Just wait for it. They are ramping up for something big the news said

---

Pelosi folding....

---

Pelosi folding....

That doesn't appear to be the case. Vindman testifying, contradicting Sondland's testimony. 

Shaping up to be an interesting November.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Pelosi folding....

That doesn't appear to be the case. Vindman testifying, contradicting Sondland's testimony. 

Shaping up to be an interesting November.

More childish narratives.  We have the transcript of the call & the state department IG Turned over the research giuliani compiled during the mueller probe.  You can have 100 never trumpers or resistance operatives testify about pearl clutching, but it doesn't change the underlying facts of the case.

---

That doesn't appear to be the case. Vindman testifying, contradicting Sondland's testimony. 

Shaping up to be an interesting November.

More childish narratives.  We have the transcript of the call & the state department IG Turned over the research giuliani compiled during the mueller probe.  You can have 100 never trumpers or resistance operatives testify about pearl clutching, but it doesn't change the underlying facts of the case.

JJ, just curious - are you classifying Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative? 

The unsurprising smear campaign against him is distressing, however. I'm eager to see/hear/discuss testimony when hearings become public after the impeachment vote is finished. All we have to go on are opening statements from people testifying.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

More childish narratives.  We have the transcript of the call & the state department IG Turned over the research giuliani compiled during the mueller probe.  You can have 100 never trumpers or resistance operatives testify about pearl clutching, but it doesn't change the underlying facts of the case.

JJ, just curious - are you classifying Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative? 

The unsurprising smear campaign against him is distressing, however. I'm eager to see/hear/discuss testimony when hearings become public after the impeachment vote is finished. All we have to go on are opening statements from people testifying.

No, you also have the TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL!!!!!!  My goodness.

---

JJ, just curious - are you classifying Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative? 

The unsurprising smear campaign against him is distressing, however. I'm eager to see/hear/discuss testimony when hearings become public after the impeachment vote is finished. All we have to go on are opening statements from people testifying.

No, you also have the TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL!!!!!!  My goodness.

Take your meds and calm down, dude - I asked you a simple question. Not every post on this thread is an invitation to argue or an attempt to piss you off. 

Also, we have a memorandum of the perfect call, not an official transcription...just to clarify.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

No, you also have the TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL!!!!!!  My goodness.

Take your meds and calm down, dude - I asked you a simple question. Not every post on this thread is an invitation to argue or an attempt to piss you off. 

Also, we have a memorandum of the perfect call, not an official transcription...just to clarify.

Your "simple question" sidesteps the point I made, which is that u dont need testimony from people giving "interpretations" or "concerns" about what was said when u have 1.) Transcript of the call 2.) The alleged target of as n extortive act says there was no pressure applied.  3.) Evidence to support reasonable suspicion.

---

Take your meds and calm down, dude - I asked you a simple question. Not every post on this thread is an invitation to argue or an attempt to piss you off. 

Also, we have a memorandum of the perfect call, not an official transcription...just to clarify.

Your "simple question" sidesteps the point I made, which is that u dont need testimony from people giving "interpretations" or "concerns" about what was said when u have 1.) Transcript of the call 2.) The alleged target of as n extortive act says there was no pressure applied.  3.) Evidence to support reasonable suspicion.

See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Your "simple question" sidesteps the point I made, which is that u dont need testimony from people giving "interpretations" or "concerns" about what was said when u have 1.) Transcript of the call 2.) The alleged target of as n extortive act says there was no pressure applied.  3.) Evidence to support reasonable suspicion.

See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.

Doesn't the left tout every witness as the "key" witness right up until they testify? Then for some reason the witness disappears into the the fog of memory once the testimony turns out to be nothing.

And I for one am begging the left to please impeach Trump. Please do it immediately so we can get all this closed door crap out into the public square and decide for ourselves if what they are saying is true. Because your last statement forgot the 3rd clause, that once the House impeaches (what we've known they would do from the moment they to the majority back), and once the Senate is done exonerating Trump (as the impeachment will have no basis in fact or reality), then Trump gets reelected in a landslide and the Pubs take back the House. And we get to enjoy the great [BLEEP] ening of the left.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Multiple sources say Gordon Sondland is back in DC today. MSNBC is saying he's changing his testimony to admit that he now remembers presenting a 'quid pro quo' to Ukraine. We'll see if MSNBC has the story right or not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Pelosi folding....

Senator Lindsey Graham is forcing Pelosi to hold a vote for formal impeachment proceedings.  He introduced a resolution co-sponsored by at least 39 other Senators (in one article that I read it said 50).  Some kind of "formal announcement" is supposed to come out today.

Enough of the "closed door kangaroo court" bull [BLEEP].  Let's bring this out in the open and allow due process.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Your "simple question" sidesteps the point I made, which is that u dont need testimony from people giving "interpretations" or "concerns" about what was said when u have 1.) Transcript of the call 2.) The alleged target of as n extortive act says there was no pressure applied.  3.) Evidence to support reasonable suspicion.

See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.

Here is the quote I found:

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

I read that as a political concern, rather than an claim of wrongdoing.

The text of the call that was released (and it was detailed enough that I don't expect the actual call to have been different in spite of your skepticism) never demanded (or even asked for) Ukraine to investigate Biden, those words are just a lie being propagated by those opposed to Trump. What was requested was to contact Barr with any information. Note also that, although there was no follow through on the request, Ukraine still received their requested military aid. At most you could claim it was an empty threat, but Ukraine did not take it as a threat, and Trump claims he didn't intend it as a threat. If both parties in the conversation both agree to that then the investigation is a meaningless waste of time.

If what a president might ask for is wrong because requesting foreign information about a possible crime is off limits if the criminal is related to a political opponent, that amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for criminals. Of course most of the prominent Dems are above the law anyway.

---

Pelosi folding....

Senator Lindsey Graham is forcing Pelosi to hold a vote for formal impeachment proceedings.  He introduced a resolution co-sponsored by at least 39 other Senators (in one article that I read it said 50).  Some kind of "formal announcement" is supposed to come out today.

Enough of the "closed door kangaroo court" bull [BLEEP].  Let's bring this out in the open and allow due process.

This could be very bad for the Dem congress critters who are in contested districts. Either vote "yes" and risk getting voted out of office in 2020 or vote "no" and risk getting voted out of office in the Dem primaries.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Your "simple question" sidesteps the point I made, which is that u dont need testimony from people giving "interpretations" or "concerns" about what was said when u have 1.) Transcript of the call 2.) The alleged target of as n extortive act says there was no pressure applied.  3.) Evidence to support reasonable suspicion.

See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.

The alleged target, the president of ukraine, rejects the premise.  None of the witnesses had access to doj to even QUESTION the chief executives determinations on biden or crowdstrike conduct..

---

See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.

Here is the quote I found:

“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Colonel Vindman said in his statement. “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

I read that as a political concern, rather than an claim of wrongdoing.

The text of the call that was released (and it was detailed enough that I don't expect the actual call to have been different in spite of your skepticism) never demanded (or even asked for) Ukraine to investigate Biden, those words are just a lie being propagated by those opposed to Trump. What was requested was to contact Barr with any information. Note also that, although there was no follow through on the request, Ukraine still received their requested military aid. At most you could claim it was an empty threat, but Ukraine did not take it as a threat, and Trump claims he didn't intend it as a threat. If both parties in the conversation both agree to that then the investigation is a meaningless waste of time.

If what a president might ask for is wrong because requesting foreign information about a possible crime is off limits if the criminal is related to a political opponent, that amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for criminals. Of course most of the prominent Dems are above the law anyway.

This is about more than a phone call.  The abuse of power could have taken place in any number of communication channels.
It could have been indirect.  If any US official testifies, "the president told us to say X to Ukraine," that's the same as the President himself saying it on the phone for the purpose of this conversation.
The question is, was X something in our national interest, or was it only in private or partisan interest?  If the latter, that is naked abuse of power that must be remedied by removal from office.  However, that question is not easy to answer.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here is the quote I found:


I read that as a political concern, rather than an claim of wrongdoing.

The text of the call that was released (and it was detailed enough that I don't expect the actual call to have been different in spite of your skepticism) never demanded (or even asked for) Ukraine to investigate Biden, those words are just a lie being propagated by those opposed to Trump. What was requested was to contact Barr with any information. Note also that, although there was no follow through on the request, Ukraine still received their requested military aid. At most you could claim it was an empty threat, but Ukraine did not take it as a threat, and Trump claims he didn't intend it as a threat. If both parties in the conversation both agree to that then the investigation is a meaningless waste of time.

If what a president might ask for is wrong because requesting foreign information about a possible crime is off limits if the criminal is related to a political opponent, that amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for criminals. Of course most of the prominent Dems are above the law anyway.

This is about more than a phone call.  The abuse of power could have taken place in any number of communication channels.
It could have been indirect.  If any US official testifies, "the president told us to say X to Ukraine," that's the same as the President himself saying it on the phone for the purpose of this conversation.
The question is, was X something in our national interest, or was it only in private or partisan interest?  If the latter, that is naked abuse of power that must be remedied by removal from office.  However, that question is not easy to answer.

Yes it is.  Is there reasonable suspicion that ukraine was involved in the 2016 elections?  Yep.  Politico wrote a story about it.  The ukrainian courts have found it.  We have tape recordings etc.  What about biden & the prosecutor?  Same thing.  

Pearl Clutching.

---

Here is the quote I found:


I read that as a political concern, rather than an claim of wrongdoing.

The text of the call that was released (and it was detailed enough that I don't expect the actual call to have been different in spite of your skepticism) never demanded (or even asked for) Ukraine to investigate Biden, those words are just a lie being propagated by those opposed to Trump. What was requested was to contact Barr with any information. Note also that, although there was no follow through on the request, Ukraine still received their requested military aid. At most you could claim it was an empty threat, but Ukraine did not take it as a threat, and Trump claims he didn't intend it as a threat. If both parties in the conversation both agree to that then the investigation is a meaningless waste of time.

If what a president might ask for is wrong because requesting foreign information about a possible crime is off limits if the criminal is related to a political opponent, that amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for criminals. Of course most of the prominent Dems are above the law anyway.

This is about more than a phone call.  The abuse of power could have taken place in any number of communication channels.
It could have been indirect.  If any US official testifies, "the president told us to say X to Ukraine," that's the same as the President himself saying it on the phone for the purpose of this conversation.
The question is, was X something in our national interest, or was it only in private or partisan interest?  If the latter, that is naked abuse of power that must be remedied by removal from office.  However, that question is not easy to answer.

No it isn't.  THE phone call is what this is all about.  The "whistle-blower" had a problem with it based on second hand information.  Subsequent "whistle-blowers" have nothing else to add to it other than "they felt" that something was wrong.

What is most disturbing about this whole clown show is the fact that it's not about the President breaking the law, it's all about politics as usual in the swamp.  The closed-door secret "testimony" has nothing to do with national security.  There is nothing classified regarding the whole issue.  There is no reason that all of the "testimony" should take place behind closed doors.

They are forcing "skeletor" (Nancy Pelosi) to make it "official" so that due process can take place.  It's nothing more than politics.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Sure, they interviewed Flynn, edited the interview months later, then charged him with lying about answers he gave to questions that weren't asked the way they were represented after the edits. Then they colluded with the media to get him convicted.

Did he have a lawyer?  Yes

Did he plead guilty?  Yes

Is it routine for the FBI to edit the notes they take in interviews, for grammar, spelling, and punctuation?  Yes

Are you dragging me down a rabbit hole?  Yes

Am I much too lazy to go down said rabbit hole with you?  Yes

Meanwhile, down here in the rabbit hole, the judge in the Flynn case cancelled a hearing scheduled for next month on Powell's filing that outlines the FBI and Prosecutor's malicious malfeasance in the case. Along with demands to produce the previously obscured exculpatory evidence Powell also calls for  the court to "dismiss the entire prosecution for outrageous government misconduct" and hold the prosecutors in contempt.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's becoming more and more clear the previous administration weaponized the FBI for the liberal agenda during the 8 years he was in power. I wonder if there is some record of a hiring edict that went out that looked for people specifically that were in certain political affiliated groups in High School or College.

Sound paranoid? Maybe.

But I've just witnessed too much political assassination attempts by the FBI lately...

---

It's becoming more and more clear the previous administration weaponized the FBI for the liberal agenda during the 8 years he was in power. I wonder if there is some record of a hiring edict that went out that looked for people specifically that were in certain political affiliated groups in High School or College.

Sound paranoid? Maybe.

But I've just witnessed too much political assassination attempts by the FBI lately...

Lately? This has been going on since Hoover was given the role of Director. It's nothing new, just out in the open now.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato