Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Itssoeasy

Is Jim Jordan going to ask Fiona hill anything ? I doubt it as he wouldn’t have the guts.

Overheal

Did we find out how Jordan cut his eye since the start of proceedings last Wednesday? o_o

Itssoeasy

Shock horror Jim Jordan didn’t ask Fiona hill anything.

Igotadose

Gym Jordan... Republicans should be required to listen to him speak for an hour before voting.

Holmes just pierced his bubble. "Shazam" indeed.

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

Did we find out how Jordan cut his eye since the start of proceedings last Wednesday? o_o

Saw that. Has he been wearing/sporting his glasses today?

jooksavage

Itssoeasy wrote: »

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.

That flat Durham accent is just great. It's just so wonderfully jarring against the sunny Californian chirping and southern yokel drawling.

Hill's testimony is definitely worth a second listen. The Lawfare podcast will be doing a "no bull" version of it tomorrow - basically all her direct testimony with the irrelevant partisan ramblings of the committee members left out.

AtomicHorror

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Can you point to a scenario where Trump applied similar pressure on a foreign government, leveraging aid or other incentives, to push for investigation of corruption where Trump did not also stand to gain personally? Beyond a bump in his approval rating, that is?

If you know of any, why hasn't Trump pointed to literally any such example over the course of the impeachment?

Overheal

aloyisious wrote: »

Saw that. Has he been wearing/sporting his glasses today?

intermittently.


Stupid Watergate II: #PhoneGate has sprouted wings...

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1197540461830983680?s=20

and oh yeah, the Kardashians are now in the Impeachment record multiple times yay

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

Did we find out how Jordan cut his eye since the start of proceedings last Wednesday? o_o

He was on TV earlier this week and said that he had walked into a door in the Capitol basement where the depositions were being taken.

Overheal

Scumbags are still doxxing the witnesses.

Quin_Dub

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

It's part of an ongoing "love bombing" of GOP Senators by Trump in recent weeks.

He's been having various groups of them over for Lunch in the White house , trips on AF1 etc. etc.

Dodgy , but not quite as bad as him funneling campaign money from his donors to Senators up for re-election in recent weeks in return for support when the Impeachment vote comes up.

Dohnjoe

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Which Ukrainian corruption affecting the United States specifically?

Overheal

Wenstrup is co-oping the "Got Caught" tagline so supporters googling it later will be diverted from Schiff's speech last night.

Now pulling out the Scalise-Shooting card.

Wow the Minority is pissed Fiona wants to respond :eek: they tried to loophole-her out of responding to his screed.

Overheal

Fiona just endeared herself, I think, to the rest of America.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.



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



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



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



The Barr-Durham investigation is still underway.

It is fair. You can't simply shout unfair repeatedly to get off from a trial. Surely you feel Sondland's accusations should be investigated or is your first statement that you think it is true and don't care? You think the US involves itself in every potential corruption case the world over or just those that will provide political leverage for the US president? Of course he did for personal gain. That is why he does everything. Anything else naievity in my book. He has proven his selfish interests time and time again.

And yet somehow I am not going to believe all the evidence hidden by the white House is in favour of Trump.

Some people getting arrested means that there was something worth investigating. It means there was something that could have been covered up (didn't say it was covered up)

That investigation is going nowhere fast. Get back to me when it gets some actual results.

Stupidgate rolls on and Trump will remain in office because it is politically convinient for Republicans. As soon as he is gone they will all claim to have been the "good" Republicans who were trying to oppose him from the inside.

Itssoeasy

Overheal wrote: »

Fiona just endeared herself, I think, to the rest of America.

What did she say ?

Overheal

She defused all of it deftly and then answered something funny about her haircut.

Stefanik ends up having to correct the congressional record and emphatically state that yes, it is the official position of the Republican Party that Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and that they take the matter very seriously, etc.

Itssoeasy

What rubbish the ranking member Devin nunes calls it the “Russian hoax” she’s a dislike-able person but she’s a republican so hardly surprising.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

Fiona just endeared herself, I think, to the rest of America.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What did she say ?

##Mod Note##

All - Can we avoid the one liner updates that assume you're watching TV live?

If you want to comment on something from the hearings , plus include the quote or at least a link to the quote.

Thanks

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note##

All - Can we avoid the one liner updates that assume you're watching TV live?

If you want to comment on something from the hearings , plus include the quote or at least a link to the quote.

