Is this one different?

Important safety tip: Whenever anyone yells "fake news" without any other explanation this person has no idea what is being debated or has no way to refute anything you have said... or they're just straight up trolling.

Someone should write a Trump dictionary of bullshit to help the masses.

The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

And to think, there was a point where we thought that what the whistleblower had to say would be of great consequence. Now it's like, whistleblower who? He's a tremendous legend for having the courage to get the ball rolling on this, but almost every day there is more damning testimony from people with more direct knowledge than the WB could have ever produced. Probably good for the WB on a personal level that he may be able to stay anonymous through all of this.

I kind of feel like Bill Taylor may have been the one that told the WB about the phone call. That or someone that hasn't been called to testify yet.

So, according to Taylor, on a different call with Zelenskyy on June 28 (a month before the "perfect call"), Sondland was saying that he didn't want the usual interagency people on the call, and also wanted to make sure that no one would be transcribing the call.

That's as damning as anything, because it shows that they were conscious of the fact that they were doing shady shit. It wasn't just "the way Trump talks" or anything like some have tried to suggest. It's a cover up planned in advance.

Man I use to think Trump was the shittiest human being alive, but Jesus he knows some slimy people. I mean some real anti America goons.

kingstonlake wrote:Man I use to think Trump was the shittiest human being alive, but Jesus he knows some slimy people. I mean some real anti America goons.

And he still has 95% support from the Republican voting base.

America is a stupid country.

InTenSity wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Man I use to think Trump was the shittiest human being alive, but Jesus he knows some slimy people. I mean some real anti America goons.

And he still has 95% support from the Republican voting base.

These people are convinced all media outlets are fake news. The only truth is what Trump says and Tweets. The only platform they really care about at this point is pissing off the Libs.

Anonymous senior Trump official behind 'resistance' op-ed has written a book -- and will stay anonymous
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/anonymous-senior-trump-official-behind-resistance-op-ed-193300055.html

"I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations," the person wrote.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:America is a stupid country.

Those who don’t vote being the leaders of the stupidity.

kingstonlake wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:America is a stupid country.

Those who don’t vote being the leaders of the stupidity.

indeed.

Like it or not, at least the christian knuckledraggers took time off from being propped up in front of the TV to vote.

There's apparently some very funny (sic) shit going down surrounding the impeachment hearings this morning. Rs trying to claim the hearings should be public (they argued against this in the Benghazi hearings, just so we're straight on this), stormed a SCIF and tried taking in their cell phones (a definite no-no).

[tw]1187023645413138435[/tw]

Floyd Robertson wrote:There's apparently some very funny (sic) shit going down surrounding the impeachment hearings this morning. Rs trying to claim the hearings should be public (they argued against this in the Benghazi hearings, just so we're straight on this), stormed a SCIF and tried taking in their cell phones (a definite no-no).

[tw]1187023645413138435[/tw]

they should understand that elections have consequences and that in 2018, the American public decided that Democrats should be in charge and provide oversight, rendering the patriotic republicans to the minority.

Doesn't seem like that difficult of a concept, but republicans aren't known for their intellectual capacity.

oh, and.. BENGHAZI!!

We're fucking Italy.

DWags wrote:

We're fucking Italy.

imagine a country in which a political party is okay with the leader of that country extorting information on a political rival in exchange for millions of dollars of military aid..

and then that same political party, back home, is outraged by the Democratic proces..

oh.. wait.

has anyone told the republicans that there are republicans on the committee??

Robert J Sakimano wrote:has anyone told the republicans that there are republicans on the committee??

That was the first thing I thought. Some bitch ass lobbyist told them to this for grit corporate masters.

Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

The American public will know who the traitors to their country are.

InTenSity wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

The American public will know who the traitors to their country are.

Will it matter?

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

As opposed to backing off and effectively saying he did nothing wrong?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

As opposed to backing off and effectively saying he did nothing wrong?

yep, remember everything that is happening will set precedent. Everything. I know there is no way spineless republicans will not consider a guilty vote. However, you have to follow through, you have to follow the constitution and you can't just say "fuck it, nothing will happen".

I hope the Dems don't step on their dicks here, but fuck it, I'd call their bluff and say, "Hell yes, open testimony. In the town fucking square, ask these people who have evidence of Trumps maleficence questions in the open" However, I'd never let the whistle optimist be known. Can't do it.

You have to pick your spot to open everything up like that. Keep in mind, there’s a reason world class pieces of shit like Matt gaetz (my phone wanted to change that to “farts.” Heh.) want that to happen. The reason- they can’t square their testimonies if they don’t know what the other person testified to. If you make everything public before those testimonies then you aren’t going to get the truth anymore.

