Chris Wallace Accuses Top Republican of ‘Very Badly’ Mischaracterizing Impeachment Testimony

  
Via:  ender  •  6 months ago  •  218 comments

By:    Justin Baragona

Chris Wallace Accuses Top Republican of ‘Very Badly’ Mischaracterizing Impeachment Testimony

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Fox News Sunday  anchor  Chris Wallace  repeatedly confronted House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) on Sunday over the top Republican’s characterization of last week’s impeachment testimony, accusing congressman of “very badly” misrepresenting the witnesses’ positions.

Wallace pressed the Trump-boosting Louisiana lawmaker on the upcoming testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sonldand, asking Scalise if   it was possible   Sondland could “blow a hole in the president’s defense” if he testifies that the president told him Ukraine aid was being held up unless the Ukrainian president publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens.

“Well, the president’s defense is that those things didn't happen,” Scalise responded. “And it’s not just the president's word. President Zelensky himself said that the aid wasn’t conditioned and there was no pressure.”

“The real bottom line is he got the money,” the GOP representative added, reiterating a key party talking point. “Ukraine got the money.”

Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting   that many of them   became immediately upset that Trump pressed Zelensky on investigating a Ukrainian gas firm that Vice President’s Joe Biden’s son worked for.

“Those were [House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam] Schiff's witnesses,” Scalise insisted.

“No, sir, they are career foreign service officers and these are people who worked in the Trump administration,” Wallace retorted, adding that an aide to Vice President Mike Pence recently testified that Trump’s call was “inappropriate.”

“You had Tim Morrison, who was on the NSC staff, who said that he—alarm bells immediately went off for him,” the Fox News host continued. “Alexander Vindman immediately went to see—these are all people, you say they are Schiff's witnesses—they all were working in the Trump administration.”

Scalise attempted to pivot to the whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, claiming the Intelligence Community inspector general said the whistleblower had political motivations. Wallace, meanwhile, snapped back: “We are not talking about the whistleblower!”

After saying that he didn’t want to answer “hypothetical” questions about Sondland’s upcoming testimony, Scalise then asserted   last week’s impeachment witnesses —senior State Department official George Kent, top Ukraine envoy Bill Taylor, and former U.S. Amb. to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch—essentially said Trump did nothing wrong.

“All three of them were asked, did you see any impeachable offenses” he declared. “Did you see any bribery? Any of that? Not one of those things were mentioned. Not one person said they saw a crime committed.”

“With all due respect—with all due respect, that very badly mischaracterizes what they said,” Wallace pushed back. “They were asked, William Taylor, for instance, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was asked whether or not these were impeachable offenses. He said I’m there as a fact witness. I’m not there to pass judgment, but he made it clear what he thought about what the president was doing.”

Wallace would then go on to play a clip of Taylor’s testimony, further noting that Taylor said that withholding aid to Ukraine to help Trump’s presidential campaign was “crazy.”

This wasn’t the only time that Wallace left Scalise stumbling in Sunday morning’s interview. When the Louisiana congressman dismissed concerns about the July phone call by brushing off “third-hand” accounts while pointing to the Ukrainian foreign minister’s claim there was no link between aid and investigations, Wallace retorted that the foreign minister “was not on the call either.”

Via MSN

Photo: © Provided by The Daily Beast


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Ender
1  seeder  Ender    6 months ago
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

. @ SteveScalise blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @ FoxNews past. Great job Steve!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @1    6 months ago

Unless he is on?  What a pompous ass Trump is.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ender @1    6 months ago

Scalise must have drawn the short straw. Not many of the GOP Reps are coming out from under rocks to opine on REAL media about the mountain of evidence against Trump's corrupt acts. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2  MUVA    6 months ago

Wallace sucks .

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @2    6 months ago

[Removed]

Let me guess..... Chris was spouting facts from INSIDE your Faux News bubble again! [Removed]

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.1  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    6 months ago

Do you know me why would you make a personal attack like as if you actually know me I know because we’re not face to face.I don’t watch Fox News I actually watch very little tv at all 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2    6 months ago

No

 
 
 
Ender
4  seeder  Ender    6 months ago

And again, instead of saying anything about what Wallace is talking about, in true fashion, it is just attack Wallace.

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    6 months ago

That's Crooked donnie's MO...attack, attack and attack some more...he's delusional 

 
 
 
Ender
5.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  lady in black @5    6 months ago

And his followers do the same. Sad.

