███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[RoryN]

The "pinocchios exchange" was the best of the hearings, and got loud applause.

Start at 1:45.

https://youtu.be/6Cu5VqPI_lE

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It could have been better. Spies should have pointed out how Devin Nunes Cow spends every opening remarks ranting about the Media being a Democratic puppet. Then they want to enter the WaPo into the record?

The "pinocchios exchange" was the best of the hearings, and got loud applause.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The "pinocchios exchange" was the best of the hearings, and got loud applause.

Twas indeed. "Five pinocchios on a daily basis".....Trump's gonna tweet something about that!

^^^

Delusional assumptions never ending

The Lt. Col. denigrates his own storied career with his own actions and statements. It isn't as if I didn't report a fact. Did you denigrate General Flynn or any other officer? just asking.

Virtual "spitting on the troops" is much safer for military-haters like you from behind the safety of a computer monitor.
*nods*

 

[Rightguide]

Twas indeed. "Five pinocchios on a daily basis".....Trump's gonna tweet something about that!


Virtual "spitting on the troops" is much safer for military-haters like you from behind the safety of a computer monitor.
*nods*

You didn't answer. my question.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You didn't answer. my question.

You're right, I didn't. My apologies.
General Michael Flynn is a convicted felon. He has forfeited respect and honor.
Clear enough for you or should I use smaller words?

 

[bodysong]

RoryN

Hee hee hee @ Sharpie notes!

Saw the pic of Presiderp's notes for press pool rant.

Same, as the Sharpie used to alter the NOAA map for Hurricaine Dorian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ane-dorian-map-doctored-with-marker-pen-video

 

[KeithD]

General Michael Flynn is a convicted felon. He has forfeited respect and honor.
Clear enough for you or should I use smaller words?

And the fact that he hasn't been sentenced already is because as they were originally moving into the sentencing phase, the judge mused why Flynn wasn't being charged with treason as well as the other crimes he was convicted for and generously has given him a chance to dig himself out of that hole. But Flynn has used the time to dig himself deeper in the hole. Congrats to him or something.

 

[coati]

The "pinocchios exchange" was the best of the hearings, and got loud applause.

Also, Schiff got a good round of applause following his concluding statement today. People really are fed up with all the deflecting of the Deplorables. All of Sondland's hair splitting about whether Trump himself was going after Biden just evaporated with Schiff's closing statement.

Well, Trump and his Deplorables keep saying "Read the Transcript" of his second call to Ukraine's president, and there it is in the "transcript", a direct reference to Biden.

 

[jaF0]

and got loud applause.

got a good round of applause

By who? Public? Press? Fellow Critters?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

try again, FAG

That is the best you can offer in defence?

Bit of a bigot too I see. Only a Republican would think the term " fag " as an insult.

Truthfully though I don't smoke.

 

[Conager]

By who? Public? Press? Fellow Critters?

Nationals fans.

 

[coati]

By who? Public? Press? Fellow Critters?

Whomever was in that hearing room, but in both cases it was spontaneous and it relieved the tension created by weeks of denial and deflection by the Republicans.

I mean, c'mon, face it. This is absurd that a constantly lying President is being defended so vehemently by his partisans.

I have no illusions that they will change their tune, but it was so good to feel the tension relieved with that spontaneous applause.

 

[KeithD]

By who? Public? Press? Fellow Critters?

By those sitting in the gallery--it wasn't coming from the rostrum. But it was there, which is unusual in a congressional hearing room. I don't know who you have to be to be able to get into the gallery for these particular hearings.

 

[Curmudgeonly]

Whomever was in that hearing room, but in both cases it was spontaneous and it relieved the tension created by weeks of denial and deflection by the Republicans.

I mean, c'mon, face it. This is absurd that a constantly lying President is being defended so vehemently by his partisans.

I have no illusions that they will change their tune, but it was so good to feel the tension relieved with that spontaneous applause.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-23-2015/g-9Csw.gif

 

[jaF0]

I don't know who you have to be to be able to get into the gallery for these particular hearings.

That's my point. If it was all Critters or their staffers, then it might be like stacked deck.

 

[bodysong]

Presiderp's defenders are shouting "No! No! No!"

Republican lawmakers portrayed Sondland as an unreliable witness.

Under questioning from GOP counsel Steve Castor — who called Sondland
a “trifecta of unreliability” —
Sondland said he never heard directly from Trump about
any pre-conditions for the military aid or the White House meeting.

Republicans also sought to highlight Sondland’s claim that it was only
his “presumption” that the military aid was part of a quid pro quo,
and that he did not take contemporaneous notes.

“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that
statement” about investigations, Sondland said.

In his opening statement, Sondland injected a new wrinkle into the
quid pro quo claim: that Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky itself
was the product of a quid pro quo for investigations. On that day -
Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for
a Biden investigation during the phone call, which has become the
central focus of the impeachment inquiry.

"Far from exculpatory, that line of argument from Trump and Grisham is almost meaningless."

- Philip Bump November 20, 2019

Trump’s sweeping rebuttal to Sondland’s testimony?
Quoting his own denials of quid pro quo.

Sondland’s testimony explicitly and in detail outlined what he described
without reservation as a quid pro quo: one focused on an effort to leverage
an official White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to announce new
investigations. The claim that “no quid pro quo” ever occurred is the
opposite of what Sondland testified. It’s just that the quid pro quo that
Sondland expressly articulated isn’t the one that was the subject of
that call.

"Sondland is conveying Trump’s own insistence of innocence.
Trump doesn’t get to then claim that this proves his innocence."

- Philip Bump November 20, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...stimony-quoting-his-own-denials-quid-pro-quo/

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708

 

[Conager]

Presiderp's defenders are shouting "No! No! No!"

Republican lawmakers portrayed Sondland as an unreliable witness.

Under questioning from GOP counsel Steve Castor — who called Sondland
a “trifecta of unreliability” —
Sondland said he never heard directly from Trump about
any pre-conditions for the military aid or the White House meeting.

Republicans also sought to highlight >>>>>>>>Sondland’s claim that it was only
his “presumption” that the military aid was part of a quid pro quo,
and that he did not take contemporaneous notes.

“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that
statement” about investigations, Sondland said.<<<<<<<<

In his opening statement, Sondland injected a new wrinkle into the
quid pro quo claim: that Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky itself
was the product of a quid pro quo for investigations. On that day -
Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for
a Biden investigation during the phone call, which has become the
central focus of the impeachment inquiry.

"Far from exculpatory, that line of argument from Trump and Grisham is almost meaningless."

- Philip Bump November 20, 2019

Trump’s sweeping rebuttal to Sondland’s testimony?
Quoting his own denials of quid pro quo.

Sondland’s testimony explicitly and in detail outlined what he described
without reservation as a quid pro quo: one focused on an effort to leverage
an official White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to announce new
investigations. The claim that “no quid pro quo” ever occurred is the
opposite of what Sondland testified. It’s just that the quid pro quo that
Sondland expressly articulated isn’t the one that was the subject of
that call.

"Sondland is conveying Trump’s own insistence of innocence.
Trump doesn’t get to then claim that this proves his innocence."

- Philip Bump November 20, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...stimony-quoting-his-own-denials-quid-pro-quo/

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708

Talk about burying the lede.

 

[Rightguide]

Presiderp's defenders are shouting "No! No! No!"

Republican lawmakers portrayed Sondland as an unreliable witness.

Under questioning from GOP counsel Steve Castor — who called Sondland
a “trifecta of unreliability” —
Sondland said he never heard directly from Trump about
any pre-conditions for the military aid or the White House meeting.

Republicans also sought to highlight Sondland’s claim that it was only
his “presumption” that the military aid was part of a quid pro quo,
and that he did not take contemporaneous notes.

“President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that
statement” about investigations, Sondland said.

