I hate that no matter what the GOP or Trump tells them to do they eventually cow tow and do it.

The rules they're playing by were put in place by the GOP majority and done during the Benghazi hearings and the Hillary server stuff but now that these investigations are being done quietly so that the information is kept private (like most investigations) but now that the GOP are up in arms the Dems give in. I just want the same rules for everyone.

Cool. That is why I said if it is true. It seemed too idiotic even for him.

I really thought it was mistake not to have a vote in the first place because I knew that would be the GOP talking point. Now, it is really too late. They are just going to bitch about not getting subpoena power, and not letting Trump's lawyers run a defense. Unless they give them that too, then they will complain there is not enough Republicans on the committees, and their chairs are uncomfortable. It is always going to be "not enough" and never about the actual case.

You hold him in higher esteem then I do. Remember this is a guy that had a himself on a fake Times cover.

Regardless of the timing, I think the photo was staged. There's nothing organic about that picture.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things this is pointless, but we're talking about the party that made nitpicking pointless things an art over the previous 8 years.

The only refrain I have for "not enough" is Merrick Garland.

You will never find a process that the GOP won't try to ratfuck. Do what you think is right and damn the consequences.

The smearing of LTC Vindman as some sort of Ukrainian agent is a new low for the GOP.

Can't wait to see how they go lower tomorrow!

Opening statement from Vindman. It is ludicrous how guilty Trump is.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.ne...ementfinal.pdf

Looks like Ambassador Sondland has changed his tune about the quid pro quo in Ukraine after basically everyone that testified after him said he did indeed ask that.

Not sure what the legalese is but if true, they should make an example of Sondland ... quickly so everyone else testifying later know the committee is serious.

Is it possible for Trump to pardon Sondland (and like)?

Intelligence panel Democrat: It appears Sondland committed perjury | TheHill

I agree Edward-Sondland only got his job because he was a large donor to Trump/GOP. Send a message to all the other Trump loyalists that they better decide what that loyalty is worth to them right now.



I think Trump can pardon them, but they can no longer plead the fifth if he does, so I'm not sure its a big win for them to get pardoned. And so far Trump has not pardoned anyone connected to Mueller/impeachment I think, so I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in him right now.

This truly is one of THE WORST administrations in the history of this country. After he is out of office, he deserves no statues, no libraries, no streets or schools named after him, zero, zip, nada.

Team Trump Admits Holding Back Billions For Puerto Rico Disaster Recovery

I'm no lawyer but...

So let's say Trumps pardons his loyalists and they refuse to testify anyway, what exact recourse do the Democrats have? Couldn't Trump just shield them from future consequences with more pardons all the while crying about witch hunts and how Trump is the true victim in all this?

Yes, our constitution has quite a few faults.

The Founding Fathers assumed 230 years ago that we wouldn't elect mobsters to run the government. Whoops.

I'm no lawyer either so don't really have an answer for you.

Then it would get rolled into obstruction charges related to the impeachment investigation. Then the GOP senate would say the Dems couldn't get enough evidence to remove.

It keeps going back to the founding fathers never imagining a corrupt executive branch and complicit senate. Or if they did they just decided we were all pretty much fucked anyway.

No matter what system you have, if there's enough corruption in it and tolerated by the people, things aren't going to end well. I think it's a cop-out to blame the Constitution here. It's certainly not perfect, but it does have a mechanism for removing those who abuse their office. If you like government of the people, then you have to blame the people when government doesn't do their job and the people don't do a darned thing about it when they have the power to do so. If Trump's impeachment was being demanded by large majorities of the electorate, he'd be removed.

Ah but here is where we go down the rabbit hole.

What determines the opinion of the electorate? Mostly, it's media. And what does the media report on? What gets it ad clicks and viewership, to make more money. So what controls public opinion, in the end? Money.

Those who have money can manipulate the media message, and control the actions of the electorate. Ergo, the electorate is powerless.

Toss in an electoral system with a first past the post process, resulting in two dominant and diametrically opposed parties, and a pervasive media that is literally everywhere, and you have a situation where the electorate is unconsciously herded into the dialogues the people in power want them to be. The narrative we're fed is to fear the other side above all else. And a two dominant party system ensures that neither party is likely to ever have true control of Congress. So when the exec admin is corrupt, the party in power must choose to cave to their fear of the other side (and admit they are themselves wrong) in order to even recognize the mad man in the Oval Office, much less remove him.

In my experience, the electorate are sheep. This is not a challenge they are up for. And the wealthy puppet masters know it.

The constitution wasn't written to be a government of the people. They didn't trust the people to even vote. And we still have elements of government that don't want everyone to be able to vote.

Not to beat this dead horse, but I think it is simply an issue of verbiage. "Staged" is probably the wrong word, because these people most likely were in the room when the raid was watched. "Posed" is what the picture is. The Obama/Bin Laden picture was a candid shot. This one was very obviously a posed shot.

Fwiw I believe Edward wanted an ear witness to impeach

Welp here you go... I wonder how many like him will continue to choose to defend the president versus defending our country and democracy.

And of course the gop turns on a Patriot in Vinson to continue their deep dive on trading the country for the color red.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, definitely a good witness, he was in the room (and not the heard from X who heard from Y). Some articles that Sondland may somehow retract/restate to become more aligned with Taylor (and assume with Vindman).

So then when he changes his story after being caught in the lie, I hope the defenders of chairman Trump will equally malign the lying and hypocrisy of him.

Lying and hypocrisy shouldn't be afforded any room at all.

I've heard a lot of people early on saying that they're scared of pence versus Trump... I'll take a person who believes what he says even if I disagree with it and perhaps will have a hard time lying, versus a person who will simply lie about everything all the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not surprising that you and many others on this board (in my opinion) misunderstood my point. I was not defending the President, I was defending the process as I believe more supporting testimony was needed vs just one person (Taylor who heard from X) and a whistle blower (who heard from another X who possibly heard from Y) for quid pro quo against Biden & Son.

Many of you see this as Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump, very binary. I consider myself "independent" who supports some of Trump's policies and not on others. In the Obama thread, I believe you will find the same ... that I supported some of Obama's policies and was critical of others.

In my mind, on a 1-10 range where 1 = ultra liberal Democrats and 10 = Trump true believers, the vast majority of this board is in the 1-3 range, a couple in the 10 range. I consider myself in the 6-7 range.

I am more conservative in Economic and Foreign and more liberal in Social. I don't vote straight party. I voted for Hillary in 2016. At this time, I am definitely leaning to voting non-Trump.

I'm with you here. I'd take Pence over Trump any day. I view Pence as a "traditional" Republican who follows the old "rules". I'm ready to return to the old ways in the next 4 years (e.g. hence my preference for Biden as the nominee).

I think Pence would be better than trump at this point (oh how far have we fallen), as much is it pains me to say that. Having Biden get the nomination though, I fear, is going to be Hillary v2.0 and after having almost 4 years of an absolute train wreck, we need something...someone that can swing things back to a more progressive government, not back to somewhere a bit right of center. Time has run out for a more centrist government, especially when it comes to the Earth's climate, income inequality and medical care. We've let it go for so long, that at this point, the band aid has to just be ripped off.

Regardless of all that and anything I said, if Biden wins the Democratic nomination, I will be voting for him.

Meanwhile, your "traditional" republicans have exploded the debt that Obama spent 8 years trying to fix.

BTW it be great (& hilarious) if Pence was truly "anonymous" and the resistance from within.

Apparently, LTC Vindman testified that two passages were left off the released rough call transcript.

I'm sure they were completely inconsequential.

Totally agree. The type of stuff that you’d want to put in a highly classified server immediately after a “perfect call”

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the term 'quid pro quo' was in the passages they left out.

That would make it the greatest phone call in the history of American politics, finally surpassing LBJ's bunghole.

Oh My God.

If, at some point, Trump does not tweet out the defense that you cannot impeach a President over a phone call because LBJ said bunghole and no one impeached him, then I will be very disappointed in him.

(Followed up by a serious conservative commentator on Fox explaining that LBJ was ordering those pants for his own personal benefit and not the benefit of the country, so Trump really isn't doing anything different than Presidents have done throughout history)

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

LBJ was worried about his nuts, but Trump puts your nuts first.

Bolton has been invited to give a deposition on Nov 7

Trump tweeted a photo of a Medal of Honor recipient-the edited him out and replaced him with the dog that helped get the ISIS leader,

Damn.

finally telling the truth

Yup! Melania would be like Dobby from Harry Potter after getting a sock probably.

On the edge of the impeachment vote, Trump tries to buy Republican Senators loyalty with money:


Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash - POLITICO

Dear Trump and Trump Defenders,

I'm afraid you don't understand the term, Witch Hunt.

Pelosi, Schiff, et al are not the witches. They are the hunters.

Thank you.

Looks like the vote passed. Rs got their vote, zero to bitch about, though without a doubt, they will try and spin something to make it about everything else except for the crimes committed by the president*.

Another interesting day(s) coming.

Assume Bolton was in the room also and would love to hear his point of view. And that whitehouse attorney that moved the transcript into the secured server after Vindman brought his concerns up.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/polit...use/index.html

Yup. Had to turn off their response, because it is just so eye-rolling. "No one has ever been treated this unfairly. This is not due process..." etc. etc. etc.


They have said multiple times that the president did nothing wrong, though. Maybe they will openly say it is fine that the president uses foreign relations for his own gain.

Oh man their statements prior to the vote were super cringy. All I can say is, if a democratic president does ANYTHING that they said was perfectly fine, they have zero credibility or legs to stand on.

Here's the crazy thing I saw someone point out. We've gotten almost no leaks from the closed-door testimony. And the GOP has members on all these committees and have heard all of this testimony. AND THEY HAVE NOT FELT IT IN THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST TO LEAK ANY OF IT.

How damning must the testimony be?