ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Day 3 Reactions

[ Posted Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 – 19:44 UTC ]

I'm starting to write this at about 10 hours in to Day 3 of the public impeachment hearings in the House Intelligence Committee. The five minute segments are continuing as I write this, but at this point they could go on all night. Or so it seems -- you'll have to forgive me for being a bit loopy, since I'm not used to sitting and watching 12 straight hours of television at a time, and certainly not beginning at six o'clock in the morning (my time). So today's review is going to be rather choppy, as I type up what seemed to me to be the high and low points of the testimony so far.

Today's testimony has been in two parts. The morning session was with Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Vice Presidential staffer Jennifer Williams, and the afternoon session was with Ambassador Kurt Volker and Timothy Morrison. Interestingly enough, the morning witnesses were called by the Democrats on the committee, while the afternoon witnesses were called by the Republicans (with the Democrats' consent).

The hearings kicked off with statements by Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes, the chair and ranking minority member on the committee. As usual, Schiff stuck to the facts and witnesses at hand, while Nunes played to the cameras and his most-important audience of one. Nunes began with a rant against the media, which was somewhat bizarre, but par for the course for the Republicans so far, who have mostly shied away from dealing with the facts in favor of making their case to the public that "there's nothing to see here, folks."

Nunes then moved on to yet another attempt to unmask the whistleblower, which Schiff and Vindman's counsel shut down cold. In this midst of this fracas, Nunes addressed the witness as "Mister Vindman," to which Vindman shot back: "Ranking Member, it's Lieutenant Colonel, please." He later explained that this was in response to a concerted effort from the right to denigrate his rank, his military service, and his patriotism. And he was right -- later on, one Republican snuck in a bit of contempt for Vindman appearing in his uniform rather than in a civilian suit. Democrats smacked this disrespect down from this point on, to great effect. Oh, and to cap it all off, the White House official Twitter feed attacked Vindman while he was still testifying -- which is again, sadly, par for the course for Trump.

Personally, I never thought I'd ever see the day when Republican congressmen expressed such open contempt for a U.S. military officer or his service or his uniform. It's rather jaw-dropping, when you think about it, but that's where we are today. Democrats would do well to remember this, the next time some Republican politician tries to wrap himself in "support the troops" hypocrisy.

Also early on, a Democrat pointed out what Trump had tweeted about Vindman last week, which included the smear that he was a "Never Trumper." When asked directly if he was a Never-Trumper, Vindman responded: "I'm a never-partisan," which I thought was the best answer of the day.

Every once in a while, there was an amusing moment, as well. The funniest was Vindman bringing up -- as he explicitly did in his previous, closed-door testimony -- that he was "nine minutes" older than his twin brother. This was amusing, especially since his twin was sitting in the room, but his original answer in the closed-door hearing was even better: "He's nine minutes younger. He's my kid brother, whether he likes it or not. I told him I would get that in there." Today, he successfully got it in there once again. Joaquin Castro, twin brother to Julián Castro, joked to Vindman that "at least he didn't make you grow a beard."

Levity aside, one Democrat chose to directly address President Trump (who we all know will watch the whole thing sooner or later), speaking directly into the camera. He challenged Trump to "investigate the Bidens" directly, since he is president and could order such an investigation if he felt like it. He continued to drive home the point: "Do it! Do it! Just don't use a foreign government to do so." This was a pretty powerful statement, and we'll see whether Trump takes this bait or not, later on (probably via tweet, if he does).

One Democrat very low down on the seniority ranking pole within the committee (the questioners are ranked according to seniority, with the most-senior going first and the least-senior last), Representative Patrick Maloney, continues to shine in these hearings. Today, he provided what will possibly prove to be the most popular clip of the whole day, when he asked Vindman to re-read the final paragraphs of his opening statement. Vindman spoke of his father and the reasons why he left the Soviet Union (to provide a better life for his children), and how he would be proud of his son. He also said that his father wouldn't be worried about him even though speaking truth to power in such a fashion would have been the biggest risk in a Soviet system. Vindman put it as: "He deeply worried about it because in his context, there was the ultimate risk," later saying directly to him: "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth." When asked why he had no fear of testifying, Vindman responded: "This is America. This is the country I've served and defended. That all of my brothers have served. Here, right matters."

The audience then broke out into a spontaneous round of applause. As I said, I bet this clip gets played a lot on the news tonight, and in the future.

The second round of testimony came after a break of more than an hour, but the broadcast networks continued to cover it. Chairman Schiff once again managed the clock brilliantly, by holding the initial 45-minute question periods with counsel questions from both Democrats and Republicans, and then breaking for "five minutes" (which, as usual, was more like 20 minutes). At this point, the broadcast networks cut away. I should note that I have no idea what happened on the East Coast, as when the testimony reopened, as it was by then 6:00 P.M. Eastern Time. The only network to continue coverage (at least on my television) was PBS.

