The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

It's up to you to either bury your head in the sand or watch the hearings and form an opinion on the evidence given. I'm not going to spoon feed you, Idaho. You're an adult, right?

 

Perhaps you should let @TH3 answer the questions I asked him, and you stick to what you do; make grade-school comments at other posters.

 

@TH3I'll ask you again; what are the Dems trying to prove Trump did wrong, and what is the evidence that proves their case?

 

You argue that people are just posting twitter posts and not using independent thinking. Show me your independent thinking so I can see what you see in these hearings.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

9 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

Today is a day of rest (and a Democratic "WTF happened to our master plan yesterday?!" frantic meeting). Tune in tomorrow for tears.

Tomorrow  will be interesting.  Here is the list testifying.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, IDBillzFan said:

 

Perhaps you should let @TH3 answer the questions I asked him, and you stick to what you do; make grade-school comments at other posters.

 

@TH3I'll ask you again; what are the Dems trying to prove Trump did wrong, and what is the evidence that proves their case?

 

You argue that people are just posting twitter posts and not using independent thinking. Show me your independent thinking so I can see what you see in these hearings.

 

 

My independent thinking is going to wait for the hearings to be over before I have a full opinion. I'm going to, like, weigh the evidence, man!

 

Day 1 was interesting but it's going to come down to Sondland's testimony to corroborate what was said. 

Just now, IDBillzFan said:

 

Perhaps you should let @TH3 answer the questions I asked him, and you stick to what you do; make grade-school comments at other posters.

 

@TH3I'll ask you again; what are the Dems trying to prove Trump did wrong, and what is the evidence that proves their case?

 

You argue that people are just posting twitter posts and not using independent thinking. Show me your independent thinking so I can see what you see in these hearings.

 

 

My independent thinking is going to wait for the hearings to be over before I have a full opinion. I'm going to, like, weigh the evidence, man!

 

Day 1 was interesting but it's going to come down to Sondland's testimony to corroborate what was said. 

 

Also DR is a bot - not a poster. And it gets what it dishes out.

[dickleyjones]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Hey deranged, Canadian interested in your American sh*t show. I am curious about what you mean re: the threat to your republic? 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

True - plus I don't think it's legal to marry a bot yet, is it?

 

I don't think DR's a bot.  His feelings get hurt too easily to be robotic. 

 

I am beginning to think that he enlists others at the institution to all pitch in to push out his torrents of crap.  How else could it all appear so quickly while at the same time sounding so insane?  I don't know, maybe not.  I am still working on it. 

[IDBillzFan]

6 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

My independent thinking is going to wait for the hearings to be over before I have a full opinion. I'm going to, like, weigh the evidence, man!

 

Day 1 was interesting but it's going to come down to Sondland's testimony to corroborate what was said. 

 

Also DR is a bot - not a poster. And it gets what it dishes out.

 

Either let @TH3 answer, or pick a single username and try to stick with it.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Good Post.  I disagree on several fronts but, well stated.  I am an Independent but have been of the opinion that this impeachment process should move forward.  Most certainly, it is a political process that only loosely resembles assembling charges or putting on a criminal trial.  Those that are unaware may be honestly upset but those knowledgeable of the process should stop throwing out this chaff.

 

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.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Claiming it is one-sided is true but there are 2 main reasons for that.  I am sure that you are aware that this is not really yet the trial phase.  That will happen in the Senate.  In this phase, Democratic 'prosecutors' are making their case to bring charges to the representatives in the House.  The House will likely eventually vote to (or not to) send the charges to the Senate for the trial phase.  I believe that the defense will then be able to call whoever they wish, especially since the Republicans control the Senate.

 

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".

 

 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

The other reason we don't have the Republican side of the story is that the President's defenders have defied subpeonas to testify to the House committees.  There were no transcripts released from the president's soldiers because they are afraid to go under oath and testify, just like their leader.   It seems to me that they are afraid of perjury.  Would you want to get folks under oath speaking on your behalf if you were guilty?  How about if you were innocent?  Those answers should be telling to an unbiased observer.

 

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.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Presidents have historically overstepped their authority, that is true.  Differences here are that Trump's actions appear to be for personal political gain, as opposed to being in the interests of our country.  He also continues to see election interference by foreigners as acceptable.  He has repeatedly proved that point.  Foreign election interference taints the upcoming election.  That must be stopped cold. 

 

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.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Perhaps if the Congressional Republicans had a spine to stand up to this president, the whole impeachment process would be unnecessary.  As it is today, there appears to me to be a severe integrity shortage in the Republican party in Congress.

 

What "spine" do you want Congressional Republicans to assert?  Rolling over to this absolute sham would be spineless.  Standing up to it is commendable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

24 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

So let me get this straight: there are no charges for impeachment, but all the witnesses so far have given evidence of...what, exactly?

 

What is the evidence and what is it designed to prove that the president did wrong?

 

 

i'm sure any of us could round up a real case with evidence against  The Donald in a week or so

 

 

 

 

[Hedge]

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Hedge said:

 

 

 

I cannot believe his attorneys have not told him to STFU. And if they have, he's a very stupid man for not listening to that advice.

