Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 02, 2019

The White House confirmed in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee Sunday that it won't take part in the panel's first impeachment inquiry hearings Wednesday. But the Trump administration letter doesn't rule out participating in future hearings, Politico first reported.

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.

Not surprising.

The first [i]mpeachment hearing is more about process than evidence, and the Republican have been arguing process, and not evidence, for the past few weeks.

So why would the White House want to participate in a hearing about what they have been questioning?

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-01 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Trump were to allow his attorneys to participate, his base would NOT understand and might even think that he's cooperating because there might be something to the charges. However, if he refuses to participate, he can continue to condemn the Democrats and attack the process, something that his base WILL understand. This way he can claim that impeaching him is unconstitutional and his base will believe that he's telling them the truth, which of course is ludicrous since Impeachment is spelled out in black & white in the Constitution, but since neither Trump nor the majority of his base has ever read the Constitution, he can continue to fool them into thinking that the Democrats really are attempting an illegal coup d'tat. The risk to the nation is that Trump is setting up a rationalization for potential revenge against his 'enemies' if he's not convicted in the Senate and he subsequently wins reelection in 2020. This could destroy the Republic.

OCU

#2 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-12-02 01:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The risk to the nation is that Trump is setting up a rationalization for potential revenge against his 'enemies'

#2 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-12-02 01:11 AM | Reply

Oh, Donald will seek revenge alright, as surely as a dog will ---- in a yard. He's mentally ill and vengeance is a huge part of that.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 07:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If it was me... I would want a chance to defend myself... process or not.
Strange how an innocent man goes to so much trouble to block testimony of his innocence ..almost like he has something to hide.
Complaining about fairness will not be enough to stop anything...better get it the game.

#4 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-12-02 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Strange how an innocent man goes to so much trouble to block testimony of his innocence ..almost like he has something to hide.

#4 | POSTED BY 503JC69 AT 2019-12-02 08:30 AM | FLAG:

and that's how you get instantly qualified from jury duty.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 09:45 AM | Reply

disqualified

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 09:45 AM | Reply

There is no way to hide what he did, he's admitted it. He's just trying to prevent any consequences for it from coming back to bite him in the ass.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-02 09:46 AM | Reply

"and that's how you get instantly qualified from jury duty."

Then every Republican in the Senate should be disqualified from voting in the Senate trial. The House isn't acting as "jurors" they are acting as a "Grand Jury." All they can do is indict, they can't convict.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-02 09:48 AM | Reply

Then every Republican in the Senate should be disqualified from voting in the Senate trial.

Wouldnt you love that?

#9 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 09:53 AM | Reply

#9 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Just as much as you would love if all the Democrats were disqualified.

#10 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 09:56 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

This entire debacle is scripted and without surprises, as well as the final outcome.
These "Bombshell" articles are meant to further divide us.

#11 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-12-02 09:59 AM | Reply

Three weeks ago:

"Waaaaah. We aren't allowed to participate in these unfair private hearings."

Now:

"Waaaaah. These public hearings are unfair. We're not participating."

Next week:

"Waaaaah...."

#12 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-02 10:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

If it was me... I would want a chance to defend myself... process or not.
Strange how an innocent man goes to so much trouble to block testimony of his innocence ..almost like he has something to hide.
Complaining about fairness will not be enough to stop anything...better get it the game.

#4 | POSTED BY 503JC69 AT 2019-12-02 08:30 AM | FLAG:

You wouldn't if the people running the show prevented you from bringing in your own witnesses or having your council cross examine witnesses that are testifying against you. That's what happened in Schiff's show so why would anyone think it wouldn't happen under Nadler.

#13 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 10:09 AM | Reply

Just go full Tron on them.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 10:10 AM | Reply

or having your council cross examine witnesses that are testifying against you.
That's what happened in Schiff's show so why would anyone think it wouldn't happen under Nadler.

#13 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Maybe because Nadler is SPECIFICALLY OFFERING TRUMP THE OPPORTUNITY for Trump's council to cross examine witnesses. That is what this article is about. And the Trump administration is DECLINING that opportunity.

Why should Schiff have offered something that the Trump administration would have declined anyways? Just a waste of time.

#15 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Donald Trump is a lying, whining hypocrite.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He'll just continue to carp from the sidelines.

#17 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-12-02 10:38 AM | Reply

Nadler is SPECIFICALLY OFFERING TRUMP THE OPPORTUNITY for Trump's council to cross examine witnesses

#15 | Posted by gtbritishskull

You're telling that to FISH? What's the point? FISH is one of those that thinks Trump is a better man than Lincoln.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:41 AM | Reply

Pigs that go cluck cluck cluck in the night.
No nuts no glory.

leaving office in disgrace.

#19 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-12-02 10:43 AM | Reply

The biggest threat to Trump's Presidency is Trump's own mouth. The man just can't shutup. Nevermind what others are saying, his own words will be his undoing.

#20 | Posted by Daniel at 2019-12-02 10:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd like to remind everyone that Donald Trump has compared himself favorably to George Washington. George Washington, the Father of the Country. Freaking

This is what I think FISH sincerely believes, and he's free to dispute me if I'm wrong. FISH is part of a cult of personality. The personality in question, unlike Washington, happens to be weak, ignorant, stupid, undignified, dishonest, and unpatriotic. But this is what people like FISH are drawn to and the rest of us have to deal with it.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:47 AM | Reply

You're telling that to FISH? What's the point? FISH is one of those that thinks Trump is a better man than Lincoln.

#18 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-12-02 10:41 AM | FLAG: From someone who still thinks there is a pee tape.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 10:48 AM | Reply

He'll just continue to carp from the sidelines.

#17 | Posted by fresno500

You mean cr-- from the sidelines.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:48 AM | Reply

Maybe because Nadler is SPECIFICALLY OFFERING TRUMP THE OPPORTUNITY for Trump's council to cross examine witnesses. That is what this article is about. And the Trump administration is DECLINING that opportunity.
Why should Schiff have offered something that the Trump administration would have declined anyways? Just a waste of time.

#15 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-02 10:19 AM | FLAG:

Have they actually established the rules yet? The Dems want to start this on Wed but won't release Schiff's final report until then.

#24 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 10:50 AM | Reply

What he did is only impeachable because "Orange man bad".

