Congress Begins Public Impeachment Hearings

In a few short hours, the House Intelligence Committee begins the public phase of its impeachment inquiry.

Beginning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time this morning, and likely continuing through the better part of the day, the House Intelligence Committee will begin the first round of public hearings in the ongoing impeachment investigation dealing with President Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals:

Washington (CNN) The gravity and drama of the first televised impeachment hearings into Donald Trump’s presidency on Wednesday will imprint themselves on history and reverberate far from Washington.

The most crucial stage of the Ukraine investigation so far has profound implications beyond the political and personal reputation of Trump and the question of whether he abused his power by seeking political favors from a foreign power.

His fate will have sweeping consequences for the future understanding of powers vested within the presidency itself. The hearings will test whether the ancient machinery of US governance can effectively investigate a President who ignores the charges against him and fogs fact in defining a new post-truth political era. And notwithstanding Trump’s current Republican firewall, the hearings will begin to decide whether a presidency that has rocked America and the world will reach its full natural term.

The fact that there is an impeachment process at all — and a debate over whether the President is so corrupt he should be ousted between elections — is in itself something of a national tragedy. There’s a reason why Gerald Ford called the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974 before he was formally impeached, a “long national nightmare.”

The next few months will scar America for years to come. As the Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson impeachments did before it, this process will reflect and intensify the ideological civil war that is tearing at national unity and threatening the nation’s forward momentum.
Democratic leaders, who long resisted demands from their party’s liberal activists to impeach Trump, are taking a considerable risk by embarking on this momentous constitutional road. Given the explosive revelations about Trump’s conduct in Ukraine however, they may have had little political choice.

In all likelihood, Republican senators will not vote to convict and oust Trump, opening the possibility of a political backlash, it’s just not clear yet whether Democrats or the GOP would come off worse. Trump is likely to view an eventual escape from censure as a validation of his unrestrained behavior and a license to continue to test constitutional customs.

“I’ve always thought that the strongest argument for impeachment was also the strongest argument against it, which is, if you don’t impeach a president who commits conduct of this kind, what does that say to the next president about what they can do and to the next Congress?” House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said in an interview with National Public Radio on Tuesday.

“At the same time, if you do impeach, but the President is acquitted, what does that say to the next president? The next Congress? There’s no good or simple answer,” he said.

Yet for all the bitterness and uncertainty that it stirs, the impeachment process is also a reaffirmation and test of the democratic codes of self-government first set down in Philadelphia nearly two-and-a-half centuries ago.

It will provide the most significant judgment yet on a riotous presidency that has already skipped past one existential scandal in the Russia election meddling scheme.

The Democratic charge that could see Trump shamed as only the third impeached President in history could hardly be more grave. He is effectively accused of committing a crime against the nation itself and the political system that guards its freedoms.

Specifically, Democrats charge Trump with conspiring with a foreign power to influence a US election, an offense many observers believes satisfies the impeachable standard of “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The eventual case may encompass campaign finance offenses, the flouting of his presidential oath to uphold the law and the Constitution and allege obstruction over his withholding of witnesses and evidence. In more symbolic terms, it would validate the fears of America’s founders of one of the greats threats to their democratic experiment.

To force Trump’s removal from office, Democrats must use the hearings beginning on Wednesday to turn independents and moderate Republicans against him.

They hope that the testimony of witnesses including foreign service lifers such as Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Kiev, who opens proceedings on Wednesday, will come across as credible and defang the GOP counterattack. They will portray ousted US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, who will testify on Friday, as a victim of Trump’s scheme to benefit himself and not US national interests.

They are striving to change the political calculation of GOP senators currently unlikely to desert Trump and build the two-thirds majority to convict him in a Senate trial. Failing that, Trump could be so damaged by impeachment that his hopes of breaking out beyond his base in the 2020 will be doomed.

In essence, Democrats are seeking to build made-for-tv moments that can tell the story of the Ukraine scandal in simple terms — as the Senate Watergate hearings did in the Nixon era.

It is unclear whether they have a witness to match the impact of former White House counsel John Dean who testified that he told Nixon that “there was a cancer growing on the presidency.”

Democrats argue Trump built a sophisticated back-door diplomatic effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and a conspiracy theory that Kiev and not Russia meddled in the 2016 election. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.

