51 minutes ago, quandow said:

And how many wonderful, honorable, decorated career civil servants has trump discredited because they put him in a sour mood by not kissing his a$$?  He is asking for everything he's going to get.

 

Are they all truly wonderful, honorable, decorated career civil servants?  I make no such assumption based strictly on appearance.  You don't know them, certainly not personally.  What convinces you that they are who they project themselves to be?  Not suggesting they are necessarily corrupt, though some may be.  Some could very well be well intentioned but simply misguided.  I prefer not to judge a book by it's cover.

 

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” ― T.S. Eliot

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Contrast that with the person who wields authority over all the Depts. of the Federal Government, including the Dept. of Justice:

 

Again, I will refer folks to the Flynn case, which I have been following.  The government's methods are being exposed and they are quite damning.  Unbelievably damning.  I have not followed Stone's case at all but given what is coming out about Flynn I'll reserve my judgment on Stone's fate.  And again, if I'm unfamiliar with details I will choose to presume innocence before I go off half loaded and lynch someone only to find later that I was in error.  Some call it the benefit of the doubt.  Costs me nothing and affords me a clear conscience.

 

42 minutes ago, candide said:

He tries to make sure that the case is well investigated and does it in a quite ethical manner.

LOL.  A whole lot of people beg to differ.  Obviously including myself.  Even the Washington Post gave him 4 Pinocchios due to his lies about not having contact with the whistle blower.  Ethical?  Denying witnesses from testifying.  Well investigated?  Sigh.

26 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its obvious you dont understand this is not a trial. It is an investigation.

The pursuit of truth should be tantamount to any investigation.  Don't you believe that?

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  A whole lot of people beg to differ.  Obviously including myself.  Even the Washington Post gave him 4 Pinocchios due to his lies about not having contact with the whistle blower.  Ethical?  Denying witnesses from testifying.  Well investigated?  Sigh.

Obvious Trumpist propaganda to distract attention from the core issues.

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The pursuit of truth should be tantamount to any investigation.  Don't you believe that?

Then why does Trump prevent the pursuit of truth by forbidding people from testifying?

11 hours ago, bendejo said:

Sonderland is up next week.  The guy is probably living in a pool of his own sweat afraid they're going to cancel his ticket.

Don't leave the house this weekend, Gordon.

 

 

Why? Does he have something on the Clintons?

 

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, I will refer folks to the Flynn case, which I have been following.  The government's methods are being exposed and they are quite damning.  Unbelievably damning.  I have not followed Stone's case at all but given what is coming out about Flynn I'll reserve my judgment on Stone's fate.  And again, if I'm unfamiliar with details I will choose to presume innocence before I go off half loaded and lynch someone only to find later that I was in error.  Some call it the benefit of the doubt.  Costs me nothing and affords me a clear conscience.

 

If you have been following the Flynn case (and understanding it) you’ll know Flynn cut a deal and was treated extremely leniently by the FBI. He was very likely to receive little if any prison time.

 

Then for some reason he changed his lawyer and started playing stupid games with his plea bargain.

 

He’s now very likely to get sentenced to significant time in the slammer.

 

More fool him.

7 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Why? Does he have something on the Clintons?

 

No, he is a first hand witness to Trump’s attempts to bribe the Ukrainian President.

 

He omitted significant testimony from his appearance before the Congressional Investigation and then thought better of it and went back to ‘correct’ his testimony.

 

In the meantime a direct witness to Sondland’s call with Trump discussing Trump’s attempt at Bribery has come forward, given sworn testimony and named two other direct witnesses.

 

Sondland, takes the stand with facts to relate in the knowledge Congress has corroborating witnesses to the events he will be examined on.

 

As I’ve said, if you didn’t like the behind closed door investigations, you’ll just love the public hearings.

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The pursuit of truth should be tantamount to any investigation.  Don't you believe that?

There is a full transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President hidden on an Intelligence Service server (where it has not business being).

 

Trump can pull the rug under any false claims regarding what was said in his phone call simply by handing that transcript to Congress.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Are they all truly wonderful, honorable, decorated career civil servants?  I make no such assumption based strictly on appearance.  You don't know them, certainly not personally.  What convinces you that they are who they project themselves to be?  Not suggesting they are necessarily corrupt, though some may be.  Some could very well be well intentioned but simply misguided.  I prefer not to judge a book by it's cover.

 

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” ― T.S. Eliot

Strange to quote that from Eliot, since that is the one thing Trump can not be accused of.

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, he is a first hand witness to Trump’s attempts to bribe the Ukrainian President.

 

He omitted significant testimony from his appearance before the Congressional Investigation and then thought better of it and went back to ‘correct’ his testimony.

 

In the meantime a direct witness to Sondland’s call with Trump discussing Trump’s attempt at Bribery has come forward, given sworn testimony and named two other direct witnesses.

 

Sondland, takes the stand with facts to relate in the knowledge Congress has corroborating witnesses to the events he will be examined on.

 

As I’ve said, if you didn’t like the behind closed door investigations, you’ll just love the public hearings.

I'm sure you are right as you have been over the last 3 years. This time though is really going to be the end of Trump, really really this time. I really mean it this time for sure. Beginning of the end or is it the end of the beginning? No way he can survive this, Impeach 45!

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you have been following the Flynn case (and understanding it) you’ll know Flynn cut a deal and was treated extremely leniently by the FBI. He was very likely to receive little if any prison time.

 

Then for some reason he changed his lawyer and started playing stupid games with his plea bargain.

 

He’s now very likely to get sentenced to significant time in the slammer.

 

More fool him.

Flynn was deliberately set up.  The government withheld exculpatory information from his lawyers.  His case is likely to get tossed.  From what you write, Chomper, it's telling that you know really nothing about the case.  If you did it wouldn't be possible to write what you did.  The proof is in the pudding.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Flynn was deliberately set up.  The government withheld exculpatory information from his lawyers.  His case is likely to get tossed.  From what you write, Chomper, it's telling that you know really nothing about the case.  If you did it wouldn't be possible to write what you did.  The proof is in the pudding.

The proof of that pudding will be Flynn’s sentencing.

 

We’ll discuss again when that happens.

19 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Democrats say Yovanovitch was pulled back to Washington to clear the way for Trump allies to persuade Ukraine to launch corruption probes into Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

If she was perceived by WH officials who advise Mr. Trump as a bad ambassador  and had loyalties to Porosencho and unkind to the new President which Prez Z admitted to than Yovanovitch who served the POTUS should go back to what ever dark place she came out of . 

https://www.axios.com/marie-yovanovitch-threatened-impeachment-hearing-ukraine-a5ab9f1e-aa6a-435c-999c-61132b0df93b.html

IMHO Trump brought the whole Yoyanovitch problem down on himself.  Instead of getting Giuliani involved and publicly calling her a bad woman and attacking her character he could have just quietly replaced her  as has has the authority to do so.  But no, he made a typical Trumpian debacle out of it trying to force the Ukraine to op[en investigations of Biden and Son.  And then to further his screw up his tweet disparaging remarks about her during her hearing was really stupid! Sondland's hearing next week will be interesting after then testimony of the Counselor, and others, that overheard hi\s call with Trump.  I suspect he will either take the 5th or be a no show or, or maybe,  make a deal with Schiff to tell the truth for and agreement not to charge him for lying to Congress alla Roger Stone et all.  Next week will be interesting but aren't they all.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yep, I read what you wrote in response to Sirineou.

 

Nothing in that discussion explains your triggered insertion of the rather bizarre ‘white, old man, privilege’  which is there for all to see.

 

I have provided you with a brief explanation of ‘Executive Privilege’, it is central to much of the impeachment debate and worth you trying to get a grasp of.

 

I suggest you drop the ‘white, old man, privilege’ bit, the record of what you said on the matter is quite clear.

Even FOX news has lost faith in this idiot:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-host-calls-trump-big-dumb-baby-for-attacking-marie-yovanovich-during-impeachment-hearings/ar-BBWPI2H?ocid=spartanntp

19 minutes ago, wayned said:

IMHO Trump brought the whole Yoyanovitch problem down on himself.  Instead of getting Giuliani involved and publicly calling her a bad woman and attacking her character he could have just quietly replaced her  as has has the authority to do so.  But no, he made a typical Trumpian debacle out of it trying to force the Ukraine to op[en investigations of Biden and Son. 

This actually underlines DT's lack of knowledge regarding how things work in gov't and the consequences of not having smart and experienced people around him.  If he was savvy he would have made up a gov't job for Giuliani, with a title like Special Commercial Attache to Eastern Europe or some such nonsense, and thus would have given those ghouls the cloak of US gov't cover: if he did, all this stuff could be hidden under classified gov't operations (you know, like the blacked-out parts of the Mueller-Barr report).  It didn't work for Nixon but it would have given people like Barr and his other sycophants something to work with.  DT has the US Attorney General licking his deleted boots but doesn't realize the extent to which he can use that, instead he is just uses it to bully.

We're lucky he doesn't have Dick Cheney as an advisor.

 

 

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I prefer not to judge a book by it's cover.

You apparently prefer to judge according to what Faux Noise tells you to think. EVERY one of the people testifying so far are career professionals with impeccable reputations, Vindman was a decorated war hero - you can't say that about the subject of the impeachment. He is a liar, an adulterer, a draft dodger, etc. Try something other than Faux, you may be surprised what's actually happening out there.

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

This actually underlines DT's lack of knowledge regarding how things work in gov't and the consequences of not having smart and experienced people around him.  If he was savvy he would have made up a gov't job for Giuliani, with a title like Special Commercial Attache to Eastern Europe or some such nonsense, and thus would have given those ghouls the cloak of US gov't cover: if he did, all this stuff could be hidden under classified gov't operations (you know, like the blacked-out parts of the Mueller-Barr report).  It didn't work for Nixon but it would have given people like Barr and his other sycophants something to work with.  DT has the US Attorney General licking his deleted boots but doesn't realize the extent to which he can use that, instead he is just uses it to bully.

We're lucky he doesn't have Dick Cheney as an advisor.

 

 

I’m waiting to see what ‘Insurance’ Giuliani thinks he has.

11 minutes ago, quandow said:

You apparently prefer to judge according to what Faux Noise tells you to think. EVERY one of the people testifying so far are career professionals with impeccable reputations, Vindman was a decorated war hero - you can't say that about the subject of the impeachment. He is a liar, an adulterer, a draft dodger, etc. Try something other than Faux, you may be surprised what's actually happening out there.

Yes, I'm waiting for the counter-witnesses to come forward, and prove all these people wrong.  His cadre may be spineless sycophants but most are not dumb enough to perjure themselves (bad move firing Sean Spicer, DT).  Even Barr himself backs off at contempt of Congress, which was one of the charges Nixon would have faced.  Attacks on those bringing the charges, the witnesses, and the workings of gov't itself only serves to make them look like sniveling, guilty cowards.

So there it is: if all these things are false, show evidence.  I know the GOP understands what evidence is, they've been lecturing us on what it is and isn't since Jan. 21 2017.  Make your case, prove all the charges false and stand there with your heads held high.  Simple as that.  The swamp vermin are supposed to be your opposition, remember?

 

 

For Trump to have done all the things that he has been accused of, he would have to be a Democrat!

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Their evidence was that they could not find an impeachable offense in Trump's call.  Just before that Kent was asked directly if he had any evidence that Zelensky was lying to the world when Zelensky gave testimony to the press that there was no pressure, no conditions imposed, no blackmail, and stated about the call that, "This was not corruption, this is not corruption, this was just a call."

 

All that counts for nothing?  Right?

I did read this in Kent's opening statement:

"In mid-August, it became clear to me that Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically- motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelenskyy’s desire for a White House meeting."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/george-kent-opening-statement-today-impeachment-hearings-070451

Did you miss that one?

Did you miss the one where Jim Jordan completely destroys Kent's "clear to me" narrative?

 

 

Argumentative posts which continued after a previous reply to previously removed posts have been removed.  

 

 

 

 

Not that more first-hand, damning evidence is needed but, here you go...

 

just in time for Thanksgiving, maybe this year the turkey will pardon the president?

 

 

Committees Release Morrison and Williams Transcripts as Part of Impeachment Inquiry

 

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/11/committees-release-morrison-and-williams-transcripts-as-part-of-impeachment-inquiry

 

 

Excerpts from Joint Deposition
Timothy Morrison
Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia, National Security Council

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191114_-_morrison_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/morrison_final_version.pdf

 

 

Morrison is a Republican...

 

"Ambassador Taylor wrote, and I quote, "Ambassador Sondland told
Mn. Yermak that secunity assistance money would not come until
Pnesident Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation, " end
quote.

My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's proposal to
Mn. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian
Prosecuton General, not President Zelensky, would commit to pursue the
Burisma investigation."

 

 

 

Excerpts from Joint Deposition
Jennifer Williams
Special Adviser to the Vice President for Europe and Russia

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191114_-_williams_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf

 

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/williams_final_version_with_letter.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, hyku1147 said:

More hearsay:

 

Hearsay is admissable.

 

The WH could release the full transcript. That would clear up any misunderstandings, right?

 

 

MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
(C) Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

 

The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor
who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.
_·A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your
very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people
involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_
mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will ask him to call yoti along with the Attorney·_
·· General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very
capable guy. If you could _speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States,· the woman., was bad
news and the people she was dealing with in .the Ukraine .were bad
news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing,
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.
Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if
you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

 

 

37 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

[...]

The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman., was  bad news and the people she was dealing with in .the Ukraine .were bad news so I just want to let you know that. 

[...]

Not sure why you highlight this part. Spin?

 

Primary responsibilities of the President include 1) discussions and relationships with other heads of state, 2) appointing and changing ambassadors who support inter-nation relationships. From Wiki "The foreign government to which an ambassador is assigned must first approve the person."

 

Thus, the president has an right, obligation, and duty to discus ambassadorial relationships with foreign heads of state.

 

9 hours ago, wayned said:

IMHO Trump brought the whole Yoyanovitch problem down on himself.  Instead of getting Giuliani involved and publicly calling her a bad woman and attacking her character he could have just quietly replaced her  as has has the authority to do so.  But no, he made a typical Trumpian debacle out of it trying to force the Ukraine to op[en investigations of Biden and Son.  And then to further his screw up his tweet disparaging remarks about her during her hearing was really stupid! Sondland's hearing next week will be interesting after then testimony of the Counselor, and others, that overheard hi\s call with Trump.  I suspect he will either take the 5th or be a no show or, or maybe,  make a deal with Schiff to tell the truth for and agreement not to charge him for lying to Congress alla Roger Stone et all.  Next week will be interesting but aren't they all.

If it wasn't for Trump it would all be as boring as watching paint dry. Just a big pile of Democrat nonsense fed to the sheep.

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well then, you're admitting that you believe President Zelensky was lying.  You won't believe he spoke the truth in all of the interviews he gave to all of the press agencies.

 

Well, to put it another way, since it's not a question that you want to see Trump impeached and removed from office then you cannot, cannot believe President Zelensky spoke the truth.  Because to do so you would then no longer be able to argue for impeachment.  Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively?

 

This is why I posted earlier:

 

To slightly rephrase an Upton Sinclair quote:  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary bias and political leanings depends upon his not understanding it."

 

Do you understand the truth of that statement, bristolboy?  I sure do.  And so do a whole lot of other people on these threads.

 

And since the truth is opposite your desire then by hook or crook you will lie, cheat or steal or do anything else that is required to squash the truth.  This is how deranged the left is.  They are willing to destroy America as long as they can get Trump.

 

Everyone knows it, bristolboy.  It's not a secret.  It's all out in the open.

 

 

Do you understand the hypocrisy of your argument 'Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively? when you in turn constantly argue with very little fairness and absolutely no objectivity?

Evidence is mounting on a daily basis but you (and we are not holding our breath you ever will) have never said a bad word against Trump and the rest of his mafia gang. Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk and still you berate, obfuscate and deflect along an increasingly desperate GOP's standard line (where's the whistleblower; it's all hearsay; but, but The Bidens). Yovanovitch has testified under oath that she was pulled back to Washington to clear the way for Trump allies to persuade Ukraine to launch corruption probes into Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Bill Taylor has confirmed there was a conversation between Sondland and Trump overheard from a staffer (David Holmes) and in turn Holmes has also testified under oath that he was present when Trump had asked Sondland “So, he’s going to do the investigation?” to which Sondland responded by saying that Zelensky “loves your ass,” that he would pursue the investigation, and that he would do “anything you ask him to.” Now I'm sure you will probably argue (yet again) that this is second hand hearsay as Holmes wasn't actually on the call which leads us nicely to 'memory man' Gordon Sondland.

This is going to be the the Dems star witness. A Trump appointee and a man who was actually on the calls and is deep, deep in the middle of it all. Now we already know that Sondland has changed his tune in a new, revised statement were he has testified “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” but since he has also categorily denied there was any 'quid pro quo/bribery' in previous statements it will be super interesting to see which story he will stick to, especially now there is a clear threat of perjury. Personally I think he has no choice now other than to come completely clean and honestly tell the world what was actually said in those calls.

So berate Yovanovitch all you want for feeling threatened about Trumps tweets (like that's the important part of all of this) or for Bill Talyor only having 'hearsay' evidence because, you know, he wasn't actually on the call but I wonder how you are going to defend Trump when Sondland confirms all the other witness testimonies are true and accurate?  

Oh and whilst we are are on the subject of berating witnesses, please keep in mind that John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mick Mulvaney himself and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget (who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry) have all refused congressional subpoenas to impear at the impeachment hearings. This is on top of the scores of other Trump acolytes who have refused to appear at the hearings.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trumps doing a pretty damning job of hiding everyone who has first hand knowledge of all these conversations. Now I wonder why that could be? 

 

  

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Not sure why you highlight this part. Spin?

 

Primary responsibilities of the President include 1) discussions and relationships with other heads of state, 2) appointing and changing ambassadors who support inter-nation relationships. From Wiki "The foreign government to which an ambassador is assigned must first approve the person."

 

Thus, the president has an right, obligation, and duty to discus ambassadorial relationships with foreign heads of state.

 

"The foreign government to which an ambassador is assigned must first approve the person."

Except, of course, she had already been approved. So totally irrelevant.

And you think that the President has carte blanche to say whatever he likes to another head of state? Is it okay to ask for a bribe, for instance?