Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 26, 2019

The chairman of the U.S. congressional committee that is leading the inquiry into President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine said on Monday the impeachment process would move to the next step shortly after lawmakers return to Washington next week from a break. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff said the panels involved in the impeachment probe would send a report to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee after lawmakers come back from the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday.

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.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the Intelligence Committee chairman, wrote in a letter to colleagues that after two months of inquiry amid consistent stonewalling by Mr. Trump, his panel has uncovered "massive amounts of evidence" pointing to misconduct and "corrupt intent" by the president.

The evidence will be detailed in a report being drafted for public release and transmittal to the House Judiciary Committee shortly after lawmakers return from their holiday break, Mr. Schiff wrote. The Judiciary panel is expected to promptly draft and debate articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump based on its findings.

www.nytimes.com

Democrats' feet don't look so cold now, do they?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-25 06:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Democrats' feet don't look so cold now, do they? - #1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-25 06:23 PM
I guess they understand that they need to rush before what little support for impeachment remains continues to dwindle away.

#2 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-25 06:36 PM | Reply

Yep, blows the Kremlin's talking points out of the water......
Though I'd prefer the Dems drag this thing out as long as they can, the longer it goes the more damage the (R)tarded Trump party of the Kremlin takes.

#3 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-25 10:07 PM | Reply

Yep, blows the Kremlin's talking points out of the water......
Though I'd prefer the Dems drag this thing out as long as they can, the longer it goes the more damage the (R)tarded Trump party of the Kremlin takes.

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-25 10:07 PM | Reply

'Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, abruptly announced Sunday that she no longer saw any "value" in the process and called for her fellow Democrats to throw their support behind a symbolic censure resolution.'

By all means drag this out. Each day that passes another Dem no longer 'sees value' in the Schiff-Show.

#5 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-11-26 10:27 AM | Reply

If censorship was the goal, Republicans would be on board.

#6 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-11-26 10:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yep, blows the Kremlin's talking points out of the water......
Though I'd prefer the Dems drag this thing out as long as they can, the longer it goes the more damage the (R)tarded Trump party of the Kremlin takes.

#3 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON AT 2019-11-25 10:07 PM | FLAG:

Sure drag it out even longer so support for impeachment drops even more. Even better let's send it to the Senate. It would be must see TV to see the big liar Schiff get called. He is already hinting there will be no vote, he knows he is toast if he has to testify under oath.

#7 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sure drag it out even longer so support for impeachment drops even more"

Or how about this: Do your constitutional duty, and ignore the calendar and the ratings.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 11:27 AM | Reply

Considering no objective person still believes the impeachment will continue, what do the partisan people think about the whole thing in hindsight? I like to see how hate influences people even when reality punches them in the face.

#9 | Posted by humtake at 2019-11-26 11:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Sure drag it out even longer so support for impeachment drops even more"
Or how about this: Do your constitutional duty, and ignore the calendar and the ratings.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-11-26 11:27 AM | FLAG:

Sure, spend all your time on the impeachment waste and not on healthcare, immigration, infrastructure. All the stuff the Dems are preaching needs priority but are doing nothing about.

#10 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Sure, spend all your time on the impeachment waste and not on healthcare, immigration, infrastructure."

How many bills does #MoscowMitch have on his desk? You don't know, do you?

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 12:22 PM | Reply

He (Schiff) is already hinting there will be no vote, he knows he is toast if he has to testify under oath.

#7 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:25 AM

You guys just started saying this: you must be getting it from some place. Somenew Right-wing mythology? For the life of me I don't see your point.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:35 PM | Reply

Sure, spend all your time on the impeachment waste and not on healthcare, immigration, infrastructure. All the stuff the Dems are preaching needs priority but are doing nothing about.

#10 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:

So angry! if I understand you correctly, impeachment is trap laid for the Democrats by Donald Trump and for Schiff especially.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:37 PM | Reply

Sure, spend all your time on the impeachment waste and not on healthcare, immigration, infrastructure.

#10 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:

A lot of think it's worth the time and expense to chase down a traitor and a crook.

There will be fewer monuments erected to Donald Trump than for George W. Bush. That pushes the total into negative integers.

#14 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:39 PM | Reply

Considering no objective person still believes the impeachment will continue,

#9 | Posted by humtake

Amazing! Where do you get this stuff? Is there a newsletter?

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:40 PM | Reply

Look, guys. Trump will be impeached because scores of millions of Americans see him as being a Pig. I haven't seen any of his fans mount a convincing argument otherwise.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:43 PM | Reply

Amazing! Where do you get this stuff? Is there a newsletter?

It shouldn't be hard to figure out, especially for you. Just take whatever you're one hundred percent convinced is going to happen, and prepare for the opposite. It's like clockwork.

#17 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-11-26 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He (Schiff) is already hinting there will be no vote, he knows he is toast if he has to testify under oath.
#7 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:25 AM
You guys just started saying this: you must be getting it from some place. Somenew Right-wing mythology? For the life of me I don't see your point.

#12 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 12:35 PM | FLAG:

I saw him hint at that in an interview on Sunday. Polls are getting to them. Also can't remember her name but a Democrate Congresswoman from Michigan said last night she wasn't voting for impeachment.

#18 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 12:50 PM | Reply

#17

It is amazing how wrong Zed continues to be about pretty much everything, but at least he keeps the Handcuff Polish Industry in business.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by fishpaw

As I recall the polls were poor when the GOP impeached Clinton, but that didn't seem to stop them.

What I'm confused about is why Schiff testifying under oath is a problem for him?

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:52 PM | Reply

It is amazing how wrong Zed

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter

What's amazing is how all of you seem to come up with these memes abruptly and together.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:53 PM | Reply

Look, this impeachment thing is basically about physics. It's what happens when a Pig collides with honest and patriotic Americans.

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:54 PM | Reply

Sure, spend all your time on the impeachment waste and not on healthcare, immigration, infrastructure. All the stuff the Dems are preaching needs priority but are doing nothing about.
#10 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 11:
So angry! if I understand you correctly, impeachment is trap laid for the Democrats by Donald Trump and for Schiff especially.

#13 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 12:37 PM | FLAG:

You are as usual understanding incorrectly. The Dems know they are going to lose the election, keeping up with me so far? They need to get rid of him beforehand so it doesn't happen. They know what the end game will be even if the house impeaches him the senate won't. So this is a simply campaigning for 2020 but it is backfiring, the polls, that the Dems base all their decisions on, shows that it is backfiring so they should just drop it and show they are doing something constructive. It would help them hold on to the house at least.

#23 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 12:58 PM | Reply

What's amazing is how all of you seem to come up with these memes abruptly and together.

What's amazing is your narcissism is at such an astronomical level that you think a few showing up for a drive-by to laugh at your idiocy is probably evidence of a coordinated attack, probably by the Russians.

#24 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-11-26 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It shouldn't be hard to figure out

#17 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake

Of course I have it figured out. You guys have a club with secret decoder rings and each day Kellyanne Conway, and in some cases St. Petersburg, send the signal on what to say and think

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 12:59 PM | Reply

The Dems know they are going to lose the election

#23 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 12:58 PM | Reply

My God, and by a Landslide, amirite?

There's NOTHING on the ground to suggest this.

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:00 PM | Reply

Donald Trump is an historically unpopular Pig and has been so from the beginning. If he wins if will be another squeaker (oinker) through the EC.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:01 PM | Reply

Of course I have it figured out. You guys have a club with secret decoder rings and each day Kellyanne Conway, and in some cases St. Petersburg, send the signal on what to say and think

Walls are closing in, right Zed?

Have you ever been right about any of this Russian --------? You started convinced of treason, and it's been diminished expectations ever since.

#28 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-11-26 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As I recall the polls were poor when the GOP impeached Clinton, but that didn't seem to stop them.
What I'm confused about is why Schiff testifying under oath is a problem for him?

#20 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 12:52 PM | FLAG:

And look what happened Dummy. And Schiff can lie in front on Congress all he wants without consequences but when he gets in front of the senate as a witness he can't. He has been proven a liar several times, the identity of the whistleblower is one big example.

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 01:03 PM | Reply

Let me tell what this is: The idea that Trump has 2020 sewn up is a lie created for his men Fridays to have a reason to discredit his impeachment.

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:04 PM | Reply

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019
f
What you haven't told me, FISHPAW, is what the hell you think might happen? Will Schiff dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West? Falls of fish from the sky? What?

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:06 PM | Reply

Have you ever been right about any of this Russian --------?

#28 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at

Pretty much all of it.

What a riot! OK, let's have a discussion on Trump's patriotism!

I'm going to take a piss. Back in a few. There'll be enough time to get your decoder rings out.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:08 PM | Reply

Let me tell what this is: The idea that Trump has 2020 sewn up is a lie created for his men Fridays to have a reason to discredit his impeachment.

#30 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 01:04 PM | FLAG:

You did not watch any of the trials did you? You just watched the overview from CNN or MSNBC didn't you? You didn't see any of the questions from the GOP Congressman did you? It is the only explaination or you are a total idiot. I'll pick number 2 since you have been completely wrong for the last 3 years.

#33 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 01:09 PM | Reply

The impeachment proceedings barely moved the needle, which was entirely predictable. You could televise a weeks' worth of Trump drowning children for sport and the same morons would still be out there talking about a non-existent server in Ukraine.

There's no changing the mind of a cult.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You did not watch any of the trials did you?

#33 | Posted by fishpaw at

Largely because there were none. Are you talking the recent impeachment hearings?

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:14 PM | Reply

I'll pick number 2 since you have been completely wrong for the last 3 years.

#33 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 01:09 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

You need to give me credit for 2016. I said the mid-terms would be a disaster for Trump and they were; hence, impeachment.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:15 PM | Reply

What you haven't told me, FISHPAW, is what the hell you think might happen? Will Schiff dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West? Falls of fish from the sky? What?

#31 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 01:06 PM | FLAG:

He will be questioned about did he coach the whistleblower which meant the whistleblower wasn't really a whistleblower by definition and doesn't deserve the protections of a whistleblower, he will say no. The whistlebower will be questioned and will contradict Schiff. Guess what that is. Schiff knows this so it won't go to the senate even though Schiff says he has an iron clad case for impeachment (just like he did for collusion) Maybe I'm wrong but that is my prediction Zed and my track record is about 100% better than yours.

#37 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 01:15 PM | Reply

You didn't see any of the questions from the GOP Congressman did you?

#33 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 01:09 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Feel free to hit me with anything that traitor Nunes said, or anything at all. It would be a nice change of pace to deal with something other than your fee-fees.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:16 PM | Reply

#37 | Posted by fishpaw

FISHPAW, my boy, what if Adam Schiff ignore a Congressional subpoena to testify the way Trump orders his various servants to do?

What ya gonna do?

#39 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:19 PM | Reply

Decoder rings at maximum, Captain!

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:20 PM | Reply

FISHPAW, my boy, what if Adam Schiff ignore a Congressional subpoena to testify the way Trump orders his various servants to do?

What ya gonna do?

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:22 PM | Reply

Don't have a clue, do you?

#42 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:23 PM | Reply

what if Adam Schiff ignore a Congressional subpoena to testify the way Trump orders his various servants to do?

What ya gonna do?

#39 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 01:19 PM

If it is a Senate subpoena during the impeachment trial, CJ Roberts will probably hold him in contempt and refer it to the US District Court for enforcement...and the Dems know it.

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:24 PM | Reply

Interesting notion that someone else would play by Trump's rules, isn't it? The great this is: you can't bitch about it.

This is the world you crackers are creating. Enjoy.

#44 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:25 PM | Reply

If it is a Senate subpoena during the impeachment trial, CJ Roberts will probably hold him in contempt and refer it to the US District Court for enforcement

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter

Then everyone of Trump's people currently and actively defying Congressional subpoenas will be forced to testify in the same manner?

#45 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:26 PM | Reply

Yes? No? Maybe?

let me guess: It's different because it's Trump.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:28 PM | Reply

So let me get this straight: Donald Trump's DOJ will prosecute a Democrat Representative for Contempt of Congress but NO un-elected people now or formerly on Donald's staff?

#47 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:31 PM | Reply

I heard Trump say that he's all for EVERYONE testifying, only to bring out the truth!

Not sure where that message was a couple weeks ago, but here we are! There shouldn't be any legal issue anymore. And Bolton, Pompeo, Perry, Mulvaney, and co. are all now allowed to testify under oath.

Let's get it on!

www.theguardian.com

#48 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-26 01:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes? No? Maybe?

You haven't thought this through, have you?

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:32 PM | Reply

"the whistleblower wasn't really a whistleblower by definition and doesn't deserve the protections of a whistleblower"

What protections is the whistleblower enjoying that is forbidden to regular people?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-26 01:35 PM | Reply

Then everyone of Trump's people currently and actively defying Congressional subpoenas will be forced to testify in the same manner?

#45 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-11-26 01:26 PM

Only if the Dems in the House take them to court, which they have refused to do except for McGahn, who has been ordered to appear but can still claim executive privilege.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:43 PM | Reply

#47

Not even remotely correct on the process or how Congressional subpoenas during the Inquiry differ from a Senate subpoena during an Impeachment Trial.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:45 PM | Reply

Only if the Dems in the House take them to court

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26

Don't you think those people will be taken to court if Adam Schiff is?

Schiff is hypothesized to find testifying deadly. We KNOW from his behavior that Trump is frightened of his people being examined under oath.

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:47 PM | Reply

Not even remotely correct on the process

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at

If someone is prosecuted for the sins Donald Trump habitually engages in I'm not sure that works out well for your side.

Another point to be made is this: There's precious little evidence that Trump cares about "process".

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:50 PM | Reply

I find your de-coder rings very inefficient.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:50 PM | Reply

That may be another way of stating that you think slowly.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:51 PM | Reply

There's no changing the mind of a cult. - #34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 01:10 PM
Every type of voter is in a cult, Joe? Nobody changed their mind based on the hearings. Is it just so darn unfair that independent and democrat voters who didn't agree with impeachment before the hearings still don't agree with impeachment? Those freaking cultists, right?

Or maybe...stick with me here...maybe the problem isn't every voter in the nation, but it's just you, poor Joe. It's just you.

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-26 01:52 PM | Reply

I like how RightOCenter is perfectly content with his party steering the ship of state directly towards a Constitutional crisis.

Honestly, they couldn't ask for a better cheerleader.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-26 01:53 PM | Reply

Those freaking cultists, right?

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-26 01:52 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Trump true believer are cultists, yes. Hard to argue otherwise.

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:54 PM | Reply

Anyone see the recent release, "Midway"? Anyone see that Yamamoto was reading "The Memoirs of U.S. Grant"? Anyone want to speculate WHY that book was shown in the movie?

#60 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:57 PM | Reply

#53

As Prof. Turley points out in the Better Impeachment Trial thread, once the Dems go to Articles it will be too late to go to court to compel witnesses to testify in front of the House, and the Dems have only themselves to blame for that.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:58 PM | Reply

Grant, at Shiloh, realized that the Confederates were no longer Americans but a separate people. Trumpites are a separate people.

#62 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 01:59 PM | Reply

The Senate can't compel a witness to testify in an Impeachment trial?

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-26 01:59 PM | Reply

#58

I like how upset you dolts get when I explain the process of how this Constitutional Crisis is being/going to be handled and how badly the Dems are messing it up.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:59 PM | Reply

the Dems have only themselves to blame for that.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:58 PM

Yeah, man. Donald Trump and the people actually rebelling have nothing to do with it.

A separate people.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 02:00 PM | Reply

how badly the Dems are messing it up.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 01:59 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Decoder ring stuff.

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-26 02:00 PM | Reply

#63

Sure they can, but they can also have CJ Roberts make an instant ruling on enforcement of a subpoena as the Presiding Officer, which if ignored gets referred to the US District Court. Schiff didn't have that option.

This is merely a guess, but I have a feeling that the Senate is going to mimic the House's rules on approval of the issuance of subpoenas by the Minority.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 02:03 PM | Reply

#66

Ok Boomer.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 02:03 PM | Reply

Oh so you're saying the reason impeachment will fail is because Republicans will make sure it fails, for example by not calling witnesses.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-26 02:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Every type of voter is in a cult, Joe? Nobody changed their mind based on the hearings. Is it just so darn unfair that independent and democrat voters who didn't agree with impeachment before the hearings still don't agree with impeachment? Those freaking cultists, right?

There are three categories of people.

1. People who want to impeach Trump because he has broken laws.

2. People who don't realize he has broken laws, either because they aren't paying attention or because they have fallen for pizzagate-tier smokescreens.

3. Trump cultists.

#70 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 02:20 PM | Reply

#69

Oh so you're saying...

Nope, looks like your Assigning Positions to Other game has gotten as bad as your Reading Comprehension.

I'm pretty sure that the Senate Majority is eagerly awaiting their opportunity to cross-examine the testimony from every witness that appeared in front of the Intelligence Committee along with testimony from witnesses that Schiff refused to allow to testify, including the Bidens, Chalupa, Archer, Hale, Ohr and of course, the WB and Schiff himself.

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Schiff will testify .. He is required by law and since he is not a republican..that still means something.

#72 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-11-26 02:58 PM | Reply

If all these democrats are guilty of crimes.. have the justice dept pursue them.
Quit trying to muddy the waters.. the impeachment is only about your boy...congress can't Impeach Biden.

#73 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-11-26 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh so you're saying the reason impeachment will fail is because Republicans will make sure it fails, for example by not calling witnesses.
#69 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-11-26 02:04 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

It will fail because it has already failed even though Schiff didn't allow a fair hearing. If it goes to the senate the majority will control and witnesses will be called that Schiff didn't allow and GOPers will be allowed to question witnesses without Schiff. In other words, if Schiff's didn't work even if he didn't play fair imagine what a senate hearing will look like.

#74 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 03:03 PM | Reply

I like how upset you dolts get when I explain the process of how this Constitutional Crisis is being/going to be handled and how badly the Dems are messing it up.

#64 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You were so adamant before that all Dems had to do was to have a full house vote on impeachment and everything would go smoothly for them. Then they VOTED for an impeachment inquiry, and nothing changed. I am really getting conflicting signals from you professor.

#75 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-26 03:07 PM | Reply

There are three categories of people.
1. People who want to impeach Trump because he has broken laws.
2. People who don't realize he has broken laws, either because they aren't paying attention or because they have fallen for pizzagate-tier smokescreens.
3. Trump cultists.

#70 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-11-26 02:20 PM | FLAG:

Don't forget yourself Joe

4. People who still can't get over the fact that Hillary lost and because they don't have a job can't appreciate the Trump economy.

#76 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 03:08 PM | Reply

#76 No, i'm in category 1. And you're definitely a 3.

Anyone else need to be categorized?

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 03:14 PM | Reply

How about a catagory 5 for both of us.

5. People who agree to disagree on the issue.

#78 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-11-26 03:20 PM | Reply

Anyone else need to be categorized? - #77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 03:14 PM

I would like to know what category you placed Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence.

#79 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-26 03:23 PM | Reply

#78 Sorry, the categories are closed, Mr. 3.

#79 She still supports impeachment, so she's a 1. You're a 3, BTW.

#80 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 03:30 PM | Reply

I would like to know what category you placed Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence.
#79 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Category 6: Flip-Flopper

as2.ftcdn.net

#81 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-26 03:37 PM | Reply

She still supports impeachment, so she's a 1. You're a 3, BTW. - #80 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 03:30 PM

"I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don't see the value of taking him out of office." -Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence

Why lie, Joe?

#82 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-26 03:37 PM | Reply

Why lie, Joe?
#82 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

He's not lying, you're just behind the times:

Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, just two days after declaring she could no longer "see the value" in removing President Trump from office as she pushed instead for an alternative to impeachment, has reversed course again -- now claiming she's completely on board with impeachment.
"I was an early supporter for impeachment in 2017," Lawrence said in a statement. "The House Intelligence Committee followed a very thorough process in holding hearings these past two weeks. The information they revealed confirmed that this President has abused the power of his office, therefore I continue to support impeachment."
www.foxnews.com

#83 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-26 03:38 PM | Reply

Thanks Rusty. You are correct.
I retract my statement and apologize for mistakenly calling you a liar, Joe.

#84 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-11-26 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#82 Did you read the link? Get up to speed before talking, --------.

#85 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-26 03:43 PM | Reply

It takes a couple of news cycles for Fox viewers to catch up. They're working on the Schiff indictment angle right now, since all their other conspiracy theories fell apart in the open hearings. You can't help someone who saw 50% of the impeachment hearings (only the parts where Nunes and Jordan were very quickly throwing as much crap against the wall as they could instead of asking legitimate questions), so when they come back with their reasons to indict Democrats for treason, it's only because they have no idea what actually happened over the last couple of weeks. As far as they know, a bunch of neverdrumpers confirmed that Biden was working as a foreign agent of Ukraine to overturn the 2016 election before it happened or whatever their new line is, I can't keep track.

POTUS committed at least 2 obvious impeachable acts during the hearings, so the Democrats really do have a bit of a conundrum. Have to keep it simple for the rubes who think God has chosen Agolf Twittler to be the beacon of freedom or whatever wacky cult nonsense they're spouting this week.

#86 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-26 03:57 PM | Reply

#83 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you.

Now back in line!

#87 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-26 04:08 PM | Reply

Sure, spend all your time on the impeachment waste and not on healthcare, immigration, infrastructure. All the stuff the Dems are preaching needs priority but are doing nothing about.

#10 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2019-11-26 11:42 AM | REPLY

There are 400 bills sitting on Moscow Mitch's desk that he refuses to so much as allow debate on including:

H.R. 1 " For The People Act " Sent to the Senate 239 days ago.
H.R. 8 " Bipartisan Background Checks Act " Sent to the Senate 248 days ago.
H.R. 7 " Paycheck Fairness Act " Sent to the Senate 220 days ago.
H.R. 1585 " VAWA Reauthorization Act " Sent to the Senate 212 days ago.
H.R. 9 " Climate Action Now Act " Sent to the Senate 184 days ago.
H.R. 5 " Equality Act " Sent to the Senate 169 days ago.
H.R. 6 " Dream and Promise Act " Sent to the Senate 151 days ago.
H.R. 582 " Raise the Wage Act " Sent to the Senate 107 days ago.

#88 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-26 04:39 PM | Reply

Thanks Rusty. You are correct.
I retract my statement and apologize for mistakenly calling you a liar, Joe.

#84 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

But at least you got to believe your own lies a few minutes more! And maybe just maybe your fellow fox viewers will read no further and not learn the harsh truth.

Because Then they will be sad and they like you will have to apologize for being moronic idiots, and believing the Big Lie, too.

Humpy gonna be impeached. It's what he wants and what he needs. It what you need. It's what we all need now.

You dont always get what you want. But you do seem to get what you need.

And Humpy really really needs this!

Enjoy!

#89 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-26 04:51 PM | Reply

"Schiff: Impeachment Report Finished by Next Week"

I was going to say, boy that was quick. But then I remembered the Democrats have been working on this since Trump announced his candidacy. The Democrats have had a special version of Microsoft Word that has a Articles of Presidential Impeachment template since they switched from Word Perfect 5.0.

#90 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-26 06:01 PM | Reply

#90

Says the butthurt Nixon fan who has supported every fake scandal and conspiracy theory intended to impeach Democrats since 1974. Get over it and move on.

#91 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-26 06:07 PM | Reply

Clinton, 1998:
29% impeach
67% don't impeach

Bush, 2006:
30% impeach
69% don't impeach

Obama, 2014:
29% impeach
70% don't impeach

Trump, 2019:
50% impeach
43% don't impeach

#92 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-26 06:49 PM | Reply

Question #1 for Schiff:

1.) You stated during the impeachment hearings that you did not know the identity of the whistleblower, was that a lie?
2.) Why did you lie?
3.) Is it ethical for you to be able to lie during the impeachment hearings but the witness are not?
4.) Why did you do the parody skit of the phone call if you believed the transcript showed clear crimes?
5.) Which of the witness testified to a crime having been committed?
6.) During the Russian Hoax, you claimed you had evidence of crime that were committed, did Mueller find those same crimes?
7.) Given your track record of claiming Trump committed crimes that have been proven false, why should anyone believe you now?
8.) Was Hunter employed by Burisma making in excess of $50K/month?
9.) What skills did Hunter Biden possess which would justify that position or salary?
10.) Was Joe Biden actively making decisions on Ukraine during the time Hunter was serving on the board of Burisma?
11.) Did anything Joe Biden promote in the Ukraine have a beneficial effect on Burisma and Hunter Biden as an employee?
12.) How did Joe Biden exert influence on the Ukraine?

This is too easy. Probably when the Dems will shut this down without a formal vote.

#93 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 07:42 PM | Reply

"What skills did Hunter Biden possess which would justify that position or salary?"

Ivanka Trump wants you to strike that question.

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:04 PM | Reply

"Ivanka Trump wants you to strike that question.
#94 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

She is hot as hell, that has been justification since time immemorial.

Your turn on Hunter.

#95 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:15 PM | Reply

"Ivanka Trump wants you to strike that question.
#94 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

She is hot as hell, that has been justification since time immemorial.

Your turn on Hunter.

#96 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:15 PM | Reply

"She is hot as hell, that has been justification since time immemorial. Your turn on Hunter."

Not my type. But feel free to go ahead, and tell us if you think he's hot or not.

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:21 PM | Reply

"Was Joe Biden actively making decisions on Ukraine during the time Hunter was serving on the board of Burisma?"

Not unilaterally, no.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:23 PM | Reply

"Not unilaterally, no.
#98 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Not according to Joe's bragging.

#99 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:29 PM | Reply

"Given your track record of claiming Trump committed crimes that have been proven false"

Sorry, Mr. Dumpty, it has NOT been "proven" Trump has not committed crimes. First, it's impossible to prove a negative. Second, he's already an unindicted co-conspirator on one crime his co-conspirator admitted.

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:32 PM | Reply

"Not according to Joe's bragging."

Which carries the legal weight of a fart in a tornado.

And didn't Rob Portman(R) and Ron Johnson(R) act with Biden?
www.vox.com

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:34 PM | Reply

"What skills did Hunter Biden possess which would justify that position or salary?"

Ivanka Trump wants you to strike that question.

#94 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I thought she owned her own clothing line. Is she employed by an overseas company for work in which she has zero experience or knowledge?

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-26 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I thought she owned her own clothing line."

Well if that's not a good reason for a high-level White House position, then I don't know what is.

"Is she employed by an overseas company for work in which she has zero experience or knowledge?"

Does she tread on her father's name where others couldn't? How silly are you planning to get?

Questioning HB's salary, after the RNC just bought $100K of Junior's books and Ivanka landed some incredibly rare trademarks in China, is spreading the absurdity on a bit thick.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:44 PM | Reply

"Well if that's not a good reason for a high-level White House position, then I don't know what is."

Ivanka is paid $50k/month by the US government for a no-show job? You sure you want to use that?

"Does she tread on her father's name where others couldn't?"

Proof?

"Questioning HB's salary, after the RNC just bought $100K of Junior's books and Ivanka landed some incredibly rare trademarks in China
#103 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

China does not trade-mark? The RNC is spending US taxpayer month to buy Jr's books? Please continue with the nonsensical whataboutisms...funny to behold.

#104 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:48 PM | Reply

"Ivanka is paid $50k/month by the US government for a no-show job? You sure you want to use that?"

Ivanka got valuable trademarks. You sure you want to ignore that?

"Proof?"

How easy is it to get trademarks in China?

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:50 PM | Reply

"The RNC is spending US taxpayer month to buy Jr's books? "

Not taxpayer money, donor money. All admitted in an FEC filing.

And something you would've freaked out about if it were Malia.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:52 PM | Reply

"How easy is it to get trademarks in China?
#105 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Extremely easy. Problem is actual enforcement of the trademark laws. That is why all the fake Gucci, LV, etc is still produced there. A copyright without enforcement is a meaningless gesture but one you must do as a business to protect yourself so someone else does not trademark it before you do and then forces you to cease using it. You really don't understand much, do you?

#107 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:55 PM | Reply

"China does not trade-mark?"

Oh it does...just not easily.
en.kangxin.com

Now...just to see if you can be honest, I'll ask an easy question: Did Ivanka have any advantage the average applicant wouldn't?

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 08:56 PM | Reply

"Not taxpayer money, donor money. All admitted in an FEC filing.
#106 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

And? If the RNC does this in return for Trump shutting down an investigation into them stealing US government oil/gas assets inappropriately allocated while Don Jr. was overseeing the department of energy? But please, continue with the increasingly desperate whataboutisms....

#109 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:57 PM | Reply

"Did Ivanka have any advantage the average applicant wouldn't?
#108 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Given her status as the daughter of the president - yes, it is more likely her brand would be recognized as 'well-known', which is a decision criterion. But, nothing corrupt in that.

#110 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 08:59 PM | Reply

"But, nothing corrupt in that."

Riiiiiiight. Of course everyone knows if it were HB, you'd find it corrupt.

"And?"

And it exposes you for the world-class hypocrite you are.

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 09:04 PM | Reply

"Given her status as the daughter of the president - yes, it is more likely her brand would be recognized as 'well-known', which is a decision criterion."

Oh, so SHE IS trading off her father. Nice of you to finally admit it.

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 09:05 PM | Reply

"If the RNC does this in return for Trump shutting down an investigation into them stealing US government oil/gas assets inappropriately allocated while Don Jr. was overseeing the department of energy?"

If you're going to start lying again, I'm done. Portman and Johnson agreed with Biden. Check my Vox link above.

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 09:08 PM | Reply

Danforth,

You know full well that in politics optics and narratives matter far more than truth. Joe Biden's action looks like quid pro quo. From a purely political standpoint, that matters. That his son was being paid handsomely for a position he was completely unqualified for and it coincided with his Dad becoming the point-person for Ukraine....that one not only looks bad, but is kind of hard to explain, when you really think about it.

I've never thought this was much of a big deal so even when an effort was made to try and implicated the Bidens I looked at the numbers and thought - if they were abusing their powers for personal gain they could have easily gotten WAY more than 50K+ per month for a short period of time.

Bottom line: The only Democrats who want this to metastasize are his closest competitors and only if it tips the scale in their favor during the primary. You've surely noticed that not even Joe Biden's closest rivals are making any kind of hay about this.

It does hamper any serious hope for Democratic-lead impeachment only for so long as Biden remains a strong contender in the primary. For now, because of the optics I already mentioned, Democrats don't want the GOP dragging Biden through the mud as part of an impeachment trial in the Senate unless he starts tanking in the primary. If that happens, then he becomes expendable as dragging him through the mud only harms him politically. Based upon what is publicly known he won't pay any kind of legal price for what he did, nor should he.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-26 09:51 PM | Reply

"You know full well that in politics optics and narratives matter far more than truth. "

Nice werk, boosting that signal.

"Joe Biden's action looks like quid pro quo."

NOT FOR PERSONAL GAIN. And Rob Portman(R) and Ron Johnson(R) did the same thing.

"That his son was being paid handsomely for a position he was completely unqualified for..."

Sorry, that's total crap when you're ignoring how Jared and Ivanka have profited.

"It does hamper any serious hope for Democratic-lead impeachment"

Too bad. Time to keep investigating, calling hearings, and issuing subpeonas, even if it takes until next November. I mean, isn't Lesson One learned from the Kevin McCarthys of the world that the target doesn't have to be guilty, just a target?

I hope next they take up the issue of Trump admitting to "misappropriating" over $2 million ostensibly raised for Veterans, something every other President in our lifetimes would've been impeached for, by the end of the day of admission.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 10:01 PM | Reply

"they could have easily gotten WAY more than 50K+ per month for a short period of time."

1.) People are cheaper to buy than you think.
2.) They did not take only $50K. Records show $83K/month and a Ukrainian MP is saying he has evidence of a $900,000 payment directly to Joe.

"Democrats don't want the GOP dragging Biden through the mud as part of an impeachment trial in the Senate unless he starts tanking in the primary.
#114 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

They will be forced to either make Biden leave the race prior to impeachment or cancel the impeachment trial in the Senate. You are mistaken in thinking this only ends at Biden. It doesn't. You are correct that this 'looks' like quid pro quo - it does. So much so that the Dems in charge had the same concerns and we have transcripts/communications to prove that was the case. We have Obama himself signing off on the Hunter Biden board seat (slipped up fact by MSM) which is strange given Joe didn't even know of his business dealings.

...and all of that before we even mention China or Romania.

Joe Biden is already a Zombie-Corpse, his debate performances and Leftist outrage determined that long before the Ukraine story came to life. But, much like the Dems being unable to tell Hillary she lost because she was a terrible candidate, they are allowing Biden to continue in the race.

#116 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 10:07 PM | Reply

"You are correct that this 'looks' like quid pro quo - it does. "

Soooo....in Trump's case, it looks like a QPQ, and Sondland not only confirmed it was a QPQ, but "everyone was in the loop"...yet that's not enough for you, because you believe there's no proof.

However, the mere accusation of Biden....that's proof enough for you!!!

If you didn't have double-standards, you'd have no standards at all.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 10:26 PM | Reply

"in Trump's case, it looks like a QPQ"

It is a political process - the general public does not care about what Trump did, that is why impeachment support is tanking. Thus, you opinion on Trump is meaningless as to whether the GOP will call Biden and force him to testify on this point. And, you are crazy if you think this will not be incredibly damaging to Biden as well as the DNC when they do. Even Pedo Schiff knows this is the case at this point.

"If you didn't have double-standards, you'd have no standards at all.
#117 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

We are talking about the general public here - not me. I think the general public will be outraged at Biden, Obama, and the entire DNC if Joe and Hunter are forced to testify. You don't seem to feel the same. I think you are moronic for feeling this way.

#118 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 10:40 PM | Reply

the general public does not care about what Trump did

Nor do they have anything to do with the process. Their part ended the last time they voted.

#119 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-11-26 10:46 PM | Reply

"We are talking about the general public here"

We're talking about you assigning views to the general public.

Which--surprise, surprise!--TOTALLY agree with yours. Gee, what are the odds?

#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 10:51 PM | Reply

"Which--surprise, surprise!--TOTALLY agree with yours. Gee, what are the odds?
#120 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Mine, and surprise-surprise - the current POLLING.

Now, maybe you should ask why my predictions for the general public prior to process so closely align with the current public polling....but, that would force you to reassess your current moronic beliefs.

#121 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 10:58 PM | Reply

"Mine, and surprise-surprise - the current POLLING."

