He keeps it real. That's why he won.Yeah, experiencing the public humiliation of having the President of the United States say you were shitty at your job is not intimidating in the least.
What would be an impeachable offense to you?
- Thread starter firm_bizzle
- Start date
Given the way this inquiry has been going -- and we haven't even gotten to Ambassador Sondland yet -- the only 'defense' that Trump and his Republican minions have left is: "Okay, this 'quid-pro-quo' thing (normally called bribery & extortion) happened but its really no big deal, certainly nothing worthy of removing a US President from office.'
Sondland's revision to his earlier closed-door testimony essentially CONFIRMED Trump's attempt to extort a 'favor' from Zelensky.
We'll all see whether he revises his 'recollections' once again tomorrow.
Aside from the fact that none of the witnesses have ever described the interactions as bribery or extortion, Vindman just testified that he knew of no Ukrainian that felt pressured by Trump. That pretty much precludes extortion.
It's the House membership who decides whether the actions are bribery and/or extortion, not the witnesses.
So if you witnessed a crime happen, you wouldn’t call it that crime? I’m sorry, but everyone that I’ve known to have reported a crime and many of the witnesses all call out what they witness as that crime. But let’s let go of the farce, Pelosi started using the words bribery and extortion simply because they resonated with people like you.
Funny how they changed their rhetoric after a focus group told them that they liked the term bribery more. Is it about justice and facts, or is it about what messaging is a most effective politically
This impeachment inquiry calls witnesses who are outlining the specifics of a bribery attempt. The crime of bribery is a bit different from the crime of murder. One is a clear-cut observation, the other in this case involves a number of actions by a number of people that no single witness would be able to characterize (with the exception of Sondland as well as others who have been specifically instructed by the President to not testify.)
No. He's an asshole that shits on everyone he disagrees with, regardless of facts. Weak minded people buy into that "us versus them" mentality.
I still think that the bribery narrative is weak and only marginally meets definition. Extortion is much closer and they should have gone with that, along with abuse of power.
Let's see, Vindman testified that he told 2 people of the call and eventually someone he told (probably Ciaramella) went to Schiff and then filed the whistleblower's report. I'd like to know if he categorized it as a crime when he talked to those 2 people but Vindman won't answer. But, of course, you can't find the people that he talked to so that you can confirm some of this stuff because Schiff shuts it right down. Also, Vindman testified that he never had contact with Trump so how would he know what the President intended? He did testify that he disagreed with the change in foreign policy, went out school to Zelensky to steer him towards Vindman's proposed policies, and told the Ukrainian to ignore Trump. Also testified that he had no knowledge of any pressure felt by any Ukrainian. So tell me what in his testimony leads you to bribery and extortion? Other than them asking him to interpret other communications that he was not a party so that he can display his admitted bias against Trump.
This is all for the sound bites to damage the 2020 Trump campaign.
Schiff is going way over the top in stopping questions for the sake of the whistle blower. Nunes wasn't even asking questions about that topic and Schiff invoked the whistle blower. I'd say that it seems odd but it's pretty transparent.
It's funny seeing conservatives complain about Never Trumpers, as if they weren't the party of NObama, that voted against any thing he sent in, just out of spite. He could have proposed a bill that cured cancer, but they would have voted against it to prevent him from getting credit.
Remember, they literally thought he was the anti-christ and was born in Kenya.
Bet you thought we'd forget that shit?
Karma is lovely.
Um. Really? That's not how an investigation works. Investigators don't go around asking witnesses for opinions. You could witness someone being shot from across a room, while not realizing they had a gun under their jacket. Or that they had reached for the gun when shot. Or that the victim was actually a stalker with a current restraining order preventing them from contacting the shooter.
These are fact witnesses to pieces of a larger puzzle.
There are complex legal arguments on both sides right now arguing whether or not this can be construed as bribery both in the sense of current law and the sense of what "bribery" meant 250 years ago. It's absurd to expect non-lawyer fact witnesses to give an opinion on that. Perhaps it would make sense to bring in legal experts on both sides to argue that point, but not the witnesses.
Never Trumpers are different than Democrats #Resistance. Nevertheless, from the Republicans, there wasn't a special prosecutor's investigation for 2 years into the birth certificate followed by an impeachment inquiry on another matter. There's a bunch of other differences. But at the 100k-foot-view, you're right that it appears to be a pot-kettle situation and it is to some degree. The sad fact is that we are in a destructive pendulum swing where the Bush resistance was countered by NOBama Republicans, and now the #Resistance and #ImpeachTrump. The losers are the American people.
They are not fact witnesses when they are adding their interpretation of communications they didn't participate in. That is blurring the line into expert witness testimony. Fact witnesses are limited to expressing the facts only and not giving interpretation. Normally, you use independent expert witnesses to interpret because the fact witnesses giving their opinions will expose the testimony to undue bias.
The reports are that Pelosi took this to a focus group because quid-pro-quo wasn't resonating and came out with bribery and extortion as better characterizations. You can talk about people on the news entertainment shows arguing back and forth all you want after the fact, but this is all for the political spectacle. You're being led around by your nose by people that understand quite well how to gain power in this society.
they polled people to find which term they thought was the worst.
hes fallen for the "bribery" angle hook line and sinker. as have all the other dems in here. lol
out of the 3500+ pages of testimony from everyone involved. "bribe\bribery" was only mentioned 1 time and that was in reference to biden. LOL
OK I'll concede that the lines are blurred in this context, so let's explore deeper. These witnesses certainly are "subject matter experts" in certain areas that they are qualified to provide their expert judgement regarding. Also I concede that both sides are asking them to draw opinions and inferences. Generally speaking, the witnesses have done a good job of limiting their interpretations to areas of their own expertise, while avoiding judging the state-of-mind or intentions of other individuals or providing complex legal judgement they aren't qualified to make.
That said, Asking Vindeman for his opinion on matters relating to US-Ukraine policy is within the realm of his expertise. Asking him why the call alarmed him, is perfectly reasonable, based on his professional experience, is perfectly legitimate.
Asking or expecting him to shout "bribery" in real time, is absurd, and it would drastically reduce his or anyone's else's credibility if they did so. Had he done that, he would (rightfully) be accused of jumping to a conclusion without access to all of the information.
On that, we agree.
I'm hoping once Trump is gone, whether it be next year or in 5, that we can bring civility and respect back to politics. This shitshow is embarrassing.
Interesting, I think weak minded people will follow people that are light on actions but speak really well.
It seems some prefer the snakeoill salesman that lies to your face, and when called out, attacks and cries "fake news."
I disagree, the Nobama people were republicans, Obama wasn’t getting stabbed in the back by career people in the state, DOJ and other departments. What the libs are doing is using the federal government as a political bat, changing rules of whistleblower and are abusing their power. No one ever brought Obama up for impeachment or investigate every word he said or look into his past. Quite simply, if Obama went through a tenth of the investigation Trump has into his past he never would have been president.
They did have Hillary testify for 12 hours in court though on trumped up accusations.
The difference is, there wasn't anything to investigate Obama over. Dude was about the cleanest president in our lifetime.
The "resistance" was right to be against Bush. Dude was awful and almost got us into a depression.
People were against Obama because he was black.
People have been against Trump because he's blatantly awful and only out to enrich himself. He doesn't give a shit about the country. He's looking to make bank.
Yeah, Trump really knows how to sell his crowd, but can't follow through.
Still waiting for Mexico to pay for the wall, Hillary to be locked up, the swamp to be drained, etc.
I guess weak minded people still believe him.
Witness after witness vouches for Joe Biden's character and says that there was no corruption. Where is the evidence?
Good question. I mean, aside from Biden’s boasting and some suspicious circumstances, we haven’t seen any direct evidence. Well, there was that document the Ukrainian official presented that showed Burisma paying Hunter Biden’s consulting firm $900k for Jo Biden lobbying services. But who knows if that is authentic or relevant?
Sure seems like there’s enough here for an investigation but I guess the standard for investigating Democrats is that you need all of the evidence before you can investigate whereas investigate Republican only needs an anonymous claim that they heard that something inappropriate may have happened.
Ironically, Volkmer was supposedly the Republicans' star witness and one of the first things out of his mouth this afternoon was his passionate defense of Joe Biden's character. Oops.
Really?
abusing IRS
Auto bailout
Obama care
NLR recess appointments
DACA
Abuse of EPA - clean power act & Cap and Trade
Abuse of FCC - net neutrality
Fast &Furious- arming Mexican drug cartels
Operation Chokepoint
Meddling is foreign elections
and many more
Last edited:
Well the farm bailout wasn’t illegal like the auto bailout. I’m for the farm bailout because they are taking the brunt of a trade war that is long overdue unlike automakers who’s industry was crippled due to legacy costs.
Oh please explain how one is legal but the other isn't.
Obama used TARP money specifically designated for financial institutions. That was designated by Congress. The farm bailout was legally taken from the USDA.
Neither monies were designated for where they are going. If I remember correctly, GMAC was used as the excuse why TARP was relevant.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: San Diego Knight
