Reply With Quote
His foreign policy is to ask foreign governments to dig up dirt on political opponents for an upcoming US election.
That foreign policy is an impeachable offense. Too bad neither you or your orange god get that.
House Democrats unveil new rules to end Republican shenanigans in impeachment hearings
a new and different way of holding public hearings that appears guaranteed to end Republican grandstanding and games.
will end the universally despised 5-minute per member format for questions and
a provision that will slap the handcuffs on minority Republicans looking to cause trouble by forcing them
to submit witnesses in advance so they can be screened for relevance to the witness or investigation.
It will also give House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) the ability to direct the first 90-minutes of each public hearing and use staff attorneys to question witnesses if he chooses.
https://washingtonpress.com/2019/10/...myu8XOU-KX6NVc
His foreign policy is to ask foreign governments to dig up dirt on political opponents for an upcoming US election.
That foreign policy is an impeachable offense. Too bad neither you or your orange god get that.
Trump attempt to kill NSC adviser’s subpoena could blow up in the faces of multiple White House officials
explain the legal ramifications of National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking a ruling on whether he must comply with a congressional subpoena and what it would mean if he is ordered to do so.
“Ultimately, if this judge said, as I think he should
this is not an optional invite,” he continued.
“The whole reason a subpoena is more than a piece of paper
it’s that it is mandatory.
And so, if a judge says,
Kupperman, ‘you need to get in there and testify,’
I don’t see any way for Bolton and the others to dodge subpoenas either.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/trump-attempt-to-kill-nsc-advisers-subpoena-could-blow-up-in-the-faces-of-multiple-white-house-officials-cnn/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2844
Limbaugh wrongly claims Republicans are being shut out of impeachment hearings
wrong that the hearings have excluded House Republicans, 47 of whom sit on the three committees that have been leading the investigation.
There are nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, 17 are on the House Oversight Committee, and 21 are on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
All 47 of those Republicans have been able to participate and ask questions in the interviews and depositions held to this point,
There is no cons utional provision that says a president or his allies must be allowed to cross-examine witnesses during a House impeachment inquiry.
"Nothing in either the Cons ution or House rules requires public hearings and/or cross-examination at this stage,"
"The House impeachment inquiry is equivalent to a grand jury investigation in a criminal case," said Suzanna Sherry, professor of law at Vanderbilt University.
"And there is no opportunity for cross-examination when evidence is presented to the grand jury."
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2019/oct/29/rush-limbaugh/limbaugh-wrongly-claims-republicans-are-being-shut/
As always, Repugs, right wing hate media and Spurstalkers, are totally full of .
Because Trumpista's need a talking point and can't actually defend against what was actually said or all the officials ting on Trump?So much stupid
The call happened...who gives a who outed it or who he worked for or what the ever? Trump isn't even denying it happened. All that matters now is what was actually discussed and the motivations. That's why the interviews are happening.
Taylor and Vindman offered eye witness testimony. What are you talking about?
Trump Boasts That His Impeachment Will Get Higher TV Ratings Than All Other Impeachments
WASHINGTON —In an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Donald Trump boasted that, if he is impeached, the television ratings will be higher than those of any other impeachment in history.
“Everywhere I go, people tell me that if I am impeached, they’re going to watch it,” he said.
“The ratings are going to be through the roof.”
He said that he expected his impeachment ratings to be “many, many times” the size of the audience for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, in 1998.
“It’s not even going to be close,” Trump said. “The ratings for Bill Clinton’s impeachment were a joke.”
Asked about the recent impeachment of the former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Trump said, “Did anyone even watch that one? That was Korea. Nobody cares.”
As for the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, he said, “I didn’t hear about that one.
I don’t follow Brazil.
I like Argentina.
I saw ‘Evita’ many, many times.
Andrew Lloyd Webber did a great job.
Millions and millions of people loved it.
But that was a Broadway show, not an impeachment.”
Even though he anticipates “just terrific” ratings for his impeachment,
Trump said that he did not expect the media to provide an honest accounting of his audience size.
