except what they released is incredibly damning.  Why even suggest it's incomplete or inaccurate?  Especially when it's close to being accurate and complete. Trump has told 13,000 lies in his presidency, and the list of impeachable offenses is in the hundreds.  No need to focus on this red herring.  

My understanding is that the "transcript" does not exist.  And if it did it would be largely similar to what was released.  The dems need to focus on being the adults in the room, not fighting over the little things.

 

25 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Technically, even that isnt a verbatim transcript since it was generated by a computer, and then edited by whatever group they come up with from the listening party.  The Colonel admitted that the redactions/ellipses arent really significant.  The damaging stuff is already out there on the transcript the WH released.  

 

16 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Yep.  And if they make a stink out of the full transcript, the conservative media would call it a dud if it contains anything less than "I am asking you to give me a bribe in order for me to execute the legislation Congress passed.  That bribe is for you to provide assistance to my campaign by fabricating dirt on Joe Biden, and lying about the origins of the investigation.  And I'd like you to execute Joe Biden.  Umm...Rosemary, could  you delete that last part." 

There is no reason to add a variable to the current narrative.  Focus on getting Mulaney, Bolton, and Pompey. 

The Surly lawyers have spoken, and since you guys have WAAAY more experience with trials then me, I will shut up about the transcript now. 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
Quote

Rep. Mark Meadows, a Republican from North Carolina, suggested that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a partisan actor, saying all of his comments seemed to go against the President.

Hey Mark, there's another explanation for why all of Vindman's comments seemed to go against the President.  Put your thinking cap on and really concentrate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted

I really hope the Republicans continue down the path of the explicit use of the word "bribery" although admittedly it is a danger that the uneducated public somehow thinks that is in any way pertinent. I just find it amusing, as someone who only tangentially follows football that the A&M faithful who continuously scream 'offsides' regarding some LSU game cannot see the irony in defending Trump who in so many ways is out-of-bounds, offsides, and has illegal men downfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13410

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

The White House is openly attacking an Army officer with a  20-year spotless record, who served and was injured in a war zone, and ultimately shifted his career to working in national security. 

I'm sure we will hear the lame excuses from others on the right that they disagree with the President's actions but that we elected a fighter. Anyone that doesn't actively call out this attack on the military, deserves to get tossed out of their political office.

 

  • Like 2
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...