Ranking Member Nunes even pointed this out at one point, stating that "ratings are way down" for the afternoon session, which was a rather bizarre thing for him to say since this was the Republicans' first witnesses, but whatever.

Schiff started the hearings back up again by allowing another half-hour of testimony from himself and the Democrats' counsel, and Nunes and the Republicans' counsel. After the Democrats' 15 minutes were up, Nunes expressed astonishment once again at the basic rules the committee operates under (he called the new round "magic minutes" for some reason). It's like he never read the rules, which is flat-out ridiculous. As I've mentioned previously, it's pretty easy to see which side is playing to the cameras and which side is taking these hearings seriously.

There then followed a whole bunch of questions from both Republicans and Democrats. It was easy to see that the afternoon witnesses were bending over backward trying to make their testimony as favorable to the president as possible, without breaking into outright perjury. Volker had to begin by "amending his previous testimony" because it had already been contradicted by other witnesses. He now remembers more than he used to, apparently, after several people contradicted him under oath. Strange how these lapses of memory are all occurring from people backing the president, isn't it?

This also proves a larger point Democrats have been making all along, because this is precisely why the first round of hearings was held behind closed doors. When witnesses have no idea what others are saying, they don't know when they'll be contradicted. As Volker just showed, sometimes this leads to "Oh, my, I just remembered!" moments, later on. This will be even more apparent in tomorrow's hearing, because Ambassador Gordon Sondland is going to have to revise a whole bunch of things he said -- or "misremembered."

One good point Democrats made during these question sessions was that impeachment is actually an anti-corruption measure. They made the point that the Ukrainians were fighting corruption now, in part, by voting in an impeachment law for their own leader. And that the American Founding Fathers did the same thing, way back when. Impeachment is in no way "unconstitutional" because it is right there in the Constitution.

After a seeming eternity (some of which I took to write most of this) of questions, Nunes wrapped up with another epic whining session, which ended with: "Good night, and see you tomorrow." Schiff wrapped up with an overview, and an explanation for why Trump eventually lifted the hold on the leverage he was using against the Ukrainians: "He got caught."

So there you have it -- my disjointed comments after a full 12 hours of testimony. Of course, Nunes is right. This week is going to be not just a marathon, but an ultra marathon. We've got three straight days of these multiple hearings, and tomorrow night we'll also have another Democratic presidential debate, just to mix things up a bit. What this means is I'll probably get even loopier as the week goes on, so fair warning to everyone. I'll even end this by quoting the ranking Republican on the committee, to show just how loopy I've already gotten: good night, and see you tomorrow.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

53 Comments on “Day 3 Reactions”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Program Note:

    I have no idea what I'm going to do tomorrow. It all depends on how much energy I've got versus how much sleep I've gotten.

    I may post once, twice, or not at all. I might post after Sondland's morning testimony, but I may not have time. I may post after both rounds of testimony, and I may even go late into the night and post my snap debate reactions.

    It's going to be a busy day, and I can't promise anything other than that I'll try my best to get something up here -- but it quite likely won't appear at the regular time. Just to warn everyone in advance...

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Outstanding reporting CW!

    I can understand why you are feeling frazzled. I get bleary eyes by the end of the morning sessions - and I don't take notes or write a column for the next day...I just go to the gym to get my blood circulating again.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    12 Republican senators defected on the National Emergency vote. Trump probably knew it was going to happen. Mitch can count votes. Does the vote explain Trump's spur of the moment trip to Walter Reed? Attack of "the vapors?"

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE 3. My bad, old news....from march. Did
    I mention bleary eyes from too much TV. Maybe I should check in to Walter Reed.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Personally, I never thought I'd ever see the day when Republican congressmen expressed such open contempt for a U.S. military officer or his service or his uniform. It's rather jaw-dropping, when you think about it, but that's where we are today. Democrats would do well to remember this, the next time some Republican politician tries to wrap himself in "support the troops" hypocrisy.

    Republicans don't support traitors.. Even when they are in uniform. Remember Berghdal??

    Also early on, a Democrat pointed out what Trump had tweeted about Vindman last week, which included the smear that he was a "Never Trumper." When asked directly if he was a Never-Trumper, Vindman responded: "I'm a never-partisan," which I thought was the best answer of the day.

    Except the facts clearly show that Vindeman is a NeverTrumper..

    When he had concerns, he went whining and squealing to fellow Trump/America haters with his complaint..

    Right off the bat, he ignored the proper chain of command..

    That proves he is a Trump/America hater..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, CW..

    How do you feel about Democrats running this impeachment by Focus Group instead of the FACTS???

    Pretty low, even for Democrats, eh? :smirk: :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    disenfranchising? hardly.

    Of course not.. It's only disenfranchising when it's DEMOCRATS who are allegedly disenfranchised. It's not disenfranchising when it's ONLY Trump supporters.. it's not as if they mean anything, right??

    not that it's at all likely, but if by some chance donald were removed from office for bribery and other crimes, it's not as if hillary clinton or nancy pelosi would then take over as chief executive.

    And yet, many on this very forum has put forth that EXACT scenario...

    So.. Tell me again how it's NOT disenfranchising??

    Gotcha.. :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    on this i agree. but there's no rule that says the two can't independently arrive at the same conclusion. to assume otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy.

    If the FACTS are on your side, you don't NEED a Focus Group..

    That's the point..

    So, apparently, Democrats don't believe that the facts are on their side..

    Ergo, they need Focus Groups..

    It's utterly ridiculous to run an impeachment by Focus Groups and Marketing...

    Which, I am sure EVERYONE here would agree with.. If it were Republicans doing it...

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    There then followed a whole bunch of questions from both Republicans and Democrats. It was easy to see that the afternoon witnesses were bending over backward trying to make their testimony as favorable to the president as possible, without breaking into outright perjury. Volker had to begin by "amending his previous testimony" because it had already been contradicted by other witnesses. He now remembers more than he used to, apparently, after several people contradicted him under oath. Strange how these lapses of memory are all occurring from people backing the president, isn't it?

    This also proves a larger point Democrats have been making all along, because this is precisely why the first round of hearings was held behind closed doors. When witnesses have no idea what others are saying, they don't know when they'll be contradicted. As Volker just showed, sometimes this leads to "Oh, my, I just remembered!" moments, later on. This will be even more apparent in tomorrow's hearing, because Ambassador Gordon Sondland is going to have to revise a whole bunch of things he said -- or "misremembered."

    The bias is palatable...

    Dem witnesses are pure as the driven snow..

    GOP witnesses are liars incarnate..

    Of course, there are no FACTS to support the claims..

    Weigantia of old would be APPALLED and EMBARRASSED at the Weigantia of HHPTDS....

    It's amazing..

    Over 35,000 pages of testimony and NOT A SINGLE WITNESS has said "Bribery" except once. As it pertained to VP Joe Biden..

    Looks like the new Focus Group'ed marketed term is dying an ignoble death...

    Wonder what term Democrat Focus Groups will hit on next..

    This is just like the Global Warming con..

    First, Dumbocrats try to Focus Group and Market science..

    Now they are trying to Focus Group and Market impeachment..

    One has to wonder if Democrats Focus Group whether or not to take a dump..

    Because Democrats sure are shitting on this country and the Constitution...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The answers underscored a problem facing House Democrats as their impeachment inquiry continued into its second week of public hearings: With more witnesses testifying, more soundbites have emerged that may help Republicans and the Trump campaign argue that the proceedings were politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.

    And, Volker testified repeatedly that he never received any indications at all that there was an improper quid pro quo with Ukraine, in which the Trump administration allegedly sought a probe of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for military aid.

    As the hearing concluded, President Trump tweeted, "A great day for Republicans, a great day for our Country!"

    Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News, "This was a very good day for Republicans, for our president."

    "Kind of hard to prove a corrupt quid pro quo theory when the key U.S. policy people, plus the Ukrainians, were never aware of such an arrangement," Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw added late Tuesday, noting that Ukraine's president has said he felt no pressure from Trump to open any probes. "Can we go back to governing now, that’d be great thanks."
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-ukraine-envoy-nsc-official-testify-in-second-round-of-impeachment-testimony

    Democrats were DECIMATED yesterday..

    It's likely that Democrats will cave and close down this faux impeachment coup this week...

    NONE of the witnesses, even the DEMOCRAT chosen witnesses, has said any bribery occurred..

    Democrats only arrived at the "bribery" conclusion because their Focus Groups told them it was the one word that generated the most hatred against President Trump...

    Can you imagine if our jurisprudence was all based on Focus Groups!??

    "OK, people.. I am going to give you a list of words.. Whichever word you choose as the most serious and heinous, THAT is what we will charge the suspect with.."

    That's how Democrats roll...

    It's MIND-BOGGLING in it's stupidity and craven partisanship..

    I mean, it's as if Democrats are **TRYING** to de-legitimize their own faux impeachment coup...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have been with CW, both here in Weigantia and prior, in his HuffPoop days, for over 14 years..

    Never in all that time.. and I mean **NEVER**...

    Never in all that time would I have EVER believed that Weigantians would be on board with a FOCUS GROUP'ed faux impeachment coup..

    ****NEVER****

    The ravages of HHPTDS sure are taking their toll on the integrity and intelligence of once intelligent people..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE 3. My bad, old news....from march. Did
    I mention bleary eyes from too much TV. Maybe I should check in to Walter Reed.

    Another perfect example of HHPTDS....

    Your hatred consumes what's left of your intelligence, Stig...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, Vindman was caught in an apparent contradiction late in the day by Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup. Vindman testified earlier in the day that he did not discuss his concerns about Trump's July phone call with Morrison, his superior, because he was unavailable.

    But, under questioning from Wenstrup, Morrison confirmed that Vindman had given him edits of the transcript of the call, on the same day that Vindman testified Morrison was unreachable.

    "Frankly, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing."

    Arizona GOP Rep. Paul Gosar offered a blunt assessment of Vindman's testimony, tweeting: "I think people need a reminder: the democrats said they would impeach starting in December 2016–before @realDonaldTrump was even sworn in. This is a hearing looking for a reason. It’s corrupt and immoral. The dude in the uniform is a seditionist."

    The traitor Vindimen gets caught in a lie and ya'all give him a pass, SOLELY because he is saying what you want to hear..

    Could your bigotry and bias be any more palatable???

    The dood in uniform is a traitor..

    It's THAT simple..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Morrison, meanwhile, also said he had heard others express concern that Vindman was a leaker, and could not be trusted with key information.

    Yep.. Vindemen is a traitor...

    No different than Bradley Manning...

    One has to wonder if Vindimen will start to transition to being a woman to garner public sympathy...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the olden days of Weigantia unsullied by the throes of HHPTDS, Congress Critter Stefanik would have been honored for her backbone, even if she is a Republican..

    Another reason to miss the old Weigantia...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Goodwin: Why Dems are so worried after latest round of impeachment hearings

    If coup-coup Nancy Pelosi has a panic button, now would be a good time to lean on it. With signs that Americans are tuning out the impeachment hearings, the clock is ticking on Democrats’ chance to make their case.

    Pelosi is clearly worried, telling fellow Dems it’s a “weak response” to “let the election decide” whether President Trump should be removed.

    “That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because ­POTUS is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections,” the speaker wrote in a “Dear Colleague” letter to her House members.

    The letter seemed strange enough when it became public Monday, but Tuesday’s hearing more than justified her fear and desperation. With her party now having failed to hit anything close to pay dirt after three long days of public testimony, she is trying to keep her members on board the impeachment train, lest the whole effort crash in failure and disgrace.
    https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/goodwin-why-dems-are-so-worried-after-latest-round-of-impeachment-hearings/

    As I said.. If Democrats have another sad showing as they did yesterday, it's doubtful that this faux impeachment coup will survive the week..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quickly, though, Republicans cleverly succeeded in contrasting those two reactions, with Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe saying: “There is no consensus about what you heard,” and that any impeachment case “must be clear, overwhelming and compelling.”

    Earlier, Ratcliffe had stacked the transcripts of 10 long depositions and noted that not a single witness had accused Trump of “bribery,” the focus-group-tested word Dems have now adopted as their battle cry.

    The cumulative effect was to create a sense of doubt about the heart of impeachment. Was there really a crime, or was it just a difference of opinion? And how much of it is purely partisan?

    The doubts took a leap when Vindman conceded that lawyers said it was legal for Trump to temporarily withhold more than $400 million in aid to Ukraine.

    Even the traitor vindomin conceded that what President Trump did was perfectly legal...

    Democrats got totally destroyed yesterday...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Adding to the surreal quality of the hearings is a crucial fact that gets too little attention: Trump’s policy toward Ukraine has been far stronger than President Barack Obama’s. Providing Ukraine with antitank weapons to counter Russian invasions is a direct slap at Vladimir Putin, a move Obama rejected because he feared it would provoke Putin.

    Thus, removing Trump would benefit Russia, proving that, for Dems, Ukraine’s security is just another pawn in their war against the president.

    One of the MANY facts ya'all ignore??

    Even if EVERYTHING ya'all fact-lessly claim about President Trump is all dead on ballz accurate, one point rises above all else..

    President Trump has been the better friend to Ukraine than Odumbo ever was...

    Ya'all whine and cry about the threat to Ukraine..

    Where were are your crocodile hysterical tears when Odumbo was refusing ALL military aid to Ukraine??

    No where to be found.

    Hence, ya'all don't really give a shit about Ukraine.. You just want another blunt object to beat President Trump over the head with.

    Yer blatant Party slavery and hypocrisy is nauseating..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Out of Democrats' Focus Group'ed faux impeachment coup, some rays of sunshine emerge...

    Impeachment surprise: How Adam Schiff validated my reporting on Ukraine

    I have to thank Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman and impeachment maestro. Really, I am grateful.

    While the jury is still out on high crimes and misdemeanors, Schiff has managed to produce during the first few weeks of his impeachment hearings a robust body of evidence and testimony that supports all three of the main tenets of my Ukraine columns.

    In fact, his witnesses have done more than anyone to affirm the accuracy of my columns and to debunk the false narrative by a dishonest media and their friends inside the federal bureaucracy that my reporting was somehow false conspiracy theories.

    The half dozen seminal columns I published for The Hill on Ukraine were already supported by overwhelming documentation (all embedded in the story) and on-the-record interviews captured on video. They made three salient and simple points:

    1. Hunter Biden’s hiring by the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma Holdings, while it was under a corruption investigation, posed the appearance of a conflict of interest for his father. That’s because Vice President Joe Biden oversaw US-Ukraine policy and forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor overseeing the case.

    2. Ukraine officials had an uneasy relationship with our embassy in Kiev because State Department officials exerted pressure on Ukraine prosecutors to drop certain cases against activists, including one group partly funded by George Soros.

    3. There were efforts around Ukraine in 2016 to influence the US election, that included a request from a DNC contractor for dirt on Manafort, an OpEd from Ukraine’s US ambassador slamming Trump and the release of law enforcement evidence by Ukrainian officials that a Ukraine court concluded was an improper interference in the US election.

    All three of these points have since been validated by the sworn testimony of Schiff’s witnesses this month, starting with the Bidens.
    https://johnsolomonreports.com/impeachment-surprise-how-adam-schiff-validated-my-reporting-on-ukraine/

    Schiff-head has totally destroyed Biden's campaign... :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Investigator Cecil Ridley
    Richmond County Sheriff's Office, Georgia
    End of Watch: Tuesday, November 19, 2019

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak...
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    9

    The bias is palatable...

    Your ignorance is bone deep. *laughs*

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Could your bigotry and bias be any more palatable???

    Could his ignorance be any more bone deep?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Facts to support??

    No?? None??

    Yea.. That's par for the course with you haters and bigots... :D

    The FACT is, CW's commentaries ARE biased and I am sure that even HE would concede as much..

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    18

    Where were are your crocodile hysterical tears when Odumbo was refusing ALL military aid to Ukraine??

    You're either misinformed or lying. The Obama administration didn't refuse ALL military aid to Ukraine. The United States during the administration of President Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons because key allies, U.S. officials, and the Pentagon were concerned that providing Javelins to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia. The Obama administration did reject a request from President Poroshenko for lethal aid in 2014 but approved a $53 million aid package that included vehicles, patrol boats, body armor, night-vision goggles, and humanitarian assistance. Between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

    Today the first 10 armored Humvees for Ukraine arrived from the United States! In a ceremony at Boryspil Airport with U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Bruce Donahue, President Poroshenko thanked the United States for its ongoing assistance and promised that Ukrainian soldiers would make good use of the vehicles. In the next week, two more shipments of armored Humvees from the United States, for a total of 30, will arrive in Ukraine. The United States has committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine to date, and has additionally promised 230 Humvees in total, as well as $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies.

    https://ua.usembassy.gov/first-u-s-armored-hmmwvs-arrive-ukraine-greeted-president-poroshenko/

    Hence, ya'all don't really give a shit about Ukraine.. You just want another blunt object to beat President Trump over the head with.

    Hence, you're either lying or an inveterate gullible rube quite content to spew back the propaganda being spoon-fed to you like a toddler by the outright fabricating right-wingnut dipshits who some of them are on record voting to approve this aid because they're members of Congress. Many of the same people who approved $600 million dollars of aid to Ukraine during the Obama administration now stand before the cameras and repeatedly lie to their minions and morons that Obama sent no military aid. Those members of Congress aren't stupid, they obviously know they voted multiple times to send military aid to Ukraine during the Obama administration... so they obviously believe their base of supporters are either liars and/or useful idiots who will repeat the lies they're telling.

    Yer blatant Party slavery and hypocrisy is nauseating..

    Your projection is "palatable," your ignorance penetrates all the way down to the bone, and you're Hair Dick Tater's gullible sucker... in more ways than one.

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    disenfranchisement is when someone who has the right to vote is denied that right. impeachment is when a president is accused of committing a crime while in office. these are two completely different and unrelated events.

    even if a hypothetical president were unfairly removed from office, that would have zero bearing on the denial of anyone's vote. people might be upset and feel like their voice and vote were being disrespected, but objectively that's not remotely the same as it being taken away.

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Facts to support??

    Mike wants "facts to support" my opinion that his ignorance is bone deep when he supplies that near daily!? *laughs*

    The bias is palatable... ~ Mike

    Mike's ignorance is bone deep.

    Could your bigotry and bias be any more palatable??? ~ Mike

    Could Mike's ignorance be any more palatable, and might some cheese to go with that incessant whine of his make it more so? Or chocolate... pie!

    The FACT is, CW's commentaries ARE biased and I am sure that even HE would concede as much..

    I made no opinion whatsoever regarding whether or not CW's opinion you quoted in your comment was biased. I simply pointed out your repeated demonstrable ignorance.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    25

    disenfranchisement is when someone who has the right to vote is denied that right. impeachment is when a president is accused of committing a crime while in office. these are two completely different and unrelated events.

    Exactly!

    Now do palatable. :)

  28. [28] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    FACT is, CW's commentaries ARE biased and I am sure that even HE would concede as much..

    duh. And you know what? I've got it on good authority that they're biased to the Left. OMG!

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    28

    duh. And you know what? I've got it on good authority that they're biased to the Left. OMG!

    FACT CHECK: True

    Chris grew up in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, and has always been interested in politics. His own politics are a mix, and probably could be described as "left libertarian." On some issues, Chris agrees with the mainstream, and on some he's to the left of Bernie Sanders. It all depends on the issue, and on the arguments raised by all sides.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/about-chris/

    Washington Post rates it ZERO Pinocchios. ;)

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    i thought wapo fact check gives true statements the geppetto check mark

    JL.

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    palatable? a more genteel way of saying, "yummy"

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    even if a hypothetical president were unfairly removed from office, that would have zero bearing on the denial of anyone's vote. people might be upset and feel like their voice and vote were being disrespected, but objectively that's not remotely the same as it being taken away.

    It negates a person's vote....

    I understand why you have the position you do.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    duh. And you know what? I've got it on good authority that they're biased to the Left. OMG!

    Exactly..

    So, when Victoria said that I was ignorant regarding CW's bias, she was full of shit.

    Thank you for proving my point for me..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Have you ever noticed how everything you discuss swings the Democrats way???

    To hear you tell it, Democrats are as pure as the driving snow and can do no wrong..

    Funny how that ALWAYS is the case..

    100% Democrats are good and pure and Republicans are evil incarnate...

    What are the odds that would be reality?? :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far, EVERY person who actually has FIRST HAND knowledge of President Trump's phone call says there was NO BRIBERY..

    Once again, Dumbocrats are getting their asses handed to them by the FACTS and REALITY..

    This is ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion all over again!!

    BBBBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    30

    i thought wapo fact check gives true statements the geppetto check mark

    Oh, I see you're looking for the astonishingly rare Geppetto Checkmark which means that a statement contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We reserve this for claims that are unexpectedly true so it is not awarded very often. We regret to inform you that this statement falls just short of being bestowed that unparalleled honor for the reasons highlighted in bold.

    duh. And you know what? I've got it on good authority that they're biased to the Left. OMG! ~ Balthasar

    Although we find the gentleman's words to be a statement of truth, WaPoop isn't quite ready to confirm the existence of God by granting it the status of "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth."

    An example of a statement that would earn our coveted award is as follows:

    furthermore, anyone who wants to participate in pie need only visit their local grocer's bakery section. and then possibly a polling booth, but mostly the bakery. ~ nypoet22

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/10/23/two-weeks-to-go/#comment-129663

    Geppetto Checkmark

    Pie is the very definition of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... so help us God! :)

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats’ impeachment bombshells aren’t exploding

    As we enter week two of the House impeachment inquiry, it seems pretty clear that Democrats are suffering a massive ordnance failure. Their “bombshells” are not exploding.

    The first unexploded bombshell came when acting ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. testified that a member of his embassy staff had overhead a cellphone conversation between President Trump and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, in a Kyiv restaurant in which Trump discussed the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations.” Aha, Democrats cried! A firsthand witness could now testify they heard Trump pressing the Ukrainians for investigations.

    Um, so what? Trump had already released a rough transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he had pressed him for investigations. The overheard call told us nothing we did not already know. Indeed, the only one likely to get in trouble from this revelation is Sondland, who violated operational security by calling the president in public on an unsecure cellphone.

    How about former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony? We learned that Trump fired her without explanation (which as president he had every right to do) and besmirched her reputation. Yes, Trump treated her horribly, but being a jerk is not an impeachable offense.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-the-democrats-impeachment-bombshells-arent-exploding/ar-BBX0O58

    Awwww Poor Yanovich.. She got fired..

    Odumbo fired EVERY US ambassador when he was election, just to spite President Bush..

    Funny how ya'all didn't care about that..

    Just like ya'all didn't care when Odumbo left Ukraine defenseless so as not to upset his BFF, Putin.. The guy Odumbo promised to be "flexible" for...

    Dumbocrats are LOSING this faux impeachment coup..

    THAT's what happens when Dumbocrats use a Focus Group to determine the strategy...

    It ONLY plays well with the base.. The ones who already hate President Trump and America...

    DUH!!!

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    31

    palatable? a more genteel way of saying, "yummy"

    Geppetto Checkmark

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    33

    So, when Victoria said that I was ignorant regarding CW's bias, she was full of shit.

    You're full of shit all the way up to your eyeballs because I never said you were ignorant regarding CW's bias.

    I said your "ignorance is bone deep" when you described CW's bias as palatable, and I asked if your ignorance could be any more bone deep when you asked CW the question: "Could your bigotry and bias be any more palatable???"

    I stand by my statement about your demonstrable ignorance. The fact that you think my statement regarding your repeated demonstrable ignorance has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not CW is or is not biased is additional proof of your demonstrable ignorance.

    The fact that you're too ignorant to understand that my comments regarding your repeated ignorance have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not CW is biased is further proof of your ignorance regarding same... so thank you so much for the assist.

    You're quite obviously too stupid to know how ignorant you sound.

  40. [40] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:


    “I finally called the president. I believe it was on the 9th of September; I can’t find the records, and they won’t provide them to me,” Sondland told the House committee. “But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman. ‘What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?’ ”

    “And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” Sondland continued. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky’ ” — that is, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — " ‘to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”

    From Trump’s comments to the press following Sondland’s testimony:

    Just a quick comment on what’s going on in terms of testimony with Ambassador Sondland,” Trump said. “And I just noticed one thing, and I would say: That means it’s all over.”

    “ ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’ he asks me, screaming,” Trump said, offering his characterization of the testimony. “ ‘What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories.’ This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me; just happened. To which I turned off the television.”

    Trump repeated the “what do you want” question several more times, interrupting it briefly to assert that, contrary to Sondland’s testimony about his demeanor during the call, he is “always in a good mood.”

    “And now, here’s my response that he gave. Just gave,” Trump said. “Ready? You have the cameras rolling?”

    “ ‘I want nothing. That’s what I want from Ukraine.’ That’s what I said. ‘I want nothing.’ I said it twice. So he goes, he asked me the question, ‘What do you want? I keep hearing all these things. What do you want?' He finally gets me,” Trump continued.

    If you ask a child what they want for their birthday gift and they answer, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I definitely don’t want a new dirt bike,” we ALL know what the child wants.

    They both claim that Sondland asks, “What do you want from Ukraine?”...not “Do you want a quid pro quo from Ukraine?” Why else would Trump answer that — out of the million possible things that he might want — he did NOT want quid pro quo!

    The funniest thing is that Trump is claiming that THIS proves that his saying that he wanted nothing on this call CANCELS out the actual phone call where Trump says that he DOES want something from Zelensky! I’m sure John Wilkes Booth tried the “I told my agent that there was no way I wanted to shoot Lincoln in the head,” defense, too.

    One major tell that Trump is lying...”To which I turned off the television.” This is Trump trying to sound like he was taking Sondland’s call seriously, but ain’t no one buying that cow!

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    32

    It negates a person's vote....

    If you voted, you weren't disenfranchised. Nothing negates the fact that you cast your vote.

    I understand why you have the position you do.. :D

    You obviously understand precious little. Let me put it in terms your one brain cell can understand:

    Voting is like taking a piss: Nothing negates that piddling around nor puts that toxic waste back from whence it came.

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    37

    Odumbo fired EVERY US ambassador when he was election, just to spite President Bush..

    George W. Bush appointed Yovanovich as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and also appointed her as ambassador to Armenia. Why would Barack Obama name Yovanovich as ambassador to Ukraine in 2016 if his aim was to spite President Bush?

    You're demonstrably ignorant and gullible, you have a remarkable inability to connect dots, and you believe whatever bullshit you read and then spew it back here, and that makes you a useful idiot of the highest order.

    Also: All the deflection in the world doesn't change the fact that Trump used his personal lawyer and two mobbed up associates of mobster Dmytro Firtash and withheld taxpayers' money in order to bribe a foreign nation to announce an investigation into his political opponent.

    And we haven't even gotten to the part about the graft yet. :)

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Odumbo fired EVERY US ambassador when he was election, just to spite President Bush..

    Funny how ya'all didn't care about that..

    Funny that you are so obsessed with Obama that you have to compare everything that Trump does to something you claim Obama did. You’d think that Trump’s accomplishments would be impressive enough on their own without needing a comparison....but they aren’t!

    Funnier that you think that Obama did this to spite Bush — like Bush expected or even hoped that Obama would allow his ambassadors to stay in their positions! Every ambassador was told their jobs ended the day Obama took office, which wasn’t unexpected, but guess what... Obama appointed some of those same people back into their ambassador positions once he was in office.

    Also, Trump had chosen to keep Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch as Ukraine’s ambassador for two years. This wasn’t Trump changing up ambassadors when he first took office, this is him getting rid of his own pick for ambassador because she would get in the way of his attempts to corrupt our 2020 elections. It’s strange that Trump would appoint someone he thought was so horrible to such an important position and leave them there as long as he did with her.

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [42]

    Great minds think alike!

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Our Personal Aide-de-Camp the Lord of the Privy Council and Royal Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter the Right and Honourable Royal Highness Russ
    [44]

    Yes! :)

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    40

    They both claim that Sondland asks, “What do you want from Ukraine?”...not “Do you want a quid pro quo from Ukraine?” Why else would Trump answer that — out of the million possible things that he might want — he did NOT want quid pro quo!

    He answered that he did not want a "quid pro quo" because in order to prove the act of bribery in a court of law, it requires a "quid pro quo"... meaning something for something, and claiming there is none would be an affirmative defense to the criminal act of bribery. It's also evidence of Trump's consciousness of guilt that he would answer such a question with using a phrase containing a legal term that would constitute an affirmative defense to the crime of bribery.

    Bribery

    Definition

    Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.

    Overview

    Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty. This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged.

    Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift.
    ...
    Violators may be prosecuted under federal statute 18 U.S.C. 201 - Bribery.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

    Trump and his administration got caught in bribery and the coverup of bribery and then immediately took steps to release the withheld funds, which is further evidence of consciousness of guilt, and Trump has already admitted on the White House lawn on televisions broadcast nationwide that he wanted Ukraine to do a major investigation of the Bidens and also said that he wanted China to do likewise.

    If either of the Bidens from 2016 or before had committed any crimes, nothing has stopped the Federal Bureau of Investigation from spending the last couple years investigating them both. What the GOP dipshits want the American people to believe is that Donald Trump all of a sudden in 2019 decided to fight said corruption from years earlier and therefore required an investigation into the Bidens and needed Rudy Giuliani and the mobster twins to go to Ukraine and shakedown the President of Ukraine in order to effect an investigation. *laughs*

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    No time yet to read all of these, but just wanted everyone to know I just posted a column about Sondland's testimony:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/11/20/two-plus-two-equals-four/

    Enjoy, if the debate gets boring or anything...

    -CW

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick

    He answered that he did not want a "quid pro quo" because in order to prove the act of bribery in a court of law, it requires a "quid pro quo"... meaning something for something, and claiming there is none would be an affirmative defense to the criminal act of bribery.

    Which is what makes the Republicans argument of “First it was quid pro quo, now it’s bribery...Democrats keep changing their minds,” such a joke! “Quid pro quo” is not a criminal charge, it’s an element of a crime.

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike

    Just like ya'all didn't care when Odumbo left Ukraine defenseless so as not to upset his BFF, Putin.. The guy Odumbo promised to be "flexible" for...

    Thank you for that admission that Trump is Vladimir Putin's Bitch, Mike, because if you believe your mischaracterized regular spew regarding Barack Obama makes him Putin's BFF, then you've basically just conceded that Trump standing on a stage in Helsinki, Finland, and bowing down repeatedly to Vlad while the world watched him grovel and suck it definitely makes Donald Trump Putin's Bitch... on a very short leash.

    Now, allow me yet again to correct your repetitive lying about the aid to Ukraine during the Obama administration:

    The Obama administration didn't leave the Ukraine defenseless as you keep lying on this forum... because you're Trump's sucker and lying useful dipshit. The United States during the administration of President Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons because key allies, U.S. officials, and many at the Pentagon were concerned that providing Javelins to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia. The Obama administration rejected a request from President Poroshenko for lethal aid in 2014 but approved a $53 million aid package that included vehicles, patrol boats, body armor, night-vision goggles, and humanitarian assistance. The United States also provided drones. In fact, between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

    Every time you lie for Trump, the only thing you're proving is that you're a damn liar... and a Trump gullible rube and sucker, of course.

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    48

    Which is what makes the Republicans argument of “First it was quid pro quo, now it’s bribery...Democrats keep changing their minds,” such a joke! “Quid pro quo” is not a criminal charge, it’s an element of a crime.

    Yes! Quid pro quo is a necessary element for proving the crime of bribery. That the President of the United States would keep claiming repeatedly that there was "no quid pro quo" and he didn't want anything when he's already confessed on the South lawn of the White House that he wanted "a major investigation into the Bidens" and also said that China should start an investigation into the Bidens... tells anyone everything they need to know. Here's the video confession:

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/03/china-should-investigate-biden-trump-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

    What with all the emails and testimony to the contrary and Trump's own admission on the South lawn of the White House, it's ludicrous for the dipshit Trump cultists and Trump himself to now try to claim that he wanted nothing from President Zelensky and Ukraine. Trump quite obviously wanted a foreign government to smear his political opponent in order to help him win reelection in 2020 and clear Russia for their involvement in the 2016 election. Trump isn't fighting corruption by any stretch of the imagination; Trump is promoting corruption.

    So Trump claiming now that he said "I want nothing... I want nothing... I want no quid pro quo" is basically the equivalent of Trump saying "I'm not orange... I'm not orange... I want no orange coloring on my face." *laughs*

  51. [51] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michael

    Where did you get the idea that Dems are conducting a "Focus Group Impeachment?" Please provide a link in order to edify us Never Trump types.

    Do you think that either party has somehow suspended such "Focus Group" identify where the voters are activities? Impeachment (in the House) will NOT happen if no evidence of "Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are voted over to the Senate regardless of any Focus Group results.

  52. [52] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    It appears that Nunes, Jordan and other GOPers are ignoring the evidence this far revealed and are instead speaking to an alternative "Faux News" version where each day has brought Republican victories, and that it's all some kind of hoax.

    If it's a hoax then Manafirt, Cohen, Flynn (eventually) and other high level Trump officials are serving time over some illusion.

    And I suppose it will likewise be an ically as a result of this Impeachment process.illusion when Trump is removed from office or fatally damaged politically.

  53. [53] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Man it's tough to post using only a cracked cell phone. Please forgive the typos and rogue auto corrects haha

Comments for this article are closed.