Polling is split; roughly 50% of the country wants Trump impeached and removed from office.

"your current moronic beliefs."

Too rich, coming from someone who can't even admit more people disagree with him than agree:
projects.fivethirtyeight.com

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 11:07 PM | Reply

"Polling is split; roughly 50% of the country wants Trump impeached and removed from office.
#122 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

No, actually it is not. Support is cratering for those voters that matter in the 2020 election. You get just 23% of them.

An Emerson College poll of Americans from November 17 to November 20 found just 23 per cent of independents want him impeached.

Welcome to reality. It is that wonderful place conservatives have been telling you about for years.

#123 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-26 11:18 PM | Reply

Nice werk, boosting that signal.

It's not a "signal". It's acknowledging political reality. Nothing more.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-26 11:25 PM | Reply

"It's acknowledging political reality. "

It's only political reality if folks are willing to promote it, knowing it's mostly krapp. And you'll just keep repeating it and repeating it, and keep equating everything that came out during the hearings with innuendo and slander you know to be completely outsized and mostly dishonest.

You're actually the second Republican on the DR today to admit truth is secondary to politics.

#125 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 11:32 PM | Reply

"An Emerson College poll of Americans..."

...Is one poll. 538 is an amalgamation of all polls. Your pretense is duly noted.

"Welcome to reality."

Posts the guy who points to ONE poll, and still can't tell a larger number from a smaller number.

#126 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 11:34 PM | Reply

The Hill has today's (11/26) news about polls:
The Politico/Morning Consult poll showed 44 percent of independent voters surveyed backed the impeachment inquiry, a 4-point jump from last week's poll. Independent opposition to the inquiry also dropped 8 points to 39 percent.
thehill.com

Looks like Actual Math isn't your friend.

#127 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 11:41 PM | Reply

You're actually the second Republican on the DR today to admit truth is secondary to politics.

#125 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I try to be realistic when it comes to political analysis.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-26 11:51 PM | Reply

"I try to be realistic when it comes to political analysis. '

And then boost the fake signal whenever possible.

Tell us more about what Biden did, and be sure to leave out the part from the Vox article where Rob Portman(R) and Ron Johnson(R) were in on it as well.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-26 11:54 PM | Reply

#129

I'm sorry Dan, can you speak up? The Donkey Head on your suit is muffling your voice.

#130 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-26 11:57 PM | Reply

"I'm sorry Dan, can you speak up? The Donkey Head on your suit is muffling your voice.'

That's your head up your ass. Pull it out, and your hearing will improve.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 12:00 AM | Reply

That his son was being paid handsomely for a position he was completely unqualified for and it coincided with his Dad becoming the point-person for Ukraine....that one not only looks bad, but is kind of hard to explain, when you really think about it.

Not if you actually looked at the backgrounds and professions of the other Burisma board members:

Taras Burdeinyi is the chief executive officer of Burisma Holdings,[1] and Alan Apter is chairman of the board of directors.[2] As of 14 October 2019, the members of the board of directors, in order of seniority, are Alan Apter, Aleksander Kwaniewski, Joseph Cofer Black, Karina Zlochevska, Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalambous, and Marina Pericleous.[2][34] Aleksander Kwaniewski, former president of Poland, joined the board in January 2014.[32][33] In February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency (1999"2002) in the George W. Bush administration and former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism (2002"2004), was appointed to the board.[35] Karina Zlochevska, daughter of Mykola Zlochevskiy, was also appointed in February 2016.[2].

In April 2014, Devon Archer, a former senior adviser to the John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign, and Hunter Biden, an attorney and the son of then-US vice president Joe Biden, joined the board.[32][36] Archer left the company in 2018[37] and Biden left in April 2019, when his term as a director expired.

en.wikipedia.org

#132 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 12:36 AM | Reply

Taras Burdeinyi background is in oil and gas. Alan Apter is in investment banking. Aleksander Kwaniewski is the former President of Poland, who's background is in politics and journalism. Karina Zlochevska is the owner's daughter and has a Masters degree in International Business. Christina Sofocleous is a corporate lawyer practicing in Cyprus. Riginos Charalambous worked at an accounting services company and has an accountancy degree from England. Marina Pericleous is a lawyer specializing in litigation and dispute resolution, belonging to the Cyprus bar. Joseph Cofer Black is the former director of the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency (1999"2002) in the George W. Bush administration and former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism (2002"2004). Devon Archer founded the investment firm Rosemont Seneca. He also joined the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and founded Eudora Global, a venture capital firm.

Hunter Biden graduated from Yale Law School and along with Devon Archer and John Kerry's stepson Christopher Heinz, founded the investment firm Rosemont Seneca. He also joined the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and founded Eudora Global, a venture capital firm. In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mykola Zlochevsky faced a money laundering investigation, and his company Burisma Holdings, the largest natural gas producer in Ukraine, assembled a "high-profile international board" in response. Biden, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with corporate governance best practices, and a consulting firm in which Biden is a partner was also retained by Burisma.

Among those who joined the board of directors in April 2014 were Biden, Archer and former Polish president Aleksander Kwaniewski.[37] Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[38] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months.There is only one board member with a background in gas and oil and that's the CEO. Compared to every other member of Burisma, Hunter Biden's presence there is wholly understandable due to his work for the company prior to becoming a board member, and his business experience is greater than some of the other members who served on the board when he did.

#133 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 12:36 AM | Reply

"Among those who joined the board of directors in April 2014 were Biden, Archer and former Polish president Aleksander Kwaniewski."

Yes, 3 people overpaid as a bribe to help influence politics as it relates to Ukraine and Burisma.

"Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[38] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months."

NO. He received a minimum of $50K/month. The real number is $83K and a Ukraine MP as proof of a payment directly to Joe for $900,000.

"There is only one board member with a background in gas and oil and that's the CEO."

Because he was not seeking a BOD - he was paying bribes to politically connected people. Same reason why people donated to the Clinton Foundation. Why are you choosing to play dumb?

"Compared to every other member of Burisma, Hunter Biden's presence there is wholly understandable due to his work for the company prior to becoming a board member, and his business experience is greater than some of the other members who served on the board when he did.
#133 | POSTED BY TONYROMA "

I have been looking but I cannot find the answer - can you post the salaries of the other board members?

#134 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 12:44 AM | Reply

I have been looking but I cannot find the answer - can you post the salaries of the other board members?

Because it's a privately held company there are no public records of the salaries. But I did find this:

Burisma is not quite 1/4 the size of the smallest company on this list. The group of smallest companies pays between $285-$330,000 per year for a non-employee director. Hunter Biden was paid $600,000 (at least) for being a board member....

www.redstate.com

Hunter Biden's compensation was for more than just being a board member. As noted above, his law firm and consulting business were also on Burisma's payroll predating his board position. The money attributed to Biden was not all his, some went to the companies that employed him.

And you need to provide EVIDENCE, not just conspiracy garbage that you pull out of your backside. There is not one allegation that Hunter Biden's presence affected any business decision of Burisma, much less any connection to influence peddling. You obviously don't understand that board positions are largely ceremonial for the PR benefit of the company. They do not impact the daily operations in any appreciable way. And many boards are comprised of people who are not experts in the business' field. Try looking it up like I did.

#135 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 12:55 AM | Reply

Ira's posts save me having to wade thru lefty BS...fun watching...

#136 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-11-27 01:02 AM | Reply

"There is not one allegation that Hunter Biden's presence affected any business decision of Burisma, much less any connection to influence peddling. Y
#135 | POSTED BY TONYROMA"

I don't need to do that. During his time on the board, Biden got the prosecutor fired that was investigating Burisma. Period. End of story. Now, you can claim he did this action for other reasons - again, it does not matter - the fact that he did this act in Ukraine (he didn't fire any other prosecutors as far as I am aware) and this act aided his son is enough already. Because to the thinking, average American, Burisma put Hunter on the board and paid him obscene amounts of money despite is total lack of qualification as a bribe to influence US policy - and that was the end result.

"Burisma is not quite 1/4 the size of the smallest company on this list. The group of smallest companies pays between $285-$330,000 per year for a non-employee director. Hunter Biden was paid $600,000 (at least) for being a board member...."

We know this already. I am looking for what they paid the other directors. How did Hunter Biden's compensation compare to the non-political board members? We already know he was paid an obscene salary - I am trying to establish if that was routine for the company or just as it relates to Hunter.

#137 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 01:07 AM | Reply

"We know this already. I am looking for what they paid the other directors. How did Hunter Biden's compensation compare to the non-political board members? We already know he was paid an obscene salary - I am trying to establish if that was routine for the company or just as it relates to Hunter.
#137 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG"

Sorry to follow my own post but I thought I should add:

If Burisma paid the other non-political directors similar to Hunter than I am 100% certain that would be a widely publicized fact....so, I am guessing Biden was paid way, way more than them....and the inquiring mind asks, why?

#138 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 01:09 AM | Reply

Vice President Joe Biden assumed a lead role in U.S. diplomacy toward Ukraine after a popular revolution in early 2014 that led to pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country. Shokin became top prosecutor in 2015, after Yanukovych went into exile. A frustrated Biden in Dec. 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin was fired, in hopes that a new prosecutor would do more to enforce the law. According to Biden, it worked.

There is evidence that many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, viewed Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of Yanukovych's and Poroshenko's circles.

When Shokin was fired in the spring of 2016, press reports explicitly linked his ouster to corruption.

Steven Pifer, a career foreign service officer who held positions in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, previously told PolitiFact that "virtually everyone" he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine "felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired."

"All decent people were in favor of Shokin's sacking," Anders slund, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council told PolitiFact. "Biden led a Western/anticorruption consensus."

Vitaliy Kasko, who served as Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation until he resigned in protest, told Bloomberg in 2019 that, under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma remained dormant. Kasko said the matter was "shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," and Bloomberg reported that documents backed up his account.

www.politifact.com

#139 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 01:15 AM | Reply

" During his time on the board, Biden got the prosecutor fired that was investigating Burisma. Period. End of story. "

No, NOT end of story. You keep leaving out the salient parts, like two Republican Senators going along with Biden:
www.vox.com
www.axios.com
www.dispatch.com

#140 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 01:18 AM | Reply

Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) have conducted in total 15 investigations on Burisma's owner Zlochevsky.[38] In 2016, former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko accused Burisma subsidiaries of conspiracy and tax evasion of about one billion hryvnias (US$70 million) in 2014"2015, but later during investigation subsidiaries of Burisma were not mentioned.[39] Tax audit of Esko-Pivnich by the State Fiscal Service found some violations in 2016. As a result, 50 million hryvnias (US$1.9 million) of additional taxes was paid to eliminate criminal charges.[39] In total, Burisma paid additional 180 million hryvnias (US$7.44 million) of taxes to avoid further criminal proceedings.[8][23]

A criminal investigation was conducted if natural resources extraction licenses were issued to Burisma subsidiaries legally during the period Zlochevsky held government office. Although violations of the procedure were established by NABU, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office missed procedural deadlines for a lawsuit and the case for nullifying licesenses was dismissed by the court.[39] In October 2019, Prosecutor General Ruslan Riaboshapka announced that all 15 investigation cases will be reviewed.[38]

en.wikipedia.org

None of Burisma's legal issues had anything to do with their board, and the most serious charges predated Biden's seating since they revolved around whether the owner had used his political position in obtaining licenses from the very government he was a part of.

#141 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 01:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Is she employed by an overseas company for work in which she has zero experience or knowledge?"

There goes Jeff again, boosting the bullschitt.

#142 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 01:44 AM | Reply

#139 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

You keep posting it like it counters my argument in some way.

So you can understand, let me give you this analogy:

If a New York Fed prosecutor was investigating Don Jr for tax fraud and Trump fired him, would that be okay?
- I think pretty clear this is not okay.

So let's add in the fact that the New York Fed prosecutor may have also been involved in some shady deals - no crimes mind you - but that he seemed shady. Would that be okay?

Of course, you would rightly point out that Trump fired him because he wanted to help Don Jr. The other side would point out that he fired him because the prosecutor was shady. Which side is right? - at the end of the day, there is no factually correct answer - it is a matter of optics and who the public believes.

That is what we have with Biden. There is no case to be made that he is 100% clear of any corruption. There is no case to be made (at least not yet), that he is 100% corrupt. The answer is in the middle somewhere. But the GOP has placed the Dems into the box of having to make the argument Biden was 100% free of corruption. As that case is impossible to make, it makes them look hypocritical and/or dishonest. Which is why the Dems never should have opened that can of worms given what they already knew about Biden.

#143 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 03:03 AM | Reply

"None of Burisma's legal issues had anything to do with their board, and the most serious charges predated Biden's
#141 | POSTED BY TONYROMA"

Again, no one is arguing otherwise. The argument is that Burisma hired Hunter so that they would not be prosecuted for any actions - those acts predating Hunter or after he was a board member. I don't think Hunter is out stealing natural gas contracts. I do think Burisma hired him knowing that the government would go softer on them if he was on their board because the government would not want to anger his father. That is low level, passive corruption. If they hired him with the intent of having Joe get the prosecutor fired, that is high level, active corruption. But, there is corruption either way and their is no denying the intent on the part of Burisma by looking at the pay package for a completely unqualified cokehead.

#144 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 03:07 AM | Reply

"There is no case to be made that he is 100% clear of any corruption."

Are Portman and Johnson guilty of corruption as well?

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 03:13 AM | Reply

"Are Portman and Johnson guilty of corruption as well?
#145 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

In this or in general? Either way, my answer is 'probably'. Whenever a US politician is that invested in a foreign country's policies, it is likely for personal gain. I don't know Johnson's personal stake in this, but if you kick enough rocks, I am sure you can find it.

#146 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 03:18 AM | Reply

Can someone, Ira, Tony or anyone else, enlighten why the Biden's are relevant to impeachment of the Buffoon? More specifically, how or why does any of the s&&t from the last few hours of posting inform "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence?" Iow, how does any of that make it more or less probable the Buffoon used his position to seek private political gain? Anyone?

#147 | Posted by et_al at 2019-11-27 04:19 AM | Reply

What? Another huge rally of cultists..in FL! MAGA

#148 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-11-27 05:33 AM | Reply

"Can someone, Ira, Tony or anyone else, enlighten why the Biden's are relevant to impeachment of the Buffoon?
#147 | POSTED BY ET_AL "

Already detailed countless times - are you living under a rock? This is political theater. Biden's are relevant in proving Trump was concerned about corruption. If Joe and Hunter testify, at least 50% of the country will believe Biden was corrupt and Trump was justified. This is not about 'facts' as Schiff well knows - it is all about public perception and the Dems are getting crushed at that game. If Biden testifies, it is a KO by Team Trump.

#149 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 05:56 AM | Reply

ET AL

"Can someone, Ira, Tony or anyone else, enlighten why the Biden's are relevant to impeachment of the Buffoon."

Chalk it up to Trump's desperate need to grab at any straw within arms reach to avoid taking "adult" responsibility for his own actions ~ or more pointedly, Trump always needs a sacrificial lamb to skewer every time he get's his ------ in a wringer ~ like NOW.

"Iow, how does any of that make it more or less probable the Buffoon used his position to seek private political gain? "

It doesn't. But victimizing (and corrupting) the new and vulnerable President of Ukraine for "private political gain" is what he intended to use to get re-elected (common knowledge) in furtherance of Russia's agenda to expand their territory to the glory of the former U.S.S.R.

You might say with confidence that Vladimir Putin holds Trump's marker and he's going to be very disappointed (yes, KGB angry) if Trump gets himself booted and thus ceases to be the "asset" they've dreamed about lo these many years.

You might also say that Trump has a lot on his plate and desperation reigns supreme.

#150 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-11-27 06:34 AM | Reply

"Chalk it up to Trump's desperate need"

No, chalk it up to knowing how to win a PR battle.

"But victimizing (and corrupting) the new and vulnerable President of Ukraine for "private political gain" is what he intended to use to get re-elected"

Dems are trying to make that case now - pretty unsuccessfully based on the current polling.

"You might say with confidence that Vladimir Putin holds Trump's marker and he's going to be very disappointed
#150 | POSTED BY TWINPAC "

You might say that if you are an idiot sporting a tinfoil hat - if you have a functioning prefrontal cortex, not so much. Your Russian delusions are a proven hoax - further mentioning it just makes you seem desperate and sad.

#151 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 06:40 AM | Reply

The argument is that Burisma hired Hunter so that they would not be prosecuted for any actions

The argument is idiotic as you are because Burisma the company was never in trouble, it's OWNER was and paid tens of millions in fines and WAS held responsible for the things he did.

There's no there there as usual. There were 15 investigations into Zlochevsky, so how did Hunter Biden offer any protection? You have ZERO evidence that anyone inside Ukraine cared a whit whether Hunter Biden nor Zlochevsky's daughter nor the former president of Poland nor anyone else had any influence on anything. No credible person from Ukraine has ever made that case. You made it up out of whole cloth.

If a New York Fed prosecutor was investigating Don Jr for tax fraud and Trump fired him, would that be okay?
- I think pretty clear this is not okay.

Preet Bharara, the former head of SDNY, WAS investigating Donald Trump and Trump fired him. We don't need your hypothetical, we've got actually history.

