Impeachment

Your credibility is shot now lol.

 

I highly suspect some of this cash found its way back to ol Joe. In some way and in some fashion. If it wasnt a stack of Cayman Islands shell companies, it was a suitcase full of cash. And I also suspect Hillary already has the details. There are claims that her threats to expose the Bidens on Ukraine are what really kept him out in 2016.

 

Joe Fan
Your Jim Jordan link has given me my new favorite go to action. That doofus Holmes said while no voiced affirmation that there was wrong doing they did " nod knowingly"
Nod Knowingly can be useful
so when Mc talks about taint I can nod knowingly
when you and others prove there was NO quid pro quo I can nod knowingly
When Mr D talks about the great beer in Germany I can nod knowingly.

Dion Maybe a new emoticon? a Nod knowingly one?

 

Since everything leaks, and since the Dems now say the aid was released only because Trump was "caught", certainly the meetings, orders, directives, whatever, that Trump gave to release the aid because he was "caught", will be leaked. Certainly someone heard him coordinate that. Right?

Trump must have put the squeeze on Zelensky to agree that the phone call was good and he felt no pressure. Career people must have been privy to that squeeze or "feel" that is what happened. When will the Dems come up with all that?

 

@Joe Fan, you have detailed previously how any semblance of conflict of interest or impropriety by these officials is beaten into them, so to speak.

What reprisal should Holmes face for admitting he eavesdropped on Sondland's phone call and then went and told people without a need to know about it?

Isn't it amazing the Dems pin their impeachment on dishonorable guys like him?

 

^ Nods knowingly
That is what I want answered. How could a person in service to our country divulge the conversation between an Ambassador and a POTUS?

 

Rmbr the Taylor testimony? He did a lot of knowing nods -- its one of his things
He even did it with Jordan himself

 

He should be prohibited from holding any govt job again
He admitted, under oath, that he gossiped about the call to his "vacation bros" - a call he eavesdropped on between his boss and the President (who believed he was on a private 2-way call -- in some states, this may have been illegal)

 

Here is a list of those 31 vulnerable House Dems in 2020--all from districts won by Trump--who could now break ranks on the increasingly unpopular impeachment

Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.)
Lucy McBath’s (D-Ga.)
Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.)
Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.)
Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa)
Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa)
Cindy Axne’s (D-Iowa)
Jared Golden (D-Maine)
Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)
Haley Stevens (D-Mich.)
Angie Craig (D-Minn.)
Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
Susie Lee’s (D-Nev.)
Chris Pappas’s (D-N.H.)
Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.)
Andy Kim (D-N.J.)
Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.)
Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.)
Xochitl Torres Small (D-N.M.)
Max Rose (D-N.Y.)
Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.)
Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.)
Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.)
Kendra Horn(D-Okla.)
Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)
Conor Lamb (D-Pa.)
Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.)
Ben McAdams (D-Utah)
Elaine Luria’s (D-Va.)
Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.)
Ron Kind (D-Wis.)​

 

Those Dems have a no win choice to make.

 

It's more like a snipe hunt...the Dems keep sending people out looking for something that simply does not exist...except, in this instance, the ones sending witnesses out on a fool's errand actually believe that the snipe DOES exist...

 

One other possibility on this timeline is that Schiff might try to pull some more highjinx. Is there anyone here who thinks Schiff is incapable of doing something just to be a dick?

How about this -- Schiff schedules a new witness to testify on Dec 9 -- the day the daming FISA report is due out
And/or another witness for Dec 11 -- the day IG Horowitz is due to testify before the Senate about the damning FISA report
Why would he do this?
To give the corrupt media another story to focus on so they can ignore the damning FISA report
He knows they will be looking for any excuse to ignore the dirty deeds of democrats done dirt cheap
If he doesnt, it might be amusing to see what CNN or Rachel Madcow decide to cover that day

 

The polling + their fundraising around their debates tell a pretty dark story

The last Dem Debate had the lowest ratings of all debates this year—just 6.5M

They raised just over $8 million last quarter

The latest polling shows opposition independent voters swung 10 points in favor of Trump

The Rs are raising lots of money​

 

"But I have to deal with crazy Nancy, she's crazy as a ... as a bed bug"

 

I’m guessing out of this group many will be unemployed after their next election.

 

And they have to realize that, so perhaps some will endure the wrath of the Nancy in an attempt to save their jobs?

 

Another one of the other irrational Trump-haters on the R-side is Mark Sanford, who was supposed to be running against him for president in 2020. Not sure what happened to that (lol). But even he has indicated that the Dems have not presented anything coherent that was worthy of impeachment.

If you cant get people like Hurd and Sanford, then all you are left with are goofballs Romney and Amash. Good luck with that

 

This is becoming a more common theme and one that I have been harping on for some time now in here. The context of these tweets are this latest failed impeachment attempt. But its a bigger problem than just Ukraine. And it looks like many others are now beginning to put it all together -- to connect the dots. The light bulb is going off.

There has long existed in our little country, a big scheme -- perpetuated by folks in both parties -- to get "kickbacks" of taxpayer money to them, their families or "close associates." Trump has become a huge threat to those schemes. He is working to turn off the spigot of to these people. And so, I would argue, this is one big reason we have seen so many other "politicians" trying so hard to take him out.

 

Good video clip.

As I've noted multiple times already, none of this testimony would be admissible in a real courtroom. And for good reason. The US rules on evidence and procedure have been developed over 100s of years, some of which are literally from a time before the United States even existed. They are designed primarily at one thing -- getting to the truth of the matter. Sure, trials often become contests just about winning or losing, but this is not the rules' fault. Our rules for trial do the job they are intended to do, and that is get to the truth of the matter at hand. And they are better at it than any other system in human history. And this is why they were not used here. Because these hearings were not about getting to the truth.

 

They all nodded knowingly.

 

And the fact that the Dems called him as a "Fact witness". Laughable.

 

Here's what's odd to me. I don't know if a Republican president could have stopped the forced annexation of Crimea either. But, if you were Russia and were wanting to make this sort of aggressive move, wouldn't you generally expect a Democrat in the USA to be more understanding and accommodating of your position / reasons / excuses / etc than you would a Republican in the USA?

 

Excellent question Stat
Wonder if obama's hot mic slip up had anything to do with Putin doing this?

 

Glad we got that straight

 

Putin took the Obama/Clinton "reset" request as a green light to take Crimea
Maybe you can disagree with his rationale, but this is what they say happened

 

Somehow the NYT let a somewhat pro-Trump piece past the censors - dont know how that happened and it probably wont again

" ... President Trump was doing exactly what voters elected him to do when he asked President Zelensky to account for Ukraine’s dealings with the Bidens. It’s a question related to the overall system linking American politicians with Ukrainian interests. No doubt Mr. Trump sees that system as reflecting more poorly on Democrats than on his own party or himself. But exposing that system, whatever its partisan overtones, is both a legitimate interest of the United States and something that Mr. Trump’s voters expect of him in light of his 2016 campaign.

Are motives like these grounds for impeachment? Democrats might still think so. Unelected officials might think so, too — but officials who believe that they, and not the elected president, are the guardians of America’s foreign relations.

But at core the questions here are political ones, involving not crimes but deep disagreements about America’s role in the world and the role of the world’s interested parties — including Ukraine — in influencing American policies and the politicians who make them. The price of being a world power is that “the swamp” extends beyond our own borders. Mr. Trump wants to change that, hence he thinks it’s proper to demand a public Ukrainian commitment for investigations.

Testimony at this week’s impeachment hearings from Gordon Sondland and other witnesses only underscores the point: President Trump believed it was right to call for Ukraine’s new president, elected on an anti-corruption agenda, to dig into and make public the links between his country, its government, its oligarchs and oil companies, and American political figures like the Bidens. The questions he was pursuing were bigger than the 2020 election."​

Opinion | Trump Is Doing Exactly What He Was Elected to Do

 

I thought SH and others on this board wanted Trump investigated because he may be compromised by info held by foreign countries. Yet, the same principle doesn’t apply to the Bidens? SMH.