quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
I've been able to listen to a lot of the hearings including Sondland yesterday. I kept thinking I wouldn't want to be in the hotseat he was in.

Yeah, no kidding. He was the guy that was supposed to drop the big bomb on Trump. When that didn't happen because the repubs did their job and pinned him down. The Shiffter wasn't pleased.

Jim

Whenever I see 'Mr Shifty' flailing around when yet another of his so-called witnesses drops a hand grenade into his pocket, I am inevitably reminded of the classic UK advert involving 'Mr Shifter' where everything goes wrong for him and his 'assistant':

Wondering if the dims are dumb enough to go through with impeachment proceedings. It looks like DT wins the 2020 election if they impeach or not, so what do they have to lose. Get the shit storm rolling, and hope for something to happen. Kind of a nothing ventured, nothing gained situation for the dims.

If they had a rational platform and a strong candidate, they could rely on their usual antics to push them close to a win. They have neither, and if their evaluation of their low chances of winning are more realistic than their predictions in 2016, they might realize impeachment is their best option.

They've dug themselves into an unpopular hole in the last 3 years, relying almost totally on a "Hate Trump!" agenda. They've turned off even more voters than 8 years of the bamster, with scheme after scheme, and doing very little effective legislating, or governing.

^^^ Great money shot.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
Wondering if the dims are dumb enough to go through with impeachment proceedings. It looks like DT wins the 2020 election if they impeach or not, so what do they have to lose. Get the shit storm rolling, and hope for something to happen. Kind of a nothing ventured, nothing gained situation for the dims.

If they had a rational platform and a strong candidate, they could rely on their usual antics to push them close to a win. They have neither, and if their evaluation of their low chances of winning are more realistic than their predictions in 2016, they might realize impeachment is their best option.

They've dug themselves into an unpopular hole in the last 3 years, relying almost totally on a "Hate Trump!" agenda. They've turned off even more voters than 8 years of the bamster, with scheme after scheme, and doing very little effective legislating, or governing.

The problem for the Dems by going through with the impeachment is that many of them are up for reelection in 2020 whose constituents voted for Trump. Dishonoring their former vote for Pres won't sit well, particularly given Trump's effectiveness.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
The problem for the Dems by going through with the impeachment is that many of them are up for reelection in 2020 whose constituents voted for Trump. Dishonoring their former vote for Pres won't sit well, particularly given Trump's effectiveness.

I'm totally good with that. Frankly, I think Nancy was right when she said that they had to impeach him, even if it cost them the house. That's right Nancy, go for it.

I mean heck, another four years of President Trump, the first two with the house and the senate, and if he is as effective then as he has been, that will probably be the case for all four years. Time to start grooming a successor to take over in January 2025.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
^^^ Great money shot.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
Wondering if the dims are dumb enough to go through with impeachment proceedings. It looks like DT wins the 2020 election if they impeach or not, so what do they have to lose. Get the shit storm rolling, and hope for something to happen. Kind of a nothing ventured, nothing gained situation for the dims.

If they had a rational platform and a strong candidate, they could rely on their usual antics to push them close to a win. They have neither, and if their evaluation of their low chances of winning are more realistic than their predictions in 2016, they might realize impeachment is their best option.

They've dug themselves into an unpopular hole in the last 3 years, relying almost totally on a "Hate Trump!" agenda. They've turned off even more voters than 8 years of the bamster, with scheme after scheme, and doing very little effective legislating, or governing.

The problem for the Dems by going through with the impeachment is that many of them are up for reelection in 2020 whose constituents voted for Trump. Dishonoring their former vote for Pres won't sit well, particularly given Trump's effectiveness.

Impact on dim congressmen reelection is a key factor in their decision. That and what they gain vs a President Pence. They probably have had lots of number crunchers busy on how impeachment impacts congress reelection, but that is likely something very difficult to evaluate accurately. I don't give much faith in them having the personnel to make a solid prediction, and to base their decision on solid math.

An analyst on Tucker Carlson said part of the failure of the house impeachment inquiry was due to it being ran by schiffty Schiff. An unappealing, unlikeable, and annoying manager and spokesperson for the effort, didn't help. It takes a special person to head up this effort, one deluded enough, and blinded by hate, and willing to distort fact, to lead this effort.

Our luck one of the few available comes across as a grating huckster used dildo salesman.

Alexander Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Displays His Open Insubordination: Vindman publicly and gratuitously questioned the policies of his commander in chief and did so in a partisan political setting. The U.S. military should nip that in the bud.

During his impeachment hearing testimony this week, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman has reminded us of the need for the military to stick to its governing principles. Those principles would guard against dishonorable partisan moves such as Vindman’s appearance before the House Intelligence Committee in his military attire merely to squabble over his bureaucratic disagreement with Trump’s foreign policy, or his gross exaggeration of his political resume in his opening statement.

The military governs itself by two fundamental principles. One of those bedrock principles governing military-civilian relations is the rule that active-duty military officers must avoid participating in partisan politics. Thus, for example, serving officers may attend political rallies or functions but may not do so while in uniform.

A second of these bedrock principles is that officers do not publicly question or undercut the orders or official policies of superior officers in their chain of command. This principle is paramount from the platoon level to the highest levels in the Pentagon. As Gen. Douglas MacArthur learned, even a five-star general may not publicly question the orders or policies of the president.

MacArthur was properly relieved after he criticized President Harry S. Truman’s Korean War policies. The proper role of any officer, whether a general or a lieutenant colonel, is to offer his best advice and then obey the orders and policies of the officers appointed over him without complaint or dissent once the president has decided.

These principles are fundamental because they are essential to a proper relationship between a professional military and a government dedicated to civilian control and supremacy over the military. Violations strike at the foundation of civil-military relations in this country and risk grave damages.

When officers violate these fundamentals, they risk sacrificing their credibility as officers and the support of the American public. Today, if the military weighs in on the one side or the other of the omnipresent partisan warfare, they will doubtless risk a loss of credibility and confidence by one-half of the country.

These two principles intersect when a serving officer publicly and gratuitously questions the policies of his commander in chief and in a partisan political setting. In such case, the risk of harm to military-civil relations and to the country is magnified. That is, regrettably, the case with Vindman’s testimony.

Vindman Admits His Disagreement Is Petty Politics
We now have the published transcript of Vindman’s deposition testimony, which was taken behind closed doors after his voluntary publication of his gratuitous opening statement. That previously secret testimony shows his violation of these two principles governing proper military-civil relations in a democracy. This is because Vindman’s questions and answers made clear he simply disagreed with the way the president was administering his chosen foreign policy.

Vindman testified he thought it was “inappropriate” for President Trump’s emissary, Rudy Giuliani, to ask Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, which he acknowledged was a “corrupt” company. So even though, according to Vindman, the president’s personal emissary was asking the Ukrainians to conduct such an investigation of a company widely acknowledged to be corrupt, and the younger Biden was earning almost $1 million a year as a board member without any discernible qualifications, and even though Vice President Joe Biden had been the Obama administration’s point man in connection with Ukraine, this lieutenant colonel’s personal opinion was that such an investigation was “inappropriate and that we were not going to get involved in investigations” (30-31).

Vindman, therefore, de facto overruled Giuliani’s overtures because Vindman thought “this would not be a fair investigation, and it would provide, you know, compromising or maybe even fabricated information, if need be”.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, properly questioned Vindman about whether his testimony was simply about non-impeachable policy disagreements or he had knowledge of potentially impeachable criminal acts. Vindman attempted to deflect and evade the questions, and Ratcliffe politely pressed on.

Vindman finally admitted he did not know of “a crime or anything of that nature.” But he “made a moral and ethical judgment” that he thought it was “wrong” and that he “also had deep policy concerns” (155).

Vindman’s Move Could Set a Bad Precedent
Vindman knew what the president’s policy and desire was. He did not like that policy. He also did not like the way the policy was being implemented through the president’s personal emissary, whom he referred to as an “outside influencer” (21-22). So Vindman decided to thwart that policy. And now he has testified — and is expected to testify again — to offer his personal disagreement and criticism of his commander in chief’s policy.

When subpoenaed, Vindman had several honorable options. He could have answered factual questions honestly, eschewing any voluntary opinion testimony. He could have resigned his position and commission and appeared in civilian clothes to offer his opinions about morals and ethics and what he considered to be a wise foreign policy.

What he could not properly do, while on active duty and in uniform, was appear and volunteer his testimony impeaching the policies and desires of his commander in chief. That voluntary act strikes at the heart of the delicate balance between sound military advice and involvement in partisan politics.

Vindman’s testimony risks setting a bad precedent, and the military should nip it in the bud. There is ample precedent for doing so. In 1994, a highly decorated combat Marine, Col. John Ripley, was the senior Navy ROTC instructor at the Virginia Military Institute. The U.S. government had sued VMI to require it to admit women.

VMI subpoenaed Ripley to testify to his opinions based upon his vast experience in combat and as the senior Marine at the United States Naval Academy and instructor at VMI. Ripley was an American hero. He had been awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars for Valor, and the Purple Heart. In 1994, his opinions differed from those of President Bill Clinton and his administration.

But despite Ripley’s nonpareil military background, the Clinton administration ordered him not to testify to any opinions but to limit his testimony to facts. Ripley obeyed that order. So, too, should Vindman, if he is given such a lawful order.

https://thefederalist.com/2019...pen-insubordination/

To RT for the "Bombshell"- The news casters proclaiming another "Bomb Shell", "Explosive" Testimony is all I've been seeing at work on the monitors in the common areas.

quote:

Stunning explosive bombshell! Impeachment-pushing CNN & MSNBC fire up the crowds with deluge of flashy words in hilarious VIDEO

https://www.rt.com/usa/474123-...hment-cnn-bombshell/

I have been dumbfounded by the "bombshell" witnesses that were supposed to take down Trump this week. It is as if they were promised a completely staged kangaroo court where they wouldn't be asked any tough questions or pinned down on their testimony. Could they all be that stupid or did they trust that the idiot Schifferbrains really had a complete script written for both sides of the aisle and the witnesses only had to recite their lines as if they were in a play?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
I've been able to listen to a lot of the hearings including Sondland yesterday. I kept thinking I wouldn't want to be in the hotseat he was in.

Yeah, no kidding. He was the guy that was supposed to drop the big bomb on Trump. When that didn't happen because the repubs did their job and pinned him down. The Shiffter wasn't pleased.

Jim

Every lame attempt by the Dems to take down Trump has failed spectacularly. BUt we have seen that his mere existence has driven them to become more and more desperate and unhinged. They have convinced themselves that Trump is an existential threat to the planet, and when you reach that level of delusion, there is nothing you won't do to "save" yourself and others from the perceived threat. If you can justify punching random people wearing MAGA hats, then I doubt you'd have a problem with stuffing ballot boxes.

Therefore, I think we can expect to see unprecedented levels of election fraud in 2020. I expect to see brazen attempts to change the outcome as well as more subtle, behind the scenes activities.

I certainly hope the states, especially the battlegrounds, and the GOP are prepared both to prevent the fraud and to challenge any outcomes that are the result of fraud. It's gonna get ugly.

A local conservative radio person played a ton of different clips showing the various Dimocrap talking point "words of the day" for the Fake News Media:

1. First day was "explosive", which was used more than a Michael Bay movie.
2. Second day was bombshell which was used more often than a military bombing range.
3. Third day was "deeply disturbed" which was used more often that a psych ward for the criminally insane......oh, yeah, that is what Washington DC is.

quote:

"deeply disturbed" which was used more often that a psych ward for the criminally insane....

I have yet to read a serious review of the psychomoronic babble of Schiff's elaborate 'telephone call' hoax, and wonder whether transparently erroneous Speaker Pelosi Herself realized the huge gap between the Trump transcript version and the Schiff beanie flipping version as she attributed it as 'reality' during interview.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:

quote:

"deeply disturbed" which was used more often that a psych ward for the criminally insane....

I have yet to read a serious review of the psychomoronic babble of Schiff's elaborate 'telephone call' hoax, and wonder whether transparently erroneous Speaker Pelosi Herself realized the huge gap between the Trump transcript version and the Schiff beanie flipping version as she attributed it as 'reality' during interview.

He did the same thing in his closing when he tried to explain hearsay evidence. It's hard to believe Schiff is an attorney--I understand hearsay better than him. Either he's ignorant or he's hoping everyone listening to him is.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
It's hard to believe Schiff is an attorney--I understand hearsay better than him. Either he's ignorant or he's hoping everyone listening to him is.

There are people in many professions that could memorize textbooks well and perform on tests but are functionally stupid in 3 dimensions. However, I don't think Schiff is stupid. He isn't a brilliant person either, but I think what we are seeing is that he is a highly disturbed mentally. He has looked like a psychotic during his entire time in the public eye, but he has shown the behavior of someone with a pathos of some kind by the way he's run these hearings, along with his statements to the press this week.



.

quote:

I think what we are seeing is that he is a highly disturbed mentally. He has looked like a psychotic during his entire time in the public eye,

I'm not a doctor... I don't know what the specific problem is, but...
I do know that back in March of this year every Republican member on the Intel Committee signed a letter asking Schiff to resign his post. They clearly think he's not mentally competent for the job. That's obvious.

Does anybody really believe Mr. Holmes overheard President Trump on a cell phone conversation on the patio of a restaurant in Ukraine?



As Bombshells go, this was a dud for the Schiff Show.

Mr. Holmes alter-ego...

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
...functionally stupid in 3 dimensions...

Don't know how it could be said any better; great line and description of the Schiffter.

Fake News word of the day appears to be “Low Level FBI Agent”.

Curious as to how many “Low Level” FBI Agent Lawyers, are charged with reviewing FISA warrant applications?

If we have “Low Level” anyone dealing with FISA warrant applications designed to by-pass standard channels for obtaining warrants for spying on the public, we have a problem.