I'm for Bevin not conceding. Use the Left's tactics against them - delay, multiple recounts, etc. Use any legal means to stall them taking a seat or position. Make them really work for it.

Being civil and playing by the rules is not respected by the Left so play the game by their rules and see how they like it.

I think Bevin should definitely fight. I would guess that the voting margin of victory will be found in heavily Democratic precincts and those precincts will be shown to have an unbelievably high voter turnout, much like the precincts in west Alabama where voter turnout can reach 94%-104% of registered voters.



.

Jury selection has begun in the trial of Roger Stone. Roger Stone, a good man, will probably go to prison.

For the life of me I can't understand how it is that those on the left get away with any and all wrongdoing. No matter what. Clapper, McCabe, Brennan, Strozk, Page--

Nothing.

Happens.

Donald Trump Jr lets it fly

Calls out Ciaramella

major news media still won't name him

re Kentucky Gov race

DEM Beshear 709,673
REP Bevin 704,523
LIB Hicks 28,426

total Gov votes 1,442,622

Kentucky AG

REP Cameron 823,071
DEM Stumbo 602,090

Total AG votes 1,425,161

Did LIB Hicks hurt Bevin more than Beshear ?

^^^^^^^^

I would say so, given the results for AG.

Several discussions amongst VCDL members are blaming Trump for VA flipping blue. Gun owners can be their own worst fucking enemies sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Did LIB Hicks hurt Bevin more than Beshear ?

I think Bevin shot himself in the foot with his rhetoric regarding the teachers and the retirement system. As a participant in the retirement system, I had mixed emotions about how he and the general assembly went about trying to fix the system. I still voted for him because I'd rather vote for the guy who TRIED to fix a broken system over the party that broke the system.

But a know a lot of teachers, and all of them are pissed at Bevin. They have a powerful lobby, and it showed in the election. Had he taken a different approach to them, he likely would have won hands down.

Was watching CBS streaming, and the glee with which the anchors were reporting Sondland's testimony was incredible to watch.

I realize we live in a "post-news" era. I guess we always have. It still shocks me how under-informed anyone is if they rely solely on the MSM for news.

Sorry for such an obvious observation.

Monroe Louisiana supporter.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
Try to think of something else. Read a book. Watch a movie. Do some horizontal tango.

Yeah, I just poured myself a very large bourbon.

(To be fair, I was likely going to do that anyway)

Yeah, wish I could do that, but with my diabetes it would probably kill me. Especially given the election returns for Virginia.

This thread goes in a lot of diff directions

This post is about the impeachment hoax

The lead in to this is:

Sean Davis: It's becoming obvious based on testimony that this entire operation was orchestrated by Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman. But because they didn't want their names on the anti-Trump complaint, they pawned it off on one of Brennan's anti-Trump operatives.


https://thefederalist.com/2019....XcMkEFU_OX4.twitter

A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

[Rudy] Giuliani?” Taylor was asked.

“No, no,” he replied.

“Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”

“No,” Taylor said.

“And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?” Taylor was asked.

“I have not,” he said.

“You had no communications with the president of the United States?”

“Correct,” Taylor said.

He also admitted he had never spoken to Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s chief of staff.

When asked who exactly he had spoken to about the brouhaha, Taylor confirmed that his only contacts about the matter were with John Bolton, the former national security adviser who was fired by Trump, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Tim Morrison. Both Hill and Vindman are rumored to have been sources for the so-called whistleblower who filed a complaint against Trump in August.

Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge.

“And this isn’t firsthand. It’s not secondhand. It’s not thirdhand,” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., said to Taylor. “But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?”

“That’s correct,” Taylor admitted.

Zeldin noted that the only reference to Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden in Taylor’s opening statement stemmed from that convoluted game of telephone. The New York lawmaker hammered Taylor for relying on third-hand information about the state of mind of an elected official to whom he had never spoken.

“So do you have any other source that the president’s goal in making this request was anything other than The New York Times?” Zeldin asked.

“I have not talked to the president,” Taylor said. “I have no other information from what the president was thinking.”

Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.

“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”

“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”

“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.

“That is correct,” Taylor responded.

Taylor also testified that he didn’t see any official readout of the July 25 phone call until it was declassified and released by Trump in late September.

“I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25th,” he said.

The next phase of this whole impeachment sham:

quote:

Adam Schiff Announces First Public Impeachment Hearings

After weeks of secretive impeachment proceedings from which House Democrats have largely excluded Republican lawmakers, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced on Twitter Wednesday that his committee will hold its first public impeachment hearings next week.

Unsurprisingly, those with the most damaging testimony will be peddled out, while witnesses who gave exonerating testimony such as special envoy Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland are notably absent from the roster...

Link

I heard today that witnesses are going back and editing their depositions as their memories are refreshed and they've had more time to think about what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
I heard today that witnesses are going back and editing their depositions as their memories are refreshed and they've had more time to think about what happened.

Seriously? You mean about the phone call that we all can read the transcript of?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
I heard today that witnesses are going back and editing their depositions as their memories are refreshed and they've had more time to think about what happened.

Seriously? You mean about the phone call that we all can read the transcript of?

It was either on one of the shows on Patriot radio or one of the Fox news channels on sat radio. I swear they said after hearing or reading testimony from other witnesses their memories became more clear. I'd have to think credibility is nothing more than a word that gets tossed around.

That's Eric in the blue dress, above? Eric?

Well the clarification of testimony can go either way. If they are smart and can read the tea leaves they should realize it will be a dumpster fire and “clarify” anything they fudged in secret to the Dems to make Trump look bad not based on evidence.

This will be like Hillarys rigged election, they will still lose in spite of the cheating and unfair rules.

quote:

I swear they said after hearing or reading testimony from other witnesses their memories became more clear.

So in court they would be cross-examined on those "refreshed" memories, right?

I'd love to see their cell phone call records.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The next phase of this whole impeachment sham:

quote:

Adam Schiff Announces First Public Impeachment Hearings

After weeks of secretive impeachment proceedings from which House Democrats have largely excluded Republican lawmakers, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced on Twitter Wednesday that his committee will hold its first public impeachment hearings next week.

Unsurprisingly, those with the most damaging testimony will be peddled out, while witnesses who gave exonerating testimony such as special envoy Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland are notably absent from the roster...

Link

Sondland is claiming a quid pro quo now.