Democrats allege that the quid pro quos in this equation involved $400 million in delayed military aid to Ukraine and conditions initially imposed on a White House visit for its President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The rough transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky in July — in which the US leader asked for a “favor” and mentioned Biden — forms the core of the case.

Democrats have also collected evidence that Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was barnstorming around in Europe trying to close the deal with Ukraine and bypassing US diplomats.

“Go talk to Rudy, he knows all about Ukraine,” GOP mega-donor turned US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that Trump told his subordinates.

Today’s hearing will feature Ambassador Taylor and State Department official George Fox, both of whom were involved in Ukraine policy over the past several years and privy to many of the discussions in which the purported scheme to pressure Kyiv came up. Thanks to the release of the transcripts of their closed-door sessions before the committee, we already have a good idea of what Taylor and Fox will have to say regarding the Ukraine matter and the concerns that they raised regarding the pressure being put on Ukraine’s new President to open an investigation into both Hunter and Joe Biden and into the largely discredited conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered with the 2016 Presidential election despite all the evidence to the contrary. The story that Taylor and Fox appear likely to tell is one that has been corroborated by documentary evidence such a the summary of President’s July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky as well as the testimony of pretty much every other witness that has gone before the committee so far.

After today, it’s expected that on Friday we’ll hear from former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who among other things testified during her closed-door testimony regarding the extent to which American foreign policy regarding Ukraine was being sidetracked and handed over to a cabal of Trump advisers that includes his private attorney Rudy Giuliani who is, of course, neither a State Department nor a White House employee. Yovanovitch is also expected to testify regarding her own knowledge about the pressure that was put on Ukraine regarding a potential Biden investigation and the extent to which she felt as though she was being forced out of her position by Trump officials who obviously questioned her loyalty given that she is a career foreign diplomat rather than a Trump loyalist. After Yovanovitch, there will be further public hearings next week and in the weeks that follow.

Today’s hearings will be covered live on all of the public broadcasting networks, as well as the cable news networks, and C-Span. It will also be available via a wide variety of streaming services and mobile apps. According to reports, the Democrats are planning on making roughly the first 90 minutes of the heating, after the opening statements from the witnesses, Committee Chairman, and Ranking Member. This is because the principal questioning will be conducted by majority and minority staff counsel and that each side will have 45 uninterrupted minutes each to develop a narrative. This should make the hearings easier to follow than the five-minute back-and-forth we’ve seen in past hearings.

We’ll likely have a wrap-up post on today’s hearings either later today or tomorrow morning depending on how long the day lasts. In the meantime, feel free to turn the comment thread here, as well as today’s Open Forum, into an open thread on the hearing itself.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Donald Trump, Impeachment, Law and the Courts, Politicians, U.S. Constitution, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Julia Ioffe:

    There is a whole roster of names of otherwise faceless officials—some of whom will testify, some who refuse to—who went in, wanting to serve their country or advance their careers or be close to the seat of power, but who most likely did not expect to be witnesses in the impeachment of an American president.

    Many, however, saw that no good could come of working for Trump in any capacity and stayed away. One Republican friend of mine who works in the foreign policy sphere was offered a job in the administration, but immediately turned it down. When I asked the friend why, they offered this explanation. “When you get in the car with a drunk driver, you’re not the one driving drunk,” the friend said, “but you’re still in the car when he mows down a pregnant woman in a crosswalk.”

    Hill got into the car, as did Sondland, Volker, Taylor, Bolton, and a whole host of sober adults who wanted to have their hand on the wheel. The problem for them is that they were in the car at the moment of impact.

    ReplyReply
    10
  2. SC_Birdflyte says:

    Please pass the popcorn. It looks like my work is going to h3ll for a while.

    ReplyReply
  3. Teve says:

    I hope Javanka get subpoenaed. Their entire fortune was headed well below zero before they entered the White House

    ReplyReply
  4. Teve says:

    Rick Wilson
    @TheRickWilson
    ·
    1h
    GOP aide tells me one plan discussed is for Gym Jordan and others to repeatedly use the whistleblower’s name as one of several strategies to blow up the hearings and make the media report on his identity.

    Be prepared for stunts.

    ReplyReply
  5. CSK says:

    @Teve: But…but…according to her father, Ivanka’s created 14 million new jobs!!!! Fabulous jobs! Many people are saying they’re the best jobs!

    ReplyReply
  6. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @CSK: Problem is they’re all in SE Asia.