#25 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-02 10:51 AM | Reply

The problem is, who would Trump want as witnesses? I mean, so far he's stopped everyone from testifying who was close enough to what happened to know the real details. So who's left who could provide an alternate narrative? Trump Jr? Maybe Eric or Barron?

OCU

#26 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-12-02 10:51 AM | Reply

#18 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-12-02 10:41 AM | FLAG:

From someone who still thinks there is a pee tape.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019

Come on, FISH. Just look at Donald Trump's history and behavior. If there ever was a man with a Pee Tape it's him. Get real for once in your life. The man you love as president is one scabrous dude.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:52 AM | Reply

What he did is only impeachable because "Orange man bad".

#25 | Posted by visitor_ at

Trying to cheat on the 2020 election is only bad because Trump is orange?

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:54 AM | Reply

The biggest threat to Trump's Presidency is Trump's own mouth. The man just can't shutup.

#20 | Posted by Daniel

He won't shut up because he's addicted to attention and really does think he's some sort of genius. These are symptoms.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:57 AM | Reply

I'd like to remind everyone that Donald Trump has compared himself favorably to George Washington. George Washington, the Freaking Father of the Country.

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2019

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 10:59 AM | Reply

This is what I think FISH sincerely believes, and he's free to dispute me if I'm wrong. FISH is part of a cult of personality. The personality in question, unlike Washington, happens to be weak, ignorant, stupid, undignified, dishonest, and unpatriotic. But this is what people like FISH are drawn to and the rest of us have to deal with it.

#21 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-12-02 10:47 AM | REPLY

You're telling that to FISH? What's the point? FISH is one of those that thinks Trump is a better man than Lincoln.

I just look at results like I did when Clinton was president. We wern't at war, the economy was humming, everything was moving in the right direction. I don't see anything different with Trump and I didn't see it happening with Hillary. He may act like a baffon at times but it doesn't effect the economy or get us nuked. Your problem Zed is two fold, 1. He beat Hillary and you just can't get over it and 2. Oviously the good economy doesn't affect you (no job, living with your parents,etc.)

#31 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 11:09 AM | Reply

Have they actually established the rules yet? The Dems want to start this on Wed but won't release Schiff's final report until then.

#24 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Do you even know what is going on here?

This hearing is on the definition of impeachment and what would qualify as "Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors". This is NOT about presenting evidence that Trump committed those acts. It is to set the standard of WHAT he COULD do that would warrant impeachment (obviously focused on the area of crimes/actions he is accused of committing).

So, in theory, this is the MOST IMPORTANT hearing for Republicans. Because they are arguing that, while corrupt and abusive of public trust, Trump's actions to not "rise to the level" of being worthy of impeachment.

But, I can understand why they would not want to participate. I would not be surprised if the Republican Congresscritters on the committee are pretty subdued as well. Because to say that something is not impeachable requires that you also say what IS impeachable (where to draw the line). Or, you have to explicitly say that action, taken to ANY extreme, is INHERENTLY not impeachable.

Which, to be honest, is what conservatives believe. To them, NOTHING that a conservative president COULD POSSIBLY DO is impeachable. But, they don't want to actually come out and SAY that. So, an academic discussion on impeachment and what rises to the level of "impeachable" will probably be pretty difficult for them.

#32 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I don't think a pee-pee tape exists. But pretending the guy who raw-dogged a pornstar and paid her not to talk about it and the guy who talks about how he'd probably be dating (i.e. ----) his own daughter if they weren't related is not the perfect candidate to be caught on a pee-pee tape is just silly.

#33 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-02 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your problem Zed is two fold, 1. He beat Hillary and you just can't get over it and 2. Oviously the good economy doesn't affect you (no job, living with your parents,etc.)

#31 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019

Whereas you have absolutely no problems at all beyond being in-bred.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 11:14 AM | Reply

Your problem Zed is two fold, 1. He beat Hillary and you just can't get over it and 2. Oviously the good economy doesn't affect you (no job, living with your parents,etc.)

#31 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019

Actually, I've made a killing on Trump. The problem is he is a disgusting human being. I'm not at all like you, FISH. Money doesn't wash everything clean for me.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#32 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

And, break it down for you, if you are actually trying to follow a logical process (instead of just the circuses that conservatives prefer), you FIRST solidly define what constitutes the "crime" (or "impeachable"). After that is firmly established, then you present the evidence and determine if the evidence shows that the (well-defined) "crime" (or impeachable conduct) was committed.

So, right now, we are just at the FIRST part. Where they determine what actually constitutes "impeachable" among the multitude of things Trump is accused of.

#36 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 11:17 AM | Reply

"Actually, I've made a killing on Trump."

How so?

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-02 11:20 AM | Reply

How so?

#37 | Posted by eberly

I was in the right income bracket to start with.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 11:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Do you even know what is going on here?#32 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-02 11:11 AM | FLAG:

Yes I do, the Dems know what the end game is and they are starting the 2020 campaign trying to smear a duly elected president. They know that their candidates can't beat him again so they are putting on this highly partisan show thinking it will move voters against him. Problem is it is backfiring, the more it goes on the more people are thinking this is a big waste of time for Congress.

If this were legit Nadler and Schiff would be treating it as legit. Have they established rules yet? No. Have they established how many hearings? No. Have they established whether they are calling fact witnesses? No.
Have the established who the witnesses actually are? No. All evidence is here-say or better yet someone's interpretation of what someone was saying. If it was a slam dunk like you folks are saying it is than have a vote, it should win easily and then send it to the senate for more hearings, if it is such a slam dunk you don't need Trump to testify. What are you afraid of?

#39 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 11:26 AM | Reply

Trump is as close to being a traitor as anyone can get without America being at war. If, as his attornies say, they are not prepared for a defense on such short notice, I'd like to know if they've been asleep for the past 65 days.

#40 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-02 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

They (Democrats) know that their candidates can't beat him (Trump)

#39 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 11:26 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

There's absolutely no evidence for that statement. It's another God-Emperor myth (lie), just like the corruption of Joe Biden.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

From someone who still thinks there is a pee tape.

If there isn't a pee tape, it's because there is a poo tape.

If Trump has proven one thing it's that he's consistently worse than you would expect in every possible way.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-02 11:41 AM | Reply

You wouldn't if the people running the show prevented you from bringing in your own witnesses or having your council cross examine witnesses that are testifying against you. That's what happened in Schiff's show so why would anyone think it wouldn't happen under Nadler.

