Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

TomOnBoard

marno21 wrote: »

Surely if Trump was as innocent as his fans would like you to believe the Republicans would have a better strategy than having Nunes look like a clown the whole time and resort to constantly trying to windup the chairman and having Gym Jordan shouting at witnesses, becoming more aggressive and loud the more credible the witness?

At this stage, it seems that Nunes and Jordan are locked in a cage, fighting for the title of "Evil of the Two Lessers"...

They really need to change the script, coz, apart from cult members, I can't see their tactics resonating with anyone who still has a questioning brain that is working...

Overheal

Fiona Hill laid it out: Russia wants Crimea/Ukraine and it will split Ukraine and the US each in half to get it. Career government officials have sworn under oath there was no credibility to the Biden/Crowdstrike conspiracies and Republicans have wasted time on “its a circus” speeches and making poor Castor full dead air rather than build their own compelling case before the American people that there is a there there (hint: they don’t need the whistleblower or the bidens to try that).

Holmes damningly testifies there was a secured video conference which there is inevitably a record of where it was explicitly stated that the OMB held the aid up on behalf of the President, the President has even confirmed this. These officials who are responsible for anti corruption in Ukraine were kept in the dark for almost 2 months about the holdup reason; now Trump wants to assert it was to further anti-corruption efforts, without the involvement of the anti corruption apparatus of the United States for Ukraine.

Under threat of perjury the witnesses have brought some key facts to the record and have asserted the thrust of their information can be corroborated by other fact witnesses named and other records.

aloyisious

I missed the latter half of the hearing and the afters outside where the committee members were usually interviewed by the media. Did the GOP woman-member of the committee interview the witnesses during the hearing or was she there?

My question is in respect to the statement from one witness that the member had been in Ukraine herself as a congress member and saw how things were on the ground there: if she was there, did she avoid putting questions to the witness or making comments after the session closed?

Sorry: the GOM I originally typed in above was a genuine error and not an intended implication or slur on the character of the party concerned.

Overheal

They haven’t done questioning under the 5 minute rule so Stefanik has not spoken today in the hearings.

In other news:

Benjamin Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery and fraud. Trump must be sweating. America’s hell or high water ally doing what we will not. That’s going to be picked up on today. https://www.mediaite.com/news/just-in-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-indicted-on-bribery-fraud-charges/

Sen. Collins and Mitt Romney have at least both visited the White House today, after just last night former independent counsel Ken Starr believed that following Sondland’s hearing that an impeachable offense had been established for Obstruction of Justice, and had thus opined that Senators should make the trip to the White House to request the resignation of the President of the United States of America.

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

Sen. Collins and Mitt Romney have at least both visited the White House today, after just last night former independent counsel Ken Starr believed that following Sondland’s hearing that an impeachable offense had been established for Obstruction of Justice, and had thus opined that Senators should make the trip to the White House to request the resignation of the President of the United States of America.

Politico is reporting that Collins and Romney are attending a lunch along with some other Senators as part of an ongoing process whereby Trump has been inviting Senators to the WH for lunch.

"In addition to Collins and Romney, GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Rand Paul of Kentucky, John Hoeven of North Dakota and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have been invited to the lunch on Thursday. Senators are not given a list of fellow attendees beforehand, nor are they given an agenda before heading to the White House to dine with the president."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/donald-trump-impeachment-republican-establishment-072227

AtomicHorror

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Mueller Report which gave credence to a dossier which had Russian sources. Sources which claimed Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed Michelle Obama slept in. And yet the left pearl clutch about Trump trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens, when all he did was ask for real events to be looked into? I would think the former was a better example of that than the latter. In fact the Steele Dossier wasn't just digging up dirt, it was fabricating it.

Yes your honour, the defendant murdered someone, but so did that guy over there, and nobody threw HIM in jail.

TomOnBoard

DubInMeath wrote: »

There is a saying regarding arguing with certain people and playing chess with a pigeon that applies to that list.

I think your analogy is so pertinent to dealing with some posters here that it merits complete recitation:

"
Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then ****s all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”

Igotadose

Nunes talking about Steele dossier with Hill.

Groundhog day. Asking about randos the GOP wants to associate with... Hilary Clinton vs. Trump in 2016. Woot.

rosser44

Igotadose wrote: »

Nunes talking about Steele dossier with Hill.

Groundhog day. Asking about randos the GOP wants to associate with... Hilary Clinton vs. Trump in 2016. Woot.

He looked and sounded so dejected

Dr. Hill seems well able for the GOP members of the committee

TomOnBoard

Igotadose wrote: »

Nunes talking about Steele dossier with Hill.

Groundhog day. Asking about randos the GOP wants to associate with... Hilary Clinton vs. Trump in 2016. Woot.

This is all part of the tactic of smearing witness motivations... This already appeared in Breitbart:

"Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council (NSC) official who is testifying in Thursday’s impeachment inquiry, admitted in her closed-door deposition to having worked with Russia “dossier” author Christopher Steele."

Note the use of the word "admitted" as though it was some kind of a confession..

Itssoeasy

I’m just hearing the first part of today’s hearings. That’s a brilliant accent that Fiona hill and I wonder do the members of the committee understand her ? Also, from just listening to her for two minutes she seems like she is a nice person but don’t cross her.

PropJoe10

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Mueller Report which gave credence to a dossier which had Russian sources. Sources which claimed Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed Michelle Obama slept in. And yet the left pearl clutch about Trump trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens, when all he did was ask for real events to be looked into? I would think the former was a better example of that than the latter. In fact the Steele Dossier wasn't just digging up dirt, it was fabricating it.

As for George P and Mifsud, and who was behind that, guess we'll soon see, but someone tasked him and that someone had a clear motive to link the Trump campaign with the Kremlin. Don't bother bringing up the Trump Tower meeting as it's a nothing burger. Always was, always will be.

As to Barr lying? Give me a break. Trump did not conspire with Russians to influence the 2016 election. He committed no crime and despite that the democrats, and the left, claimed he tried to obstruct an investigation into a crime which didn't even take place.

This is all about framing Donald Trump. Has been since the get-go. The left just despise the him and will do anything to remove him from office. They pretend to care about Ukraine but yet where were they when Ukraine needed lethal aid? Where's their outrage at FBI leaks? Where's their outrage at Ukrainians meddling in 2016? Where's the outrage at anything the left do? Nowhere, that's where.

Barr has integrity and will expose the truth of what has really been going on over the last three years while the left and the MSM were focused on trying to oust Trump from office as they painted him as everything from a treasonous racist, to a broke rapist.

Disregarding the rest of the nonsense here for now - how can you have listened to or paid attention to these impeachment hearings so far and come to this conclusion? Do you really honestly believe that all these career diplomats who've served both Democratic and Republican Presidents hate Trump enough to fabricate the evidence presented so far?

Or do you honestly not believe that the evidence presented so far is not of consequence? Genuinely interested to know.

MadYaker

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Politico is reporting that Collins and Romney are attending a lunch along with some other Senators as part of an ongoing process whereby Trump has been inviting Senators to the WH for lunch.

"In addition to Collins and Romney, GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Rand Paul of Kentucky, John Hoeven of North Dakota and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have been invited to the lunch on Thursday. Senators are not given a list of fellow attendees beforehand, nor are they given an agenda before heading to the White House to dine with the president."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/donald-trump-impeachment-republican-establishment-072227

This is interesting. Is he worried about the senate convicting him? It doesn't look likely as things stand. Has Mitch McConnell been to the WH like this I wonder?

jooksavage

Just catching up now. Hill might be the most impressive speaker so far. Her direct, no-nonsense delivery really makes the likes of Nunes and Jordan look like a pair of grasping clowns.

Zubeneschamali

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes your honour, the defendant murdered someone, but so did that guy over there, and nobody threw HIM in jail.

That crossed with:

Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Attempted murder! Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?

Outlaw Pete

TomOnBoard wrote: »

At this stage, it seems that Nunes and Jordan are locked in a cage, fighting for the title of "Evil of the Two Lessers"...

They really need to change the script, coz, apart from cult members, I can't see their tactics resonating with anyone who still has a questioning brain that is working...

There is nothing wrong with what Nunes is saying, indeed in is quite apt.

Today he is making sure it is known that Ukrainians took actions to influence the 2016 US election. Leschenko did not just release pages from the black ledger in a fight against corruption, it was done to have an impact on the Trump Campaign and it worked. Leschenko was also a named source on the Steele Dossier.

This evidence is important at it shows that Trump was not merely peddling right wing debunked conspiracy theories (although I accept the server stuff is nonsense) and was in fact asking for legitimate areas of possible Ukrainian corruption to be looked into, which affected the United States, not just Donald Trump as an individual.

Same applies with the Burisma-Biden details. All of it goes a long way to breaking apart the nonsense narrative that somehow Trump's only motive for asking for investigations to be carried out were because he was afraid of Joe Biden in 2020.

Itssoeasy

jooksavage wrote: »

Just catching up now. Hill might be the most impressive speaker so far. Her direct, no-nonsense delivery really makes the likes of Nunes and Jordan look like a pair of grasping clowns.

I’ve been listening since they came back from a break of some kind. She is bloody brilliant so far. No waffle and she’s referred back to other people’s testimony so she’s clearly very knowledgeable on her area of expertise.

I think it’s where she’s from in England which has a reputation of being tough and no nonsense approach.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Mueller Report which gave credence to a dossier which had Russian sources. Sources which claimed Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed Michelle Obama slept in. And yet the left pearl clutch about Trump trying to dig up dirt on the Bidens, when all he did was ask for real events to be looked into? I would think the former was a better example of that than the latter. In fact the Steele Dossier wasn't just digging up dirt, it was fabricating it.

As for George P and Mifsud, and who was behind that, guess we'll soon see, but someone tasked him and that someone had a clear motive to link the Trump campaign with the Kremlin. Don't bother bringing up the Trump Tower meeting as it's a nothing burger. Always was, always will be.

As to Barr lying? Give me a break. Trump did not conspire with Russians to influence the 2016 election. He committed no crime and despite that the democrats, and the left, claimed he tried to obstruct an investigation into a crime which didn't even take place.

This is all about framing Donald Trump. Has been since the get-go. The left just despise the him and will do anything to remove him from office. They pretend to care about Ukraine but yet where were they when Ukraine needed lethal aid? Where's their outrage at FBI leaks? Where's their outrage at Ukrainians meddling in 2016? Where's the outrage at anything the left do? Nowhere, that's where.

Barr has integrity and will expose the truth of what has really been going on over the last three years while the left and the MSM were focused on trying to oust Trump from office as they painted him as everything from a treasonous racist, to a broke rapist.

Most of this is irrelevant.

So we know Trump asked for Biden to be investigated. Do you believe he used American foreign policy to pay for this? That is the crux which you avoided stating. Your example of the Steele dossier was bought with money when Republicans first ordered it. Maybe Trump should allow some of the people who he says will help his case actually testify? Or should we just assume they would absolve him and that is why he is blocking them from testifying?


Note: obstructing an investigation is a crime whether or not the initial crime actually occured so... Also multiple people are in prison so plenty of crimes occurred related to the investigation (and so there was something to cover up).

I am really impressed that with all this fabrication of evidence going on the Republican Senate, supreme Court and mass of new Republican judges still can't stick anyone in jail for it. How much power do they need to get who you think are obvious criminals into jail? Just how incompetent are they? Trump promised to clear out the swamp and yet you say they still control any investigation ever! I can't really go with that argument.