    ReplyReply
  7. Kathy says:

    For the Senate trial, what matters is Moscow Mitch’s strategy. I think what he wants is no majority vote for conviction at all. Meaning he will direct (ie order) all GOP Senators to vote against removal. This would validate Trump’s crimes.

    I count 50 votes to remove/convict: all 45 Democrats,2 Independents, and Romney, Collins, and Murkowski, and I’m not certain of the last three.

    I seriously hope I’m wrong, and McConnell either lets his members vote as they see fit or presses some to vote for conviction/removal. Else, we as well as the GOP will find that high crimes committed by a Democrat can be as bad.

    The thing about impeachment, especially of a president, or Trump in this case, is that it should be a rare, solemn occurrence. If Senators vote along party lines regardless of the seriousness of the charges or the weight of the evidence, we could get impeachments every term, or nearly so. Then it becomes a casual formality that will have no effect on whatever criminal conduct a president wants to engage in.

    ReplyReply
  8. Kathy says:

    @CSK:

    Imagine how many more jobs this dynamo could create if she wasn’t stuck babysitting her senile old father in the White House!

    ReplyReply
  9. andros says:

    A Motion to Dismiss typically urges the court to find that, even if the factual allegations of the Complaint are deemed to be true, a cause of action has not been stated. Here, what specific facts can defeat the claim that Trump could reasonably believe requiring Zelensky to provide information about the Bidens -information otherwise inaccessible, much of it in possession of actors not eager to share what they know – served the public interest?

    We are told that Joe procured the dismissal of Shokin because of his failure to prosecute the notoriously corrupt Burisma. Having lectured the Ukrainians about corruption, what do we expect them to make of the arrangement whereby Hunter is alleged to have pocketed millions from such a “notoriously corrupt” source? Why did Joe have no problem with Shokin’s replacement, who took little action against Burisma?

    And now we hear that, shortly before Joe’s ultimatum, the authorities had raided Zlochevsky’s home, and seized his Bentley, the which seems to have precipitated a protest to our Dept. of State through a Blue Star operative, invoking Hunter’s name. Was Devon Archer granted an audience with Kerry? (Grassley wants to know.) And what on earth was George Kent talking about when he implied that State was trying to claw back “tens of millions” from Burisma?

    The public interest demands a thorough investigation of this matter. That such an investigation might damage Biden is of no consequence. His candidacy does not place him above the law.

    As for any delay in providing anti-tank missiles and whatnot, there was no immediate need of such weaponry. A ceasefire had in place since March, to facilitate negotiation of the Steinmeier formula.

    ReplyReply
    1
    18
  10. mattbernius says:

    @andros:

    A Motion to Dismiss typically urges the court to find that, even if the factual allegations of the Complaint are deemed to be true, a cause of action has not been stated.

    You know things are going to be good when you start with using a criminal prosecution metaphor for a civil proceeding.

    After that you earn a ton of points for an inspired Gish Gallop where you throw everything you have at the wall without actually citing any facts.

    Gotta get that disinformation flack out there as quickly as possible, huh?

    BTW, if this demands investigations into the Bidens, why were the traditional channels of initiating that sort of investigation not followed? And you seem to be admitting the delay and handwaving it away.

    You are at once asking us to pay attention to all of the irregularities with the Bidens and telling us to ignore all the irregularities with the Trump administration.

    That’s hellua balanced yo… but hey, it’s all about ethics in politics.

    ReplyReply
    17
  11. Tyrell says:

    What happened to “quid pro quo” ? This stuff changes every other day. Next it will be “kidnapping, counterfeiting”
    Where is the whistle blower?

    ReplyReply
    1
    15
  12. andros says:

    @mattbernius:
    “Traditional Channels” were clogged with underlings who disfavored Trump’s policies.

    ReplyReply
    12
  13. KM says:

    @Tyrell:
    If the Latin is too much for you, how about “extortion”? That’s essentially what he did – no money for you until you do as I what I want for my own personal benefit, Ukraine.

    As for the whistleblower, y’all wouldn’t be satisfied if Christ Himself came down and confirmed Trump did it because you want to kill the messenger instead. It’s really sad you have Trump basically telling you he did it multiple times but nooooooo, it’s the fault of the guy who tattled that Trump’s gonna be held responsible for his crimes! Oh, the humanity!

    ReplyReply
    17
  14. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Tyrell:
    Stop listening to Fox News. Every time you come here with some bullshit you heard on Fox News you just beclown yourself. This is not the cult, Tyrell, this is reality. Until you’re ready to rejoin reality you’ll never be more than an object of derision.

    ReplyReply
    12
    1
  15. KM says:

    @andros:

    “Traditional Channels” were clogged with underlings who disfavored Trump’s policies.

    And?

    You act like no President ever has had people left over from previous Admins or who didn’t like what the boss was doing. Somehow they managed to function and not commit impeachable offenses left and right – what’s Trump’s problem then? It’s really telling how “deep state” BS only seems to have affected him and not any other President ever…. almost like it’s an excuse for an incompetent man and his followers to blame anybody but themselves……

    ReplyReply
    15
  16. Moosebreath says:

    @CSK:

    “Ivanka’s created 14 million new jobs”

    Since only between 6 and 7 million new jobs were created during the Trump Presidency, does that mean he lost over 7 million on his own?

    ReplyReply
  17. CSK says:

    @Moosebreath: Next week it will be up to 28 million. Cult45 appears to be studiously ignoring this claim. Even they must know it’s bull. Remember, they take him seriously, not literally.

    ReplyReply
  18. Mike in Arlington says:

    @Tyrell: Well, first it was the whistleblower only had hearsay evidence, so everything he reported was unimportant and should be dismissed. The democrats have since corroborated everything he said, and now the whistleblower and what he reported is suddenly of supreme importance.

    This stuff changes every day!

    ReplyReply
  19. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Ms. Cris Ericson:
    I appreciate you coming by to remind everyone of the intellectual level of Trump supporters.

    ReplyReply
    14
  20. Kathy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Wouldn’t you love to see the question litigated before the Supreme Court? We could place bets on how loudly the justices would laugh.

    ReplyReply
  21. CSK says:

    @Michael Reynolds: I need no reminders.

    ReplyReply
  22. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    Following the hearings on Twitter…and betting Trumps fat orange ass is clenched tighter than a submarine door.

    ReplyReply
  23. Kathy says:

    BTW, if the GOP truly believes it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 elections, and the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies that investigated the matter say otherwise, then why haven’t they held hearings to determine why these agencies appear to be lying? Why hasn’t Dennison instructed Barr to investigate gross malfeasance from these agencies?

    ReplyReply
    11
  24. mattbernius says:

    @andros:

    “Traditional Channels” were clogged with underlings who disfavored Trump’s policies.

    Got it, so you’re suggesting that Barr (DoJ) and Pompeo (State) — two of Trump’s most loyal cabinet members were incapable of getting their agencies to fuction correctly so therefore we use the President’s Personal lawyer instead…

    That’s a bold move Cotton!

    Side question: How’s it feel to have your only line of defense being that Trump is the worst boss ever and only hires incompetents? Oh, and that he’s too stupid or ignorant to understand how he’s breaking protocol (remember that’s what kept Don Jr out of jail)?

    You must be so tired of all this winning, huh?

    ReplyReply
    14
  25. Steve V says:

    @andros: “Underlings” also disagreed with moving the US’s Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, meeting with Kim Jong Il and undoubtedly many other policies Trump has pursued. Maybe it isn’t opposition to Trump per se that was the issue, but something else instead?

    ReplyReply
  26. Kurtz says:

    @Ms. Cris Ericson:

    EACH STATE WAS GIVEN EQUAL REPRESENTATION
    TO THE U.S CONGRESS HOUSE OF
    REPRESENTATIVES.

    No, they were not. That is the Senate. In the first House of Representatives, Connecticut had 6 members, Georgia had 3 and Delaware had 1. I’m not going to bother with listing the rest.

    If you get that basic fact wrong, why would anyone think your opinion on the Constitutionality of House rules is based on facts?

    ReplyReply
    13
  27. andros says:

    @Kathy:
    As I understand it, Crowdstrike’s claim (eagerly embraced, sans independent verification, by Comey, Brennan, Clapper, et. al) that Russia hacked the DNC server is based on conclusions drawn from an analysis performed for Ukraine. (Had to do with a program tracking artillery units, as I recall.) The “footprints” of these devious operatives are said to be identical. Zelensky (relying on memory here) has rejected these “findings.” So, yes, I expect we will shortly see persuasive evidence that the whole “Russia collusion” narrative has its origin in invidious conjecture.

    ReplyReply
  28. Kathy says:

    A moment of moral clarity at today’s’ hearings.

    Democratic representative Peter Welch: “I’ll be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.”

    ReplyReply
    10
  29. Gustopher says:

    @andros:

    As I understand it

    But the problem is that you don’t understand it.

    ReplyReply
  30. Gustopher says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Tyrell is more than an object of derision, he’s our object of derision. The derision is a gentle, soft derision, delivered with affection and love.

    Surely I cannot be the only person who feels that way?

    (I also had a warm spot in my heart for Superdestroyer… He was so earnest. I hope that boy grew up and grew out of his white supremacy)

    ReplyReply
  31. Kathy says:

    How does immunity work in Congressional testimony? Can Congress/the House offer it? Or does ti have to come from/through the DOJ?

    I recall several witnesses in the Iran-Contra hearings testified under immunity from prosecution. It occurs to me that such immunity might help some recalcitrant witnesses testify at the impeachment hearings.

    But if the DOJ is involved, then it will never happen.

    ReplyReply
  32. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Ms. Cris Ericson:

    WALK OUT OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HEARINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YOUR OWN CONSTITUENTS ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION!

    First, read the constitution. If the House decides that spotting an interns dress is an impeachable offense, they are constitutionally empowered to impeach a president for that. If the House decides that doing unspeakable things with Cuban cigar is an impeachable offense, they are constitutionally empowered to impeach a president for that. If the House decides that lying under oath about any of the above is an impeachable offense, they are constitutionally empowered to impeach a president for that. trump appears to have committed far worse crimes than any thing stated above.

    As to Republicans constituents having unequal representation at the hearings (which as noted above is just plain stupid), your solution is to deny them ANY representation at the hearings?

    ReplyReply
  33. Kurtz says:

    Does anyone else think Devin Nunes looks suspiciously like Michael Scott’s dumber brother?

    ReplyReply
  34. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Kathy: AFAIK Congress, on it’s own, can only grant limited immunity, to the extent that any sworn testimony can not be used against an individual in a criminal prosecution. Hopefully Doug or another lawyer will chime in soon and clarify.

    ReplyReply
  35. Zachriel says:

    @Kathy: How does immunity work in Congressional testimony? Can Congress/the House offer it? Or does ti have to come from/through the DOJ?

    Congress can grant use immunity. See 18 U.S. Code Chapter 601 § 6002 and § 6005.

    ReplyReply
  36. Kathy says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:
    @Zachriel:

    Thanks! It seems Congress can offer immunity for the testimony given, but the timing would prolong the hearings.

    Of course, prolonging the hearings may not be bad. But I wonder what the Democrats are doing in that regard.

    ReplyReply
  37. dazedandconfused says:

    @Ms. Cris Ericson:

    NOVMEBER 13, 2019
    REPUBLICANS, GET UP AND WALK OUT!

    The Otter Defense!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus

    ReplyReply
  38. grumpy realist says:

    @Ms. Cris Ericson: Lady, just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that something is unconstitutional.

    You’re not God, nor The Sayer Of What Is Constitutional. So shaddup, ok?

    You gonna complain about grand jury procedures next? They also operate according to rules that are different from actual trial courts. (Hearsay is allowed, for example.)

    Before you bitch any further I suggest you take a few courses in law.

    ReplyReply
    11
  39. Kathy says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Not to mention that many witnesses who have first-hand knowledge of the facts, are being kept from testifying by the Most Innocent Orange Clown HimSelf.

    Because, you know, when people can give exonerating testimony, they most be prevented from testifying at all costs.

    ReplyReply
  40. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Kathy:

    But I wonder what the Democrats are doing in that regard.

    Hopefully they have a list of subpoenaed witnesses that reach half way around the planet.

    ReplyReply
  41. Michael Reynolds says:

    Trump Impeachment Day One: The Silence of the Trolls.

    ReplyReply
  42. MarkedMan says:

    @Gustopher: I still 78% believe the man is a master troll (Original Style). He is just so… in character, all the time. Never misses a beat

    ReplyReply
  43. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @MarkedMan: But he’s just so earnest... Seriously, I go back and forth. Maybe I’m just a mark of a different kind.

    ETA;I gotta say super destroyer was, and still is, a racist piece of shit. He’s not coming around anymore because he can’t stand the abuse.

    ETA 2: and now I know why the word ‘earnest’, a word I rarely use, popped into my head. Thank you Gustopher.

    ReplyReply
  44. Teve says:

    My friend Eric just posted this on Facebook:

    It’s going to be hard to “discredit” the whistleblower now that half a dozen other witnesses have corroborated his statements.

    oh Eric you sweet summer child.

    ReplyReply
  45. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Gustopher:

    I also had a warm spot in my heart for Superdestroyer…

    Don’t you think the trolls were better back in the day? I do. andros is showing some promise, but mostly they’re just pathetic-loser types. Even Guarneri and JBK are just going through the motions these days. Very Sad. Low energy. Bigly low energy.

    We clearly need another African-American president. That’ll encourage them to rise to their former heights.

    ReplyReply
    10
  46. PJ says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    We clearly need another African-American president. That’ll encourage them to rise to their former heights.

    Is that why Deval Patrick is entering the race?

    Make Our Trolls Great Again?

    ReplyReply
  47. wr says:

    @andros: “The public interest demands a thorough investigation of this matter.”

    No, the interest of asshole Republicans desperately trying to distract from the felonies committed by their leader demands a thorough investigation of this bullshit matter.

    Oh, and pathetic trolls.

    ReplyReply
  48. Tom says:

    @MarkedMan: he’s the Andy Kaufman of OTB

    ReplyReply
  49. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Tom: At least Andy Kaufman was funny.

    ReplyReply
  50. Teve says:

    NBC News
    @NBCNews

    Analysis: The first two witnesses called Wednesday testified to President Trump’s scheme, but lacked the pizzazz necessary to capture public attention.

    if this idiotic tweet makes you grind your teeth, at least the replies will lift your spirits.

    My favorite, for it’s subtlety:

    Nick Hanauer
    @NickHanauer
    ·
    6h
    You people are fucktards. That may be the dumbest statement of the day.

    ReplyReply
  51. OzarkHillbilly says:

    The best defense the GOP counsel could come up with for Sondland’s involvement with Ukraine was, “It’s not… as outlandish… as it… could be.” Taylor tries desperately to not laugh in the man’s face, and more or less succeeds.

    ReplyReply
  52. andros says:

    From the bowtied George Kent’s October deposition:

    “I raised my concerns that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of millions of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest.”

    This gives rise to a most interesting question: Did Hunter have anything to do with Burisma getting its clutches on these “tens of millions” in the first place, through USAID, perchance? Unfortunately, some react to the thought of an investigation of the Bidens like Dracula to the Sign of the Cross.

    ReplyReply
  53. Teve says:

    Andros talks all fancy-like! 😛

    ReplyReply
  54. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @andros: I heard somewhere that trump is a serial goat fucker and has had several bastard kids with these poor defenseless animals, yet every time I bring it up Republicans react like Dracula to the Sign of the Cross.

    ReplyReply
  55. mattbernius says:

    @andros:
    You leave out the later part of Kents deposition that stated that he did not see any evidence of wrongdoing as well.

    Why do you keep finding things selectively credible and doing everything you can to avoid all the points where they noted that Trump was acting in nonstandard ways and only interested in personal political gain?

    Oh right, because you have no sensible defense for that… I’d got to suck knowing that you’ve got noting to stand on, huh… that all you can do is yell louder and throw up more flack saying “stop investigating this and start investigating that.”

    ReplyReply
  56. DrDaveT says:

    @andros:

    Unfortunately, some react to the thought of an investigation of the Bidens like Dracula to the Sign of the Cross.

    You mean another investigation of the Bidens? In addition to the ones that already looked into this? Please be clear.

    This gives rise to a most interesting question

    It certainly does. That question is “Why is Trump utterly indifferent to any corruption that doesn’t potentially involve Joe Biden?”. The answer is obvious, and known to everyone inside the beltway, but if y’all pedal just a bit faster you might manage enough spin to fool a few extremely gullible losers…

    ReplyReply
  57. Jax says:

    @DrDaveT: Arrrgh, now see, matey, them Dems be pulling a fast one by trickin da Mango Mussolini into blowing all his gunpowder too fast!! Dey say dey got latecomer’s to the race, and he’s already done impeached himself!

    Sorry, watching Pirates of the Caribbean. Everybody’s gotta talk pirate now, cuz we know Andros won’t actually address questions. 😉

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*