This time they are going to really nail him. Sharp as a ball bearing Jerry Nadler is on the case - the guy with a body resembling a weeble-wooble. He has been thoroughly embarrassed in all his public hearings to date but this one is going to be different. Like Trump, we want this clownshow to continue.

"Yes! Let everyone testify.
#4 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 "

Yes EVERYONE - not Schiff or Nadler say over the witness list or line of questioning. But we both know that is not what you want. You don't want the truth, you want your truth.

"Kewl. Trump first.
#6 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

That will be his choice. I think he gave his answers already.

"Have at Schiff and co. Just be sure to include those who have gotten hand knowledge of this situation. Waiting for you to agree. But not holding my breath, Trumper.
#9 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

I think they should have everyone to testify. This is a nothingburger outside of exposing the soft-corruption of politicians kids enriching themselves off of their parent's office.

#11 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

So have the Dems vote to impeach and send it to a trial in the Senate. I am okay with that. Seems the Dems are the ones changing their minds.

"Tell us, Rube...have you finally found the part in Dr. Hill's testimony where she calls Vindman's judgment into question, as you claimed multiple times, yet could never seem to find?
#17 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Yes, I read all 400 pages. You have as well or your mental capacity is limited to key word search?

"He's admitted error recently, wondering why he refuses to now.
#20 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11"

If I make a mistake, I always admit it.
Luckily, that happens about once a year.

"Then either produce what you claimed, or admit you made a mistake. You claimed Dr. Hill questioned Vindman's judgement in her October 14th testimony.
#22 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

She did question his judgement and asked him not to attend meetings as a result. Jordan's characterization was correct although she did not state the word 'judgement' outright, her actions clearly implied it. Did you actually read the report? Again, we both know that you didn't.

"Sondland, who appear to be Trumpers, put their oath of office first.
#25 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Sondland is an opportunist, not a Trumpet. He was/is a Dem but knew he could buy a position in the State Department as is tradition. Not that he was a bad guy, just not the best or brightest.

"You've now referred three times to something, somehow...vague. YOU FAIL.
#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

It is vague because you refuse to actually read it. Go read and then we can discuss. Hell, ask Corky to read it to you while you snuggle.

"You're a lying putz, bitch.
#29 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

That is that epic 'gangsta' tagline I have been waiting for. Nothing is quite as edgy and cool is a 60 year old white guy calling a 45 year old white guy a 'bitch'....so amazingly epic.

To the point, I have read the report. You made a claim that the statements were not in the report without actually reading it and now stubbornly stick to you argument despite still never having read it.

So, you can continue to whine about it and wait for me to spoon feed you the relevant page numbers or you can actually read the damn transcript. However, only one will give you any credibility in the eyes of others. Your choice how you want to proceed but your comments remind me of a child with a full diaper screaming to be changed. As you present yourself as an adult, I have no obligation to change you or spoon feed you. My prediction is that you will just sit in your spoiled diaper and wail for the next few days.

"Awww look. I live in your head.
#39 | POSTED BY JPW "

Not unless his head is a cardboard box or flophouse.

"To the point, you lying again. We both know if you found what you claimed, you'd be posting it, and rubbing my nose in it.
#32 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Douchefroth, I don't have a need to punch down so I don't have a desire to rub your nose in anything. In your biggest ever liar, you claimed that Bush used the SS Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts and that the bonds in the Trust Fund had no value so you wanted to exchange them for gold. After I wiped the floor with you in that argument, you have now decided it is better to just lie and change your argument.

So, I have no need to debate you or prove anything to you as there is no 'winning' when your opponent is morally bankrupt.

I have read the report, I have stated my opinion based on how Hill acted towards Vindman. I think Jordan was stretching his claim but there was a basis for making it. If you want to read the transcript, please do so and then we can debate. But, your ability is limited to doing a word search on the document before passing judgment. So, put in at least a half-assed effort first and actually read it.

Now, I know that you won't - you will just wail like a child with a dirty diaper. It matters not to me either way.

In fact Vindman, Hill, Volker, etc have already played their role and been tossed aside by the Dems and frankly, impeachment as well for that matter. Like your opinion, their substance is that of a fart in the wind.

Now keep up your edgy 'bitch' tag line...so epic, so awesome!

"You're lying again, bitch."

Yeah...that's the stuff I looking for! Wooooo!

"Unless you can C&P the salient section where your claim is proven, YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THE CLAIM."
#42 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That is not the way that the world works Douchefroth. You claimed that Jim Jordan was lying but never actually read any of the actual source material. We have confirmation in 3 sources that this was the case - Morrison's testimony, Hill's public testimony, and Hill's transcript. I have read the transcript and it aligns with her public testimony - Vindman was not politically savvy and she kept him out of meetings as a result - BECAUSE SHE QUESTIONED HIS JUDGEMENT. This is included in the transcripts and clarified in her public testimony. Your key word search does not work because you need CONTEXT. While she does not use the word 'judgment', she uses terms like 'political antennae' - she is a good little bureaucrat. So, again, READ THE ---- TRANSCRIPT and stop wailing like a child with a soiled diaper.

"Vindman's judgement. That puts the onus ON YOU to prove it, especially when called out for the liar you are. If you'd actually read the testimony, and found ANYTHING even resembling proof, you'd post it."

If you say someone lacks a political antennae and keep them from attending meetings as a result, is that questioning someone's judgment?

"Yet it doesn't support Rube's claim that it was HILL's testimony on October 14th where she brought Vindman's judgement into question."

In the 14th transcript she states how she kept him out of meetings. In her public testimony she confirmed that she thought he lacked political savvy. That is known as lacking judgment.