Thanks

Sorry didn’t mean to cause a mod to get involved. I had missed part of the testimony so was sure if it in general or a part it’d missed in the last thirty minutes.

Itssoeasy

Oh dear Devin nunes May lose the plot after Eric swalwell did that.

Overheal

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197607345414660098

Nunes looks like he just retired from Congress inside.

edit: Trump acknowledged in 2 tweets today the Internet Shutdown in Iran, but has yet to respond to Netanyahu's indictment for fraud and bribery (i.e. Corruption) which is odd for someone who is supposed to have such a strong anti-corruption drive?

aloyisious

Rep Will Hurd [R] praising President Zelensky.

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1197607345414660098

Nunes looks like he just retired from Congress inside.

To which they were both invitees by the host, the UN. I was wondering what input the Rep could put into todays session, case explained.

Outlaw Pete

Christy42 wrote: »

It is fair. You can't simply shout unfair repeatedly to get off from a trial.

It has not been fair. They were rehearsals in the basement, nothing more, nothing less. Reps didn't get the witnesses they requested in the open hearings and the POTUS wasn't allowed counsel. Schiff has topped and tailed each hearing with a narrative and so it, nor he, have been impartial.

Surely you feel Sondland's accusations should be investigated or is your first statement that you think it is true and don't care?

What accusations? That he made inferences and presumptions?

You think the US involves itself in every potential corruption case the world over or just those that will provide political leverage for the US president?

Your reply makes no sense. You speak as if he was requesting a foreign country to investigate if some random person had committed some random crime. This was the Vice President of the United States (of the last US administration) who bragged publically about withholding $1billion in aid from Ukraine, and whose son sat on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and who lobbied the US State in an effort to dispel the notion that the company was corrupt ... these were not random individuals who Trump couldn't want the actions of investigated for some personal reason. That's a bs narrative. If Trump could have picked hid 2020 democratic candidate in July, from all those in the running, Biden would have for sure been near, if not the top, of that list.

Trump asked Zelensky to look into the Burisma-Biden connection, and the allegations made about them, reported in the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post long before that before call, because it was something that needed to be investigated, and because Zelensky was the first Ukrainian President who it would appear is interested in combating corruption.

Sondland testified he phoned Trump and asked him what he wanted from Zelensky (the fact that he had to ask that from Trump in September says it all) and Trump got angry with him and said he wanted nothing, no QPQs, just for Zelensky to do what he ran on, and what was that? To fight corruption!!

Of course he did for personal gain. That is why he does everything.

You don't sound biased at all.

Look, he'll be impeached, the dems have the numbers, and after three years of setting down this road they ain't stopping now.

The Senate will be an entirely different matter though.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Rep Will Hurd [R] praising President Zelensky.

His five minutes was strange to me. Isn’t he meant to be a moderatish kind of republican ?

Itssoeasy

This republican didn’t try and go after Fiona hill but is going after Holmes.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

This republican didn’t try and go after Fiona hill but is going after Holmes.

That might be related to the fact that Dr Hill is retired and Mr Holmes is still a serving State Dept employee, alongside the worry that she might make a meal of him.

pixelburp

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It has not been fair. They were rehearsals in the basement, nothing more, nothing less. Reps didn't get the witnesses they requested in the open hearings and the POTUS wasn't allowed counsel. Schiff has topped and tailed each hearing with a narrative and so it, nor he, have been impartial.

Just on this, the sitting President is not entitled to counsel, there's nothing anywhere that says he is allowed - given this isn't actually a legal proceeding. Same with Clinton, same with Nixon, whose own teams fought for participation. 538 ran a pretty clear article on this item.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-rights-does-trump-have-in-the-impeachment-process/

It's nowhere near the shocking disgrace you seem to be implying. Theres a slight deviance from norm in terms of process, but nothing remotely particular worth getting steamed about. Trump's legal team will be allowed participate once it enters the judiciary:

As was the case in both Nixon and Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, when the process moves to the Judiciary Committee, Trump’s lawyers will be able to cross-examine and suggest witnesses and present a formal defense

Of course, if you're charting a narrative of a besieged president, conspired against by partisan forces, then bemoaning about being refused counsel feels better, more emotive, suggests miscarriage of justice.

Itssoeasy

Jim Jordan is lying through his teeth about the mueller report. Fiona hill is being complemented by Jim Jordan. That’s not good IMO.