Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

Open Impeachment Inquiry Hearing Starts 11/13

329 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BrooklynGuy

Schifty went on to say that the timing is critical for our fake impeachment inquiry as we need this theatrical performance to last right up until the 2020 election if we are to have any chance of winning the Presidency. :)

Open hearings in Trump impeachment inquiry to begin next week, Schiff says

The first open hearings in the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump will begin next week, Rep. Adam Schiff said Wednesday. The California Democrat, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, posted on Twitter that acting US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor will appear next Wednesday along with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent. On Friday, former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch will testify at the open hearing.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/06/open-hearings-in-trump-impeachment-inquiry-to-begin-next-week-schiff-says/

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 hours ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Schifty went on to say that the timing is critical for our fake impeachment inquiry

I'm curious. You seem to troll with the 'fake impeachment' thing quite a bit, but I've never see you add any substance to your thoughts. Why, exactly, do you think this is a fake impeachment?

For any neutral, this isn't an subjective series of events. These things happened, they are illegal and were covered up. And now Trump is directing people to ignore their own government's subpoenas. Trump could be impeached for these things multiple times over. Any Democratic President, without a Fox equivalent, would be in Republican crosshairs for the same actions.

So what about it, specifically, is fake?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm curious. You seem to troll with the 'fake impeachment' thing quite a bit, but I've never see you add any substance to your thoughts. Why, exactly, do you think this is a fake impeachment?

For any neutral, this isn't an subjective series of events. These things happened, they are illegal and were covered up. And now Trump is directing people to ignore their own government's subpoenas. Trump could be impeached for these things multiple times over. Any Democratic President, without a Fox equivalent, would be in Republican crosshairs for the same actions.

So what about it, specifically, is fake?

All of it from both sides my very naive friend. Thanks for the reply though. ;)

  • Thanks 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

All of it from both sides my very naive friend. Thanks for the reply though. ;)

So you don't actually have an opinion other than 'I'm not going to believe anything I see or hear'.

Pre-determined ignorance. Huh. Who knew there was another level.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

So you don't actually have an opinion other than 'I'm not going to believe anything I see or hear'.

Pre-determined ignorance. Huh. Who knew there was another level

The political version of the bargaining stage of grief. 

Be nice EMM these folks are going through some stuff. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm curious. You seem to troll with the 'fake impeachment' thing quite a bit, but I've never see you add any substance to your thoughts. Why, exactly, do you think this is a fake impeachment?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment 

How about the words of the whistleblower's attorney?

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
50 minutes ago, and then said:

So let me get this right, Republicans have had weeks to come up with some way to discredit any of the witnesses, and the only thing they can up with is that one lawyer from one witness made Tweets two years ago about a 'coup' (showing that even he, a lawyer, doesn't know what that word means).

I know attempts to discredit an investigation are usually weak when people have no actual argument to put forth, but even this is a stretch. It has nothing to do with any of the witnesses and participants in the extortion of Ukraine. No one forced Trump to extort a foreign government for personal gain.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

:sleepy: Nothing like a good nights sleep to rejuvenate the soul. Here's the latest on Schifty's not so Open fake impeachment hearings to overthrow our duly elected President and the Right's disingenuous view  :innocent:

From the Left:

Inside Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Game Plan

This president, he’s like a planetary object,” Adam Schiff said. “He warps time. And things that you think happened a couple weeks ago, it turns out, only happened a day or two ago.” Schiff was slumped in a chair in his Washington office, tie askew and eyebrows ruffled, as if he’d been kneading his forehead. It was a little past 5:30 p.m. on the first Friday of October, the end of a week that, Schiff thought, “has been like three years compressed into a week.”

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/magazine/adam-schiff-impeachment.html

 

From the Right: 

Democrats ratchet up impeachment secrecy

A week ago, House Republicans complained that Democrats imposed excessive secrecy on interviews conducted as part of the drive to impeach President Trump. Now, the situation appears to have gotten worse. Friday's interview of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, marked a new point — a low point, as Republicans see it — in Democratic efforts to keep impeachment information out of public view. In this way: The two previous impeachment interviews, with former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, were conducted in the format of what is known as a transcribed interview.

Read more: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/dems-ratchet-up-impeachment-secrecy

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy

Imo we here in America are in for yet another politically motivated waste of time and resources Impeachment Farce to influence the outcome of an election in much the same way the Fake Clinton Impeachment did. However I'm sure this one will be no less entertaining. 

More on the story:

Trump's White House braces for public hearings

President Donald Trump and his allies are bracing for open hearings that will preoccupy Washington and bring to life the vivid picture of presidential behavior that until now has been confined to written statements and private testimony. As Democrats move toward the public phase of their inquiry with an eye to boosting support for Trump's impeachment, White House officials are gripping for another consequence: a President consumed by the developments.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-public-hearings/index.html

 

Trump-Ukraine House impeachment inquiry to start 'open hearings'

The House Intelligence Committee will hold its first open hearings next week as part of the formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, featuring current and former officials with knowledge of the Ukraine controversy. “Next week, the House Intelligence Committee will hold its first open hearings as part of the impeachment inquiry,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., tweeted Wednesday. “On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, we will hear from William Taylor and George Kent,” Schiff continued. “On Friday, November 15, 2019, we will hear from Marie Yovanovitch.”

Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-ukraine-house-impeachment-inquiry-to-start-open-hearings-nov-13-schiff-says

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew

Image result for sandra bullock blindfold

 

Republicans....

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
23 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Image result for sandra bullock blindfold

 

Republicans....

Thanks for the reply RJ, but I think Sandra Bullock, who is an Oscar winning actor, is a Democrat. I think Kayne West, James Woods and many others in the entertainment business are Republicans. 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
11 minutes ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Thanks for the reply RJ, but I think Sandra Bullock, who is an Oscar winning actor, is a Democrat. I think Kayne West, James Woods and many others in the entertainment business are Republicans. 

 

Kanye isn't. He is just great at marketing. He realized the untapped potential money base of religious republicans who will believe anything that's sold to them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrooklynGuy
21 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

The political version of the bargaining stage of grief. 

Be nice EMM these folks are going through some stuff. 

I think a couple of you nice folks on the left need to be more like my good friend Farmer77. He is able to see more than one point of view, he can laugh at himself, he can give it as good as he takes it and he clearly sees the hypocrisy of it all. :st 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

Kanye isn't. He is just great at marketing. He realized the untapped potential money base of religious republicans who will believe anything that's sold to them.

No, I really think Kanye’s going down the evangelical rabbit hole. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 11/6/2019 at 5:32 PM, and then said:

I notice some laughter but no one refuting what I posted.  I don't find willful ignorance to be amusing but go for it.  Just recall that when al is said and done, BOTH sides will get to be heard. 

I'd say that an attorney defending the "whistleblower" shouldn't be calling for Impeachment a couple of weeks or months after an election.  That smacks of wanting to overrule the will of 63 million voters because one group thinks they know better who should lead.  Does that sound ayrrie to you?  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment  try reading it and then deciding how to find fault...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
6 minutes ago, and then said:

I notice some laughter but no one refuting what I posted.  I don't find willful ignorance to be amusing but go for it.  Just recall that when al is said and done, BOTH sides will get to be heard. 

I'd say that an attorney defending the "whistleblower" shouldn't be calling for Impeachment a couple of weeks or months after an election.  That smacks of wanting to overrule the will of 63 million voters because one group thinks they know better who should lead.  Does that sound ayrrie to you?  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment  try reading it and then deciding how to find fault...

You really aren't arguing that the impeachment is invalid because the attorney of the whistleblower said there should be a coup are you?  Pretty sure that the bus boy at the table of the gardener of the neighbor of the attorney said some pro-Trump things and that should validate the investigation again.

Because for some strange reason, people's opinions that are unrelated to the crime itself matters?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

A little grist for the mill... the info coming out from the whistleblower attorneys makes it clear to unbiased observers that everything that's been thrown at T has been pre-planned.  The fact that his haters don't care or believe it makes no difference because they'd never support him anyway.  What it DOES do is give independents some info that's counter to the narrative to think through.  Remember chuckles... this isn't a LEGAL process at all...it's all about perception's role in politics.  Studat on that awhile ;) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
12 hours ago, Almighty Evan said:

Eric Ciaramella is NOT a whistleblower.

I agree completely, I was just giving him the title the media has agreed on.  ;)  He's actually just a jumped up political hack and he needs to be called to be deposed under oath.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
13 hours ago, BrooklynGuy said:

Thanks for the reply RJ, but I think Sandra Bullock, who is an Oscar winning actor, is a Democrat. I think Kayne West, James Woods and many others in the entertainment business are Republicans. 

Thanks man.  Sandra Bullock is an Oscar winner.   Kanye West, not.  James Woods nominated twice, shot down, loser.  I like actors that win. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
7 hours ago, and then said:

try reading it and then deciding how to find fault...

OK, I read it.  A lawyer was mouthing off and puffing up his own importance.  OR:

Maybe it is true.  They have been patiently waiting for the right moment and almost caught up with him a time or two.

The supervisor that taught me at Weyerhaeuser told me that people are creatures of habit.  If someone has a habit of being dishonest and overconfident, you eventually catch him.  I guess that theory works well for cops too.

So they staked out the  White House and waited.  Eventually Trump put the strong arm on the President of the Ukraine and tried to extort him for personal gain  with witnesses and something of a paper trail.

Will it stick even if he is guilty as he**, maybe not, probably not, but people are creatures of habit.  There will be a next time.  Not to worry though, his true buds will not desert him.  Wouldn't surprise me a bit if he was re-elected.

What are you going to do in the off chance that the Dems keep the House and win the Senate in 2020?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 11/6/2019 at 12:41 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm curious. You seem to troll with the 'fake impeachment' thing quite a bit, but I've never see you add any substance to your thoughts. Why, exactly, do you think this is a fake impeachment?

For any neutral, this isn't an subjective series of events. These things happened, they are illegal and were covered up. And now Trump is directing people to ignore their own government's subpoenas. Trump could be impeached for these things multiple times over. Any Democratic President, without a Fox equivalent, would be in Republican crosshairs for the same actions.

So what about it, specifically, is fake?

AFAIK, the "neutrals", aka Independents, are split 50/50 on if Trump committed a crime worthy of impeachment or not.

I dont think the arguement is what Trump did, but if it reaches the level of requiring impeachment. Given, it is looking more and more like the case, but guilt, or even illegality, has not been established yet. At least IMHO. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
17 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

Image result for sandra bullock blindfold

 

Republicans....

That's not a Republican, that's Pelosi when she goes back to San Fran. So she doesnt see the crime, homeless, poop, drugs, gangs....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
10 hours ago, and then said:

I notice some laughter but no one refuting what I posted.  I don't find willful ignorance to be amusing but go for it.  Just recall that when al is said and done, BOTH sides will get to be heard. 

I'd say that an attorney defending the "whistleblower" shouldn't be calling for Impeachment a couple of weeks or months after an election.  That smacks of wanting to overrule the will of 63 million voters because one group thinks they know better who should lead.  Does that sound ayrrie to you?  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment  try reading it and then deciding how to find fault...

Well, that demonstrates that the lawyer is not neutral, and has a definite animus towards Donald Trump, to the extent of actively wanting to impeach him the instant he was elected. 

However, I have to say.... "so what" ? The lawyer is not a witness to the case, and will not be called on to testify. His personal prejudices are therefore surely irrelevant to the outcome of the investigation ? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.