Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

A second call

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1192837433970302978

I am sure it is more perfect than the first one!

How about release the tapes and transcripts of the calls so the American public can evaluate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, here comes the bus...



Gordon Sondland, a major donor and now ambassador to European Union and who spoke to Trump multiple times in recent months. After Sondland revised his testimony describing quid pro quo for Ukraine military aide, Trump says today: “Let me just tell you I hardly know the gentleman”

That is Trump code for "No Pardon for You."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, here comes the bus...



Gordon Sondland, a major donor and now ambassador to European Union and who spoke to Trump multiple times in recent months. After Sondland revised his testimony describing quid pro quo for Ukraine military aide, Trump says today: “Let me just tell you I hardly know the gentleman”

That is Trump code for "No Pardon for You."

It's metaphorically like when Michael Corleone kissed Fredo. See ya! ETTD, baby!

[Anonymous]

After weeks of Republicans demanding that Schiff open up the doors and allow the public to see the impeachment proceedings, Trump says this morning: “They shouldn’t be having public hearings.”

It's the same as the complaints about closed-door depostitions and then releasing the transcripts.

Its almost as if the GOP will always find something to complain about rather than focus on the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should be doing both at the same time.

The Epstein story is not isolated. It is integrated with our corporate and political figures including both Trump and Bill Clinton.

They should ALL go down, but it required the Fox followers to wake up to this President and this Attorney General (who either allowed or facilitated Epstein's death) to get it done.

This Administration is as corrupt as they come and nothing will change until we drop the partisan fights that Russia foments and come together to fight for our Constitution, a document the GOP is using to wipe its collective ass with.

Shoulda woulda coulda. The both sides argument never includes both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, here comes the bus...



Gordon Sondland, a major donor and now ambassador to European Union and who spoke to Trump multiple times in recent months. After Sondland revised his testimony describing quid pro quo for Ukraine military aide, Trump says today: “Let me just tell you I hardly know the gentleman”

That is Trump code for "No Pardon for You."

It's metaphorically like when Michael Corleone kissed Fredo. See ya! ETTD, baby!

“Bacio dell morte.”

[Anonymous]

Hahahahahahaha the Republicans are saying the guy leaving the Intelligence Committee was frustrated because it has become so partisan, so they’re replacing him with the oh so not partisan at all Jim Jordan. Can they hear themselves?

[Anonymous]

Hill's testimony seriously implicates Mulvaney. She reported several one on one meetings between Mulvaney and Sondland. They were both highly involved in holding back the aid to Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hill's testimony seriously implicates Mulvaney. She reported several one on one meetings between Mulvaney and Sondland. They were both highly involved in holding back the aid to Ukraine.

Yup, it’s here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D010.pdf

[Anonymous]

When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

Since when are military personnel and civil service employees partisan? Maybe look at it this way: some people were willing to come forward and testify and others weren't. Maybe our norms suggest those who testify, sworn under oath and in public are to be believed, and those who illegally duck subpoenas and remain in the shadows shouldn't be believed - or maybe our norms are too shattered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

Republicans believe it, they are just too tribal to do anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

Since when are military personnel and civil service employees partisan? Maybe look at it this way: some people were willing to come forward and testify and others weren't. Maybe our norms suggest those who testify, sworn under oath and in public are to be believed, and those who illegally duck subpoenas and remain in the shadows shouldn't be believed - or maybe our norms are too shattered.

Well, there will be a trial in the Senate and I have no doubt that if and when Trump is acquitted, Democrats will be calling foul!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When these people testify in open hearings and Mulvaney, Pompeo and the rest are left to stew, it won't matter what they say in press conferences or whatnot. They had their chance to be sworn in and "correct the record" and they didn't do it.

Democrats will not believe anything said defending Trump no matter who says it - and whether under oath or otherwise. Republicans will not believe anything said against Trump - whether under oath or otherwise. It is the independents who remain to be persuaded one way or the other.

Since when are military personnel and civil service employees partisan? Maybe look at it this way: some people were willing to come forward and testify and others weren't. Maybe our norms suggest those who testify, sworn under oath and in public are to be believed, and those who illegally duck subpoenas and remain in the shadows shouldn't be believed - or maybe our norms are too shattered.

Well, there will be a trial in the Senate and I have no doubt that if and when Trump is acquitted, Democrats will be calling foul!

What would be the basis for acquittal?