Itssoeasy

Oh Fiona hill is a great witness. She’s made ambassador Sondland look like a spoofer.

Overheal

I'm just glad there's no evening hearing, this has been a long week :pac:

In the past 8 days it's been fun to watch the Republicans slip down from "sekkkrit basement circus" wars to what could honestly pass as a decorum. Castor eg. hasn't used a single one of those pejoratives today and Nunes I think is tired of looking like a complete fool. I wonder if Democrats/Schiff will bring up Benny's indictment.

Itssoeasy

Okay Nunes has now interrupted the GOP counsel several times and made him look stupid. He’s going back to 2016 and Fiona hill is making him look utterly stupid.

badabing106

Overheal wrote: »

In other news:


independent counsel Ken Starr believed that following Sondland’s hearing that an impeachable offense had been established for Obstruction of Justice, and had thus opined that Senators should make the trip to the White House to request the resignation of the President of the United States of America.

Fake news? .... That is the complete opposite to what Ken Starr believes.


Ken Starr believes "hearing testimony nowhere close to impeachable offenses" https://video.foxnews.com/v/6107078350001

kowloon

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I’m just hearing the first part of today’s hearings. That’s a brilliant accent that Fiona hill and I wonder do the members of the committee understand her ? Also, from just listening to her for two minutes she seems like she is a nice person but don’t cross her.

A no bull**** northener. I wonder how much the accent affects how people pay attention to her.

aloyisious

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Politico is reporting that Collins and Romney are attending a lunch along with some other Senators as part of an ongoing process whereby Trump has been inviting Senators to the WH for lunch.

"In addition to Collins and Romney, GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Rand Paul of Kentucky, John Hoeven of North Dakota and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have been invited to the lunch on Thursday.

[Senators are not given a list of fellow attendees beforehand, nor are they given an agenda before heading to the White House to dine with the president."]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/21/donald-trump-impeachment-republican-establishment-072227

Please pardon my editing of your script. One might think the secrecy behind the guest-list was to prevent any form of collusion between the GOP Senators. Bit of a bummer for Don that politico has provided his guests the list.

Itssoeasy

Now I’ve not heard much of the impeachment hearings live but Christ I could listen to Fiona hill all day. Adam schiff asked a question and she is going through the whole meeting timeline and it’s wonderful.

Outlaw Pete

Christy42 wrote: »

So we know Trump asked for Biden to be investigated. Do you believe he used American foreign policy to pay for this?

We are talking about a Vice President and possible corruption. We re talking about US funds. Why wouldn't the US pay for their role in such an election? Just because the democrats frame this as being about Trump wanting a political opponent investigated for political gain, that doesn't make it so.

Maybe Trump should allow some of the people who he says will help his case actually testify? Or should we just assume they would absolve him and that is why he is blocking them from testifying?

They should have made sure the process was fair. Maybe then the WH would have cooperated.

Note: obstructing an investigation is a crime whether or not the initial crime actually occured so... Also multiple people are in prison so plenty of crimes occurred related to the investigation (and so there was something to cover up).

lol. So because people some (not all) have been imprisoned for lying, that means something was covered up? Utter nonsense.

I am really impressed that with all this fabrication of evidence going on the Republican Senate, supreme Court and mass of new Republican judges still can't stick anyone in jail for it.

Well, Comey was put forward for prosecution but got a slap on the wrist (so far, at least).

How much power do they need to get who you think are obvious criminals into jail?

Trump promised to clear out the swamp and yet you say they still control any investigation ever! I can't really go with that argument.

The Barr-Durham investigation is still underway.

Itssoeasy

No Fiona hill it wasn’t a long answer it was an answer that bullies and bull****ters bloody hate. Keep going.

Itssoeasy

Jesus Christ it’s like an auction.

Itssoeasy

Jim Jordan is an utter horrible human being.

sid waddell

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Jesus Christ it’s like an auction.

The Republicans selling democracy to the highest bidder.