Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did Sondland delete the call?

It’s a call, not a voicemail.

So there’s no record of the call, just an aide saying they overheard a call?

Not one, multiple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Short memories:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/flashback-obama-fires-bush-ambassadors/

That is totally typical to relieve politically appointed (not career foreign service) ambassadors of their duties after the inauguration, and Trump did that too. But did Obama threaten them and smear them first? Or did he just let them go? Plus, she was told two months before that State wanted her to stay.

Well if State wanted her to

He gets to fire who he wants

Did you watch the hearings or read any transcripts?

(I know the answer is “no,” right winger. Ask me how I know!)

Yes. I work from home. Watched al day.

So you were in the bathroom when she said yes he had the right to fire her, that he could have done just that, but he didn’t - he went on to 5resten and malign her. That he doesn’t have the right to do.

He has every right to do it. You might not find it nice, I get that, but he has every right to say what he feels about her.

But the reason he removed her was so Giuliani and Sondland and Volker could execute the extortion plot. The only complaints about her were from the corrupt conspirators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd actually like to see who paid for those signs....

What do they say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Short memories:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/15/flashback-obama-fires-bush-ambassadors/

That is totally typical to relieve politically appointed (not career foreign service) ambassadors of their duties after the inauguration, and Trump did that too. But did Obama threaten them and smear them first? Or did he just let them go? Plus, she was told two months before that State wanted her to stay.

Well if State wanted her to

He gets to fire who he wants

Did you watch the hearings or read any transcripts?

(I know the answer is “no,” right winger. Ask me how I know!)

Yes. I work from home. Watched al day.

So you were in the bathroom when she said yes he had the right to fire her, that he could have done just that, but he didn’t - he went on to 5resten and malign her. That he doesn’t have the right to do.

He has every right to do it. You might not find it nice, I get that, but he has every right to say what he feels about her.

He has every right to take a dump in the Oval Office. You might not find that nice, I get it, but he has every right to relieve himself in his own office of that’s what he wants to do.

[Anonymous]

Some quotes from today
do not understand Mr Giuliani’s motives for attacking me,” she said, referring to the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. “What I can say is that Mr. Giuliani should have known those claims were suspect, coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

Yovanovitch calmly refuted an argument by Republican counsel Steve Castor that Trump was legitimately concerned about influential Ukrainians being “out to get the president.”

“I can’t speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would just say that those elements that you’ve recited don’t seem to me to be kind of a plan or a plot of the Ukrainian government to work against President Trump or anyone else. I mean, they’re isolated incidents. We all know – I’m going to find out myself – that public life can be, you know, people are critical. That does not mean that someone or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering with elections. And I would just remind again that our own U.S. intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered with the election were in Russia.”

“While I obviously don’t dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time ... what I do wonder is - why it was necessary to smear my reputation?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some quotes from today
do not understand Mr Giuliani’s motives for attacking me,” she said, referring to the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. “What I can say is that Mr. Giuliani should have known those claims were suspect, coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

Yovanovitch calmly refuted an argument by Republican counsel Steve Castor that Trump was legitimately concerned about influential Ukrainians being “out to get the president.”

“I can’t speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would just say that those elements that you’ve recited don’t seem to me to be kind of a plan or a plot of the Ukrainian government to work against President Trump or anyone else. I mean, they’re isolated incidents. We all know – I’m going to find out myself – that public life can be, you know, people are critical. That does not mean that someone or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering with elections. And I would just remind again that our own U.S. intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered with the election were in Russia.”

“While I obviously don’t dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time ... what I do wonder is - why it was necessary to smear my reputation?”

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

He has every right to do it. You might not find it nice, I get that, but he has every right to say what he feels about her.

He has every right to take a dump in the Oval Office. You might not find that nice, I get it, but he has every right to relieve himself in his own office of that’s what he wants to do.

Stay classy Republicans.

But Trump is not a king and this is not regicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some quotes from today
do not understand Mr Giuliani’s motives for attacking me,” she said, referring to the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. “What I can say is that Mr. Giuliani should have known those claims were suspect, coming as they reportedly did from individuals with questionable motives and with reason to believe that their political and financial ambitions would be stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

Yovanovitch calmly refuted an argument by Republican counsel Steve Castor that Trump was legitimately concerned about influential Ukrainians being “out to get the president.”

“I can’t speak for what President Trump thought or what others thought. I would just say that those elements that you’ve recited don’t seem to me to be kind of a plan or a plot of the Ukrainian government to work against President Trump or anyone else. I mean, they’re isolated incidents. We all know – I’m going to find out myself – that public life can be, you know, people are critical. That does not mean that someone or a government is undermining either a campaign or interfering with elections. And I would just remind again that our own U.S. intelligence community has conclusively determined that those who interfered with the election were in Russia.”

“While I obviously don’t dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time ... what I do wonder is - why it was necessary to smear my reputation?”

Freedom is speech is legal. Libel, slander, witness tampering is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since we already have foreign election interference, I wish the tapes, these ones and all the ones, would just come out. We can promise not to identify the tradecraft they used to record us, and we can just get everything out and be done with this once and for all.