“They’re going to lie and say that a lot of people who watched my impeachment didn’t watch,
and that’s going to be very bad and unfair,
but it’s not going to change the fact that
my impeachment will be a great impeachment, a really beautiful impeachment,” he said.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-boasts-that-his-impeachment-will-get-higher-tv-ratings-than-all-other-impeachments?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imag enewsletter_Borowitz_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Bo rowitz_103119&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c 1048022fcc&cndid=43758549&esrc=bounceX&mbid=&utm_t erm=TNY_Borowitz
Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson was one of just two House Democrats to vote no on ground rules for an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.
Peterson and New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew were the only Democrats to vote against the rules package, which the House approved on a 232-196 vote Thursday.
Report: Treasurer For Biden Super PAC Also A Registered Agent For Foreign Country
"Vindman learned after their meeting that Trump still refused to allow the security assistance funds to go to Ukraine, which made Vindman think the President was still waiting for the "deliverable," as Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, referred to it in his own deposition -- the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens that Ukrainian officials needed to deliver in order to get the money they wanted."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/polit...ons/index.html
"Taylor says he was told by a National Security Council official that Trump told Sondland he had insisted Zelensky "go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 interference."
"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.' I understood 'stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor testified."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/polit...ges/index.html
Do you think all their testimony was hearsay? That they were not eyewitnesses to anything? Or are you selectively and disingenuously calling out quotes?
Vindman listened in on the call and gave his opinion on it. Taylor was pretty much all hearsay.
What damaging facts do you think they were eyewitness to?
Vindman
The July 25 call
Taylor
i.
I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with President Zelenskyy later that day. Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry, and I were on this call, dialing in from different locations. However, Ambassador Sondland said that he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelenskyy to the call. Also, before President Zelenskyy joined the call, Ambassador Volker separately told the U.S. participants that he, Ambassador Volker, planned to be explicit with President Zelenskyy in a one-on-one meeting in Toronto on July 2
about what President Zelenskyy should do to get the White House meeting. Again, it was not clear to me on that call what this meant, but Ambassador Volker noted that he would relay that President Trump wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also, specifically, cooperation on investigations to “get to the bottom of things.” Once President Zelenskyy joined the call, the conversation was focused on energy policy and the Stanytsia-Luhanska bridge. President Zelenskyy also said he looked forward to the White House visit President Trump had offered in his May 29 letter.
ii.
On July 10 in Kyiv, I met with President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andrei Bohdan, and then-foreign policy advisor to the president and now Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko, who told me that they had heard from Mr. Giuliani that the phone call between the two presidents was unlikely to happen and that they were alarmed and disappointed.
In a regular NSC secure video-conference call on July 18, I heard a staff person from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) say that there was a hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call—the person was off-screen—said that she was from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for Ukraine until further notice. I and others sat in astonishment
iii.
Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.
The transcript is doctored. Vindman listened to the call and was concerned by it and thought it inappropriate.
How are you more qualified than he to opine on the propriety of the call?
called it since page 1 ma nigs
nothing chesseburger
the only voice I listen to is Dear Sen Kennedy. he is a dear clean soul and his words matter more than any shennanigans of losers in the media or in this thread
listen to Kennedy and weep ma nigs
"Democrats are putting a fresh coat of paint on rotten wood"
love you Sen Kennedy
"this freak show... circus without a tent. maybe I'm being harsh, let's just call it play acting"
ma niga Kennedy going shaved balls deep
hearsay
"Vindman testified that the White House's rough transcript was mostly accurate in describing the contents of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky aside from the edits he wanted to make."
muh feelings
"speaker pelotudosi is gonna hurt Congress' 10% approval rating"
Ma nig JohnKenn
Pelosi
So now they don't want transparency?
I believe that.
Uneducated partisan re s arguing with a lawyer. You love to see it.
If Trash/Tom Hagen think the transcript vindicates Trash, why hide the full transcript in a top secret natsec machine?
Echoes of the Russian investigation: forgetting, lying, obstructing, acting guilty, as accurately suspected.
TSA and other deplorables fall for it, defend it, every time.
It doesn't take a lawyer to know that none of the witnesses called have provided any proof of a quid pro quo.
I really want to hear the Trumpista narratives for these three things:
1) Trump's entire process withholding aid from Ukraine.
2) The origins of the Russia investigation.
3) The Crowdstrike server whatever the thing that's supposed to be.
No copypasta, please.
Any takers?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
