GOP dogs won’t hunt

[calamity]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt

This sequence was revealing because it showed the difficulties Trump’s supporters in the House will face in trying to defend him in public. First, it eviscerated one of the more bizarre talking points from a few of Trump’s defenders — that Ukraine was no big deal because quid pro quos happen all the time in foreign policy. The second clause in the previous sentence is true; the first is not, precisely because the quid president Trump demanded was for personal and political interest and not for the national interest.

This exchange also undercut a somewhat more substantive GOP talking point — that the extortion of Ukraine was not an impeachable offense so much as a substantive policy dispute between the elected president of the United States and the unelected permanent bureaucracy.

I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

 

[Praxas]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt

I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

It's really sad because we know this would not be accepted behavior to Republicans if Obama was doing even 1/25th of what Trump has done.

Graham is the biggest hypocrite of all in this impeachment given his comments he gave about Bill Clinton's impeachment.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt



I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

Whoops, my bad, I thought you said Triple Hershey.

 

[chuckiechan]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt



I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

Your dogs are deaf. The witnesses are just offering opinions on what the “people who really run things” think should be done, and are just bitching about the boss.

 

[Pound4abrown]

It's really sad because we know this would not be accepted behavior to Republicans if Obama was doing even 1/25th of what Trump has done.

Graham is the biggest hypocrite of all in this impeachment given his comments he gave about Bill Clinton's impeachment.

Yeah Graham is a strange bird. I am sure he has not taken his last turn on the ol' Trump carousel. My guess is in a few years he will backpedal like Neon Dieon in his prime.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Your dogs are deaf. The witnesses are just offering opinions on what the “people who really run things” think should be done, and are just bitching about the boss.

Most dogs hunt with their sense of smell...

 

[HumblePi]

Your dogs are deaf. The witnesses are just offering opinions on what the “people who really run things” think should be done, and are just bitching about the boss.

Well now, why doesn't Devin Nunes or Jim Jordan convince Trump that in order to get to the truth, he has to stop obstructing justice and all the men he forbade to honor a subpoena and allow them to come forward and testify? Wouldn't it clear everything up really fast if the country could watch people that had first-hand knowledge testify? We don't even need all 10 or so that he blocked from testifying to come forward, all we need is one or two like Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton. They both had first-hand knowledge, it doesn't get any more first hand than those two. How about just one of the insiders with first-hand knowledge like Mick Mulvaney, why doesn't Trump allow him to testify?

Oh wait, I think I know. Trump knows very well that any witnesses that are willing to defy a subpoena will not hurt him. He knows that every GOP counterpoint will be that they all had only second-hand knowledge. That's why he won't let anyone testify.

 

[Praxas]

Your dogs are deaf. The witnesses are just offering opinions on what the “people who really run things” think should be done, and are just bitching about the boss.

Well then by all means inform Trump to stop obstructing justice and have those "brave and honest" people "who really run things" be allowed to testify.

We all know why he doesn't, because he is scared the truth will get out and burn his little circle to the ground :lamo

 

[gdgyva]

Well now, why doesn't Devin Nunes or Jim Jordan convince Trump that in order to get to the truth, he has to stop obstructing justice and all the men he forbade to honor a subpoena and allow them to come forward and testify? Wouldn't it clear everything up really fast if the country could watch people that had first-hand knowledge testify? We don't even need all 10 or so that he blocked from testifying to come forward, all we need is one or two like Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton. They both had first-hand knowledge, it doesn't get any more first hand than those two. How about just one of the insiders with first-hand knowledge like Mick Mulvaney, why doesn't Trump allow him to testify?

Sure...as soon as Nancy actually impeaches Trump...and puts those 30 odd democratic seats up for grabs

Why should Trump give in first? What has Nancy put at risk at this point?

 

[Helix]

It's really sad because we know this would not be accepted behavior to Republicans if Obama was doing even 1/25th of what Trump has done.

Graham is the biggest hypocrite of all in this impeachment given his comments he gave about Bill Clinton's impeachment.

I don't know, lying about a blow job is serious business. Tweety only extorted a country using congressionally appropriated military aid to compel it to manufacture dirt on a political opponent. Who hasn't done that? Also, but Hillary's emails and look, squirrel!

 

[joko104]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt



I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

Yes, Republicans "fall back" on the Democrats having zero evidence and zero witnesses.

Democrats are trying to impeach Trump when all they have is lies and Trump-haters ranting that Trump doesn't act like Obama, with Trump refusing to go along with Obama's and Clinton's plan to give all of Ukraine to Russia that Obama did already give to Putin.

 

[joko104]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt



I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

Yes, Republicans "fall back" on the Democrats having zero evidence and zero witnesses.

Democrats are trying to impeach Trump when all they have is lies and Trump-haters ranting that Trump doesn't act like Obama, with Trump refusing to go along with Obama's and Clinton's plan to give all of Ukraine to Russia that Obama did already give to Putin.

 

[HumblePi]

Sure...as soon as Nancy actually impeaches Trump...and puts those 30 odd democratic seats up for grabs

Why should Trump give in first? What has Nancy put at risk at this point?

Where is the 'transparency' that Trump demands? Why is he forbidding testimonies and defying Congress by doing so? The answer is clear. It's because their testimonies are first hand and damaging as all Hell.

 

[calamity]

Sure...as soon as Nancy actually impeaches Trump...and puts those 30 odd democratic seats up for grabs

Why should Trump give in first? What has Nancy put at risk at this point?

:roll:

 

[chuckiechan]

Well then by all means inform Trump to stop obstructing justice and have those "brave and honest" people "who really run things" be allowed to testify.

We all know why he doesn't, because he is scared the truth will get out and burn his little circle to the ground :lamo

If you are watching TV, you obviously see that it’s second, third, and fourth hand gossip by staffers who don’t like the way the president runs things. But lot of people believe in tabloid justice.

Maybe you will get lucky and Trump will lose the election to one of your democrat crackpots. But I doubt it.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Trump is so obviously in the wrong here... And all his supporters have is "nah ah".

That's it, that's the only defense they have for this obvious abuse of power and extortion of a foreign government for personal gain, there was no national interest whatsoever at stake here.

I would never put up with this **** from someone I voted for or supported just because I don't like the other side which is why Trudeau should be fully investigated and prosecuted if found culpable for his obstruction of justice with SNC.

I don't just give lip service to rule of law and holding the powerful accountable, I stand by it, unlike many of you Trump supporters, who for 8 long years made nauseating grand standing proclamations about the constitution, rule of law and tyranny under Obama, all for that to slide away like a well cooked lamb shank when it was your guy, you seem absolutely comfortable with an all powerful executive with no oversight as long as its your guy, you are begging for tyranny simply because it's wrapped in your colors.

This is about as dangerous a situation in terms of its long term effects as you could want and it's because of you, his supporters, if it wasn't politically viable to defend Trump, Republicans in Congress wouldn't do it, it's you, and Trump has exposed that the American system is extremely weak at dealing with abuses of power by the executive that are this obvious and this blatantly self serving.

I think it would be naive enough to think that he's the first President to break the law, surely not but I think there has been this kind of agreement in the American system that as long was it was in the national interest, right or wrong, it would be looked the other way by both parties, a la Torture as an example, now that doesn't make it right but it is what I think is the reality.

But what has occurred here should make any good, thinking citizen extremely concerned not just because of Trump, he's small fish compared to what's possible because he's simply laid bare how broken the system really is and how someone who is more competent could exploit it to do even worse and it's ultimately gonna be because of the voters, wake the **** up, I'm warning you.

 

[jnug]

Panties in a twist flip flop Lindsey Graham makes a fool of himself yet again today bending and twisting himself into pretzels to fantasize about some Senate process that will prevent a Removal Trial in the Senate if Impeachment is voted in the House.

Somebody check Lindsey for rabies.

 

[calamity]

Panties in a twist flip flop Lindsey Graham makes a fool of himself yet again today bending and twisting himself into pretzels to fantasize about some Senate process that will prevent a Removal Trial in the Senate if Impeachment is voted in the House.

Somebody check Lindsey for rabies.

I have to admit, no one could have made fools of Republicans as effectively as they have of themselves lately.

 

[Cardinal]

One of my favorite displays of Republican asshattery was Jim Jordan trying to frame Trump’s demand of a corrupt act as a “test” of Zelensky’s willingness to do a corrupt thing. Besides being idiotic on its face, it’s an admission that was trump was demanding was a corrupt act.

Also, someone on Fox News criticized Kent for...drinking water.

If conviction in the Senate was going to be based on evidence, Trump would be screwed.

 

[jnug]

I have to admit, no one could have made fools of Republicans as effectively as they have of themselves lately.

I forgot to mention that Graham's premise that "Schiff will not allow the WBer to testify is the basis for his whacky take on a Senate process to prevent a Removal trial.

So the Repugs went from "WB = hearsay, hearsay, hearsay" to "We must hear that WB hearsay for Impeachment to be valid".

That took all of what, two weeks?

Pack it in Repugs. You got off easy on Day 1 of the Open Impeachment Hearings because neither Kent nor Taylor would take the bait from either side of the panel. So they were unimpeachable witnesses and obviously non-partisan as well. This only gets worse as you turn yourselves into pretzels trying to accede to DonDon wishes that there only be one path to defending him. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT FELLAS!

 

[ElChupacabra]

Well now, why doesn't Devin Nunes or Jim Jordan convince Trump that in order to get to the truth, he has to stop obstructing justice and all the men he forbade to honor a subpoena and allow them to come forward and testify? Wouldn't it clear everything up really fast if the country could watch people that had first-hand knowledge testify? We don't even need all 10 or so that he blocked from testifying to come forward, all we need is one or two like Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton. They both had first-hand knowledge, it doesn't get any more first hand than those two. How about just one of the insiders with first-hand knowledge like Mick Mulvaney, why doesn't Trump allow him to testify?

Oh wait, I think I know. Trump knows very well that any witnesses that are willing to defy a subpoena will not hurt him. He knows that every GOP counterpoint will be that they all had only second-hand knowledge. That's why he won't let anyone testify.

That's been the interesting aspect from the very beginning. If everything is indeed "perfect", then exposing a sham investigation would be as easy as letting people testify and clearly explain why the administration did what it did. Once they took the strategy of not participating and started deflecting, it opened the door to being on questionable ground. Claiming it's a sham investigation still doesn't answer the questions raised.

 

[Mycroft]

Republicans desperately try painting Trump’s Ukraine policy as normal. It won’t work.

The GOP dogs that won’t hunt



I guess they can always fall back on "triple hearsay."

And yet, you have no factual evidence that Trump is doing ANYTHING for personal and political interest.

You keep making **** up and THAT dog won't hunt.

 

[jnug]

And yet, you have no factual evidence that Trump is doing ANYTHING for personal and political interest.

You keep making **** up and THAT dog won't hunt.

Oh yea....That idea sending the G7 to bedbug village was all in the National Interest. Ah-huh.

 

[NWRatCon]

I listened to as much of the Republican response as I could stomach, and it was telling how insubstantial it was. Most of it was bleating about Democrats and bizarre - really, really bizarre - conspiracy theories (Nunes came off, accurately, as just plain looney). The rest was mostly rehashed BS (I'm looking at you, Jim Jordan). The witnesses were unflappable, sincere, and patriotic. The longer it went on, the more desperate the Republicans appeared.

Just to reiterate: 1) the identity of the whistleblower is both protected and irrelevant. Every lawyer on that panel knows this. 2) Hearsay is perfectly permissible and credible - especially in the absence of unavailable witnesses. Again, every lawyer on the panel knows this. 3) Success of a prohibited action is not required for malfeasance (e.g., obstruction, extortion, bribery), only an attempt is required. Again, every lawyer knows this. In sum, most of the panel members knew they were lying to the public when they made those statements, which, in my view, goes to their qualifications to participate.

 

[NWRatCon]

That's been the interesting aspect from the very beginning. If everything is indeed "perfect", then exposing a sham investigation would be as easy as letting people testify and clearly explain why the administration did what it did. Once they took the strategy of not participating and started deflecting, it opened the door to being on questionable ground. Claiming it's a sham investigation still doesn't answer the questions raised.

How many hours did Hillary Clinton (and others) testify before the sham Beghazi hearings? How long did the "fast and furious" inquiry go on, rehashing and rehashing old news to no effect? Obama officials appeared often and explained themselves over and over again. Trump officials, not so much.