In his opening statement, Sondland injected a new wrinkle into the
quid pro quo claim: that Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky itself
was the product of a quid pro quo for investigations. On that day -
Trump spoke directly to Zelensky and referenced his request for
a Biden investigation during the phone call, which has become the
central focus of the impeachment inquiry.

"Far from exculpatory, that line of argument from Trump and Grisham is almost meaningless."

- Philip Bump November 20, 2019

Trump’s sweeping rebuttal to Sondland’s testimony?
Quoting his own denials of quid pro quo.

Sondland’s testimony explicitly and in detail outlined what he described
without reservation as a quid pro quo: one focused on an effort to leverage
an official White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to announce new
investigations. The claim that “no quid pro quo” ever occurred is the
opposite of what Sondland testified. It’s just that the quid pro quo that
Sondland expressly articulated isn’t the one that was the subject of
that call.

"Sondland is conveying Trump’s own insistence of innocence.
Trump doesn’t get to then claim that this proves his innocence."

- Philip Bump November 20, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...stimony-quoting-his-own-denials-quid-pro-quo/

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708

He corrected himself under questioning by Rep. Turner and Jordan. Get up to date info.

 

[ishtat]

After Sondland, more subpoenas anticipated? First one will be to Pompeo - then sundry other rats scuttling away from the wreckage.

 

[coati]

After Sondland, more subpoenas anticipated? First one will be to Pompeo - then sundry other rats scuttling away from the wreckage.

I don't think so.

The Republican leadership, under orders from Trump, had their chance to provide documents and witnesses, and most of them refused to comply. Just chalk it up as obstruction of Congress in one of the Articles of Impeachment.

There is sufficient evidence to impeach for attempted bribery at this point, and no good reason to delay on that. I favor wrapping up the impeachment hearings, and voting on the articles before the holiday recess.

Let the Senate do whatever the Senate is going to do next January, and watch Trump like a hawk regarding additional attempts by him to solicit foreign influence into the next election.

He is an attention pig, like most of his cult followers on the GB. At some point, you need to cut off the attention for sick people like this and move to the next order of business.

 

[Conager]

After Sondland, more subpoenas anticipated? First one will be to Pompeo - then sundry other rats scuttling away from the wreckage.

I gather you didn't listen to the cross.

Since Sondland already said that Pompeo never told him any such thing, why do you need to hear from Pompeo that he never told Sondland any such thing?

 

[icanhelp1]

I don't think so.

The Republican leadership, under orders from Trump, had their chance to provide documents and witnesses, and most of them refused to comply. Just chalk it up as obstruction of Congress in one of the Articles of Impeachment.

There is sufficient evidence to impeach for attempted bribery at this point, and no good reason to delay on that. I favor wrapping up the impeachment hearings, and voting on the articles before the holiday recess.

Let the Senate do whatever the Senate is going to do next January, and watch Trump like a hawk regarding additional attempts by him to solicit foreign influence into the next election.

He is an attention pig, like most of his cult followers on the GB. At some point, you need to cut off the attention for sick people like this and move to the next order of business.

And Schiff is a shrinking violet! LMFAO!!

 

[darlasmaster01]

Check out the blonde who sits behind Mr Castor during the proceedings.

 

[ishtat]

I gather you didn't listen to the cross.

Since Sondland already said that Pompeo never told him any such thing, why do you need to hear from Pompeo that he never told Sondland any such thing?

I listened. On the one hand there are good reasons for getting the hearings over with promptly, and on the other there are also good reasons for getting subpoenas issued - if only to get the individuals "refusal to explain to the American Public" on the record.

This hearing isn't so much about getting a successful impeachment (because it's obvious how the Senate will vote) as exposing the administrations dishonesty and lack of fitness to hold office. The D's have made a lot of progress on that.

Everybody in that room is talking to voters. It's about an election.

 

[phrodeau]

By those sitting in the gallery--it wasn't coming from the rostrum. But it was there, which is unusual in a congressional hearing room. I don't know who you have to be to be able to get into the gallery for these particular hearings.

Zoom in on the video, find out who the clappers are, then get Roger Stone to threaten their dogs.