Trump-Ukraine Megathread V8

[MMAisGod]

I legit checked out of this somewhere in the middle of Megathread V2, felt like political theatrics to me, but I still have some questions that should be straightforward answers.

-- Did the whistleblower ever testify in front of the committee as promised? If so can you share a link so I can watch as I'm curious to how the examination went. If not, why not, since it was supposed to be on a Thursday a month ago.

-- What is the most concrete directly Trump himself damning evidence for the impeachment (not some 3rd party or read through the lines) that is on record? Are they able to through with it all the way, and if so when are they taking it to the next level?


Only straight answers please.

 

[glenwo2]

So do I have this straight?
Republicans stormed the room for political theater, complaining about being shut out of the process, when there were Republicans already in the room and part of the process?

I think their point was that they should've been allowed to at least sit in for the "process" to observe what is happening.

Even if other Republicans were there, they were the only ones who could participate and there would've been no harm in letting other Republicans to simply sit down, keep their mouths shut, and listen to what was being said.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I think their point was that they should've been allowed to at least sit in for the "process" to observe what is happening.

Even if other Republicans were there, they were the only ones who could participate and there would've been no harm in letting other Republicans to simply sit down, keep their mouths shut, and listen to what was being said.

But it's against the rules, isn't it?
Some Republican said it a long way back, can't recall who.

 

[glenwo2]

I legit checked out of this somewhere in the middle of Megathread V2, felt like political theatrics to me, but I still have some questions that should be straightforward answers.

-- Did the whistleblower ever testify in front of the committee as promised? If so can you share a link so I can watch as I'm curious to how the examination went. If not, why not, since it was supposed to be on a Thursday a month ago.

-- What is the most concrete directly Trump himself damning evidence for the impeachment (not some 3rd party or read through the lines) that is on record? Are they able to through with it all the way, and if so when are they taking it to the next level?


Only straight answers please.

First question : NO. In fact, Schiff had stated that the Whistleblower would never show him or herself but instead will provide WRITTEN ANSWERS.

So to this date, we have no clue who the whistleblower is or what he or she looks like.

It's a complete sham orchestrated by Schiff, imo


Second Question : There is none but the Dems will go through with impeachment regardless 'cause they are STUPID.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Republicans that disagree with him are Human Scum now... LOL

 

[glenwo2]

But it's against the rules, isn't it?
Some Republican said it a long way back, can't recall who.

I don't know the rules myself so I can't say I agree or disagree with you.

 

[glenwo2]

Republicans that disagree with him are Human Scum now... LOL

They have another name they go by : RINOs.


Like Romney for instance.....or is that Pierre Delecto? lol.

 

[Paynebringer]

Looks more like Republican avoiding direct questions about President Trump's actions...

 

[*Z*]

I legit checked out of this somewhere in the middle of Megathread V2, felt like political theatrics to me, but I still have some questions that should be straightforward answers.

-- Did the whistleblower ever testify in front of the committee as promised? If so can you share a link so I can watch as I'm curious to how the examination went. If not, why not, since it was supposed to be on a Thursday a month ago.

-- What is the most concrete directly Trump himself damning evidence for the impeachment (not some 3rd party or read through the lines) that is on record? Are they able to through with it all the way, and if so when are they taking it to the next level?


Only straight answers please.

Read the Sondland opening statement, and then the Taylor opening statement. Pretty much spells it out.

 

[kpt018]

I legit checked out of this somewhere in the middle of Megathread V2, felt like political theatrics to me, but I still have some questions that should be straightforward answers.

-- Did the whistleblower ever testify in front of the committee as promised? If so can you share a link so I can watch as I'm curious to how the examination went. If not, why not, since it was supposed to be on a Thursday a month ago.

-- What is the most concrete directly Trump himself damning evidence for the impeachment (not some 3rd party or read through the lines) that is on record? Are they able to through with it all the way, and if so when are they taking it to the next level?


Only straight answers please.

The testimonies have been behind closed doors so we're only getting reporting on it. Several witnesses confirmed there was in fact a quid pro quo (claim that 2016 election hacking was found on a server in Ukraine in exchange for releasing military aid that was approved and appropriated to Ukraine).

The most damning piece of evidence is Trump's own admission. Quid pro quo or not aside, he should be impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. I mean, corruption is rarely more straight forward.

 

[*Z*]

Through the last many pages I've seen a shift from actually defending Trumps's actions to attacking the impeachment process. Running out of talking points I guess.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I don't know the rules myself so I can't say I agree or disagree with you.

Here we are.

 

[glenwo2]

Here we are.

Those rules should've included "No Alien-looking motherf-ckers allowed", too, in Gowdy's case.

 

[44nutman]

Here we are.

But Gowdy is a liberal commie so his opinion does not count. What about Hillary’s emails and that phile pizza parlor.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Those rules should've included "No Alien-looking motherf-ckers allowed", too, in Gowdy's case.

In space, no one can hear you scream

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

But Gowdy is a liberal commie so his opinion does not count. What about Hillary’s emails and that phile pizza parlor.

Related, there should be another Benghazi investigation

 

[MMAisGod]

First question : NO. In fact, Schiff had stated that the Whistleblower would never show him or herself but instead will provide WRITTEN ANSWERS.

So to this date, we have no clue who the whistleblower is or what he or she looks like.

It's a complete sham orchestrated by Schiff, imo


Second Question : There is none but the Dems will go through with impeachment regardless 'cause they are STUPID.

Read the Sondland opening statement, and then the Taylor opening statement. Pretty much spells it out.

The testimonies have been behind closed doors so we're only getting reporting on it. Several witnesses confirmed there was in fact a quid pro quo (claim that 2016 election hacking was found on a server in Ukraine in exchange for releasing military aid that was approved and appropriated to Ukraine).

The most damning piece of evidence is Trump's own admission. Quid pro quo or not aside, he should be impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. I mean, corruption is rarely more straight forward.

So sounds like we'll never actually get to see/hear from this whistleblower ourselves, even though he was supposed to testify "this Thursday" a month ago? Last I heard plans were changing because he/she was hesitant to testify on camera, due to being "scared for his/her life" (which I found absurd), but again, that was a month ago. Seems like we'll never actually see this whistleblower at all at this pace, which I find, dubious, to say the least.

So nothing new except the two sentences in the phone call in regards to Trump directly? I remember the "can you look into something" line in the transcript, but thought there would be more after all this chatter, people storming places, lots of yelling, etc.


I was hoping some time off this story would have shed new details, but nothing appears changed. Doesn't sound like the Smoking Gun at all that was originally advertised. Reminds me a lot of the Cohen nonsense when everyone wouldn't shut up about "Trump is going to jail, this is it", only for Cohen to go down and the best we got was Trump having unprotected sex. I'll try this again during V15 or so.

 

[shockaholic12]

I think their point was that they should've been allowed to at least sit in for the "process" to observe what is happening.

Even if other Republicans were there, they were the only ones who could participate and there would've been no harm in letting other Republicans to simply sit down, keep their mouths shut, and listen to what was being said.

Wow, this is very stupid. You know how many republicans there are in the house? Any number of the couple hundred representatives should be able to show up to a testimony like this and waltz in so nobody feels left out?

Stop being such a dummy.

 

[kpt018]

So sounds like we'll never actually get to see/hear from this whistleblower ourselves, even though he was supposed to testify "this Thursday" a month ago? Last I heard plans were changing because he/she was hesitant to testify on camera, due to being "scared for his/her life" (which I found absurd), but again, that was a month ago. Seems like we'll never actually see this whistleblower at all at this pace, which I find, dubious, to say the least.

Dude, that is the whole point of a whistelblower program. If their identity was revealed they would be mobbed by attacks from all angles and in many cases their lives literally put in danger. The point is to give people a safe outlet to inform folks of wrong doing.

So nothing new except the two sentences in the phone call in regards to Trump directly? I remember the "can you look into something" line in the transcript, but thought there would be more after all this chatter, people storming places, lots of yelling, etc.

Well, quid pro quo was basically confirmed. Trump was impeachable before that but it is icing on the cake.

I was hoping some time off this story would have shed new details, but nothing appears changed. Doesn't sound like the Smoking Gun at all that was originally advertised. Reminds me a lot of the Cohen nonsense when everyone wouldn't shut up about "Trump is going to jail, this is it", only for Cohen to go down and the best we got was Trump having unprotected sex. I'll try this again during V15 or so.

Wth are you talking about man? No smoking gun is needed if you cop to the "crime". Crime here meaning high crimes and misdemeanors, which include blatant abuse of power.

Trump should be removed from office immediately. This is all way worse than the Mueller stuff.

 

[Strychnine]

Good luck with that happening.

Oh and from the article :
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The bar also suggested that Barr be forced to resign, face sanctions, or be removed from Congress if he doesn't recuse himself from the probe.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hmm...it doesn't say anything about them threatening to submit a letter to whomever and have him lose his law license.... Imagine that.

The Bar can say whatever the fuck they want.


Barr is the AG here, not them.


The NY Bar Association should focus on matters IN NEW YORK and stay out of Politics.

"Attorney General of the United States, William P. Barr, a lawyer registered with the American Bar Association of New York and the District of Columbia (Registration Number: 4087250)."

If he is disbarred for conduct unbecoming and Bar Assoc. violations, that's a wrap. He is ex-communicado. He will no longer be allowed to practice law and I don't recall (correct me if I'm wrong here) anyone that has been disbarred ever holding the title of A.G. of the United States of America.

So, yeah...
It's kind of a big deal.