This is good. Shocking that a voice of reason is on Fox News.

[tw]1187339967300812800[/tw]

has anyone told the GOP that elections have consequences and, as such, they're in the minority... and, consequently, they can't tailor the rules to accommodate their unprecedented levels of corruption?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

As opposed to backing off and effectively saying he did nothing wrong?

I get it. But there’s an election in 12 months, he’ll be “exonerated” by the senate. I doubt a public impeachment trial sways anyone. Republicans have already accepted he did it and are ok with it. As do his supporters. I get the whole constitution angle. But honestly, it’s a worthless piece of paper at this point. Putting your political life on the line over it means nothing anymore. When faced with the Nixon tapes the GOP stood up and said enough. The constitution mattered then. That ain’t happening anymore.

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
As opposed to backing off and effectively saying he did nothing wrong?

I get it. But there’s an election in 12 months, he’ll be “exonerated” by the senate. I doubt a public impeachment trial sways anyone. Republicans have already accepted he did it and are ok with it. As do his supporters. I get the whole constitution angle. But honestly, it’s a worthless piece of paper at this point. Putting your political life on the line over it means nothing anymore. When faced with the Nixon tapes the GOP stood up and said enough. The constitution mattered then. That ain’t happening anymore.

Not doing an impeachment sways more people TO Trump, though. You think he will claim exoneration if 2/3 of Republican Senate don't remove him? Imagine what he will claim if a Democratic controlled house can't even get the votes to impeach. Then you've effectively had his biggest opponents exonerating him.

Trump's opponent in the election MUST be able to hammer home on his shady activities and paint the Senate trial results as heavily partisan.

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

Well there are several.

1) this went from “he had a call with Ukraine and it might have been shady.” To “holy hell they haven’t done anything legal ever” in just a couple of weeks. What will the next several weeks hold? Keep him under fire for as long as possible and God only knows what else will shake out.
2) if absolutely nothing else, you force the likes of Susan Collins and Cory Gardner, vulnerable senators, to go on record with those votes rather than skating by without doing that as they would prefer to do. Make them vote.
3) I also don’t think assuming republicans will do the wrong thing is a great idea. Make them actually do it. If you never put that pressure on then they can just float on by continuing to pretend that everything is wonderful.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Remind me again the benefits of impeaching a President who will be found not guilty in the Senate and get more votes in the general election than 2016?

Well there are several.

1) this went from “he had a call with Ukraine and it might have been shady.” To “holy hell they haven’t done anything legal ever” in just a couple of weeks. What will the next several weeks hold? Keep him under fire for as long as possible and God only knows what else will shake out.
2) if absolutely nothing else, you force the likes of Susan Collins and Cory Gardner, vulnerable senators, to go on record with those votes rather than skating by without doing that as they would prefer to do. Make them vote.
3) I also don’t think assuming republicans will do the wrong thing is a great idea. Make them actually do it. If you never put that pressure on then they can just float on by continuing to pretend that everything is wonderful.

I understand what you’re saying. But I think that’s an emotional response to his corruption. I’m wondering about the “benefits” of impeachment. If I remember correctly Dems lost control
Of Congress after the Nixon impeachment. Republicans lost control of Congress after Clinton’s impeachment. I could be wrong but that’s my memory. Currently you have the potential of trump getting re-elected by galvanizing his deplorables   Then the bleed thru  effect of potentially losing the house and senate. Is it worth it? Make no mistake America is going to be faced with the real possibility of a corrupt republican and potentially an honest socialist. How will they choose?  It will be very interesting how it plays out. I take solace in the idea that trump is an idiot surrounds by idiots and could blow his shot at trump election. But maybe he has enough money to make it happen. Gonna be an interesting 12 months.

A couple things- yeah, you’re misremembering. Did they eventually lose it in both cases, yes, but not immediately after in either case. I’m not gonna delve into why they eventually lost it but it’s probably not because of impeachment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_United_States_elections#United_States_House_of_Representatives

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_elections

In 1974 the democrats basically swept everything just 3 months after resignation and in 2000 it was basically even. In both cases the impeaching party kept the house, one overwhelmingly so.

I think you’re putting too much stock into “galvanizing his base” also. That’s cable pundit talk. If you’re in a base in the first place, you’re going to be voting- impeachment or not. No galvanizing needed.

by not investigating and, subsequently, conducting an impeachment process, Democrats would be complicit in the corruption.

it's really that simple. The racist knuckle-draggers are going to be outraged no matter what - it's who they are - but it's crucial that the good people of America - those of us who still value the Constitution and the idea that is America - see the unprecedented levels of corruption in its tragic glory.

Was reading today that as all the other defenses crumble, it’s looking more and more like the final defense will be that the president is beyond reproach. I kind of want them to get on with it, so that the battle lines can be drawn and we can fight this fucking thing out. After it’s over, some changes to the balance of power in Washington will need to be implemented. Congress has spent the last 30 years giving its powers or the president. There will need to be legislation taking it back and holding congress responsible for keeping and using their authority. In other words, you were elected to lead. Make some decisions or you’re out.

Rocinante wrote:Was reading today that as all the other defenses crumble, it’s looking more and more like the final defense will be that the president is beyond reproach. I kind of want them to get on with it, so that the battle lines can be drawn and we can fight this fucking thing out. After it’s over, some changes to the balance of power in Washington will need to be implemented. Congress has spent the last 30 years giving its powers or the president. There will need to be legislation taking it back and holding congress responsible for keeping and using their authority. In other words, you were elected to lead. Make some decisions or you’re out.

I'm sure the Democrats would love nothing more than to accelerate the process.. but you can't accelerate the investigation when the Republicans can't stop breaking the law.

"son, I'd really like to just write up a ticket for disorderly conduct, but while I was talking with the other people in the bar, you committed bank fraud, larcency, breaking and entering, aggravated assault and arson"..

Rocinante wrote:Was reading today that as all the other defenses crumble, it’s looking more and more like the final defense will be that the president is beyond reproach. I kind of want them to get on with it, so that the battle lines can be drawn and we can fight this fucking thing out. After it’s over, some changes to the balance of power in Washington will need to be implemented. Congress has spent the last 30 years giving its powers or the president. There will need to be legislation taking it back and holding congress responsible for keeping and using their authority. In other words, you were elected to lead. Make some decisions or you’re out.

It's a lot easier to get re-elected if you can blame everything on someone else.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:A couple things- yeah, you’re misremembering. Did they eventually lose it in both cases, yes, but not immediately after in either case. I’m not gonna delve into why they eventually lost it but it’s probably not because of impeachment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_United_States_elections#United_States_House_of_Representatives

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_elections

In 1974 the democrats basically swept everything just 3 months after resignation and in 2000 it was basically even. In both cases the impeaching party kept the house, one overwhelmingly so.

I think you’re putting too much stock into “galvanizing his base” also. That’s cable pundit talk. If you’re in a base in the first place, you’re going to be voting- impeachment or not. No galvanizing needed.

House and Senate gains/losses were not as bad as I thought. My worry is Democrat voter turnout is very fickle depending on the nominee. Dems need turnout. Impeaching Trump will definitely increase turnout on the republican side. He will get more votes than he did in 2016. Those people will also vote in state and federal elections outside of the presidential race. Dems need to be very careful in promoting a higher republican turnout when they run the risk of voter apathy based on their nominee. It’s a thin line for them. My fear is they drive republican turnout while not increasing their own turnout. Hopefully an impeachment doesn’t have the effect of “well he got impeached” good nuff. I’ve said it over and over, Get people inspired to vote.

No way in hell is Democrat voter turnout going to be low in this election. It will probably be record numbers, regardless of candidate, just because of the disdain for Trump.

MiamiSpartan wrote:No way in hell is Democrat voter turnout going to be low in this election. It will probably be record numbers, regardless of candidate, just because of the disdain for Trump.

I hope you’re right. But roughly the same amount of people voted for Obama in 2012 as voted for Clinton in 2016 but certain demographics didn’t show up. Even knowing the Republican was a racist.

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:No way in hell is Democrat voter turnout going to be low in this election. It will probably be record numbers, regardless of candidate, just because of the disdain for Trump.

I hope you’re right. But roughly the same amount of people voted for Obama in 2012 as voted for Clinton in 2016 but certain demographics didn’t show up. Even knowing the Republican was a racist.

I think that two things are different, though. First, that Trump actually won. I don't think most people thought that he would, and some stayed home from voting because it didn't matter. Second, he's gotten much worse (at least overtly) since he's been president. Not just with racist shit, but just being an all around asshole.

kingstonlake wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:No way in hell is Democrat voter turnout going to be low in this election. It will probably be record numbers, regardless of candidate, just because of the disdain for Trump.

I hope you’re right. But roughly the same amount of people voted for Obama in 2012 as voted for Clinton in 2016 but certain demographics didn’t show up. Even knowing the Republican was a racist.

Link? I had thought it was the opposite, that Trump received about as many votes in 16 as Romney got in 12, but that Clinton got less than Obama.