• 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.
Lurch said:
Maybe one of Schiff's staff members alerted him?... I don't know for sure on that, as I wasn't watching during the minutes leading up to his announcement.
Click to expand...
These days, the likely thing is someone simply forwarded it in an email to his cell phone. It's not complicated.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Jordan said a number of times after accusing Taylor of repeating that anything anyone told him was hearsay, "It didn't happen. It didn't happen."

I so wanted someone to ask Jordan for evidence it didn't.
Click to expand...

A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule. If someone, I don't know heard Trump tell someone to work with Giuliani to dig up dirt on the Bidens, that would be an exception to the hearsay rule. If someone conspired with Trump to get the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Bidens, in violation of our laws, that too would be an exception. All of this is besides the fact that the rules of evidence don't apply to a hearing in Congress.
 
Lurch said:
Maybe one of Schiff's staff members alerted him?... I don't know for sure on that, as I wasn't watching during the minutes leading up to his announcement.
Click to expand...

Or they expected him to do something on Twitter during the hearing and they wanted to be ready to exploit Trump's stupidity if the opportunity presented itself. That is certainly how it worked out.
 
Craig4 said:
Or they expected him to do something on Twitter during the hearing and they wanted to be ready to exploit Trump's stupidity if the opportunity presented itself. That is certainly how it worked out.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. Surely one of the Democrats looked to see if Trump had Tweeted about the hearing. They would have then shared it.
 
kellyb said:
So why was the aid showing it to Schiff in the middle of impeachment and showing it to Schiff? The aid would have known it was unintentionally wonderful PR for the Democratic side to highlight just how over the top nutty, juvenile, and UNpresidential President Manbaby is. They might have predicted Trump would do that because he's a predictably awful weirdo when it comes to exposing his soul on twitter. He can't HELP but dig his own grave on twitter.

It embarrassed them as expected, too. AWESOME!

But it's not like the mailman analogy. That was a terrible analogy.
Click to expand...

I already answered your question in my comment. I do not understand the rest of your post.

ETA: please don’t bother trying to explain.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
So Mulvaney got it second hand when he admitted to withholding aid at the press conference?
Click to expand...

Boom2.gif
 
Cavemonster said:
There are other technically possible reasons an administration could decide to delay a payment, but the available evidence supports that the motivation is what Trump has been accused of.

Before the memorandum was released, Republican Chris Christie publicly speculated about the content and gave out "Do me a favor though" as his example of the damning language that he believed would not be in the memorandum. That was precisely the language in the memorandum.

The administration has had plenty of time now to clear up for the public their reasons for delaying the funding and to show evidence to support that this explanation is true. Instead they have hopped through various alternative explanations, dropping them when they became unsupportable. We've gone through "They were waiting for other countries to contribute more" and landed on "We wanted them to investigate corruption". But there has been no evidence of either of those requests being made whereas the request to investigate Biden and the supposed crowdstrike server were explicit. No other requests have been made public that corroborate any other aim.

The timing of the actual release of funds correlates with the whistleblower report. No other suggested motivation gives a reasonable explanation for the end of the hold on the funds. They got caught. Period.

There has been no satisfying explanation for why several mentions of Biden were removed from the memorandum or why it was stored on a higher level security server than similar calls are held on.

Several people familiar with the content of the call have expressed their impression that it, along with other actions were intended to further the president's political aims rather than national interests. The "second hand" critique doesn't hold much water because the people who originated these reports are known. These are not coffee boys or high school students. These are not rumors.

Several statements made that apparently minimized the incriminating nature of this exchange have been shown to be false.

Trump explicitly mentions that he is sending his personal lawyer to speak with a foreign head of state about investigations into his potential political rival.

No alternative reason for withholding aid would explain the available evidence. The proposed alternatives would be expected to leave communications and evidence that is missing. The administration has had plenty of time to clear the record by showing the communications which support their alternative explanations.

Instead, their supporter's narrative has changed to "So what? He can do this if he wants"
Click to expand...

Outstanding post - pretty much rips the rug out from under Ziggurat and all the pathetic Faux News/GOP talking points he keep parroting.
 
Prepare yourselves for a shock, folks. I suggest sitting down.....


Fact checking Trump's tweet regarding Yovanovitch's history:
AP FACT CHECK: Trump Twists Ex-Ambassador’s Record

Yovanovitch served as a low-level diplomat in Somalia in her first foreign tour after joining the foreign service in her 20s. She had nothing to do with the 1984 famine that preceded her arrival in Somalia and contributed to that country’s unraveling, nor anything to do with the government’s collapse and the onset of anarchy after she left.
And while she served in Somalia, she had decidedly limited influence in a junior post.

TRUMP: “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?”
THE FACTS: There’s no credence to the notion that countries “turned bad” when Yovanovitch went to them.
Click to expand...
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...trump-portrays-ex-ambassador-as-wrecking-ball
 
varwoche said:
Third-hand evidence! We demand remaining transcripts be released! Nunes et al are demanding that remaining depositions be made public, knowing said depositions contain yet more 2nd/3rd hand evidence for them to squeal about. Meanwhile, not one syllable about the direct witnesses Trump has obstructed from testifying.
Click to expand...

This, I think, is key.

There are several witnesses who are testifying under oath that Trump committed an impeachable offence. There are no witnesses who are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did not commit an impeachable offence. Many of the people who could testify one way or the other are either refusing to appear, or are being prevented from doing so by the White House.

If Trump didn't do what he was accused of a) why isn't anybody willing to testify to that under oath? b) why isn't Trump allowing the people with the most direct knowledge to testify under oath?

And the excuse that "this is a sham and the Republicans won't participate in a sham" is self-evidently nonsense, given that there are plenty of Republicans - up to and including Devin Nunes - who are participating. You can't claim that you're boycotting an official proceeding when all you're actually doing is preventing some witnesses from testifying.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
This, I think, is key.

There are several witnesses who are testifying under oath that Trump committed an impeachable offence. There are no witnesses who are prepared to testify under oath that Trump did not commit an impeachable offence. Many of the people who could testify one way or the other are either refusing to appear, or are being prevented from doing so by the White House.

If Trump didn't do what he was accused of a) why isn't anybody willing to testify to that under oath? b) why isn't Trump allowing the people with the most direct knowledge to testify under oath?
Click to expand...

Well there might be two first hand witnesses to the call coming soon - Timothy Morrison (Top Russia & Europe to the NSC) & Jennifer William (top Russia & Europe advisor to Pence).

Warning: 4min video in link

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/ho...timony-from-morrison-and-williams-73594949606


Lt Col Vindman (who was also on the call) is due to testify soon.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
This might come as a bit of a shock, but I have little doubt that the vast majority of people in this thread have been rapidly scrolling past your endless squabble (the latest of many, with various posters) with kellyb.
Click to expand...

I'd have skipped it myself, if I weren't so addicted to addressing BS.
 
smartcooky said:
BelzMcHronzni
autumn1971
Phantom Wolf (perhaps)

If they don't think they are smart, they can speak for themselves...
Click to expand...

(raises hand)

smartcooky said:
I did quote it... yesterday

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12892926&postcount=1798

You ignored it when you replied in the very next post
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that some people are skipping your posts. I also have it on good authority that this should come as a shock to you.

kellyb said:
Was George Kent under oath when he was talking on TV? Serious question...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't.
Click to expand...

They were both under oath.
 
smartcooky said:
If you think I'm wrong, and the rest of the users here are not as smart as I think they are, then make your case.

PS: If you were able to read between the lines, you would understand that I wasn't referring to everyone else the forum, I was referring to the others arguing against kellyb's absurd points.

Belz
McHronzni
autumn1971
Phantom Wolf (perhaps)

If they don't think they are smart, they can speak for themselves...
Click to expand...
If it wasn't a derail of a derail, I would demonstrate how this post in defense of "we" helps to prove that flogging "we" the way that you did is off base. Way off base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom