Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Well, most of the mainstream libs that I know wouldn't go that far. A lot of the idiots on Facebook or Twitter would though.
I can't figure her out, so I suspect I may be pretty normal.
I35
5,000+ Posts
You ask a kindergarten level question, you get a kindergarten level answer. You know the answer anyway. You just use this as a tactic that you’ve always done when you are failing miserably in a discussion. Seriously if I told you 2+2 = 4 you’d ask for a link.
Yeah, I think she's about as whacked as Alex Jones in many areas , better in others.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The answer was that nobody within those 3 committees was prevented from attending the hearings, just like every other confidential committee hearing. Just because JoeFan thinks other "relevant" committees should be included doesn't make it right. That's his opinion just as most of the propaganda he posts is. For those that line up to be a fluffer for him that's also a choice.
Nikki Haley on Fox News with Martha MacCallum says from what she read of the transcript and how she had seen Trump "push" people in phone conversations or otherwise said it was a very casual conversation compared to what she had seen.
Also said she feels trump feels "burned up" by one investigation after the other with nothing happening on the other side in terms of investigations.
But hey, what does she know?
Also said she feels trump feels "burned up" by one investigation after the other with nothing happening on the other side in terms of investigations.
But hey, what does she know?
Tucker Carlson on the "Impeachment". Basically laughing at the notion of these guys today talking about how critical Ukraine is to American security. Ha, Dems think it is racist to defend our own border, but by Gawd we ought to help Ukraine defend its border against Russia!Russia!Russia!
For me, it's a nuanced issue. This idea that he's entitled to anonymity is nothing but partisan ********. He's entitled not to have an adverse employment action taken against him in retaliation for being a whistleblower. He's not entitled to make accusations and never have to answer for them or have to defend them. That is utter nonsense.
Having said that, he doesn't have personal knowledge of anything, so there isn't a lot for him to add. Would I call him to testify? Yes, but it would only be to ask him who told him what. Once he identifies those people, I'd dismiss him and call those people to testify.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
She has been as consistent as anyone about the border and immigration. She thinks if that situation is not resolved quickly, it wont matter what Republicans/conservatives think or do because they will be in the permanent political minority. She is a good researcher and has written books on these subjects. Her most recent example is what has happened in Virginia.
I think she's correct on this which is one reason I think it's important Trump get another 4 years worth of federal judges. This will buy us another 20-30 years. But then that's it, it's over. Really over. The "American Experiment" will be done, at somewhere less than 300 years. But at least I'll be dead or close to dead by then so wont have to watch it. And I will go out knowing I tried.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko says Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister
"Amb Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations"
Last edited:
No.
Also, Zelensky was pressured to say he wasn't pressured by his own need to appear strong to his country. Dems have an answer for everything.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
She wrote a book about him she titled "In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!"
But then he got in and immediately went for the Paul Ryan agenda instead of following through with his promises on border/immigration, which is her primary issue (i.e., the one issue that must be resolved now or none of the other issues will matter) and which, arguably, is what pushed Trump over the line and got him elected (indeed, they are still chanting it at rallies today). Some examples -- Trump did not immediately write an EO to dump Obama's DACA EO, did not write an EO to end the anchor baby situation, was unable to secure Wall funding (I would have been willing to shut down the govt over this). With places like Ukraine, she is saying focus on your own people, stop being 'Team America: World Police."
Which brings us back all the way around to these impeachment witnesses from State, who are saying: We are indeed Team America: World Peace and it is very important to keep that going -- the rest of the world needs us and is depending on us. Ann is responding to them saying: There is no Team America World Peace without an America in the first place.
Both these matters ultimately get back to the same current big theme, and expose what is probably the biggest fissure in our society right now -- Nationalism/America First vs. the Globalist/One Word Society. Who will win?
You know much more about her than I, obviously. Didn't Ryan support Trump? Is that why he initially did that? Anyway, doesn't matter. I recall a tweet where she says keep the Dreamers and get rid of Trump. Then she supports him through all of this it seems.
If the Senate makes a rule that hearsay will not be advisable, then they can impeach all they want. It will be dead on day one as hearsay is all they have. The IL Rep Quigley says hearsay is better than directly hearing something in many cases though, so that's good to know.
At least that's what I heard from a guy who heard it from a guy whose cousin at 31 Flavors told him.
At least that's what I heard from a guy who heard it from a guy whose cousin at 31 Flavors told him.
As this is clearly a political arena and not a court of law, I just hope that when they vote to impeach on hearsay evidence only (which they will) that the country will be informed of this fact. Someone should CLEARLY contrast the standard in a criminal case versus what they consider to be evidence enough to destroy the Presidency.
I35
5,000+ Posts
I have a question I haven’t heard asked yet.
Who the F does Adam Schiff think he is? The President doesn’t answer to him. The President can speak to other world leaders anytime he wants. It’s his job.
If there is corruption from an American citizen with another country then he without a doubt should ask questions. Three people here will say he’s going after a candidate running for President. So what? Trump is also running for President in 2020 and look at what they are doing to him.
I understand the rest of the Dems are following a long. But let’s make no mistake about it, this is Adam Schiff’s sh*t show.
Who the F does Adam Schiff think he is? The President doesn’t answer to him. The President can speak to other world leaders anytime he wants. It’s his job.
If there is corruption from an American citizen with another country then he without a doubt should ask questions. Three people here will say he’s going after a candidate running for President. So what? Trump is also running for President in 2020 and look at what they are doing to him.
I understand the rest of the Dems are following a long. But let’s make no mistake about it, this is Adam Schiff’s sh*t show.
The Rs make that clear in their questioning, and like I said, D Quigley from IL touts how great hearsay can be compared to directly hearing or seeing something.
It was either Ken Starr or Andy McCarthy on Fox last night during a segment but I think it was one of then who essentially said this. Nothing said was criminal, perhaps improper and that is where the oversight function of Congress may come in to play but certainly not impeachment.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Ryan had his own agenda, which was not the same one that propelled Trump into office. He and McConnell went to WH early, laid out their plan and persuaded Trump to go along with them (they were, after all, the "experts" on moving legislation). They promised to get it all done. But then they didnt. And so while Year 1 was not a 100% loss, it was a huge waste of goodwill. And the 'opportunity cost' was staggeringly high, by my take at least. I see Ryan as something of a Brutus the Younger figure - others disagree.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
By coincidence, I think there are 31 House members who were elected in districts Trump carried in 2016. So if there is any hope in the House, it is that these 31 will see through this thin political prosecution, realize the voters in their own district are not buying it either, and so will vote in a way that is in their own selfish best interests (which would be against impeachment).
This seems unlikely as Pelosi probably has hidden video on all of them to keep them singing like the Stepford Wives they are. If she is good at anything, it is keeping her misbehaving children in line.
But .....
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In some cases,we are looking at triple or even quadruple hearsay. And their first two witnesses gave more opinion testimony than direct. In fact, they has very little in the way of direct testimony to offer. Unless you think how they felt about things is worthy.
Here is just one example -- "mind reading"
Adam Schiff asked Taylor if Sondland's statement meant that Trump cared more about the investigations "than he does about Ukraine?"
"Yes, sir," Taylor responded.
"Yes, sir," Taylor responded.
In a real trial, witness opinions are inadmissible. Not a single trial judge in any jurisdiction would allow that.
Last edited:
Basically, these career diplomats are butthurt over Trump's policy on Ukraine. Their feelings are that his conversation with Zelensky could make their jobs more difficult. Boo hoo.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
