ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Round One Of The Impeachment Hearings

[ Posted Wednesday, November 13th, 2019 – 18:14 UTC ]

The first public impeachment hearing was held today, in front of the House Intelligence Committee. It lasted almost five hours, and painted the same picture as all of the closed hearings -- at least, for anyone who has paid attention to them to date. The case was methodically laid out by the Democratic questions and the witnesses' answers that Donald Trump abused the power of his office to leverage both a personal White House meeting with him as well as military aid appropriated by Congress to Ukraine to force the Ukrainian leader to publicly announce an investigation into the 2016 election interference as well as Hunter Biden's work for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Both of these were not some sort of broad push to get Ukraine to fight corruption, as Trump has maintained, but rather to dig up dirt on his likely political opponent in next year's election. As such, it is not only unethical and illegal, but also an impeachable offense.

This is all a pretty straightforward case to make. As a matter of fact, the most damning part of this case is Trump's own words in the infamous phone call he made to the new Ukrainian leader. This was reinforced very early on, when William Taylor added a new snippet to his testimony that landed like a bombshell -- one of his staff overheard a phone call that Gordon Sondland had with Trump, where Trump specifically pressed again for dirt on the Bidens.

Will today's hearing change anyone's mind? I have no idea. As I said, I've been following all of this rather closely from the beginning, so it's tough for me to put myself in the place of someone who has just emerged from a coma and therefore hasn't heard any of it previously. The Democrats made exactly the case I expected them to make, and the Republicans completely ignored the worst evidence to throw as much mud into the process as they could. Interestingly enough, though, all of the mud didn't even touch upon the basic facts of the case. Instead most of it was meant to distract people from that case. Again, I wasn't personally distracted, but I have no idea how effective it was for those who may have tuned in for the first time.

The witnesses today were both career diplomats. Both Bill Taylor and George Kent are serious, upright civil servants who eschew politics in favor of service in the country's diplomatic corps. They seemed, in a word, unimpeachable witnesses, at least to my eyes. Thankfully, the Republicans seemed to realize this and didn't launch any nasty personal attacks upon them, likely knowing such an effort would backfire badly. The only Republican who seemed truly unhinged in his questioning was Jim Jordan, who was moved onto this committee specifically for the purpose of being as unhinged as possible, so I suppose he lived up to (or down to, more like) his billing in this regard.

The Republican response to such sober and restrained testimony was to call everything they could into question -- except, that is, for the basic facts of the case, which are pretty undeniable. The Republicans are, it seems, never happy about anything. Ever since the whistleblower's report started this investigation, they've been crying loudly for public hearings to commence. Today, one of them had the audacity to complain that the public hearings were "rushed," and that the committee should have instead spent more time uncovering facts. You can't have it both ways, but Republicans continue to try to. One of their biggest arguments today was that the evidence was "hearsay" and "secondhand," but they have not uttered a peep of complaint that the White House is stonewalling any attempt to interview those with more firsthand knowledge of what happened, such as Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton. Again, you can't have this both ways -- either we should all hear from the primary players or not.

Chairman Adam Schiff did succeed, for the most part, in heading off one of the Republican obsessions today, that of unmasking the whistleblower. Apparently the Republicans spent a lot of time on this question during the closed hearings, but this line of questioning was ruled out of order by Schiff and he did not back down. If a bank was robbed, there is absolutely no point in investigating the guy who called 911, after all, because that is completely meaningless when it comes to solving the crime and bringing the bank robbers to justice.

Likewise, Republicans also didn't get much traction in turning these hearings into the same investigation into Hunter Biden that Trump wanted all along. They tried as hard as they could, but the entire question is irrelevant to what Trump did, and the witnesses failed to ever take this bait.

The Democrats did a fair job of laying out their case, but they weren't as nimble at countering the Republicans' attempts to muddy the waters. They could have made several points much stronger than they did, to counter such mudslinging. Here are the points that, in my opinion, could have been made better:

The Ukrainians did hold a press conference, but it didn't go far enough for Trump. Right after the entire scandal went public, the Ukrainian general prosecutor (akin to our attorney general) gave a statement to the press in which he promised to "open old investigations," but he refused to specifically name either Burisma or either of the Bidens. This was, without a shadow of a doubt, due to the pressure from Trump over the issue. The Ukrainians were trying to walk the tightrope of pleasing Trump without appearing utterly subservient to the United States (remember, this was immediately after the whole mess was made public). This public announcement was referred to today, but only in passing. Every time the Republicans said "there was no press conference" by the Ukrainian leader, this should have been brought up in response by the Democrats. The Ukrainians did knuckle under to Trump's demand, but they tried to save a shred of their own dignity while doing so. Of course, this wasn't enough for Trump, who demanded that the Ukrainian leader go on CNN and make the case more strongly and more personally.

Trump didn't release the aid in a vacuum. Another Republican talking point was that Trump eventually released the aid, therefore "no harm, no foul." Democrats did make the case today -- once -- that this aid was released two days after Congress opened an investigation into the whistleblower's complaint. Congress as a whole had also been strongly pressuring Trump to release the aid, which was a fairly bipartisan effort. Not only was the Pentagon and the State Department lobbying hard to get the aid released, but Congress was doing the same. And then two days after the investigation began, Trump finally released the aid. The pressure became too much for him to bear, obviously. But Democrats didn't make this as obvious as it should really be today.

The Pentagon and State officially certified that Ukraine was making enormous progress fighting corruption. This point was most strongly made by one of the witnesses today, but it should have also been made clear by the Democrats. There were indeed conditions placed upon the aid by Congress, and one of them was that Ukrainian efforts at fighting corruption be certified by the U.S. government before they got the aid. This certification happened. This undercuts Trump's argument (and the Republican arguments today) that Ukraine is somehow beyond redemption in this regard, so hopelessly corrupt that it is simply not worthy of American aid. This may have been true in the past, but it is no longer true, and that was attested to by both the Pentagon and the State Department.

Where is any other example of Trump fighting corruption? One of Trump's shifting arguments has been that he wasn't interested in the Bidens per se, but rather more broadly interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine. This is balderdash. As one Democrat did point out today, Trump never even used the word "corruption" in his phone call. Democrats need to make this more explicit, and point out that Trump has never been even slightly interested in any other corruption other than the possibility that there was corruption by the Bidens. He has never asked for any other investigation into corruption, in the Ukraine or anywhere else on the planet. The subject obviously doesn't interest him in the slightest, if the word "Biden" isn't in the sentence. Democrats should press both witnesses and the Republicans on this basic point: name me one example of Trump demanding any sort of anti-corruption efforts at any time either in Ukraine or anywhere else on Earth that does not directly involve his political rival. There is no answer to that, because it doesn't exist.

Nonetheless, I thought Democrats did well in the first day of impeachment hearings. They matched the serious demeanor of the witnesses, and they laid their case out in logical fashion. The Republicans, by contrast, did a lot of yelling and pounding on the table, without ever directly addressing the damning facts of the case. About as close they came was during the initial 45-minute question period with their own staff counsel, who attempted to make some sort of case that Ukraine actually interfered somehow in the 2016 election. But even this attempt was pretty weak, because what was never mentioned in any of it was the points that Trump himself made during the phone call. There was no mention of CrowdStrike, or of the mythical Hillary Clinton server that Ukraine somehow supposedly wound up with (according to Rudy Giuliani's tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theory). This was what Trump was interested in, as evidenced by his own words, but somehow the Republicans never even brought it up today.

Again, I have no real idea if today's hearing changed any minds in the public today. I would guess that it merely reinforced previously-held beliefs on both sides. Anyone who bothered to watch the hearings today is very likely someone who has already paid a lot of attention to the entire process already, to put this another way. I doubt many watched it who hadn't paid any attention at all so far, and I have no idea what people like this would have thought after sitting through all five hours of public testimony.

This is just the beginning of what could be a weeks-long process. There will be more such hearings, but it's likely public interest will diminish over time. I'd be willing to bet that all of the broadcast networks who aired today's hearings from gavel to gavel may decide at some future date to limit their coverage of the hearings, since it does eat up hours of television they could be using to run advertising. That's just a guess on my part, though -- they could always surprise me.

For me, this was merely round one of an extended slugfest. Don't forget that these hearings are actually preliminary in nature. All of the Intelligence Committee hearings will happen in public, and then the Judiciary Committee will take over and hold all these hearings all over again -- this time, with Trump's counsel in the room. Once that's done, we'll have a Senate trial where all of these witnesses may be heard from a third time in public. So today was only the first step on a very long road.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

56 Comments on “Round One Of The Impeachment Hearings”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: This was reinforced very early on, when William Taylor added a new snippet to his testimony that landed like a bombshell -- one of his staff overheard a phone call that Gordon Sondland had with Trump, where Trump specifically pressed again for dirt on the Bidens.

    Taylor's staffer who overheard Sondland's telephone call with Donald Trump is David Holmes. Holmes is the counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine and is scheduled to appear Friday, November 15 at 3:00 p.m. Eastern for a closed-door deposition. :)

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump didn't release the aid in a vacuum.

