Quantcast

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
Fine accuse me second hand. But if that starts a snowball of first hand reports and evidence, the second hand doesn't matter a damned bit anymore; it was just the trigger that started the slide. If the only evidence was a second hand accusation, then yes, I understand the demand to find the accuser. However, there are now mountains of first hand, under oath evidence, by Trump's appointee's supporting the whistlerblower's statements. That person no longer matters. /conversation.
Right, your accused, but do you want the right to defend yourself and have your side ask questions on how, why, motives they got the information. Schiff said he never had contact with the whistleblower when it first came out, only to find he or his staff met with that person beforehand. Schiff read a bogus transcript at the beginning of this in front of congress, he out right lied. He said he had proof of Russia collusion, but till this day yet to provide it. So I feel its very important the right has access to cross examine everyone. Remember, the transcripts are based on one sided questioning.
 

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
.....and to investigate Biden. as has now been corroborated with firsthand accounts.

and trump admitted to it.



that is the ***DEFINITION*** of a quid pro quo.



it's come to light that many of the GOP members who are permitted to attend the testimony simply aren't going.



....except that last week the house voted to approve the investigation and thus make it public. which ironically, despite the GOP screaming for this to happen, every single republican member of the house voted **AGAINST** it



trump has been on twitter "defending" himself by admitting he did it.



they have numerous firsthand accounts now. plus trump has admitted it.



all credible polls show trump losing to all 3 of the leading democratic candidates.
Yes, Trump asked Ukraine for info on Biden, but not refusing to hold money until they did. He held money to make sure of no corruption after their election. End of the day, it was not quid pro quo. Was it wrong? Maybe. Is it an impeachable offense? No.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
86,233
24,734
media blackout
Yes, Trump asked Ukraine for info on Biden, but not refusing to hold money until they did. He held money to make sure of no corruption after their election. End of the day, it was not quid pro quo. Was it wrong? Maybe. Is it an impeachable offense? No.
no, it was all tied together.
 

velocipedist

Lubrication Sensei
Jul 11, 2006
559
702
Rainbow City Alabama
umm no.

There are GOP reps on all three comittees and they are questioning the witnesses as well.

Once public hearings begin I am curious to hear your thoughts as the GOP will have more "rights" for this impeachment than any other in history.


Right, your accused, but do you want the right to defend yourself and have your side ask questions on how, why, motives they got the information. Schiff said he never had contact with the whistleblower when it first came out, only to find he or his staff met with that person beforehand. Schiff read a bogus transcript at the beginning of this in front of congress, he out right lied. He said he had proof of Russia collusion, but till this day yet to provide it. So I feel its very important the right has access to cross examine everyone. Remember, the transcripts are based on one sided questioning.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
86,233
24,734
media blackout
Once public hearings begin I am curious to hear your thoughts as the GOP will have more "rights" for this impeachment than any other in history.
not to mention that schiff et al are following the rules / procedures established [edit] by republicans[/edit] during the clinton impeachment investigation
 
Last edited:

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
The issue here is that an inquiry is equivalent to a grand jury, a procedure that does not confer the robust rights that the actual trial in the Senate
will give.

Both Watergate and Whitewater/Lewinsky had investigations that occured prior to voting on articles of impeachment that in our current situation with AG Barr declining to investigate.

Unfortunately for Trump the constitutional basis for impeachment is solid and rules for an impeachment inquiry are under the purview and authority if the House.

Trump is blatant in his bad acts, and it is not a left priority to impeachment him, it is the patriotic duty of every congressperson to faithfully uphold the constitution by following the facts and pursuing an impeachment inquiry.

If Clintons behavior led to an inquiry and articles, I fail to see how using the same standard would not require one to support impeachment at present.
But they were conducted bipartisan, they had support from both sides. Senator Al Greene said it himself from day one. we know we can't beat Trump, so we need to do whatever it takes to impeach him. Yes, the house is in charge of running the inquiries, but its always allowed both sides to testify and be fair. This is one sided, yes its house rules but does make you wonder. IMO if the left was so sure they had this, they'd have it open and fair for both. Keeping it one sided allows leaks from one side and one side only. Prior inquiries were not done this way.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,450
16,986
Riding the baggage carousel.
if this were criminal proceedings, sure. impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, so the 6th amendment is generally considered not to apply.

plus the fact that 17 CFR § 240.21F-2 provides federal protection to whistleblowers against retaliation.
Huh.

Almost as if facts and law are on your side.

Hence the table pounding by Brian.

There are GOP reps on all three comittees and they are questioning the witnesses as well.
I literally posted an article in the last hour that shows these republicans just aren't showing up to the hearings, while at the same time participating in grand standing bullshitery for the mouth breather base about "transparancy". See Matt Gaetz or Devin Nunes.
 

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
umm no.

There are GOP reps on all three comittees and they are questioning the witnesses as well.

Once public hearings begin I am curious to hear your thoughts as the GOP will have more "rights" for this impeachment than any other in history.
Nope, you're wrong. The witness each time was instructed by Schiff not to answer the questions. That's why the GOP stormed the closed door hearings and made a big stink to bring these public. They kept getting shut down when they went to cross examine. Schiff then leaked info he felt would benefit the left in these "private" hearings. LOL
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
86,233
24,734
media blackout
Nope, you're wrong. The witness each time was instructed by Schiff not to answer the questions. That's why the GOP stormed the closed door hearings and made a big stink to bring these public. They kept getting shut down when they went to cross examine. Schiff then leaked info he felt would benefit the left in these "private" hearings. LOL
he kept shutting them down because all they were trying to do is reveal the identity of the whistleblower, which is against federal law.
 

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
Huh.

Almost as if facts and law are on your side.

Hence the table pounding by Brian.


I literally posted an article in the last hour that shows these republicans just aren't showing up to the hearings, while at the same time participating in grand standing bullshitery for the mouth breather base about "transparancy". See Matt Gaetz or Devin Nunes.
They're waiting to go public with the hearings, not the one sided Schiff show.
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,450
16,986
Riding the baggage carousel.
Criminal Intent: <----.pdf warning; 324 pages Pages 125-128

"THE CHAIRMAN: There are at least a couple issues that have been raised by your testimony. The first involves conditionality surrounding the desperately sought meeting between the two Presidents, desperately sought by the Ukrainians, that is. And the second involves conditionality around military aid. So let me go through your testimony, if I could, and ask you about a few of those both of those issues. 0n page 5 of your testimony, in the third paragraph, you say: "But during my subsequent communications with Ambassador Volker and Sondland, they relayed to me that the Pres j dent, quote, wanted to hear from Zelensky, " unquote, before scheduling the meeting in the Oval Office. It was not clear to me what this meant. Now, I take it, Ambassador, you used that word "before" deliberately, that is, they wanted to hear from Zelensky before they would schedule this meeting. Is that right?

AMBASSADOR TAYL0R: That is correct.

THE CHAIRMAN: Now, at the time I think you said it wasn't clear to you what this meant.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That is also correct.

THE CHAIRMAN: And in the two paragraphs below, you say: "I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants i n the call planned with Pres'i dent Zelensky later that day." Why did you sense something odd about that?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: He and I were on the phone talking about the timing of this call. This call had been set up. Obviously, when you're trying to get the head of state on a call, get President Zelensky on a call, you had to work through the timing. Was it convenient? Could he there may have had to be interpreters present. He had to be at the right phone. So we were working on when the meeting would happen. 0n the phone, Ambassador Sondland told me that the timing was going to change, that the time of the phone call was going to change. And I asked him something like, shouldn't we let everybody else know who's supposed to be on this call? And the answer was, don't worry about i t. Even his staff, I think, were not aware that the time had changed. 12:02 p.m.

l THE CHAIRMAN: And what was odd to you about that?

Ambassador TAYL0R: This suggested to me that there were the two channels. This suggested to me that the normal channel, where you would have staff on the phone call, was being cut out, and the other channel, of people who were working, again, toward a goal which I supported, which was having a meeting to further U. S. -Ukrainian relations, i supported, but that irregular channel didn't have a respect for or an interest in having the normal staff participate in this call with the head of state.

THE CHAIRMAN: So was this an early indication to you that these two channels were diverging?

AMBASSADOR TAYL0R: It was.

THE CHAIRMAN: And the interests of the irregular channel, represented by Mr. Giuliani, may not be the same interests as the State Department and what was in the best interest of the United States?

AMBASSADOR TAYL0R: That second part I came to believe. I'm not sure it was at this point. This is within a week, a week and a half, of me 10 days of me arriving there. And so I was still, maybe naively, but I was still of the view that I was on I was part of a team that might have several parts but we were moving in the same direction. So it was not I think, Mr. Chairman, it was not yet. That would come.

THE CHAIRMAN: But Ambassador Sondland made it clear not only that he didn't' wish to include most of the regular interagency participants but also that no one was transcribing or monitoring the call as they added President Zelensky. What struck you as odd about that?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Same concern. That is, in the normal, regular channel, the State Department operations center that was putting the call together would stay on the line, in particular when you were having a conversation with the head of state, they would stay on the line, transcribe, take notes so that there could be a record of the discussion with this head of state. It is an official discussion. When he wanted to be sure that there was not, the State Department operations center agreed. And they told us, they said in response to his request, they said, we won't monitor and will not and we certainly won't transcribe because we' re going to sign off. "


Please excuse the formatting. Copy/paste from the OG PDF was super hinky.

edit: for a good laugh, the first like, 5 pages are Nunes and Ratfucker Ratcliff bitching about testimony not being public. Careful what you wish for, fellas!

Edit 2: CTRL + F "quid pro quo" = 34 returns. H/T to @jonKranked

Edit 3: 52 for "Burisma" :rofl:
 
Last edited:

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,450
16,986
Riding the baggage carousel.
As part of the settlement, Attorney General James also announced that her office entered into multiple stipulations with the Trump Foundation and its directors to resolve the remaining claims in the lawsuit. Chiefly, Mr. Trump admits to personally misusing funds at the Trump Foundation, and agrees to restrictions on future charitable service and ongoing reporting to the Office of the Attorney General in the event he creates a new charity. The settlements also include mandatory training requirements for Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump. Finally, the settlements name the charities that will receive the remaining assets of the Trump Foundation as part of its dissolution.
Well, we trained a monkey to go to space, can't be that different, right?

 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,450
16,986
Riding the baggage carousel.
WHY IS RUDY STILL TALKING?!?!?!? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


The. Best. Fucking. People.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
38,530
7,862

Some excerpts:

“It’s like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pantsless across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him.

“You’re stunned, amused, and embarrassed all at the same time. Only your uncle probably wouldn’t do it every single day, his words aren’t broadcast to the public, and he doesn’t have to lead the US government once he puts his pants on.”
The author argues that Trump is incapable of leading the United States through a monumental international crisis, describing how he tunes out intelligence and national security briefings and theorizing that foreign adversaries see him as “a simplistic pushover” who is susceptible to flattery and easily manipulated.
“Can we just get rid of the judges? Let’s get rid of the [expletive] judges. There shouldn’t be any at all, really.”
“All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.”
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,707
7,398
Colorado
Yeah? Well all that is a bunch of nonsense.

My 401K is up BIGLY this year. So I'm going to continue to blindly follow and support Cheeto Mussolini.
My favorite phrase: " did you factor the 15% market drop the quarter prior when looking at you ytd RoR? 15% of that gain is the rebound. If you look at a rolling two years, the RoR is less than 10% aggregate. US historical avg for the last 20 years is 7.2% per annum."
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,419
13,544
Portland, OR
Worst fan EVAR!!!

While an honor in theory, the president’s arrival at a sporting event is challenging in execution. As one sports executive who has dealt with presidential visits over the years put it to Yahoo Sports: “The worst words you can hear are: ‘The president is coming to your game.’”
And this dude gets booed. :rofl:
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,450
16,986
Riding the baggage carousel.