GMaster0 said:

---

Today was a bad day for the WH. Taylor corroborated everything the whistleblower stated, doesn't leave anything to deflect on the quid pro quo for political favors on the opponent accusation.

---

Taylor is a deep state partisan hack from the State Dept.. The State Dept. is ground zero of the Swamp.

Doesn't seem like Taylor = Sondland . Taylor is credible with a war record and many years of bipartisan public service.

This is a tough spot for the WH, but maybe they should just own it like Mulvaney tried to do last week and defend they were rooting out corruption. Or just say so what? Stating there was never a quid pro quo isn't going to float at this point.

GMaster0 said:

---

Doesn't seem like Taylor = Sondland . Taylor is credible with a war record and many years of bipartisan public service.

This is a tough spot for the WH, but maybe they should just own it like Mulvaney tried to do last week and defend they were rooting out corruption. Or just say so what? Stating there was never a quid pro quo isn't going to float at this point.

---

Keep trying, sooner or later you'll get a

GOT EM!

GMaster0 said:

---

Doesn't seem like Taylor = Sondland . Taylor is credible with a war record and many years of bipartisan public service.

This is a tough spot for the WH, but maybe they should just own it like Mulvaney tried to do last week and defend they were rooting out corruption. Or just say so what? Stating there was never a quid pro quo isn't going to float at this point.

---

Own what?

McCarthy says yesterday's testimony from Taylor was pretty much torn to shreds...

Seriously, until we see what is being asked and said, then what are we, as the American people, supposed to believe?

Either Schiff or McCarthy is lying...

State has been at odds with Presidents for decades. Mainly Republican ones. So spare me the noble servant line about Taylor. He spoke with Schiff's staff then tried to create the quid pro quo narrative and Sondland shut him down.

Who runs foreign policy, the President or State on its own?

Look...the bottom line in my eyes is simple:

If they truly had damning testimony from Taylor, during the Q&A, then we all know that Schiff would leak it...

All he leaked was the opening statement...

EKUAg said:

---

State has been at odds with Presidents for decades. Mainly Republican ones. So spare me the noble servant line about Taylor. He spoke with Schiff's staff then tried to create the quid pro quo narrative and Sondland shut him down.

Who runs foreign policy, the President or State on its own?

---

The "deep state" woo woo doesn't cut it when it's your own hand picked guy.

Bottom line is if there was literally a shred of substance to this, every last hearing would be public and bipartisan.

If you're so right, why are you hiding?

FireAg said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Doesn't seem like Taylor = Sondland . Taylor is credible with a war record and many years of bipartisan public service.

This is a tough spot for the WH, but maybe they should just own it like Mulvaney tried to do last week and defend they were rooting out corruption. Or just say so what? Stating there was never a quid pro quo isn't going to float at this point.

---

Own what?

McCarthy says yesterday's testimony from Taylor was pretty much torn to shreds...

Seriously, until we see what is being asked and said, then what are we, as the American people, supposed to believe?

Either Schiff or McCarthy is lying...

---

And there are multiple accounts of Schiff being caught in lies when it comes to Trump.

It's like wish-casting...you want something to be true so badly that you don't care what they actual facts say...what you believe is fact becomes fact, regardless of the evidence...

Look, if Trump really did commit a crime, then let's see it and go down the proper channels for dealing with that...


But I have yet to see actual, first-hand evidence of a crime...

All we have is 3rd and 4th hand hearsay and speculation so far...

Hey if they have something let's go for it. Get it started and do it! And there is the answer.

So it begs the question then...is this whole charade merely a Hail Mary attempt to sew enough doubt about Trump with the electorate so as to take back the WH next November? Throw enough **** against the wall and hope enough of the stink sticks to Trump to convince the electorate to remove him at the polls?

Is that the only play to combat a President that is presiding over a booming economy? "Yes, he has ushered in a booming economy for our nation, that frankly, is unprecedented, but in spite of that, he might be a bad guy so let's get rid of him anyway!"

Is that the actual play here, when it all comes down to it? Is this the only way to protect the RBG seat on the SCOTUS, and now that this is obvious, they have to overplay issues to try to paint the man as a criminal, regardless of the facts?

I don't think there will ever be an actual impeachment vote, and I think most people have accepted this as well...

The fact that all of this testimony is from behind closed door sessions conducted in secrecy says all you need to know.

FireAg said:

---

GMaster0 said:

---

Doesn't seem like Taylor = Sondland . Taylor is credible with a war record and many years of bipartisan public service.

This is a tough spot for the WH, but maybe they should just own it like Mulvaney tried to do last week and defend they were rooting out corruption. Or just say so what? Stating there was never a quid pro quo isn't going to float at this point.

---

Own what?

McCarthy says yesterday's testimony from Taylor was pretty much torn to shreds...

Seriously, until we see what is being asked and said, then what are we, as the American people, supposed to believe?

Either Schiff or McCarthy is lying...

---

That's why these closed door, secret, Russian style, hearings are a joke. That's not fair justice.

EKUAg said:

---

State has been at odds with Presidents for decades. Mainly Republican ones. So spare me the noble servant line about Taylor. He spoke with Schiff's staff then tried to create the quid pro quo narrative and Sondland shut him down.

Who runs foreign policy, the President or State on its own?

---

Not to put too fine a point on this but all foreign policy is essentially quid pro quo but the U.S. has historically sucked at actually getting the "quo." We give away the "quids" like Halloween candy but never seem to get what we wanted completely.

Foreign policy is exclusively under the purview of the Executive Branch in Article II. That is not to say there could never be a quid pro quo that could rise to the level of an impeachable offense (such as Joe Biden's actions to benefit the man signing Joe's son's sizeable paychecks as that is personal graft and corruption) but this penny ante crap with Trump ain't it.

It's 10:34 AM on October 23, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS!

It's 10:57 AM on October 23, 2019...

...did we get him yet?

Any day now?

No more messing around this time?

Seems like some people here really, truly think the House won't impeach? That the depositions being taken now are just for show, or something?

I feel like anyone who is reading the current situation THAT wrongly shouldn't be trusted for astute political analysis.

agjacent said:

---

Seems like some people here really, truly think the House won't impeach? That the depositions being taken now are just for show, or something?

I feel like anyone who is reading the current situation THAT wrongly shouldn't be trusted for astute political analysis.

---

they won't vote. Takes it out of their hands to control the narrative. I think you are describing yourself if you are reading it THAT wrongly.

agjacent said:

---

Seems like some people here really, truly think the House won't impeach? That the depositions being taken now are just for show, or something?

I feel like anyone who is reading the current situation THAT wrongly shouldn't be trusted for astute political analysis.

---

They won't pass articles of impeachment because it benefits Trump. They will continue this until re-election, because it benefits the democrats(supposedly).

They won't pass articles, because then Trump can mount a defense. Call witnesses, subpoenas, submit evidence, etc. Which I am guessing would completely trash the democrats impeachment. But I could be wrong. The democrats would then not have a dark cloud over Trumps head.

The democrats would rather just keep the charade going to keep the cloud over Trump. And hope the masses don't catch on to what they are doing.

agjacent said:

---

Seems like some people here really, truly think the House won't impeach? That the depositions being taken now are just for show, or something?

I feel like anyone who is reading the current situation THAT wrongly shouldn't be trusted for astute political analysis.

---

Then why won't they vote to start the process?

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

agjacent said:

---

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

OK. What impeachable offenses has he committed?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

agjacent said:

---

There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

Please do.

Please.

I hope there's an impeachment.

There's a 0.0% chance the senate removes him.

agjacent said:

---

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

they won't do it b/c it screws over any Dem Senator running for POTUS. They would have to report to the senate daily and would not be able to hit the campaign trail, except areas close to DC.

Bo Darville said:

---

There's a 0.0% chance the senate removes him.

---

There is definitely a chance they would. Probably 5 Republicans who would vote for removal for any reason (Romney, Sasse, Collins, Murkowski, Tillis/Burr) and plenty of others who would love for Trump to be gone, if they think they can get away with it.

agjacent said:

---

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

G7 contact was FREE, but go on........

What offenses has he committed?

You might be right. I didn't think the Dems were dumb enough to let Blow Job Ford testify but they pushed her to do it and the repubs played it perfectly and let that idiot testify. Maybe they are that desperate.

Pretty sure this is Lot Y. Push him too hard and he will call you racist.

I thought it was Mikus but now pretty sure it's Lot. Won't take a policy stand but is big into TDS

All I've heard on NPR the last two days on my commute is something about an investigation someone did on a fake PAC that gave $300k to Trumps campaign and some money to Pete Sessions.

Apparently, this is what will get trump now. I just continue to wonder where all these journalists were with these investigations on Democrats. I also really don't care until the media starts holding both parties accountable.

YouBet said:

---

All I've heard on NPR the last two days on my commute is something about an investigation someone did on a fake PAC that gave $300k to Trumps campaign and some money to Pete Sessions.

Apparently, this is what will get trump now. I just continue to wonder where all these journalists were with these investigations on Democrats. I also really don't care until the media starts holding both parties accountable.

---

The guy that bundled money for Obama and Clinton?

YouBet said:

---

All I've heard on NPR the last two days on my commute is something about an investigation someone did on a fake PAC that gave $300k to Trumps campaign and some money to Pete Sessions.

Apparently, this is what will get trump now. I just continue to wonder where all these journalists were with these investigations on Democrats. I also really don't care until the media starts holding both parties accountable.

---

You're probably thinking of the two Ukranians who were charged with campaign finance violations for giving money to a pro-Trump PAC, but they did not donate to the Trump campaign itself. Even the indictment said that.

aginlakeway said:

---

agjacent said:

---

I think the House will be voting on Articles of Impeachment by the end of the year - assuming Trump stops committing new impeachable offenses (such as the G7 contract) so the Dems can concentrate on the ones he's already committed.

I can understand being confident that Rs won't have the spine to actually remove him. I cannot understand thinking the Dems won't vote to impeach. Truly mind-boggling. If this describes you, I say this in all sincerity - step out of your right-wing bubble. Dems are serious as a heart attack about this. There *will* be an impeachment vote, and the House *will* vote to impeach Trump.

---

OK. What impeachable offenses has he committed?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

OK. Then why don't the Dems vote to officially start the process?

---

What impeachable offenses? Um... I guess you're being sincere? Maybe you're trolling me? If you've watched the news at all, then you know damn well what impeachable offenses he's committed. You may disagree (and ultimately the senate will decide) but to pose the question in such a flippant way like you have no possible, earthly idea what things Trump has done that millions of people believe rise to the level of impeachment makes you look simple, tbh.

But in the interest of replying to you in good faith, here are some impeachable offenses off the top of my head - obstruction of justice, contempt of congress, abuse of power, and probably bribery too, if the Ukraine quid pro quo gets framed as Trump seeking a bribe.

Why don't the Dems hold a vote to officially start the process? Because they don't need to. I know that chaps Rs' asses, but it's the plain truth. The various standing committees are already empowered to investigate the incidents in question. Dems don't want this dragging out through the campaign season, no matter what your right-wing news echo chamber tells you. Dems want Rs on the record re Trump's impeachment so they can campaign on that. If Dems acquiesce to R demands to take this (completely unnecessary) vote, then Rs will clog up the process with stunts and shenanigans in an effort to keep the actual impeachment proceeding delayed until the election in November makes it moot (assuming Trump loses) and they never have to go on the record. I don't understand all this R whining about Dems using every advantage they have, as if Rs haven't done the same kinds of things in the past and wouldn't do the same kinds of things in the future.