Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Luckily it is very easy to find out if a phone call was made between two phone numbers on a certain day at a certain time. Case closed.

Since the call was made on unsecured devices, I am sure the Russians intercepted it. It is really scary to think the American President might now be beholden to Vladimir Putin

Is there any oversight of security protocols at the WH?

Not anymore.

[Anonymous]

Trump says there was no quid pro quo and now Ukraine's foreign minister says the same thing:

A Ukrainian official insisted Thursday that the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union did not attempt to link a military aide freeze to Kiev investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vadym Prystaiko told Ukrainian reporters a day after the first public impeachment hearing that Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not detail any relationship between the assistance and probe, according to Interfax, a Ukrainian news agency.

To paraphrase Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar:

"But Schiff says that there was a quid pro quo and Schiff is an honorable man ........"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7685799/Ukraines-foreign-minister-Trumps-EU-ambassador-never-spelled-connection-aid-probe.html

[Anonymous]

This is so apt!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump says there was no quid pro quo and now Ukraine's foreign minister says the same thing:

A Ukrainian official insisted Thursday that the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union did not attempt to link a military aide freeze to Kiev investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vadym Prystaiko told Ukrainian reporters a day after the first public impeachment hearing that Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not detail any relationship between the assistance and probe, according to Interfax, a Ukrainian news agency.

To paraphrase Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar:

"But Schiff says that there was a quid pro quo and Schiff is an honorable man ........"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7685799/Ukraines-foreign-minister-Trumps-EU-ambassador-never-spelled-connection-aid-probe.html

So why were Volker and Zelensky's staff rushing to draft a public statement on investigations, to be approved by Rudy Giuliani, for Zelensky to give on U.S. television, in time for the security assistance to be released before the fiscal year ended? The Minister of Foreign Affairs must have been corrupted by Rudy and the corrupt Ukrainians to have said this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t get it twisted. Cheating is akin to cheating. A democratic blow job from Lewinsky is akin to a republican blow job from Stormy Daniels. Only one president tried confessed, repented, and showed humility; the other denied involvement and had a dirty fix it man pay her off with money. One president cheated with a White House intern; the other cheated with a pornographic star. These are facts. Considering that a blow job eas impeachable to republicans, and considering that everything Trump has done trumps the worst any president has done — you are all hypocrites.

Plus, this isn’t even largely about the cheating. It’s about TREASON. Betraying your post as HEAD OF STATE and welcoming FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO TAMPER WITH AN ELECTION PRICESS.

As usual. It’s republicans that disrespect the constitution, republicans that first demonstrated disrespectful behavior to sitting president on the congressional floor and call him a liar, or intentionally block and stonewall all bi-partisan efforts because they don’t want to see success in a blue administration headed by a black man. Obama literally took the heritage foundations/gops plan for healthcare and said, okay let’s do it. Rep were salty they wouldn’t get dem accolades. So petty.

Hypocrites. The whole lot of you.

Something else that came up yesterday but I’m sure lots of folks missed - there was a 2nd quid pro quo. By Trump releasing the memorandum of the call (it wasn’t a transcript) he’s undermined Zelensky. He was elected to be a reformer but any whiff of him making a deal w/ Trump is a sign Z’s corrupt. No matter that Trump had him over a barrel, the guy needs the money. Putin desperately wants a corrupt Ukraine.

Oh, and the GOP “Obama only gave blankets” defense? Maybe because we didn’t want to give Javelins to the Russian puppet gov.
But I guess Russia is now our ally.

Oh, so Dems are going to scream that the Trump admin is allowing Ukrainians to die because of the withholding of funds? How many Ukrainians died because the previous admin only gave blankets, etc?

It’s times like this that I really wish there was a palm slapping forehead gif here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump says there was no quid pro quo and now Ukraine's foreign minister says the same thing:

A Ukrainian official insisted Thursday that the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union did not attempt to link a military aide freeze to Kiev investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vadym Prystaiko told Ukrainian reporters a day after the first public impeachment hearing that Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not detail any relationship between the assistance and probe, according to Interfax, a Ukrainian news agency.

To paraphrase Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar:

"But Schiff says that there was a quid pro quo and Schiff is an honorable man ........"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7685799/Ukraines-foreign-minister-Trumps-EU-ambassador-never-spelled-connection-aid-probe.html

It is indisputable that the demand was that Ukraine would get the military assistance only after Zelensky publicly committed to the investigations.
Trump has admitted it. Giuliani has admitted it. Mulvaney has admitted it. Sondland has admitted it. Volker has admitted it.

[Anonymous]

It’s curious how some enthusiastically, without question, believe a Ukrainian foreign minister over decorated American patriots. But whatevs. This is where we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump says there was no quid pro quo and now Ukraine's foreign minister says the same thing:

A Ukrainian official insisted Thursday that the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union did not attempt to link a military aide freeze to Kiev investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vadym Prystaiko told Ukrainian reporters a day after the first public impeachment hearing that Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not detail any relationship between the assistance and probe, according to Interfax, a Ukrainian news agency.

To paraphrase Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar:

"But Schiff says that there was a quid pro quo and Schiff is an honorable man ........"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7685799/Ukraines-foreign-minister-Trumps-EU-ambassador-never-spelled-connection-aid-probe.html

I suppose the irony of you deferring to a foreign official over our own domestic officials is lost on you.

[Anonymous]

I thought Ukraine was corrupt. Now we can believe anything they say?

[Anonymous]

This impeachment process is the single most idiotic thing I’ve seen in 40 plus years of paying attention to politics. There’s an election coming up...isn’t that a more appropriate way to determine this nation’s leadership? But if you want 2020 to be all about Trump vs. Adam Schiff or Trump vs. unnamed CIA employees, don’t be surprised when Trump is re-elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This impeachment process is the single most idiotic thing I’ve seen in 40 plus years of paying attention to politics. There’s an election coming up...isn’t that a more appropriate way to determine this nation’s leadership? But if you want 2020 to be all about Trump vs. Adam Schiff or Trump vs. unnamed CIA employees, don’t be surprised when Trump is re-elected.

okay, boomer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This impeachment process is the single most idiotic thing I’ve seen in 40 plus years of paying attention to politics. There’s an election coming up...isn’t that a more appropriate way to determine this nation’s leadership? But if you want 2020 to be all about Trump vs. Adam Schiff or Trump vs. unnamed CIA employees, don’t be surprised when Trump is re-elected.

Many would not be surprised if Trump is reelected because we have seen how he was elected in 2016 and got away with it. Now that he is in power he is using the power of USA behind him to repeat the same, why would anyone be surprised if he still steals the election with multiple foreign powers' help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This impeachment process is the single most idiotic thing I’ve seen in 40 plus years of paying attention to politics. There’s an election coming up...isn’t that a more appropriate way to determine this nation’s leadership? But if you want 2020 to be all about Trump vs. Adam Schiff or Trump vs. unnamed CIA employees, don’t be surprised when Trump is re-elected.

Yes, isn't it idiotic that Democrats expect that laws should apply to a Republican President?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This impeachment process is the single most idiotic thing I’ve seen in 40 plus years of paying attention to politics. There’s an election coming up...isn’t that a more appropriate way to determine this nation’s leadership? But if you want 2020 to be all about Trump vs. Adam Schiff or Trump vs. unnamed CIA employees, don’t be surprised when Trump is re-elected.

What's over a year of leadership by a criminal President worth anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The first day of the impeachment hearing was a fiasco for the Democrats.

Their star witnesses offered second and third hand testimony about alleged conversations and acknowledged that Trump had done more for Ukraine than Obama ever did.

And we had some clown actually saying that hearsay evidence was more reliable than direct evidence? How does someone like this jerk even get elected to Congress?

Actually, they have first and second hand accounts. You know who could give firsthand accounts? Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, Bolton etc. Unless or until any of those folks testify, the sworn information the House will have will stand as the record. You would think, if there was exculpatory evidence these potential witnesses can give, they would give it. If there were documents and emails/texts that contradicts the informtion gathered to date, you would think it would be provided.

Why hasn't it?

You cannot complain about "secondhand" information while also withholding evidence and ignoring subpoenas.