Saw a perfect photoshopped picture, The US Capital covered in a circus tent.

I managed to watch only about 10 minutes but it was very telling. I loved the question to Taylor you're the star witness and you got nothing? If this were actual trial, a judge might have tossed it the first 5 minutes.

There was no demand an impeachable act be done in return for aid. That's clear. The Ukrainians say no such thing occurred. Aid flowed, in fact I read (assume its true, I didn't look it up) we've given more aid to Ukraine under Tump than before. And Ukraine never investigated the crooked Bidens.

I as thinking before that Tump could be impeached and reelected, but I don't know. I have a hard time believing leftist Democrats would turn away from this charade but not 100% sure. If this gets worse, some of them with enough sane voters in their districts might have to CYA.

I think this latest attempt to overturn an election will fail. That mental giant AOC let the cat out of the bag yesterday in an interview. She's not the first one to do that but she's the cutest. This is all about avoiding a one on one Trump vs ________ next year. That's all. It's the equivalent of a team purposely injuring the star player on the other team just to have a chance at victory. Didn't that happen in the original MASH movie? They shot some guy up with drugs?

who's welch? what did he do?

I watched Nixon hearings and Clinton impeachment. This is a joke.

What'd he do? Afraid to tell me?

WebsterMark wrote on 11/14/19 at 05:44:55:


It's pretty easy to find. But I'm not surprised you refused to find out for yourself.

Watch Jim Jordan Get ‘Welch’d’ As He Walks Into A Very Obvious Shutdown
Democratic Rep. Peter Welch snapped back when the GOP congressman ranted about the whistleblower at the impeachment hearings.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was dealt an obvious burn by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) during the first public impeachment hearing when Jordan declared that Congress would “never get a chance” to question “the guy who started it all.”

The Republican congressman was referring to the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint prompted the House Intelligence Committee’s probe into President Donald Trump’s attempt to leverage millions in military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival Joe Biden. But as Welch was quick to point out, Jordan had failed to acknowledge the real origin of the investigation.

“There is one witness, one witness, that they won’t bring in front of us, they won’t bring in front of the American people,” Jordan said on Wednesday. “That’s the guy who started it all, the whistleblower.”

“Thank you, I say to my colleague, I’d be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify,” Welch swiftly replied. “President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.”

Welch’s comment was met with laughter throughout the hearing room.



http://www.huffpost.com/entry/jim-jordan-peter-welch-impeachment-hearing-burn...


It was indeed a fantastic burn by Welch.

WebsterMark wrote on 11/14/19 at 05:06:25:

Ukraines will say whatever they have to,.. their country is under attack and they need the aid to survive.
Trump will likely still be President when this is over.
They have to say what will keep them in his good graces.

This is why they were vulnerable to blackmail.

Serowbot wrote on 11/14/19 at 08:21:08:


Oh yea? Sure you want to apply that logic everywhere else?

So, let's say Sew is accused of threatening a neighbor.  The charges were brought up by his other neighbors who do not like Sew. Now, the first neighbor has stated Sew did not threaten him at all. The judge refuses to allow that alleged neighbor to testify or for his testimony to be given any validity because the judge says the victim could be fearful of retribution so his comments are not applicable. Instead, he allows the neighbors who have never liked you to testify AND furthermore invites in other neighbors who admittedly never witnessed anything but say they heard from other people that you threatened the original neighbor.

Is that your plan?

WebsterMark wrote on 11/14/19 at 08:37:40:

Something missing there...
First of all,.. there is a huge imbalance between America and Ukraine.
Second,... $500 million is appropriated by Congress and Trump is breaking the law just by withholding it.
Third,.. this isn't a neighborhood spat,... a country is under attack, and people are dying every day.  
Fourth,.. Trump was only interested in trashing Biden.
He didn't ask for "investigation",.. he asked for a public statement that Ukraine was specifically investigating Biden and Burista.
He wanted the trash, not substance.

That makes it clear that the purpose was not fighting corruption, but an attack on his political opponent.

Something missing there...
First of all,.. there is a huge imbalance between America and Ukraine. There's a huge imbalance between American and most of the rest of the world. So?
Second,... $500 million is appropriated by Congress and Trump is breaking the law just by withholding it. I'm not sure that's correct.
Third,.. this isn't a neighborhood spat,... a country is under attack, and people are dying every day.   Presidents made all types of foreign policy decisions that result in death. Obama refused an Ambassador's request for more security because it would have undermined the attitude he wanted conveyed. That got people killed.
Fourth,.. Trump was only interested in trashing Biden. That's demonstratively not true. Ukraine received the aid and in fact, more than any time previous.
He didn't ask for "investigation",.. he asked for a public statement that Ukraine was specifically investigating Biden and Burista. Where?
He wanted the trash, not substance. Didn't he ask for info regarding the 2016 Russian interference? Isn't that what you've been wanting?

That makes it clear that the purpose was not fighting corruption, but an attack on his political opponent. As I've asked before, if Joe Biden had killed someone, are you saying the President of the US can't ask for information because Joe's running for President?