Nunes is a clown. He has about as much chance of taking Sondlund's testimony apart as Ronald McDonald.Nunes has his work cut out for him to try to take it apart
Nunes is a clown. He has about as much chance of taking Sondlund's testimony apart as Ronald McDonald.Nunes has his work cut out for him to try to take it apart
Haha, oh I'm sure. As soon as any of them mention Biden Obama or Soros you'll throw your hands in the air and say "I knew it."It's pretty close to that. Nunes has his work cut out for him to try to take it apart
Oh please. He's done a pretty good job so far. So has the lady from New York.Nunes is a clown. He has about as much chance of taking Sondlund's testimony apart as Ronald McDonald.
I really respect this response. Not many -- or quite, frankly, ANY -- of our other Trump supporters here would say that.It's pretty close to that.
What's the ultimate purpose of their questioning? If they've been trying to cast doubt on these hearings, they've failed miserably. I agree that the New York Congresswoman has done well with the nothingburger she's had to work with.Oh please. (Nunes) He's done a pretty good job so far. So has the lady from New York.
Nope. I wont change my mind that Biden needs to be investigated but at this point it looks like trump is definitely guilty. That's why I said nunes has his work cut out for him.Haha, oh I'm sure. As soon as any of them mention Biden Obama or Soros you'll throw your hands in the air and say "I knew it."
I really respect this response. Not many -- or quite, frankly, ANY -- of our other Trump supporters here would say that.
What's the ultimate purpose of their questioning? If they've been trying to cast doubt on these hearings, they've failed miserably. I agree that the New York Congresswoman has done well with the nothingburger she's had to work with.
Personally, I think the Congressional Democrats over the past decade or so have screwed up more than helped themselves. But that said, IMHO Adam Schiff has handled this proceedings brilliantly. By having closed-door hearings first, he was able to carefully lay out the case against Trump. In fact, by sequencing these interviews the way he did, people like Volker and Sondland were forced to revise their original testimony or risk perjury.The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. So far they havent done anything to meet that burden. Quite honestly, I still think they should have called sondland first and used the rest of the witnesses as supporting testimony, which would have made it much more difficult for the defense.
It helps trump that sondland said he was never told that aid was tied to the investigation. That would have been the smoking gun. When it goes to the senate, the roles will be reversed and the dems will have to prove that the meeting was for official government business, which will be tough. Since there was no announcement, aid wasn't ultimately withheld, and the meeting never happened I don't think they can make the case for removal, particularly needing 2/3rds to remove. Trump will probably be sanctioned in some way but not removed.
Nunes strategy is.... (trumpet fanfare) …. talk about the debunked Russian Intelligence conspiracy theory of Ukraine's supposed 2016 election interference.
Yeah, boy, that changes everything!
I wonder what Trump is going to tweet about Sondland this morning.
Here's a strategy. Collude with Rudy - throw him under the bus with the intention that Rudy take's the 5th since he's under investigation by SDNY. If Rudy doesn't refute Trump's throwing him under the bus, does that create a plausible alternative story?Guilani was acting on his own.
Here's a strategy. Collude with Rudy - throw him under the bus with the intention that Rudy take's the 5th since he's under investigation by SDNY. If Rudy doesn't refute Trump's throwing him under the bus, does that create a plausible alternative story?
I don't think it works the same way, but yes they can have pompeo removed. That would be an extremely high hurdle though as they would have to prove that he was going against trumps national policy AND congress, and then explain why trump doesn't just fire him. Not sure how that would work.I guess it helps Trump but it puts Pompeo & Rudy on the hot seat who might spill the beans. Can they impeach Pompeo?
When you've got a President who is batsh*t crazy enough to openly bribe a foreign leader, it's probably excusable that he's not sane enough to mount a rational defense.I don't understand why that wasn't the plan from the beginning.
I don't think it works the same way, but yes they can have pompeo removed. That would be an extremely high hurdle though as they would have to prove that he was going against trumps national policy AND congress, and then explain why trump doesn't just fire him. Not sure how that would work.
They can be, and if trump is removed they would have a clear path to do so. I think proving criminal charges would be easier than impeachment/removal in that scenario.I figured that since Pompeo was a part of the executive branch and senate confirmed, he or anyone else in the cabinet could be impeached.
Today was a decent day for dems, he said yes there was a quid pro quo for Whitehouse meeting, which is actually pretty common, But then admitted that when he directly asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine,
Trump answered I want nothing from them, no quid quo pro, "Nothing."
Today was a decent day for dems, he said yes there was a quid pro quo for Whitehouse meeting, which is actually pretty common, But then admitted that when he directly asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine,
Trump answered I want nothing from them, no quid quo pro, "Nothing."
B-B-But that CAN'T be true. We ALL know that the Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian's 2016 election meddling stories are HUGE EXPOSE'S that MUST be brought to light!!!!!They didn't even care if the investigations were done. Only that they were announced. Previous witnesses testified that the plan was for the president of Ukraine to go on CNN and that interview was scheduled until through story broke and it all fell apart.
This didn't hurt anybody but the congressman. It wasn't an impressive line of questioning, just very direct and he came across as being very insulting. I don't totally understand why at this point he would make it seem as though the dems are at odds with Sondland considering he basically have them everything they need for impeachment.
Under Secretary Hale just called the do not prosecute list a complete fabrication. Is it possible that you're susceptible to believe fake news that you want to be true or did he just commit perjury too?She lied about the do not prosecute list.
He's structured and follows notes, so what? TDS
TDS
Imagine still trying to use facts and reason on a bunch of inbred Trump supporters that are dumb enough to be MAGAts still in 2019