6 minutes ago, Tug said:

Been catching many fish on your trolling boat lol naa don’t see it I see trump beeing checked just like the founders set the system up to do donald is beeing exposed for what he is amoral unqualified and a disaster as potus 

Founders set up system for career diplomats to circumvent POTUS if they don't like something?  wow that's new information!  your opinion on POTUS is your personal opinion and I might agree with much of what you think but I loathe the hypocrisy of the Dems more than the craziness of the megalomaniac Trump.

Troll post removed.   Continued baiting and trolling will earn suspensions.  

 

2 hours ago, johnmell said:

Dont know why but i'd like to slap that Schiff's blokes face.

Watching CNN at the moment, and they have 6 pro democrat experts commentating on the hearings, and nil from the other side.

Next three presenters are Anderson, Cuomo and Lemon, and we all know what side of the fence they are on.

A great channel of balanced reporting i think not.

I guess, you'd prefer the "experts" Ducy, Hannity and Carlson?

????

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Founders set up system for career diplomats to circumvent POTUS if they don't like something?  wow that's new information!  your opinion on POTUS is your personal opinion and I might agree with much of what you think but I loathe the hypocrisy of the Dems more than the craziness of the megalomaniac Trump.

Could you pleeeeeeease stop to tell everybody and their aunt that you are basically against Trump?

You are 100% in the pocket of this man and you show it on a daily basis!

I bet, even you don't believe the BS, you try to make us believe!

58 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Could you pleeeeeeease stop to tell everybody and their aunt that you are basically against Trump?

You are 100% in the pocket of this man and you show it on a daily basis!

I bet, even you don't believe the BS, you try to make us believe!

Given his predilection for invoking all kinds of debunked conspiracy theories, it is bizarre that the keeps on making this claim.

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

How about some loyalty?  not their job to question the decisions of an ELECTED POTUS. 

Perhaps the answer is here: "Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley wrote.

“It was their decisions, not the president’s, that were in the best interests of America, they said. The president didn’t know what he was doing,” Haley wrote about the two advisers.

 

I don't think there's much else to say on this because it becomes clear and obvious that when the orange man's own advisers try to undermine him because he doesn't know what he's doing, then it's time to get this clown out of that position.

 

He has shown himself to be unintelligent/dumb and his own staff have finally come to realise this......the only problem being that he cannot be impeached for being stupid.

 

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Perhaps the answer is here: "Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley wrote.

“It was their decisions, not the president’s, that were in the best interests of America, they said. The president didn’t know what he was doing,” Haley wrote about the two advisers.

 

I don't think there's much else to say on this because it becomes clear and obvious that when the orange man's own advisers try to undermine him because he doesn't know what he's doing, then it's time to get this clown out of that position.

 

He has shown himself to be unintelligent/dumb and his own staff have finally come to realise this......the only problem being that he cannot be impeached for being stupid.

 

What's puzzling about this story is that Haley apparently made no attempt to report to Trump about what Kelly and Tillerson allegedly said. What's her excuse for that? By er reckoning should not reporting should clearly be considered a dereliction of duty.

7 hours ago, Kelsall said:

After one day of public testimony the preliminary verdict on the "impeachment inquiry" is:  Nothing burger.

Except that we learned that notes were taken by Taylor during all these meetings and the State Department has not released them.  And that the Ukraine aid was released two days after the White House learned about the whistleblower, and two days before President Zelensky's scheduled news conference in which he was going to announce the investigations that Trump wanted (Zelensky canceled the news conference after the aid was released). And that Trump called Sondland to ask about the investigations, and Sondland stated that Trump cared more about the investigations than he cared about Ukraine.   This proves that Trump was personally involved, he can't claim the affair was Giuliani's doing.  Sondland was on a mobile phone in a Ukraine restaurant, demonstrating that he knew nothing about security.

 

Other than that the testimony just offered further evidence in support of the whistleblower claims.

 

Funny that you consider this a nothing burger.

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Both those diplomats are old school, swampies who don't like change and bit the hand that feeds them. How about some loyalty?  not their job to question the decisions of an ELECTED POTUS. 

The only loyalty that government employees should have is to the constitution. They do not (and should not) owe unswerving, unquestioning loyalty to the president and they absolutely should and must question the decisions of any elected official when those decisions go against US interests and/or the constitution.

 

If the principle that government employees should never question an elected president's decisions held true, impeachment proceedings against Nixon would never have started and he would never have had to resign.

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The only loyalty that government employees should have is to the constitution.

Just to follow up on that, here's the oath of office that federal employees take:

 

Quote

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

No mention of any loyalty owed to the president there.

7 hours ago, Skallywag said:

Trump already got himself.  He has no defense for holding back the approved aid to an ally (Ukraine) fighting against Russia other than his own personal gain.  Only question is will the GOP in the senate trial convict

 

But this is the entire problem, isn't it?  The whole impeachment inquiry is centered around the belief that "If we can just show the Trump supporters what kind of man they elected, then they will turn on him."  The problem is, the Trump supporters not only already know what kind of man they elected, they elected him specifically because of those qualities.  When online polls where his supporters gather show 90+% support for his actions, there is no chance of a conviction. The impeachment is just theater and a farce.

 

There is absolutely no hope of getting a meaningful change in numbers by "exposing" Trump. He is about as transparent as they come. He is a psycopath and a demagogue. His supporters know and accept this. The Democrats, rather than wasting time with impeachment, need to be asking themselves what has been going on for the last 50 years that makes half the voting public think this kind of miscreant is actually a solution.

 

The useful response to Trump is to take a hard look inwards at the history of policies which have created him. Until they are willing to undertake this task, the Democrats are just tilting at windmills. And in that vein, I will end with one of my favorite quotes from Cervantes:

 

“The fault lies not with the mob, who demands nonsense, but with those who do not know how to produce anything else.”

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Except that we learned that notes were taken by Taylor during all these meetings and the State Department has not released them.  And that the Ukraine aid was released two days after the White House learned about the whistleblower, and two days before President Zelensky's scheduled news conference in which he was going to announce the investigations that Trump wanted (Zelensky canceled the news conference after the aid was released). And that Trump called Sondland to ask about the investigations, and Sondland stated that Trump cared more about the investigations than he cared about Ukraine.   This proves that Trump was personally involved, he can't claim the affair was Giuliani's doing.  Sondland was on a mobile phone in a Ukraine restaurant, demonstrating that he knew nothing about security.

 

Other than that the testimony just offered further evidence in support of the whistleblower claims.

 

Funny that you consider this a nothing burger.

We also learnt that people like jordan and ratcliffe have nothing and waste their 5 mins talking about things totally irrelevant. Theyve got nothing.

Link: Fox’s Chris Wallace: Bill Taylor Was ‘Very Impressive’ and ‘Very Damaging’ to Trump

 

"During the first recess in Wednesday’s public impeachment hearing, Fox News anchor Chris Wallace noted that top Ukraine diplomat Bill Taylor was a “very impressive witness” and that his testimony was “very damaging” to President Donald Trump."

 

 

44 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

But this is the entire problem, isn't it?  The whole impeachment inquiry is centered around the belief that "If we can just show the Trump supporters what kind of man they elected, then they will turn on him."  The problem is, the Trump supporters not only already know what kind of man they elected, they elected him specifically because of those qualities.  When online polls where his supporters gather show 90+% support for his actions, there is no chance of a conviction. The impeachment is just theater and a farce.

 

There is absolutely no hope of getting a meaningful change in numbers by "exposing" Trump. He is about as transparent as they come. He is a psycopath and a demagogue. His supporters know and accept this. The Democrats, rather than wasting time with impeachment, need to be asking themselves what has been going on for the last 50 years that makes half the voting public think this kind of miscreant is actually a solution.

 

The useful response to Trump is to take a hard look inwards at the history of policies which have created him. Until they are willing to undertake this task, the Democrats are just tilting at windmills. And in that vein, I will end with one of my favorite quotes from Cervantes:

 

“The fault lies not with the mob, who demands nonsense, but with those who do not know how to produce anything else.”

They can look inwards as much as they like (and I'm not saying they shouldn't) but cannot at the same time ignore impeachable and downright criminal actions by Trump.

The Dems have a duty to act according to the constitution and that's what they're doing (as do the GOP but they sold their souls three years ago and are beyond redemption and contempt).

As to what makes a certain part of the populace reject every trace of rational, fact based and moral thinking I am still at a loss. They've completely lost it.

9 hours ago, Sujo said:

We also learnt that people like jordan and ratcliffe have nothing and waste their 5 mins talking about things totally irrelevant. Theyve got nothing.

Jordan was outstanding.  First he claims there was no wrong done.  He later asserts that DT was baiting Zelensky to see if he was corrupt, thus admitting DT was soliciting corruption.  A great legal mind at work.

 

His past may catch up with him

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/powerful-gop-rep-jim-jordan-accused-turning-blind-eye-sexual-n888386

 

Ratcliffe, Jordan and Nunes equals Moe, Larry and Curly  (aka The Three Stooges).

Even the right-wing press sees the farce

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-ratcliffe-disingenuously-uses-zelenskys-public-comments-to-defend-trump

 

 

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

Jordan was outstanding.  First he claims there was no wrong done.  He later asserts that DT was baiting Zelensky to see if he was corrupt, thus admitting DT was soliciting corruption.  A great legal mind at work.

 

His past may catch up with him

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/powerful-gop-rep-jim-jordan-accused-turning-blind-eye-sexual-n888386

 

Ratcliffe, Jordan and Nunes equals Moe, Larry and Curly  (aka The Three Stooges).

Even the right-wing press sees the farce

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-ratcliffe-disingenuously-uses-zelenskys-public-comments-to-defend-trump

 

 

I don't buy "even the right wing press sees the farce" as you put it.

First this is a opinion piece! .

In the opinion this guy says that Prez Z was pressured regardless of what Prex Z saying he was not! His opinion is that Z is going to say anything to get his aid from  Mr. Trump! Its a fact that Taylor and Volker Sodland confronted Z and asked ,how the call was ,to which Z replied good ,which came out in that impeachment sham hearing.

Secondly, Z didn't need  Mr. Trumps approval for the aid ,if he was pressured he could of went through those diplomats to help get the money from Congress that was already earmarked by Congress!

Prez Z stated no pressure no blackmail and this is a guy that got elected for his anti corruption policy.

 The President asked for cooperation with the 2016 Russian hoax investigation and corruption in the transcript despite what other unelected officials, reported CIA agents opinions that are based on other unelected bias  bureaucrats,its the office of the POTUS that makes foreign policy not career employees of the gov . 

The more that comes out about the Barisma payoff to Biden and his cohorts the better for the    swing voters to determine if they want somebody that"s exposing the washington elites  

and who gets to say what is a sham investigation? Schiff perhaps?

5555555555555555555

 

6 hours ago, bendejo said:

Jordan was outstanding.  First he claims there was no wrong done.  He later asserts that DT was baiting Zelensky to see if he was corrupt, thus admitting DT was soliciting corruption.  A great legal mind at work.

 

His past may catch up with him

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/powerful-gop-rep-jim-jordan-accused-turning-blind-eye-sexual-n888386

 

Ratcliffe, Jordan and Nunes equals Moe, Larry and Curly  (aka The Three Stooges).

Even the right-wing press sees the farce

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-ratcliffe-disingenuously-uses-zelenskys-public-comments-to-defend-trump

 

 

Even the left wing media sees the farcial impeachment attempt as a dud.  LOL

 

Democrat Dud: First Public Impeachment Hearing Falls Short as ‘Complicated,’ Unclear Allegations Drive Inquiry Forward

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/13/democrat-dud-first-public-impeachment-hearing-falls-short-as-complicated-unclear-allegations-drive-inquiry-forward/

 

As to Jordan's past catching up with him, the timing of this old allegation resurfacing is a bit suspect, don't you think.  The story emerged to coincide with the announcement of Jordan's temporary position on this committee.  Are you suggesting complete ignorance as to what smear campaigns are?  Or do you fall for them only when they favour you?

On 11/14/2019 at 7:20 AM, Skallywag said:

Trump already got himself.  He has no defense for holding back the approved aid to an ally (Ukraine) fighting against Russia other than his own personal gain.  Only question is will the GOP in the senate trial convict

The only question is how many fools will believe that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for his own personal gain with zero evidence

.

17 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The only loyalty that government employees should have is to the constitution. They do not (and should not) owe unswerving, unquestioning loyalty to the president and they absolutely should and must question the decisions of any elected official when those decisions go against US interests and/or the constitution.

 

If the principle that government employees should never question an elected president's decisions held true, impeachment proceedings against Nixon would never have started and he would never have had to resign.

A bit of twisted logic there, GroveHillWanderer.  Nixon committed crimes.  Quite different than questioning a President's chosen policy.

 

If government employees disagree with a President's policy they have a few options.  Quit.  Or run for President yourself.  The President sets policy according to the powers granted him by the Constitution.  Policy makers do not get to impose their ideas of what policy should be.  They have an obligation to carry out the President's directives.  Again, if they so strongly disagree then they can quit and run for office themselves.  Has nothing to do with the false suggestion that it's about loyalty to the President.

6 hours ago, bendejo said:

Jordan was outstanding.  First he claims there was no wrong done.  He later asserts that DT was baiting Zelensky to see if he was corrupt, thus admitting DT was soliciting corruption.  A great legal mind at work.

 

His past may catch up with him

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/powerful-gop-rep-jim-jordan-accused-turning-blind-eye-sexual-n888386

 

Ratcliffe, Jordan and Nunes equals Moe, Larry and Curly  (aka The Three Stooges).

Even the right-wing press sees the farce

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-ratcliffe-disingenuously-uses-zelenskys-public-comments-to-defend-trump

 

 

Yea and Schiff doesn't know the whistleblowers name right?  what a farce.

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The only question is how many fools will believe that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for his own personal gain with zero evidence

.

The only question is why the republicans are ok with trump ordering people not give evidence.

