Trump

[Vertigo 7]

Trump killed Epstein.

If the medical examiner was wrong or lied, the prison he was in is, of course, run by the DOJ, which reports to Trump... so, it's entirely possible.

Indeed. If we dip our toes into info wars like conspiracies, this is as good of a "theory" as anything, even better I'd say. Considering how prison guards statistically are pro Trump, and considering that Trump can not be tried for any crime, nor he'd lose any of his supporters if he were to shoot someone; - pretty good I say.


This will be my default clarification of Masterbagger's incomplete comment.

lol Why not? Trumpanzies seem to enjoy whackydo conspiracies. It may be the most fun ever. Let's give it a go...

We know Trump paid off prostitutes to hide his infidelity and the National Enquirer employed to bury damaging stories. And Trump seemed to enjoy hanging around Epstein and taking part in his sexcapades. What did Epstein know about Trump that was so damaging that Trump had him killed for?

[Vertigo 7]

Roger Stone found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Awesome. Dude is a creep. More of "the best people"!

[fiksal]

It may be the most fun ever. Let's give it a go...

We know Trump paid off prostitutes to hide his infidelity and the National Enquirer employed to bury damaging stories. And Trump seemed to enjoy hanging around Epstein and taking part in his sexcapades. What did Epstein know about Trump that was so damaging that Trump had him killed for?

It's true. There seem to be some smoke there, is there fire? Is Trump fancy for someone younger?

Roger Stone found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Awesome. Dude is a creep. More of "the best people"!

Yep, not so innocent after all.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/15/77935318 ... ents-trial

[Vertigo 7]

inb4 Masterbagger makes a false statement about the inquiry procedure where Rep. Stefanik was shut down:


HR660:

(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon rec-
ognition by the chair for such purpose under this
paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant
to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority
member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be
permitted to question witnesses for equal specified
periods of longer than five minutes, as determined
by the chair. The time available for each period of
questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for
the chair and the ranking minority member. The
chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of
such questioning, but each period of questioning
shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only
the chair and ranking minority member, or a Perma-
nent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the
chair or ranking minority member, may question
witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the
conclusion of questioning pursuant to this para-
graph, the committee shall proceed with questioning
under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause
2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.

[Vertigo 7]

It may be the most fun ever. Let's give it a go...

We know Trump paid off prostitutes to hide his infidelity and the National Enquirer employed to bury damaging stories. And Trump seemed to enjoy hanging around Epstein and taking part in his sexcapades. What did Epstein know about Trump that was so damaging that Trump had him killed for?

It's true. There seem to be some smoke there, is there fire? Is Trump fancy for someone younger?

I wouldn't be surprised. We know he wants to bang Ivanka. If evidence comes forward that Trump is also a pedophile, I wouldn't be shocked. Maybe that's why he had Epstein killed... Maybe he knew...

[Vertigo 7]

I know the house democrats are skating around this question but I know they are dying to ask it...

"You can't fight corruption without pissing off corrupt people." - Doesn't Trump seem pretty pissed off?

[Vertigo 7]

lol omg Jordan must think Trump can predict the future. "Why would Trump replace the Ambassador with the democrat's star witness?" Did he seriously just ask this question?

[RegisterMe]

I'm running behind but I did get a massive bely laugh out of Steve Castor cross-examining Yovanovitch about some Ukraining saying nasty things about Trump on social media, to which Ivanovitch replied "well.... sometimes that happens on social media" .

[Vertigo 7]

I'm running behind but I did get a massive bely laugh out of Steve Castor cross-examining Yovanovitch about some Ukraining saying nasty things about Trump on social media, to which Ivanovitch replied "well.... sometimes that happens on social media" .

Oh man, spoiler alert, the house republicans are full of shit through the entire proceeding. I've been watching since it began and their every line of questioning is again, pandering to an ignorant audience, as has been their behavior. They seem largely incapable of following the parliamentary procedures. If they can't abide by those simple house rules, what other rules and laws have house republicans been breaking?

[RegisterMe]

I'm running behind but I did get a massive bely laugh out of Steve Castor cross-examining Yovanovitch about some Ukraining saying nasty things about Trump on social media, to which Ivanovitch replied "well.... sometimes that happens on social media" .

Oh man, spoiler alert, the house republicans are full of shit through the entire proceeding. I've been watching since it began and their every line of questioning is again, pandering to an ignorant audience, as has been their behavior. They seem largely incapable of following the parliamentary procedures. If they can't abide by those simple house rules, what other rules and laws have house republicans been breaking?

Not entirely true in an least one instance - Mike Conaway R-TX was polite, respectful, and basically used his time to say "thank you for being such an example of public service for such a long career", and in fact his line of questioning that lead to her "outpouring of support from State employees" was very definitely in her favour.

[Vertigo 7]

I'm running behind but I did get a massive bely laugh out of Steve Castor cross-examining Yovanovitch about some Ukraining saying nasty things about Trump on social media, to which Ivanovitch replied "well.... sometimes that happens on social media" .

Oh man, spoiler alert, the house republicans are full of shit through the entire proceeding. I've been watching since it began and their every line of questioning is again, pandering to an ignorant audience, as has been their behavior. They seem largely incapable of following the parliamentary procedures. If they can't abide by those simple house rules, what other rules and laws have house republicans been breaking?

Not entirely true in an least one instance - Mike Conaway R-TX was polite, respectful, and basically used his time to say "thank you for being such an example of public service for such a long career", and in fact his line of questioning that lead to her "outpouring of support from State employees" was very definitely in her favour.

Yeah, fair enough. He was pretty decent over all. He was the only one, sadly.

[Vertigo 7]

I think it's fair to say Schiff really drove that home. Republicans definitely came off as cry babies.

[RegisterMe]

Yeah, fair enough. He was pretty decent over all. He was the only one, sadly.

And Rep. Will Hurd R-TX started his five minutes with a list of all the awards she had earned during her career, and then went nowhere that was off piste, or was defamatory or "Jordan like" in any way. His line of questioning, whilst obvious, wasn't inappropriate.

[RegisterMe]

Schiff using process and the power of the Chair to inhibit Republican questioning along Hunter Biden lines (even if it's complete crap) does not look good. It makes it looks partisan.

[Vertigo 7]

Schiff using process and the power of the Chair to inhibit Republican questioning along Hunter Biden lines (even if it's complete crap) does not look good. It makes it looks partisan.

I don't agree. Hunter Biden is not a material witness, and this is not a trial. This is an inquiry/investigation. Other than being the subject of an investigation that Trump wants, he has no involvement in this phase. If Trump's defense team wants to call him to testify during the Senate trial, he's welcome to do so. But there's nothing Hunter Biden can offer as evidence one way or another relating to the charges against Trump.

The sole purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to determine if the president committed any "high crimes or misdemeanors" and to recommend that the impeachment committee draft articles of impeachment based on their findings to be voted on before the full house for Trump to be formally charged. That's it. Any crimes discovered to have been committed by other individuals or testimony for any other investigation is not relevant what so ever. We have law enforcement, including the FBI, and the court systems to address those specifics.

As far as this looking partisan, republicans only have themselves to blame for that. If they took their oaths seriously, there would be far less pandering on their side and more interest in fighting the white house to have subpoenas answered so that the full facts and truth can be made available. Instead, we see them call the proceedings a sham, pitch a fit when house rules are enforced, and act all huffy for the cameras. But, as has been made apparent over the last 3 years, facts and truth are of little interest to the Trumpanzies. They would rather levy unfounded accusations and entertain conspiracy theories than ascertain the truth.

We heard the favorite whataboutisms from the republicans today. But Obammerz! But Clintonz! But Bidenz! (newest addition) and a whoooooolllleeee bunch of crying when they didn't get their way.

[RegisterMe]

Yup. I agree. Still, that's not the way it might appear. And this being a political process (as opposed to a criminal one), appearances are important.

From what I've seen so far Yovanovitch has been a brilliant witness, Schiff has done a good job, the Dems owned the day. The weakest point on the "Dem side" is the appearance that Schiff might be abusing process and / or position to his / the Dem's advantage.

I don't think that's true, but I can see Trump supporters spinning it that way.

[Vertigo 7]

Yup. I agree. Still, that's not the way it might appear. And this being a political process (as opposed to a criminal one), appearances are important.

From what I've seen so far Yovanovitch has been a brilliant witness, Schiff has done a good job, the Dems owned the day. The weakest point on the "Dem side" is the appearance that Schiff might be abusing process and / or position to his / the Dem's advantage.

I don't think that's true, but I can see Trump supporters spinning it that way.

Oh, of course they will... Either from the house republican side hoping that the public hasn't read HR 660, or the public side that hasn't read HR 660, or has but doesn't care what it says. I called that early on =p But it's also clear that the republicans won't ever be satisfied irregardless if they get what they want and will cry foul unless the impeachment is dropped.

Playing devil's advocate, since it doesn't really matter at this point what they say, they're going to pitch a fit because they have nothing to loose. While it would certainly be good for the US as a whole for the house republicans to perform their constitutional duties, the fact of the matter is the house democrats can and most likely will vote to impeach Trump without republican support. At least, I'm sure that's the way they see it.

[RegisterMe]

At least, I'm sure that's the way they see it.

In the grand scheme of things that's just as bad as refusing to impeach regardless of the facts.

[Vertigo 7]

At least, I'm sure that's the way they see it.

In the grand scheme of things that's just as bad as refusing to impeach regardless of the facts.

yup. Sad times we live in. We deserve so much more than this. At least, I would like to believe we do.

[RegisterMe]

Mr Mark Sandy is going to be feeling the full Trump pinch shortly.