Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I would not be surprised to see Sondland invoke the 5th if he doesn't get immunity on past perjury.  

 

I kinda think he has to. Also, the Democrats should make him do so. A Trump guy pleading the 5th on live television sounds wonderful to me. That's a trial lawyer's dream.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11763

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I would not be surprised to see Sondland invoke the 5th if he doesn't get immunity on past perjury.  

 

 

Having Sondland plead the 5th in front of the inquiry would be a HUGE boost to the Dems.

They can give him immunity after the fact but they need him to plead the 5th on camera to really drive home illegal / shady shit went down. 

Then you can put out an ad with Trump talking shit about ppl pleading he 5th and then have A clip of Sonderland right after it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Zavala said:

The testimony? Why not just go strait to the source of the alleged crimes - the transcript. 

The testimony contains assumptions and guesses at Trump's motivations. More mind reading than facts. The facts are contained in the timeline and the transcript. Pretty simple.

Anyone can testify and lawyer-speak their way into twisting the truth. I really don't trust the CIA to tell any truth, especially when they are discussing the motivations of their political enemies. 

400VaKnWEAAnAMp2.jpg

I for one would like to read the transcript. Any idea when they are going to finally release the non heavily redacted version? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I would not be surprised to see Sondland invoke the 5th if he doesn't get immunity on past perjury.  

 

 

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I kinda think he has to. Also, the Democrats should make him do so. A Trump guy pleading the 5th on live television sounds wonderful to me. That's a trial lawyer's dream.

 

13 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

 

Having Sondland plead the 5th in front of the inquiry would be a HUGE boost to the Dems.

They can give him immunity after the fact but they need him to plead the 5th on camera to really drive home illegal / shady shit went down. 

Then you can put out an ad with Trump talking shit about ppl pleading he 5th and then have A clip of Sonderland right after it. 

 

This would be gold and actually change public opinion.  I'd rather have him plead the 5th than actually testify about what he lied about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

I’m case y’all haven’t noticed there is on ongoing massive “nothingburger” media campaign going on. But I’m sure you guys have. It will keep the base in check for a little while. It’s gonna fail eventually though. 

Zavala, like Mongo, Just pawn in game of life. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Wesley

Paul Wesley 3277

Posted
Posted

I watched Fox last night.

Every host took turns playing the clip where Jim Jordan asks the testifying diplomats what crime Trump committed that is impeachable (neither could answer), and then they cut back to Ingraham and Hannity shouting, "THERE ARE THE STAR WITNESSES WHO CANNOT EVEN NAME A CRIME!!!"

But that's a pretty stupid thing to celebrate, right?  

I mean, if somebody witnesses a murder, and they're testifying about what they saw, and the defense attorney says, "Can you name the criminal statute that was violated here," and the witness doesn't know the answer.... so fucking what?  It's not their job to name the crime.  They're just describing what they know.  

Fox News was one long string of these "HA HA HA!  GOTCHA!" when not a single fucking thing was "gotten."

And yet Fox and Rush and the rest... they will continue to reinforce the Trumpkins' belief that their savior is falsely accused.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19144

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

A majority supports the inquiry. A plurality support impeaching the president.

But that doesn't matter. 

Not one Republican is going to vote for impeachment in the House. Some Democrats will vote against it.

Donald Trump is going to be acquitted in the Senate.

Their bullshit is working.

If their bullshit worked, they would still control the House and we wouldn’t have these hearings. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104537

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

I watched Fox last night.

Every host took turns playing the clip where Jim Jordan asks the testifying diplomats what crime Trump committed that is impeachable (neither could answer), and then they cut back to Ingraham and Hannity shouting, "THERE ARE THE STAR WITNESSES WHO CANNOT EVEN NAME A CRIME!!!"

But that's a pretty stupid thing to celebrate, right?  

I mean, if somebody witnesses a murder, and they're testifying about what they saw, and the defense attorney says, "Can you name the criminal statute that was violated here," and the witness doesn't know the answer.... so fucking what?  It's not their job to name the crime.  They're just describing what they know.  

Fox News was one long string of these "HA HA HA!  GOTCHA!" when not a single fucking thing was "gotten."

And yet Fox and Rush and the rest... they will continue to reinforce the Trumpkins' belief that their savior is falsely accused.

