• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

Page 61 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as to whether the dems will bring in more live witnesses. Only that the intel committee has no more scheduled at this time. I feel strongly that they should bring in Parnas and Bolton if they can do so relatively soon.
 
woolfe9998 said:
There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as to whether the dems will bring in more live witnesses. Only that the intel committee has no more scheduled at this time. I feel strongly that they should bring in Parnas and Bolton if they can do so relatively soon.
Click to expand...

I suspect the hearings are over. Nothing much happens until after Thanksgiving, then if articles of impeachment are drafted and go to a house vote, it will probably be about first or second week in December. I don't see it playing out this way, if anything, I'd bet they go for Censure. Impeachment being the main focus during an election year is dicey, IMO.
 
woolfe9998 said:
There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer as to whether the dems will bring in more live witnesses. Only that the intel committee has no more scheduled at this time. I feel strongly that they should bring in Parnas and Bolton if they can do so relatively soon.
Click to expand...

after the intel committee it's up to Nadler, he can call/subpoena any witness he chooses to testify before the judiciary committee.

i'm still not sure why Parnas didn't already testify - https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d... - Parnas Letter and Doc Request Schedule.pdf
 
hal2kilo said:
I see all this Bolton, Bolton, who's got the Bolton, but who really cares now.
www.nbcnews.com

Documents released to ethics group show Giuliani, Pompeo contacts before Ukraine ambassador ousted

Nearly 100 pages of documents, including emails, were released by the watchdog group American Oversight late Friday.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Yea, in any normal reality the testimony already given should be plenty enough, if the walrus testified he'd be cast as an "outsider" by GOP Senators as fast as possible. You know, when Obama was elected, as an older guy I was frankly shocked to see I've lived long enough to see it. That fact, plus the pretty damm good job he did bringing us out of the nightmare rescission I thought a corner had been turned, I was 110% wrong. Despite that success, hate and racism were not the muted entity many thought, including me, it was only waiting for this moment to arrive.
 
alien42 said:
after the intel committee it's up to Nadler, he can call/subpoena any witness he chooses to testify before the judiciary committee.

i'm still not sure why Parnas didn't already testify - https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/20190930 - Parnas Letter and Doc Request Schedule.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes, it doesn't make sense unless for some reason they don't want Parnas' testimony. Maybe they think he won't be credible because he's under indictment.
 
compuwiz1 said:
I suspect the hearings are over. Nothing much happens until after Thanksgiving, then if articles of impeachment are drafted and go to a house vote, it will probably be about first or second week in December. I don't see it playing out this way, if anything, I'd bet they go for Censure. Impeachment being the main focus during an election year is dicey, IMO.
Click to expand...
The dummy keeps criming, so I think the investigations will continue.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, it doesn't make sense unless for some reason they don't want Parnas' testimony. Maybe they think he won't be credible because he's under indictment.
Click to expand...

Parnas is trying to parley his testimony into favorable consideration in his campaign finance case. The Dems don't really need him & his testimony might just muddy the waters.
 
Another fine example of our perfect, wonderful president not being able to communicate in an adult manner and lying.

It took the WH 15 months to get the pictures to the embassies. She was not an "Obama person", her 33 year career spanned multiple presidents from both political parties. OK, Mr. President?


news.yahoo.com

Trump says Ukraine envoy Yovanovitch wouldn't hang his picture. Fact check: There was no official portrait for most of 2017.

“She is in charge of the embassy,” the president said on “Fox & Friends” Friday morning. “She wouldn’t hang it. It look a year and a half or two years to get the picture up.”
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
“She wouldn’t hang my picture in the embassy,” Trump said. “She is in charge of the embassy. She wouldn’t hang it. It took like a year and a half or two years to get the picture up. She said bad things about me, she wouldn’t defend me, and I have the right to change an ambassador.”

“This was an Obama person. Didn’t want to hang my picture in the embassy,” the president continued. “Standard is, you put the president of the United States’ picture in an embassy. This was not an angel, this woman, OK?”
Click to expand...
 
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

That entire article is a gigantic straw man. Start with this: "The Democrats’ theory is that it is misconduct for the president to depart from the policy priorities of unelected bureaucrats."

No, the misconduct was withholding aid conditioned on providing Trump a domestic political favor.

Show me where any democrat ever said the misconduct was not following what the "bureaucrats" wanted.

I agree he sounds intelligent. He's very good at refuting arguments no one has ever made.
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

He loses all credibility when he calls the black ledger “dubious” (it did help lead to Manafort’s conviction after all). What was dubious about it? His other points don’t fare much better—if the President sets US policy and Pompeo and NSC carry it out, then why did he need to involve Giuliani, Sondland, Perry and others in shadow policy outside of official channels? Why did he have 2 policies that seemed to contradict each other (supporting Ukraine vs. withholding aid?)
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

The bit about Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election was quite cute. They ratted out Manafort & forced his resignation from the campaign. There's no evidence Clinton played any part in that disclosure. It's also obvious from the court ruling that Ukraine wanted no further involvement in US politics. There's no evidence of them meddling in the time frame of Trump's malfeasance, either.
 
UNCjigga said:
He loses all credibility when he calls the black ledger “dubious” (it did help lead to Manafort’s conviction after all). What was dubious about it? His other points don’t fare much better—if the President sets US policy and Pompeo and NSC carry it out, then why did he need to involve Giuliani, Sondland, Perry and others in shadow policy outside of official channels? Why did he have 2 policies that seemed to contradict each other (supporting Ukraine vs. withholding aid?)
Click to expand...

Rudy says he was acting as Trump's personal lawyer. Trump says he was an envoy of our govt. Both of those things can't be true at the same time.
 
UNCjigga said:
He loses all credibility when he calls the black ledger “dubious” (it did help lead to Manafort’s conviction after all). What was dubious about it? His other points don’t fare much better—if the President sets US policy and Pompeo and NSC carry it out, then why did he need to involve Giuliani, Sondland, Perry and others in shadow policy outside of official channels? Why did he have 2 policies that seemed to contradict each other (supporting Ukraine vs. withholding aid?)
Click to expand...

The source of that claim is the same disgraced ex-prosecutor who says that Biden is corrupt. Never mind the fact that Manafort's payments from Yanukovych were verified independently by bank records, as were payments received by several others mentioned in the ledger. If it's a forgery, then it was done by someone who knew the exact amounts various people were being paid.
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

Lies, lies and more conspiracy lies.

But then again we know dum dums are gonna dum dum because Sandyhook was a hoax.

This is just conspiracy theory #283482342424.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Appears to be nothing but feelings, assumptions and suppositions.
Click to expand...

It isn't, though. Not at all.

Evidence is evidence, but it seems that you are comfortable absorbing whatever narrative your handlers have approved for you. The only people claiming this are those that never once questioned the plain admissions of Trump and those around him, but simply attacked the witnesses. No substance in the GOP questioning, just bullshit. This is the only narrative that you endorse.
 
zinfamous said:
It isn't, though. Not at all.

Evidence is evidence, but it seems that you are comfortable absorbing whatever narrative your handlers have approved for you. The only people claiming this are those that never once questioned the plain admissions of Trump and those around him, but simply attacked the witnesses. No substance in the GOP questioning, just bullshit. This is the only narrative that you endorse.
Click to expand...

This is like when people say all the evidence against someone is circumstantial therefore it doesn't count when they don't seem to realize that people are convicted exclusively on circumstantial evidence all the time. Like if a bank by your house gets robbed and they find plans to the bank in your house, a sack of money from the bank in your closet, and a parking ticket was issued to your car outside the bank at the time it was robbed that's all circumstantial evidence.

In this case we have aid withheld to an ally in defiance of Congress and against the recommendations of all professional staff, with no reason given. We have the president directing Sondland to talk to his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani who tells Sondland to inform Ukraine that all assistance is predicated on investigations into Crowdstrike and the Bidens. We have numerous other public officials who testify to the same thing. You have the president's chief of staff confessing to it publicly and repeatedly before ham handedly walking it back. We now have reports of an after the fact attempt to find a legal justification for withholding aid.

To any rational and objective person the evidence of Trump's guilt is overwhelming.
 
compuwiz1 said:
I suspect the hearings are over. Nothing much happens until after Thanksgiving, then if articles of impeachment are drafted and go to a house vote, it will probably be about first or second week in December. I don't see it playing out this way, if anything, I'd bet they go for Censure. Impeachment being the main focus during an election year is dicey, IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think censure is the proper response to clear, unambiguous, multiple crimes against the constitution, the country, and the American people. I wonder why you think censure is appropriate in light of the unmistakable volumes of evidence levied against Trump?
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

easy, self-justifying reading for the gaslit.
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

This opinion piece is pure propaganda. Not sure why anyone would consider that a win.
 
Luna1968 said:
Andrew McCarthy for the win. He has, by far, been the most intelligent and knowledgeable writer concerning this and the Mueller investigation.


nypost.com

The three big lies Democrats are pushing in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing

In Tuesday morning’s impeachment inquiry hearing, in the questioning of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council and Jennifer Williams of Vice President Mike Pence’s …
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
You picked it because of the title. However let's examine premise #2
There is significant evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. Democrats want to suppress it because the interference was for the benefit of the Clinton campaign. For example, a Ukrainian court concluded in late 2018 that Ukrainian officials, including a parliamentarian and the anti-corruption police, interfered in the US election.

Ukrainian officials were responsible for leaks — in particular, a leak of a dubious ledger showing payments from the then-regime in Kiev — that resulted in Paul Manafort’s being ousted from the Trump campaign. That incident became an important part of the Democrats’ discredited Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Click to expand...

You really think our intelligence agencies could not have flushed out this so called suppressed interference?

Manafort would not have been found guilty of financial fraud if he....wait for it...DIDN'T LIE.

You really need to try harder. Lying to cover up for a liar is kinda tricky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top