#13 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Trump is blocking witnesses from testifying and then complains witnesses to his crime can't testy.

You and he are both insane if you think that is a viable strategy.

so Humpy is pleading no contest to the charges. He can keep pretending the Constitutional process he demanded is a hoax while he does the perp walk.

Works for me!

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-02 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump giving up an opportunity to blather and defend himself in front of a worldwide audience tells all anyone needs to know. I guess malignant narcissism has limits. I'd like to see Trump testify for 11 hours.

#44 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-02 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nadler is not planning to have any witnesses of fact. So it's just a show hearing for the kangaroos.

#45 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-02 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, I've made a killing on Trump. The problem is he is a disgusting human being. I'm not at all like you, FISH. Money doesn't wash everything clean for me.

#35 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2019-12-02 11:16 AM | FLAG:

It doesn't wash everything clean for me either but it helps alot of people out who didn't have it before and that is important. I get it, you want him gone at all costs, even if that includes tanking the economy and people losing their jobs and their homes. You would be ok if millions went homeless as long as Trump was out.

#46 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 11:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'd like to know if they've been asleep for the past 65 days.

According to Hannity, the Democrats have been planning impeachment since Trump was elected. Trump had 3 years to prepare.

#47 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-02 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And, break it down for you, if you are actually trying to follow a logical process (instead of just the circuses that conservatives prefer), you FIRST solidly define what constitutes the "crime" (or "impeachable")#36 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-02 11:17 AM | FLAG:

Like they did in the first circus? Was it Quid Pro Quo? Was it bribery? Was it extortion? Like with the Mueller investigation the Dems want to start a trial and hope that they find a crime, in this case they know there's no crime so they are just using it to tarnish Trump before the election.

#48 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 12:01 PM | Reply

Millions are homeless. Trump will fix it, right?

#49 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-02 12:01 PM | Reply

Bill Clinton's impeachment started with Whitewater. Ain't it funny how new information makes politics evolve?

#50 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-02 12:04 PM | Reply

According to Hannity, the Democrats have been planning impeachment since Trump was elected. Trump had 3 years to prepare.

#47 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT AT 2019-12-02 11:57 AM | FLAG:

Not just Hannity, Maxine Waters has said it since the election.

#51 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 12:05 PM | Reply

Not just Hannity, Maxine Waters has said it since the election.

#51 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

So? Your point is that your team sucks?

Trump is so obviously corrupt it only took us 3 years to get to this point

I believe that is a record! Too bad you couldn't impeach Obama after trying for 8 years to find his "Waterloo".

Republicans began undermining Obama on the day of his inauguration. Unfortunately they sucked at it.

So what is your point? Democrats are better at impeachment than Republicans?

Well ok! Thanks!

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-02 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Nadler is not planning to have any witnesses of fact. So it's just a show hearing for the kangaroos.

#45 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-02 11:52 AM | Reply

He invited Fat Nixon, so you're right as he is allergic to facts.

However, he has spent three months whining about how he or his lawyers were not allowed to participate in the process and now when offered a chance to participate they run and hide.

Nadler is smart. He offered Fat Nixon a chance to appear to kill his whining that about the process.

#53 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-02 12:16 PM | Reply

The White House is saying that Trump was NOT given enough time by the Democrats to prepare for the hearings this week and therefore he wasn't ready to respond. After all, it's ONLY been 65 days since Nancy Pelosi announced the beginning of the Impeachment inquiry, not nearly enough time for Trump to fabricate a false defense.

OCU

#54 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-12-02 12:31 PM | Reply

"Trump is now whining about the timing of the impeachment hearings scheduled during his meeting with our NATO Allies? Or should I say our former NATO allies, I'm sure no one would miss him at NATO if he didn't show up, and he's already said he isn't participating in the hearings so why is he whining so much about the timing?

#55 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-02 12:36 PM | Reply


You would be ok if millions went homeless as long as Trump was out.

#46 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 11:55 AM | Reply

Trump thinks he's that important; FISH thinks he's that important.

He isn't that important

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-02 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Like they did in the first circus? Was it Quid Pro Quo? Was it bribery? Was it extortion?

#48 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

This seems very similar to the Lindsey Graham defense of "they are too inept to do anything impeachable", but instead it is "you can't impeach him because conservatives are too stupid to understand the offenses".

Hey genius... All bribery is ALSO "quid pro quo". But not all "quid pro quo" is bribery.

That is why they talked about "quid pro quo" first. I know you find it confusing, but try to keep up. To prove bribery, FIRST you establish the quid pro quo (this for that). THEN you establish the rest (the person was an official, exchanging an "official act" for something of personal value, and also a corrupt intent).

So, they FIRST showed that a quid pro quo occurred, then they show the quid pro quo was improper (making it bribery).

You just think it was a circus because you think there is nothing a conservative president could do that is "impeachable", so for you it is a big waste of time (or a "smear"). But, other people think that the Constitution specifically mentions impeachment for a reason, and that it is an important check on the executive branch, so we think it is important to actually follow the correct process (which they have).

#57 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

No matter what Trump does.

Democrats: That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, Vesuvius, salacious, outrageous!

#58 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-02 01:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No matter what Trump does.
Democrats: That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, Vesuvius, salacious, outrageous!
#58 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2019-12-02 01:36 PM | REPLY |

As long as he keeps doing outrageous unethical and illegal things we will call him out on it. Why wont you?

#59 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-02 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Republicans:

"Trump and his kids aren't actually corrupt traitors. They're just really stupid and totally incompetent. Plus, they pwn the libs, so that makes Trump's otherwise disgusting, objectionable, and embarrassing behavior OK."

#60 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-02 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Drumpf supporters believe he was sent to us by God. Just another step along the way to completely abandoning the rule of law and American ideals. #MAGA

#61 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-12-02 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Just another step along the way to completely abandoning the rule of law and American ideals."

As Republicans continue to lose in the public sphere of democracy, don't look for them to eschew their failed ideas; look for them to eschew democracy.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No matter what Trump does.
Democrats: That's totally inappropriate. It's lewd, Vesuvius, salacious, outrageous!
#58 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

No matter what Drumpf does.
Republicans: That's totally appropriate. It's divine, righteous, perfect, wonderful!

#63 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-12-02 02:07 PM | Reply

So? Your point is that your team sucks?
Trump is so obviously corrupt it only took us 3 years to get to this point
I believe that is a record! Too bad you couldn't impeach Obama after trying for 8 years to find his "Waterloo".
Republicans began undermining Obama on the day of his inauguration. Unfortunately they sucked at it.
So what is your point? Democrats are better at impeachment than Republicans?
Well ok! Thanks!
#52 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2019-12-02 12:13 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

Point is they started impeachment before he took the oath of office, why? Because your team sucked, had the election locked up but because you totally sucked you lost. That's right your team is so full of total losers that Trump beat you. LOL And the funny and actually sad part about it is because since you continue to suck you will lose again. It can't get any worse for you can it?

#64 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 02:17 PM | Reply

That's right your team is so full of total losers that Trump beat you. LOL And the funny and actually sad part about it is because since you continue to suck you will lose again. It can't get any worse for you can it?

#64 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

We don't feel so bad now for losing that election to Russia. But now that we have shown a light on all of Humpy's shenanigans and corruption it will be much more difficult to collude with his best buddy, Putin.

Oh and it can get worse. Much worse. Just ask Moscow Mitch!

Or all the indicted characters from Humpy's inner circle.

Or it can get better. And we can show that in America no one is above the law.

But... That my friend, is up to America.

#65 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-02 02:30 PM | Reply

Your problem Zed is two fold, 1. He beat Hillary and you just can't get over it and 2. Oviously the good economy doesn't affect you (no job, living with your parents,etc.)
#31 | Posted by fishpaw

...and there is the talking point, the ONLY Trump talking point for re-election: "He made the DJIA go up, so NOTHING ELSE MATTERS."
You and all other Trumpers are culturally, morally, intellectually, spiritually, and ethically bankrupt, regardless of the stock market.

You've got to ignore nepotism, criminal activity, obstruction of justice, incompetence, incivility, horrible foreign policy failures, lying about his physical condition, the worst cabinet in US history, and mental/cognitive decline in order to hang your hat on the Dow Jones.
...
What a piss-poor trade-off. If you were getting married and tallied those "cons" in pne column and the one supposed "pro" in another, would you end up marrying?
"Gee, she's a criminal with a shady past, cheats on her partners multiple times, shady business dealings past and present, bad physical and mental condition, can't act professional in public or private, but SHE'S GOT A GREAT PORTFOLIO-SO SHE SAYS..."

#66 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-12-02 02:31 PM | Reply

It's funny how every Partisan Dolt on both sides of the DR divide completely ignored Lamp's first post.

The first hearings are just going to be a hand picked group of "experts" that the Majority is going to put on to explain how the Ukraine call is impeachable. The Minority requested the opportunity to name a few experts as a counterpoint and Nadler refused that request. As a result, Trump's lawyers would be reduced to taking notes as partisan talking heads expounded on why he should be impeached.

If Trump's lawyers don't show up for fact witness hearings, then that would be a big deal.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-02 02:45 PM | Reply

The Minority requested the opportunity to name a few experts as a counterpoint and Nadler refused that request.

Which "experts" did they request? What was Nadler's justification for refusing them? Link?

As a result, Trump's lawyers would be reduced to taking notes as partisan talking heads expounded on why he should be impeached.

#67 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Trump's lawyers would not get an opportunity to ask questions? Link? I thought the resolution the House passed on the impeachment inquiry said that the President's counsel would be able to ask questions of Judiciary Committee witnesses?

www.lawfareblog.com

"The president's counsel can question witnesses in Judiciary Committee proceedings subject to instructions from the chair "respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination." The president's counsel can respond, orally or in writing as determined by the chair, to additional evidence presented beyond the initial presentation. The president's counsel can propose additional testimony or evidence, and "the Committee" shall determine whether the evidence is "necessary or desirable to a full and fair record in the inquiry.""

#68 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 03:05 PM | Reply

#68

Nadler hasn't named the "experts" yet, he merely stated in his November 26, 2019 letter to the White House that "a slate of constitutional scholars" "will discuss the historical and constitutional basis for impeachment".

As for the rest of it, do your own research, a quick look at NPR came up with this:

"House investigators have scheduled the first Judiciary Committee hearing for Wednesday, when an as yet undisclosed slate of constitutional scholars will discuss what makes for an impeachment offense.

. . .

In a letter to Rep. Nadler, White House Counsel complained that he hadn't even provided the witness names to the Judiciary Committee yet, and "while press reports had indicated that the Minority could "suggest" one expert for consideration, that offer wasn't in his November 26, 2019 letter."

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-02 03:37 PM | Reply

He won't testify because he'll have to do so under oath. Why would a liar testify under oath. He'll call foxnews and talk for hours, but he won't be under oath, he can lie all he wants. THE MAN WON'T TESTIFY BECAUSE HE'S GUILTY AND HE'LL GET CAUGHT LYING.

#70 | Posted by rom12v19 at 2019-12-02 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hey genius... All bribery is ALSO "quid pro quo". But not all "quid pro quo" is bribery.
That is why they talked about "quid pro quo" first. I know you find it confusing, but try to keep up. To prove bribery, FIRST you establish the quid pro quo (this for that). THEN you establish the rest (the person was an official, exchanging an "official act" for something of personal value, and also a corrupt intent).
So, they FIRST showed that a quid pro quo occurred, then they show the quid pro quo was improper (making it bribery).
You just think it was a circus because you think there is nothing a conservative president could do that is "impeachable", so for you it is a big waste of time (or a "smear"). But, other people think that the Constitution specifically mentions impeachment for a reason, and that it is an important check on the executive branch, so we think it is important to actually follow the correct process (which they have).

#57 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-02 01:11 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

You could have just saved some time and said "It's what Biden did."

#71 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 03:49 PM | Reply

..and there is the talking point, the ONLY Trump talking point for re-election: "He made the DJIA go up, so NOTHING ELSE MATTERS."
You and all other Trumpers are , regardless of the stock market.
You've got to ignore nepotism, criminal activity, obstruction of justice, incompetence, incivility, horrible foreign policy failures, lying about his physical condition, the worst cabinet in US history, and mental/cognitive decline in order to hang your hat on the Dow Jones.
...
What a piss-poor trade-off. If you were getting married and tallied those "cons" in pne column and the one supposed "pro" in another, would you end up marrying?
"Gee, she's a criminal with a shady past, cheats on her partners multiple times, shady business dealings past and present, bad physical and mental condition, can't act professional in public or private, but SHE'S GOT A GREAT PORTFOLIO-SO SHE SAYS..."

#66 | POSTED BY E1G1 AT 2019-12-02 02:31 PM | FLAG:

I said the economy stupid. The stock market is not the only thing in the economy. Unemployment, consumer confidence, consumer spending. Go ahead, say the economy sucks but tell me why it sucks. We are getting out of wars, good thing, working closer to free trade. Immigration must be being fixed because the left isn't talking about it 24/7. So what has Trump done that has hurt this country other than beating Hillary. You said he and his supporters were culturally, morally, intellectually, spiritually, and ethically bankrupt. You said he was a criminal, sex offender, fat, dumb. So put that all aside, how is the country doing? I know that people like you are miserable but nothing can help that, you were born that way, what has Trump done policy wise to hurt you?

#72 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 03:57 PM | Reply

Trump will never testify because he's incapable of telling the truth. During Congressional testimony, Robert Mueller described Trump's sworn answers to written interrogatories as generally untruthful, inadequate, and incomplete. Trump can't even pass an open book quiz when it comes to honesty. Trump's team of lawyers couldn't keep him from lying.

When Clinton lied under oath, Republicans correctly called it perjury. When Trump does it, they shrug their shoulders. Hypocrites, all.

#73 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-02 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I thought the resolution the House passed on the impeachment inquiry said that the President's counsel would be able to ask questions of Judiciary Committee witnesses?
www.lawfareblog.com
"The president's counsel can question witnesses in Judiciary Committee proceedings I thought the resolution the House passed on the impeachment inquiry said that the President's counsel would be able to ask questions of Judiciary Committee witnesses?
www.lawfareblog.com
"The president's counsel can question witnesses in Judiciary Committee proceedings subject to instructions from the chair "respecting the time, scope and duration of the examination." The president's counsel can respond, orally or in writing as determined by the chair, to additional evidence presented beyond the initial presentation. The president's counsel can propose additional testimony or evidence, and "the Committee" shall determine whether the evidence is "necessary or desirable to a full and fair record in the inquiry.""

#68 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-02 03:05 PM | FLAG:

"Subject to instructions from the chair:"
"as determined by the chair"
"And the committee shall determine whether the evidence is necessary or desirable"

Did you watch Schiff?

#74 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-02 04:04 PM | Reply

"So what has Trump done that has hurt this country other than beating Hillary."

Used our tax dollars to shake down the new President of Ukraine duding a hot war, until Zelensky made a misleading statement against Trump's presumptive chief political rival.

You know...stuff you'd be apoplectic about had President Blackenstein done it.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"as determined by the chair"

Oh, FFS, Republicans would call an ectopic embryo if they thought it'd deflect from Trump's actions.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 04:13 PM | Reply

No need for him to testify IMO as it is up to the dems to find an impeachable crime, which so far they have not.

#77 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-02 04:23 PM | Reply

"No need for him to testify IMO as it is up to the dems to find an impeachable crime"

So would it be okay if President Liz Warren withheld congressionally-approved arms sales to Saudi Arabia until they turn over dirt on Jared's business deals?

A simple yes or no will do.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Stop trying to redefine the impeachment rules.

You appear entitled.

#79 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-12-02 04:33 PM | Reply

The economy? Why are we borrowing trillions? If the economy is booming, we wouldn't be digging a crater worth trillions.

#80 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-02 04:44 PM | Reply

Yes, when will the hearings start that will be looking into Jared's Saudi deals and Ivanka's China deals? Then there's Eric and Jr's various deals that has benefited the Trump Organization since their father took office. If Republicans insists on going down this Hunter Biden rabbit hole, they need to be prepared for a bunch of other investigations looking at how the children of elected officials have cashed-in.

OCU

#81 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-12-02 04:49 PM | Reply

No need for him to testify IMO as it is up to the dems to find an impeachable crime, which so far they have not.

#77 | POSTED BY MSGT

Lol.

There is nothing that conservatives would consider "impeachable" (for a conservative president), so you are setting the bar impossibly high.

Why do you think impeachment is in the constitution if there is nothing (in your mind) that the President could do that would be "impeachable"? Maybe we should just amend the constitution and take out any references to impeachment. Just so everyone is on the same page.

#82 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 05:04 PM | Reply

#69 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

So... you are saying Nadler HASN'T refused the minority's request to "name a few experts" and White House counsel (if they had decided to show up) WOULD have been able to ask questions?

And you seem to grant that the minority has been given an opportunity to "suggest" a witness. Which expert have they "suggested"? Their expert can't provide a "counterpoint" if they don't suggest one.

I predict that they WON'T suggest one. Why would they? The conservative point of view is that what Trump has done is not "impeachable", mainly because they don't think ANYTHING a conservative president could do is impeachable. If they bring in "their" witness, then Democrats are going to get him (or her) to say what IS impeachable, and thereby draw a line in the sand (which Trump will inevitably cross, as he has for every line in the sand any conservative has ever had the balls to draw). Or they have a witness which actually believes what conservatives believe (that nothing is impeachable) and their testimony looks ridiculous. Lose, lose.

#83 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 05:17 PM | Reply

Did you watch Schiff?

#74 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Did you? The minority counsel had 45 minutes to ask whatever questions they wanted of EVERY witness.

The only time that Schiff stopped them was when they tried to ask about who the witnesses talked to about the call in an effort to out the whistleblower.

#84 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

He won't testify because he'll have to do so under oath. Why would a liar testify under oath. He'll call foxnews and talk for hours, but he won't be under oath, he can lie all he wants. THE MAN WON'T TESTIFY BECAUSE HE'S GUILTY AND HE'LL GET CAUGHT LYING.

Won't you love to see Trump testify before a Congressional committee for 9 hours the way Hillary did?

#85 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-02 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#85 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

It is all I want for Christmas!

#86 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-12-02 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"So what has Trump done that has hurt this country other than beating Hillary."

Sold out our fearless allies the Kurds.
Bankrupted small farmers.
Scuttled the TPP trade deal and replaced it with tariffs paid by Americans.
Made America less appealing to foreign tourism, students, and business in general.

And I'm sure there's many more chickens that will come home to roost soon enough.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-02 06:21 PM | Reply

There is nothing that conservatives would consider "impeachable" (for a conservative president), so you are setting the bar impossibly high.

Why do you think impeachment is in the constitution if there is nothing (in your mind) that the President could do that would be "impeachable"? Maybe we should just amend the constitution and take out any references to impeachment. Just so everyone is on the same page.

#82 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-12-02 05:04 PM | REPLY: Sure there are crimes impeachable for any president - the left just has not managed to come up with anything yet, but no worries as they will keep trying because they are desperate to stop him from being reelected. : )

#88 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-02 06:53 PM | Reply

"Sure there are crimes impeachable for any president - the left just has not managed to come up with anything yet"

Why did you avoid addressing the question in post #78?

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-02 07:03 PM | Reply

"Bankrupted small farmers."

Trump Pledged to Help Small Farms. Aid Is Going to Big Ones

The farm rescue is now more than twice as expensive as the 2009 auto industry bailout, which ultimately cost taxpayers $12 billion. Almost 40% of projected U.S. farm profits this year will come from trade aid, disaster assistance, federal subsidies and insurance payments, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

www.bloomberg.com

#90 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-12-02 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sure there are crimes impeachable for any president

#88 | POSTED BY MSGT

Like what?

Remember when Lindsey Graham said if there was a quid pro quo, that would be "very disturbing"? Then it was SHOWN there was a quid pro quo, so he had to walk those goalposts on back. Everytime conservatives draw a "red line", Trump dashes across it. So they just don't draw lines anymore. Guess their backs are sore from moving the goalposts so often.

And I notice that YOU still didn't actually say WHAT would be impeachable. Just that there was some theoretical, non-specific crime that would be. Let me give you a hint... there isn't one. It's just a mirage. Because if you say one, and then Trump does it, suddenly it will magically lose all it's impeachment mojo. And it will be "inappropriate" or "distasteful" but "not impeachable".

Though, I have to give you credit. I have been making that same statement (conservatives think nothing is impeachable for a conservative president) for weeks now, and you are the first one to bite. Don't know what TYPE of credit to give you. Will figure that out if you actually respond. :)

#91 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-02 09:22 PM | Reply

All about DNC skewing 2020 results

#92 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-12-02 09:55 PM | Reply

#83

So... you are saying Nadler HASN'T refused the minority's request to "name a few experts" and White House counsel (if they had decided to show up) WOULD have been able to ask questions?

And you seem to grant that the minority has been given an opportunity to "suggest" a witness. Which expert have they "suggested"? Their expert can't provide a "counterpoint" if they don't suggest one.

No, I cut and pasted from NPR, which said that media reports said that the GOP could suggest an expert, and their quoting of Cipollone's letter which complained that Nadler never gave them that option.

Here are the experts that Nadler has selected for Wednesday:

Titled "The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," Wednesday's hearing will feature testimony from four law professors selected by the Judiciary Committee: Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School and director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law; Pamela Karlan, a professor of public interest law at Stanford Law School; Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law; and Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School.

Unlike the House Intelligence Committee hearings last month, the witnesses won't offer firsthand accounts of what they knew about Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine. Instead, the constitutional scholars are expected to offer legal analysis.
House Judiciary announces impeachment witnesses

There may be a "be careful of what you wish for" moment here, because Prof. Turley has been highly critical of the Majority's process thus far.

#93 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-02 10:46 PM | Reply

The problem is that Trump won't let his witnesses testify, he is making them ignore the subpoenas. Something about lying under oath is a crime...

#94 | Posted by mikebank at 2019-12-03 12:57 AM | Reply

#93 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You asserted in #67 that "The Minority requested the opportunity to name a few experts as a counterpoint and Nadler refused that request. As a result, Trump's lawyers would be reduced to taking notes as partisan talking heads expounded on why he should be impeached."

i.e. that Nadler refused the "minority" request for experts and that Trump's lawyers would not be able to ask questions.

I asked that you support your claim (with links) and you "cut and pasted from NPR". But apparently what you "cut and pasted" did not in any way support your previous assertions. So, what "fake news" source did you regurgitate your original assertions from?

Also, originally the Judiciary Committee announced that they would have three witnesses. Now they have said they will have FOUR and, by your claims, one of them seems to be very critical of Democrats. Do you think that it would be a big jump to theorize that the fourth (Prof. Turley) is an "expert" named by the "minority"?

And then you had the gall to say "be careful what you wish for" when what it looks like is that majority is doing EXACTLY what you were complaining they WEREN'T doing.

This is just like when you claimed that Dems HAD TO hold a full house vote on the impeachment inquiry (and that they should have done it MUCH EARLIER), but when they finally did it on their schedule when they deemed it the appropriate time, it turned out that it provided NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT (surprise, surprise Trump is still obstructing... no one could have predicted that would happen, except for EVERYONE who is not a Trump sycophants).

Look at what happened here. You claimed what they were doing (or not allowing) was making the process unfair and criticized them for it, but when it turned out that you were wrong (and that they ARE giving the minority a voice) you basically say "ha, ha... they are idiots for allowing a dissenting voice". You are showing you are as partisan as they come, because NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO you are going to say they are doing it wrong. Just like all the other conservatives out there that think there is nothing that a conservative president could do that would be impeachable, there is no process that liberals could follow that you think would be "correct" or "fair". You claim that you think Trump should be impeached, but it is pretty clear that the only "process" you would support would be one that would be guaranteed to get him off scot free.

#95 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-03 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"All about DNC skewing 2020 results"

You can repeat that talking point all you want but no Democrat forced Trump to withhold much needed aid to Ukraine unless they would investigate the Bidens, which was clearly an impeachable offense.

#96 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-03 11:12 AM | Reply

You know, the point of a trial or hearing is to protect the innocent as well as convict the guilty. If Trump is innocent, now's his time to prove it.

#97 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-12-03 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#95

Looks like SOMEONE is a little BITTER and HIGHLY PARTISAN in their OWN right, let's recap, shall WE:

I said that the Dems were appointing experts, and not only hadn't named them but weren't allowing the GOP to counter...that is exactly what the NPR article and Cipollone's letter said. Now, was there some behind the scenes sausage making in the past few days to add an expert that the GOP found acceptable? Could be, but Prof. Jonathan Turley, a registered Democrat, is a favorite of Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler and was named by him to testify...wait for it...as an expert during the Mueller hearings, so while he has been critical of the Dems during this process (echoing many of my criticisms) he is not what I would ever consider to be a GOP pick.

I did say that the Dems had to hold a full vote and once again, while it was delayed by the initial closed hearing process, they ultimately did have to have the full hearing to "ratify" the Impeachment Inquiry. Why? In part because of polling but also because that is ultimately what tipped the scales for the Court in the McGahn ruling, and if the Dems had the luxury of time, they could have done the same with Pompeo, Perry, Ellis, McCormick, etc. and gone to Court to force them to testify. Had they started this process in April-May, like both Rsty and I were demanding, they wouldn't have this timing issue, but since they waited to long for the formal vote they have no one to blame but themselves.

I still believe that Trump's obstruction of the Mueller investigation is clearly impeachable and that the Ukraine call was improper, but ultimately the rest of this is sound and fury, signifying nothing. If the Dems had acted on Mueller's report immediately, then the Ukraine call would have been icing on the cake, but the way that the Dems have handled this, they are merely dumping icing on the platter and leaving the cake unmade (as of yet). There is noise on the Hill that they might add the Mueller obstruction charges to their Articles of Impeachment, but that appears to be an afterthought when it should have been the other way around.

Sorry that I am a stickler for that little thing called precedent, but rules and rulings exist for precisely that reason.

#98 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 11:55 AM | Reply

"Sorry that I am a stickler for that little thing called precedent"

So if Republicans can call Schiff because he's the author of a report, can Democrats call Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan?

#99 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:07 PM | Reply

#97

That is exactly correct, but people like GtBrit and the rest of the hyperpartisans don't see it that way, Trump is already guilty as charged.

They don't seem to think that Due Process is a thing.

#100 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:07 PM | Reply

"can Democrats call Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan?"

And how about Jared, Ivanka, and Junior...can Dems call them?

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:07 PM | Reply

#99

Sure, since the GOP has issued a counter report the Dems should have the same opportunity to examine the authors of that report on how they reached their conclusions.

#102 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:09 PM | Reply

#101

Now you are getting into the same relevance areas that you have been claiming over Hunter Biden. If Jared, Ivanka and Junior had anything remotely to do with Ukraine, then yes, they should be allowed to be called to see if their testimony is probative. I think Jared is the most likely to have some relevant knowledge, but the other two, not so much.

#103 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:12 PM | Reply

"since the GOP has issued a counter report the Dems should have the same opportunity to examine the authors of that report on how they reached their conclusions."

Lordy, let's get Devin and Gym under oath.

"Now you are getting into the same relevance areas that you have been claiming over Hunter Biden."

No, I'm getting into the same relevance areas that Republicans and Trump have been claiming regarding Hunter Biden. I mean, everybody knows Jared is stone cold corrupt. I know it, and you know it.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:25 PM | Reply

"If Jared, Ivanka and Junior had anything remotely to do with Ukraine, then yes, they should be allowed to be called"

Well, how will we know until and unless we make them testify under oath?

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:26 PM | Reply

#104

No, I'm getting into the same relevance areas that Republicans and Trump have been claiming regarding Hunter Biden.

Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.

everybody knows Jared is stone cold corrupt. I know it, and you know it.

Cool story bro, now do the Clintons.

#106 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:27 PM | Reply

#105

Well, how will we know if Hunter and Joe had anything to do with Ukraine until and unless we make them testify under oath?

#107 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:28 PM | Reply

As an aside, Donkey Suit Dan, I am pretty sure you don't want to make that trade for witness testimony on Ukraine.

#108 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:29 PM | Reply

"Cool story bro"

You realize I was channelling Trump, right? And just changed one name, right?

"now do the Clintons"

Now pretend Republicans wouldn't call HRC if they thought it would deflect.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:30 PM | Reply

"As an aside, Donkey Suit Dan, I am pretty sure you don't want to make that trade for witness testimony on Ukraine."

Bring it on, Retard-O-Center.

Devin will be particularly interesting to watch commit perjury.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:32 PM | Reply

#110

Agreed, but the same could be said for Schiff, since his suit is equally as empty as Nunes.

The trade I was referencing, however, is the Bidens for the Trump kids.

#111 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:37 PM | Reply

#109

No pretense necessary, but once again there is that whole "relevance" thingy that you dolts have been screaming about every time the Bidens are brought up. The only relevance with HRC would be for her duties as SecState before she resigned and Lurch was brought in to replace her, and even that is too attenuated for it to even be considered by the dimmest of the GOP defenders.

#112 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:39 PM | Reply

You realize I was channelling Trump, right? And just changed one name, right?

Which is why is said "now do the Clintons"...I thought that was rather obvious.

#113 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:41 PM | Reply

"The trade I was referencing, however, is the Bidens for the Trump kids."

Fair trade. Let's see what they know about Russian money laundering, or the Khashoggi dismemberment.

In the meantime, Dem candidates should tell Iran, if they're listening, to hack into Saudi Arabia and get dirt on Jared's business deals. And be sure to mention they'll be greatly rewarded. I mean...that's okay now, right?

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:41 PM | Reply

"but once again there is that whole "relevance" thingy "

Bwahahahahaha!

When did Republicans ever care about "relevance". Did you miss their lines of questioning in the Intelligence hearings?

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:42 PM | Reply

"Which is why is said "now do the Clintons""

Well, everyone knows HRC is stone cold crooked.

Except of course, every single Republican and Republican lawyer, who after decades, and hundreds of thousands of hours investigating, still haven't come up with a single chargeable crime.

Now do the Trumps.

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 12:44 PM | Reply

Looks like SOMEONE is a little BITTER and HIGHLY PARTISAN in their OWN right, let's recap, shall WE:

#98 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

OOPS... looks LIKE i STRUCK a NERVE. Oh WELL...

I said that the Dems were appointing experts...

No... I quoted what you said. And it was that Nadler had denied Repub "suggestions" for witnesses, and that White House counsel would not be taking an active role (not able to ask questions). You have given ZERO evidence to support your claims, and now looks like you are just trying to deflect and change the subject. Typical conservative playbook.

You can sit in your little fantasy world and pretend that Republicans would have voted to impeach and remove Trump over the Mueller investigation if you want (for "obstruction of justice"?), but anyone with two braincells to rub together know that is ridiculous. We can't even get conservatives to condemn blatant bribery. Yet you think ethereal charges of obstruction of justice would have played better?

Impeachment is a political process. It needs to either succeed and get him removed, or to serve as a forum to surface his crimes and misdeeds enough that he won't get re-elected. Otherwise it is a waste of time. And will potentially blow back on you. But, you know this. That is why you advocate for Dems going after Trump over the stuff in the Mueller report. Because you know that it would have been a waste of time and would have ultimately helped Trump, which has been your ultimate goal from the beginning.

#117 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-03 12:54 PM | Reply

Let's see what they know about Russian money laundering, or the Khashoggi dismemberment.

Not even the Dems in the Judiciary Committee are dumb enough to go that far afield in their questioning during the upcoming Impeachment hearings.

#118 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 12:57 PM | Reply

"Not even the Dems in the Judiciary Committee are dumb enough to go that far afield in their questioning during the upcoming Impeachment hearings."

The Rs brought up topic after topic with NOTHING to do with Trump's Ukraine call. Goose/Gander, right?

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 01:00 PM | Reply

#117

Don't break your ankles back pedaling, here is what I said:

"The first hearings are just going to be a hand picked group of "experts" that the Majority is going to put on to explain how the Ukraine call is impeachable."

Which is exactly what happened yesterday, see the link in #93.

"The Minority requested the opportunity to name a few experts as a counterpoint and Nadler refused that request."

Cipollone's letter said that the Minority wasn't being allowed to submit their own experts, and unless I missed an announcement from Nadler that several of the experts in #93 were selected by the GOP (and looking at their bios I seriously doubt it), it's pretty clear that the GOP had no input.

"As a result, Trump's lawyers would be reduced to taking notes as partisan talking heads expounded on why he should be impeached."

Which is exactly what is going to happen tomorrow and was also described in Cipollone's letter.

Any other questions?

#120 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 01:06 PM | Reply

#119

To be honest, I was in trial the last two weeks so only watched highlights on CNN. Did the GOP ask about Saudi Arabia or Russia? If they did, then as they say, the door has been opened. Otherwise, all I saw in CNN coverage that were not about the quid pro quo allegations were complaints by the GOP about the process, Schiff and questions about Bursima and the Bidens, all of which are arguably relevant if not on point to the focus of the Inquiry, which is the call.

#121 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 01:12 PM | Reply

Point is they started impeachment before he took the oath of office, why? Because your team sucked, had the election locked up but because you totally sucked you lost. That's right your team is so full of total losers that Trump beat you. LOL And the funny and actually sad part about it is because since you continue to suck you will lose again. It can't get any worse for you can it?

#64 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2019-12-02 02:17 PM | REPLY |

Point is they started impeachment before he took the oath of office, why? Because Trump was an unethical amoral criminal before he took office but you voted for him anyway. You want to win so bad you are willing to burn down your whole country to do it.

#122 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-03 01:30 PM | Reply

expert witness
nounLAW
a person who is permitted to testify at a trial because of special knowledge or proficiency in a particular field that is relevant to the case.

None of the people the republicans suggested had any relevant knowledge unless you start from a presumption that all the debunked conspiracy theories the Republicans have been trying to deflect with are true.

#123 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-12-03 02:19 PM | Reply

That is exactly correct, but people like GtBrit and the rest of the hyperpartisans don't see it that way, Trump is already guilty as charged.
They don't seem to think that Due Process is a thing.
#100 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

As far as I can tell, no one here has any relevance to this case. The only relevant parties I see fighting due process are Trump and his klan.

#124 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-12-03 02:24 PM | Reply

Point is they started impeachment before he took the oath of office, why?

Impeachment started about 65 days ago. Before that, our Republican president appointed a Republican AG and a Republican FBI Director, a Republican NSA, etc. and worked together with a Republican Congress to install not one, but two partisan Republican SCOTUSs.

During the ~2 years of 100% Republican control of all 3 branches of our government, a Republican-led, Republican-appointed team of investigators did some work. Throughout the whole process, the POTUS* lied, obstructed the investigation and committed crimes. During the ~2 years of 100% Republican control of all 3 branches of government, not a single word about Hunter Biden or Joe Biden was uttered in conjunction with Ukraine.

Don't blame Democrats for your Republican Party failures, they didn't even start impeachment proceedings until your orange overlord decided to bribe our ally against Russia by holding up military aid in exchange for pretending his country was investigating a political rival. If you're too stupid to see it, don't blame us for that, either.

There isn't any cure for stupid. We can explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

#125 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-12-03 07:57 PM | Reply

" all of which are arguably relevant"

The same way calling Jared to testify about Khashoggi's dismemberment is "arguably relevant".

#126 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 08:22 PM | Reply

#126

I didn't realize he was dismembered in the Ukraine.

#127 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-03 08:50 PM | Reply

"I didn't realize he was dismembered in the Ukraine.'

Nor did you realize the "Ukraine" bullschitt has been repeatedly debunked. But nice attempt at deflection, anyway.

But while I have your attention, what's your reaction to Devin Nunes pretending to be "investigating" the Ukraine matter, when he was up to his neck in the plot?

#128 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-03 08:54 PM | Reply

"Point is they started impeachment before he took the oath of office, why?"

Simply a lie.

#129 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-04 09:04 AM | Reply

"As a result, Trump's lawyers would be reduced to taking notes as partisan talking heads expounded on why he should be impeached."
Which is exactly what is going to happen tomorrow and was also described in Cipollone's letter.

#120 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yes... that is what is going to happen. Because that is what the Trump administration is CHOOSING to happen. If they had CHOSEN to participate then they would NOT be "reduced to taking notes". It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was never arguing that counsel would be able to ask questions even if they DECLINE to participate. That would be idiotic. Why would you ever even think I was arguing that?

What we were ACTUALLY arguing about is whether counsel would be able to ask questions (and not "reduced to taking notes") IF THEY PARTICIPATED. Which I presented evidence to contradict (the house resolution SPECIFICALLY SAYS that counsel will be able to ask questions of witnesses) and you have presented NO EVIDENCE to support.

Maybe the people you deal with "in court" are stupid enough to fall for your little argument twisting tricks, but that sophomoric BS doesn't work with me. Either present some evidence to support your claim or admit that you are full of crap (probably falling for Fox News "fake news").

#130 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 09:08 AM | Reply

Oh... and look... Turley IS the GOP witness.

"George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, the only witness at Wednesday's impeachment hearing to be invited by Republicans..."

thehill.com

So, after all this rigmarole, BOTH of your original assertions are STILL shown to be false (or at least have no evidence to back them up).

Any other questions?

#131 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-04 11:24 AM | Reply

What we have here is an Impeachment in search of a crime ; )

#132 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-04 06:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort