snafu

Did he say that? Honestly, I'm late to this discussion. Can you point to what language he used, because all I see is him saying the quid pro quo was white house meeting in exchange for announcing an investigation into 2016 and Burisma. If there's something more, let me know. If there's not, then you're mis-characterizing the testimony.

At this point it is too late to get out. Best they can do is hope that they still have a majority to approve articles and send it to the Senate.

You didn't even say it was impeachable. You stopped at "wrong".

Funny, I'm reading Black Mass presently. The way the FBI handled Whitey Bulger as a high priority informant leads me to believe that this isn't a particularly new issue. Maybe it gets cleaned up now and then, maybe not. I guess it is a bit different, because allegedly Bulger's FBI handler and a couple others were in on the scheme to protect him, and hiding their misdeeds from superiors. This looks like perhaps the reverse (top-down instructions to "mishandle").

^^^^ Pablo Picasso was never called an #######.

Move Montour to wing. He practically plays there already.

Who thought putting Mrs. Smales on TV was a good idea? I was hoping that guy was going to call her a ***** moron.

Places tinfoil hat firmly on head and proceeds... Obama October 29th: Don't be woke: https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-slams-call-out-culture-young-not-activism-2019-10 Obama November 16: Stop turning left: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-16/obama-cautions-democratic-hopefuls-on-tacking-too-far-left Bloomberg early November: Starts his run in Alabama. Bloomberg in mid November: Continues his Hamlet routine in Arkansas. Bloomberg yesterday: apologizes for stop and frisk policy that made him a party pariah. Obama and Bloomberg have coffee in November, 2007 - - when Bloomberg was deciding to get into the race https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/obama-and-bloombergs-breakfast-date/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=E1AB29D91E5222F304CFD13B059394F6&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL

5 of the 7 broncos losses were within a score. They seem to keep things close.

Rubbish!!

I checked: model NHS-B. The percolator coffee comes comes out almost creamy looking. Fantastic if you don’t mind waiting and the extra cleanup and a few grounds in the bottom of the cup.

We have a traditional drip style, but it is the Bunn which maintains a reservoir of hot water. It makes a pot in no time at all. I love that thing. Though today I brought out the old stovetop percolator. Nothing beats the coffee that comes out of that thing. I brewed it up and put the excess in a thermos and I’ve been sipping it all day out in the cold, working in the yard.

Bro, there's no penthouse there. No basement either. It's a studio with no kitchen and an open bathroom floorplan. Sort of like a cell.

I haven't given Acosta three seconds of thought. Don't care. Take it up in a thread where it is relevant, Stop trying to gum up this thread with Acosta.

Did I hurt your feelings? Maybe we should open up an investigation on me. You can be a witness. I've never commented on Acosta. Ever. I don't give a crap about Acosta. And in fact, Acosta has nothing to do with Joe Biden's corruption problem. Nice try.

Wrong. ...and don't you want to know whether Biden is dirty? He's running for President. I want to know if he's dirty. I want to know why Burisma added his son to their Board of Directors when his son had no experience. Sounds a helluva lot like Hunter got a nepotism job. Public officeholders have been put in jail for crap like that. It's a slam dunk corruption case. ...but you don't care. You have ZERO credibility.

Yovanovich is being presented as a champion of "anti-corruption" working in the Ukraine. I get that's one of the US's stated goals for Ukraine. Can someone explain to me how an American ambassador is supposed to influence Ukranian officials to be "not" corrupt? How does that work? One of Trump's explanations for his "favor" was to promote an anti-corruption investigation. Zelensky ran in part on a platform of anti-corruption and won over 75% in the runoff. Can someone explain why that's bad?

If Schiff hadn't read the tweet into the record, then it would have been impossible for her to have been intimidated about it. Also, she, in her answer responding to the tweet, didn't sound too scared. And some people who come around here think this is a laudable process. Stefanik will eventually get to vote on articles. Shouldn't she fully inform herself?

At the point of her opening statement when she recounts the mysterious 1:00am phone call telling her she has to come back to the US. The one where they didn’t ask the caller to explain why she made that call and used those words. Because they only want one side of the story.

I'm triggered by the fact that they are warning me that I might be triggered. And I'm anxious that if I watch, I might not be triggered and then I won't fit in.

I saw this after I posted... I don't know what anyone else's thoughts are on the matter, but I would think that all Congressmembers should be embarrassed by this "investigation", and that standing up against it shows more backbone than anything else. If it turns out that something rises to the (high) level of being impeachable after permitting all testimony they can get their hands on, then you might have a valid question about "backbone".

There's zero evidence of a crime, whether it is a high crime or a misdemeanor. That makes this strictly political. Saying this is political is not a "chaff" statement. When Schiff analogized the "investigation" to a Grand Jury, he brought a criminal element into the process. Partisans have been banging the "attempted extortion" and "attempted bribery" drum. So expecting things to go like a criminal proceeding isn't a "chaff" statement, either. The fact that the two most recent Impeachments were run in a totally different, bipartisan way is also a disheartening contrast to what's going on now. When you've got "investigators" knocking on your door looking at what you've done, wouldn't you want them to talk to anyone and everyone involved in the matter? Maybe they figure out that what they suspect you of doing isn't worthy of pursuing. That's not what's happening here. This is a one-sided kabuki show meant to influence 2020 voters. Nothing more. Like I said in my prior post, this is meant to carry on as long as possible in order to run as deep as possible into the election cycle. Republicans on the Committee have requested several witnesses to be called. Schiff shot down every one of them. These are supposed to be people investigating the matter -- NOT building a case. Otherwise, Pelosi and Schiff should stop lying about the process and stop calling it an "investigation". There are many reasons why someone would not come forward, but refusals are mainly based upon privilege. You can read whatever you want into a refusal to testify, but the focus is foreign policy. That's not coffee talk. Also, and more important, the phone transcript speaks for itself. It has been out in the public for nearly two months. In fact, I think the White House released another transcript related to a prior phone call. Do you know what might help us understand things a bit more clearly: the Whistleblower. Who did he get his information from about the call? He never heard it. Someone thought it was a funky situation and reported his or her concerns to THAT guy? Why him? There were 14 or so people on the call. How many thought it was a big deal? Too bad we won't get to hear from the Whistleblower, huh? Funny how it is only Schiff who controls whether he testifies or not. Too many people in Congress have concluded that Trump did something wrong, even though there's an "investigation" going on. The "investigation" is more designed to be confirmation of partisan conclusions. I think Congress should just issue Articles already and get to the vote. I disagree with your statement here, completely. Stop clutching your pearls over this. Is election interference wrong -- of course. Has that stopped anyone before -- no. Off the top of my head, I can think of four historical examples of calling on a foreign nation or individual to assist a Presidential candidate: Nixon/Vietnam; Ted Kennedy/Soviets; Obama/Russians; Hillary/Steele-Russians. Only if it turns out to be true, the only difference this time is #orangemanbad. What "spine" do you want Congressional Republicans to assert? Rolling over to this absolute sham would be spineless. Standing up to it is commendable.

Reminder: One does not need to be a member of Congress to be Speaker of the House. Scary thought for the day.

Not so fast. Those are perfect jurors for a nonconformist.