I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Democrats committed to impeachment on election night. It’s been pure comedy watching them stumble over themselves to manufacture a reason other than Hillary was supposed to win and Orange Man Bad.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Can confirm. I personally know a SS Agent that was on her detail and the stories are amazing. She's a piece of work.
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Can confirm. I personally know a SS Agent that was on her detail and the stories are amazing. She's a piece of work.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
I'm off the grand of mind that a woman that would stay work Bill is bat shit crazy and desperate for power.
Hillary marched on through all her own debacles with impunity.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
I'm off the grand of mind that a woman that would stay work Bill is bat shit crazy and desperate for power.
Hillary marched on through all her own debacles with impunity.
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
I go back to my notes on Gangs of New York. You can't pick a big fight and show up to said fight with your dick in your hands. Sondland is probably going to be the most damaging witness because you can't impeach his credibility like you could Vindman. Sondland is pretty clearly a Trump-type guy and he's basically saying "4+4", but also saying "never told me to do anything." That's not good.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
I'm off the grand of mind that a woman that would stay work Bill is bat shit crazy and desperate for power.
Hillary marched on through all her own debacles with impunity.
Sad our nations politics are where they are.
Agree, sad. Sad, really.
But not entire impunity. Bill has a real cult-like following and everybody else just ignores him. He's like this quiet old sick guy now. Hillary has to be in the top 5 most hated human beings on the planet just by head count.
No question she is a power dragon; but she's paid a bigger price than William Jefferson in the court of public opinion.
Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts: -Aid to Ukraine was withheld -Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicit
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag.
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.
Less? Are you kidding? Hillary is all we ever hear about ... ever. I think Bill skated on 99% of his shit and most people don't see him as a very bad guy. Hillary, particularly with Trump's base, is the devil incarnate. They couldn't get through day without mentioning her name. Nobody ever talks about Bill, and he was the POTUS, not she.
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
I'm off the grand of mind that a woman that would stay work Bill is bat shit crazy and desperate for power.
Hillary marched on through all her own debacles with impunity.
Sad our nations politics are where they are.
Awesome use of language!
Yeah this phone has strange ideas. I didn't proof read that I was in a hurry.
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Democrats committed to impeachment on election night. It’s been pure comedy watching them stumble over themselves to manufacture a reason other than Hillary was supposed to win and Orange Man Bad.
Watching the media meltdown that cold night in November, you could see they were not gonna stand for this result and would do anything they could to dismantle Trumps presidency. While the MSM has been corrupt for many decades, they have never hitched their wagon to a political party as they did that night. That and Epstein didn’t kill himself.
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
I go back to my notes on Gangs of New York. You can't pick a big fight and show up to said fight with your dick in your hands. Sondland is probably going to be the most damaging witness because you can't impeach his credibility like you could Vindman. Sondland is pretty clearly a Trump-type guy and he's basically saying "4+4", but also saying "never told me to do anything." That's not good.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
The only reason the aid was provided without Z's public statement was because the President got caught. Does anyone even doubt that?
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
I go back to my notes on Gangs of New York. You can't pick a big fight and show up to said fight with your dick in your hands. Sondland is probably going to be the most damaging witness because you can't impeach his credibility like you could Vindman. Sondland is pretty clearly a Trump-type guy and he's basically saying "4+4", but also saying "never told me to do anything." That's not good.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
The only reason the aid was provided without Z's public statement was because the President got caught. Does anyone even doubt that?
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
I go back to my notes on Gangs of New York. You can't pick a big fight and show up to said fight with your dick in your hands. Sondland is probably going to be the most damaging witness because you can't impeach his credibility like you could Vindman. Sondland is pretty clearly a Trump-type guy and he's basically saying "4+4", but also saying "never told me to do anything." That's not good.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
The only reason the aid was provided without Z's public statement was because the President got caught. Does anyone even doubt that?
That's probably kinda right, though I'd guess that aid would have been provided in any event and would find it more likely that Trump bluffed but wouldn't get completely pregnant by actually permanently withholding the aid. At that point, you've created a desperate counterparty who might talk. Someone else might have noticed 'no aid' as well. I think at bare minimum at least Pompeo is too smart to go that far.
Funny that this analysis of what’s going on is 1000x better than anything you’ll see on tv and 99% of the analysis on blogs, websites, etc. I mean, seriously - this is where I go to get real takes on these political matters. I love you guys mostly but hondo and CD can both fuck off.
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
I go back to my notes on Gangs of New York. You can't pick a big fight and show up to said fight with your dick in your hands. Sondland is probably going to be the most damaging witness because you can't impeach his credibility like you could Vindman. Sondland is pretty clearly a Trump-type guy and he's basically saying "4+4", but also saying "never told me to do anything." That's not good.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
The only reason the aid was provided without Z's public statement was because the President got caught. Does anyone even doubt that?
That's probably kinda right, though I'd guess that aid would have been provided in any event and would find it more likely that Trump bluffed but wouldn't get completely pregnant by actually permanently withholding the aid. At that point, you've created a desperate counterparty who might talk. Someone else might have noticed 'no aid' as well. I think at bare minimum at least Pompeo is too smart to go that far.
According to Taylor if the aid wasn't sent by Sept 30 the money would have been lost.
I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
I go back to my notes on Gangs of New York. You can't pick a big fight and show up to said fight with your dick in your hands. Sondland is probably going to be the most damaging witness because you can't impeach his credibility like you could Vindman. Sondland is pretty clearly a Trump-type guy and he's basically saying "4+4", but also saying "never told me to do anything." That's not good.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
The only reason the aid was provided without Z's public statement was because the President got caught. Does anyone even doubt that?
Even if true, Not enough to remove from office.
Does anyone doubt that?
In this day and age, I’m gratified to even get agreement on the facts. So do you agree that the aid got released because the President got caught?
Comments
Here we are, 3 years removed from loser town, and we're still talking about her. There's not been a more talked-about loser since Custer. Seriously.
But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?
Hillary marched on through all her own debacles with impunity.
Sad our nations politics are where they are.
And, no, I don't think we should impeach a sitting US Pres. unless we can establish it with some degree of particularity. I get this isn't a capital offense case and the burden of proof isn't as severe, but impeaching a President is not w/o its costs. The allegedly bad behavior should be serious, it should be pretty clear it was committed and the decision to impeach should be proportionate to previous such votes.
I said if someone put a gun to my head because in that case I'd have to resort to conjecture and play my hand the best I could to save my brains from being blown out of my ear hole. In that case, I'd err on the side of caution because (1) I know Trump is willing to get dirt under his nails and has a flexible moral code, (2) he impulsively does shit his people have to later fix and (3) because Rudy G. is conspicuously positioned in all this and we know Rudy does shit too. So, yeah, from a distance, even a strident, but smart, supporter of Trump would be a little skeptical. I mean, that's basically what Sondland seems to have done (recognizing I didn't hear the whole thing btw).
I'm just saying it's not enough and agreeing with Swaye that the DNC was ill-advised to push this one.
But not entire impunity. Bill has a real cult-like following and everybody else just ignores him. He's like this quiet old sick guy now. Hillary has to be in the top 5 most hated human beings on the planet just by head count.
No question she is a power dragon; but she's paid a bigger price than William Jefferson in the court of public opinion.
But you can fuck off!
Does anyone doubt that?