+1 it would be great if the foreign countries who know more about what Russia and the GOP did to us could remove details that identify their sources and methods and just blow up the Russipublican Party.

Not that that would help our slow witted friends determined not to understand, but the casual “I don’t like to get political” middle would be properly aghast.

[Anonymous]

Here is why David Holmes (and others) testimony about the Sondland call is so important:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1195663242414215168

Basically, it takes two of the major GOP talking points out of play and further implicates Trump directly in the scheme.

The American public will understand exactly what this is, and there is no deflection or propgandizing around it. It puts all of the GOP Senate who are up for election at risk, particularly Graham and McConnell - who are both already unpopular in their states; and it certainly puts Trump at risk in terms of holding the White House.

Despite the 'lack of pizzazz' quip, the American public is watching these proceedings, it is on in all of the airports and restaurants in real time across the country, even if people aren't glued to their TVs, they are being exposed to it. With testimony solid through Thanksgiving, and then a Thanksgiving holiday where debate will be had among family, it will be very hard for the GOP to come out of this with public opinion in tow. Trump has lost the narrative, the GOP in the House has no consistent means of defense, and witness testimony undercuts the defense being made.

There are two ways this can go - either Trump is removed from office (and possibly Pence too, since it now being reported that he personally shook down Zelenskyy on September 1st) or else Trump and most of the GOP get voted out of office in November and for a generation thereafter.

The only thing that changes that is if the dems are too incompetent to nominate someone who can take advantage of the political landscape, or if something happens/is created to be catalytic that forces the continuation of the Presidency (a war, martial law - something nefarious/dark)

[Anonymous]

Doug Lamborn R-Colorado starting to throw Rudy Giuliani under the bus

https://twitter.com/jeremyschulman/status/1195380600464654339

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doug Lamborn R-Colorado starting to throw Rudy Giuliani under the bus

https://twitter.com/jeremyschulman/status/1195380600464654339

Any Republican senator who is trying this hard to protect Trump HAS TO be himself compromised by the Russians. There's really no other explanation at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He has every right to do it. You might not find it nice, I get that, but he has every right to say what he feels about her.

He has every right to take a dump in the Oval Office. You might not find that nice, I get it, but he has every right to relieve himself in his own office of that’s what he wants to do.

Stay classy Republicans.

But Trump is not a king and this is not regicide.


Why does he look like Jabba the Hutt here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is why David Holmes (and others) testimony about the Sondland call is so important:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1195663242414215168

Basically, it takes two of the major GOP talking points out of play and further implicates Trump directly in the scheme.

The American public will understand exactly what this is, and there is no deflection or propgandizing around it. It puts all of the GOP Senate who are up for election at risk, particularly Graham and McConnell - who are both already unpopular in their states; and it certainly puts Trump at risk in terms of holding the White House.

Despite the 'lack of pizzazz' quip, the American public is watching these proceedings, it is on in all of the airports and restaurants in real time across the country, even if people aren't glued to their TVs, they are being exposed to it. With testimony solid through Thanksgiving, and then a Thanksgiving holiday where debate will be had among family, it will be very hard for the GOP to come out of this with public opinion in tow. Trump has lost the narrative, the GOP in the House has no consistent means of defense, and witness testimony undercuts the defense being made.

There are two ways this can go - either Trump is removed from office (and possibly Pence too, since it now being reported that he personally shook down Zelenskyy on September 1st) or else Trump and most of the GOP get voted out of office in November and for a generation thereafter.

The only thing that changes that is if the dems are too incompetent to nominate someone who can take advantage of the political landscape, or if something happens/is created to be catalytic that forces the continuation of the Presidency (a war, martial law - something nefarious/dark)

Good analysis up until last para. You act as though the Democratic Party leaders select the candidate. People do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why David Holmes (and others) testimony about the Sondland call is so important:

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1195663242414215168

Basically, it takes two of the major GOP talking points out of play and further implicates Trump directly in the scheme.

The American public will understand exactly what this is, and there is no deflection or propgandizing around it. It puts all of the GOP Senate who are up for election at risk, particularly Graham and McConnell - who are both already unpopular in their states; and it certainly puts Trump at risk in terms of holding the White House.

Despite the 'lack of pizzazz' quip, the American public is watching these proceedings, it is on in all of the airports and restaurants in real time across the country, even if people aren't glued to their TVs, they are being exposed to it. With testimony solid through Thanksgiving, and then a Thanksgiving holiday where debate will be had among family, it will be very hard for the GOP to come out of this with public opinion in tow. Trump has lost the narrative, the GOP in the House has no consistent means of defense, and witness testimony undercuts the defense being made.

There are two ways this can go - either Trump is removed from office (and possibly Pence too, since it now being reported that he personally shook down Zelenskyy on September 1st) or else Trump and most of the GOP get voted out of office in November and for a generation thereafter.

The only thing that changes that is if the dems are too incompetent to nominate someone who can take advantage of the political landscape, or if something happens/is created to be catalytic that forces the continuation of the Presidency (a war, martial law - something nefarious/dark)

Good analysis up until last para. You act as though the Democratic Party leaders select the candidate. People do.

Is that entirely true?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774