• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve said:
If Trump had tried to run for president in Nixon’s time his total votes would have been in single digits. Republicans in those days were sane.
Click to expand...

Well, sane-er. There were still die-hards after all the evidence was out. There were die-hards after he left office.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Trump's approval at Rasmussen up 4 points to 50% since bug-eyed psycho Schiff took his star chamber to national television on Wednesday. No graceful way for Piglosi to get out of it. LOL.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen is notoriously Republican biased, and also showed a 50% approval on Nov 4-6th and near enough to 50% for most of the previous month. It has a C+ rating on fivethirtyeight.com
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Trump's approval at Rasmussen up 4 points to 50% since bug-eyed psycho Schiff took his star chamber to national television on Wednesday. No graceful way for Piglosi to get out of it. LOL.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
Rasmussen is notoriously Republican biased, and also showed a 50% approval on Nov 4-6th and near enough to 50% for most of the previous month. It has a C+ rating on fivethirtyeight.com
Click to expand...

Rasmussen may very well be the least reliable notoriously biased pollster there is. I'm never going to sweat one of their polls. I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT believe the accuracy of what Brooklyn posted.
 
acbytesla said:
Rasmussen may very well be the least reliable notoriously biased pollster there is.
Click to expand...

According to fivethirtyeight.com, not the worst.

SurveyMonkey is a D rating very left leaning poll with a bias of +5.1 D compared to Rasmussen's C rating and +1.5 R. They aren't even the worst Republican leaning poll, with the F-Rated TCJ Research having a 4.5 R leaning and earning a ban from their inclusion in the data 538 use. There are quite a few polls that have a higher bias towards wither the D's or R's, but Rasmussen is probably the most well known of them.
 
I've been hearing that "today must be the worst day for the Presidency". I might believe it if it hadn't already been said quite often for the last several months.

(eta) hehe -- Rick Santorum just said almost the exact same thing on a TV panel just now.
 
acbytesla said:
Rasmussen may very well be the least reliable notoriously biased pollster there is. I'm never going to sweat one of their polls. I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT believe the accuracy of what Brooklyn posted.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't feel the need to. Brooklynbaby does, and he's not alone. There's Trump as well, for instance.
 
The Democrats' case just completely fell apart -- and all thanks to their own witness. According to aide David Holmes' alleged statement via Fake News: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/holmes-testimony-sondland-call/index.html

Here's what he overheard on that now-notrious cell-phone call between Sondland and the President:

Sondland: [Zelensky] loves your ass!
Trump: So, he's gonna do the investigation?
Sondland: He's gonna do it... [He will do] anything you ask him to.

Boom! Zelensky did the investigation because he loves Trump's ass! Not because of "bribery" or "extortion." Liberals just can't understand because they're intrinsically hateful creatures. True love is the kind of love Donald Trump has for Donald Trump. And other people have for Donald Trump.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
According to fivethirtyeight.com, not the worst.

SurveyMonkey is a D rating very left leaning poll with a bias of +5.1 D compared to Rasmussen's C rating and +1.5 R. They aren't even the worst Republican leaning poll, with the F-Rated TCJ Research having a 4.5 R leaning and earning a ban from their inclusion in the data 538 use. There are quite a few polls that have a higher bias towards wither the D's or R's, but Rasmussen is probably the most well known of them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I have always noticed a substantial Republican bent. But I grant you my impression is anecdotal.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I was living in New York when she [Elise Stefanik] was first running for office. A repellent campaigner.
Click to expand...

Ironically, Elise Stefanik is one of the few Republicans who has voted against Trump administration initiatives a number of times. Included were the Trump tax cuts of 2017 -- primarily because it eliminated state and local tax deductions which she agreed unfairly impacts New Yorkers. She criticized Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. Stefanik opposed Trump's Muslim travel ban. She was also one of fourteen Republicans to vote with Democrats on cancelling Trump's declaration of an emergency on the U.S.-Mexican border.
 
Armitage72 said:
Schiff referred to the Tweet as witness intimidation and Rep. Justin Amash indicated that witness tampering may be added to the articles as a result.
Click to expand...

Schiff is a hack who will say anything, no matter how stupid it is.

First off, the charge is ridiculous on its face. Criticism isn't intimidation. Second, even a moment's consideration will reveal he doesn't actually believe his own accusation for a second. You can't be intimidated by something you don't even know about. And she wouldn't have known about Trump's tweets during her testimony if Schiff hadn't drought them to her attention. So if they were actually intimidating, then telling her about the tweets might intimidate her. But that's obviously not what Schiff would want from any witness hostile to Trump. The only reason Schiff read her those tweets is because Schiff knew the tweets wouldn't intimidate her, because they aren't actually intimidating.
 
Sondland: [Zelensky] loves your ass!... [He will do] anything you ask him to.
Click to expand...

Does Kim Jong-un know about this? Is it possible to keep him from finding out?
 
Ziggurat said:
Schiff is a hack who will say anything, no matter how stupid it is.

First off, the charge is ridiculous on its face. Criticism isn't intimidation. Second, even a moment's consideration will reveal he doesn't actually believe his own accusation for a second. You can't be intimidated by something you don't even know about. And she wouldn't have known about Trump's tweets during her testimony if Schiff hadn't drought them to her attention. So if they were actually intimidating, then telling her about the tweets might intimidate her. But that's obviously not what Schiff would want from any witness hostile to Trump. The only reason Schiff read her those tweets is because Schiff knew the tweets wouldn't intimidate her, because they aren't actually intimidating.
Click to expand...

You are aware that there were recesses where her or her staff could have seen the tweets?
 
Ziggurat said:
Schiff is a hack who will say anything, no matter how stupid it is.

First off, the charge is ridiculous on its face. Criticism isn't intimidation. Second, even a moment's consideration will reveal he doesn't actually believe his own accusation for a second. You can't be intimidated by something you don't even know about. And she wouldn't have known about Trump's tweets during her testimony if Schiff hadn't drought them to her attention. So if they were actually intimidating, then telling her about the tweets might intimidate her. But that's obviously not what Schiff would want from any witness hostile to Trump. The only reason Schiff read her those tweets is because Schiff knew the tweets wouldn't intimidate her, because they aren't actually intimidating.
Click to expand...

What an ***** moronic post. This is a legal hearing. Trump is a government official. He should conduct himself with some decorum and SHUT THE **** UP! But that would be too much to ask from the loud mouth clown prince of corruption.

If Trump wants to testify, let him have the balls to step before Congress and raise his right hand. But let's be honest. Trump doesn't want to do that because WE ALL KNOW HE WOULD LIE. Just like he did in his tweet. Trump doesn't want due process. He wants to obstruct and whine.

The man is both a coward and a bully. In other words, a POS.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Schiff is a hack who will say anything, no matter how stupid it is.

First off, the charge is ridiculous on its face. Criticism isn't intimidation. Second, even a moment's consideration will reveal he doesn't actually believe his own accusation for a second. You can't be intimidated by something you don't even know about. And she wouldn't have known about Trump's tweets during her testimony if Schiff hadn't drought them to her attention. So if they were actually intimidating, then telling her about the tweets might intimidate her. But that's obviously not what Schiff would want from any witness hostile to Trump. The only reason Schiff read her those tweets is because Schiff knew the tweets wouldn't intimidate her, because they aren't actually intimidating.
Click to expand...

Ah, but they are quite intimidating: the President of the USA personally attacking you and your career? Seeking to demean and humiliate you? And these tweets of Trump inevitably result in a mass of often vicious on line attacks by his supporters that include threats of violence. I doubt you would want to be a recipient. IMO these tweets are disgusting and dangerous.

Now, does this fulfill the legal definition of witness intimidation? Well, they skate the edge but are probably not persecutable according to this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/trump-witness-intimidation.html
 
Last edited:
Its a bloody clown show!!!

My God, the Trump administration's unofficial foreign policy back channel is a real keystone cops affair..

From David Holmes' opening statement at his deposition this afternoon.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-holmes-statement-impeachment-inquiry-full-opening-statement/

During the lunch, Ambassador Sondland said that he was going to call President Trump to give him an update. Ambassador Sondland placed a call on his mobile phone, and I heard him announce himself several times, along the lines of "Gordon Sondland holding for the President." It appeared that he was being transferred through several layers of switchboards and assistants. I then noticed Ambassador Sondland's demeanor change, and understood that he had been connected to President Trump. While Ambassador Sondland's phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President's voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President's voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume.

I heard Ambassador Sondland greet the President and explain that he was calling from Kyiv. I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy "loves your ass." I then heard President Trump ask, "So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Ambassador Sondland replied that "he's gonna do it," adding that President Zelenskyy will do "anything you ask him to." Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.​

1. Sondland calls POTUS from a restaurant (a public place) in a foreign country

2. He used a cellphone, so Vladimir Putin will now have a transcript of everything that was said in that call - the Russians call this "Kompromat".

3. Sondland held the phone away from his ear, so that Trump's loud voice and everything he said could be heard by witnesses (of which there are three; Holmes and two of his embassy staffers.

4. Talking about the contents of a call to the President, with embassy staff.

These idiots are just utterly clueless when it comes to security of communications. FFS, there is a bloody good reason why every embassy has a Signals Office; a secure communications room!!

Vladimir Putin must be pissing himself laughing at this Laurel and Hardy act
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
What an ***** moronic post. This is a legal hearing. Trump is a government official. He should conduct himself with some decorum and SHUT THE **** UP!
Click to expand...

A lack of decorum doesn't constitute witness intimidation.

The man is both a coward and a bully. In other words, a POS.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely nothing to do with my claim.
 
Darat said:
That doesn't supply the source.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. The name of the magazine the quote is in is "Financial Times," and I gave a link to the article in that magazine, which is:

https://www.ft.com/content/c98078d0-6ae7-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f

The article's title is "Ukraine’s leaders campaign against ‘pro-Putin’ Trump" and it's author is Roman Olearchyk.

What do you mean by "What is the source," beyond that?

ETA:
Or did you mean, where did the Financial Times journalist Roman Olearchyk get HIS information from, when writing the article?
Sentences like this, in the article:

“A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy,” Mr Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. “For me it was important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world.”

... show that the journalist interviewed/contacted the key players being reported on for the article's information.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom