Outlaw Pete wrote: » https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1181627963932135424
Overheal wrote: » Looks like the "crystal clear" "I think we should stop the back and forth by text" text authored by Sondland (who got his role by buying it for $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund) was vetted by Trump firsthttps://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1181569881533292544?s=20
hetuzozaho wrote: » What's the stock "/r/the_donald" response to this does anyone know? Interesting in hearing the other side.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Did Schiff ever get those compromising naked photos of the president that he asked the Ukrainians to send him?
bad2dabone wrote: » I'm sure you'll hear one of the usual suspects trot it out soon enough.
mad muffin wrote: » <snip>.
notobtuse wrote: » That is correct. Your point is? I said they were being held in secret which makes it that the public doesn't know what is going on. Democrats have decided to release only limited snippets of testimony, out of context, to advance their agenda. Republicans are requesting the full transcripts be released. What would you rather see… limited or full? The whole 'inquiry' has been a sham of justice up to this point.
Matt Barrett wrote: » My point is you said the Democrats were meeting behind closed doors and not telling anyone what's going on. If you meant the Democrats and Republicans are holding meetings and not letting the public know what's going on, fair enough. I don't see a problem. It's an inquiry. What part is a sham? Interviewing those involved?
notobtuse wrote: » How dare you confuse things with facts? Schiff and Pelosi won't vote to impeach anytime soon. They want to drag the nonsense out as long as they can, with help from their media handmaidens, so Trump's polling numbers keep falling and he loses the election. They can't win by hook so they have to resort to crook.
notobtuse wrote: » I said they were meeting in secret, not behind closed doors. Yes, Republicans are there, but it seems all they're allowed to do is serve as onlookers. Correct me if I'm wrong. "Fairness... we don't need no stinkin' fairness' -- Shiff For Brains
Matt Barrett wrote: » Consider yourself corrected. You tried to pull your blarney and got called out on it. Now Republicans are allowed attend but not engage? Yeah I'm sure that's true as well. They do seem to be taking the whole impeachment thing lightly
mad muffin wrote: » Shhh… we don’t need facts. We have whistleblowers. By the way. Thank you Mr. Whistleblower. At least he has been useful in one regard. We have his memo now.“The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky… The official described the (July 25th) call as ‘crazy’, ‘frightening’, and ‘completely lacking in substance related to national security’” Notes on the transcript of the call… It’s standard practise for“…the White House situation room to produce a word-for-word transcript that memorializes the call.” Ooooh what’s that last bit?
notobtuse wrote: » Called out on what? I never said Republicans weren't allowed to attend. Don't read anything more into what I say than what I say... Thank you very much. Quit pretending to be Shifty Shiff and making sh!t up.
Two interviews where held in secret and more interviews are coming up which will also be held in secret. Having the proceedings kept secret from the American public is Orwellian, and an abuse of power. Why don’t the Democrats want us to know what’s going on?
notobtuse wrote: » But if you put the 12th word of the 6th paragraph together with 20th word of the 8th paragraph and the 2nd word of he 12th paragraph it spells out 'mid go slow'… that’s Trump’s codespeak for 'quid pro quo.' A guy I know who dated a girl whose brother heard if from a group of guys at Doyle's Bar in Boston (which is closing) said it was so.. IMPEACH!
Matt Barrett wrote: » Why not, "Why don’t the Republicans want us to know what’s going on?"?
mad muffin wrote: » YES! Yes of course. I forgot about Trumps Navaho code speak. or was that Mafia code speak? I forget.
notobtuse wrote: » I have no clue what you're trying to say. Stop digging. The Republicans want to be able to question anyone who Shiff brings in and they want the full transcripts made available for the public to see. Now, repeat after me for clarity... The Republicans want to be able to question anyone who Shiff brings in and they want the full transcripts made available for the pu........
Matt Barrett wrote: » Well you should have said that. Not your spin dried crap about Democrat only secret meetings etc.
Matt Barrett wrote: » I'd say protecting the anonymity of the whistle blowers might play a role.
mad muffin wrote: » Ukraine’s President Again Confirms He Wasn’t Pressured by Trump
"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said. "The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said. "What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.
drunkmonkey wrote: » So Schiff says the anonymous whistleblower is receiving death threats.
“The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office… Except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another… Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
“The Committees have ominously threatened -without any legal basis and before the committee even issued a subpoena - that… Any failure to appear in response to a mere letter request for deposition shall constitute evidence of obstruction. The suggestion that it would be somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long established Executive Branch confidently interests and privileges… In response to a request for deposition is legally unfounded… The points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals of the Executive Branch.”
mad muffin wrote: » The letter the White House sent to a Pelosi and Co. is brilliant.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » "Gibberish" seems to be a common opinion among the law talking guys on Twitter.
