Gary Johnson said:
Trump gonna let his emotions make him do something stupid like allow evidence and witnesses at the trial.
Nothing is stopping Graham from calling Ciaramella and the Deep State gang before his committee. The only thing that a trial would add is the ability to question Schiff and his staff in the Senate.Gary Johnson said:
Trump gonna let his emotions make him do something stupid like allow evidence and witnesses at the trial.
I'm confused.Gary Johnson said:hbtheduce said:
I'll continue to argue Trump has not been impeached until congress actually finishes their constitutional duty.
Ag with kids said:You do realize a witness means someone with FIRST HAND knowledge, right? Not hearsay.Gary Johnson said:
Lindsey Graham surprisingly comes out in favor of having a fair trial with witnesses.
So, that leaves the Dems with ZERO witnesses of Trump doing ANYTHING...
JB!98 said:Woah, slam on the breaks. What are you trying to insinuate with this? It may be a poll that has no consequence and is not statistically correct, but why post it?MetoliusAg said:
From a current Military Times poll:
I think I know, but where are you headed? Is this just more of your typical poop throwing or are you going somewhere more nefarious?
The difference is fact as opposed to opinion. Both of these individuals are making assumptions based on partial information. Complete information would include privileged material from the Obama administration. The House Dems' procedural shenanigans, coupled with Executive Privilege, precluded the introduction of those Obama materials.evan_aggie said:Ag with kids said:You do realize a witness means someone with FIRST HAND knowledge, right? Not hearsay.Gary Johnson said:
Lindsey Graham surprisingly comes out in favor of having a fair trial with witnesses.
So, that leaves the Dems with ZERO witnesses of Trump doing ANYTHING...
I got into a discussion with my wife thinking the same thing and she asked if I had looked it up or read multiple news outlets. There were two witnesses that supposedly listened in on the call. To be clear: I don't think he should be impeached, but what else is first hand knowledge?
" The two witnesses in Tuesday morning's hearing each listened to the July 25 phone call in which Trump prodded his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democrat Joe Biden.
Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Pence, said she considered the call "unusual" since it "involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter."
Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who arrived for the hearing in military uniform adorned with medals, went even further. He considered it "improper," and, acting out of "duty," reported his alarm to a lawyer for the National Security Council."
evan_aggie said:JB!98 said:Woah, slam on the breaks. What are you trying to insinuate with this? It may be a poll that has no consequence and is not statistically correct, but why post it?MetoliusAg said:
From a current Military Times poll:
I think I know, but where are you headed? Is this just more of your typical poop throwing or are you going somewhere more nefarious?
did they realize this chart implies military trump approval/support is at 70%? 42% + 28%.
evan_aggie said:
Huh? It was a simple fact, no?
Two people testified that were listening to the call and said that trump asked for Biden to be investigated. Nothing about going back to Obama days or the direction of the wind.
This is so damned ghoulish about RBG whatever you think of her as a judge. It would be a fitting cosmic joke on everyone if she lived well past 2021 in the manner of all the predictions McCain would "die in office" if he became President in 2008.BusterAg said:
What Pelosi is likely to do is hold these articles in her back pocket until RBG dies.
When she does, she will transmit them to the Senate, and try to block the confirmation.
If that happens, I see two potential courses of action for the senate:
1) Make a very public statement that the timing of the filing proves that this sham impeachment inquiry is nothing more than a political football, and move to dismiss it outright.
2) Table impeachment until after the confirmation hearings are done.
I think that #1 is more likely. It will just look aweful if the Dems sit on this thing until a politically helpful time, and war turtle is not scared to take the democrats to task for that.
Actually, it is their opinion of intent. When Zelensky repeatedly denies that he felt any pressure to do anything and wasn't even aware there was a hold of any type* it is his view that prevails over eavesdroppers, for lack of a better term.Quote:
There were people who said they overheard a conversation, but then you had two people who listened to the phone call report what was said.
That's my only point. It's not hearsay, or an opinion.
We are all witnesses to the call now, as the transcript has been released. Their opinions and feelings are muteevan_aggie said:Ag with kids said:You do realize a witness means someone with FIRST HAND knowledge, right? Not hearsay.Gary Johnson said:
Lindsey Graham surprisingly comes out in favor of having a fair trial with witnesses.
So, that leaves the Dems with ZERO witnesses of Trump doing ANYTHING...
I got into a discussion with my wife thinking the same thing and she asked if I had looked it up or read multiple news outlets. There were two witnesses that supposedly listened in on the call. To be clear: I don't think he should be impeached, but what else is first hand knowledge?
" The two witnesses in Tuesday morning's hearing each listened to the July 25 phone call in which Trump prodded his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democrat Joe Biden.
Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Pence, said she considered the call "unusual" since it "involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter."
Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who arrived for the hearing in military uniform adorned with medals, went even further. He considered it "improper," and, acting out of "duty," reported his alarm to a lawyer for the National Security Council."
aggiehawg said:
BTW, it is unclear whether Trump has officially been impeached yet.
Hearing a conversation and then testifying in a hearing to what someone said outside of the hearing is literally the definition of hearsay.Quote:
There were people who said they overheard a conversation, but then you had two people who listened to the phone call report what was said.
That's my only point. It's not hearsay, or an opinion.
That got me a 24 hour ban.Prognightmare said:chevy con queso said:Brian Earl Spilner said:Rapier108 said:Trump is still your President.Brian Earl Spilner said:
Can't wait to never have to hear about Trump again.
Stick to the Entertainment Board because you suck at politics.
For now.
No, I'm quite positive that you will always suck at politics.
Avoid them like the plague.Quote:
Some posters really do seem to have a license to troll around here.
Very well summarized Madame Hawg!aggiehawg said:Actually, it is their opinion of intent. When Zelensky repeatedly denies that he felt any pressure to do anything and wasn't even aware there was a hold of any type* it is his view that prevails over eavesdroppers, for lack of a better term.Quote:
There were people who said they overheard a conversation, but then you had two people who listened to the phone call report what was said.
That's my only point. It's not hearsay, or an opinion.
*How did the Ukrainians learn about the hold? And when? If it was because of the publication of the Politico article as it appears, the question then becomes who leaked that info to the reporters? The quid pro quo narrative doesn't work unless Zelensky knows about the hold as he's not expecting the aid until the end of September. So during the month of August when Schiff's office is working with Ciaramella and his lawyer, Mark Zaid on the complaint and then the IC IG Atkinson and then ODNI Maguire, they are still missing a piece of the narrative. Schiff even dispatched a staffer to Ukraine, Thomas Eager, to meet with Bill Taylor. Immediately after that meeting, Taylor starts texting about the hold on aid as a quid pro quo to Sondland. Assuming the Ukrainians keep our people under surveillance like we do foreign ambassadors on our soil, that's one way to make sure the Ukrainians know about the hold.
Now how about letting the American public know? Leak to reporters from Politico. Voila! How to manufacture an impeachment case in a few easy steps.
Brian Earl Spilner said:Rapier108 said:Trump is still your President.Brian Earl Spilner said:
Can't wait to never have to hear about Trump again.
Stick to the Entertainment Board because you suck at politics.
For now.
Still waiting on an answer to my very simple question ...Brian Earl Spilner said:Rapier108 said:Trump is still your President.Brian Earl Spilner said:
Can't wait to never have to hear about Trump again.
Stick to the Entertainment Board because you suck at politics.
For now.
Prognightmare said:
The dems have been so impartial.
Zelensky wins Presidential election in Ukraine on April 22, 2019. This was not that surprising as the polls had been favoring him. But everyone thought that about Hillary, too. And in Ukraine, the corruption of the oligarchs and kleptocrats could easily steal an election as they had before.Quote:
More people need to understand this and the circumstances of Biden suddenly entering the race.
The Supreme Court has no role in impeachment. Her personal opinion has no bearing.richardag said:Prognightmare said:
The dems have been so impartial.
Her stance just proved to me that despite her education, degrees and the fact that she is a lawyer she is as dumb as a box of rocks. No wonder she has continually tried to subvert the Constitution by judicial activism, she lacks any understanding of the concepts outlined in the Constitution.
The hypocrisy of it all is weapons grade. This is the justice that in the last 3 years took political jabs at a presidential candidate. Partisan politics is the last thing I ever want to see from the SCOTUS.richardag said:Prognightmare said:
The dems have been so impartial.
Her stance just proved to me that despite her education, degrees and the fact that she is a lawyer she is as dumb as a box of rocks. No wonder she has continually tried to subvert the Constitution by judicial activism, she lacks any understanding of the concepts outlined in the Constitution.
So is the implication here, Biden entered the race to help set the trap for Trump? I don't doubt it but just wanting to clarify. When did the video of him openly making the quid pro quo start making the rounds? Seems like that was in the early summer sometime?aggiehawg said:Zelensky wins Presidential election in Ukraine on April 22, 2019. This was not that surprising as the polls had been favoring him. But everyone thought that about Hillary, too. And in Ukraine, the corruption of the oligarchs and kleptocrats could easily steal an election as they had before.Quote:
More people need to understand this and the circumstances of Biden suddenly entering the race.
Biden announces his candidacy on April 25, 2019.
No. That is not the calculus here or in Ukraine. As long as the Ukrainian government was under the control of oligarchs and kleptocrats, everyone is getting paid and the skeletons remain in the closet. Ukraine is big piggy bank for a lot of people.Quote:
So is the implication here, Biden entered the race to help set the trap for Trump? I don't doubt it but just wanting to clarify. When did the video of him openly making the quid pro quo start making the rounds? Seems like that was in the early summer sometime?
