Still no commentary on the substance of the hearings? Why is that?
Still no commentary on the substance of the hearings? Why is that?
I don't want to this end but I also really want to go back to watching Trump get absolutely nothing accomplished. Those meetings with Pelosi and Schiff that always end up an embarrassment for Trump should be even more heated.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,557
- 146
Yes, the House is going to impeach for sure...but I hope not yet. I want to flush more rats out of the woodpile and see more fucking going on.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
There's no point in blurring the focus. Trump's conduct here was utterly corrupt & illegal. He knew it full well. That's simply indisputable. The number of people who succumbed to that corrupting influence is appalling. They all knew or should have known it was illegal but they did it anyway. It's shameful. Everybody knows it.
If that's not enough for the GOP to remove him then they can wear that shame themselves into the election. They can't win on their base alone.
You know he means that wish list Nunes cries for every hearing.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
I know he does and Mitch is planning to grant his wish in the Senate according to Fox News.
"Weren't allowed"? You must mean weren't called because the committee majority chose not to do so. Of course they didn't call the whistleblower who's protected by law & common decency. They didn't call Hunter Biden, either, because he only played the role of intended victim to the smear. Anybody else you think we should hear from? Should we hear from Chalupa & Ohr because the server... they say Ukraine has it? Really?
As far as I know he had nothing to do with it. Why have him testify?
They can have at it. The House will present their case focusing on a certain chain of events. I seriously doubt that Roberts will allow the introduction of witnesses who played no part in those events. And, I mean, how will it look to force testimony from the victims of an obvious smear campaign?
I don't know who wasn't allowed to testify. Biden has nothing to do with it, and the whistleblower doesn't have any direct evidence, so they don't matter. I'm assuming that there are others because of all the noise the republicains made about it. Perhaps there isn't anyone else, I don't know because I haven't heard any names.
I only caught parts of the hearings, and of course the "highlights" reels the news played, so there is a great deal of information I don't have.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
Well this is possibly good news:
www.cnn.com
Repugs in the Senate planning for impeachment trial are thinking that the best way to "protect Trump" is to permit the dems time to present all their evidence or else it looks like Trump and the GOP are hiding something. How magnanimous of them. Yet even that may turn out not to be the case, if Trump doesn't want to allow it.
Republican senators discuss with White House would-be parameters of an impeachment trial | CNN Politics
Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are working with the White House to prepare for the likely Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, coalescing around the idea that allowing Democrats to lay out their evidence may be the best course of action to protect the President.
Repugs in the Senate planning for impeachment trial are thinking that the best way to "protect Trump" is to permit the dems time to present all their evidence or else it looks like Trump and the GOP are hiding something. How magnanimous of them. Yet even that may turn out not to be the case, if Trump doesn't want to allow it.
No, I didn't assume anything. That's based off what the republicans at the hearing keep saying. How the hell would I know who they want to talk to?
Does it matter if the whistle blower has any direct evidence? The House Repubs didn't care about any of the witnesses who had first hand knowledge of what happened.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,557
- 146
Well, the problem with wondering about what the Republicans want to hear and who they want to bring, is that they have couched their entire defense off of:
--a thoroughly fake conspiracy theory about Ukraine and some server that was used to help Hilary--factually, this never existed. It can't even be investigated further at this point, because it is less tangible than El Dorado. Likewise, there is no human of any kind of merit that can speak to it in an actual Congressional hearing, where one is sworn an oath to testify about it
--attacking every single witness on invented character flaws, because their testimony is inherently damning, and they are unimpeachable witnesses to the crimes that Trump has committed.
...so there is yet to be any substance to what Republicans have presented to defend their president...so there really is no one they can bring forward to establish a defense, that we know of. The only important people that we haven't heard from yet are the ones that Trump is attempting to prevent from talking, refusing Congressional subpoenas. (all obstruction charges)...and yes: there's a reason he doesn't want them talking.
...of course, Trump could always talk if he wants to. It's a completely open door for him to show up and defend himself at this point. Even Bill did that.
Is this a rhetorical question, or have I somehow become P&N's leading expert on the subject?
Let me clarify my thoughts. The republicans claim there are witnesses that they want to have testify, but the democrats wouldn't allow it. If those people actually exist, I'd like to hear what they have to say. I'm not supporting the claim, I'm not endorsing the idea or assigning it merit.
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,715
- 10,471
- 136
Graham asks Pompeo for documents on Bidens, Burisma, Kerry etc.
I guess Zelenskiy dropped the ball on Trump’s investigations (and the aid had to be released when they got caught) so who’s gonna carry that water now?
Enter Lindsay Graham and Mike Pompeo!
In Graham’s letter to Pompeo — seemingly timed to coincide with the conclusion of the public impeachment inquiry hearings in the House — he asks for communications between Joe Biden and Poroshenko as well as any between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden’s, and then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry on March 2, 2016, based on reporting that the two were scheduled to meet that day.
—
Would it be hyper-partisan for State to release documents to Graham based on a conspiracy theory, while not giving documents requested by the House? Think Pompeo cares??
I guess Zelenskiy dropped the ball on Trump’s investigations (and the aid had to be released when they got caught) so who’s gonna carry that water now?
Enter Lindsay Graham and Mike Pompeo!
