Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 13, 2019

The top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine revealed new information about the events at the center of the House impeachment inquiry as the first open hearings before the House Intelligence Committee got underway Wednesday.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

None of the so-called conservatives are watching it... Because of reasons and stuff.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-11-13 12:51 PM | Reply

So are all you TDSers watching it? Or blogging about other stuff? You've been begging for this for 3 years, and now you're in the lobby on your smartphone rather than watching the movie.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2 You're a TDSer. You tell us.

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It was sad hearing about there being casualties every week from the hot war that's going on in southeastern Ukraine.

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-13 01:01 PM | Reply

Everything trump does serves putin.

Repubs case is ukraine didn't want him electe so they deserve to be investigated. Gosh why wouldnt they want him elected? All he did is say we should let russia have part of their country!

#5 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 01:05 PM | Reply

Is it possible for Devin Nunes to say something that isn't a strawman argument?

#6 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-11-13 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It was sad hearing about there being casualties every week from the hot war that's going on in southeastern Ukraine.
#4 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Agreed, even worse to hear that Trump was willing to sacrifice even more lives, waiting for Ukraine President to commit to investigations of Trump's political rivals, before releasing the military aide.

#7 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:09 PM | Reply

The Ukraine should pay a price for their part in aiding Hillary in 2016. They shouldn't have tried to pick sides.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-13 01:17 PM | Reply

US population: The Mueller hearing was the most boring -------- of a bumbling old man I have ever seen.
Ambassador Taylor: Hold my beer.

#9 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The Ukraine should pay a price for their part in aiding Hillary in 2016. They shouldn't have tried to pick sides."

Russian bot repeats its talking point right on cue.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 01:23 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

OK, if the Republicans manage to prove that Hunter Biden was the most corrupt person ever, what does that have to do with Trump's behavior?

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ambassador Taylor: Hold my beer.
#9 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

It's telling that you find a credible figure such as Taylor's corroboration that the President attempted to bribe a foreign country's president, to politically benefit in an upcoming election, as boring or a ---- show.

Incredibly telling.

#12 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Russian bot repeats its talking point right on cue.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 01:2

They find this stuff in their in-box when they wake up in the morning.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:28 PM | Reply

"It's telling that you find a credible figure such as Taylor's corroboration that the President attempted to bribe a foreign country's president
#12 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

That is not what he said. You reading Schiff's comedy skit again and getting confused?

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:28 PM | Reply

The Ukraine should pay a price for their part in aiding Hillary in 2016. They shouldn't have tried to pick sides.
#8 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Why not address that AFTER we address the sitting POTUS' behavior in pushing to aide Trump in 2020? You know, considering Hillary has ZERO power or influence over United States policy, Trump would be the logical priority.

Logic not being your strong suit, clearly; I understand why you struggle with this prioritization.

#15 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:29 PM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

You directly compared the two, calling one a boring ---- show. Hence, my interpretation is spot on.

#16 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That is not what he said.

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-1

Don't like bribe? What word do the Russians prefer?

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:31 PM | Reply

"You directly compared the two, calling one a boring ---- show.
#16 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 "

You don't understand memes. I called them both boring ---------.

This hearing is not going how you wanted it to go - just like Mueller. Can't wait for your next impeachable offense squawking a few months from now.

#18 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:34 PM | Reply

We should hold off on an investigation of corruption until after the election? There's will always be next election so no investigations. Why couldn't we postpone the Russian Collusion hoax investigation?

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-13 01:34 PM | Reply

This hearing is not going how you wanted it to go -

#18 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:34 P

You found that in your mail, too?

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:36 PM | Reply

We should hold off on an investigation of corruption until after the election?

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2

Why is a man as objectively corrupt as Donald Trump interested in corruption somewhere else?

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Am I to understand that Donald Trump is interested un upright behavior in Ukraine but not in the United States?

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:38 PM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

"Boring" is the talking point that conservatives are pushing right now to counter the hearing. I am amazed how quickly IRA regurgitated it.

They won't talk about anything of substance. Because they know they can't defend the substance. So, they will talk about things that a Reality Show Party cares about in an impeachment hearing for a Reality Show President. How "exciting" it is. Because that is really what matters to their shallow Reality Show Base.

#23 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 01:39 PM | Reply

None of that is interesting to average American, and no minds will be changed as long as Trump (via Twitter and his minions in the House and Senate) can play "it was tit-for-tat, "they did this and that" / "hoax" / "plot" / "treason" / "corruption" / "I am the good guy here, draining the 'swamp' and protecting the country from the 'evil deep state'" etc.

He's only happy to play "victim" and "defender of the faith and fatherland" and will proudly wear the impeachment "badge" after "exoneration" by the Senate's Kangaroo Kourt - that's his kind of show.

The real / only thing that will truly hurt him, personally (his psyche and "reputation / resume") - and will make a serious dent in hearts and minds of average people, including some non-cult Republicans - is if Democrats will expose his personal financial crimes, graft, corruption, money-laundering (especially on behalf and the benefit of Russian oligarchs and Saudi "princes"), lack of personal wealth and botched deals, which he uses to offload losses onto other people, while writing them off on his own tax returns (part of money-laundering schemes), before and after him "taking" the office (emoluments).

THAT would not be a game that "great business can turn around and point fingers on others, or that it would work or matter if he tries to play "I know you are, but who am I?"

Until then, have popcorn, but "you investigate me for political acts, I (Barr) investigate you for political acts" will be as productive as "Mueller investigation" - it doesn't help that on the other side there are Clintons, both corrupt and life-long grifters themselves.

These two clans should be married, in fact Ivanka and Chelsey used to be best buds.

#24 | Posted by CutiePie at 2019-11-13 01:40 PM | Reply

The man who steals money from veterans and charities has an intense interest in making sure Ukraine washes it hands after taking a piss?

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:40 PM | Reply

LOL, Jordan just ended this farce.

#26 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:42 PM | Reply

Is it one of the current Russian talking-points not to admit or discuss that Donald Trump is a verified crook?

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:42 PM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Nice strawman. No one mentioned holding off until after the election.

Though, you might just be getting that from a preview of your talking points. I am sure at some point Republicans will give up defending Trump (since his behavior is indefensible, as shown by the lack of defense by conservatives so far) and just say "let the voters decide". Which is pretty much what YOU are accusing liberals of proposing (even though no one did)?

Settle down. Don't get ahead of yourself.

#28 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 01:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Jordan just ended this farce."

Did he come clean about enabling perverts?

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Is it the Russian position that someone as criminal as Donald Trump is in his own country would never be a criminal in someone else's?

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:43 PM | Reply

Paying attention to the hearings and still waiting to hear mention of an impeachable offense.

#31 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-13 01:44 PM | Reply

"Did he come clean about enabling perverts?
#29 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

If he did, it would make Schiff's day....dude looks even more pedo than he usually does.

#32 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:45 PM | Reply

Paying attention to the hearings and still waiting to hear mention of an impeachable offense.

#31 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-13 01:44 PM | R

When you hear that part, do you have your response ready? Would you like to just tell us now or make us wait? Oh, the suspense.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:46 PM | Reply

dude (looks even more pedo than he usually does.

#32 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:45 PM

Somehow I don't think Trump is doing as well in this hearing as you say he's doing.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Paying attention to the hearings and still waiting to hear mention of an impeachable offense.

#31 | POSTED BY MSGT

Yeah... because you don't have any idea what an impeachable offense is. You pretty much define it as "anything that a Democrat does, but nothing that Trump does".

How about you post what you think impeachable offenses are, and then we will correct you. Then, once you actually have a foundation for what an "impeachable offense" is, THEN we can talk about whether Trump committed one.

#35 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Paying attention to the hearings and still waiting to hear mention of an impeachable offense."

Pretend they're talking about Obama.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Somehow I don't think Trump is doing as well in this hearing as you say he's doing.
#34 | POSTED BY ZED"

I guess we will have to wait for the polls. But, if these are their star witnesses, this trial is already over. Maybe they can bring in AOC in a last ditch effort to save the day.

#37 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:50 PM | Reply

Maybe it would be more effective if you called Shiff a Pedo Ukrainian?

Accuse him of stealing from veterans. That ought to destroy his credibility.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:50 PM | Reply

Got that right Zed. If only the Republican minority would stop using the phrase Witch Hunt - Oh well.

#39 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-11-13 01:51 PM | Reply

When you hear that part, do you have your response ready?

#33 | POSTED BY ZED

He is a conservative, so he expects "what he is supposed to think" to be spoon-fed to him. Instead of *gasp* making determinations for himself based upon the facts.

#40 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 01:51 PM | Reply

Rasmussen: Trump Approval Drops to 44% Before Impeachment

#41 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:51 PM | Reply

I guess we will have to wait for the pols.
#37 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-1

Is that what you guess? Nothing mercurial about your attitude. What changed?

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 01:52 PM | Reply

I called them both boring ---------.
#18 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

And I said that's telling. Incredibly telling.

So glad you finally figured it out.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:54 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

He made the determination that this show is now over, because Taylor is "boring."

However, I suppose that still wasn't even his own determination considering the message has been part of a meme for days even before the "---- show" began.

Again, quite telling.

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 01:56 PM | Reply

You've been begging for this for 3 years, and now you're in the lobby on your smartphone rather than watching the movie.

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Did you know that you can get the latest news on a smartphone?

#45 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-11-13 01:59 PM | Reply

The Ukraine should pay a price for their part in aiding Hillary in 2016. They shouldn't have tried to pick sides.

#8 | Posted by visitor_

Then surely you can provide a link to proof that they did that, that isn't a rightwing wackjob conspiracy site.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 01:59 PM | Reply

"He made the determination that this show is now over, because Taylor is "boring."
#44 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

It is about public perception - Dems lost. Maybe Taylor was once a great man - he is a confused old fool now, just like Mueller. Sad for his family. Radcliff just destroyed any doubt for those too dumb to understand Jordan's attack. Nothing close to an impeachable offense. You lose, again...

#47 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 01:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

They should make Gym Jordan wear a sports coat. Maybe something plaid with wide lapels from 1974.

#48 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 02:00 PM | Reply

"Taylor was once a great man - he is a confused old fool now"

And now we see how Republicans truly feel about service to one's country.

Too bad Taylor couldn't have had bone spurs, or a doctor daddy paid to lie.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 02:01 PM | Reply

Taylor has that look on his face when the Russiapublicans are asking him wacky clownshow questions like, "Why TF are you asking me about all this conspiracy crap you made up? I don't know what you're even talking about."

As he should.

#50 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 02:06 PM | Reply

"Taylor said the aide overheard the president ask Sondland about "the investigations." He also said Sondland told the aide that the president "cares more about the investigations of Biden" than U.S. policy toward Ukraine"

"Devin Nunes, the Republican ranking member, decried the proceedings as a "carefully orchestrated media smear campaign.""

When the proceedings so far have only included hearsay, there is absolutely no doubt it is a smear campaign. However, this is just the beginning. I know Americans won't do this but the only way to really make sense of everything is to get the full inquiry and evidence, and then judge it as a whole. That's the common sense and logical way to do it so we know that's not going to happen. But, as it stands in this article, so far it is just a smear campaign and there isn't any other way it can be taken considering this is an official inquiry.

#51 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-13 02:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There's a lot more than hearsay so far, but the Republicans are focusing on only that part.

#52 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-13 02:11 PM | Reply

Nothing close to an impeachable offense. You lose, again...

#47 | Posted by iragoldberg a

Say that over and over. Maybe it'll be true.

Maybe if you say it enough the average american will be hypnotized in to thinking blackmailing a foreign country into investigating your rivals isn't an abuse of power.

This isn't an impeachment of trump, it's an impeachment of your entire party, showing the world exactly what they'll do to protect this obvious crook.

Have you started thinking about what you'll tell your grandkids that you did during the trump presidency?
Maybe talk to some of the old republicans who defended nixon, or some of the ones who tried to keep blacks from having equal rights. Ask them what to do with the rest of your life once you've completely committed yourself to defending something that will look horrible through the lens of history.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What a pair sitting behind Carson. One hottie and one dude with a lazy eye.

#54 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 02:13 PM | Reply

there is absolutely no doubt it is a smear campaign.

#51 | Posted by humtake

Smear campaigns dont have hard evidence and reputable witness confirmation. Sorry.

Your whole cult seems to be just trying to WISH victory into existence. Like if you all clap your hands and say I BELIEVE IN FAIRIES over and over, fairies will be real.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

What a pair sitting behind Carson. One hottie and one dude with a lazy eye.

#54 | Posted by iragoldberg

Anything to focus on something besides the fact that you're in the cult of a crook comrade.

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 02:14 PM | Reply

Looks like Vlad is paying overtime today. Sheeple/Lieberg/Nobias/JordyStPete is working the Russian/trump propaganda hard.

#57 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-13 02:14 PM | Reply

Nothing close to an impeachable offense. You lose, again...
#47 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

You have a knack for putting the cart before the horse.

Even Rasmussen points to an issue based on the legitimate metrics you've acknowledged, and yet, according to you, Trump is winning.

Why are you so knee-jerky today? You seem quite flustered, unable to keep up; stuck in a whirlwind of wishful thinking. Trump will be impeached, which will be a win for justice even knowing the inevitable awaits in the senate. Partisan beneficiaries will protect their own, leaving a single avenue to acknowledge Trump's wrong doing, which you are seeing play out here. Dems will take a hit in 2020 because of this and I applaud them for putting country and justice ahead of party. Speaks volumes about them just as your tripe spewed on this thread speaks volumes about you.

#58 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When the proceedings so far have only included hearsay, there is absolutely no doubt it is a smear campaign.

#51 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

For one, there is only one public proceeding (this one). And they have testified to a lot that is not hearsay. But, they did not directly speak to Trump, so they can't directly tie anything to him, except by what other people (that they did talk directly to) claim. They also talked A LOT directly to Ukrainians. It is pertinent what the Ukrainians knew about the aid being held up. Or do you not think so?

But, if you don't like hearsay, why don't we hear it straight from the horse's mouth? Why aren't you up in arms about people from the White House refusing to testify?

Also, that aide is supposed to be deposed on Friday, by my understanding. And, testifying about a conversation that you heard in person is not hearsay. So, just be patient.

And, Sondland testified (in a statement "revision") that he told the Ukrainians that there was a quid pro quo (that aid was contingent on them announcing their investigation into Biden). How is that hearsay???

#59 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 02:18 PM | Reply

"Boring" is the talking point that conservatives are pushing right now to counter the hearing.

To be fair, when aren't hearings boring? Fist fights?

#60 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-11-13 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does anyone else think it is a bit hypocritical that they keep talking about Russia attacking and occupying a portion of a sovereign country when Dems are demanding exactly that by the US in Syria?

#61 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 02:21 PM | Reply

White House Press Sec Dismisses Impeachment Hearing as 'Boring,' Waste of 'Time & Money'

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:22 PM | Reply

Deven Nunes mentions nude pictures of Trump every chance he gets. I'm sure this makes Vice-President Pence and "Mother" very uncomfortable.

#63 | Posted by anton at 2019-11-13 02:23 PM | Reply

To be fair, when aren't hearings boring? Fist fights?
#60 | POSTED BY PIRATE

Taylor Reveals NEW Phone Call in Which Trump Pushed Biden Investigations to U.S. Officials
www.mediaite.com

Hearing how Trump continuously attempted to sell out our country's credibility for personal gain is fascinating, to me.

Not sure why it's not for you, but to each his own.

#64 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:24 PM | Reply

Here's a quick summary of what is going on:

The Democrats' effort to take down President Trump over his dealings with Ukraine consists of three stages. The first stage was to develop the evidence that Trump withheld aid for a period of time as a way of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The second stage is to present that evidence to the public through good witnesses. The third stage will be to press the argument that what Trump did warrants impeachment. [snip]

The first stage has gone well for the Democrats. Documents and testimony leave little doubt that Trump did in fact withhold aid for the purpose of getting Ukraine to investigate his chief political rival. [snip]

This week, we move into the second stage, presentation. Democrats will put on three witnesses in televised hearings. [snip]

We don't know how any of the three witnesses will perform or what impression any will make. However, there is reason to believe that Bill Taylor will be a good witness for the Democrats.


You can read the entire piece here:

www.powerlineblog.com

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 02:25 PM | Reply

"William Taylor was a very impressive witness and was very damaging to the president. First of all, as you pointed out, he took very copious notes at almost every conversation ... I think very nonpolitical. He went out of his way to talk about what he knew, what he was specifically testament to. The only thing he talked about was a strong feeling that it was in the U.S. national security interests to support Ukraine in the fight against Russia. But he certainly wasn't taking any partisan position."
-- Chris Wallace, Fox News

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:25 PM | Reply

I noticed when the Republicans talk about aid to Ukraine increasing over the aid given by Obama but they don't talk about Trump wanting to end the sanctions on Russia.

#67 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 02:26 PM | Reply

However, there is reason to believe that Bill Taylor will be a good witness for the Democrats.
You can read the entire piece here:
www.powerlineblog.com
#65 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Considering #64 and #66, I'd say your linked article is quite accurate.

#68 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:26 PM | Reply

Does anyone else think it is a bit hypocritical that they keep talking about Russia attacking and occupying a portion of a sovereign country when Dems are demanding exactly that by the US in Syria?
#61 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

The Dems are the only ones making such demands? And it's really the exact same thing as in Syria?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach!

#69 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:28 PM | Reply

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary,

SQUIRREL!!!!!

Biden, Biden, Biden,

SQUIRREL!!!!!

The corruption was legal!

SQUIRREL!!!!!!

----Banana Trumpublicans----

#70 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-11-13 02:29 PM | Reply

More like SCReeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach!

#71 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-13 02:30 PM | Reply

Hearing how Trump continuously attempted to sell out our country's credibility for personal gain is fascinating, to me.
Not sure why it's not for you, but to each his own.

----

The partisanship makes it predictable.

Trump's a douche. He'll sell out anybody and anything for personal gain. I've known that since before the election.

#72 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-11-13 02:30 PM | Reply

I've known that since before the election.
#72 | POSTED BY PIRATE

Knowing as a possibility is one thing.

Seeing it in action is quite another, IMO. Just as knowing the destructive power of an atomic bomb is one thing, but seeing it go off and experiencing the destruction first hand is quite another.

#73 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:34 PM | Reply

Does anyone else think it is a bit hypocritical that they keep talking about Russia attacking and occupying a portion of a sovereign country when Dems are demanding exactly that by the US in Syria?

#61 | Posted by iragoldberg

No one with a brain does. The US is DEFENDING against russian aggression in syria. Or it WAS before putin's puppet took office. Do you ever bother to ask yourself why trump is always trying to benefit putin?

#74 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 02:35 PM | Reply

The partisanship makes it predictable.
Trump's a douche. He'll sell out anybody and anything for personal gain. I've known that since before the election.

#72 | POSTED BY PIRATE

I am not surprised that conservatives are forced to submissively bulwark Trump now. Partisanship is tough. I am honestly not really surprised that most conservatives voted for Trump over Hillary. But I am not going to let them get away with it. This is what they get for raising Trump up to the head of their party in the first place. They should have known this was going to happen and picked a good candidate when they had tons of choices and it wasn't (for conservatives) a partisan choice between "two evils". They elected the "rock" knowing he would inevitably push them straight towards the nearest "hard place". Sympathy = 0.

#75 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 02:38 PM | Reply

White House projects disinterest: 'Boring'...
www.politico.com

#76 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 02:43 PM | Reply

Let's be real here.

To convict Trump in the malapportioned Senate you 67 votes. There are 45 Dems and 2 independents. Even if every single one of them votes to convict, you need 20 out of 53 Republicans to turn on Trump and vote to convict. That's about 38% of them.

There is a zero percent chance of that happening. Zero.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 02:49 PM | Reply

"There is a zero percent chance of that happening."

I'd bet it's twice as likely.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 02:50 PM | Reply

I promised myself that I would listen.

Here's my problem.

Having been on juries, it usually starts with evidence and witness testimony to that evidence.

Is there a weblink to the admitted evidence on the House website?

I expected the actual witnesses of the call to start. With the transcript as evidence, I would have assumed the transcript would be the initial focus of questioning.

Once the phone calls's content had been verified before all us viewers, then these other parties come in.

Why start with people who weren't on the call and the part of transcription.

I listened and what I heard was hearsay and thirdhand knowledge.

Anyone here on the DR could've given today's testimony based on what we've read and heard.

#79 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-11-13 02:53 PM | Reply

There is a zero percent chance of that happening. Zero.

#77 | POSTED BY JOE

It all depends on public perception.

If the witnesses perform well and the public needle moves bigly that not only is Trump guilty of the allegations (Dems have done a good job of making that case) and they are then able to make the case that Trump's actions rise to the level of impeachment, Senate Republicans will cave. I'm not suggesting they'd vote for removal out of principle, but out of political expedience.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 02:54 PM | Reply

Republicans who "might" vote to convict (50/50):
Ben Sasse
Mitt Romney
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski

Republicans who "conceivably could" vote to convict (25/75):
Ted Cruz
Cory Gardner
Martha McSally
Chuck Grassley (in a moment of senility)

Can anyone add to this list?

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 02:55 PM | Reply

"and they are then able to make the case that Trump's actions rise to the level of impeachment"

If Obama had done this, as well as stolen $2 million after raising it for "Veterans", he'd have been impeached by sundown.

#82 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 03:00 PM | Reply

#82 Can you imagine Obama using charity money to buy a painting of himself? The Republican meme about him being an elitist, "messiah" etc would have broken the space/time continuum.

#83 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 03:03 PM | Reply

Jordan's one big trump-licking toady with a story to sell.

#84 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-13 03:04 PM | Reply

There is a zero percent chance of that happening. Zero.

#77 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-11-13 02:49 PM | REPLY |

But they will have to vote and identify themselves as partisan hacks by voting not to convict a criminal based on politics.

None of them will ever have a leg to stand on demanding others follow the laws of our nation when they allow their own to do so with impunity

#85 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-13 03:04 PM | Reply

"None of them will ever have a leg to stand"

The fastest growing cemetery in the world? The one where Republican talking points go to die.

Wait until some Repubican crows about "family values".

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 03:05 PM | Reply

#85 I fear most Americans have far shorter memories and way less interest in these proceedings than you give them credit for.

#87 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 03:09 PM | Reply

Does Gym Jordan ever ask a question, or is his role to just go up and get as many conspiracy theories and talking points into the record before his time runs out?

#88 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 03:14 PM | Reply

Reading the comments of all the rightwingers declaring these proceedings to be a big 'nothing burger' makes me realize that rightwingers do not understand what a 'nothing burger' is.

This is a big deal. And Trump's approval rating is dropping accordingly. Even Rasmussen has him going down.

#89 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 03:15 PM | Reply

None of them will ever have a leg to stand on demanding others follow the laws of our nation when they allow their own to do so with impunity

#85 | Posted by hatter5183

But that's what they're arguing they can do, this very day. They drill past all of Trump's many crimes and point the finger at others. Donald Trump hates corruption, don't you know? That is, he hates it in everyone not himself.

#90 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 03:21 PM | Reply

It all depends on public perception.

People are a lot more retreated into their informational corners today than they were in the 60s. I don't think nearly enough people are going to be convinced of anything here sufficient to turn 38% of Republican senators against trump.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 03:25 PM | Reply

Also, when Nixon was impeached he didn't pose the sort of existential threat to the GOP that Trump does. They could face far more devastating electoral consequences for crossing him which was a non issue with Nixon.

#92 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 03:27 PM | Reply

This is not looking good for the GOP

#93 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-13 03:31 PM | Reply

The more that extremist rightwingers try to poo poo these hearings, the more obvious it becomes that these are devastating to Trump's support numbers.

#94 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 03:37 PM | Reply

If the witnesses perform well and the public needle moves bigly that not only is Trump guilty of the allegations (Dems have done a good job of making that case) and they are then able to make the case that Trump's actions rise to the level of impeachment, Senate Republicans will cave. I'm not suggesting they'd vote for removal out of principle, but out of political expedience.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ

You're in denial about your party. They are 100% the cult of a con man. The perfect case with the perfect evidence doesn't matter when the con man just says ITS FAKE, IT'S A HOAX and the cult accepts it.

There is no lawyer in existence who can make a cult stop supporting their cult leader. It's not about evidence or facts. It's about religious faith.

#95 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 03:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

One senator said, anonymously, that if a closed ballot was voted on in the senate, there would be 30 gop senators vote to remove him.

#96 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-11-13 03:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The reaction to this is the best argument for ignoring anything Trumpers say. They're just not taking reality seriously.

#97 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-13 03:44 PM | Reply

"Or it WAS before putin's puppet took office. Do you ever bother to ask yourself why trump is always trying to benefit putin?

#74 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

This is an "All Hands in Deck" for Putin's Puppies.

Fancy Bear or whatever they are called now are going to be working overtime to provide the GOP talking points today.

Babble all you want boys and girls. The GOP is so screwed.

The President and the GOP are blocking all testimonies and documents from Congress while complaining that the Dems wont allowing their witnesses or the whistleblower.

You get no cooperation and you SHOULD get to provide no witnesses until you confirm to the law and stop obstructing justice and preventing testifying of the staff that had direct evidence of Trumps bribery and extortion.

The desperation of the Deplorables is palatable.

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-13 03:46 PM | Reply

All joking aside, it would be the first time in my lifetime that I felt respect for the GOP if in fact the Senate had the integrity and the honesty to remove Trump from office. (I am not holding my breath.)

