US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 14.

PrimeNumber7

copper member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1901

Amazon Prime Member #7

Quote from: eddie13 on November 20, 2019, 05:00:16 PM

BOOM!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7

Twatter suspended some of the first account to break the news, lol..

According to this article, that is fake news. If it had been true, this would have been very damaging to the Democrats.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

So the NBC/WaPost debate in Atlanta is scheduled to start at 9pm, and the second hearing hasn't even started yet (almost 5:30pm est). Will be interesting to see how NBC navigates the inevitable schedule conflict. I assume most of the country will be more interested in the impeachment hearings than debate #5 with 10+ dem candidates...but they've invested a ton in promoting the debate...

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on November 20, 2019, 05:10:09 PM

When someone makes a claim that's false, you should tell them they're retarded.

Feel free to call them a retard in another thread. But not this one please. They're just gonna call you a retard and then off we go to the flame wars.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 20, 2019, 05:07:15 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

~

Deleting this. Don't want this to derail into name calling and trolling.

Sure, let the fake news stay tho. Seems legit. When someone makes a claim that's false, you should tell them they're retarded.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: eddie13 on November 20, 2019, 05:00:16 PM

Heh.. He was right, as usual..

Nobody has ever claimed that Burisma was not a corrupt company run by a corrupt man.

One of the reasons Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire their prosecutor was because the prosecutor closed the investigation into Burisma years earlier (before Hunter was ever on the board) after allegedly receiving a bribe.

Quote from: ?? on ??

~

Deleting this. Don't want this to derail into name calling and trolling.

eddie13

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 2262

BTC or BUST

BOOM!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7

Twatter suspended some of the first account to break the news, lol..

Trump led them right into a trap and destroys them all once again!!!
Stupid lDs took the bait hook line and sinker..

Quote from: OgNasty on November 20, 2019, 01:48:57 AM

Trump seems might confident today.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1196958035127783427

Heh.. He was right, as usual..

Does this not make the entire impeachment circus look like a democrat coverup to protect biden from investigation?

Trump let them dig themselves such a deep hole, wow.. They are finished..

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 20, 2019, 04:48:08 PM

I really feel like they (the republicans) are making a mistake by playing that card and they would gain a lot more support if they would play the "it was wrong, but not impeachable wrong" card. I also think Trump could make his life a lot easier if he just said "oops, sorry guys, I won't do that again". Obviously that will never happen though.

Overall I think the first hearing (will there even be a second one?, it's so late) was bad news for the Republicans. There was absolutely a quid pro quo, and the orders came directly from Trump. This much is obvious.

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did...

You deserved it.

---

They're doing it step by step. "It didn't happen". Next it wasn't that bad (not impeachable).

If it was "impeachment" it's really not that big of a deal (compared to other impeachable offenses). Besides, it's not even Trump's fault, he didn't know better. Someone should have told him it was wrong. Just because he tried to make the deal, doesn't mean it went through...

Besides, it's your fault, you elected him, duh!

---

Republican defense in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Watched a bunch of that marathon hearing, the Republicans seem to be seizing on the facts that Trump said "there is no quid pro quo" and that Sondland testified that he wasn't explicitly told to Bribe or extort Ukraine.

The whole "first it was quid pro quo, then it was extortion, then bribery, now it's obstruction of justice omg!!!" line is just lame and not a real defense.

I really feel like they (the republicans) are making a mistake by playing that card and they would gain a lot more support if they would play the "it was wrong, but not impeachable wrong" card. I also think Trump could make his life a lot easier if he just said "oops, sorry guys, I won't do that again". Obviously that will never happen though.

Overall I think the first hearing (will there even be a second one?, it's so late) was bad news for the Republicans. Sondland went from defending the president to defending himself. There was absolutely a quid pro quo, and the orders came directly from Trump. This much seems pretty obvious.

bluefirecorp_

full member

Activity: 574

Merit: 152

The house will impeach. Testimony today said "yes, there was quid pro quo". It's funny because no matter how much Trump denies it, people are testifying it happened.

It'd be interesting to see Trump commit perjury before Congress though. Make Trump testify.

--

Pro is to con as progressive is to conservative Wink

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

The second defense that will work for Trump is, it is the wealthy people and the good-sense middle class who will exonerate him by making their Congress people back down.

Almost everybody knows anyway, that Pro is to Con like Progress is to Congress.

Cool

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

The only defense that is going to work for Trump is that he was concerned about ongoing corruption issues within Ukraine spanning from present all the way back to the 2016 election. Vindman did not testify that there was a particular impeachable offense when discussing withholding aid from Ukraine and Soldman, who testified today, himself did not testify that there was an impeachable offense. Sondland is the only witness that has firsthand knowledge of the call and just about the only interesting thing he said today was that Trump claimed there was no quid pro quo. Democrats are going to claim that Trump was lying in that regard but there isn't any evidence to uncover that Trump had sought out investigations into Joe Biden following the phone call made to Zelensky.

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Trump seems might confident today.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1196958035127783427

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on November 19, 2019, 04:36:38 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 19, 2019, 02:29:28 PM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on November 19, 2019, 01:40:33 PM

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer.

The more the hearings go on, the more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower.

The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though. Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses. Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction.

Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes.

I would not use the term “not allowed” with regards to naming the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. A more accurate term might be “was allowed to not” name the person he spoke to about the phone call.

The identity of the person who filed the complaint could lead to evidence of political motivations in reporting the call and of other testimony given by others. This is exactly why Democrats don’t want his identity disclosed.

It was also determined that the complaint didn’t meet the threshold to be disclosed to congress, but it leaked anyway, which raises other issues.

It's rather fascinating that no one can mention the name of the whistleblower BUT EVERYONE KNOWS HIS NAME. That is a charade with strong legal implications in a kangaroo court.

PrimeNumber7

copper member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1901

Amazon Prime Member #7

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 19, 2019, 02:29:28 PM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on November 19, 2019, 01:40:33 PM

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer.

The more the hearings go on, the more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower.

The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though. Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses. Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction.

Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes.

I would not use the term “not allowed” with regards to naming the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. A more accurate term might be “was allowed to not” name the person he spoke to about the phone call.

The identity of the person who filed the complaint could lead to evidence of political motivations in reporting the call and of other testimony given by others. This is exactly why Democrats don’t want his identity disclosed.

It was also determined that the complaint didn’t meet the threshold to be disclosed to congress, but it leaked anyway, which raises other issues.

squatz1

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1285

Flying Hellfish is a Commie

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 19, 2019, 02:29:28 PM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on November 19, 2019, 01:40:33 PM

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer.

The more the hearings go on, the more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower.

The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though. Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses. Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction.

Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes.

I think the portion about the whistleblower is that the GOP wants to know if Trump had someone actively working against him in the White House -- which is most likely true, I mean there have been reports that his CoS and his Sec of State (former ones) had tried to recruit Nikki Haley to join them to stop Trump and save the country. So I wouldn't be surprised if he was actively working against the President.

Their whole thing is if they can find out that the whistleblower hated Trump, they can spin this as a story of a disgruntled employee and try to shy away from the Ukraine stuff. Makes a little bit of sense.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on November 19, 2019, 01:40:33 PM

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer.

The more the hearings go on, the more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower.

The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though. Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses. Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction.

Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes.

PrimeNumber7

copper member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1901

Amazon Prime Member #7

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer.

The more the hearings go on, the more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

squatz1

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1285

Flying Hellfish is a Commie

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 18, 2019, 05:37:07 PM

Four witnesses scheduled for tomorrow:

Morning Hearing:

Jennifer Williams
- Mike Pence's special adviser for Europe and Russia

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
- National Security Council

Afternoon Hearing:

Kurt Volker
- Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
- Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine (resigned in September)

Timothy Morrison
- National Security Council member, "Russia Expert"

Only on here who I think is going to be pretty interesting is Kurt Volker, though it seems like he's going to make the statement that he didn't know that ukraine aid was tied to investigations of Biden (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html)

Unsure of what the info the others are potentially going to be present.

ALSO: About the Trump impeachment polls, seems like Indys and Republicans dont think Trump should be impeached, while Democrats (laregely) think he should be. I think the poll data I reasing says 80 percent of Republicans think Trump SHOULDN'T be impeached, 55 percent of Indys think he shouldnt, while 15 percent of Dems think he shouldn't.

dupeddonk

member

Activity: 189

Merit: 30

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 18, 2019, 05:37:07 PM

Four witnesses scheduled for tomorrow:

Morning Hearing:

Jennifer Williams
- Mike Pence's special adviser for Europe and Russia

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
- National Security Council

Afternoon Hearing:

Kurt Volker
- Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
- Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine (resigned in September)

Timothy Morrison
- National Security Council member, "Russia Expert"

Tomorrow will probably not be that interesting. Wed and Thurs will be more revealing with the GOPs witness and Mike Pences aid.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Four witnesses scheduled for tomorrow:

Morning Hearing:

Jennifer Williams
- Mike Pence's special adviser for Europe and Russia

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
- National Security Council

Afternoon Hearing:

Kurt Volker
- Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
- Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine (resigned in September)

Timothy Morrison
- National Security Council member, "Russia Expert"

squatz1

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1285

Flying Hellfish is a Commie

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 17, 2019, 07:20:09 PM

Quote from: squatz1 on November 17, 2019, 07:03:02 PM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 17, 2019, 02:32:30 PM

--SNIP OF 538 STUFF--

I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win.

Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at.

Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold.

This is all fair, imo - although I question the silent majority part. If you think you know what they think, they aren't really silent...even if they haven't said anything.

The most interesting takeaway, imo, is not the actual numbers, just the shift in opinion after each event.

Mueller Report: Not a big shift.
Mueller Testimony: Not a big shift.
Ukraine Scandal: Obvious big shift.

I don't mean silent in the sense that they keep all their views to themselves, I say silent in the sense that they keep to themselves. They're not going to be out in the streets protesting, they're not going to be on social media talking about things, they're not those types of people. They're going to impose their will at the 2020 pres election.

Also in regards to the polling shift : We're not going to know if this is a temporary bump until a few weeks / months from now. It could normalize if nothing comes out of this or the GOP is able to spin it well.

We'll see.

Topic: US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 14. (Read 5800 times)