In Graham’s letter to Pompeo — seemingly timed to coincide with the conclusion of the public impeachment inquiry hearings in the House — he asks for communications between Joe Biden and Poroshenko as well as any between Devon Archer, a business partner of Hunter Biden’s, and then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry on March 2, 2016, based on reporting that the two were scheduled to meet that day.
—
Would it be hyper-partisan for State to release documents to Graham based on a conspiracy theory, while not giving documents requested by the House? Think Pompeo cares??
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,557
- 146
well, shouldn't they at least name these witnesses? I'm guessing they are, as most of their claims have been, completely immaterial.
The only ones that I know of to this point are the ones that they actually submitted prior to the beginning of the hearings:
--The Whistleblower (yes, they requested this, officially, despite it violating federal law)
--Hunter Biden (whom you already agreed is completely immaterial)
...you even said that about the whistleblower.
....anyway, it is known that the Repubs officially submitted those names as witnesses that they want to call. If, at this point, they are just saying "the witnesses we want are being blocked!" without ever naming them, one can only assume that they want those completely immaterial witnesses. ...so I'm not sure why you would want to hear from them after already saying that they aren't relevant to the case.
They aren't worthy of calling other witnesses, if they exist. Got it.Well, the problem with wondering about what the Republicans want to hear and who they want to bring, is that they have couched their entire defense off of:
--a thoroughly fake conspiracy theory about Ukraine and some server that was used to help Hilary--factually, this never existed. It can't even be investigated further at this point, because it is less tangible than El Dorado. Likewise, there is no human of any kind of merit that can speak to it in an actual Congressional hearing, where one is sworn an oath to testify about it
--attacking every single witness on invented character flaws, because their testimony is inherently damning, and they are unimpeachable witnesses to the crimes that Trump has committed.
...so there is yet to be any substance to what Republicans have presented to defend their president...so there really is no one they can bring forward to establish a defense, that we know of. The only important people that we haven't heard from yet are the ones that Trump is attempting to prevent from talking, refusing Congressional subpoenas. (all obstruction charges)...and yes: there's a reason he doesn't want them talking.
...of course, Trump could always talk if he wants to. It's a completely open door for him to show up and defend himself at this point. Even Bill did that.
My view is a little different than that. They claim there are other people with information to share, bring em on. We have nothing to lose. We're at at the party, might as well dance.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,557
- 146
what? no, that's not what I said--you still aren't saying who these people are.....that's because you don't know who they are. I don't know who they are. I don't think anyone knows who they are, because these goons are intentionally being vague (e.g: they've got nothing and they fucking know it.)
Who do you want them to call?
All I'm saying is that they officially submitted two names already, before the hearings: Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower. ...so, logically (we are using logic here), those are the only two names we have to go with, unless the Pubs start getting more specific. You agree with that, right? IF they had other witnesses, they would be yelling all over the place about it. Hell, they are spending all their time so far asking the same ridiculous questions to all the witnesses, about the same fake conspiracy horseshit, about names that don't even fucking exist. If they actually had relevant people to talk to, it would be known. There is no question.
You already stated that those two witnesses are immaterial. so...who should they call? Why should you agree that they should call who they want when they won't even submit names, to anyone? You think this is Perry Mason or some shit? Surprise Witness!
One would think the GOP would be making a big deal publishing the list of names and how they would help if there was such a problem. So far it’s an empty talking point with no substance behind it.
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,966
- 3,954
- 136
If a republican's mouth is moving, you 100% know it's bullshit. But yeah, we should definitely be worried about how concerned the guy suing the fake cow is.
To clarify, the Republicans have been stating that there's witnesses that the Democrats have not been permitting to testify, specifically so they can send the message that there's information that the Democrats are keeping under wraps. Hunter Biden has been brought up multiple times, and I'm sure everyone paying attention knows that the Republicans are attempting to muddy the impeachment waters with more mock scandals in order to make it look like this is something where 'well, the democrats did some shady things, maybe trump did some shady things, see, this is all just politics!'. The more Schiff refuses to play this dumbshit game with Nunes the more he attempts to point to this as a 'partisan committee' and 'democratic ousting'.
Most of the people responding to you are being spicy because they've been watching these proceedings, and so far any time anyone has brought up any witnesses that 'haven't been allowed to testify', it's been crowing from the dumbshit Republicans that want to bring in every-fucking-person except the ones who matter specifically to this investigation. Note that the actual people relevant to the investigation have been told to NOT testify by the WH (read: Trump and his administration). The ones we've heard from are the ones that refused that order. The ones we haven't followed it, and I hope they get fucked by the long dick of a federal indictment of obstruction of congress.
I already said I don't know who they are. I have no idea who they might be. As I said, the statement is based off of what a couple of the republicans said, taking me to task over it is pointless because I don't have the answers. That's why I said I'd like to here from whoever it is.what? no, that's not what I said--you still aren't saying who these people are.....that's because you don't know who they are. I don't know who they are. I don't think anyone knows who they are, because these goons are intentionally being vague (e.g: they've got nothing and they fucking know it.)
Who do you want them to call?
All I'm saying is that they officially submitted two names already, before the hearings: Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower. ...so, logically (we are using logic here), those are the only two names we have to go with, unless the Pubs start getting more specific. You agree with that, right?
You already stated that those two witnesses are immaterial. so...who should they call? Why should you agree that they should call who they want when they won't even submit names, to anyone? You think this is Perry Mason or some shit? Surprise Witness!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter