Trump 2020: Impeachment hearing live.

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
The sources will be on national television in a couple of days, and that's all that really matters at this point. My only question is, 'will you discuss it?'.

Will you even bother to discuss the trial, Joe?
Of course I'll discuss the trial. What are your sources, Steve?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
Of course I'll discuss the trial.
I'll hold you to that. I think that Bill Taylor might be up first, from what I understand. Can't wait to see if you do more than parrot right wing conspiracies and try to discredit individuals that have been far more honorable than President Trump.

What's going to be your opinion as they tear Alexander Vindman's Purple Heart to shreds? I can't wait to see you try to form a coherent opinion for the first time in three years.

Let's do this.
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
I'll hold you to that. I think that Bill Taylor might be up first, from what I understand. Can't wait to see if you do more than parrot right wing conspiracies and try to discredit individuals that have been far more honorable than President Trump.

What's going to be your opinion as they tear Alexander Vindman's Purple Heart to shreds? I can't wait to see you try to form a coherent opinion for the first time in three years.

Let's do this.
Good for you, Steve. What's going to be your opinion when the "prosecution" can't prove a Quid Pro Quo? What are your sources, Steve. Or won't you say?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
Good for you, Steve. What's going to be your opinion when the "prosecution" can't prove a Quid Pro Quo? What are your sources, Steve. Or won't you say?
The leaked testimonies are already out, Joe, you just refuse to discuss them. What do you think that Trump is responding to?

It's going to be very easy to prove a quid pro quo (again, you are at least three weeks behind on this particular talking point). The only challenge is getting enough Senate Republicans to flip.

We will see if the Democrats build a strong enough case that the GOP position is no longer tenable.

Would you go down with a sinking ship, Joe?
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
The leaked testimonies are already out, Joe, you just refuse to discuss them. What do you think that Trump is responding to?

It's going to be very easy to prove a quid pro quo (again, you are at least three weeks behind on this particular talking point). The only challenge is getting enough Senate Republicans to flip.

We will see if the Democrats build a strong enough case that the GOP position is no longer tenable.

Would you go down with a sinking ship, Joe?
Will you go down with yours, Steve? Looks as if your star witness, Vindman, has some problems of his own. Why was he leaking classified information, Steve?

Here’s The Most Concerning Part Of Lt. Col. Vindman’s Testimony Before Schiff’s Committee
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/30/heres-concerning-part-lt.-col.-vindmans-testimony-schiffs-committee

Vindman testified that he had tried to have those items put back into the call transcript, but had failed. At first, news that he had tried to tamper with the rough transcript sent off alarm bells among Republicans. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and this issue was said to be minor.
The more concerning issue with Vindman’s testimony was his admission that he had shared read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, “No, no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question.”

This is extremely problematic. If Schiff had not stopped the witness from answering the question, Jordan would have asked who exactly were the individuals he gave this information to. It’s possible that one of them is the whistleblower.
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
Will you go down with yours, Steve? Looks as if your star witness, Vindman, has some problems of his own. Why was he leaking classified information, Steve?

Here’s The Most Concerning Part Of Lt. Col. Vindman’s Testimony Before Schiff’s Committee
https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/30/heres-concerning-part-lt.-col.-vindmans-testimony-schiffs-committee

Vindman testified that he had tried to have those items put back into the call transcript, but had failed. At first, news that he had tried to tamper with the rough transcript sent off alarm bells among Republicans. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and this issue was said to be minor.
The more concerning issue with Vindman’s testimony was his admission that he had shared read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, “No, no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question.”

This is extremely problematic. If Schiff had not stopped the witness from answering the question, Jordan would have asked who exactly were the individuals he gave this information to. It’s possible that one of them is the whistleblower.
How is any of this problematic, Joe? Please elaborate, because, outside looking in, it seems that the transcript released was actually false (shocking, I know) and Vindman tried to do something about it.

You might say that he was "leaking classified information", but it should never have been classified in the first place.

It was just a phone call, amirite?

... And does this not also mean that the issues with the call did not originate with a Biden employee?
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
How is any of this problematic, Joe? Please elaborate, because, outside looking in, it seems that the transcript released was actually false (shocking, I know) and Vindman tried to do something about it.

You might say that he was "leaking classified information", but it should never have been classified in the first place.

It was just a phone call, amirite?

... And does this not also mean that the issues with the call did not originate with a Biden employee?
Who was he shopping it to? Why did Schiff cut Jordan's line of questioning off? Did it have to do with the whistle blower and who he had contacts with? Schiff perhaps? Who was he shopping it to, Steve, and why did Schiff deem that line of questioning out of bounds? BTW, your sources, Steve? What are they.
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
Who was he shopping it to? Why did Schiff cut Jordan's line of questioning off? Did it have to do with the whistle blower and who he had contacts with? Schiff perhaps? Who was he shopping it to, Steve, and why did Schiff deem that line of questioning out of bounds? BTW, your sources, Steve? What are they.
Your article answers every single question that you just asked. You should get around to reading it some time.
 
Reactions: Haggis

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
Your article answers every single question that you just asked. You should get around to reading it some time.
No, it doesn't because Schiff wouldn't allow the question.

"The more concerning issue with Vindman’s testimony was his admission that he had shared read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, “No, no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question.”
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
No, it doesn't because Schiff wouldn't allow the question.