 

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I cannot believe his attorneys have not told him to STFU. And if they have, he's a very stupid man for not listening to that advice.

 

 

free speech is a privilege in this world, it allows bozos like that to speak nonsense and lies

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

free speech is a privilege in this world, it allows bozos like that to speak nonsense and lies

 

No doubt, but listening to competent legal advice you are paying for can minimize future pain (and possible jail time).

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

No doubt, but listening to competent legal advice you are paying for can minimize future pain (and possible jail time).

 

Dems don't do anything but ruin people's attempts to make an honest go for themselves, so what's different here?

 

Imagine having that on for a 6 hour airport delay with Tibs and friends yelling angry things about Trump....

 

 

[Warren Zevon]

7 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

 

OMG HEDGE LOOK AT BARR'S THUMB AND IT'S PLACEMENT OVER HIS GLASSES. IT'S A MOTHAFUKIN...

 

Q

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Seriously?  You are saying to the man that all congressional Repubs think in lockstep that Trump is completely innocent of wrongdoing in this Ukraine saga?  It seems much more likely that they are afraid to step out of line.  Trump and his followers will attack anyone that does that and then that particular pol's re-election campaign becomes much more difficult if not impossible.  This is why we have seen that many of the Repub politicians that have been critical of Trump are those that have decided that they are not seeking re-election.

 

His Congressional support most certainly holds, regardless of what evidence is brought out in this impeachment process.  As mentioned I think breaking with Trump would take more integrity than appears evident.....unless the break is done by a large number of Repub pols at once.  Safety in numbers if it happens, though personally I don't see this dam busting.

 

 

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".

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Thinking that Bob supports -- the same guy who just advocated for a purely partisan impeachment process just to "check" a president who's popular within his own party, without any thought or regard to the dangerous precedent that sets. Why does Bob push this? Because he was programmed to like a good lil' NPC bot. He doesn't think ahead to when a democrat regains the Oval and how this same process will be used against them -- imploding any hope for our republic's future. 

 

 

Soon he'll be pushing this talking point in some form. Due process is a republican talking point... 

Like not trusting the IC is now a "republican" talking point...

Like how not wanting MORE regime change wars is now a "republican" talking point...

 

Blind partisans have only one goal: power. Regardless of what it costs them. 

After watching that whole presser this morning, I rate this: accurate:
 

 

[dubs]

9 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Dems don't do anything but ruin people's attempts to make an honest go for themselves, so what's different here?

 

Imagine having that on for a 6 hour airport delay with Tibs and friends yelling angry things about Trump....

 

 

what’s good for the country is bad for the Democrats (and many Republicans). It’s as simple as that. 

8 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

OMG HEDGE LOOK AT BARR'S THUMB AND IT'S PLACEMENT OVER HIS GLASSES. IT'S A MOTHAFUKIN...

 

Q

this is actually kind of funny. I feel dirty now. 

[Rob's House]

47 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

The two witnesses yesterday gave over 5 hours of evidence. There are more witnesses tomorrow and next week who will give dozens more hours of testimony and evidence. 

 

Your question makes no grammatical sense after the first 5 words.

 

Prosecutors should start using your argument.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, ask not what my case proves, ask how long it took to try. If the Defendant weren't guilty, would my witnesses have testified for 5 hours? If I can't keep it pithy, you must find him guilty."

 

That's powerful stuff.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Rob's House

[row_33]

i knew the Dems think they should be paid by the minute and the non-stop verbal trash coming out of their mouth

[GG]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Seriously?  You are saying to the man that all congressional Repubs think in lockstep that Trump is completely innocent of wrongdoing in this Ukraine saga?  It seems much more likely that they are afraid to step out of line.  Trump and his followers will attack anyone that does that and then that particular pol's re-election campaign becomes much more difficult if not impossible.  This is why we have seen that many of the Repub politicians that have been critical of Trump are those that have decided that they are not seeking re-election.

 

His Congressional support most certainly holds, regardless of what evidence is brought out in this impeachment process.  As mentioned I think breaking with Trump would take more integrity than appears evident.....unless the break is done by a large number of Repub pols at once.  Safety in numbers if it happens, though personally I don't see this dam busting.

 

Yes, the Dems should fear backlash.  Trump will cry victim at every opportunity and it will hurt Dem chances in Trump country.  But, without any Republican in Congress willing to check Trump's actions when he pushes boundaries, it seems to me that the impeachment process should go forward if not to remove Trump, only to check his future impulses with regard to illegal election interference.

 

Yes seriously.  Even the GOP members who disapprove of Trump's overall behavior and concerned about the tenor of the Ukraine phone call, know that there's nothing that's been introduced as evidence rises to the criminality threshold.  They clearly see this exercise for exactly what it is - a partisan hit job that will backfire.  That's why you're seeing zero support for this process from the GOP.

 

OTOH, the Dems continue to prove that any semblance of long term strategic planning has long disappeared from the party's thought leaders.  Just like they didn't envision how Reid's blowing up the filibuster could hurt them, the blow back from Schiff's hissy fit will be severe.