LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm Highlights from Vindman and Hill:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 913864.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 137591.pdf

I'm impressed how Schiff is building the case progressively -- WB report, appearances announced, then written opening statements come out, then in-person secret SCIF appearances, then highlight transcripts released, then full transcripts released, then live hearings on TV, then impeachment deliberations in the House.

Considering the stonewall coming from the WH, pretty good job in keeping the narrative on this going. And he's building a lot of credibility as each latest brick that comes out confirms what the earlier bricks said.

Classic rhetorical technique -- (i) tell ’em what I am going to tell ’em; (ii) tell ’em; (iii) tell ’em what I’ve told ’em.

It's EZ to be a genius when the defense is muzzled, there's no judge, & no Grand Jury secrecy.

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

OK Boomer.

There is nothing about the process that has been unfair. Republicans have had equal access to witnesses and documents throughout the process. Republicans could have prevailed on the White House and sympathetic members of the civil service to come forward with exonerating witnesses, documents and electronic evidence. Republicans could have hired special counsel with an investigative and prosecutorial background. Republicans could have and still can proffer facts capable of corroboration — you know, like the whistkeblower’s letter and the now legion of witnesses on the record under oath — that contradict the basic facts of Trump’s bribery scheme using taxpayer money appropriated by Congress for the defense assistance of a front line country. Republicans can still review the oath of office and stop their breach of fiduciary duty to the Country. They haven’t; they won’t. They have chosen this moral leper as their shop steward.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm Highlights from Vindman and Hill:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 913864.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 137591.pdf

I'm impressed how Schiff is building the case progressively -- WB report, appearances announced, then written opening statements come out, then in-person secret SCIF appearances, then highlight transcripts released, then full transcripts released, then live hearings on TV, then impeachment deliberations in the House.

Considering the stonewall coming from the WH, pretty good job in keeping the narrative on this going. And he's building a lot of credibility as each latest brick that comes out confirms what the earlier bricks said.

Classic rhetorical technique -- (i) tell ’em what I am going to tell ’em; (ii) tell ’em; (iii) tell ’em what I’ve told ’em.

It's EZ to be a genius when the defense is muzzled, there's no judge, & no Grand Jury secrecy.

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

You have the list of guys that can speak in defense of Trump not named Rudy or Lev?

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm Highlights from Vindman and Hill:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 913864.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 137591.pdf

I'm impressed how Schiff is building the case progressively -- WB report, appearances announced, then written opening statements come out, then in-person secret SCIF appearances, then highlight transcripts released, then full transcripts released, then live hearings on TV, then impeachment deliberations in the House.

Considering the stonewall coming from the WH, pretty good job in keeping the narrative on this going. And he's building a lot of credibility as each latest brick that comes out confirms what the earlier bricks said.

Classic rhetorical technique -- (i) tell ’em what I am going to tell ’em; (ii) tell ’em; (iii) tell ’em what I’ve told ’em.

It's EZ to be a genius when the defense is muzzled, there's no judge, & no Grand Jury secrecy.

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

There you go, RT talking points.

Now, it's a problem that the transcripts of the closed door meetings, demonstrating that R's had every bit as much opportunity to ask questions as the D's, are released for the public to read. Ohh my, they should have been Grand Jury secrecy"!!!

And after weeks of R's saying that the hearings should be public, Trump is now saying that it's unfair to have the hearings be public next week. Ohh my, the public actually gets to hear the first hand accounts. For shame, now it's 'political theatre', Banana Republic...

Should Trump mount some sort of defense? He gets to do so if he wants. How unfair!
Hey, should the R's call witnesses like Guliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Barr etc...or stonewall?

What the heck should be the process for impeaching a President, Salty???

this is what we patriots want:





However, Trump believes you want him locked in here:

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:40 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm Highlights from Vindman and Hill:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 913864.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 137591.pdf

I'm impressed how Schiff is building the case progressively -- WB report, appearances announced, then written opening statements come out, then in-person secret SCIF appearances, then highlight transcripts released, then full transcripts released, then live hearings on TV, then impeachment deliberations in the House.

Considering the stonewall coming from the WH, pretty good job in keeping the narrative on this going. And he's building a lot of credibility as each latest brick that comes out confirms what the earlier bricks said.

Classic rhetorical technique -- (i) tell ’em what I am going to tell ’em; (ii) tell ’em; (iii) tell ’em what I’ve told ’em.

It's EZ to be a genius when the defense is muzzled, there's no judge, & no Grand Jury secrecy.

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

There you go, RT talking points.

Now, it's a problem that the transcripts of the closed door meetings, demonstrating that R's had every bit as much opportunity to ask questions as the D's, are released for the public to read. Ohh my, they should have been Grand Jury secrecy"!!!

And after weeks of R's saying that the hearings should be public, Trump is now saying that it's unfair to have the hearings be public next week. Ohh my, the public actually gets to hear the first hand accounts. For shame, now it's 'political theatre', Banana Republic...

Should Trump mount some sort of defense? He gets to do so if he wants. How unfair!
Hey, should the R's call witnesses like Guliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Barr etc...or stonewall?

What the heck should be the process for impeaching a President, Salty???

We should amend the constitution and eliminate the impeachment clause because we have an election and the people can decide for themselves.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:39 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:22 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm Highlights from Vindman and Hill:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 913864.pdf

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 137591.pdf

I'm impressed how Schiff is building the case progressively -- WB report, appearances announced, then written opening statements come out, then in-person secret SCIF appearances, then highlight transcripts released, then full transcripts released, then live hearings on TV, then impeachment deliberations in the House.

Considering the stonewall coming from the WH, pretty good job in keeping the narrative on this going. And he's building a lot of credibility as each latest brick that comes out confirms what the earlier bricks said.

Classic rhetorical technique -- (i) tell ’em what I am going to tell ’em; (ii) tell ’em; (iii) tell ’em what I’ve told ’em.

It's EZ to be a genius when the defense is muzzled, there's no judge, & no Grand Jury secrecy.

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

You have the list of guys that can speak in defense of Trump not named Rudy or Lev?

Yup! His kids. And that girl who introduced the term "alternative facts' to our lexicon.

So there.......

Mulvaney is going under the wheels. Sondland is a dead man walking. Rudy has squeezed into his thong and climbed the 10 meter platform. Prepare for the greatest flip in history.

Just wait. First time there's a (R) House & a (D) Pres, stand by for a faux impeachment inquiry as a campaign tactic.

Just like Borking -- a horrible precedent has been established.

This is the next step in the criminal-ization of politics.

...& yes I know impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process, which is what makes this madness possible.

We already had that. Btw. Extortion is a crime. Bribery is a crime. This wasn’t one stupid phone call. This was the plan.

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:24 pm Extortion is a crime. Bribery is a crime.

...it's also diplomacy.

You used to admire Dr. Hill. What happened? None of this is for America. You know that. This is for Trump Manafort and Putin.

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

KOD from Trump: I hardly know Sondland!!



Gordo now really wishing he had spent the one large instead on sports car, boat, beach house, etc. Worst purchase ever.

WSJ: Months before Trump pressed Ukraine's president to open investigations, Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman urged Ukraine's prior president to announce similar probes in exchange for a state visit to Washington.

Quid pro quo, part deux!

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:28 pm

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:10 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:28 pm

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:39 pm Refusing subpoenas is cool with you. But you're mad that Pelosi is following the rules of the House?

Pot. Kettle.

Have they subpoenaed the WH janitors yet ?
Gotta run up the tally to build an obstruction count.
I musta slept through the Benghazi Impeachment Inquiry hearings.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:10 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:28 pm

Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.

Three words for you: Benghazi, Bengahzi, Benghazi!!!

Please read Chairman Gowdy's defense of his secret proceedings in the final committee report. And then toady back to us about why Gowdy was wrong.

This is the equivalent of holding an impeachment inquiry for the Benghazi false statement talking points.

Exactly like Benghazi, only without the bribery, fraud and breach of the oath of office and fiduciary promises to the American people. Totally.

Your toadying is so shameless, it's shameful.

Except for the 4 dead Americans. Your trivialization of their deaths is what's shameful.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:25 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:24 pm Extortion is a crime. Bribery is a crime.

...it's also diplomacy.

No, it's not. Withholding appropriated international aid in exchange for phony dirt on the domestic political opposition is BRIBERY, plain and simple. And it makes no difference whether or not the criminal exchange actually went through, just ask Rod Blagojevich:

Under the direction of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Governor Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents on December 9, 2008, and charged with corruption. The Justice Department complaint alleged that the governor conspired to commit several "pay to play" schemes, including attempting "to obtain personal gain ... through the corrupt use" of his authority to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama following his election as president, claiming that in wiretapped recordings Blagojevich discussed his desire to get something in exchange for an appointment to the seat.

The mere expression of desire to obtain "something" in exchange for an action under his authority as Governor (that would benefit him personally) was enough to send him to prison.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:16 pm Have they subpoenaed the WH janitors yet ?

Everyone subpoenaed had a high-level position and first-hand knowledge of the situation. Which you know full well.