This.  You have one of the prosecution's witnesses saying he saw the suspect go into the apartment at 3:00 with a knife.  He then saw the suspect leaving the apartment at 3:15, with the same knife, with visible blood on it.

"But you didn't actually SEE the accused stab anyone, did you?  No?  CASE CLOSED!"

Nevermind the next three witnesses:

1 -- witness who heard a fight and "please don't kill me" in the apartment at 3:05.

2 -- Police who responded and found the victim dead, and still warm, at 3:20.  

3 -- Forensic pathologist who testifies that the victim was stabbed by a blade just like the one the accused was seen carrying.

"But you didn't actually SEE him stab the victim, did you?  CASE CLOSED!"

Here's what I want.  I want the GOP standard of "you didn't prove a crime" applied to...oh, just spitballing here....every minority charged with a crime in America.  Think they'll like that?  Yeah.  Me neither.  Being that their standard seems to be "if you don't have the actual stabbing on video, while the perpetrator yells 'I, Donald Trump, hereby murder you!,'" then there's "no crime....I don't think they'll like that if we apply it across the board.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

If their bullshit worked, they would still control the House and we wouldn’t have these hearings. 

Exactly. Who cares what the dipshits on Fox are telling their idiot base. Just ignore their bullshit. None of that matters.

What matters is what people who never pay attention to any of this start to come to believe and more importantly, is it somehow a threat to them personally. That’s not something that can be predicted at this point. 

In any event who cares. Just impeach his sorry criminal ass because it’s the right thing to do and unlike the dipshits think, there will be no “backlash.” That’s just dumb. 

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

Brisketexan 104537

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

 

 

Uh ... because we don't have a transcript?  Or is that a rhetorical question?

It's fluent Stupidese, being spoken by a native-speaker.  So, it's understandable that you don't get it.

See, the Stupidians speak a dialect that is interwoven with nonsense and lies, and it's often hard to distinguish the two.  For example, they refer to something that actually states that it's not an exact transcript as a "transcript."  They also ignore the testimony of witnesses to the conversation who say that material statements were omitted from the purported "transcript."  They also ignore the fact that DOTUS didn't just communicate with Zelensky one time, through one phone call -- he communicated with him numerous times through intermediaries acting upon his direction -- Rudy, Sondland, etc.

They just yell "transcript!" at random, like a person with Tourette's might yell "douchebag!", except someone with Tourette's has an excuse for random nonsensical verbiage.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45538

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

I watched Fox last night.

Every host took turns playing the clip where Jim Jordan asks the testifying diplomats what crime Trump committed that is impeachable (neither could answer), and then they cut back to Ingraham and Hannity shouting, "THERE ARE THE STAR WITNESSES WHO CANNOT EVEN NAME A CRIME!!!"

But that's a pretty stupid thing to celebrate, right?  

I mean, if somebody witnesses a murder, and they're testifying about what they saw, and the defense attorney says, "Can you name the criminal statute that was violated here," and the witness doesn't know the answer.... so fucking what?  It's not their job to name the crime.  They're just describing what they know.  

Fox News was one long string of these "HA HA HA!  GOTCHA!" when not a single fucking thing was "gotten."

And yet Fox and Rush and the rest... they will continue to reinforce the Trumpkins' belief that their savior is falsely accused.

I agree, but it would have been nice if Taylor or Kent had said something like "I am not a Congressman, it's not my position to speculate on what might be an impeachable offense.  I'm just here to tell you what I know."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37506

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

I would not be surprised to see Sondland invoke the 5th if he doesn't get immunity on past perjury.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I kinda think he has to. Also, the Democrats should make him do so. A Trump guy pleading the 5th on live television sounds wonderful to me. That's a trial lawyer's dream.

 

Yes, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Irwin F Fletcher

Irwin F Fletcher 3550

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

going to be awesome when sondland gets the president impeached because he wanted to big time some staffers by showing off that he's got the president on the line.

If I was writing for the Bare Naked Ladies, I'd be working on a new verse for "If I had a $1,000,000". Something along the lines of.........

 

If I had a $1,000,000

I'd buy myself an ambassadorship

If I had a $1,000,000

I'd tie my legacy to corruption

If I had a $1,000,000 I'd help bring down the President on bribery charges.......

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5076

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

going to be awesome when sondland gets the president impeached because he wanted to big time some staffers by showing off that he's got the president on the line.

Also keep in mind that he was talking to the President, on a cell phone, in a restaurant, in Ukraine.  You have to wonder how many intelligence agencies have a recording of that conversation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104537

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

If I was writing for the Bare Naked Ladies, I'd be working on a new verse for "If I had a $1,000,000". Something along the lines of.........

 

If I had a $1,000,000

I'd buy myself an ambassadorship

If I had a $1,000,000

I'd tie my legacy to corruption

If I had a $1,000,000 I'd help bring down the President on bribery charges.......

 

....but not a REAL President, that's cruel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Also keep in mind that he was talking to the President, on a cell phone, in a restaurant, in Ukraine.  You have to wonder how many intelligence agencies have a recording of that conversation.  

Yeah, I can just imagine the reaction in the (insert name of country here) surveillance van:

spacer.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17548

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

This whole presidency has been a jackpot for our adversaries 

Overwhelmingly. 

We all feared the worst after the election.  But when Trump let Erdogan's thugs run roughshod over protestors on American soil, that's when I knew we were well and truly fucked on the world stage.  Wasn't that before he invited the Russians into the Oval Office without their press and not ours?  

So fucked, we are. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14243

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  You have one of the prosecution's witnesses saying he saw the suspect go into the apartment at 3:00 with a knife.  He then saw the suspect leaving the apartment at 3:15, with the same knife, with visible blood on it.

"But you didn't actually SEE the accused stab anyone, did you?  No?  CASE CLOSED!"

Nevermind the next three witnesses:

1 -- witness who heard a fight and "please don't kill me" in the apartment at 3:05.

2 -- Police who responded and found the victim dead, and still warm, at 3:20.  

3 -- Forensic pathologist who testifies that the victim was stabbed by a blade just like the one the accused was seen carrying.

"But you didn't actually SEE him stab the victim, did you?  CASE CLOSED!"

Here's what I want.  I want the GOP standard of "you didn't prove a crime" applied to...oh, just spitballing here....every minority charged with a crime in America.  Think they'll like that?  Yeah.  Me neither.  Being that their standard seems to be "if you don't have the actual stabbing on video, while the perpetrator yells 'I, Donald Trump, hereby murder you!,'" then there's "no crime....I don't think they'll like that if we apply it across the board.

What you fail to comprehend is that none of that evidence would be admissible because it is circumstantial.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously.  Even the shitty ones.  Like, Andorran Intelligence, which is two guys with some equipment bought at a Radio Shack bankruptcy sale, is celebrating capturing this conversation.

I bet even the Vatican had a couple of nuns in on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45491

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously.  Even the shitty ones.  Like, Andorran Intelligence, which is two guys with some equipment bought at a Radio Shack bankruptcy sale, is celebrating capturing this conversation.

+rep for Andorra reference.  Their entire defense budget one year was an assortment of fireworks for a celebration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, elguapo said:

If Sondland knows he will be forced to take the 5th in the public testimony, can't he just choose to not show up like the other bootlickers?

It's kinda too late.  He already gave faulty answers to Congress in closed testimony.  Today Reps. Cicilline and Speier signaled to him the damage is done.  Now is his moment of reckoning.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37506

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

This whole administration is a Martin Scorsese movie:

 

 

I've said for at least a year that if anyone can bring Trump down, it's probably got to be Vlad or Rudy.

Look at the fucking people who are controlling the destiny of this country.  My god, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89396

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bruh Man said:

What is stopping Sondland from flipping and becoming a hero for eternity? Does he not see the legacy opportunity in front of him?

Sondland is rich, and if he were going to go all in on defending Trump, he would never have testified in the first place.  Given his age and wealth, I’m willing to bet that he intends on remaining free and wealthy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45538

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Sondland is rich, and if he were going to go all in on defending Trump, he would never have testified in the first place.  Given his age and wealth, I’m willing to bet that he intends on remaining free and wealthy.  

I said that a couple of weeks ago, and yet here we are.  The guy hasn't been on the up and up.  Makes me think Trump has something on him.

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...