The impeachment goat and pony show

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

We watched it off and on today.  Aid was not withheld.  The President of the Ukraine said to at least 6 diffrent news agencies worldwide,  that Trump never threatened to withhold anything. The Democratic star witness had no direct knowledge of anything. 

 

If the Dems and media had not been screaming impeachment since the night he was elected,  i might give them some credibility. 

 

Lets just vote in the Congress tommorow and the Senate on Friday and get this farce over with 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I used to loathe the use of memes here back in the day.  Old age and all, I suppose.

 

But fast forward in time, and I have a newfound appreciation for some of them.  For example...

 

[90DayFinancier 910]

Takeaways for day one influenced by a nice Alexander Valley Cabernet. Silver Oak 2007 yum.

 

1. Jim Jordan is out of his league. So much for the great white hope who does not have a jacket...he was burned major a few times. Junior Jim!  Score -5 pts team Trump

2. You can call the President of the United States on a cellphone, in a restaurant , in the Ukraine, and get overhead by anyone walking by. Can't wait for Sondland to re-refresh Score -25 pts team Trump + 17 Cong. Welsh +10points team Truth.

3. The supporting documentation ( notes, texts) that is being blocked by the Whitehouse, if they exonerated the president you know they would be there, we must assume the recollection of the two witnesses are accurate. - 10 pts team Trump. +5 points team Truth

4. The honorable Adam "Shifty" Shift ran a tight ship and managed the subterfuge situation to let the witnesses tell + 5 Team Democrats, +19 points team Truth.

5. The Hon Deven Nunes...what a loser. Who cares?

6. The hearsay argument: well maybe one or two points team Trump....let's see how that plays out with Sondlands 'splaining" on what he actually heard/ saw

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Well, that’s certainly ONE opinion.  Here’s another:

 

 

.@Jim_Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump & Zelensky’s call? 

Taylor: I did not. 

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney? 

Taylor: I never did. 

Jordan: You’ve never met the President? 

Taylor: That’s correct. 

Jordan: And you’re their star witness.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Since this is the technological age, I see NB2 his Peanuts pic, and raise him a gif...

Edited November 14, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Dashinka 23,252]

7 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Takeaways for day one influenced by a nice Alexander Valley Cabernet. Silver Oak 2007 yum.

 

1. Jim Jordan is out of his league. So much for the great white hope who does not have a jacket...he was burned major a few times. Junior Jim!  Score -5 pts team Trump

2. You can call the President of the United States on a cellphone, in a restaurant , in the Ukraine, and get overhead by anyone walking by. Can't wait for Sondland to re-refresh Score -25 pts team Trump + 17 Cong. Welsh +10points team Truth.

3. The supporting documentation ( notes, texts) that is being blocked by the Whitehouse, if they exonerated the president you know they would be there, we must assume the recollection of the two witnesses are accurate. - 10 pts team Trump. +5 points team Truth

4. The honorable Adam "Shifty" Shift ran a tight ship and managed the subterfuge situation to let the witnesses tell + 5 Team Democrats, +19 points team Truth.

5. The Hon Deven Nunes...what a loser. Who cares?

6. The hearsay argument: well maybe one or two points team Trump....let's see how that plays out with Sondlands 'splaining" on what he actually heard/ saw

 

Nice Dem talking points.  Schiff looked his same old lying self even though he was wearing a jacket, and the Dems hanging everything on hearsay, and opinion of some that disagree with the President's foreign policy.  Last I heard, the President is the one person in this country that gets to set the foreign policy regardless of what a career diplomat or Congress thinks.  If we use the logic the Dems are using here, Obama should have been impeached over his discussion with Medvedev which was clearly political, dealing with an upcoming election.  Hmm, I don't remember one elected GOP House member calling for Obama's impeachment.  Then add to that the Iran deal, Benghazi, Paris Accord, etc., IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, the lack of actual support for the Ukraine, the quid pro Joe with the Ukraine, and on and on.  It is a little known fact that a President can be impeached even after leaving office, of course that would be a great waste of money, but applying the Dem logic to the Trump impeachment circus, Schiff, if he was honorable, should be moving in that direction.  My point is that we may disagree with a President's stance on foreign policy, I certainly did with Obama's for the most part, and I even disagree with some of Trump's policies regarding the use of tariffs, but they have that power, and I, or the bureaucrats/diplomats do not.

[E & J 2018 132]

12 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Takeaways for day one influenced by a nice Alexander Valley Cabernet. Silver Oak 2007 yum.

 

1. Jim Jordan is out of his league. So much for the great white hope who does not have a jacket...he was burned major a few times. Junior Jim!  Score -5 pts team Trump

2. You can call the President of the United States on a cellphone, in a restaurant , in the Ukraine, and get overhead by anyone walking by. Can't wait for Sondland to re-refresh Score -25 pts team Trump + 17 Cong. Welsh +10points team Truth.

3. The supporting documentation ( notes, texts) that is being blocked by the Whitehouse, if they exonerated the president you know they would be there, we must assume the recollection of the two witnesses are accurate. - 10 pts team Trump. +5 points team Truth

4. The honorable Adam "Shifty" Shift ran a tight ship and managed the subterfuge situation to let the witnesses tell + 5 Team Democrats, +19 points team Truth.

5. The Hon Deven Nunes...what a loser. Who cares?

6. The hearsay argument: well maybe one or two points team Trump....let's see how that plays out with Sondlands 'splaining" on what he actually heard/ saw

 

Honorable Adam “Shifty” SCHIFF 😂

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Unlockable
Image containing foul language removed

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Nice Dem talking points.  Schiff looked his same old lying self even though he was wearing a jacket, and the Dems hanging everything on hearsay, and opinion of some that disagree with the President's foreign policy.  Last I heard, the President is the one person in this country that gets to set the foreign policy regardless of what a career diplomat or Congress thinks.  If we use the logic the Dems are using here, Obama should have been impeached over his discussion with Medvedev which was clearly political, dealing with an upcoming election.  Hmm, I don't remember one elected GOP House member calling for Obama's impeachment.  Then add to that the Iran deal, Benghazi, Paris Accord, etc., IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, the lack of actual support for the Ukraine, the quid pro Joe with the Ukraine, and on and on.  It is a little known fact that a President can be impeached even after leaving office, of course that would be a great waste of money, but applying the Dem logic to the Trump impeachment circus, Schiff, if he was honorable, should be moving in that direction.  My point is that we may disagree with a President's stance on foreign policy, I certainly did with Obama's for the most part, and I even disagree with some of Trump's policies regarding the use of tariffs, but they have that power, and I, or the bureaucrats/diplomats do not.

anybody else seeing ads in the middle of others posts 

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Nice Dem talking points.  Schiff looked his same old lying self even though he was wearing a jacket, and the Dems hanging everything on hearsay, and opinion of some that disagree with the President's foreign policy.  Last I heard, the President is the one person in this country that gets to set the foreign policy regardless of what a career diplomat or Congress thinks.  If we use the logic the Dems are using here, Obama should have been impeached over his discussion with Medvedev which was clearly political, dealing with an upcoming election.  Hmm, I don't remember one elected GOP House member calling for Obama's impeachment.  Then add to that the Iran deal, Benghazi, Paris Accord, etc., IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, the lack of actual support for the Ukraine, the quid pro Joe with the Ukraine, and on and on.  It is a little known fact that a President can be impeached even after leaving office, of course that would be a great waste of money, but applying the Dem logic to the Trump impeachment circus, Schiff, if he was honorable, should be moving in that direction.  My point is that we may disagree with a President's stance on foreign policy, I certainly did with Obama's for the most part, and I even disagree with some of Trump's policies regarding the use of tariffs, but they have that power, and I, or the bureaucrats/diplomats do not.

Didn't congress appropriate the money to specifically for military support in the Ukraine? If they wanted conditions like investigate the former VP based on some Breitbart rumour, Congress should have added that.

 

You can say "well ,eventually the money and weapons made it so no harm no foul" In reality Russia already occupied parts of the Ukraine, it really was an emergency situation.

[Dashinka 23,252]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

anybody else seeing ads in the middle of others posts 

Not in the middle, but seeing a lot at the top and bottom.

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Not in the middle, but seeing a lot at the top and bottom.

They tried to stick them in Nature's post, but the large font crowded them out.

[Dashinka 23,252]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Didn't congress appropriate the money to specifically for military support in the Ukraine? If they wanted conditions like investigate the former VP based on some Breitbart rumour, Congress should have added that.

 

You can say "well ,eventually the money and weapons made it so no harm no foul" In reality Russia already occupied parts of the Ukraine, it really was an emergency situation.

Umm, didn't the Ukraine get their money prior to the designated date?  Did anyone tell the Ukraine they had six hours to comply with a political demand?  Sounds like a thought crime.

 

As to Russia occupying parts of the Ukraine, who was President when that happened?  As to investigating the former VP for his and his family's corruption, I don't think it is just a Brietbart rumor, John Solomon has a lot of FOIA information showing a lot of questionable activities.  Even Mr. Kent raised concerns about the Biden's, but I suppose the Dems ignored that part.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Umm, didn't the Ukraine get their money prior to the designated date?  Did anyone tell the Ukraine they had six hours to comply with a political demand?  Sounds like a thought crime.

 

As to Russia occupying parts of the Ukraine, who was President when that happened?  As to investigating the former VP for his and his family's corruption, I don't think it is just a Brietbart rumor, John Solomon has a lot of FOIA information showing a lot of questionable activities.  Even Mr. Kent raised concerns about the Biden's, but I suppose the Dems ignored that part.

I don't know who John Solomon is. What is FOIA? You say investigate "former VP for his and his family's corruption"  (corruption is a strong allegation) , but then your proof is "raised concerns" and "a lot of information"...is that your proof?

[Boris Farage 353]

I wish I had time to watch the hearings. The clips I've seen are insane. Dems are dead and just don't know it.