#152 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 07:07 AM | Reply

"Preet Bharara, the former head of SDNY, WAS investigating Donald Trump and Trump fired him. We don't need your hypothetical, we've got actually history.
#152 | POSTED BY TONYROMA"

I was not here at the time, but I would bet dollars to donuts you and the ------- crew on here were screaming how that was corrupt and he should be impeached. Creepy HANDS - can you confirm please? Like I said, it is political theater only.

#153 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 07:45 AM | Reply

Of course, you would rightly point out that Trump fired him because he wanted to help Don Jr.

I was not here at the time, but I would bet dollars to donuts you and the ------- crew on here were screaming how that was corrupt and he should be impeached. Creepy HANDS - can you confirm please? Like I said, it is political theater only.

You talk incoherently out of both sides of your mouth, never finding anything approaching the truth.

#154 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 08:07 AM | Reply

"You talk incoherently out of both sides of your mouth, never finding anything approaching the truth.
#154 | POSTED BY TONYROMA "

What is incoherent? You obviously said it was corrupt and impeachable when Trump fired Pareet and you are now excusing Joe for doing the same. Again, I was not here but I am sure creepy HANDS could confirm. Please ask him to do so.

#155 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 08:16 AM | Reply

"Schiff: Impeachment Report Finished by Next Week"

And then McConnell holds the trial through January and February, keeping Senators running for President in DC six days a week, clearing the field for Trump, Biden, and Mayor Pete to campaign without challenge. If I were a suspicious person I'd almost say it was coordinated.

#156 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-27 08:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What is incoherent?

I highlighted it for you and you still don't have the acumen to figure it out on your own.

First you said you would rightly point out that Trump fired him because he wanted to help Don Jr, rightly signifying the apparent non-politically biased reason Trump would have fired a prosecutor investigating his son.

Then after finding out that Trump fired a prosecutor investigating HIM you said Like I said, it is political theater only meaning that anyone pointing out the firing obviously benefited Trump himself were themselves only interested in the issue because it made Trump look bad politically, correct?

Those are opposing viewpoints, hence incoherent in a debate based on facts.

Maybe I misinterpreted blather into English.

#157 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 08:34 AM | Reply

"Those are opposing viewpoints, hence incoherent in a debate based on facts.
#157 | POSTED BY TONYROMA "

It seems incoherent because that was your actions - Trump fire Preet and you want him impeached. Biden fires the Ukrainian prosecutor and it is a-okay. Just like I said. There is no 100% case as you prove in your own actions - as such, it is just political theater. Try to keep up.

#158 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 09:55 AM | Reply

Trump fire Preet and you want him impeached. Biden fires the Ukrainian prosecutor and it is a-okay. Just like I said.

You assigned me a position that I never took. Nothing was impeachable about Trump firing Bharara. It might have been unethical and unseemly but it was wholly within his rights as President. I've never said a word otherwise.

Why not focus on the idiocy that YOU say and let me speak for myself.

Try to keep up.

I can't dissemble as pathetically as you do. You don't catch up to someone when you've already left them obliviously in the dust of their own ignorance and insipid blather.

#159 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-11-27 10:03 AM | Reply

Can someone, Ira, Tony or anyone else, enlighten why the Biden's are relevant to impeachment of the Buffoon?

As i said upthread,

There are three categories of people.
1. People who want to impeach Trump because he has broken laws.
2. People who don't realize he has broken laws, either because they aren't paying attention or because they have fallen for pizzagate-tier smokescreens.
3. Trump cultists.
For those seeking to convince the Category 2's, Hunter Biden is a very useful deflection.

#160 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-27 10:58 AM | Reply

If I were a suspicious person I'd almost say it was coordinated.

It is awfully convenient, isn't it?

Repeated obstruction of the Mueller investigation - no impeachment
Obstruction of investigation into Michael Flynn - no impeachment
Witness tampering, dangling pardons, intimidation - no impeachment
Campaign finance violations - no impeachment
Continuous Emoluments Clause violations - no impeachment
Giving Russians highly classified intelligence information in the Oval Office - no impeachment
Publicly siding with Vladimir Putin over every American intelligence agency - no impeachment
Consistent attacks on the free press - no impeachment
Pardoning war criminals - no impeachment
Aggressively increasing family separation and caging of children - no impeachment
Hiring a white nationalist to dictate immigration policy - no impeachment
Hiring a National Security Adviser under investigation for being a foreign agent - no impeachment

Going after Joe Biden - that's a bridge too far, impeachment

#161 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-27 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Question #1 for Schiff:
1.) You stated during the impeachment hearings that you did not know the identity of the whistleblower, was that a lie?
2.) Why did you lie?
3.) Is it ethical for you to be able to lie during the impeachment hearings but the witness are not?
4.) Why did you do the parody skit of the phone call if you believed the transcript showed clear crimes?
5.) Which of the witness testified to a crime having been committed?
6.) During the Russian Hoax, you claimed you had evidence of crime that were committed, did Mueller find those same crimes?
7.) Given your track record of claiming Trump committed crimes that have been proven false, why should anyone believe you now?
8.) Was Hunter employed by Burisma making in excess of $50K/month?
9.) What skills did Hunter Biden possess which would justify that position or salary?
10.) Was Joe Biden actively making decisions on Ukraine during the time Hunter was serving on the board of Burisma?
11.) Did anything Joe Biden promote in the Ukraine have a beneficial effect on Burisma and Hunter Biden as an employee?
12.) How did Joe Biden exert influence on the Ukraine?
This is too easy. Probably when the Dems will shut this down without a formal vote.

#93 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-11-26 07:42 PM | REPLY |

When are you going to ask questions about the matter at hand?

None of the questions you asked have any relevance to the question of whether your president extorted Ukraine for help in his political campaign

#162 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-27 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1) If Trump's concern is corruption, why did he do nothing until the the targets dad declared as an opponent in the next election?

2) Why isn't Trump witholding money from all the other nations with rampantly corrupt governments?

3) Is Burisma the only corruption in Ukraine? Why was it singled out?

4) No available financial records show Burisma directly paid Hunter Biden.

5) Even if all your claims about Hunter Biden were true, It does not make what Trump did legal, acceptable, or ethical

#163 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-27 12:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hop onto that Sock Rocket. Buying high is a great way to lose your shirt but hey the people who make money in the stock market need more suckers to sell their overpriced stocks to.

#164 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-11-27 12:09 PM | Reply


#93 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

1.) No, the whistleblower communicated through their lawyers. So you can now skip questions 2, 3
4.) The parody skit was a way to put the call in context, and he literally explained that while he was doing it. Why do you call the redacted call summary a transcript? At the top, it says it's not a transcript. Why do you have to lie about this whenever you speak?
5.) None of the witnesses testified to a crime having been committed. All of them testified to what they observed, and left it up to the committee to determine if a crime had been committed based on their testimony. If you watched the testimony, which I am almost certain you have not, you would be absolutely clear on the multiple crimes that were committed.
6.) What Russian hoax? What you are calling a Russian hoax is unquestioned and indisputable. Why are you lying about it? Mueller did uncover crimes, but was not able to investigate due to obstruction of the investigation from within the WH and DOJ. The Mueller Report lays out quite a bit, but the investigation was cut short. The Roger Stone case ties it together, and the next few weeks will be interesting.
7.) Please demonstrate how any claims of criminality have been "proven false." Just saying so, is not proof. You can start with Popadopoulos, Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Gates, van der Zwaan, Pinedo, Patten and Stone, then work you way up the ladder to all of the people who refuse to exonerate the president by testifying. If they have proof of his innocence, explain to us all why they aren't all owning the libs every day with the exculpatory evidence?
8.) When you can let us know what the income of Ivanka, Jared, Donny Jr., Eric, Andrew Giuliani and Tyler McGaughey is RIGHT NOW, I'll answer your Hunter Biden question. Short answer, what is wrong with Hunter Biden making money?
9.) What skills do you possess to determine Biden's resume and fitness for a position on a Board of Directors? Are you a CEO of a global company?
10.) Joe Biden was participating in the foreign policy decisions and actions taken by the Obama Administration in conjunction with our allies.
11.) Because you seem to be confused, what Biden was doing had potentially negative effects on Burisma, not positive, but please continue your incoherent conspiracy theory.
12.) Joe Biden, in conjunction with US foreign policy and international allies, urged Ukraine to remove Shokin, a corrupt prosecutor. This made Russia angry, and anything that makes Putin mad makes DJT mad.

You present a case that is grounded in facts, with solid evidence (not Tucker "I side with Russia" Carlson ranting on TV), and maybe we'll listen. So far, this conspiracy theory around Biden is incoherent and makes no sense at all. Please bring receipts. If you don't mind, please also include ANY example of Drumpf making ANY effort to root out corruption anywhere that does not involve Joe and Hunter Biden. Go back 20 years, I'll take anything.

