Jump to content

impeachment hearing play by play


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Republicans have firm grasp of legalese. Their ethics are perfectly suited to taking advantage of the situation. Their grasp of science allows them to deny basic laws of thermodynamics which in turn p

This is my 5,000th post.  That's a lot and, by the deal I made with myself, it will be my last one until tRump is driven away from the White House. I am using it to say, simply, that no matter ho

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Curious - what is he lying about?  And if you think he is creepy have you looked at Schiff????

He implied the witnesses do not have first hand knowledge.  Vindman didn't have first hand knowledge?  He was on the fucking 25 July phone call and tried to get the 'word for word' transcript amended to be accurate.   

What have you started with this morning, screwdrivers, bloody Marys, sea breezes, toilet booze...?

As you listen to the testimony, keep in mind that Taylor was initially appointed by GWB and asked to return by DJT's administration.  Don't get sucked into buying the GOP's lame attempt at defending Trump's actions.  Even you are smarter than that only because their efforts are really, really dumb.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Curious - what is he lying about?  And if you think he is creepy have you looked at Schiff????

Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please end the Repub fiction of "Dems not able to get Trump with Mueller, and are now grasping at straws" fiction?

Mueller was a REPUBLICAN investigation. This amount of stupid just hurts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

America should have saved all this wasted time and tax payers money and just listened to the tape.....

What else do you need?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Keith said:

America should have saved all this wasted time and tax payers money and just listened to the tape.....

What else do you need?

there is no tape.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Keith said:

America should have saved all this wasted time and tax payers money and just listened to the tape.....

What else do you need?

It helps to remember what Churchill said about America: something to the effect that America gets to the right answer, but tries out (or bickers about) all the other answers first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

Nunes is creepy fucking liar!!

Curious - what is he lying about?  And if you think he is creepy have you looked at Schiff????

Well, for a start yeah Schiff is not my favorite guy in all the world. He is overly fond of the sound of his own voice.

However, Nunes began by stating that there was no evidence (a lie), that the Democrats were engaged in a partisan effort that undermines the Constitution (the 2nd part is a lie), that the Republicans had no fair part in the hearings (a lie, why else was he using up oxygen talking), that the acts attributed to Trump were equivalent to those done by Hillary and Obama (a lie and also a deflection).

Etc etc etc.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Trump cared more about investigating the Biden's, than saving the lives of Ukranian's being slaughtered by Putin's sodier's.

Yup. 

 Bill Taylor -

“Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said:

Curious - what is he lying about?  And if you think he is creepy have you looked at Schiff????

I think you need to go down to LA County (California Congressional district 28 I think) and let them know they have elected a creepy looking guy to Congress.  I’m sure that will be enough to get Schiff booted out of office.  Perhaps carrying a sign with a picture of Schiff looking particularly creepy while walking the streets and loudly speaking the truth to passers bye would help?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sean said:

Yup. 

 Bill Taylor -

“Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.”

Exactly.  :unsure:  

But Schiff looks creepy!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:

I will be shocked if one question of substance is asked.  This is their time to clear the Pres and they will fail to do so.

And someone actually heard Trump!  Cat out of bag.  Cat alive.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Drinking game.  

Take a shot every time Republicans ask about the actual actions of the president.

But I like to drink!  I’m not a tee totaler........

that means I can work on the boat!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Voyageur said:

why didn't Jordan protect the wrestlers in the pizza joint basement?

Because he was an assistant coach.  Assistant coaches do what they are told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yeah, it is certainly not relevant that Taylor has no direct knowledge of anything.  How dare he point that out.

Actually, Taylor has direct knowledge of many things, but none of those things prop up the fiction that the Trumpublicans are trying to sell.

I have not watched the hearing continuously, but I have yet to hear any (R) question that didn't turn into a harangue.

Jordan was just yelling that because Ukrainian Pres. Zelensky didn't mention being blackmailed in prior meetings, or press conferences, that NONE OF THIS HAPPENED!! and every time the witness attempted to speak in answer, Jordan yelled again "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!"

Yes, what a brilliant legal defense of the President

Edit to add- so far the Trumpublicans have referred three times to Obama's statement "I will have more flexibility after the election." Have they said anything about "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?"

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, Taylor has direct knowledge of many things, but none of those things prop up the fiction that the Trumpublicans are trying to sell.

I have not watched the hearing continuously, but I have yet to hear any (R) question that didn't turn into a harangue.

Jordan was just yelling that because Ukrainian Pres. Zelensky didn't mention being blackmailed in prior meetings, or press conferences, that NONE OF THIS HAPPENED!! and every time the witness attempted to speak in answer, Jordan yelled again "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!"

Yes, what a brilliant legal defense of the President

Edit to add- so far the Trumpublicans have referred three times to Obama's statement "I will have more flexibility after the election." Have they said anything about "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?"

- DSK

After listening to Republicans, I guess corruption is ok now.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amati said:

After listening to Republicans, I guess corruption is ok now.  

 

Yes, he did nothing wrong, "Your impeachment investigation is very weak".  Much of the testimony was hearsay and therefor false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, Taylor has direct knowledge of many things, but none of those things prop up the fiction that the Trumpublicans are trying to sell.

 

- DSK

Besides an article he read in the NY Times, what direct knowledge does Taylor have?  I guess that knowledge is so important that you didn't even bother to specify.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jzk said:

Besides an article he read in the NY Times, what direct knowledge does Taylor have?  I guess that knowledge is so important that you didn't even bother to specify.  

Trump is welcome to come to the House and testify!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Besides an article he read in the NY Times, what direct knowledge does Taylor have?  I guess that knowledge is so important that you didn't even bother to specify.  

Good move, attack the credibility of a witness. Better yet, the man is a West Pointer and a combat veteran, trying to smear him is a Trumpalo two-fer! Taylor is a long standing diplomatic and military expert on Eastern Europe, especially Russian relations. I'm sure he knows a lot of things that are a mystery to most Trumpalos, like where the Ukraine is.

Where's the proof... or even any factual evidence... of Trump's innocence? That's what "defense" means in a legal setting.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dacapo said:

not terribly thrilled with Castro's line of questioning. he didn't help much IMHO. (not to take away from the entire testimony)

Actually I thought he made some good points. Like the one about asking about the implications of allowing a President to us his authority to encourage... or even demand... that a foreign gov't prosecute a private US citizen. I was also impressed with Rep. Hurd (R-Texas).

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Good move, attack the credibility of a witness. Better yet, the man is a West Pointer and a combat veteran, trying to smear him is a Trumpalo two-fer! Taylor is a long standing diplomatic and military expert on Eastern Europe, especially Russian relations. I'm sure he knows a lot of things that are a mystery to most Trumpalos, like where the Ukraine is.

Where's the proof... or even any factual evidence... of Trump's innocence? That's what "defense" means in a legal setting.

- DSK

Is this a real post?  It seems rather stupid even for you.  I asked you what direct knowledge the witness has.  Implied is what knowledge he has to the topic of the hearing.  How is that smearing him, his college or his combat?

To Taylor's credit, he never claimed direct knowledge of anything.  It wasn't his idea to be there.  Why was he there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Is this a real post?  It seems rather stupid even for you.  I asked you what direct knowledge the witness has.  Implied is what knowledge he has to the topic of the hearing.  How is that smearing him, his college or his combat?

To Taylor's credit, he never claimed direct knowledge of anything.  It wasn't his idea to be there.  Why was he there?

Good question. Perhaps we should start with something simple, but then "subpoena" is kind of a big word for you.

It's nice that you give Taylor at least a little bit of credit. Doesn't undo your previous nasty smear attempt, though.

Do you know of any evidence that President Trump didn't attempt to subvert US foreign policy to blackmail Ukraine? Or do you think that's OK?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Good move, attack the credibility of a witness. Better yet, the man is a West Pointer and a combat veteran, trying to smear him is a Trumpalo two-fer! Taylor is a long standing diplomatic and military expert on Eastern Europe, especially Russian relations. I'm sure he knows a lot of things that are a mystery to most Trumpalos, like where the Ukraine is.

Where's the proof... or even any factual evidence... of Trump's innocence? That's what "defense" means in a legal setting.

- DSK

Actually, JZK’s tactic backfires-  because now we can ask who has direct information, and ask them to come and testify-  oh no!:o  They’re all involved in court trying to avoid testifying!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amati said:

Actually, JZK’s tactic backfires-  because now we can ask who has direct information, and ask them to come and testify-  oh no!:o  They’re all involved in court trying to avoid testifying!

Well, it's certainly strong evidence of his innocence that Trump is illegally ordering gov't employees to not give testimony.

Add violation of the Hatch Act (the one against gov't employees getting involved in political campaigns, or politicians ordering them to) to the charges, officer

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'd be more impressed with Hurd if he hadn't voted against these proceedings.

That was the card in the hand he was dealt, a given from the moment he sat down at the table. It would be a pleasant surprise if he ... and more Trumpublicans... had voted for it. Especially since they are essentially voting against the performing a Constitutional duty and by doing so, undercutting their own Constitutional authority.

I wonder what our late Congressman, Rep Walter B. Jones, would have done.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the whole damned thing.

I watched it on Fox BTW, the second half. They didn't have much to add in the chirons, though at the end the dweeby looking guy from the Sunday show provided a succint and fair analysis. Before, of course, the pinch faced bleached botox victims came out with the pom-poms.

My takeaway...

The GOP is trying to kill this thing on the first day. Talking about "Star Witnesses" and all this crap, without having the with to realize that the first witness are the weakest, and are only there to lay groundwork and traps for calling more serious ones later.

Nunes looked like a buffoon, spewing his spittle-flecked Infowars retreads. Gym Jordan gets points for enthusiasm and not actually spitting, but he forgot a few cogent points of fact.

This the is the opening gambit. Moving out a pawn. The rest is coming.

Schiff was spot on when he pointed out the timing of the reveal of the Whistleblower to Congress, then Trump releasing the funds two days later. It totally undercut the "What, the Ukraine guy never did the interview on CNN" line of reasoning from the Republicans.

Someone needs to shave Gym Jordan's combover. He needs to own his bald head.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Good move, attack the credibility of a witness. Better yet, the man is a West Pointer and a combat veteran, trying to smear him is a Trumpalo two-fer! Taylor is a long standing diplomatic and military expert on Eastern Europe, especially Russian relations. I'm sure he knows a lot of things that are a mystery to most Trumpalos, like where the Ukraine is.

Where's the proof... or even any factual evidence... of Trump's innocence? That's what "defense" means in a legal setting.

- DSK

I want JZK on my jury if I ever get into trouble.  Sure, a cop found me standing over the body holding the gun that matched the bullet that killed the victim and the gun was in my name and I had gun shot residue on my hands and people had seen me arguing with the victim minutes before threatening to shoot him. 

But as JZK would point out and argue, did anyone see me pull the trigger?  Morons like him are a defendant's dream.  

Ok JZK, Taylor, the non-credible witness you love has been appointed Ambassador to the Ukraine by two Presidents, what party affiliation did those two Presidents share?  Even amongst Trump supporters, you stand out for being a moron.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I want JZK on my jury if I ever get into trouble.  Sure, a cop found me standing over the body holding the gun that matched the bullet that killed the victim and the gun was in my name and I had gun shot residue on my hands and people had seen me arguing with the victim minutes before threatening to shoot him. 

But as JZK would point out and argue, did anyone see me pull the trigger?  Morons like him are a defendant's dream.  

Ok JZK, Taylor, the non-credible witness you love has been appointed Ambassador to the Ukraine by two Presidents, what party affiliation did those two Presidents share?  Even amongst Trump supporters, you stand out for being a moron.  

Oh shit !...which liberal died now ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tuned in when the Republican counsel was on.  That was the best they could get? 

But the Dems really need to stay better focused.  This is about shaking down a fledgling democracy trying to protect itself from fucking Russia.  Gym Jordan was trying to claim nothing happened because the quid pro quo hadn't been fully carried out.  I was waiting for some Dem to ask Taylor and Kent this:

Q: As State Department officials you are aware of the rules and laws that govern your job.  Is one of those knowing what a quid pro quo is?

A: Yes.

Q: If you made a quid pro quo for the purposes of personal gain, would that be illegal?

A: Yes.

Q: Would the trade of this for that need to be completed to make that quid pro quo illegal?

A No. 

That's all they had to do.  Why is it so hard for the Dems to pound the facts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually I thought he made some good points. Like the one about asking about the implications of allowing a President to us his authority to encourage... or even demand... that a foreign gov't prosecute a private US citizen. I was also impressed with Rep. Hurd (R-Texas).

- DSK

agreed with Hurd

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jules said:

I tuned in when the Republican counsel was on.  That was the best they could get? 

But the Dems really need to stay better focused.  This is about shaking down a fledgling democracy trying to protect itself from fucking Russia.  Gym Jordan was trying to claim nothing happened because the quid pro quo hadn't been fully carried out.  I was waiting for some Dem to ask Taylor and Kent this:

Q: As State Department officials you are aware of the rules and laws that govern your job.  Is one of those knowing what a quid pro quo is?

A: Yes.

Q: If you made a quid pro quo for the purposes of personal gain, would that be illegal?

A: Yes.

Q: Would the trade of this for that need to be completed to make that quid pro quo illegal?

A No. 

That's all they had to do.  Why is it so hard for the Dems to pound the facts?

Agreed.

And after the Republican asked how many OTHER nations had issues with corruption, the next Dem should have asked, "How many other times has this president

asked other nations to investigate a specific person?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

I want JZK on my jury if I ever get into trouble.  Sure, a cop found me standing over the body holding the gun that matched the bullet that killed the victim and the gun was in my name and I had gun shot residue on my hands and people had seen me arguing with the victim minutes before threatening to shoot him. 

But as JZK would point out and argue, did anyone see me pull the trigger?  Morons like him are a defendant's dream.  

Ok JZK, Taylor, the non-credible witness you love has been appointed Ambassador to the Ukraine by two Presidents, what party affiliation did those two Presidents share?  Even amongst Trump supporters, you stand out for being a moron.  

Who said Taylor was not credible?  Taylor admitted as to not having any direct knowledge.  That is not a credibility problem.  Why are you making shit up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike G said:
30 minutes ago, Jules said:

I tuned in when the Republican counsel was on.  That was the best they could get? 

But the Dems really need to stay better focused.  This is about shaking down a fledgling democracy trying to protect itself from fucking Russia.  Gym Jordan was trying to claim nothing happened because the quid pro quo hadn't been fully carried out.  I was waiting for some Dem to ask Taylor and Kent this:

Q: As State Department officials you are aware of the rules and laws that govern your job.  Is one of those knowing what a quid pro quo is?

A: Yes.

Q: If you made a quid pro quo for the purposes of personal gain, would that be illegal?

A: Yes.

Q: Would the trade of this for that need to be completed to make that quid pro quo illegal?

A No. 

That's all they had to do.  Why is it so hard for the Dems to pound the facts?

Agreed.

And after the Republican asked how many OTHER nations had issues with corruption, the next Dem should have asked, "How many other times has this president

asked other nations to investigate a specific person?"

 

You guys are good, but remember.... never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Besides, the game here is to compile sound bites to convince the American public that they really don't like Trumpublicans. I think the best to come out of todays hearing was Rep. Jordan shouting into his microphone to interrupt the witness "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!" .(pause) W: "I n..." Jordan (instantly) "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!" (pause) W: "b-" (instantly) "IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!" fuckin' asshole.

Aside from the fact that his assertion "it never happened" is absurd, which is a logical point lost on Trumpublicans anyway.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jizz kid is still here? I thought that he'd slunk away in shame a long time ago....

 Oh well.... Every so often the drain backs up.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Trump claims to know nothing about his over heard phone call with Sondland RE Ukraine “.investigations”.  The Taylor staffer will be deposed post haste.  Sondland’s testimony wrt the call will be entertaining.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-on-phone-call-bill-taylor-detailed-in-testimony-i-know-nothing-about-that/

I wonder if Sondland feels that he got his money's worth out of the Ambassador experience.  He was quick to refresh his testimony when it was clear he was caught in a lie and similarly, I think he will tell the truth about the above phone call.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I wonder if Sondland feels that he got his money's worth out of the Ambassador experience.  He was quick to refresh his testimony when it was clear he was caught in a lie and similarly, I think he will tell the truth about the above phone call.  

How many times do you think his wife has said: "I told you not to get involved with this administration(fucking asshole)!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cal20sailor said:

I wonder if Sondland feels that he got his money's worth out of the Ambassador experience.  He was quick to refresh his testimony when it was clear he was caught in a lie and similarly, I think he will tell the truth about the above phone call.  

He'd better come clean on everything now, he can't do a Jared and keep "remembering" things indefinitely.

Link to post
Share on other sites