"The more concerning issue with Vindman’s testimony was his admission that he had shared read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, “No, no, no, no, we’re not going to let him answer that question.”
What does the next part of the article say, Joe? The very next part?

Jeez.

This should not be this hard...
 

Johnstown

Dominant Poster
Jun 4, 2013
16,590
2,007
What does the next part of the article say, Joe? The very next part?

Jeez.

This should not be this hard...
As I said:


"I actually find Major to be fascinating...

He clearly still exhibits many of the hallmarks of intelligence. Someone like Joe basically just regurgitates right wing talking points. When he tries to apply anything more substantive than slogans he often quotes material that actually makes the exact opposite point that he is ostensibly holding.


Unfortunately Major does still gather much of his material from many of the same conspiracy sources as Joe. Yet he seems to have the ability to discern what he is reading somewhat....he will even not use the more absurd or "fake" material (unfortunately that never seems to inform him that maybe he should be more discriminating in using these sources in the first place...also he has a weak point for the absurd stuff that relates to homosexuality and transgender matters [like his stupid Michelle Obama is a man shit]).

But back to a strength...
He is capable of synthesizing information from multiple sources (usually crap sources...but still) and apply the material in new and novel ways even creating his own analysis. Which in a sense is one example of "thinking in action".

The guy clearly has some measure of brain power. In fact he manages to use that brain power to perform impressive feats of mental gymnastics (back to some negatives now).

He does that unfortunately to avoid the obvious conclusions that basic logic will draw. So he will post a diatribe about how the impeachment process is not a criminal investigation...but will then jump over the next obvious conclusion that Republican critiques about legality are absurd...and will instead go into some bizarre whataboutism about Bill Clinton's impeachment (for example).

So in a sense he uses his intelligence to wilfully make himself stupider."
 
Reactions: steviebruno
May 8, 2013
8,428
3,270
Will you go down with yours, Steve? Looks as if your star witness, Vindman, has some problems of his own. Why was he leaking classified information, Steve?

Here’s The Most Concerning Part Of Lt. Col. Vindman’s Testimony Before Schiff’s Committee
The most concerning part of Vindman's testimony, for me, was this:

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Vindman, a National Security Council official overseeing Ukraine policy, told investigators, referring to Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce probes into Joe Biden and his son.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy is decided at the national level. Foreign policy is set by the Chief Executive, aka POTUS, NCA, etc.

If Trump, on the spur of the moment, wants to change foreign policy with respect to any other nation on Earth, he can do so, per the Constitution. Congress has no real role, other than funding initiatives put forth in accordance with foreign policy. They can bluster, debate, make statements, etc., but they cannot change a fucking thing if the POTUS says no. This guy Vindman was working with House member Schiff prior to making his complaint. This is the Congress attempting to invade a section of government authority that they have no business in.

If people understood the true separations of power that have been trampled over the years, they would want to burn Washington DC to the ground. Congress has basically handed over their warmaking authority to the Executive Branch without the amendment that would allow them to do so for the purpose of avoiding potential blame. They have tried on many occasions to undermine the Executive branch vis a vis foreign policy. McCain's seditious trips to Syria, for example. It goes on and on. We have Executive branch overreach meeting Congressional overreach all being further confused by Judicial overreach.

We need to get back to the original separations that were wrote into the Constitution. They were there for a reason. No President should ever send troops anywhere without a declaration of war from Congress, and no member of Congress should ever run their own sub-rosa foreign policy like McCain and his allies attempted.
 
Reactions: Joe E
May 8, 2013
8,428
3,270
Barry was a very bad man. You just don't know it yet, but you will.

What's happening in Kentucky?
More and more keeps oozing out of the Swamp showing how subversive Obama and his minions truly were. History will judge him very harshly, I am afraid. I wish our first black POTUS had been a smashing success for a variety of reasons.
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
The most concerning part of Vindman's testimony, for me, was this:



This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy is decided at the national level. Foreign policy is set by the Chief Executive, aka POTUS, NCA, etc.

If Trump, on the spur of the moment, wants to change foreign policy with respect to any other nation on Earth, he can do so, per the Constitution. Congress has no real role, other than funding initiatives put forth in accordance with foreign policy. They can bluster, debate, make statements, etc., but they cannot change a fucking thing if the POTUS says no. This guy Vindman was working with House member Schiff prior to making his complaint. This is the Congress attempting to invade a section of government authority that they have no business in.

If people understood the true separations of power that have been trampled over the years, they would want to burn Washington DC to the ground. Congress has basically handed over their warmaking authority to the Executive Branch without the amendment that would allow them to do so for the purpose of avoiding potential blame. They have tried on many occasions to undermine the Executive branch vis a vis foreign policy. McCain's seditious trips to Syria, for example. It goes on and on. We have Executive branch overreach meeting Congressional overreach all being further confused by Judicial overreach.

We need to get back to the original separations that were wrote into the Constitution. They were there for a reason. No President should ever send troops anywhere without a declaration of war from Congress, and no member of Congress should ever run their own sub-rosa foreign policy like McCain and his allies attempted.
Vindman's quote draws a conclusion. Whether or not he demanded anything has yet been established, Brent. Other than that your post is spot on. Especially the tip of the hat to the separation of powers built into our Constitution.
 
Reactions: Major Pain