#165 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-27 12:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You present a case that is grounded in facts, with solid evidence (not Tucker "I side with Russia" Carlson ranting on TV), and maybe we'll listen. So far, this conspiracy theory around Biden is incoherent and makes no sense at all. Please bring receipts. If you don't mind, please also include ANY example of Drumpf making ANY effort to root out corruption anywhere that does not involve Joe and Hunter Biden. Go back 20 years, I'll take anything.

#165 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11

IRA isn't paid enough to do as you request.

#166 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-27 01:02 PM | Reply

"I side with Russia"

#165 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11

A lot of that going around.

#167 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-27 01:03 PM | Reply

I've never seen a poster dismembered so thoroughly as TONY, CHUFFY, and JOE did to IRA.

That's you all over, IRA.

#168 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-27 01:06 PM | Reply

#165 | POSTED BY CHUBBY

1.) No, the "whistleblower" communicated through their lawyers. - you have ZERO proof of that and it flies in the face of the evidence we do have. So, no skipping #2, #3
4.) The parody skit was a way to put the call in context - why was that needed if the call was a clear crime as he claims?
5.) All of them testified to what they observed - and all of them were asked what crime was committed and they all said NONE. You can't change that.
6.) What you are calling a Russian hoax is unquestioned and indisputable- The Mueller clownshow ended and proved NO COLLUSION. PERIOD.
7.) None of the names your listed had anything to do with the Russian Collusion. Nice try though.
8.) When you can let us know what the income of Ivanka - whataboutisms is not a defense, it is a deflection.
9.) I am a Chief Investment Officer of a large company and serve on several boards. I can tell you I would not put on an active drug abuser with no knowledge of anything relevant to the company. I posted before, Hunter should be charged under FCPA for his arrangement.
10.) Joe Biden was acting in the best interest of Burisma after they paid his loser kid. What other prosecutor did he get fired?
11.) potentially negative effects on Burisma - stopping an active investigation into corruption had a NEGATIVE effect? Really?
12.) Joe Biden acted in a way that led to personal enrichment of his family. PERIOD.

Again, it is about optics and you have a ---- hand. Nancy should have known better than to play it.

#169 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 07:25 PM | Reply

"Again, it is about optics..."

...over truth.

Truth, clearly, is your enemy.

#170 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 07:27 PM | Reply

"you have ZERO proof of that"

On the contrary; that's what all participants have stated, and you have ZERO proof of otherwise.

"why was that needed if the call was a clear crime as he claims?"

Not "needed", per se, just a decent summation.

"all of them were asked what crime was committed and they all said NONE."

That's a bald-faced lie. They said it's up to the questioners to determine if a crime was committed; they were fact witnesses.

"When you can let us know what the income of Ivanka.."

With Jared, at least $28 million last year, according to Forbes.
www.forbes.com

"Joe Biden acted in a way that led to personal enrichment of his family. PERIOD."

Then he was conspiring with Rob Portman and Ron Johnson, both Republicans. Were they acting in a way that led to personal enrichment?

Basically, every mention of Biden is just a scream of "SQUIRREL!!!"

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 07:35 PM | Reply

"Truth, clearly, is your enemy.
#170 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Again, your 'truth' not THE TRUTH. You cannot separate fact from fiction as proven over and over again.

#172 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 08:45 PM | Reply

"Again, your 'truth' not THE TRUTH. "

Sorry, you don't get to claim that after you've embraced optics over truth.

#173 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 08:49 PM | Reply

"On the contrary; that's what all participants have stated, and you have ZERO proof of otherwise."

Let's analyze that. Schiff claims to not know the identity of the whistleblower. During Vindman's testimony, he is able to state the name of everyone he communicated with except for 1 person - which Vindman knows he cannot state in public and SCHIFF knows he cannot state in public. Either these 2 turds are real good at guessing, or they know the identity - which makes them both liars. Vindman worse than Schiff as he was under oath.

"That's a bald-faced lie. They said it's up to the questioners to determine if a crime was committed; they were fact witnesses."

They were specifically asked what about what crime was committed - they said NONE. Go back and re-watch your nonsense hearings.

""When you can let us know what the income of Ivanka.."
With Jared, at least $28 million last year, according to Forbes.
www.forbes.com"

From the US government?

"Then he was conspiring with Rob Portman and Ron Johnson, both Republicans. Were they acting in a way that led to personal enrichment?
#171 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

As I already answered you - yes, they probably had an angle for personal enrichment as well. Biden's was just more obvious given the millions in cash funneled to his cokehead, loser kid.

#174 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 08:54 PM | Reply

yes, they probably had an angle for personal enrichment as well. Biden's was just more obvious given the millions in cash funneled to his cokehead, loser kid.
#174 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

All the -------- you accept without any evidence.

Your truth, hypocrite.

#175 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-27 09:16 PM | Reply

#175 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Do you want to claim that Schiff doesn't know the identity of the 'whistleblower'?

#176 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 10:34 PM | Reply

Do you want to claim that Schiff doesn't know the identity of the 'whistleblower'?
#176 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

How is my claim to that any way relevant, hypocrite?

#177 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-27 10:37 PM | Reply

#177 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Just wondering if you wanted to put a stake in the ground on that as if this impeachment goes to the Senate, we will get an answer to that question. Douchefroth thinks Schiff is telling the truth, just curious where you stand.

#178 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 10:44 PM | Reply

FEMA's Hurricane Aid to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands Has Stalled

Two years after Hurricanes Maria and Irma, records show the agency's work on long-term recovery on the islands is crawling compared with some states on the mainland.

www.nytimes.com

Trump MUST also be concerned about Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands' level of corruption, just like Ukraine...yes???

#179 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-27 10:47 PM | Reply

Douchefroth thinks Schiff is telling the truth, just curious where you stand.
#178 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Tell you what, I'll stake a claim on that topic when you retract the notion that I seek my own truth and not THE truth.

Until then, I'm taking your sincerity of discussion with a grain of salt.

#180 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-11-27 10:52 PM | Reply

"Tell you what, I'll stake a claim on that topic when you retract the notion that I seek my own truth and not THE truth.
#180 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 "

I apologize for grouping you in with the rest. If you are an actual honest broker when it comes to discussion, I will take you at your word. I am not familiar with all the names on here yet and I do not see much honesty here so I am a bit taken aback by it. So, my heartfelt apology to you.

#181 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-11-27 11:06 PM | Reply

"I'm taking your sincerity of discussion with a grain of salt."

You'll need a freighter.

#182 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-27 11:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you want to claim that Schiff doesn't know the identity of the 'whistleblower'?

#176 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Why do you care so much about the identity of the whistleblower? The whistleblower is protected by law and is superfluous to the facts which have been confirmed by the IG and verified by witness testimony under oath to Congress and these facts have not been denied by anyone. (Under oath to Congress.)

Ask yourself. Why have facts not been denied by anyone who would know? Under oath. To Congress.

What are you deplorables afraid of?

So scared they can't even recognize that the most serious constitutional process on the books is actually happening to this President due to his own unethical actions!

So do you really think they will have the awareness and courage needed now to speak the truth to the American People, under oath?
After suffering thru this foolishness for three years now, Americans deserve the truth about their President.

Like Nixon in Watergate, America now needs to know that their President is not a crook.

#183 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-28 01:07 AM | Reply

#183 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-11-28 01:07 AM | FLAG: Worry not dboy as a Senate trial will let it all come out in the wash.

#184 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-11-28 01:38 AM | Reply

Groginald Blompf is being impeached by a bunch of Jews soon, right? If I point it out, it's antisemitic. If Jews themselves point it out, it's something over which to rejoice and gloat.
www.jweekly.com

#185 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-28 01:59 AM | Reply

Worry not dboy as a Senate trial will let it all come out in the wash.

#184 | POSTED BY MSGT

You think Moscow Mitch wants to admit Russia attacked us and attempted to undermine our elections yet ?

You think Moscow Mitch will really "let it all come out"? ( by "It" you do mean the truth? Right?)

Under oath even?

Yeah. I will believe that when I see it.

#186 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-11-28 02:11 AM | Reply

Can someone, Ira, Tony or anyone else, enlighten why the Biden's are relevant to impeachment of the Buffoon? More specifically, how or why does any of the s&&t from the last few hours of posting inform "any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence?" Iow, how does any of that make it more or less probable the Buffoon used his position to seek private political gain? Anyone?

#147 | POSTED BY ET_AL

I can enlighten you on this. By painting Joe/Hunter/Burisma as a corrupt arrangement and then by painting Joe Biden as engaging in an abusive act for compelling the firing of that prosecutor in order to benefit Hunter/Burisma said corruption lends credence to Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to investigate all of this. That is what Team Trump is trying to do - If the Bidens were mired deep into corruption with Ukraine then it legitimizes Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to investigate it.

They are trying to build a narrative both to blunt impeachment AND to try and tarnish Joe Biden for the general election.

#187 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-28 08:51 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort