Other Resources The Political Joe » The Inquisition Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
2019-11-13 8:18 AM

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: The Inquisition
Read? Camera....ACTION.

Regardless of what is said the Dems and the media will spin in their favor and republicans and conservative media will spin in their favor. Both sides will air made-for-TV statements and proclaim bombshell! Smoking gun! Deep state.

People, including me, will hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. To this day, my mother, bless her heart, still believes OJ was not guilty.

As time goes by only the polls will tell who is “winning”. After all, this is not about fact finding, this is about perceptions.



2019-11-13 9:05 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Nah......this is about not getting your way. 

The lesson should be a good one for everybody by the time it's over.

2019-11-13 1:11 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

It is IMPOSSIBLE that this hearing could be more of a joke.  The two star "witnesses", Taylor and Kent, both just testified that they have never had a SINGLE conversation with President Trump and everything they have "testified" to is what they have heard from other people.  LMAOOO

In case you are a Democrat clinging to this, your last hope, of getting rid of President Trump......I'll let you go ahead and google what that means IF this ever gets to a trial situation in the Senate.  HAHAHAHA!!

Adam Schiff is an absolute moron.

2019-11-13 4:47 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5534
500050025
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Originally posted by Left Brain

It is IMPOSSIBLE that this hearing could be more of a joke.  The two star "witnesses", Taylor and Kent, both just testified that they have never had a SINGLE conversation with President Trump and everything they have "testified" to is what they have heard from other people.  LMAOOO

In case you are a Democrat clinging to this, your last hope, of getting rid of President Trump......I'll let you go ahead and google what that means IF this ever gets to a trial situation in the Senate.  HAHAHAHA!!

Adam Schiff is an absolute moron.




While they acknowledged they did not have direct communication with the president, Sodland, who does, acknowledged it was the wish of the president to tie the money to an investigation.

I think only Rog's mother would say the president didn't do anything inappropriate. Inappropriate and illegal are different.
IMO, it is a stretch that it's an impeachable offence.

What I find disturbing but not surprising given the climate is
- why so much effort to hide it ? moving stuff around on servers, trying to hush a whistelblower.....
- why isn't any republican have the cojones to call it what it is ? it's wrong that everyone is scared to even mildly criticize Trump

it's too bad democrat and republican leaders can't agree to call it a censure, cut the process short and get to governing. Let the people decide in 12 months





Edited by marcag 2019-11-13 4:52 PM
2019-11-13 5:08 PM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
It doesn't matter. There is NOTHING they can go to trial with... NOTHING. It's not even worth having a discussion about. If this is it, the Senate won't even entertain it, nor should they. And to your last comment....I agree 100%....and the only reason this is even going on is that the Dems know they have nobody running who can beat him....this is literally all they have. It's a made for TV circus.
2019-11-13 5:28 PM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by Left Brain

It is IMPOSSIBLE that this hearing could be more of a joke.  The two star "witnesses", Taylor and Kent, both just testified that they have never had a SINGLE conversation with President Trump and everything they have "testified" to is what they have heard from other people.  LMAOOO

In case you are a Democrat clinging to this, your last hope, of getting rid of President Trump......I'll let you go ahead and google what that means IF this ever gets to a trial situation in the Senate.  HAHAHAHA!!

Adam Schiff is an absolute moron.




While they acknowledged they did not have direct communication with the president, Sodland, who does, acknowledged it was the wish of the president to tie the money to an investigation.

I think only Rog's mother would say the president didn't do anything inappropriate. Inappropriate and illegal are different.
IMO, it is a stretch that it's an impeachable offence.

What I find disturbing but not surprising given the climate is
- why so much effort to hide it ? moving stuff around on servers, trying to hush a whistelblower.....
- why isn't any republican have the cojones to call it what it is ? it's wrong that everyone is scared to even mildly criticize Trump

it's too bad democrat and republican leaders can't agree to call it a censure, cut the process short and get to governing. Let the people decide in 12 months






LOL. Yes, even Mom would say he is innocent. Prolly why I got away with so much criminality as a kid. When I was 10 I found a quarter would buy me 40 news papers out of the machine that I could sell for 25 cents each in front of the grocery store. Ok, I did take an asswhooping for that one.

My gut feel is Trump was not tiring to find dirt on a political opponent....he was trying to vindicate himself from 2016. For 3 years he has been PO’d about the “you stole the 2016 election and are illegitimate” narrative. Once and for all he thought he could prove he was framed...with the help of The Ukrainians. I also think he honestly believes the Crowdstrike people were bought off by the Clintonistas to coverup the Clinton email hack.

Did he “abuse” his power? IDK. He certainly used his power. Was his
motive 2020 or vindication for 2016? IDK.


2019-11-13 6:02 PM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
These career State Dept. people can sit down and shut the hell up. They have been elected by NOBODY. They don't make policy, and their opinions of how the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, conducts foreign diplomacy doesn't mean squat. Shut up and do the job THE PRESIDENT appointed you to do or resign, period. All I heard today is, we in this group think the President's policies are crazy.....thanks for your opinion, now shut up.
2019-11-14 5:03 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
5534
500050025
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Originally posted by Left Brain
These career State Dept. people can sit down and shut the hell up.


They were subpoenaed, Wouldn't that would be breaking the law ?

Originally posted by Left Brain
they have been elected by NOBODY. They don't make policy, and their opinions of how the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, conducts foreign diplomacy doesn't mean squat.


Wouldn't withholding funds appropriated by congress be breaking the law ?

Originally posted by Left Brain
shut up and do the job THE PRESIDENT appointed you to do


Even if it's illegal ?

I do get your frustration of never ending BS.
Rog made the comment that billionaire's have the ability to multi-task. I can not imagine having to be doing work with the president of Turkey while a trial is accusing me of wrong doing and I can't be there. The president's ability to deal with it is pretty extraordinary.

2019-11-14 5:05 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Extreme Veteran
5534
500050025
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Originally posted by Rogillio

LOL. Yes, even Mom would say he is innocent. Prolly why I got away with so much criminality as a kid. When I was 10 I found a quarter would buy me 40 news papers out of the machine that I could sell for 25 cents each in front of the grocery store. Ok, I did take an asswhooping for that one.



You shouldn't have released your tax returns
2019-11-14 7:28 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
As expected, both sides are claiming victory. Dems heard what they wanted to hear and reps heard what they wanted to hear.

I actually watched/listened to most of it yesterday. I think the information, while not new, about the Javelin missiles was interesting. The fact that Obama did not provide them to Ukraine to fight the Russians but Trump did sure doesn’t sit well with the Trump is Putin’s puppet narrative we have heard for the last 3 years.

Conventional wisdom says a prosecutor would open their case with the most damming evidence. If this is the best they’ve got I don’t even see the House voting on impeachment. I think when all is said and done Nancy will look at the polls and then decide if it makes sense to call for a vote.

If they refuse to call the republicans’ witnesses I think public opinion will change. Rules be damned, Americans have a good sense of fairness and to deny the ‘defendant’ the right to call their own witnesses who might have exculpatory testimony is inherently unfair.
2019-11-14 7:38 AM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Originally posted by marcag

Originally posted by Rogillio

LOL. Yes, even Mom would say he is innocent. Prolly why I got away with so much criminality as a kid. When I was 10 I found a quarter would buy me 40 news papers out of the machine that I could sell for 25 cents each in front of the grocery store. Ok, I did take an asswhooping for that one.



You shouldn't have released your tax returns


I thought I was a business genius. My 25 cent investment gave me a ROI of $10! Ranks right up there with Hillary’s investment in the futures market.


2019-11-14 8:04 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Originally posted by marcag
Originally posted by Left Brain These career State Dept. people can sit down and shut the hell up.
They were subpoenaed, Wouldn't that would be breaking the law ?
Originally posted by Left Brain they have been elected by NOBODY. They don't make policy, and their opinions of how the President, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, conducts foreign diplomacy doesn't mean squat.
Wouldn't withholding funds appropriated by congress be breaking the law ?
Originally posted by Left Brain shut up and do the job THE PRESIDENT appointed you to do
Even if it's illegal ? I do get your frustration of never ending BS. Rog made the comment that billionaire's have the ability to multi-task. I can not imagine having to be doing work with the president of Turkey while a trial is accusing me of wrong doing and I can't be there. The president's ability to deal with it is pretty extraordinary.

1. Obviously, you have to show up.  You absolutely do not have to give your opinion of how diplomacy is carried out when you do NOT set policy.  These are mid-level State Dept. employees.  If you have first hand knowledge of criminal activity, then by all means, let if fly.  They did not.....not even close.  In fact, when ask what impeachable offense the President may have committed neither of them could come up with an answer.  It was ridiculous.

2. Absolutely not.  There are many provisions in the law that allow a sitting President to hold up funds.  The President, and only the President, makes foreign policy.  He controls the funds after they are allocated.  Granting the funds to a corrupt government, if he found that was the case, would be a dereliction of his duty.  Yeah, in this case,  one of the players in the possible corruption happens to be a candidate for 2020......so that makes him immune to investigate?  Again, ridiculous.

3.  Not a single person is claiming that the President asked them, or ordered them, to do anything illegal.

And no, I'm not frustrated with the BS.  Everything the Democrats do is BS under their current leadership.  I understand completely that THEY are frustrated that it's no longer business as usual.....but THAT is why we elected Trump to be President.  In my lifetime there has never been a President who took office and set about keeping every campaign promise he made.  I doubt he can be successful in one term, but it won't be from lack of trying.  In the second term, watch out, Trump unleashed will be a force of nature in Washington.  He'll change it forever.

I do get frustrated that the nitwits on the Democrat side can't make a coherent case and yet keep bringing one after another......stupid is not that funny....no matter how ridiculous.

Now, if it's comedy you're after, switch back and forth reading CNN and Fox news.....that's hysterical.



Edited by Left Brain 2019-11-14 8:11 AM
2019-11-14 8:19 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition




Attachments
----------------
90368.jpeg (37KB - 7 downloads)
2019-11-14 1:58 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
5534
500050025
Subject: RE: The Inquisition


For me, the witnesses did not come across as "giving their opinion" except when specifically asked "in your opinion....". As for when asked what impeachable offense...Taylor did not respond as it was obvious it wasn't his place to respond. I think most reasonable people would not impeach a president over this. It was probably inappropriate behaviour but not something impeachable, especially with an election in less than 12 months.

I understand a president can freeze previously appropriated funds, but can he do it without advising anyone ?

The 2nd, 3rd, hand testimony does hurt credibility of some of the info, but the president has put a gag order on anyone with first hand info. Make Mulvaney, Bolton and others testify under oath and I bet it would be a $hit show.

Sondland's testimony will be interesting.

One of the things I look at in the processes is how would this play out in Canada. We had a "similar" offense committed by our PM about 6 months ago. I say "similar' in terms of gravity. It was resolved within a month or so, our ethics commissioner saying Trudeau was at fault and stating Canadians would decide an appropriate punishment at the next elections, which they did. Our system worked. But our system is far far far less partisan than yours.

2019-11-14 2:26 PM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Well, I don't know if you watched the entire day, but I did, and what wasn't opinion was hearsay....it was a joke.  It's very clear that the career State Dept. employees do not like the way President Trump conducts diplomacy.  That's too damn bad.  Those of us who voted for him were tired of our Presidents giving our country away and fighting endless wars in places where war is a way of life.  I think it's a welcome change from "the usual channels" and "by usual means" that two mid-level career State Dept. employees want to whine about.....to hell with them.  It's pretty obvious that nothing illegal will be proved.  That's because the president hasn't done anything illegal.  This wouldn't be such a Democrat freak show if they had anything to hang their hats on....it's all just stupid and my bet is they'll pay a steep price for it next November.

And I'll take your bet, and double-down, on it being a $hitshow if higher-level govt. employees testify......the liberals haven't won one of those bets yet.....but you're willing to go with this being the one, huh?  Well, OK.    LMAO

 

2019-11-15 9:25 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Question I would ask Yovanovitch: if the President could fire you at any time for any reason why would you need to be “smeared”?


2019-11-15 9:27 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
OMG, Trump just tweeted and Schiff read the tweet in the hearing.
2019-11-15 10:25 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

The Dems are now crying "witness intimidation"....which of course it wasn't unless Schiff reads it during the testimony....which he does.  Someone sitting next to the President should pour water on his phone. 

What a damn circus for no reason except your candidate didn't win in 2016 and you just can't get over it.

Ridiculous.

2019-11-15 2:29 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Welp - seems like a good time to end this "impeachment talk" since this was the third "witness" who stated that she knew of no law that the President had broken. 

This is the dumbest Schiff ever.  HAHAHAHA!!!!  A complete dumbarse.  Wow!

2019-11-15 3:20 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Maybe the Democrats can back up and practice a bit first.  Perhaps they can try to impeach a 7-11 clerk or something.  If that works out they can build their way back up......you know, next go after a cab driver, then maybe a food truck owner.  It may take awhile, but they might be able to make another run at the President before the election if they stay with it.  LMAO



Edited by Left Brain 2019-11-15 3:25 PM
2019-11-16 5:04 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
9854
5000200020005001001001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
I noticed the GOP council used a lawyer “trick” yesterday when deposing the witness. He made a comment and then just sat quietly. There was no question but to fill the awkward silence void she started talking.

Years ago I was deposed and my attorney warned me about this. He said just answer the question and shut up. He said people feel uncomfortable with the silence and feel the need to say more. They then start rambling and often provide information that hurts them.


2019-11-16 9:08 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Pro
6836
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Originally posted by Left Brain[/b

Yeah...

Maybe the Democrats can back up and practice a bit first.  Perhaps they can try to impeach a 7-11 clerk or something.  If that works out they can build their way back up......you know, next go after a cab driver, then maybe a food truck owner.  It may take awhile, but they might be able to make another run at the President before the election if they stay with it.  LMAO


2019-11-19 12:57 PM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Day 3 of public hearings......still not a single law broken that can be cited by "witnesses".   Are the House Dems done being stupid yet, or how long will we be subjected to this political hack job?

2019-11-19 5:42 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

, Arizona
Subject: RE: The Inquisition
Impeachment isn't required to be in violation of criminal code, abuse of power can be considered a high crime. If his son shot up a school, was convicted and sent to jail, and then pardoned by Trump... that could be considered an impeachable offense with no broken laws from the president.

The closest thing to violating criminal code I'd guess would be Section 201(b)(2). Hence the importance of quid pro quo and why Trump denied its existence, an investigation into your main political rival near an election would be quite a valuable thing to have. But again, criminal codes don't really matter. As far as I can tell, the real question is whether or not he did what he did for personal political gain.
2019-11-19 6:51 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15488
500050005000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: The Inquisition

Here's the deal.......President Trump can't control who runs against him.  But, Joe Biden was an absolute moron to brag about how he threatened to hold up funds unless a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired, and then when he got what he wanted he released the funds.  HE BRAGGED ABOUT IT.  I seems clear that he never thought anyone would find out his son was the biggest, personal to Biden, benefactor of that behavior.

It is now a matter of fact that the Ukrainian govt was/is a corrupt entity.  Does the fact that the President MUST make sure mandated funds not go to a corrupt govt. come into play here?  Of course it does.  Would President Trump benefit from an investigation into Ukrainian corruption that might lead into a problem with Biden getting his son a high paying position THAT HE HAD NO QUALIFICATIONS FOR?  Of course it might.

Should President Trump not order that investigation just because a possible political opponent might be damaged by it, even if he might benefit from it because his opponent was an idiot?

I'm sorry, but in this impeachment farce, there is no there....there.  Not a single person who had direct knowledge of any communication between the President of our country and the President of the Ukraine testified that Biden was mentioned.  So what is your evidence of ANY "high crime"?  It's not there.

Nice try.

The corruption in the 2016 election, and by the prior administration, and by the intelligence community, was not orchestrated by Donald Trump, a political neophyte.  But you watch, he WILL be the biggest benefactor of it. 



Edited by Left Brain 2019-11-19 6:58 PM
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » The Inquisition Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 2