 

Republicans are ok to make a decision with facts being withheld. They dont want to know and dont care if the president is corrupt.

 

Why didnt mat gaetz storm the hearing to demand trump direct everyone give evidence if asked.

 

There is already evidence trump tried to bribe ukraine. Sondland admitted it, with direct evidence in a statement already made to congress. 

 

Party above country is the new catchcry of the republican party.

19 hours ago, xylophone said:

Perhaps the answer is here: "Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country,” Haley wrote.

“It was their decisions, not the president’s, that were in the best interests of America, they said. The president didn’t know what he was doing,” Haley wrote about the two advisers.

 

I don't think there's much else to say on this because it becomes clear and obvious that when the orange man's own advisers try to undermine him because he doesn't know what he's doing, then it's time to get this clown out of that position.

 

He has shown himself to be unintelligent/dumb and his own staff have finally come to realise this......the only problem being that he cannot be impeached for being stupid.

 

Haley is absolutely full of it.  Goes along with my post above.  If you are a government employee it is not your position to dictate to the President what you think his policy should be.  And are there to suggest policy for the President.  The President will then decide whether he will agree with your suggestions or not.

 

Haley frames it as government employees, given their personal ideas of what is in America's best interests, should be the ones to decide policy over the President's ideas of what is in America's best interests.  And if the President disagrees then it's fair to accuse him of dereliction.  Haley's logic is twisted.  Though there's reasoning within it the reasoning is a canard.

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Yea and Schiff doesn't know the whistleblowers name right?  what a farce.

You have any evidence to say he does?

 

trump supporters are a funny lot. Evidence trump bribed ukraine and they dont believe it. No evidence schiff knows the whistleblower and hes guilty.

15 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The only question is why the republicans are ok with trump ordering people not give evidence.

 

Republicans are ok to make a decision with facts being withheld. They dont want to know and dont care if the president is corrupt.

 

Why didnt mat gaetz storm the hearing to demand trump direct everyone give evidence if asked.

 

There is already evidence trump tried to bribe ukraine. Sondland admitted it, with direct evidence in a statement already made to congress. 

 

Party above country is the new catchcry of the republican party.

Party above country is the new catchcry of the Democratic party.  This is the only purely partisan impeachment effort in U.S. history.  Well, not quite.  Two Democratic representatives did side with the Republicans.

 

The Democrats don't give a damn about the country.  Their one and only goal is to oust Trump.  And they will utilize all of their resources towards that effort.

 

It's a sham investigation.  It's wholly partisan.  It does not provide any protections for the President.  It does not allow Republicans to call their own witnesses (the most they can do is make a request).  The process is set up to favour the Democrats and to hamstring the Republicans.

 

What you wrote is foolish.

 

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You have any evidence to say he does?

 

trump supporters are a funny lot. Evidence trump bribed ukraine and they dont believe it. No evidence schiff knows the whistleblower and hes guilty.

It's documented that the whistle blower contacted Schiff's staff, if not Schiff himself.  How stoopid do you think you'd have to be to believe that his staffers wouldn't tell him who the whistle blower is?

 

You do understand as well that he cannot admit to knowing who the whistle blower is for obvious reasons?  He's cornered himself and he has no other choice than to lie like a snake.

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

  How stoopid do you think you'd have to be to believe that his staffers wouldn't tell him who the whistle blower is?

 

 

How stupid do you have to be to believe that his staff wouldn't understand the issues at stake and wouldn't insulate their boss from this knowledge?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The only question is how many fools will believe that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for his own personal gain with zero evidence

.

Is there any other reason he would withhold the military aid?  Prey tell

All the top brass "fools" from the Pentagon want to know also.

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's documented that the whistle blower contacted Schiff's staff, if not Schiff himself.  How stoopid do you think you'd have to be to believe that his staffers wouldn't tell him who the whistle blower is?

 

You do understand as well that he cannot admit to knowing who the whistle blower is for obvious reasons?  He's cornered himself and he has no other choice than to lie like a snake.

So you are happy to think schiff guilty with no evidence but trump innocent with evidence of his guilt. Got ya.

 

How do you know the whistleblower told staff his name?

 

Jordan is a hypocrite. Says everything is hearsay, which it isnt, but refuses to ask for bolton, mulvaney, pompeo evidence.

 

repubs are afraid of the truth.

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's documented that the whistle blower contacted Schiff's staff, if not Schiff himself.  How stoopid do you think you'd have to be to believe that his staffers wouldn't tell him who the whistle blower is?

 

You do understand as well that he cannot admit to knowing who the whistle blower is for obvious reasons?  He's cornered himself and he has no other choice than to lie like a snake.

How stoopid would you have to be to think trump didnt know what sondland and giuliano where doing.