All Things Impeachment Inquiry

Dean S

Well-known member
I love the fact that todays testimony came from a G. H. W. Bush supporter and appointee who bailed out this President in Ukraine. Now, he is defending the nation by ratting out that con artist in the White House. No golden toilet is going to save him with the public.
 

Section2

Well-known member
He's abused his office. There's ample evidence and he basically admitted it. Now it's on the R's to decide if we're going to continue this form of government, or if we've morphed into a nation with an all-powerful executive branch that can do literally anything they want and answer to no one.
As I've said from the beginning, this all hinges on Biden. Rudy and others claim that they have ample evidence that Biden pushed for the firing of a prosecutor who was actively investigating Burisma. It should be investigated, and should be easy to prove or dismiss. If he's guilty, Trump did nothing wrong, at least in the eyes of the public. If it's baseless and can be proven, then this gets dicey.

Even if the latter, a few leaked bits of info is nowhere near enough. We have due process still in this country. And I doubt anyone thinks Trump would have abused his power by demanding Ukraine investigate something for which there is already public knowledge, and team Trump already has proof of.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
For a guy who was furious and outraged at AG Barr lying about the conclusions of the Mueller Report a few weeks before the entire report came out, you sure are patient now.
FIFY. The only reason Congress has to do these interviews in private is because Lyin' Bill Barr refused to investigate when the matter was referred to him. I guess he's too busy chasing RW conspiracies across Europe trying to clear Don and Vlad for their 2016 shenanigans.
 

justthefacts

Active member
As I've said from the beginning, this all hinges on Biden. Rudy and others claim that they have ample evidence that Biden pushed for the firing of a prosecutor who was actively investigating Burisma. It should be investigated, and should be easy to prove or dismiss. If he's guilty, Trump did nothing wrong, at least in the eyes of the public. If it's baseless and can be proven, then this gets dicey.

Even if the latter, a few leaked bits of info is nowhere near enough. We have due process still in this country. And I doubt anyone thinks Trump would have abused his power by demanding Ukraine investigate something for which there is already public knowledge, and team Trump already has proof of.
This is not correct:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
FIFY. The only reason Congress has to do these interviews in private is because Lyin' Bill Barr refused to investigate when the matter was referred to him. I guess he's too busy chasing RW conspiracies across Europe trying to clear Don and Vlad for their 2016 shenanigans.
Name the lie.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Leaking out extremely limited testimony to construct the narrative just the way the Dems want it is antithetical to American values and justice.

It’s simply an attempt to conceal the truth and damage Trump. If you can’t see or admit that, you’re either a partisan hack or a moron or both.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Leaking out extremely limited testimony to construct the narrative just the way the Dems want it is antithetical to American values and justice.

It’s simply an attempt to conceal the truth and damage Trump. If you can’t see or admit that, you’re either a partisan hack or a moron or both.
They should release his entire opening statement. I hear it's lovely.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
How can something that is a legal opinion given by the top authorized law enforcement official be a lie?

You can criticize the opinion, but that doesn’t make it a lie.
The entire summary was designed to mislead the public about what Mueller found, which is why Mueller called him out on it.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
The entire summary was designed to mislead the public about what Mueller found, which is why Mueller called him out on it.
Mislead the public? He gave the conclusions of the Mueller Report. You may not have liked it, but nothing he said wasn’t true after the Mueller Report was made available to the public.

You think something was different, tell us what was different?

“Stop lying!”
 

justthefacts

Active member
Leaking out extremely limited testimony to construct the narrative just the way the Dems want it is antithetical to American values and justice.

It’s simply an attempt to conceal the truth and damage Trump. If you can’t see or admit that, you’re either a partisan hack or a moron or both.
Yes, I remember when you were really upset that the Volker opening statement got leaked to the Federalist:

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?90134-All-Things-Impeachment-Inquiry&p=1803026#post1803026
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member

justthefacts

Active member
What are you talking about? Volker opening statement was published to the public:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics/read-kurt-volker-trump-ukraine-opening-statement-congress/index.html
Not by Congress. It was first posted to this thread as a scoop from the Federalist. That discussion was what you were referring to in the link above:

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?90134-All-Things-Impeachment-Inquiry&p=1802936#post1802936

Here's what the Federalist said:



It did get picked up a lot of other places, like CNN. The House Cmtes Chairs sent a letter to their colleagues that had the text messages in it, but not the statement:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congress-releases-ukraine-related-text-messages

Do you really think that the House committees would publicly release a less damning statement, while only leaking a more damning one? What sense does that make? Sean Davis used the Volker statement as evidence that something nefarious was going on. bga1 used it to determine Schiff should be in prison: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?90134-All-Things-Impeachment-Inquiry&p=1802943#post1802943

I will say I think the Democrats should just release everything. They don't have to, but it would be politically wise at this point. But you didn't care about leaks until they were pretty explosive.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Now on Foxnews.com: Botched engagement photos go viral! The latest on AOC. A 2004 Op-Ed from Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton's thirst for relevance and more!
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Active member
Now on Foxnews.com: Botched engagement photos go viral! The latest on AOC. A 2004 Op-Ed from Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton's thirst for relevance and more!
Ha, Fox has a story on Taylor, but it's on one of the least damaging storylines, and one that was public given all of Rudy's shenanigans:

 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Not by Congress. It was first posted to this thread as a scoop from the Federalist. That discussion was what you were referring to in the link above:

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?90134-All-Things-Impeachment-Inquiry&p=1802936#post1802936

Here's what the Federalist said:



It did get picked up a lot of other places, like CNN. The House Cmtes Chairs sent a letter to their colleagues that had the text messages in it, but not the statement:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congress-releases-ukraine-related-text-messages

Do you really think that the House committees would publicly release a less damning statement, while only leaking a more damning one? What sense does that make? Sean Davis used the Volker statement as evidence that something nefarious was going on. bga1 used it to determine Schiff should be in prison: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?90134-All-Things-Impeachment-Inquiry&p=1802943#post1802943

I will say I think the Democrats should just release everything. They don't have to, but it would be politically wise at this point. But you didn't care about leaks until they were pretty explosive.
So I’m supposed to be pissed about GOP leaks b/c the Dems planned a behind closed doors, secret hearings with their intentional leaks to create a narrative?

Ok, I admit, if the other side is going to do that, I don’t have a problem with leaking in response. How else are they supposed to defend the President against an unprecedented, unAmerican process that denies him due process?

You really exposed my hypocrisy. I suppose the only credible thing to do would be let the Dems destroy Trump at their pleasure. :rolleyes:
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Which opening statement is not available?
Have they allowed all of them? Maybe so. The media hasn’t really spent any time on them except for Volker’s and Taylor’s.

Good for the Dems. They’re allowing opening statements.

In news today: the Dems came out of the hearings and said “it was horrible...trust me...just horrible”.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Questions for JTFs:

Has Taylor ever spoken directly to Trump and/or gotten instructions from him?

What did the other witnesses say about what Trump said?
 



Top Bottom