Democrats release new batch of testimony from Trump impeachment inquiry

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

So in my 'ignorant' liberal view $3 trillion hasn't been added to the gross federal debt, billions haven't been added to the trade deficit and there wasn't less job creation in his last 2 years than Obama achieved in his last 2 years?

Your own graphs show this but if you want sources then here's a few (I'll only add ones that you can't shout 'fake news' at): 

555555

Throwing Big words and graphs at trump supporters as if they understand either one of the,.

Dude!!!   if they did they would not be trump supporters.

[Thomas J]

Chomper Higgot  The majority of the charts are from this link.  The source of all of the charts is shown in the lower left hand corner of each chart. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/9-charts-comparing-trump-economy-to-obama-bush-administrations-2019-9

[Scott]

Posts reported and removed.  

 

[Tippaporn]

On 11/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Public hearings start tomorrow.

 

Enjoy.

I hope you're enjoying this as much as I am, Chomper.  I was laughing throughout Taylor's testimony.  "Star witness."  LOL

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 11/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Public hearings start tomorrow.

 

Enjoy.

Another enjoyable moment, do you agree, Chomper?  Watch Schiff's eyes while he's lying.  Funniest thing I've seen in awhile.  LOL

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 11/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Public hearings start tomorrow.

 

Enjoy.

Ratcliffe (3:46 mark):  ". . . In this impeachent hearing today where we impeach Presidents for treason, or bribery, or other high crimes where is the impeachable offense in that call.  Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?  Shout it out.  Anyone?"

 

Love when the camera pans over to Taylor and Kent to show their speechless, dumbstruck faces.

 

Taylor:  "I'm not here to do anything with having to do, ah, <unintelligible> to decide about impeachment.  That's not what either of us here to do.  That's your job."

 

Then what are they doing there?  LOL

 

The Democrat slow motion train wreck.  Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler will take them all over the cliff.

 

Can you imagine what the public hearings would be like in a Senate trial?

 

 

[Skallywag]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Another enjoyable moment, do you agree, Chomper?  Watch Schiff's eyes while he's lying.  Funniest thing I've seen in awhile.  LOL

The whistleblower is very much irrelevant at this point.  Schiff is irrelevant.  Biden in 2014 is irrelevant.  Mueller investigation irrelevant.  etc..

The impeachment is about POTUS and his reason for holding up the $361 milion in military aide

GOP continually trying to divert attention from the issue of withholding the military aide.  What about Biden?, what about Hunter?  Look at the waste of time and money by Mueller?  etc..etc.. 

All very irrelevant as have nothing to do with these impeachment hearings.

The only reason that aide was held up was because of Trump. 

The Pentagon had certified the $361 million in aide sometime in April or May, the funds had been appropriated by Congress back in March. 

Only one man is responsible for withholding military aide from an allied country (Ukraine) at war with the Russians - POTUS.   That is the only issue here.

The Dems and GOP members of congress asking the questions is not the issue either.

The sworn testimony by those testifying will either lead to a vote of impeachment or not.  

[Skallywag]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Taylor:  "I'm not here to do anything with having to do, ah, <unintelligible> to decide about impeachment.  That's not what either of us here to do.  That's your job."

 

Then what are they doing there?  LOL

You need to watch some Law and Order.  Witnesses are there to "testify". They are not judges or jury.

[Laza 45]

...whats that smell??

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

The whistleblower is very much irrelevant at this point.  Schiff is irrelevant.  Biden in 2014 is irrelevant.  Mueller investigation irrelevant.  etc..

The impeachment is about POTUS and his reason for holding up the $361 milion in military aide

GOP continually trying to divert attention from the issue of withholding the military aide.  What about Biden?, what about Hunter?  Look at the waste of time and money by Mueller?  etc..etc.. 

All very irrelevant as have nothing to do with these impeachment hearings.

The only reason that aide was held up was because of Trump. 

The Pentagon had certified the $361 million in aide sometime in April or May, the funds had been appropriated by Congress back in March. 

Only one man is responsible for withholding military aide from an allied country (Ukraine) at war with the Russians - POTUS.   That is the only issue here.

The Dems and GOP members of congress asking the questions is not the issue either.

The sworn testimony by those testifying will either lead to a vote of impeachment or not.  

Nice rant but it's all relevant.  If you don't realize it yet you will at some point in the future when the relevancy is shown.

 

As to withholding foreign aid:

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president

 

Foreign aid. Presidents have also balked at congressional attempts to withhold economic or security assistance from governments or entities with poor human rights records. For instance, during the Obama administration, senior U.S. military commanders said that, while well-intentioned, restrictions on U.S. aid complicated other foreign policy objectives, like counterterrorism or counternarcotics.

 

Foreign aid is, I believe, a contested power between branches of government.  I could not find who holds that power definitively but I do believe that the President has the final say on whether or not to disburse foreign aid, regardless of whether Congress appropriates funds for it or whether the Pentagon or other policy makers approve.

 

If someone can point to a source which definitively states who has that express power then we could settle this.  Otherwise, if it within the President's legal purview to have the final say then you last point is moot.

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

You need to watch some Law and Order.  Witnesses are there to "testify". They are not judges or jury.

Well, that's obviously true.  You don't need to watch any Law And Order to know that.  They are there to testify on the question of whether or not Trump committed an impeachable offense.  Their testimony, however, is centered on the fact that they believed Trump's call was a quid pro quo.  When pressed as to whether they were there to "assert there was an impeachable offense (in other words, a quid pro quo) in that call" neither of them would do so.  So they caved at the end and used the "not up to us" way out.

 

So again, they are there to bring testimony which would show quid pro quo.  Their testimony could not show quid pro quo.  Neither of them would say so.

[Tippaporn]

54 minutes ago, Laza 45 said:

...whats that smell??

Before you celebrate do show some evidence of burnt toast from the public hearing.

[Saint Nick]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice rant but it's all relevant.  If you don't realize it yet you will at some point in the future when the relevancy is shown.

 

As to withholding foreign aid:

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president

 

Foreign aid. Presidents have also balked at congressional attempts to withhold economic or security assistance from governments or entities with poor human rights records. For instance, during the Obama administration, senior U.S. military commanders said that, while well-intentioned, restrictions on U.S. aid complicated other foreign policy objectives, like counterterrorism or counternarcotics.

 

Foreign aid is, I believe, a contested power between branches of government.  I could not find who holds that power definitively but I do believe that the President has the final say on whether or not to disburse foreign aid, regardless of whether Congress appropriates funds for it or whether the Pentagon or other policy makers approve.

 

If someone can point to a source which definitively states who has that express power then we could settle this.  Otherwise, if it within the President's legal purview to have the final say then you last point is moot.

Why don't you show evidence for your "the president has the final word"- theory?

And by the way: you see no difference, between withholding aid, because of crass human rights violations and Trump, wanting dirt on Biden?

No you don't ...of course...because you still babbel on about "corruption"!

You are beyond help, as well!

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, that's obviously true.  You don't need to watch any Law And Order to know that.  They are there to testify on the question of whether or not Trump committed an impeachable offense.  Their testimony, however, is centered on the fact that they believed Trump's call was a quid pro quo.  When pressed as to whether they were there to "assert there was an impeachable offense (in other words, a quid pro quo) in that call" neither of them would do so.  So they caved at the end and used the "not up to us" way out.

 

So again, they are there to bring testimony which would show quid pro quo.  Their testimony could not show quid pro quo.  Neither of them would say so.

There's this weird, uninformed notion derived, I guess, from TV shows that unless you have multiple eye or ear witnesses to a crime, then you can't prove beyond a reasonable account that a crime has been committed. The circumstantial evidence alone in this case is overwhelming. Aid being withheld with no explanation given. The explanations that were finally given don't square with previous actions. Repeatedly telling a head of state to consult his personal attorney who by his own account was involved in this to defend Trump from false charges.

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Why don't you show evidence for your "the president has the final word"- theory?

And by the way: you see no difference, between withholding aid, because of crass human rights violations and Trump, wanting dirt on Biden?

No you don't ...of course...because you still babbel on about "corruption"!

You are beyond help, as well!

I provided the only evidence I could find and stated as much.  Furthermore, I reached out to anyone who might be able to provide that information.  Yet still you attack with, "Why don't you show evidence for your "the president has the final word"- theory?"

 

Saint Nick, given the above then it's pathetic of you to ask the question.

 

The "wanting dirt on Biden" is your interpretation of Trump's request for assistance.  You disingenuously assert that your interpretation, that your opinion, is indisputable established fact which needs to be accepted as such by everyone else.  You're part of a mob that wants to hang a guy, like in the wild west days, based only on your rage.  Only to find out after you've hanged him that he's innocent.  Fortunately, there's still a somewhat functioning justice system in the U.S. and mob rule has been outlawed long ago.

 

You just don't get it that there are people, over 60 million of them, who do not share your hatred.  So you draw the only conclusion you can from your biased, hate-filled, limited view of reality that we must all be soooo stupid as to be beyond help.  Again, simply pathetic.  But by God, that's entirely your problem.  LOL

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's this weird, uninformed notion derived, I guess, from TV shows that unless you have multiple eye or ear witnesses to a crime, then you can't prove beyond a reasonable account that a crime has been committed. The circumstantial evidence alone in this case is overwhelming. Aid being withheld with no explanation given. The explanations that were finally given don't square with previous actions. Repeatedly telling a head of state to consult his personal attorney who by his own account was involved in this to defend Trump from false charges.

And?

[Laza 45]

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Before you celebrate do show some evidence of burnt toast from the public hearing.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/the-surprise-phone-call-that-just-blew-up-donald-trumps-presidency/22918/?fbclid=IwAR3J2gH9noPIIu_Ugw6906FHcG-3FNmyfc8kynREvUF146crgiJ-QdSjFlQ

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And?

Wrong question. It should be "Therefore?"

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Laza 45 said:

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/the-surprise-phone-call-that-just-blew-up-donald-trumps-presidency/22918/?fbclid=IwAR3J2gH9noPIIu_Ugw6906FHcG-3FNmyfc8kynREvUF146crgiJ-QdSjFlQ

I read it.  It's another "gotcha" piece.  Sounds promising, doesn't it?  Between all of the investigations, and now this farcical impeachment sham, how many of those failed "gotcha"s have you had to suffer through?

[Tippaporn]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Wrong question. It should be "Therefore?"

No, "And?" was correct.  I assumed you weren't finished with what you were trying to say since you never got to the point.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I read it.  It's another "gotcha" piece.  Sounds promising, doesn't it?  Between all of the investigations, and now this farcical impeachment sham, how many of those failed "gotcha"s have you had to suffer through?

Blowing a lot of smoke there, aren't you? Just an all purpose respone. Nothing really to address this specific instance. 

[bristolboy]

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, "And?" was correct.  I assumed you weren't finished with what you were trying to say since you never got to the point.

Actually, I did get to the point about your notion, which divorced from legal reality about what constitutes incriminating evidence.

 

[Sujo]

36 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's this weird, uninformed notion derived, I guess, from TV shows that unless you have multiple eye or ear witnesses to a crime, then you can't prove beyond a reasonable account that a crime has been committed. The circumstantial evidence alone in this case is overwhelming. Aid being withheld with no explanation given. The explanations that were finally given don't square with previous actions. Repeatedly telling a head of state to consult his personal attorney who by his own account was involved in this to defend Trump from false charges.

There is also the issue that in a normal world subpoenas must be answered.

 

repubs cannot make the argument that its not first hand knowledge when they wont allow anyone with first hand knowledge to testify.

 

The witnesses were outstanding, they gave their evidence and never got tricked into diversions. If they had said they thought the president should be impeached they would be labelled never trumpers. The repubs couldnt shake them. 

 

Not once did anyone state trump didnt do what he is accused of, just tried deflections to bidens and the whistleblower which is not relevant. No judge would allow that testimony in any other kind of trial.

 

Schiff did a great job, kept it moving along with grace even when falsely accused of knowing the whistleblower.

 

whilst all this is going on an appeals court has refused to hear trumps appeal against releasing his tax returns. His head must be about to explode.

[roobaa01]

it is like deja vu all over again. transcripts based on hearsay like taylor, kent dem star witnesses confirmed in yesterday's hearing. none met the president but acc. to dem quingley hearsay is more important than direct knowledge, 5555 .

 

also the noose for hillary tigthens after the uk released the russian meddling report.

now swing state dems are having second thought about the impeachment hoax.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[bristolboy]

Just now, roobaa01 said:

it is like deja vu all over again. transcripts based on hearsay like taylor, kent dem star witnesses confirmed in yesterday's hearing. none met the president but acc. to dem quingley hearsay is more important than direct knowledge, 5555 .

 

also the noose for hillary tigthens after the uk released the russian meggling report.

now swing state dems are having second thought about the impeachment hoax.

 

wbr

roobaa01

You know, I've always suspected you were a visitor from the future. And now we have confirmation. The UK hasn't yet released the Russian meddling report to those of us living in the here and now. I don't suppose you could post a link to the future where it exists?

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

it is like deja vu all over again. transcripts based on hearsay like taylor, kent dem star witnesses confirmed in yesterday's hearing. none met the president but acc. to dem quingley hearsay is more important than direct knowledge, 5555 .

 

also the noose for hillary tigthens after the uk released the russian meddling report.

now swing state dems are having second thought about the impeachment hoax.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Nothing for Trump, or indeed you to be worried about then.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There is also the issue that in a normal world subpoenas must be answered.

 

repubs cannot make the argument that its not first hand knowledge when they wont allow anyone with first hand knowledge to testify.

 

The witnesses were outstanding, they gave their evidence and never got tricked into diversions. If they had said they thought the president should be impeached they would be labelled never trumpers. The repubs couldnt shake them. 

 

Not once did anyone state trump didnt do what he is accused of, just tried deflections to bidens and the whistleblower which is not relevant. No judge would allow that testimony in any other kind of trial.

 

Schiff did a great job, kept it moving along with grace even when falsely accused of knowing the whistleblower.

 

whilst all this is going on an appeals court has refused to hear trumps appeal against releasing his tax returns. His head must be about to explode.

The appeals court ruling is golden.

 

But hey, Trump did promise to release his tax returns, the courts helping Trump keep a campaign promise.

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Blowing a lot of smoke there, aren't you? Just an all purpose respone. Nothing really to address this specific instance. 

If you've read it you'd know it was a very short article with few details.  Too few.  Just the announcement of a supposedly damning phone call.  What's to comment on?

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, I did get to the point about your notion, divorced from legal reality about what constitutes incriminating evidence.

 

You need to fit the word "potential" somewhere in your statement.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If you've read it you'd know it was a very short article with few details.  Too few.  Just the announcement of a supposedly damning phone call.  What's to comment on?

It was an article based on the public testimony of William Taylor. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-testimony-ties-trump-more-directly-to-ukraine-pressure-campaign/2019/11/13/189872b2-0633-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html