    Exactly!

    08/12/2019 * Complaint filed by whistleblower

    09/09/2019 * House informed regarding whistleblower's complaint

    09/09/2019 * Taylor sends text to Sondland and Volker, and Sondland responds with his scripted "no quid pro quo" text

    09/10/2019 * House requests information regarding whistleblower's complaint

    09/10/2019 * John Bolton resigns

    09/11/2019 * Date Trump says aid to Ukraine was released, but there are reports that John Bolton told the State Department on 09/09/2019 that the funding could go ahead and that the White House viewed Bolton's move as a protocol violation that had surprised Mick Mulvaney. However, there were two sources of frozen funds: One totaling $250 million that was managed by the Department of Defense and another totaling $141.5 that was managed by the State Department.

    09/13/2019 * Zelensky scheduled to appear on Fareed Zarkaria's program on this date where he was to announce launching the investigations per Trump's demands

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    {{sssiiiggghhhhh}}}

    Ya could have saved yerself a LOT of typing and simply wrote:

    All Democrat good and true and pure and angelic and righteous..

    All Republican bad...

    All President Trump evil and corrupt and wicked and sinful and immoral

    :eyeroll:

    Hell, these days we're lucky if we even get a MDDOTW award given..

    I pine for the old Weigantia.. Where things were REALITY based... :(

    So disappointing...

  4. [4] 
    John M wrote:

    [3] Michale wrote:

    "I pine for the old Weigantia.. Where things were REALITY based... :(

    So disappointing..."

    You only have yourself to blame for that Michale. Since you deny and never accept facts that don't support your own biased position. That's why a lot of people, myself included, gave up ever trying to convince you of anything with logic.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    @SF Bear

    From yesterday.

    Michale #18
    You argue that the use of an "assault rifle" is necessary for the defense of the home and therefore is constitutional. But you are wrong on this for a common auto shotgun is far far superior for that purpose.

    OK.. You want to write a handwritten letter to your mom..

    But you are not allowed to because email is far superior to hand written..

    The fact it is your RIGHT to use whatever means you choose to enjoy your 1st Amendment right is not relevant.

    You will use what the government tells you to use.

    How do you like them apples???

    Semi auto rifles, high velocity rifles have no legitimate use

    And what experience, training or expertise do you have that would legitimize such a completely and utterly ignorant statement??

    and laws outlawing them are indeed constitutional

    And yet, the are NOT outlawed... How come?? :D

    Why don't Democrats put forth legislation to outlaw semi-automatic rifles??

    Because they know it's unconstitutional and they know that the SCOTUS would throw it out quicker than you can say 2ND AMENDMENT...

    THAT's why Democrats don't put forth legislation to outlaw semi-automatic rifles..

    AND they are too busy trying to nullify a free, fair, legal, democratic and Constitutional election..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    But more importantly, I'm just noting that as usual, you are still just pulling numbers out of thin air and claiming they are "facts".

    Yea?? Prove it..

    You can't.. So my statement stands as factual..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Absolutely correct, all rifle ammo more potent than rimfire cartridges would always be FAR more deadly than shot shells.

    And THAT is the problem that the hysterical anti-gun crowd face..

    Their criteria is to get rid of any firearms that can efficiently kill people..

    What they, in their Party slavery induced ignorance, don't understand is that sometimes... OFT times.. law abiding Americans SOMETIMES **NEED** that ability to efficiently kill people...

    It's a sad fact of American society in the here and now..

    I'll say it again and no one can refute it..

    All anti-gun laws that CAN be Constitutional have all been passed..

    There isn't any more common sense anti-gun laws available...

    It's time to look at the ROOT cause of mass murder incidents rather than to just try to address the tool..

    Looking at the ROOT cause, mental illness, will save a LOT more lives then simply forcing the psychos to use a different tool...

    Banning a rifle JUST because it was used in a mass shooting that killed a couple dozen is as ridiculous as banning Ryder trucks because one was used in a terrorist bombing that killed hundreds...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Well, to your point, I think you are overstating the actual occurrence by about two orders of magnitude (i.e., by a factor of 100). That seems at least relevant to your argument.

    Really??

    So, obviously you didn't read the Odumbo CDC report that stated legal defensive firearm usage was anywhere from 500,000 to over 3 MILLION times per year..

    Compare that to the 2008 stat that showed offensive/criminal gun use was only 300,000 thousand incidents...

    I honestly expected better from you than just crowing the hysterical anti-gun Party line without ANY regard for the facts and reality...

    Looks like today is my day to be very disappointed by Weigantia and Weigantians.. :(

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    You only have yourself to blame for that Michale. Since you deny and never accept facts that don't support your own biased position. That's why a lot of people, myself included, gave up ever trying to convince you of anything with logic.

    One problem with yer claim.

    Ya'all NEVER HAVE any facts..

    Just like with ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    Ya'all claimed to have a PLETHORA of "facts" but all you had was rumor, hearsay and outright bullshit..

    And history is repeating itself.

    Ya'all don't have a SINGLE FACT to prove quid pro quo.. But there are PLENTY of facts that DISPROVE quid pro quo, not the least of which is that there was NO QUID (the military aid was delivered without condition) and NO QUO (No investigation of the Bidens was done and President Zelensky told everyone who would listen that there was no pressure, no bribery, no extortion, NOTHING).

    So, as with ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion, ya'all have NO FACTS to support any impeachment..

    And the difference between the Old REALITY Based Weigantia and and today's new HHPTDS-infused Weigantia is that in the olden days FACTS mattered...

    In this new HHPTDS-infused Weigantia, ya'all don't need no stinkin' FACTS... Ya'all have yer hysterical hatred and bigotry and that's all ya'all need.. or want..

    So, come talk to me when you have actual and provable and DOCUMENTED relevant FACTS...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why a lot of people, myself included, gave up ever trying to convince you of anything with logic.

    And yet, here you are.. STILL spewing yer non-factual bullshit..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Let's take a closer look at all your "FACTS" vis a vis ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    For TWO YEARS here in Weigantia, ya'all spewed DAILY, sometimes HOURLY on all the "facts" you had..

    All your "facts" were going to get President Trump frog-marched from the Oval Office..

    That was ya'all's "reality"...

    And it turned out to be nothing but total and complete BULLSHIT..

    And ya wanna know what is even MORE hilarious!?? MANY of ya'all STILL BELIEVE that President Trump colluded with Russia..

    Now, if that doesn't PROVE this is an HHPTDS-infused Weigantia, nothing will..

    This is no longer a reality-based forum..

    That is fact...

    If it were, we would be reading ALSO about how Rep Jordan tore Ambassador Taylor a new one and about how Rep Ratcliff totally decimated Taylor's testimony..

    But we won't read anything about that in official Weigantia.

    Why???

    Because Weigantia is at war with East Asia... Weigantia has always been at war with East Asia...

    THAT is the "reality" of the here and now..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Well, to your point, I think you are overstating the actual occurrence by about two orders of magnitude

    I am sure you DO "think" that.. But the facts are the facts and do not require that you believe them to remain factual..

    The problem you have is that you DON'T "think".. You simply crow the Party line without any reservation or independent thought..

    Even though the FACTS prove you wrong at EVERY juncture..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what is so LAUGHABLE about all of this is that, amongst those who have more than two brain cells to rub together, it is UNIVERSALLY AGREED is that the ONLY WAY this faux impeachment coup ends is with President Trump remaining in office..

    So, Democrats are putting this country thru this entire Kubuki divisive show and totally ignoring EVERY part of their actual jobs (legislating for the betterment of America) and, when it all is said and done...

    President Trump is STILL President Trump, having been thoroughly exonerated and completely vindicated...

    And, likely, President Trump and the GOP will emerge STRONGER, because come Nov of 2020, what will Democrats have to show for their two years at the helm???

    2 failed coups and nothing else...

    Ya just HAVE to wonder what went thru the Democrats' minds that they would think this was a REALLY good idea???

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, finally... Let's revisit Democrat words of wisdom..

    "Democrats desperation to impeach is directly and inversely proportional to their confidence that they can beat President Trump at the ballot box."
    -Weigantian Wisdom

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction."
    -Joe Biden, 1998

    “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.”
    -Nancy Pelosi, Mar 2019

    “If the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this, putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good idea.”
    -Adam Schiff

    This faux impeachment coup is NOT bi-partisan.. Only the opposition to the faux impeachment coup is bi-partisan..

    An impeachment that is partisan is not legitimate..

    An impeachment that is not legitimate is illegal..

    An illegal impeachment is a coup...

    So says Democrats..

    Hasta lasagna, don't get any onya...

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I enjoyed watching representative Gym Jordan playing defense attorney for Boss Trump. Gym's OSU coaching and subsequent House O' Reps careers amply demonstrate he can turn his powers of observation and righteous indignation off and on like a switch. He is also a very good tap dancer.

    Don't mind the weather outside - it's always sunny for him in Urbana, Ohio.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just about everyone on the R-side of the aisle called the hearings "boring"

    https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-dismiss-impeachment-hearings-as-boring-2019-11

    i suspect that this is PRECISELY what nancy was hoping for. her long game is to add credibility to the factual basis of the hearings by seeming as sober and "matter of fact" as possible, and avoid giving ANY credibility to the counter-accusations of a hysterical "witch hunt." since we all know the most likely outcome of the senate trial, as she most certainly does, the goal is to tamp down the drama and set the factual ball on the tee for the eventual 2020 nominee.

    JL

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    i suspect that this is PRECISELY what nancy was hoping for. her long game is to add credibility to the factual basis of the hearings by seeming as sober and "matter of fact" as possible, and avoid giving ANY credibility to the counter-accusations of a hysterical "witch hunt."

    And yet, our own Balthasar says that impeachment is nothing more than another partisan tool to be whipped out as a simply another partisan attack.. Not the "solemn" event Pelosi wants it to be...

    since we all know the most likely outcome of the senate trial, as she most certainly does, the goal is to tamp down the drama and set the factual ball on the tee for the eventual 2020 nominee.

    Since you and I are in agreement as to the eventual outcome, not only of this faux impeachment coup but also of the outcome of the General Election, lemme ask you..

    How are Democrats going to make claims to their "effective" governing when all they can show, come Nov 2020 is 2 failed coups..

    No gun control legislation... No health care legislation.. No border security legislation.. No NOTHING...

    Just 2 failed coups..

    Do you honestly believe that Democrats can ride those coattails to ANY semblance of victory in Nov of 2020??

  18. [18] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i think we disagree about the chances of the general election outcome. as 2016 taught us, just because a given outcome is most likely doesn't necessarily mean it will happen.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    , and avoid giving ANY credibility to the counter-accusations of a hysterical "witch hunt."

    Except that it IS a hysterical witch hunt, as Democrats have offered NOTHING but hearsay and hysterical bullshit..

    Hell, Kent and Taylor never even heard President Trump say ANYTHING.. They never even MET the President..

    All Kent and Taylor have is what other people TOLD them..

    They don't have ANY first person facts to offer..

    The very definition of a hysterical witch hunt..

    This faux impeachment coup has been going on for almost 2 months now.

    And, as with the Russia Collusion delusion, there is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT that proves ya'all's claims against President Trump.

    JUST like in the Russia Collusion delusion..

    "Let's try the EXACT same thing!!! Maybe it will work this time!!!"
    -Democrats

    :smirk: Morons... :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    i think we disagree about the chances of the general election outcome.

    You are on record several times saying you believe President Trump will win re-election..

    If that's changed, hokay fine..

    Irregardless of that, you miss my point..

    Allow me to illuminate...

    How are Democrats going to make claims to their "effective" governing when all they can show, come Nov 2020 is 2 failed coups..

    No gun control legislation... No health care legislation.. No border security legislation.. No NOTHING...

    Just 2 failed coups..

    Do you honestly believe that Democrats can ride those coattails to ANY semblance of victory in Nov of 2020??

    How can Democrats win the White House or retain the House when they will have NOTHING to show the Independents & NPAs (Yunno.. The people like me who actually DECIDE elections) in 2020 except 2 failed coups..

    Or... Is it your belief that, after Democrats are decimated in this faux impeachment coup, after Democrats have called President Trump every name in the book and made every possible hysterical claim and accusation...

    That after all that... Is it your belief that Democrats can (or will) turn right around and say, "Mr President... We were just kidding.. Let's get some work done..."???

    You and I both know that won't happen.. You and I also know that, if it did happen, the Trump/America hating base will turn on Democrats and won't even vote for a Dem as county dog catcher...

    So, I'll ask again..

    What are Democrats going to be able to show the Independents and NPAs in 2020 that will allow them to win??

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea...

    Drag queen sashays into Trump impeachment hearings

    Pissi Myles made an unexpected, and quite noticeable, appearance at Wednesday's impeachment hearings.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/drag-queen-sashays-trump-impeachment-hearings-n1081261

    "Solemn"

    "Serious"

    :eyeroll:

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    .@RepRatcliffe asked the two “star” witnesses, “where is the impeachable event in that call?” Both stared straight ahead with a blank look on their face, remained silent, & were unable to answer the question. That would be the end of a case run by normal people! - but not Shifty!
    -President Donald Trump

    Yep.. Another FACT you won't see in today's Weigantia...

    If Democrats can't convince 2 seasoned high-ranking civil servants, how are they going to convince everyday patriotic Americans??

    Answer: They won't..

    The American people will soon turn against this dog & pony, this smoke and mirrors Kubuki theater...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I actually saw that part and it was hilarious..

    Both Taylor and Kent had that Deer-In-The-Headlights look...

    Like, "OH SHIT!! WHAT DO I SAY NOW!!! SCHIFF-HEAD IS COUNTING ON ME!!!!"

    It was one of the more comical moments..

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    @RepRatcliffe asked the two “star” witnesses, “where is the impeachable event in that call?” Both stared straight ahead with a blank look on their face, remained silent, & were unable to answer the question.

    That's factually wrong. Ratcliff came pretty late in the day, after the witnesses had gone through grueling testimony. That they just looked at each other during Ratcliff's rant is understandable.

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Congrats to CW, for laying out the first day.

    Republicants are left with cherry-picking moments (such as above). It's all they've got.

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I still think Donald is likely to be reelected. Likely is not the same as a sure thing.
    "When you're right 51% of the time, you're wrong 49% of the time."
    - the Simpsons?

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's factually wrong.

    Of course you would say that.. And, of course you have no facts to back it up..

    It's part of your charm.. :D

    Congrats to CW, for laying out the first day.

    Republicants are left with cherry-picking moments (such as above). It's all they've got.

    This entire faux impeachment coup is NOTHING but Democrats cherry picking moments.

    Why do you think they had to have a PRIVATE hearing first.. To coach the witnesses on what to say and NOT to say during the PUBLIC hearings..

    Once again, you accuse the GOP of what the DEMOCRATS do..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I still think Donald is likely to be reelected. Likely is not the same as a sure thing.

    But likely is more than NOT likely.. :D

    Whatever ya have to say to keep the Trump/America haters from coming down on ya.. :D

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Why do you think they had to have a PRIVATE hearing first.. To coach the witnesses on what to say and NOT to say during the PUBLIC hearings..

    You do realize that those depositions were attended by republicants, don't you?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    You do realize that those depositions were attended by republicants, don't you?

    Who had absolutely NO SAY on what was cherry picked and released...

    It's also a fact that Schiff-head shut down the GOP on MANY lines of questioning...

    Like I said.. Cherry picked "facts"...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Love him or hate him, voters say impeachment hearings will not change their views on Trump
    http://news.trust.org/item/20191114010359-6qkkm

    Democrats are pursuing a fool's errand..

    The ONLY harm that will come out of this faux impeachment coup is harm to Democrats...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Love him or hate him, voters say impeachment hearings will not change their views on Trump
    http://news.trust.org/item/20191114010359-6qkkm

    Democrats are pursuing a fool's errand..

    The ONLY harm that will come out of this faux impeachment coup is harm to Democrats...

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Second U.S. embassy official reportedly heard Trump call with Sondland

    A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.

    The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.

    The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/trump-sondland-ukraine-phone-call-070913

    Well, isn't that special!? It's beginning to sound like Sondland called BLOTUS and might have put him on speakerphone, and if that's the case, that's a lot of firsthand ears with firsthand knowledge of yet another incriminating phone call.

    I sure wouldn't want to be Sondland right about now with all those potential multiple witnesses divulging telephone calls I never mentioned when I swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... under penalty of perjury... already walking a mighty fine line where I obviously omitted significant details that other people witnessed and took notes. Tough break. ;)

    They keep whining about witnesses not having firsthand knowledge while at the same time obstructing justice by ordering those with firsthand knowledge not to give sworn testimony. Now how stupid is that?

    That ranks right up there on the stupid meter; however, it's not half as ignorant as whining incessantly about witnesses with no firsthand knowledge while insisting at the same time that the whistleblower needs to testify... the guy who admits to having no firsthand knowledge. Well, we know connecting the dots isn't the strong suit of GOP morons and minions.

    Anyway, firsthand knowledge from multiple sources; be careful what you wish for... now what will they have to bitch about? Another phone call where Trump runs his mouth about investigating his political opponents; what could go wrong? ;)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation.

    Once again..

    ANONYMOUS HEARSAY...

    It's AMAZING how orgasmicly hysterical ya'all get over ANONYMOUS hearsay!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That's ALL you people have.. NOTHING but hearsay...

    "Someone told me that THEY heard someone mention to someone else that their cousin overheard someone else telling someone...."

    THAT is ya'all's "facts"...

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Russia Collusion delusion... ALL OVER AGAIN..

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ah, found the quote:

    Folks, when you're right 52 percent a'da time, you're wrong 48 percent a'da time.
    smooth jimmy apollo, the simpsons

    https://youtu.be/OOJyfgV8JDs

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    15

    I enjoyed watching representative Gym Jordan playing defense attorney for Boss Trump.

    I keep getting Gym confused with Dennis Hastert... practically the same backstory, you know.

    Gym's OSU coaching and subsequent House O' Reps careers amply demonstrate he can turn his powers of observation and righteous indignation off and on like a switch. He is also a very good tap dancer.

    Nice list of talking points he screamed out yesterday; it would be a shame if the majority of those bullet points were shot down. Spoiler alert: They're going to be. :)

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    18

    i think we disagree about the chances of the general election outcome. as 2016 taught us, just because a given outcome is most likely doesn't necessarily mean it will happen.

    Say it with me: Senator Roy Moore.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    ah, found the quote:

    Folks, when you're right 52 percent a'da time, you're wrong 48 percent a'da time.
    smooth jimmy apollo, the simpsons

    "Aww right.. Aww right.."
    -Lane Smith, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Since you want to talk about percentages...

    Assign a percentage to your belief that President Trump will be re-elected..

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'd say around 60-65%, give or take a few points.

  40. [40] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [6] Michale
    >But more importantly, I'm just noting that as usual, you are still just pulling numbers out of thin air and claiming they are "facts".

    Yea?? Prove it..

    The only link you have provided as a source for your claim that "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year" was to a page that didn't contain the phrase "home invasion".

    [8]
    So, obviously you didn't read the Odumbo CDC report that stated legal defensive firearm usage was anywhere from 500,000 to over 3 MILLION times per year..

    Compare that to the 2008 stat that showed offensive/criminal gun use was only 300,000 thousand incidents...

    Further unsubstantiated claims about some other statistics does not provide a source to the claim "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year".

    [12]
    The problem you have is that you DON'T "think".. You simply crow the Party line without any reservation or independent thought..

    WTF? This isn't about some Party line; this about asking you to simply provide a source for your statistic, which you continue to fail to do, as usual.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Nice recovery"
    -Genie, ALADDIN

    :D

    Nice to hear a straight answer now and again around here.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only link you have provided as a source for your claim that "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year" was to a page that didn't contain the phrase "home invasion".

    I have already clarified I made a decimal point error..

    Further unsubstantiated claims about some other statistics does not provide a source to the claim "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year".

    Do you dispute the claim?? Yes or No??

    WTF? This isn't about some Party line; this about asking you to simply provide a source for your statistic, which you continue to fail to do, as usual.

    Do you dispute the claim?? Yes or No?? If you DO dispute the claim, what is your source facts for the dispute..

    Balls in yer court, sunshine.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    24

    That's factually wrong. Ratcliff came pretty late in the day, after the witnesses had gone through grueling testimony. That they just looked at each other during Ratcliff's rant is understandable.

    Yesterday's witnesses were there to testify regarding their knowledge of the facts while Ratcliffe was apparently there to rant, grandstand, and badger the fact witnesses in performance for Trump and the GOP minions.

    In point of fact, Ambassador Taylor had already made it quite clear he wasn't there to take sides or give his opinion:

    While I am aware that the committee has requested my testimony as part of impeachment proceedings, I am not here to take one side or the other or to advocate for any particular outcome. ~ Ambassador Taylor

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    WTF? This isn't about some Party line;

    It is EXACTLY about a Party line..

    The Democrat Party line that wants to disarm law-abiding Americans and keep them from defending themselves..

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Welp, it's poker night, people..

    See ya'all in the AM.. :D

  46. [46] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [42]

    >The only link you have provided as a source for your claim that "there are 1.3 million home invasions per year" was to a page that didn't contain the phrase "home invasion".

    I have already clarified I made a decimal point error..

    Okay, you changed one unsourced number to another unsourced number. You still don't provide an actual source for your "home invasion" statistic.

    Do you dispute the claim?? Yes or No??

    I just want a source for the claim. Do you have one, or did you just make the number up?

    [44]
    It is EXACTLY about a Party line..

    The Democrat Party line that wants to disarm law-abiding Americans and keep them from defending themselves..

    Whatever. Me, I just want to know the source for your numbers, which you are unable to give as usual.

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Anyone who believes that Republicans couldn't leak exculpating information out of those hearings is not just an idiot but a pigheaded damn fool. If there was exculpating information that was favorable to Donald Trump, you can bet your gluteus maximus it would have been disseminated to the press... but it doesn't exist.

    BREAKING NEWS: Trump sycophants, cultists, whores, and prostitutes have mouths and phones, and nothing on Earth can stop them from prattling on and on.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno, the SMART person would have googled 1.03 Home Invasions and see what came up..

    I guess those of lesser intelligence need to be spoon fed..

    According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 1.03 million home invasions occur each year.
    https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-reports

    OK NOW it's poker time.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    It's official:

    Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin concedes. :)

    Say it with me: Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear (D) *laughs*

  50. [50] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [48]
    According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 1.03 million home invasions occur each year.
    https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-reports

    That link also does not contain the phrase "Home Invasion"; in fact, it's just a list of links to pdf's of Annual Statistical Reports for data back to 1959.

    You don't even bother looking at the links you post.

    Seriously, do you have an actual source for your number, or are you just pulling that number out of thin air, as usual?

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    42

    I have already clarified I made a decimal point error..

    Your repetitive ignorance is like nails on a chalkboard. You can stop prattling on and on like a stupid fool about a "decimal point error" because you didn't make one.

    Citing the number 1.3 versus 1.03 isn't a "decimal point error." If you had said 10.3 versus 1.03, that would qualify as a "decimal point error," but you said 1.3 instead of 1.03, which doesn't have any problem whatsoever with the placement of the decimal point but rather is a "numerical error" that inflates your numerically corrected number by about 25%... a not insignificant amount.

    So to recap: You keep prattling on and on about a "decimal point error" when, in point of fact, you incorrectly inflated a number... which lands squarely in the wheelhouse of the point Charles Brown, Esq is making.

    DEBATE POINTS

    Our Lord High Treasurer His
    Grace the Right Honourable
    Charles Brown, Esquire.......... 1

    Moron Mike............................ 0

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    34

    It's AMAZING how orgasmicly hysterical ya'all get over ANONYMOUS hearsay!!

    Instead of jerking off at your keyboard, why don't you take your repetitive whining up with the author of the article on Politico?

    That's ALL you people have.. NOTHING but hearsay...

    Wrong! Rather than posting articles that discuss people with firsthand knowledge that, by the way, one of them is scheduled to testify under oath tomorrow to his firsthand knowledge, we could obviously be just making shit up and inventing fake quotes like the jerk off who trolls the forum.

    "Someone told me that THEY heard someone mention to someone else that their cousin overheard someone else telling someone...." Fake Quote, Mike the Trolling Jerk Off

    THAT is ya'all's "facts"...

    No, jerk off, those fake quotes of yours are exactly how we know you've got no rebuttal whatsoever except your invented mouth diarrhea accompanied by your standard display of dipshittery.

    You got nothing! Thanks for the assist. :)

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh come on, there's plenty of substance to argue over, why split hairs over the type of error that confuses 1.3 and 1.03? At the moment Donald is losing on the substance of his attempted bribery, and his only real defense is his utter incompetence in achieving his initial aim.

  54. [54] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [53]

    Oh come on, there's plenty of substance to argue over, why split hairs over the type of error that confuses 1.3 and 1.03?

    Well, since both numbers appear to be completely made up anyway, I agree that sort of detail is indeed secondary.

    At the moment Donald is losing on the substance of his attempted bribery, and his only real defense is his utter incompetence in achieving his initial aim.

    "Vote Trump 2020: Too incompetent to really damage things!"

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    53

    Oh come on, there's plenty of substance to argue over, why split hairs over the type of error that confuses 1.3 and 1.03?

    Oh, I quite agree: Decimal point error, numerical error... who seriously gives a hang? But, as I said, it's like nails on a chalkboard when morons keep repeating the same reeking stupidity over and over as if stuck on stupid, and sometimes you just got to step up and put an end to all the dipshittery.

    At the moment Donald is losing on the substance of his attempted bribery, and his only real defense is his utter incompetence in achieving his initial aim.

    I know, right!? There's no question whatsoever in my mind why somebody/anybody in the Intelligence Community would follow the proper channels and formally file a whistleblower complaint with the ICIG: Sometimes you just got to step up and put an end to all the dipshittery. :)

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq
    54

    Well, since both numbers appear to be completely made up anyway, I agree that sort of detail is indeed secondary.

    Another great point!

    DEBATE POINTS

    Our Lord High Treasurer His
    Grace the Right Honourable
    Charles Brown, Esquire.......... 2

    Moron Mike............................ 0

    "Vote Trump 2020: Too incompetent to really damage things!"

    ** Vote Blue **
    No Matter Who

Comments for this article are closed.