Donald Trump thus far

[The Edge]

Impeachment hearings underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...elensky-071071

[DrTiTus]

Your hopes are up as much as the DOW.

[Lightspeed]

The Democrats using Trump's tweets during the hearing as evidence within the hearing is next level.

[DrTiTus]

IG report on FISA abuse coming out on Dec 9th according to Lindsay Graham.

It's like a battle to see which party will destroy the other first. At least the US is too busy bickering among themselves to bother starting huge [military] wars.

[Ab]

Remember when Apple were the good guys?

https://daringfireball.net/2019/11/c...mp_campaign_ad

[DrTiTus]

Clearly Mac Pro quo.

[DrTiTus]

Ukranian MPs demand Zelensky/Trump investigate US-Ukraine corruption. Bill Clinton signed a Treaty in 1999 that allows for Ukraine-US mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.

Hillaryous.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Impeachment hearings underway.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...elensky-071071

Aaaand a grand total of nothing. The "Schiff Show" is over, Trump's not impeached.

Well that was a waste of time. Would have been cheaper to not change the American flag, I'm guessing.

I wonder what's next from the Dems. Throw it to the Senate to reject? Great plan. That'll make it officially nothing.

[fixed_truth]

I don't think this whole process was ever about getting Trump impeached. An independent body (imo) would have him gone by lunchtime but we all know that a senate decision would just be a partisan one. This is all just a play to drag Trump through the mud coming up to an election. Could it backfire? Absolutely.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Aaaand a grand total of nothing. The "Schiff Show" is over, Trump's not impeached.

Where the christ are you getting your news?

Schiff's Intelligence Committee wrapped up the public phase of its impeachment investigation last week after hearing from a dozen witnesses. Now, it's preparing a report to the House Judiciary Committee, which will decide whether to draft articles of impeachment. That report could come as early as the week of Dec. 2

[The Edge]

Wait, what? The hearings are over? Since when?

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Where the christ are you getting your news?

I watched the hearings? None of the witnesses had any direct evidence of a quid pro quo. They guessed, they assumed, they presumed, they felt bad, but when pressed, none admitted to actually having any evidence.

[Cyberbob]

And in today's news:

Internal emails show that the White House scrambled to come up with a justification for freezing the money just days after the White House Counsel’s Office was told that an anonymous CIA official had filed a complaint with the agency’s general counsel concerning the president’s July 25 phone call, suggesting people on the inside knew they were fucked.

Staff, including Mick Mulvaney, scrambled to justify the hold on nearly $400 million in aid in exchange for investigations.

How is that not a massive pile of clear cut evidence that Trump froze the aid with a direct as fucking possible aim of extorting Ukraine in exchange for personal political gain.

It's a line that has been crossed regardless of whether or not Trump saw the benefit of the extortion.
If a teacher tells a student to give him sex in return for a passing grade, it doesn't matter if the sex happened or not, demanding it was crossing the line.


The media in general need to stop calling it "quid pro quo".
It was extortion, and there is piles and piles of evidence to support that it was happening, regardless of the outcome of the extortion.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

I watched the hearings?

Can you point to any voices of authority that line up with your interpretation? It's just I've heard a number that suggest a stark opposite.

Of course, US politics is about stark opposites. It's always helpful to hear voices outside the usual bubble.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

I watched the hearings? None of the witnesses had any direct evidence of a quid pro quo. They guessed, they assumed, they presumed, they felt bad, but when pressed, none admitted to actually having any evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...6e_video.html?

The bit where Trump's Ambassador to Ukraine testifies that there was a quid pro quo is at 00:09

[DrTiTus]

The bit where he admits he was presuming about the aid is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjE6A459Tdw&t=45m

The bit where he states that Trump explicitly says he wants nothing is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ

Jim Jordan's bit is amusing too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZYCiXshjxk

So I guess it depends whether you go with half the information or all the information, and whether you actually want evidence or just a bunch of people making assumptions.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Can you point to any voices of authority

"Think for yourself. Question authority."

[Ab]

FAKE NEWS MEDIA!!1

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

"Think for yourself. Question authority."

That's what I'm trying to bloody well do, Maynard. First I have to know what authorities have to say before I question them, weigh the merits of competing ideas.

Or are you suggesting I should imagine myself the smart one?

[DrTiTus]

If you want the pro Trump angle, you can just follow him on Twitter, or watch Fox (Sean Hannity + Tucker Carlson). You can listen to Dan Bongino, although he goes on for a while and advertises shit. Judicial Watch (Tom Fitton) or Steve Piesczenik can be interesting (not so much news as background information).

"DECLASSIFIED - Epoch Times" on YouTube is supposedly non-partisan, although seems pretty pro-Trump. But it's hosted by a Kiwi chick (Gina Shakespeare).

I get my left wing/official narrative summary from comedians like Seth Meyers and John Oliver who are anti Trump as much as "everyone" these days.

Jimmy Dore is a centrist comedian I guess, he can be funny sometimes, but offers his opinion.

[DrTiTus]

Don't forget your qmap.pub :P

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Tucker Carlson.

Tucker Carlson says he's rooting for Russia in conflict with Ukraine

Goldstein said: “Because people are dying on the frontlines.”

Laughing, Carlson said: “Why do I care, why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious. Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I root for Russia, which I am.”

Because, Goldstein said, “preserving democracy is important”.

“I don’t care!” Carlson said.

[Ab]

Insane isn’t it?

[Ab]

Rudy just went under the bus.

It was only a matter of time.

During a radio interview with former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump attempted to distance himself from his personal lawyer’s efforts to dig up dirt on 2020 candidate Joe Biden in Ukraine.

“What was Rudy Giuliani doing in Ukraine on your behalf?” asked O’Reilly.

“Well, you have to ask that to Rudy,” Trump responded. “But Rudy…I don’t even know…I know he was going to go to Ukraine and I think he cancelled the trip.”

“But you know, Rudy has other clients other than me,” he continued. “I’m one person-”

O’Reilly cut him off: “So you didn’t direct him to go there on your behalf?”

“No,” Trump said.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/u...-go-to-ukraine

[Cyberbob]

It also means his trip can't be covered by Attorney privilege, and he'll be free to discuss it fully.

[DrTiTus]

This will be glorious

[The Edge]

Wow, Bill's really changed his tune. I remember when he was very pro-Republican, or does he just not like Trump?

[Cyberbob]

I know he was very anti-Obama and anti-democratic party, but to be fair most of my exposure to the man was through the lens of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He always seemed to at least have some integrity.

He's nowhere near the degree of brainwashed/ing cool-aid drinking as say, Sean Hannity or Megyn Kelly.

[Ab]

In the immortal words of Neil the hippy, Who’s Bill?

[pxpx]

O'Reilly I assume..

[The Edge]

The same one you posted about:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/rotten.co...lly/index.html

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Aaaand a grand total of nothing.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

The House Intelligence Committee has just released the draft impeachment report — "The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report" — to all Members and the public.

The impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection.

[DrTiTus]

Funny how the impeachment with no actual evidence was all in the news, but the FISA abuse IG hearings complete with documentation and evidence is not getting a peep, because sensational headlines about the Democrats being corrupt isn't helping the case against Trump.

CNN knew Lindsey Graham's opening statement would be too revealing so it chose not to air it. MSNBC put it in a window and spoke over it. They both cut to the Democrat's opening statement when he had finished laying out the summary of obvious wrongdoing.

The news isn't pushing the findings of the IG report where the FBI made "at least 17 significant errors or omissions". Sounds intentional, not just a slip up. And it was at the highest levels in the FBI. They should definitely have known better.

So Trump's impeachment will be stopped by the Senate - but who's going to protect the FBI? Is it any wonder they're so desperate to stop Trump?

Enjoy the show once it finally makes it into the normie news.

[Cyberbob]

I'm not even going to bother.

[Lightspeed]

I dunno, I find it helpful seeing the substance (or lack) of different perspectives.

[pxpx]

It's like my nearly 70 year old dad is posting

[Cyberbob]

Paraphrased from some recent reddit posts:

Of those who were willing to testify under oath, ALL say Trump committed crimes.
Of those who say Trump did NOT commit crimes, none were willing to testify under oath.

Those with the power to remove Trump (the Senate majority) have already said they have no intentions of being impartial, they are uninterested in fulfilling their constitutional duties, and they will not consider any evidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...artial/603658/

Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind,” “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can,”

By the way, the oath they must recite? “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

Trump will be impeached, perhaps twice. He won't be removed, but the fact that he'll have his little * on the wikipedia page of US Presidents means a lot.

[Ab]

It’s official: impeached, on 2 charges.

[Lightspeed]

Oh, but we're not done yet

Timing of Trump Impeachment Trial in Limbo as Pelosi Holds Out for Assurances

In declining to say when she might send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested she might keep them as leverage for negotiations on the rules for a trial.

[Cyberbob]

Which is a fantastic move. Trump wanted this over so he can gloat about being exonerated, but now he has to sit and stew.