#99 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 03:46 PM | Reply

"One senator said, anonymously, that if a closed ballot was voted on in the senate, there would be 30 gop senators vote to remove him."

30 cowards who care more for preserving their re-election prospects than fulfilling their oaths of office.

#100 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-13 03:49 PM | Reply

"One senator said, anonymously, that if a closed ballot was voted on in the senate"

When it comes to impeachment, Republicans have a Public position and a Private position.

That's cute, how they find their Oath of Office so malleable.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-13 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the elected Republican leaders in the Senate do not have the courage or integrity to remove Trump, maybe democracy in America does not deserve to survive. If 30 power hungry rightwing politicians in the Senate are more concerned about getting re-elected than they are with serving with integrity, maybe it is time for our experiment with representative democracy to end, and something else rise to allow direct democracy by each American voter.

#102 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the end of a little piece of hypothetical satire:

Trump-skeptical conservative: Well, he's given me a lot of reasons to not vote for him " abandoning the Kurds, tariffs and trade wars everywhere, the Twitter rants and the incendiary rhetoric, doesn't give a hoot about the deficit and national debt. He constantly overpromises and under-delivers on stuff like securing the border. But he's also passed tax cuts, ended the Obamacare mandate, and appointed judges I like. If I'm willing to vote for the Democrats, what kind of policy concessions are they willing to make?

Democrat: Oh, absolutely none.

Trump-skeptical conservative: Really? If you guys get control of the House, Senate, and presidency, what do you want to do?

Democrat: Repeal the Trump tax cuts, end private insurance and make everyone get their health care through the government in Medicare for All, provide taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants, decriminalize crossing the border, abolish ICE, guarantee taxpayer funding of abortions, at least begin the discussion on reparations for slavery, ban "assault weapons' and maybe institute a nationwide mandatory buyback for AR-15. Oh yeah, and maybe add more Supreme Court justices to the nine we already heave.

Trump-skeptical conservative: So in your view, "doing the right thing" just happens to end up with your side getting everything you want, and I get nothing I want.

Democrat: Why yes, but that's just coincidental. Hey, where are you going?


www.nationalreview.com

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 04:02 PM | Reply

So Bill Taylor, the Democrats star witness, has basically admitted today that he got virtually all of his hearsay info from Gordon Sondland

We have Sondland, in writing, admitting he really didn't know what happened with Ukrainian aid

Keep swinging...

This is hilarious.

#104 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 04:03 PM | Reply

Jordan on TV now denying reality; denying what he just heard in testimony and claiming that it is the, "perception of the American people that matters".

Typical.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2019-11-13 04:05 PM | Reply

Hyperbole. I'm looking at it.

#106 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-13 04:07 PM | Reply

If the elected Republican leaders in the Senate do not have the courage or integrity to remove Trump, maybe democracy in America does not deserve to survive. If 30 power hungry rightwing politicians in the Senate are more concerned about getting re-elected than they are with serving with integrity, maybe it is time for our experiment with representative democracy to end, and something else rise to allow direct democracy by each American voter.

#102 | Posted by moder8

It doesnt mean representative democracy failed, it means bribery-funded fake democracy failed.

And when the person with less votes wins, was it ever really a democracy?

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 04:07 PM | Reply

Trump blackmailing another country by refusing aide to get dirt on a political opponent. Guess he thought that since the Ukraine Pres was a fellow comedian, albeit an intentional one, Trump thought he could get a deal.

As Schiff just said, there was no attempt by the GOP today to CONTEST THE FACTS... just an attempt to spin them.

#108 | Posted by Corky at 2019-11-13 04:09 PM | Reply

#103 Please point to a "policy concession" modern day Republicans have made since that seems to be the standard you're holding Democrats to.

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 04:12 PM | Reply

If I'm willing to vote for the Democrats, what kind of policy concessions are they willing to make?

#103 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-13 04:02 PM | REPLY |

What policy concessions have the republicans made when they controlled the house, senate, and presidency?

Dems made many.

Obamacare was full of concessions to republicans who then voted against it anyway.

#110 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-13 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Neither of todays witnesses were even remotely credible. Neither had actual knowledge beyond hearsay. Both are career bureaucrats who claimed that the guy who determines the foreign policy of the United States (POTUS)was interfering in the foreign policy of the United States. The sad thing is that they probably believe that THEY (career bureaucrats) are the sole arbiters of foreign policy. Trump should fire them both for incompetence.

#111 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 04:24 PM | Reply

If I'm willing to vote for the Democrats, what kind of policy concessions are they willing to make?
#103 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I don't see a point in answering your question, because you have failed to demonstrate that you would ever consider going against your tribe. If the Democrats wind up with a majority again, I think they should just skip the concessions altogether. You get none. No concessions. How about that? Your voice has been heard already, and if the Democrats take control, I think they should be as ruthlessly partisan as Repubicans.

#112 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the House really wanted transparency for the impeachment hearings, and wanted as many people as possible to see, why wouldn't they be held in the evening?

Millions of Americans work (thankfully) and will have to accept the interpretation of whatever news channel they tend to watch.

Isn't that a big part of the problem we have in general today?

#113 | Posted by hoser at 2019-11-13 04:26 PM | Reply

"Neither of todays witnesses were even remotely credible."

And now we see how Republicans honor a lifetime of service. You do realize Taylor was recruited by Pompeo, a Republican, right?

And is your bottom line that everyone willing to come forward and be sworn is lying, while everyone refusing to testify is telling the truth?

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If a President shoots someone on fifth avenue and his partisan psycophants don't do anything about it was a crime committed?

#115 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-13 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#103 Please point to a "policy concession" modern day Republicans have made since that seems to be the standard you're holding Democrats to.

#109 | POSTED BY JOE

You missed the point of the hypothetical conversation I linked.

if the Democrats take control, I think they should be as ruthlessly partisan as Repubicans.

#112 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

That's fine. I have no problem with that.

#116 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 04:27 PM | Reply

Neither of todays witnesses were even remotely credible. Neither had actual knowledge beyond hearsay. Both are career bureaucrats who claimed that the guy who determines the foreign policy of the United States (POTUS)was interfering in the foreign policy of the United States. The sad thing is that they probably believe that THEY (career bureaucrats) are the sole arbiters of foreign policy. Trump should fire them both for incompetence.

#111 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355

I watched the whole thing and we clearly saw a completely different hearing. Is your comment based on watching the hearing, or are you parroting someone on Fox "news" about it?

#117 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 04:27 PM | Reply

SO... the rwing riff after the testimony seems to be that, "yes, Trump should not have done this, but it's not impeachable".

Which is the same thing they would say if he had, "shot someone to death on 5th Ave"; as long as they won't lose any votes over it themselves, whatever Trump does is OK.

#118 | Posted by Corky at 2019-11-13 04:29 PM | Reply

Sweet news for the GOP...Trump just said Mark Levin said its all kosher!

LOL!

#119 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-11-13 04:29 PM | Reply

Every russian reference imma been dropping a shot of irish down my gullet....I'm so trashed.

Said the nervous SJW warrior for the 1776th time. Orange man bad!

#120 | Posted by mutant at 2019-11-13 04:29 PM | Reply

If the House really wanted transparency for the impeachment hearings, and wanted as many people as possible to see, why wouldn't they be held in the evening?
Millions of Americans work (thankfully) and will have to accept the interpretation of whatever news channel they tend to watch.
Isn't that a big part of the problem we have in general today?

#113 | POSTED BY HOSER

Have your heard of this thing called the internet where the full hearings are archived and available to watch at whatever time a person decides to do so?

#121 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-11-13 04:33 PM | Reply

Orange man bad. Put orange jumpsuit on him.

#122 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 04:34 PM | Reply

If a President shoots someone on fifth avenue and his partisan psycophants don't do anything about it was a crime committed?

#115 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

What did they do to deserve getting shot? Repubican sycophants everywhere.

#123 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 04:38 PM | Reply

Said the nervous SJW warrior for the 1776th time. Orange man bad!

#120 | POSTED BY MUTANT AT 2019-11-13 04:29 PM | REPLY |

Someday you will actually think about what you are saying and figure out that calling someone an SJW as an epithet is just calling attention to the fact that you are an Antisocial Injustice Warrior.

#124 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-13 04:40 PM | Reply

Have your heard of this thing called the internet where the full hearings are archived and available to watch at whatever time a person decides to do so?

#121 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce

As was stated upthread, people gotta work. Using a company computer to watch TV at work is frowned upon.

#125 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 04:42 PM | Reply

Trump to release another Ukraine call summary tomorrow (not a transcript stop calling them that)

Locig of the move is something like saying "I was on 5th avenue last week and I didn't shoot anyone so ignore the dead man on the sidewalk and the gun in my hand today"

#126 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-13 04:46 PM | Reply

and they are then able to make the case that Trump's actions rise to the level of impeachment, Senate Republicans will cave.

#80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

But, what is that level?

If you asked any Republican before this came out if pressuring a foreign head of state (by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid) to investigate your political opponent rose "to the level of impeachment", they would have said "of course". But now that it is real, they are throwing their backs out trying to heave those goalposts further and further away.

Conservatives have learned in the past 3 years NEVER to declare any red lines, because they know that Trump will cross them and those conservatives will inevitably be walking those "red lines" back so that they can justify continuing to support Trump.

What do you think for the Republicans in the Senate would "rise to the level of impeachment"? Because I my prediction in "nothing". Trump could honestly shoot someone on 5th Ave, and Republicans would fall over themselves trying to defend him.

#127 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 04:47 PM | Reply

"Conservatives have learned in the past 3 years NEVER to declare any red lines, because they know that Trump will cross them and those conservatives will inevitably be walking those "red lines" back"

Heretofore known as The Lindsey Graham Predicament.

#128 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 04:50 PM | Reply

You missed the point of the hypothetical conversation I linked.

No i didn't. The hypothetical presumes that Trump has given Republicans enough good things to continue supporting him, eslecially in light oc the fact that Dems aren't making "policy concessions."

So again - name a policy concession Republicans have made since that's apparently a demand from your side. Name one instead of lying about me not understanding your posts.

#129 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 04:50 PM | Reply

I didn't see it. I listened to it on the radio (I think it was on LPB). The portion I heard (about 2 hours) was two unelected career bureaucrats who could only state that they heard from someone who heard who heard from someone who heard ... That they had never met nor had a conversation with the President. And then when asked to opine about foreign policy process, Taylor kept speaking about how it was the State Department's job to decide foreign policy. That statement shows he is either incompetent or an outright liar. Either way, he needs to be unemployed by sundown. He apparently does not realize that 1) the POTUS determines US Foreign Policy and 2) that he is supposed to serve the US of A and at the pleasure of the POTUS. He's supposed to be a worker bee. Not a decider. If he wants to be a boss, he needs to run for office.

#130 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 04:57 PM | Reply

"1) the POTUS determines US Foreign Policy "

POTUS doesn't get a veto when the time comes to delivering Congressionally-approved aid.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"He's supposed to be a worker bee. Not a decider."

He's also supposed to report crimes.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

POTUS doesn't get a veto when the time comes to delivering Congressionally-approved aid.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2019

BOGEY may be an Article II sort of guy, accepting Trump's idea that he's legally allowed to do anything that crosses his little mind.

#133 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:05 PM | Reply

2) that he is supposed to serve the US of A and at the pleasure of the POTUS.

#130 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 04:57 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Serious question: What comes first, the USA or the POTUS?

#134 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:06 PM | Reply

Serious question: What comes first, the USA or the POTUS?

#134 | Posted by

If he wants the job, he has to do both. It's not an either/or or a chicken or the egg thing.

#135 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 05:11 PM | Reply

I didn't see it. I listened to it on the radio (I think it was on LPB). The portion I heard (about 2 hours) was two unelected career bureaucrats who could only state that they heard from someone who heard who heard from someone who heard ...
#130 | Posted by bogey1355

Dems are trying to talk to people with first hand knowledge, but trump is blocking them from testifying. Because he's so innocent right? He just doesn't think the world can handle hearing about how innocent he is?

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 05:14 PM | Reply

POTUS doesn't get a veto when the time comes to delivering Congressionally-approved aid.

#131 | Posted by Danforth

Correct. But as the Nation's administrator, he does get a say in HOW it is delivered. Ask Obama. POTUS can legally hold up and disrupt a lot of stuff.

#137 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 05:14 PM | Reply

wow, I'm almost embarrassed for the Democrats. what a freaking dud for them

#138 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-11-13 05:14 PM | Reply

If he wants the job, he has to do both.

#135 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019

Now that's a wrong answer.

Donald Trump is not the State-in any shape, way, or form.

Country before personality, always.

#139 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:15 PM | Reply

he (Trump) does get a say in HOW it is delivered.

#137 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 05:14

In return for a live announcement that someone is investigating Hillary and Joe?

#140 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

star witnesses aren't even witnesses! they witnessed a witness of a witness of a witness of a witness! hell it looked like the Star witness Taylor was laughing at the Dems

#141 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-11-13 05:17 PM | Reply

If Donald Trump understood it is always country first, he wouldn't be facing impeachment. But he doesn't, and apparently he's supported in that idea by a fair number of people.

#142 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:17 PM | Reply

What's more important, the country or a president, is at the heart of the political divide in this country.

It used to be a slam-dunk what came first. Does any Trumpite remember or care?

#143 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:24 PM | Reply

Constitutional obligation to report potentially nefarious and illegal behavior takes precedence over anything.

POTUS is not King. Which is why the above is so important. Trumpers here know this, explains why they are so incident in making this a "deep state", "career bureaucrat" issue when it's not. When you're faced with labeling Taylor et al's behavior as deep state, you run into the actual wording of the constitutional checks and balances.

If the Republican Senate can't look past that, we are ------ as a country. At least the Dems were willing to out the truth, consequences in 2020 be damned. Dems just might have outed this whole experiment as a paper tiger: The exceptionalism associated with the United States and the main document backing them is proven to be unequipped to handle the most basic and blatant partisanship. All in the name of a couple dozen Congressional jobs.

How ------- pathetic.

#144 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"they witnessed a witness of a witness of a witness of a witness!"

So are you now going to pretend Sondland, Mulvaney, and Gulianni had all gone rogue?

The desperation is palpable.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 05:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

wow, I'm almost embarrassed for the Democrats. what a freaking dud for them

#138 | Posted by Maverick

It doesn't matter that fox news tells the con mans cult it was a dud. Your cult will say that no matter what.

What matters is how it affects the swing voters who aren't dumb enough to join that cult.

#146 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 05:29 PM | Reply

star witnesses aren't even witnesses! they witnessed a witness of a witness of a witness of a witness! hell it looked like the Star witness Taylor was laughing at the Dems

#141 | Posted by Maverick

Maybe you should tell your cult leader to stop blocking the first hand witnesses from testifying. That's what an innocent man would do isnt' it?

#147 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 05:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Taylor was laughing at the Dems
#141 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

You must not have been watching. Taylor was laughing at the reeeeeeeeeaching attempts by Jordan and other Republicans to label him a deep stater.

Star witness corroborated what will be testified on Friday with important context that Friday witness would be unable to provide.

Your chosen ignorance of this explains volumes.

#148 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:31 PM | Reply

How ------- pathetic.

#144 | Posted by rstybeach11

That it is. Senators with no balls afraid of a few million Trumpites with no special loyalty to the country they were born in.

I'm a Liberal. Over the last year I've been dinged for some for defending specific Conservative points of view in support of ordinary democracy. I have to do that because the Conservatives won't any longer. They gave up; more likely they never believed in the first place,

#149 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:34 PM | Reply

"those too dumb to understand Jordan's attack."

Oh, FFS, I have houseplants smarter than Gym Jordan.

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 05:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Kent: Sure, there may have been a perception of conflict of interest, but what was really striking was that a shadow diplomacy was going on behind our backs.

Taylor: I'm not here to do your job, I'm here to explain to you that a shadow diplomacy was going on behind our backs, and at first, we just thought it was based on Zelinsky getting face time with Drumpf. It looks like the military aid was wrapped up in the package, too, as I was told by multiple officials, including members of Drumpf's team.

All the witnesses: There was extortion going on, and we are here against the wishes of the extortionist to make that clear.

Repubicans everywhere: Nothingberder. What about the moon landing? That was faked by Hillary and Joe Biden's junkie son!

#151 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 05:44 PM | Reply

Read Adam Schiff's Opening Statement in the First Impeachment Hearing

"If the president can simply refuse all oversight, particularly in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be irrevocably altered."

My words, yet a bit more subtle.

#152 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:45 PM | Reply

Maybe you should tell your cult leader to stop blocking the first hand witnesses from testifying. That's what an innocent man would do isnt' it?

#147 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Good idea. Drag the supposed "whistle blower" before Congress...if there is one. And remember that when dipSchiff started this latest debacle, they had to change the rules for whistle blowers so that they could use uncorroborated hearsay as justify attacks on their own political enemies.

#153 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 05:47 PM | Reply

Drag the supposed "whistle blower" before Congress...if there is one

#153 | Posted by bogey1355

The Republicans are illegally leaking a name as if there is one.

#154 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:51 PM | Reply

"they had to change the rules for whistle blowers"

Someone is lying to you, and expecting you to swallow them.

They changed the FORM, not the rules. If you don't know the difference, time to get out of the debate.

#155 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 05:51 PM | Reply

Name one instead of lying about me not understanding your posts.

#129 | POSTED BY JOE

Lying?

I didn't post a lie. I construed your post as misunderstanding the hypothetical discussion I linked up-thread.

A lie is a deliberate falsehood with the intent to deceive. I didn't do that.

#156 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 05:51 PM | Reply

#153

"Drag the supposed "whistle blower" before Congress...if there is one."

Denying reality sitting right in front of you.

My God, you people are so pathetically lost.

"Is there even a whistle blower?"

After today, there are several, some of whom do not require protections. And yet you still question basic facts of the case. Do us all a favor and please refuse any and all jury service; that would be a diligent service to our justice system that is already broke.

#157 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:51 PM | Reply

But sure, let the whistleblower come forward. He's already receiving death threats so he doesn't have much more to lose.

#158 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:51 PM | Reply

They changed the FORM, not the rules. If you don't know the difference, time to get out of the debate.

#155 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Actually, they did both. It doesn't really matter at this point though. Enough others have corroborated what the whistleblower alleged.

#159 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 05:52 PM | Reply

A lie is a deliberate falsehood with the intent to deceive. I didn't do that.
#156 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Clearly, he's accusing you of that. To which I would as well, considering.

#160 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:52 PM | Reply

Considering what?

I misconstrued his post. That's not deception on my part.

#161 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 05:53 PM | Reply

Good idea. Drag the supposed "whistle blower" before Congress...if there is one. And remember that when dipSchiff started this latest debacle, they had to change the rules for whistle blowers so that they could use uncorroborated hearsay as justify attacks on their own political enemies.

#153 | Posted by bogey1355

The whistleblower isnt a first hand witness. And they are protected by the whistleblower protection act, meaning their anonymity must be preserved in order to encourage future whistleblowers to do the same. Either you know that, or you're a moron.

I thought you said you wanted FIRST HAND witnesses. Why do you think trump is blocking them from coming in and clearing his name if he's innocent?

#162 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 05:53 PM | Reply

Enough others have corroborated what the whistleblower alleged.
#159 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Do BOGEY a favor and explain that to him in Right Wing language he would understand.

Clearly, he and many other Trumpers, simply don't get it.

#163 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Considering what?
I misconstrued his post. That's not deception on my part.
#161 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Considering your smarter than that. Or maybe not.

#164 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 05:55 PM | Reply

I thought you said you wanted FIRST HAND witnesses. Why do you think trump is blocking them from coming in and clearing his name if he's innocent?

#162 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at

I think BOGEY would reply that it's CRAZY for Trump to help demonstrate the truth. I can't think of anything in it for him, can you?

#165 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 05:57 PM | Reply

#164 So, you've never in your life misconstrued what someone has said?

#166 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 05:58 PM | Reply

The cult thinks "Never Trumpers" just pop up out of the blue because they're hysterical partisans. Even if they're lifelong patriots and/or Republicans.

The cult tries to pretend the list of outrageously inappropriate actions this president has taken isn't a mile long, or that they're all inconsequential - - or even fabricated. They think it's ok for a president to hold up aid to an ally unless it agrees to dig up dirt on a guy gunning for the president's job. They think defending Saudi Arabia in the dismemberment of a US citizen is ok. They think it's ok that he has affairs, talks about grabbing women's --------, and lies every time he speaks.That he insults our allies and falls in love with dictators. It's all a witch hunt, they insist.

Nothing will change the minds of these Ever Trumpers. What a sad time for my country.

#167 | Posted by cbob at 2019-11-13 05:59 PM | Reply

I didn't watch any of it.

But I read some of the posts here.....not the happy bunch I expected. You're getting the show you wanted.....not liking what you see?

#168 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 06:00 PM | Reply

So, you've never in your life misconstrued what someone has said?
#166 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Exactly. I'm no ------- hypocrite, JEFF. Don't accuse me of such without evidence to back up your ----.

#169 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:00 PM | Reply

#169

Are you trolling?

Seriously, what the ---- is your problem?

#170 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:02 PM | Reply

-Seriously, what the ---- is your problem?

That this whole proceeding isn't going to end the way he wants.

#171 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 06:03 PM | Reply

So when are the first hand witnesses going to testify?

#172 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 06:03 PM | Reply

I misconstrued what Joe said.

He called that a "lie'.

I explained why I wasn't lying.

You lose your ---- for no apparent reason.

#173 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:03 PM | Reply

"Actually, they did both."

Actually, they didn't.
fortune.com

Feel free to link to a credible source proving your claim, or retract.

#174 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 06:03 PM | Reply

You're getting the show you wanted.....not liking what you see?
#168 | POSTED BY EBERLY

The fact there is a show satisfies me. Partisan bull ---- will keep Trump in power, that was expected. Dems finally growing a spine and forcing Trump to put this money where his mouth is was all I was hoping for.

Republicans will bend over backwards to maintain the status quo. That too was expected and glad they will have to put their vote on paper for history to record. With out the Dems, this would have been swept under the rug, which many here would have preferred.

---- the Dems in 2020. Trump broke the law in 2019 and that necessitated acknowledgement, to which is happening in spades.

Thank God.

#175 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:04 PM | Reply

"So when are the first hand witnesses going to testify?"

If Trump has any say, the twelfth...

...of Never.

#176 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 06:05 PM | Reply

So when are the first hand witnesses going to testify?

#172 | Posted by bogey1355

As your cult leader. He's the one blocking them from doing so. Why is he doing that if they'd prove his innocence?

#177 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 06:05 PM | Reply

So when are the first hand witnesses going to testify?

#172 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355

Like Ebs, I didn't watch the testimony.

Today's witnesses weren't firsthand?

Interesting.

Well, I think they have another round on Friday so maybe those witnesses will be firsthand.

#178 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:05 PM | Reply

You lose your ---- for no apparent reason.
#173 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

"Losing my ----" is a terrible description of my post.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Now how about explaining to BOGEY in your simpleton, Right Wing language why today was so important.

#179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:06 PM | Reply

"Today's witnesses weren't firsthand?"

They were. Bogey is just crappping all over himself, and desperately trying to change the subject.

#180 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 06:06 PM | Reply

That this whole proceeding isn't going to end the way he wants.
#171 | POSTED BY EBERLY

As previously explained, it already has.

Is that too complicated for you to comprehend?

#181 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:07 PM | Reply

-Today's witnesses weren't firsthand?

witnesses to a crime?

#182 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 06:08 PM | Reply

"They were."

Speaks is saying they were blocked, and Danforth is saying they testified.

Is this too tough of a question for folks to understand?

#183 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 06:11 PM | Reply

Is this too tough of a question for folks to understand?
#183 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Your ignorance of the topic should keep you at bay, yet here you are, trying to hold people to truths you are unaware of.

#184 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Danforth,

Your source is very deceptive. No law prevents a whistleblower from filing a secondhand complaint. The IG had an internal rule that it would only consider complaints that are firsthand. This was due to limited resources. That rule was changed in order to retroactively accommodate this complaint.

Basically, the WN claimed "some firsthand knowledge" but when the forms were declassified he has nothing to back it up.

Regardless, like I said up-thread, at this point it doesn't really matter given the gist of the WB complaints have been corroborated by others.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:14 PM | Reply

Now how about explaining to BOGEY in your simpleton, Right Wing language why today was so important.

#179 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

---- off.

#186 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:15 PM | Reply

"Danforth is saying they testified."

These guys observed first-hand the money being withheld, and the results.

"witnesses to a crime?"

Witnesses to a half-dozen people all describing the same crime, as well as discussions with those involved, and first-hand communications with those affected.

Now the perps and co-conspirators have been blocked by Trump, but others witnessed the fallout and the conversations first-hand.

#187 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 06:16 PM | Reply

"The IG had an internal rule that it would only consider complaints that are firsthand. "

Forgive me, but I'd prefer an independent source instead of you simply stating it a second time. My independent source already said the rules weren't changed.

#188 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 06:18 PM | Reply

---- off.
#186 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Nope. You have an obligation to explain this to others of your ilk.

The Constitution is at risk and you let this ---- fly by as though it shouldn't be acknowledged? No wonder Trump was elected in the first place. People like you refuse to call out your own.

Here's a prime opportunity and when presented with said opportunity, all you have to say is "---- off."

------- triggered, old man. Step up to the plate or put down the bat.

#189 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:18 PM | Reply

-Your ignorance of the topic should keep you at bay, yet here you are, trying to hold people to truths you are unaware of.

you're right.

It's not that I'm holding anybody to anything.

It's really that I can see and smell the high blood pressure here from some of you (please, don't try to deny it) and it's tempting.

I am fine if they hang Trump.

#190 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 06:19 PM | Reply

#189 I'm not going to take demands from someone who's acting like an -------.

Also, I've already explained why parsing over whether or not IG rules were changed is immaterial.

Danforth - the source you provided says the IG accepted the complaint because part of it was firsthand. Although, when you read the actual complaint not once does the complainant make a firsthand claim. The WB just checks a box that said he had some firsthand and some second hand knowledge.

#191 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:24 PM | Reply

I said, "---- off" because you were being a condescending dick. Is that really too hard for you to understand?

#192 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 06:25 PM | Reply

I am fine if they hang Trump.
#190 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I expect that they won't! And I'm perfectly happy that he will go down in the record books as being impeached. Republicans before Fox News held themselves to a certain standard related to constitutional obligation. Republicans post Fox news do not. That's important for history to acknowledge and record just as much as Trump's observed crimes, which are simultaneously being acknowledged.

That's a win for me, knowing nothing else will come from it save for harm to the Dems in 2020.

IMO, with zero allegiance to Dem party other than being pro-truth (equating to anti-Trump), ------- worth it.

#193 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:25 PM | Reply

Regardless, like I said up-thread, at this point it doesn't really matter given the gist of the WB complaints have been corroborated by others.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ

So if you can admit this reality, what is preventing the rest of your party from doing the same? What are they obsessed with finding out who called the cops, when the report of a robbery in progress turned out to be true?

#194 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 06:28 PM | Reply

Is that really too hard for you to understand?
#192 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Not if you finally do your due diligence and explain to BOGEY why today was so important.

Why am I the target of your rhetoric? You should be explaining the facts to those who refuse to acknowledge considering all other attempts to do so fall on deaf ears. You've got the Right Wing power to convince and yet here you are more concerned about me outing you as a coward.

Step up to the plate or put down the bat! Tired of folks like you who can see through the veil continue to ignore those closest to you (in argument and opinion). Or call them out as they are: Purposefully ignorant trolls.

#195 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:29 PM | Reply

Today's witnesses weren't firsthand?
Interesting.

#178 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Depends on how you define "firsthand". Or how far they are willing to move the goalposts back.

This is the ambassador to Ukraine. He has "firsthand" knowledge of Ukraine and how they were reacting to all of Trump's BS. But conservatives only "believe" evidence of someone directly confessing to a crime (all other evidence is hearsay or a "deep state" conspiracy), and the witnesses today did not directly talk to Trump, so of course they have not heard him confess. Hence, they claim nothing they said is "firsthand".

And no one who actually talked to Trump is allowed to testify, so we will NEVER have "firsthand" testimony. Convenient, eh?

And conservatives (like you) don't care. Though you claim to support impeachment, but are always pushing those goalposts back to ensure it is unobtainable. It is all about winning one more victory for your tribe. No matter the damage it does to this country or its institutions.

#196 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#196 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-11-13 06:30 PM | FLAG: ------- NEWSWORTHY

#197 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:33 PM | Reply

It's really that I can see and smell the high blood pressure here from some of you (please, don't try to deny it) and it's tempting.
I am fine if they hang Trump.

#190 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Some people are just being confronted with the fact that Republicans will protect Trump regardless of what comes out. They see the testimony, which is clear and should be devastating, from unimpeachable witnesses, yet still the sycophants pile in here and say there was nothing there.

It is clear there is NOTHING that Trump could do that conservatives would impeach him for.

And that is a very hard concept to digest for someone who actually care about this country.

Don't worry... they will get over it eventually. All they have to do is accept that a large portion of their countrymen are unworthy of their respect. Not an easy pill to swallow, but you survive and move on.

#198 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-13 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I saw requests like Trump's when I was in the CIA. But not in democracies.Whether there was a quid pro quo doesn't matter. The Ukraine call was wrong, period.
www.washingtonpost.com

#199 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:38 PM | Reply

but you survive and move on.
#198 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

Which is exactly what Trump and the Trumpers want, acquiescence and apathy.

So glad this will at least be acknowledged as it should be.

#200 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:41 PM | Reply

FORMER TRUMP SUPPORTER AND ARMY VETERAN SAYS 'REAL VETERANS WHO REMEMBER THEIR OATH WILL SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT'
www.newsweek.com

At least one Right Winger had the balls to call a spade a spade.

Still waiting for some ANONYMOUS Retort
members to follow suit.

Here's me not holding my breath.

#201 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:44 PM | Reply

I said some time ago that Jeff is a lost cause. I waited for him to get off the fence but he likes it up there. He pretends to be for impeachment and believe that Trump is wrong but he wont go far enough to actually hold anyone accountable, and will surly continue voting GOP knowing that they are loyal to one man and don't respect our constitution.

#202 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-11-13 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

GOPers Largely Ignore Witnesses While Monologue'ing On Conspiracy Theories
talkingpointsmemo.com

This is what is happening, JEFF and BOGEY.

Acknowledge, or don't at your own peril.

#203 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:47 PM | Reply

#202 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Seconded.

#204 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 06:48 PM | Reply

#202 I'm glad others can see it; it's not just me.

#205 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-13 06:51 PM | Reply

Charles Manson and Zacarias Moussaoui were victims of hearsay.

#206 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-13 07:09 PM | Reply

"will surly continue voting GOP knowing that they are loyal to one man and don't respect our constitution."

And all the while swearing he's not a partisan, YOU are.

#207 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 07:10 PM | Reply

Using a company computer to watch TV at work is frowned upon.
#125 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 04:42 PM | Reply

Unless you're the POTUS

#208 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-13 07:11 PM | Reply

Were is that ole hag ruth baders Ginsberg??? Another appointment is upon us i reckon.

#209 | Posted by mutant at 2019-11-13 07:14 PM | Reply

Trump signed the Whistleblower Protection Act.

lawandcrime.com

I guess Trump's in on the conspiracy.

#210 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-13 07:15 PM | Reply

He apparently does not realize that 1) the POTUS determines US Foreign Policy and 2) that he is supposed to serve the US of A and at the pleasure of the POTUS. He's supposed to be a worker bee. Not a decider. If he wants to be a boss, he needs to run for office.
#130 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-11-13 04:57 PM |

Republicans seem to not understand how oaths work.

"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

#211 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-11-13 07:19 PM | Reply

"the source you provided says the IG accepted the complaint because part of it was firsthand"

Then don't pretend rules were changed. If the WB was incorrect, say so, but that doesn't mean the rules themselves were changed.

#212 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 07:25 PM | Reply

Were is that ole hag ruth baders Ginsberg??? Another appointment is upon us i reckon.
#209 | POSTED BY MUTANT

You're projecting your fear upon others.

#213 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 07:42 PM | Reply

Then don't pretend rules were changed. If the WB was incorrect, say so, but that doesn't mean the rules themselves were changed.

#212 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That's fair. My assessment was based upon having read the WB complaint and not once did it cite a firsthand observation.

#214 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 07:51 PM | Reply

I said some time ago that Jeff is a lost cause. I waited for him to get off the fence but he likes it up there. He pretends to be for impeachment and believe that Trump is wrong but he wont go far enough to actually hold anyone accountable, and will surly continue voting GOP knowing that they are loyal to one man and don't respect our constitution.

POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-11-13 06:47 PM | REPLY

Honey I'll climb Mount Everest long before Jeff changes his intellectual dishonest right wing partisan hack job ways.

#215 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-11-13 07:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I said some time ago that Jeff is a lost cause. I waited for him to get off the fence but he likes it up there. He pretends to be for impeachment and believe that Trump is wrong but he wont go far enough to actually hold anyone accountable, and will surly continue voting GOP knowing that they are loyal to one man and don't respect our constitution.

#202 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

If Democrats can make a credible case for impeachment, I'll support it. They aren't there yet but it sounds like they had a pretty good day today, all things considered. Building a case for impeachment takes time and hard work. In our 250 year history only 3 presidents have been impeached and only 1 was removed. Yes, I know Nixon resigned but he only did so after he was informed he had lost the Senate. There's a reason for this. It's not supposed to be easy. It's extremely difficult by design.

#216 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 07:55 PM | Reply

"It is clear there is NOTHING that Trump could do that conservatives would impeach him for."

Partisanship trumps all.

It's hardly surprising.

#217 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 07:56 PM | Reply

"If Democrats can make a credible case for impeachment, I'll support it. "

--------. You'd be screaming for Obama to be impeached the minute he admitted to stealing $2 million from a Veterans' charity.

#218 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 07:56 PM | Reply

Honey I'll climb Mount Everest long before Jeff changes his intellectual dishonest right wing partisan hack job ways.

#215 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

...So says one of the biggest WOB's on this site.

#219 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 07:56 PM | Reply

"Partisanship trumps all."

Partisanship IS the problem. Anyone who gives Trump a pass for what they'd excoriate Obama IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

#220 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the WB complaint and not once did it cite a firsthand observation.
#214 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Clearly, it didn't need to do so.

#221 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 07:57 PM | Reply

It's hardly surprising.
#217 | POSTED BY EBERLY

And yet significantly disturbing. Hoping you agree, but I, once again, will not hold my breath.

#222 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 07:58 PM | Reply

stealing $2 million from a Veterans' charity.

#218 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Is this a fairly recent news story?

I'm not familiar with it.

Do you recall 'sue and settle'? Do you recall that after lawsuits were won the Obama administration directed the payouts to go to his favored left-wing activist groups?

Did you cry foul about that? Yeah, that's right, you didn't.

#223 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 07:58 PM | Reply

Clearly, it didn't need to do so.

#221 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Which I've said more than once on this thread.

#224 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 07:59 PM | Reply

Yeah, that's right, you didn't.
#223 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

More calling out others for hypocrisy while simultaneously ignoring current events.

------- pathetic.

In all honesty, JEFF, I'm truly surprised, which marks the main reason I've been calling you out today. If there's anyone here who can make a case against Trump as a Republican, it's you. And yet, at every turn, here you are trying to make Dems out as hypocrites.

Why is that?

#225 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 08:01 PM | Reply

Which I've said more than once on this thread.
#224 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Without emphasis to those who are ignoring it.

Again, why is that?

#226 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 08:01 PM | Reply

"Do you recall that"

Deflection noted.

"is a fairly recent news story?" "I'm not familiar with it."

Color me stunned. Maybe if Fox News tells you, you'll believe it. BTW, the "training" they refer to in the article is so Junior, Junior 2, and Junior Miss all learn YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO STEAL FROM A CHARITY.
www.foxnews.com

#227 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:04 PM | Reply

"Yeah, that's right, you didn't."

Did you bring it up at the time, and solicit my response?

That's right....you didn't.

#228 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:05 PM | Reply

"And yet, at every turn, here you are trying to make Dems out as hypocrites. Why is that?"

Because the next time he gets in a voting booth, he'll vote for Republicans.

#229 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:06 PM | Reply

I just read Reuters and NPR's reporting of it. It's not quite how you characterized it. But that's fine.

Deflection noted.

Just turning your M.O. back on you.

Also, since you are trying for Obama equivalencies - what you are describing with regard to these charities is fairly comparable to the Obama campaign's $2 million in illegal campaign contributions in '08. I never called for Obama's impeachment over that, or anything else for that matter.

Given how much you carried Obama's water you really shouldn't try to play the hypocrite card. It won't work well for you.

#230 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thus end a glorious day. With the promise of even more revelations tomorrow. Suck on it righwing hacks. I'm luvin' it.

#231 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 08:10 PM | Reply

In all honesty, JEFF, I'm truly surprised, which marks the main reason I've been calling you out today. If there's anyone here who can make a case against Trump as a Republican, it's you. And yet, at every turn, here you are trying to make Dems out as hypocrites.

Actually, I am making Danforth out as a hypocrite, which he is and he will swear up and down that he's not a Democrat, which is really hilarious when you think about it.

#232 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the next time he gets in a voting booth, he'll vote for Republicans.

#229 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Probably. In sum they deliver policies that are better from my POV than Dems, although I didn't vote for Trump in '16.

#233 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:12 PM | Reply

If Democrats can make a credible case for impeachment, I'll support it.

#216 | Posted by JeffJ

How convenient for you that you get to be the judge of what's credible, so no matter what they present you can always say it's not credible enough.

#234 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 08:12 PM | Reply

Without emphasis to those who are ignoring it.

I've said it twice on this thread.

You are free to copy and past my 2 comments over and over and over like a grade-school teacher making a kid right his name 100 times for being insolent in class.

#235 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:13 PM | Reply

"what you are describing with regard to these charities is fairly comparable to the Obama campaign's $2 million in illegal campaign contributions"

Are you -------- me? You, who went off on the Clinton Foundation without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing?!? And now, you're actually going to equivocate when it comes to condemning Trump after the Trump family ADMITTED "MISAPPROPRIATING" OVER $2 MILLION donated to Veterans?!?

Take your advice from earlier in the evening, and GFY.

#236 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:14 PM | Reply

How convenient for you that you get to be the judge of what's credible, so no matter what they present you can always say it's not credible enough.

#234 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I am not saying I'm the judge of what's credible. The ultimate judge of that is the public, not me. The Democrats still have a lot of work to do. Impeachment is difficult by design.

#237 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:14 PM | Reply

#236 I didn't bring up the Clinton Foundation.

#238 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:15 PM | Reply

"e will swear up and down that he's not a Democrat"

I've always admitted if I were in Congress, I'd caucus with the Democrats.

I'd also vote for a Republican again, if the party changed its stances on major issues like equal rights.

Meanwhile, you'll vote for Republicans regardless, if not Trump then his enablers, all the time screeching that it's OTHERS who are partisan.

#239 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:17 PM | Reply

"And yet significantly disturbing. Hoping you agree, but I, once again, will not hold my breath."

Well, I think you will hold your breath.

You are so "disturbed" by the support still being offered by the usual folks as though you're surprised. I guess you were holding your breath that those guys would see the light.

LOL

I'm not that nave.

You guys are obviously taking out your intense frustration on Jeff here.

Which is entertaining to be sure.

#240 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 08:19 PM | Reply

"I didn't bring up the Clinton Foundation."

Just not this time. But now's your chance to tell all of us how you feel about Trump ADMITTING DOING WORSE THINGS than you accused HRC of doing.

Feel free to lay into Trump, the way you've laid into HRC for all the fantasies you made up about her.

#241 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:20 PM | Reply

"I'm not that nave."

You're more front-of-the-church?

#242 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:21 PM | Reply

"Probably. In sum they deliver policies that are better from my POV than Dems,"

Jeff, You don't understand. Some here are entitled to their partisanship.

But you're not.....

#243 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 08:21 PM | Reply

Good point, Ebs.

#244 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:22 PM | Reply

"You guys are obviously taking out your intense frustration on Jeff here."

Just his willful hypocrisy.

But just you wait...Jeff is just about to DESTROY our (P)resident Charity-Thief.

#245 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:22 PM | Reply

#241 I just mailed you a huge bag of ice to relieve your sore muscles after moving the goalposts so far.

"I'm not that nave."

You're more front-of-the-church?

#242 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You beat me to it.

#246 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:24 PM | Reply

"Some here are entitled to their partisanship."

No one else bashes their party's behavior as consistently, and then votes for them as consistently.

#247 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:24 PM | Reply

about to DESTROY our (P)resident Charity-Thief.

#245 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Create a thread about it. You're spitballing and are dragging me in with you. I've had enough of your insipid trolling. We're both hijacking this thread.

#248 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:25 PM | Reply

I am not saying I'm the judge of what's credible. The ultimate judge of that is the public, not me. The Democrats still have a lot of work to do. Impeachment is difficult by design.

#237 | Posted by JeffJ

Which public? The real world public or the republican propaganda bubble dwelling public? If you're waiting for them to say anything against trump is credible you'll die first. The real world public knows he should have been impeached long ago.

#249 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 08:26 PM | Reply

--I'd also vote for a Republican again, if the party changed its stances on major issues like equal rights.

I'd like to announce, to demonstrate my non-partisanship, that I pledge to vote for Democrats again as soon as they discard their current platform and agree with me.

#250 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 08:27 PM | Reply

"after moving the goalposts so far."

I'm just looking for consistency. So far, you fail miserably. Remember how you excoriated the CF? Remember how Republicans passed on the CF, and attacked HRC for Benghazi instead? Remember how you insisted the decline in donations PROVED corruption?

How does Trump admitting he and his family stole...sorry, "misappropriated" over $2 million donated for Veterans compare? You know...all your "pretend" corruption, to actual, admitted-to-in-court corruption?

#251 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:27 PM | Reply

"I'd like to announce, to demonstrate my non-partisanship, that I pledge to vote for Democrats again as soon as they discard their current platform and agree with me."

And what issues would you like to see changed? More money for deluded stroke victims?

#252 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:28 PM | Reply

No one else bashes their party's behavior as consistently, and then votes for them as consistently.

#247 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Alright - last off-topic comment from me. For the last time I'll break it down for you: Because I usually vote Republican doesn't mean I support everything they do. In fact, they quite often piss me off and when I see transgressions from them I'm not going to keep quiet about it. It's really, really strange that this bothers you - that I'm honest enough to call out "my team" when they are wrong. But, since when Dem transgressions are the subject of a thread and your first reaction is almost always to deflect, well....your lack of self-awareness or projection (it's actually both) is really funny to watch. Would you rather I just be a GOP shill? Sorry, that's not how I roll.

#253 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:30 PM | Reply

Which public?

There is only 1 and it's a diverse group.

#254 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:31 PM | Reply

"You're spitballing and are dragging me in with you. "

Why suddenly so shy? No one could stop you when you were convinced it was the CF, even though you had no proof. Now there's proof, and a court admission, and you're suddenly coy?

Why the marked difference? Why were you so condemning of a (D) without proof, but so excusing of the (R) with not only proof, but an admission of guilt?

Oh wait...I just answered my own question. Tell us again how you're not-partisan, but anyone who votes for a Democrat is.

#255 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:31 PM | Reply

I never claimed I am not partisan.

#256 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:33 PM | Reply

"Because I usually vote Republican doesn't mean I support everything they do. In fact, they quite often piss me off"

But never enough to vote against Trump. That's a hyper-partisan.

#257 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:33 PM | Reply

I'm not claiming anyone who votes Democrat is partisan.

Take Speaks. He rails against Democrats all of the time but when it comes time to vote he still pulls the (D) letter because he views Republicans as worse, in spite of all of the problems he has with the Democratic Party.

He's not alone. Speaks and his ilk fall into the "Puritopian" category.

#258 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:36 PM | Reply

#257 I didn't vote for Trump.

#259 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:36 PM | Reply

"I didn't vote for Trump."

Just all his enablers. A distinction without a difference.

#260 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 08:40 PM | Reply

You guys are obviously taking out your intense frustration on Jeff here.
Which is entertaining to be sure.
#240 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Only because he seemed to be sincerely on the fence, indicating he might be convinced. After today, the frustration of failing to convince people with perspectives such as his has begun to boil. My blood pressure is relative to those who seemingly choose ignorance over reality, not relative to how the hearings are playing out. The evidence is on the table; people like JEFF and Graham who refuse to look are God damn frustrating.

It's not surprising you find this entertaining considering you chose not to pay attention today.

#261 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 08:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You guys are obviously taking out your intense frustration on Jeff here.
Which is entertaining to be sure.
#240 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You must have gotten your psychology degree from Trump University.

You dumb goon.

#262 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 08:55 PM | Reply

You dumb goon.

#262 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Is this what you envision Eberly looks like:

www.google.com

#263 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 08:59 PM | Reply

The evidence is on the table; people like JEFF..

#261 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Which I've acknowledged.

You are way too emotionally-ginned up over this. Impeachment is a long process. Let it play out.

#264 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:01 PM | Reply

I have a question for all your libbies. In terms of your anger/unhinged rantings, which event is most triggering?

1.) Trump's win in 2016,
2.) The Mueller Report nothingburger,
3.) Kavanaugh getting confirmed,
4.) Trump beating this ridiculous impeachment,
5.) Trump winning re-election in 2020, or
6.) Trump appointing another Supreme Court Justice with RBG finally falls off the court?

Inquiring minds want to know. Have we reached peak insanity for the libs or are we stilling building up to that?

#265 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Which public?

There is only 1 and it's a diverse group.

#254 | Posted by JeffJ

Well then that diverse group INCLUDES the fox news bubble of delusion crowd, so you're saying THAT crowd needs to find the evidence credible for you to support impeachment and that will never happen no matter how credible the evidence actually is.

You might as well say you'll support impeachment after christians all decide become atheists.

#266 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 09:04 PM | Reply

Today's hearing, an event 1,027 days in the making.
www.washingtonpost.com

#267 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-11-13 09:04 PM | Reply

Take Speaks. He rails against Democrats all of the time but when it comes time to vote he still pulls the (D) letter because he views Republicans as worse, in spite of all of the problems he has with the Democratic Party.

He's not alone. Speaks and his ilk fall into the "Puritopian" category.

#258 | Posted by JeffJ

Wrong. I'm in the LESSER EVIL crowd. And dems are by far the lesser evil in nearly every category.

#268 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 09:06 PM | Reply

Speaks,

When it comes down to who you vote for during a primary, you are a Puritopian.

I described you as "LESSER EVIL" in the general.

See for yourself:

I'm not claiming anyone who votes Democrat is partisan.

Take Speaks. He rails against Democrats all of the time but when it comes time to vote he still pulls the (D) letter because he views Republicans as worse, in spite of all of the problems he has with the Democratic Party.

He's not alone. Speaks and his ilk fall into the "Puritopian" category.

#258 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#269 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:17 PM | Reply

#269 | Posted by JeffJ

If I was in the puritopian crowd, I wouldnt support anyone who wasn't perfect.

The lesser evil crowd is the opposite of the puritopians.

#270 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-13 09:19 PM | Reply

-It's not surprising you find this entertaining

You all exist for my entertainment.

Glad you realize it.

:-)

#271 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 09:20 PM | Reply

Well then that diverse group INCLUDES the fox news bubble of delusion crowd, so you're saying THAT crowd needs to find the evidence credible for you to support impeachment and that will never happen no matter how credible the evidence actually is...

#266 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about public polling overall. If the evidence becomes increasingly overwhelming more and more will move in 1 direction. Look at history. There is a reason that up until now only 3 presidents have ever been impeached and what is going on right now isn't even a full-bore impeachment - it's the exploratory stage - it's the gathering of evidence stage. This is a long drawn-out process.

#272 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:21 PM | Reply

Speaks,

I said you are in the Puritopian crowd during the primary.

During the General you are definitely a lesser-evil voter.

#273 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:23 PM | Reply

Let it play out.
#264 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

If you're not convinced after today, you won't be.

#274 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-13 09:23 PM | Reply

If Democrats can make a credible case for impeachment, I'll support it. They aren't there yet but it sounds like they had a pretty good day today, all things considered. Building a case for impeachment takes time and hard work. In our 250 year history only 3 presidents have been impeached and only 1 was removed. Yes, I know Nixon resigned but he only did so after he was informed he had lost the Senate. There's a reason for this. It's not supposed to be easy. It's extremely difficult by design.

#216 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Not even pretending to move the goalposts anymore, eh Jeff?

"IF Democrats can make a credible case for impeachment, I'll support it." No you won't, stop lying to yourself. You will never be able to back yourself out of the corner you painted yourself into, so just stop making statements like this.

"They aren't there yet but it sounds like they had a pretty good day today, all things considered." Today was day 1 of the public impeachment proceedings/clown show. Spend less time trying to work the clown show into your understanding of what's actually happening, and maybe the inevitable butthurt won't be so bad for you. The evidence is all there, and despite your reluctance to accept reality, it is quite clear that he has been caught dead to rights.

"Building a case for impeachment takes time and hard work." bwahahahahahahahahahahaaha every DR rightie has literally been demanding that it move faster, "owning the libs" about how long it has been taking and flapping their gums about how it's all a hoax. Nice one.

If Russiapublicans weren't crooked traitors, and every person who defends the POTUS to this day is included in that number, he would've been removed from office his first year. I hope he goes to the mattresses on this, and doesn't puss out like Nixon did.

#275 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 09:23 PM | Reply

"You, who went off on the Clinton Foundation without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing?!?
#236 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

You have to be dumb as an ---- rock not to know that the Clinton Foundation was selling influence. What they did might be technically legal - like getting millions of dollars for speeches after you are out of office from the same group you failed to prosecute for wrongdoing while in office. I am not saying that the GOP is innocent of this - they clearly are not. But, let's not pretend that the Clinton Foundation was completely legit because that is too asinine of a position even for you.

#276 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:26 PM | Reply

#265 Ira

It's #6 and it's not even close.

The courts have become the lefty vehicle for enacting law that they could never pass through the legislative process.

Decades of narrow rulings that kick initiatives back to the Legislative branch to tackle is an anathema to people who seek to subvert the process in order to gain power and enact policy.

#277 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:26 PM | Reply

If you're not convinced after today, you won't be.

#274 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I am not the one who you need to convince.

I am already on record that obstruction as laid out in Volume II of the Mueller report is impeachable.

It's the public overall that needs convincing and you're not there yet. Yer going to have to keep working at it. Build on what took place today.

#278 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:29 PM | Reply

"You have to be dumb as an ---- rock not to know that the Clinton Foundation was selling influence."

Since all foundation expenditures are transparent, your claim should be easy to prove. Of course, Republicans had access to all the info on the Clinton Foundation, and decided Benghazi was a better issue to attack HRC. Benghazi, where she wasn't even in the military chain of command. Let that sink in.

So either HRC is the greatest criminal mastermind in history, Republicans are the worst prosecutors in history, or (here comes Occam) Republicans are shameless liars, like yourself.

#279 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:31 PM | Reply

It would be very interesting to see just how many times I've had a position falsely assigned to me.

I'm starting to lose count.

You folks should just lobby Rcade for a JeffJ spoof account - where you can just post comments under my name and then knock them down so you can feel good about yourselves.

#280 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:33 PM | Reply

"What they did might be technically legal - like getting millions of dollars for speeches after you are out of office "

Once again, proving nothing pisses off Republicans more than when Democrats act like them.

Admit it: when Democrats get paid, that's proof of corruption, but when Republicans get paid, that's being a good businessman.

#281 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:33 PM | Reply

"I'm talking about public polling overall.
#272 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

That is the Democrat issue - they are confusing a criminal trial with a show trial. A criminal trial is decided by the evidence, a show trial is little more than audience voting on The Voice as there is no truly defined underlying crime - so, it is not possible to prove with anywhere approaching 100% certainty anything. Thus, it is just public opinion that matters. If the public turns really sour, we may have this whole sham ended before they vote on actual articles of impeachment. If it swings the other way, the GOP may be forced to vote to convict.

But, based on what we know today - and the Dems should have been front end loading their witnesses given public attention is waning already, there is no there, there. And this is actually pretty expected - we have the damn transcript already. What we are witnessing is little more than YouTube Reaction series where the story is about how people reacted to a video rather than the video itself. Now, those youtube channels are incredibly popular - but I don't think it means anything in the greater scheme of the impeachment trial.

In just a few short weeks - this will be contrasted with the findings in the IG report and then followed by Durham's report - those will actually be criminal referrals. That is nothing like arguing Trump's mindset in the non-quid pro quo or Clinton lying about using Monica as a humidor.

#282 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:34 PM | Reply

"let's not pretend that the Clinton Foundation was completely legit because that is too asinine of a position even for you."

You just admitted their behavior was legit.

More to the point, if you're correct, why didn't the Republicans prosecute? God knows every (R) has had a ----- about indicting HRC for decades. What's stopping AG Barr?

#283 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:35 PM | Reply

"It would be very interesting to see just how many times I've had a position falsely assigned to me."

Cadillac Tax on line #1 for you.

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:36 PM | Reply

#276

Which of the two Foundations has a gold star rating, and which one was shut down?

Which person just admitted to illegally using charity for personal gain in court, and has to pay $2 million in restitution?

Whose children have to go to court-mandated training on how not to be charity criminals?

Hahaha someone is triggered, but it ain't liberals.

#285 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 09:37 PM | Reply

"there is no there, there"

Don't light a match; too much gaslighting around here.

#286 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:37 PM | Reply

#277 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I agree it is the prospect of Trump packing in another conservative justice. Also, I think the Dems dug their own grave for any hope that Trump would nominate a moderate. With the impeachment nonsense following the Kavanaugh nonsense - I would be surprised if he selected anyone to the left of Scalia. Also, Trump will have the chance to continue to appoint lower court justice to fix those as well. Dems will be forced to implement their social programs at the ballot box for a change.

#287 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:38 PM | Reply

"More to the point, if you're correct, why didn't the Republicans prosecute?
#283 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Because they engage in the same behavior - which is why Hunter Biden gets a pass from half the GOP as well.

#288 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:39 PM | Reply

"Because they engage in the same behavior"

That's never stopped them before. Stop tap dancing. Republicans would indict if they had a ham sandwich, and they don't even have that much. Even Barr's DOJ exonerated Hillary's use of emails.

They're not indicting because they have nothing, and never have, period.

#289 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:41 PM | Reply

"Admit it: when Democrats get paid, that's proof of corruption, but when Republicans get paid, that's being a good businessman.
#281 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

No - it is corruption on both accounts. But because our government is incompetent, no one is ever prosecuted for it. I know this and so does everyone else - except you apparently. That is why I want to shrink the size of the government. The only way to limit corruption is to limit government power so they have less to sell via bribes - and yes, speeches for millions of dollars after leaving office is nothing more than a delayed bribe.

#290 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Even Barr's DOJ exonerated Hillary's use of emails.
#289 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

That never occurred. Stop lying.

#291 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:43 PM | Reply

" Hunter Biden gets a pass from half the GOP as well."

Nonsense. HB gets a pass because those in the know have said repeatedly the claims are a hoax. Even the intelligence guy who briefed the President multiple times on the issue has said, unequivocally, the claims had no basis in fact.

But while we're on the subject, do you know the difference between aid and a loan guarantee? And was Rob Portman as wrong as Joe Biden?

#292 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:43 PM | Reply

#287 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

After the absurdity of the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh baseless sex allegations, going forward any Republican president better make damn well sure that he/she only nominates a woman to the court.

#293 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 09:49 PM | Reply

"HB gets a pass because those in the know have said repeatedly the claims are a hoax.
#292 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

This may be a stretch for you, but I am asking you to use common sense for a change. Why do you think Burisma - a company known to be highly corrupt- hire the former president of Poland and Hunter Biden to be on their board? Was it their strong knowledge of the Ukrainian gas sector or was it because they have political influence?

Simple question. Let's see if your partisan hackery will allow you to answer it honestly.

#294 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:50 PM | Reply

"Stop lying"

Stop being ignorant:

"Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information."
www.usatoday.com

That's certainly more of an exoneration than Trump ever got.

#295 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:51 PM | Reply

"After the absurdity of the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh baseless sex allegations, going forward any Republican president better make damn well sure that he/she only nominates a woman to the court.
#293 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

I disagree 100%. I think this will embolden the hardliners because they know that the Dems will play their tricks regardless of who Trump nominates. Knowing this, there is no point in trying to select a compromise candidate. So, I expect the hardest of the hardliners from here on out.

#296 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:52 PM | Reply

"After the absurdity of the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh baseless sex allegations"

After all these years, you actually believe Anita Hill was lying?!?

And btw...what would your reaction been had a Dem nominee screeched aloud about a Bush cabal?

#297 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:53 PM | Reply

"Why do you think Burisma - a company known to be highly corrupt- hire the former president of Poland and Hunter Biden to be on their board? Was it their strong knowledge of the Ukrainian gas sector or was it because they have political influence?"

Probably political influence. As you've admitted, that's not illegal. But does that mean Jared will be held to the same standards?

How about if Elizabeth Warren asks Iran to hack into Saudi Arabia to get info on Jared's business deals? AOK, or not?

#298 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information."
#295 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

That is THE STATE DEPARTMENT - not Barr's DOJ as you falsely claimed.

Remember this - this is what you posted:

"Even Barr's DOJ exonerated Hillary's use of emails.
#289 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

You want to admit that is a lie now? Once we cross that hurdle, I will explain to you why the State Department Internal report is toothless due to them lacking the power to compel testimony from former employers. But, step 1 - admit you lied. You ready to man up?

#299 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 09:56 PM | Reply

My turn: Does it matter than Jared and Ivanka have reaped tens of millions in the past two years?

Simple question. Let's see if your partisan hackery will allow you to answer it honestly.

#300 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:56 PM | Reply

"That is THE STATE DEPARTMENT - not Barr's DOJ as you falsely claimed."

Oh, the horrors. My bad, for believing Barr actually had some nads.

"I will explain to you why the State Department Internal report is toothless"

Okay. But that doesn't change their conclusion, nor the fact the Republicans control the State Department.

#301 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:00 PM | Reply

"Probably political influence
#298 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Probably? More like metaphysical certitude.

Now, the question becomes - we know Burisma hired Hunter for political influence. Then, Biden gets a prosecutor fired that was investigating Burisma by threatening to withhold aid - and yes, a loan guarantee is EXACTLY THE SAME as aid as the loan will not get made without the guarantee. Yet, you do not see this as a quid pro quo. Now, I would argue that what Hunter did was not illegal. What Burisma did by hiring Hunter was not illegal. Joe Biden working to fire the prosecutor WAS unethical and perhaps illegal* - a Ukraine PM claims to have proof of JB receiving $600K directly. He should have recused himself from all decision making when it comes to issues that could affect his son's company.

* Illegal if it can be proven that Joe and Hunter had a scheme by which Hunter gained employment by knowingly shopping the political influence.

#302 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 10:05 PM | Reply

"speeches for millions of dollars after leaving office is nothing more than a delayed bribe."

You've already admitted this is legal, and Presidents of both parties do this. Might as well admit Trump will do the same.

Bitching about the Clintons getting paid, while being silent about others, is just partisanship.

#303 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:06 PM | Reply

"Okay. But that doesn't change their conclusion, nor the fact the Republicans control the State Department.
#301 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

It is not a conclusion worth printing as the initial investigation was spiked by handing out immunity like candy and this follow up lacked the ability to compel testimony from former employees - you know - the EXACT people accused of the wrongdoing.

#304 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 10:07 PM | Reply

"Bitching about the Clintons getting paid, while being silent about others, is just partisanship.
#303 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Are you stupid? How have I been silent? I have condemned it on both sides.

#305 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 10:08 PM | Reply

I am already on record that obstruction as laid out in Volume II of the Mueller report is impeachable.

#278 | Posted by JeffJ

The ruling on the field -- there was no collusion, no obstruction -- stands.

#306 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-11-13 10:09 PM | Reply

"Probably? More like metaphysical certitude. "

And why are folks sending cash to Jared?

"and yes, a loan guarantee is EXACTLY THE SAME as aid"

No it's not, you blithering idiot. If you actually believe that, you're nowhere near the financial expert you pretend to be. A grant and a loan are NOT exactly the same.

#307 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:10 PM | Reply

"there was no collusion"

Not for lack of trying.

#308 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:10 PM | Reply

"I have condemned it on both sides."

While only using one set of names.

#309 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:10 PM | Reply

"It is not a conclusion worth printing"

Sounds like loser talk to me. Someone can't handle the truth.

#310 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:11 PM | Reply

"The ruling on the field -- there was no collusion, no obstruction -- stands."

What a riot. You don't know what that call means, do you?

It means those watching the videotape couldn't come to an actual conclusion.

#311 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:14 PM | Reply

""and yes, a loan guarantee is EXACTLY THE SAME as aid"
No it's not, you blithering idiot. If you actually believe that, you're nowhere near the financial expert you pretend to be. A grant and a loan are NOT exactly the same.
#307 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

This is even dumber than your SS Fund was stolen to fund tax cuts nonsense.

The loan guarantee is needed or no one will the Ukraine money because the chance of default is extremely high. At the time of the loan, the government was functionally bankrupt - so, they get the money or complete chaos breaks out.

And guess what...Ukraine has been defaulting on their debts - which is why the loan guarantee was needed and why US taxpayers are funding the losses.

#312 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 10:27 PM | Reply

"This is even dumber than your SS Fund was stolen to fund tax cuts nonsense."

FFS, let me type this even slower, so you can understand. Dubya cited payroll tax overcollections as the reason for the income tax cut. I never said money was stolen, I said we had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shore up our out-of-balance equations.

"The loan guarantee is needed or...."

Or blah, blah, blah. A grant and a loan are still NOT the same thing. Just ask anyone paying back a loan...or someone not paying back a grant.

#313 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:30 PM | Reply

"which is why the loan guarantee was needed and why US taxpayers are funding the losses."

Rob Portman's fault.

#314 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:31 PM | Reply

"speeches for millions of dollars after leaving office is nothing more than a delayed bribe."

IOW, Trump will be bribed.

Oh, wait, he already is, left and right. Let's have the G-7 at the Doral, shall we?

#315 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:34 PM | Reply

The Seinfeld of impeachments.

#316 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-13 10:34 PM | Reply

Big lol.

#317 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-13 10:36 PM | Reply

"That is why I want to shrink the size of the government."

Nonsense. After Dubya grew the government more than Clinton ever dreamed, you voted Republican.

#318 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:36 PM | Reply

I mean, "LOL"

#319 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-11-13 10:37 PM | Reply

After all these years, you actually believe Anita Hill was lying?!?

#297 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Absolutely. At the time, with no conservative media to speak of, public opinion of her testimony was 2-1 that she was lying.

#320 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:39 PM | Reply

After Dubya grew the government more than Clinton ever dreamed, you voted Republican.

#318 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The Democratic Party planks during the '90's were to the right of where the GOP is today. It's amazing how far the Democratic Party has moved left over the past 2+ decades.

#321 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 10:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Seinfeld of impeachments.
#316 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ "

What the Dem clown shows prove - first with Mueller and now with Taylor is that the government is being run by incompetents. Whether it was age or the guy was always a goof - we will never know. People felt sorry for Mueller after that hearing - I feel bad for Taylor now. He and the other guy (Dumb to his Dumber), basically played the perfect role of do nothing bureaucrats. Never have spoken to Trump. Were not informed of the call beforehand other than to do some low level A/V stuff. And get all their information 2nd and 3rd hand. That is why our diplomat staff can be staffed with political donors - because the positions are a joke.

#322 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 10:42 PM | Reply

"It's amazing how far the Democratic Party has moved left over the past 2+ decades.
#321 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

And that is why they are losing former supporters like me.

#323 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-13 10:43 PM | Reply

"At the time, with no conservative media to speak of, public opinion of her testimony was 2-1 that she was lying."

Which changes her veracity exactly zero percent.

Also, try asking again today. My guess is your position has more to do with Bart O'Keganaugh than Anita Hill.

#324 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:50 PM | Reply

"The Democratic Party planks during the '90's were to the right of where the GOP is today."

Total nonsense. Democrats weren't outlawing abortion, nor would they've made gays second-class citizens if they had a chance.

#325 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:51 PM | Reply

Democrats gladly agreed to air Trump's dirty laundry for everyone to see, and today was laundry day.

Trevor Noah

#326 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-11-13 10:54 PM | Reply

"that is why they are losing former supporters like me."

Pffft. Stephen Miller was never a Democrat.

#327 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:59 PM | Reply

Democrats weren't outlawing abortion, nor would they've made gays second-class citizens if they had a chance.

As if those were the only pressing issues of the '90's (the Democratic Party was mostly opposed to gay marriage during the '90's all of the way up to 2012).

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare" is blasphemy these days, as it pertains to what I put in bold. Up until a few years ago the Hyde Amendment was nearly universally agreed upon, now it's a travesty among the left. Heck, any limitations of abortion are derided by much of the Democratic Party these days.

#328 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 11:01 PM | Reply

Sorry for the runaway bold. It was supposed to stop with "and rare".

#329 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 11:02 PM | Reply

The average anti-Trump TDSr has just as much direct information as the two witlesses today. The Dems are not starting out strong. #hearsayandconjecture

#330 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-13 11:04 PM | Reply

#330 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Very true - and the sad thing is that they all know it. But, give them credit for putting on a brave face and trying anyway. Like I said above, the attention span of the US populace is already waning on this clownshow - thus, it makes sense to think they would have led with their best material - basically, get the audience hooked. So, I think this is literally the best that they have. Unless Pedo Schiffhead can up his game, I don't think the Dems will be able to hold ranks and vote for formal impeachment. Also, I don't think any GOP senators had a single second thought about this based on today's performance.

Maybe Schiff just needs to skip the witnesses altogether and just perform a new parody sketch? They definitely need to change it up. I am a political junky and this was painful to sit through. If we take the Dem debates as a proxy, audience interest will shrink by 50% within the next 4 days of hearings. What does Nancy do then? Was this all just meant as a plot to kneecap the progressives hellbent on impeachment?

#331 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-14 01:02 AM | Reply

"Like I said above, the attention span of the US populace is already waning on this clownshow"

Something you could not possibly know on a macro scale, meaning you're just lying out your ass.

"Pedo Schiffhead"

Any proof he's a pedo, or is this just more feces flinging?

#332 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 01:14 AM | Reply

We're playing by Democrat rules now. Do you have proof he's not a pederast?

#333 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-14 02:01 AM | Reply

"We're playing by Democrat rules now. Do you have proof he's not a pederast?"

I don't have proof you're not a ------------. Or a dick, for that matter.

#334 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 02:07 AM | Reply

As Dem --------- wilt....

#335 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-11-14 03:15 AM | Reply

"Something you could not possibly know on a macro scale, meaning you're just lying out your ass."

Polls on impeachment have decreased 4% from the initial WB nonsense.

"Any proof he's a pedo, or is this just more feces flinging?
#332 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Yes, I read it on the internet from multiple anonymous sources. It was good enough for you to claim Trump colluded with the Russians so I don't know why you would try to raise the bar now.

#336 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-14 04:21 AM | Reply

"Up until a few years ago the Hyde Amendment was nearly universally agreed upon, now it's a travesty among the left."

The same is true about miscegenation laws. And gay marriage bans.

#337 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 05:39 AM | Reply

As Dem --------- wilt....

You weren't watching, were you? The Republicans made preposterous arguments, Nunes putting out conspiracy theories that were later shot to hell, whined about a tiny portion of testimony that was hearsay (apparently forgetting "Evidence" class in law school), and took lessons on "getting the vapors" from Lindsay Graham.

Then they got their a** handed to them with a surprise about another phone call, make from a public Ukrainian restaurant, between Sondham and Trump that was loud enough for people to hear Trump talking. On that call, all Trump cared about was getting Zelenskyy to go the Press and say 'Biden, Clinton, Ukraine interference' and not one wit about Ukraine and any actual corruption.

Yesterday was not a good day for the Party of Trump, no matter how you spin it.

#338 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 08:14 AM | Reply

That rule was changed in order to retroactively accommodate this complaint.

Got a source for that?

#339 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 08:31 AM | Reply

Got a source for that?

#339 | POSTED BY JOE A

Already addressed. Although it's buried up-thread.

I'll restate - my take was based on having read the WB complaint and at no point in time did the WB ever make a firsthand claim. It was ALL secondhand/third-hand claims. So, based on that I thought the rule was retroactively changed. As it turns out, the form was retroactively changed, but not the rule itself. On the form the WB checked boxes for both secondhand and some firsthand knowledge, even though the written complaint contained ZERO firsthand claims. Because the WB checked the box for 'some firsthand knowledge' the IG processed the complaint. It's sketchy as hell but irrelevant now as others have corroborated the gist of the WB claims.

#340 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 09:10 AM | Reply

""Up until a few years ago the Hyde Amendment was nearly universally agreed upon, now it's a travesty among the left.""

That sentence isn't even close to being true and what relevance to this thread does it have? Oh wait, I forgot, that was an IRAGOLDBERG post. Never mind.

#341 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 09:13 AM | Reply

#340 That's not a source that the form was retroactively changed to accommodate this complaint. If that really happened there'd be a record of it. A source. Got one?

#342 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 09:53 AM | Reply

It's interesting. Depending on who is opining it was either a good day for Democrats or a bad day for Democrats.

#343 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 09:57 AM | Reply

I say there are no good or bad days in the House proceedings, because 20 Republican Senators will never, ever cross Trump.

This is a tremendous waste of time, and a gift to Biden as Warren and Sanders will be tied up for weeks with McConnell's intentionally time-consuming trial.

#344 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-14 10:01 AM | Reply

#344 - agreed.
Not to mention the report of some Republicans petitioning McConnell to drag this out as long as possible so none of the Senate candidates are able to campaign.

#345 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 10:10 AM | Reply

It's interesting. Depending on who is opining it was either a good day for Democrats or a bad day for Democrats.

I didn't say it was a good day for the Democrats. I said we weren't "--------- wilt...."
Personally I think it was a horrible day for the United States and I resent that Trump has brought us to this point with his illegal, unethical actions in his, and only his, self-interest.

#346 | Posted by YAV at 2019-11-14 10:12 AM | Reply

"some Republicans petitioning McConnell to drag this out as long as possible so none of the Senate candidates are able to campaign."

I'm not sure they'd want to give a campaign advantage to the guy doing the best against Trump in the polls.

#347 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:13 AM | Reply

Unless Pedo Schiffhead

#331 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-14 01:02 AM | Reply

You still think you're losing.

#348 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-14 10:31 AM | Reply

2) that he is supposed to serve the US of A and at the pleasure of the POTUS.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

#349 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's interesting. Depending on who is opining it was either a good day for Democrats or a bad day for Democrats.

#343 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-11-14 09:57 AM | REPLY |

The only people who think it was a bad day for Dems are the people who think its ok to ignore subpoenas and support a man who just got fined $2 million as the result of losing yet another criminal fraud case. The only difference between Trump and half the people in prison is his ability to write big checks to avoid prison time

#350 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 11:35 AM | Reply

I'm in trial myself and was only able to see some highlights but here are my takeaways from yesterday:

1. It was a pretty good day for the Democrats, I thought from what I saw that Taylor and Kent were credible and fairly unshakable.

2. Goldman is a far better trial attorney than Castor, who seemed lost at times. That being said, direct examination with softball questions in front of a friendly "judge" controlling the proceedings is much easier than cross examination.

3. Schiff got smacked by Ratcliffe when he tried to coach the witnesses by telling them not to assume facts not in evidence, but I thought otherwise he had a firm grasp on the proceedings.

4. Jordan's one bright spot was in the exchange when he pointed out the triple hearsay on the remark overheard by the unnamed staffer and then said "...and you're their star witness" but those types of moments are fleeting.

The adage that you start and finish with your two best witnesses if you are the prosecutor/plaintiff will hold true in this "trial" in the court of public opinion, and while the Democrats held serve, so to speak, with Taylor and Kent it wasn't nearly the explosive event that they would have hoped it would be.

That being said, it was 100x better for the Democrats than the Mueller testimony turned out to be.

#351 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-14 12:07 PM | Reply

The courts have become the lefty vehicle for enacting law that they could never pass through the legislative process.
Decades of narrow rulings that kick initiatives back to the Legislative branch to tackle is an anathema to people who seek to subvert the process in order to gain power and enact policy.

#277 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Most of the things the courts have done that has pissed off the right are, in fact, examples of the courts protecting the minority from the oppression of the majority. This pisses off those who are the majority and want to marginalize everybody who is not in the majority. The the whole point of a "Constitutional Republic" is the protection of minority rights from "tyranny of the majority".

Right wing judges consistently side with the rich over the poor and Corporations over workers, the community, and the customer. Then they claim that is the "original intent" of the Constitution. I call BS. The "Founders" were not big fans of powerful corporations. Think of the British East India Company as a reference point: they were the cause/target of the "Boston Tea Party".

#352 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-11-14 01:08 PM | Reply

Speaks,

I said you are in the Puritopian crowd during the primary.

During the General you are definitely a lesser-evil voter.

#273 | Posted by JeffJ

Not accurate either.

I'm lesser evil at all times. In the primary in 2016, bernie was the lesser evil, in the general, hillary was the lesser evil.

#353 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 01:17 PM | Reply

The Democratic Party planks during the '90's were to the right of where the GOP is today. It's amazing how far the Democratic Party has moved left over the past 2+ decades.

#321 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes I'm sure you preferred the democratic party when they were bought off and controlled by the same plutocrats who control your party.

#354 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-11-14 01:18 PM | Reply

After years of claiming both Sides are the same Jeffy now complains that the dems are not republican enough

#355 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-14 02:24 PM | Reply

"The Democratic Party planks during the '90's were to the right of where the GOP is today."

Please do tell! Tell us the Democratic planks on abortion and gun control and illegal immigration and campaign finance reform and trade and tariffs during the '90s, and how they are to the right of Trump's GOP.

#356 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

close associate of adam schiff just busted on pedo charges

www.nbclosangeles.com

And that pizza place actually does have a basement...FACT!

#357 | Posted by mutant at 2019-11-14 08:26 PM | Reply

#357 | POSTED BY MUTANT

I don't know if this is good evidence. I don't think Schiff is into girls (old or young). I think the pedo's tend to stick with others of the same perversion.

#358 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-14 09:21 PM | Reply

think the pedo's tend to stick with others of the same perversion.
#358 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Resorting to calling Schiff a pedo.

Desperation is the soup du jour tonight.

#359 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-14 09:54 PM | Reply

"think the pedo's tend to stick with others of the same perversion"

You must have breathed a sigh of relief when Trump said he would consider dating his daughter... but only after she turned 18, of course!

Nothing perverted about that.

#360 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 10:02 PM | Reply

And that pizza place actually does have a basement...FACT!
#357 | POSTED BY MUTANT

So where's the investigation?!!!

Should be open and ---- case, yet here you are, three years later peddling the same bull ---- while your party was in full control.

Speaks more against your party than the Clintons themselves. I mean, just look at Epstein. There was your sure fire win against Billy Clinton and y'all couldn't even protect him to FINALLY out Bill as the sex crazed pedophile we all know him to be.

Your party has failed us miserably. Own it.

#361 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-14 10:06 PM | Reply

"Should be open and shut case, yet here you are, three years later peddling the same bull ---- while your party was in full control.
#361 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

Well, I would ask the same exact question as it relates to the people attending Epstein's parties - the police likely even have video tapes, etc. And yet, NO PROSECUTIONS. So, in your world - this means that no crimes were committed. Back here in reality, it means that the well connected are above the law (though they shouldn't be).

#362 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-14 10:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort