How many of you think this Kanye West has really converted to a big religious person ?? Pardon me but color me skeptical. I hope he is genuine but I can’t believe he doesn’t have an ulterior motive. I have heard him say he wants to run for President after Trump serves it his next term. People just think Trump is controversial - let him win in 2024 and the crazy train will have literally stopped in the Oval Office !! But on the other hand he would be better than the current gaggle of Democrats 😂😂
He's probably telling the truth. If he said, "sexual relations" then you know he's lying.
The power and money that visited that island is just scary. After what happened to Epstein I would imagine if you ever visited or worked there you...
"However"? They all have DONE things that have bettered this country. A partisan person will argue against that until the cows come home. Party blindness is a real problem inflicting millions of Americans.
I have no interest in reading it. Though I do wonder if Congress can subpoena an anonymous writer if there are things written in the book that they think can help them.
if you use Schiff’s rules why subpoena the writer - just use whatever excerpts you like out of the book and quote em as fact
Truth be told, people that like a person usually don't try to convict them of anything. They tend to defend them, regardless. They will defend them even more vigorously, if they supported them for years, because if the person is guilty of a crime the supporter will feel responsible or that they chose poorly. Since most people don't like to think of themselves as failing or choosing wrong, the accused can never be bad, because in their heads it makes them bad, they are not bad or stupid.
CONGRATS !! You have just described the Rep & Dem parties since their formation
Me thinking the process is unfair if I were in the hot seat depends on if I were guilty or not.
Sondland talked directly to Trump in the overheard conversation and will be speaking next week. Volkner supposedly spoke with Trump and Giuliani and will be speaking next week. Bolton also supposedly spoke directly with those at the center and may be heard from.
I didn't read the aides transcript. Did he say he hates Trump?
It is funny how everyone, even his long time lawyer becomes a "Trump Hater" when they say something that may tarnish Trumps reputation. It will be even funnier and more in revealing when the Trumpies start calling Giuliani a Trump Hater.
We will have to see what happen
“Me thinking the process is unfair if I were in the hot seat depends on if I were guilty or not.
NEVER SAID BY ANYBODY IN THE HOT SEAT !! Sorry buddy - that’s why you hire people like me to make sure the process is fair!!!
2: I know it's an inquiry. As you stated "the Dems are trying to sway public opinion", would the public not be like a jury here, would the Republicans quietly on the fence not be like a jury here? As I said, I suspect that is the path the Dems have chosen and why witnesses will probably get stronger as this goes forward.
The Dems are trying to build a case for abuse of power in regards to Yovonovich. Why she was removed matters when seeking abuse of power.
3: Exactly "exchange" and "this for that" seem to be interchangeable. There was no exchange, that doesn't mean there wasn't an attempt, which is why we are here.
The aide release timing is very suspect, but not alone damning.
Obama fires every Bush foreign ambassador when elected. I suspect he wanted ambassadors that mirrored his policy before he went on his world apology tour.
Attempted anything if very difficult to prove unless you are a mind reader.
Would you want to be convicted of an alleged crime for something that someone hates you overhears on a phone call ?? If you were on the hot seat I suspect you may think this process up to now has been more than unfair....we will see what happens.., who says that all the time 🤔
As of yesterday, you are correct. The Dems still needed to release transcripts of 4 depositions. Yes, they should release those. Sondland was deposed today in a closed door session and those transcripts were released. I don't know who deposed him or if we will here from him in open committee hearings. I do think we should here from everyone in open committee, even if both sides are in fact in the closed door hearings.
How can you believe Hillary's crimes are worse than anything Trump has been accused of when, "PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. WITHOUT A CONVICTION A PERSON IS INNOCENT". Obviously, based on previous statements Hillary is innocent and just a victim of a constant Republican Witch Hunt.
Bill you asked me, "If the Dems had hard evidence why haven't they showed it yet?". That reminded me that you never answered my legal question.
Was there ever a time where a lawyer would want to lead with soft evidence to build the story line and build up to a grand finish with their most compelling witnesses so your last witness leaves a strong impression on the jury?
That is what I suspect is happening here, since Sondland and Volkner are closer to Trump than the first three and are still to be heard from. Also, Mulvaney and Bolton will be very strong witnesses if they lose their court case to dodge their subpoena's.
Side note. I'm watching Tucker right now who said "They (dems) only started using "bribery" recently because they ran it through a focus group and found it to be the most scary". In fact, the Dems shifted to "bribery" because a democratic pundit made a very strong case for why the Dems should seek bribery charges. "Bribery is listed in the Constitution as a reason for impeachment. No fight over what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Is there really a difference between bribery and quid pro quo or is it semantics?
#1 I said “I believe” Hillary is guilty which that and $1.50 will get me a cup of coffee.
#2. This is not a trial and if it were building your evidence to the jury is a valid course of prosecution. This is an “inquiry” where the Dems are trying to sway public opinion and rules are completely different - enter all the hearsay evidence. The BIG tell today with all day with Yovanovitch was when asked if she had any knowledge of Trump committing a crime — NO. All the rest was political bluster.
#3 Bribery is the crime of exchange (could you please point out Trump’s exchange) and quid pro quo describes it. Bribery sounds so much more sinister. Come to think of it Schiff could be charged with Aggravated Dumbass with Intent to Distribute - I like the way that sounds
The Republicans know how much time they have for questioning. That is very clear from listening to the Republican female who always, " I yield my 5 seconds. I yield my 36 seconds".
I wonder why so many Republicans go on and on about what they see happening here, then try to squeeze a long tantalizing question into the last 3 seconds, forcing Schiff to cut them off mid question with, "your time has expired". Then they keep starting the question over, forcing Schiff to cut them off multiple times.
I don't actually wonder why they do it. They do it so that non-sheep people can call Schiff "King Schiff", because FOX showed them clip after clip of Schiff not allowing republicans to ask a "bombshell question".
Did you ever stop to think the Reps want to use their time to put in a show as much as the Dems?? I don’t have to watch Fox to know Schiff has been having closed hearings in the Whitehouse basement. If you cannot see that this entire fiasco is another attempt to discredit Trump because they cannot beat him at the ballot box you just refuse to see it. Yes - your right - they didn’t get Hillary and I will take my last breath believing her crimes are far worse than anything Trump has been accused. Bottom line - they couldn’t or wouldn’t convict her - the same thing will happen with Trump. As a patriot, which I know you are, don’t you believe that an action removing a sitting President of the United States should be done in full view of the American people?? If the Dems had hard evidence on Trump - why haven’t they shown it to the people? What they have shown so far no where near rises to committing high crimes or treason. This is nothing but politics - very bad ones at that. Next time we have a Dem President we don’t like - we will just forget about all the folks that voted for him/her and impeach em.
WOLF - our judicial system may be flawed in many ways but is still the best in the world. I believe in it with all its mistakes and shortcomings. That being said I would venture to say there has probably never been a human being investigated more than Donald Trump. I’m sure on some occasions he has stepped up to the line and leaned over but till yet has not been convicted of a crime. Just because a person is a public figure or elected official they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty - just like you or I. Could Trump have broken the law? Possible but no hard facts - just smoke and mirrors accusations with no conviction. I get you dislike his character - he can be very abrasive but his POLICIES and vision for the country is the best thing out there right now. I get you believe he broke the law - I was the same way back in the 90’s - but guess what?? I had to suck it up and accept the verdict - member this ??
Justice works the same way for Trump - the prosecution has not proven its case!!
Difference being. "My aide overheard Sondland on the phone with the President", and Sondland will be testifying...so I guess we shall find out.
My point through this, the Mueller report, the Hillary servers, Biden's son has always been, "If someone thinks wrong doing was done, investigate it".
Many defenders of Trump like to talk boldly about the law, the constitution, defending the country, yet can't be bothered to listen to testimony with an open mind or care that those closest to the facts refuse to testify(which they may ultimately be forced to). Many of them argue a person is innocent until proven guilty and somehow believe that means there should be no investigations, especially if the accused's accusers are not fans of the accused. Cops hate criminals, all their investigations must be witch hunts by that logic.
Many of them know Trump was "not exonerated" by the Mueller Report. They also know he was an unindicted co-conspirator("individual 1")in several cases that arose from the Mueller report that resulted in convictions and prison sentences for others. Even with that knowledge they somehow still consider it a witch hunt and call people blind if they don't see the conspiracy. Some of them even believe all those convicted of crimes discovered through the Mueller investigation should be let go, even those that confessed. Yet somehow think they have footing to call for investigations into others on the grounds that, "We are a nation of laws, and people should obey those laws or face the consequences".
Many Trump supporters that say, "You are innocent until proven guilty", have already convicted most Democrats of one crime or another. They call for investigations into Hillary, which is fine by me. If Hillary is "crooked", prove it, I will cheer her downfall with you. The Republicans investigated Hillary's charity for a year and Trey Goudy concluded with, "We found some interesting things that should be looked into further". Had they found anything, I suspect Trump supporters would rejoice and call Democrats stupid for not seeing that Hillary was in fact crooked. The District of New York investigated Trumps charity for a month and found enough evidence that Trump had to pay back $2.7 million and close the charity. Yet those same Trump supporters still cry, "Witch Hunt" and defend him against all investigation. Interesting.
Wait, I know the defense, "He planned to pay the money back". Yeah, just like in the impeachment investigation when, "He released the funds", AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT.
It’s all gonna be OK WOLF - the Dems have the HONORABLE Adam Schiff running the impeachment inquiry. We all know he will not do his level best to be fair and unbiased against Trump. Pelosi is “so sad” she has to do this for our country. Using your thoughts on Trump I don’t even know why they are even bothering with an inquiry - they should call for a vote immediately and get it on to the Senate for trial. I am quite sure Mitch McConnell will be just as fair and impartial as Schiff. Since you have already tried and convicted Trump I guess I’ll have to buy a set of Joe Biden hats and mugs - he is certainly clean as a whistle and not controversial at all. Your insight has been illuminating!! Buddy ....
If Ginsberg were to drop dead we just THINK it has been war up to now. I really feel sorry for any poor SOB Trump would nominate. If they crapped in their diaper the Dems would use it against em.
WOLF - my friend Boudreaux has a third cousin who’s bro in law’s 3rd wife was a Hillary Clinton staffer. She overheard a phone call between Hillary through the wall and in her opinion she heard Hillary tell her to smash all phones and hard drives with incriminating emails. I am grooming her to blow the whistle on Hillary. Ridiculous right ?? That is why hearsay evidence amounts to the same thing as idle office gossip about the boss that you may suspect but can’t prove. Gotta rule in favor of Edward Neal on this one.
Sondland and Volkner will be interesting to hear from. They were the guys mentioned about in calls that the two gentlemen today were on with, that were the ones in direct contact with Trump and Gulliani. Sondland is Friday and Volkner is Tuesday.
I missed the first hour and a half. Watched 45 mins. at lunch and listened to the rest on my phone at https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=radio
It was very interesting. I suggest listening to it for yourselves if you can. For me, I made a point to listen to as much as I could so that I wasn't relying on FOX, CNN and MSNBC to show me sound bites and tell me how to understand what was said. I am now watching them and they are playing videos and saying exactly what I thought they would show and say.
Schiff asking rhetorical questions, though funny at times, effective at times and ineffective at times seemed unprofessional.
Republicans saying, "We don't have your written notes, we couldn't see them because they aren't here, are they?" to William Taylor who said he took official notes of all events at the time of the events. That sounded reasonable, until later I learned Trump's (Republican's) State Department has them and won't release them even though the were subpoenaed to do so.
I don't buy the Republican line that, "it isn't a thing because Ukraine got their aid without Trump getting anything". The aid was being withheld, that is a fact according to both witnesses(they were first hand witnesses to that fact). It was released 2 days after the Whistleblower blew the whistle, that is a fact according to everyone on both sides. Some Republicans made good arguments and interesting points. That just isn't one of them, sorry Republicans.
IMO the desperation of the Dems was on full display when one of em (Don’t recall his name) actually stated that hearsay evidence was just as good as direct evidence. Unless there has been a complete overhaul in jurisprudence I am not aware of a first year law student knows that is a completely false statement. I the Dems 2 star witnesses cannot name an impeachable offense - it is over — NOTHING BUT A WITCH HUNT
Just ran across this article and it is quite alarming...
Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook families' lawsuit against gunmaker proceed
If this is allowed and the gunmakers are litigated into submission.... if there is no one that makes guns ...your 2nd Amendment is not being violated - next will be the bullet manufacturers!! DAMN LAWYERS !!!