This lawyer guy for the GOP is a total weasel and is asking the most vague irrelevant questions I’ve ever heard a lawyer ask. “Are there unresolved issues from the run-up to the 2016 election?” That’s the question you want to ask, really? What possible meaningful answer can he give?
I am shocked that you are not troubled by that Ukraine conversation. I laughed as hard as you did when the Democrats tried to make hay out of the suspicion that the Russians handed Trump damning evidence of how the DNC was playing favorites; helping Hillary cheat during the primary debates; transcripts of Hillary saying stuff that contradicts her comments regarding banks and immigration, etc.
But this is apparent quid pro quo in implementing foreign policy. I thought you would draw the line there.
That seems to be in a different category than lying under oath about a blowjob.
I’m listening…
NB: you quoted a post from two months ago. Coincidentally, he dropped out of this thread when the administration admitted there was quid pro quo.
None of that stuff even approaches what seems to have happened with Ukraine.
That other stuff just looks like Democrats complaining that Russia helped Trump catch Hillary and the DNC with it’s hand in the cookie jar. The focus is correctly directed at the DNC shenanigans and not who uncovered them.
OK. So?
Did he at least admit that there were real problems that should be looked into?
This gop lawyer is a joke. “This irregular channel of diplomacy with the Ukraine isn’t as outlandish as it could be, correct?”
Of course not. He got warnings for doing his usual schtick and left in a huff. At least, that’s how i remember it. Im not gonna go back and look. Apologies if im thinking of a different thread.
Haha.
Your unique take on this kind of thing is always amusing. Being unconstrained by reality certainly allows you to let that freak flag fly.
There were warnings but I don’t remember if any were toward him. At any rate, after those warnings were issued, he announced in an ATMB thread that he had left this one.
In his defense, it’s not a thread directly about gun ownership, so he probably got bored.
Maybe. But it’s at least comparable to what Nixon did (i.e. stole documents from the DNC).
I’m wondering–given that this thread is already 85 pages long, and that we’re entering a new phase (the public testimony phase), would it make sense to lock this thread and start a new one? Easier for people to keep up.
If/when the process moves to yet another phase–say, the Senate trial–it would be a good time to start yet another thread.
This is why I could never testify. Because my response would have been, “Well, he could have been wearing a clown nose and assless chaps at the time.”
Should I respond to posts in the new thread then? There’s a bunch I haven’t gotten to.
~Max
I don’t understand the Republican line of questioning. “Ukraine is corrupt, amirite?” Yeah, so what?
Wow Jim Jordan… “since the aid was released without an investigation, you were wrong about that!”
OR THEY GOT CAUGHT, duh.
You claimed the bank robber said he’d shoot if he didn’t get the money right? But he didn’t shoot! So you’re wrong!!
The line that Trump wasn’t trying to end corruption in Ukraine, but aim it at a political adversary (paraphrasing) was a good one.
As well as the obstruction of Justice. The two main differences that I see between Nixon and Trump is that under Nixon, intrusion was caught before they could plant the bugs, and the the break in was done by freelance ex-Cubans instead of Russians agents. I somehow doubt that if these differences were reversed, it would have gone well of Nixon.