 
 
 
Kavika
6  Kavika     6 months ago

A pair to draw to...Lair/conman,,,Conman/lair

Donald-Trump-and-Roger-Stone_660014_ver1

 
 
 
Ender
6.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Kavika @6    6 months ago

With a Nixon stamp of approval. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Kavika @6    6 months ago

09dc-trumpspstein1-articleLarge-v2.jpg?qtrump-epstein-wide.jpg?resize=865,452

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2    6 months ago

It always amazes me when the left tries to draw some kind of close relationship between President Trump and Epstein when their boy slick willie has been to pervert island numerous times flying on the Lolita express. Release the tapes they confiscated from his home....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    6 months ago
It always amazes me when the left tries to draw some kind of close relationship between President Trump and Epstein

It always amazes me when the right refuses to acknowledge the relationship between Trump and Epstein.  Clinton was NOT at the island, but Trump was, more than once.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.2    6 months ago

tRump and Epstein both took turns raping Ivanka.  

If tRump could still get it up, he'd still be boinking Ivanka.  

Look at how someone's references to Bill Clinton being on Lolita express is all from Fux 'new's or World Nut Daily or some blogs and other nonsense.

NOT VALID SOURCES.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.2.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    6 months ago

Shoot that messenger!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    6 months ago
TRump and Epstein both took turns raping Ivanka

did you post this to the wrong site? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.3    6 months ago

Denial is not a river in Egypt...

No it is not, it is also the number 1 political strategy for Trump apologists.

trump-epstein-wide.jpg?resize=865,452

WHEN HAS TRUMP BEEN ACCUSED OF RAPE OR ATTEMPTED RAPE? ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE A CHILD, HIS WIFE AND A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    6 months ago
Look at how someone's references to Bill Clinton being on Lolita express is all from Fux 'new's or World Nut Daily or some blogs and other nonsense.

What amazes me is the speed of the right wing nuts, and paid (Russian, Chinese, RNC, etc) posters to jump on every Epstein article to try and divert attention away from Trump.  The speed and vehemence of it, is indicative of absolute fear.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.8    6 months ago

Nice photoshopped picture.

Allegation against Trump by left wing nut jobs.

I agree that Trump is no saint. He is a womanizer/playboy.

Never one allegation against Trump until he became the Republican candidate.

Lets get back to my original comment you can't defend.

Trump may have bumped into Epstein hanging around the Clintons and Democrat fundraisers. Trump did not hang out at pervert island like Slick willy did no mater how much in your fantasy world you believe he did. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.11  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.8    6 months ago

Paula Jones was the one that opened the flood gates of accusations. She worked for Clinton during his stint as the Governor of Arkansas and won a massive $850,000 settlement from Clinton. The stipulation, of course, was that Bill did to have to admit to any wrongdoing as long as he inked that check.

Juanita Broderick was a nursing home administrator that claimed Bill raped her in a hotel room in 1978. She has recently resurfaced to warn people how evil these two are and that they cannot be allowed to once again get into the White House.

Kathleen Willey was a volunteer who alleged Bill attacked her in 1998. Her original accusations came to light during a “60 Minutes” special.

Eileen Wellstone has one of the more disturbing claims due to the fact it goes back to when Clinton was at Oxford University as a student in 1969. I say this because it was not just political power that led to this behavior if her claim is true. This would establish him as a serial rapist with behavior that started decades before he ever came into prominence.

Carolyn Moffet met Clinton at a fundraiser in 1979. She claims she was invited by Bill to go back to his hotel room, where Bill demanded she perform sexual acts. It is yet another example of Bill using his position to lure a woman in and then assault her once he got her behind closed doors.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen won the Miss America contest in 1982 and alleged Clinton forced her to have sex shortly after gaining the crown.

Becky Brown served as Chelsea’s nanny. Two people came forward to reveal that Bill Clinton made sexual advances on her while she was serving in this capacity at the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas. Her husband and local state trooper backed up her story.

Helen Dowdy claims to have been groped by Bill during a family wedding while she was on the dance floor. That seems to be a popular move by Bill as we have seen in several videos that have come to light in recent weeks.

Cristy Zercher was one of those girls I just spoke about, as she claims Clinton groped her while she was serving as a stewardess on his campaign jet. In her interview with Star Magazine, she said the alleged incident took place for approximately forty minutes.

This, of course, is not the full list, as there are numerous other “alleged” rapes, illegitimate children, and mistresses. And this is the man the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural First Gentleman.

http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/list-of-women-who-have-accused-bill-clinton-of-sexual-misconduct/

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.10    6 months ago
Never one allegation against Trump until he became the Republican candidate.

And Not one Conviction either !

Democrat and Liberal types "Forget" ….. to easily. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.4    6 months ago
NOT VALID SOURCES.  

Expert Opinion ?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.14  KDMichigan  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.6    6 months ago
did you post this to the wrong site? 

She is blocked from posting to me but still seeks my attention. You should see the private msg's she sends me.

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.15  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.11    6 months ago
And this is the man the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural First Gentleman.

Funny, Hillary isn't running for office - and neither is Bill.

Yet the Trump supporters keep throwing their names out there anytime someone brings up Trump's corruption, as if that somehow makes what he's doing OK. Talk about hypocrisy. If Bill's actions bothered you as much as you claim, there should be no possible way you could support Trump.

A decent person would put morals and ethics ahead of policies in some instances, as you seem to imply with your comment - but Trump supporters don't do that.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.16  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @6.2.15    6 months ago

Try following the thread before you jump in with your self righteous indignation.

 If Bill's actions bothered you as much as you claim

Thanks for helping me out and admitting Bill Clinton is a pervert though.

 
 
 
katrix
6.2.17  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.16    6 months ago
Thanks for helping me out and admitting Bill Clinton is a pervert though

Anytime. I call it like I see it, and Clinton is a pervert.

You said "the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural Frist Gentleman" - the tense you use implies that somehow Hillary is running for President.  So perhaps you should learn about tenses before you try to insult me for my comment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.14    6 months ago

Please check your PN's. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.19  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @6.2.17    6 months ago

That's the article I copied....

 
 
 
The People's Fish, Still "Hand Of The Queen"
6.2.20  The People's Fish, Still "Hand Of The Queen"  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.18    6 months ago
Please check your PN's. 

I keep getting sexually suggestive chats from female members here. I am a man not a piece of meat. 

My therapist said i should say that.

Thanks,

Sincerely the actor that plays the people's fish.

 
 
 
Kathleen
6.2.21  Kathleen  replied to  The People's Fish, Still "Hand Of The Queen" @6.2.20    6 months ago

😂

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.22  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    6 months ago

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.22    6 months ago

Looks like Trump is "Socializing" with Melania to me.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.24  KDMichigan  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.23    6 months ago

Frosty is not capable of following a thread either.

Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.25  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.11    6 months ago

Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it. I am SO shocked... /s

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.26  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    6 months ago

512

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.27  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.24    6 months ago
Frosty is not capable of following a thread either.

After you just posted an article about Bill Clinton, which has what to do with the current impeachment? I mean, other than nothing at all? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.28  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.24    6 months ago

Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said. 

Sorry! Didn't mean to trigger you so easily.. 
 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.29  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.1    6 months ago

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  KDMichigan @6.2.24    6 months ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
6.2.31  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    6 months ago

Billy lied in civil case in a deposition where he was found to have exposed himself to Paula Jones and later paid Paula Jones 800,000 later and lost his law license.Trump made a phone call his detractors don’t like.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.32  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    6 months ago
Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it.

None of the Witness's for the "Schiff Parody Prosecution" has said any such thing !

Besides....where did that infamous "Prid-Quo-Pro" wording go anyway ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.2.33  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    6 months ago
Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob.

No.  He was impeached for obstruction of justice, multiple counts of perjury and witness tampering.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.2.34  KDMichigan  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.27    6 months ago

Again I know it's hard but try following the thread instead of jumping in.

256

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2.35  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.25    6 months ago
But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it. I am SO shocked

Yeah I know right?   

I mean when he was sitting there and noted that if the Prosecutor wasn't fired he would withhold $1.5 billion in American aid and then noted he would have to be fired in the next six hours because his flight left then.......   and then bragged it happened.  

Oh fuck, that's right that was Joe Biden, then the Vice President of The United States that was EXTORTING the President of the Ukraine.  My bad.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.36  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.12    6 months ago
And Not one Conviction either ! Democrat and Liberal types "Forget" ….. to easily.

What happened to "lock her up"?  Now you're waiting for convictions????

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.37  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.36    6 months ago

We are still waiting for all those indictments for Obama and Hillary and everyone in his administration 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.38  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @6.2.35    6 months ago

You sound exceedingly bitter and venomous 

Dominoes falling?

Tick tock

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.39  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.36    6 months ago
Now you're waiting for convictions????

I'm Not waiting for a damn thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.40  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.2.17    6 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.28    6 months ago
'Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said.'

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Says Mr. Off Topic Inappropriate Memes.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.27    6 months ago

giphy.webp?cid=790b76110c21720140f6d498d

But, but, the Clintons!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2.43  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.39    6 months ago
I'm Not waiting for a damn thing.

You're waiting for your next talking point to show up in your spam folder.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.44  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2.43    6 months ago
You're waiting for your next talking point to show up in your spam folder.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    6 months ago
that very badly mischaracterizes what they said

No, it really doesn't. You can think all sorts of negative things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he should be removed from office. That's the point Scalise was making. He didn't try to claim the witnesses approved of Trump's actions. All he said was that none of them would say the president should be impeached over it.

 
 
 
Ender
7.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @7    6 months ago

They didn't say he shouldn't be either.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @7.1    6 months ago

Democrats are looking for someone in this list of witnesses to push everyone else over the edge with them. They want a witness who makes it unequivocally clear that Trump did something that requires impeachment and it's just not happening. None of these career people are dumb enough to put their heads on the chopping block and tell the committee they need to impeach the president.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.1    6 months ago

You know that Hill, Volker and Morrison have already resigned right? Their testimony is upcoming. 

Sondland is DONE and he'll just have to 'scrap' by on his nest egg. He has 3 choices, claim the 5th and be seen as a liar, LIE and have jail hanging over him or suck it up and tell the truth. 

I think that the Democrats should seek an affidavit from Yermak, Zelensky's top aid. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    6 months ago
No, it really doesn't.

Yes it really does. 

You can think all sorts of negative things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he should be removed from office.

You can think all sorts of positive things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be removed from office. 

That's the point Scalise was making.

If that was indeed the point that Scalise was TRYING to make, he failed miserably. 

He didn't try to claim the witnesses approved of Trump's actions.

He just tried to dismiss the witnesses as Schiff minions. 

All he said was that none of them would say the president should be impeached over it.

NONE of them were there to state their OPINION about what the Congress should DO about Trump's conduct. All but Morrison stated that they felt that Trump's call was at minimum 'inappropriate'. Yet even Morrison knew that there was an issue with the content of the call and HIS reaction was to insure that it was buried. 

 
 
 
Ender
8.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Dulay @8    6 months ago

That is all he did, try to shift blame.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8    6 months ago
He just tried to dismiss the witnesses as Schiff minions.

Who called them to testify?  Isn't Schiff organizing all this?

All but Morrison stated that they felt that Trump's call was at minimum 'inappropriate'.

"Inappropriate" is simply their opinion.  Not saying they're wrong, but "inappropriate" does not necessarily equal "impeachable".

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2    6 months ago
Who called them to testify?  Isn't Schiff organizing all this?

So that inherently makes them 'Schiff's minions'? How? 

Should we all then view Morrison and Volker as Nunes' minions?

"Inappropriate" is simply their opinion.  Not saying they're wrong, but "inappropriate" does not necessarily equal "impeachable".

The House will make that decision. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.2.1    6 months ago
So that inherently makes them 'Schiff's minions'? How? 

"Minions" was your term.  He said "Schiff's witnesses", which appears to be accurate.

The House will make that decision. 

And the Senate will make theirs.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2.2    6 months ago
"Minions" was your term. 

Which you answered by inferring that they WERE. 

He said "Schiff's witnesses", which appears to be accurate.

No he wasn't accurate because they were FACT witnesses and Volker, who the GOP called, stated that those prior FACT witnesses caused him to alter his own testimony. In short, Volker recognized them as giving truthful testimony. 

I note that you didn't answer me about whether we should all view Volker and Morrison as Nunes' 'witnesses'. 

And the Senate will make theirs.

Now your getting it. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.2.3    6 months ago
Which you answered by inferring that they WERE. 

I think you mean "implying", but I wasn't.  You are doing the inferring.  Incorrectly.  Again.  

No he wasn't accurate because they were FACT witnesses and Volker, who the GOP called, stated that those prior FACT witnesses caused him to alter his own testimony. In short, Volker recognized them as giving truthful testimony.

The witnesses Schiff called are most certainly "Schiff's witnesses".   

I note that you didn't answer me about whether we should all view Volker and Morrison as Nunes' 'witnesses'. 

If he called them, then yes.  

Now your getting it. 

*eyeroll*

Oh sweetie....... bless your heart.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @8.2.4    6 months ago
You are doing the inferring.  Incorrectly.  Again.  

What are you 'inferring' that I am 'inferring' incorrectly? Please be specific. 

The witnesses Schiff called are most certainly "Schiff's witnesses".   

No again. They are Committee witnesses. 

If he called them, then yes.  

Well gee Jack, Nunes and the Minority requested that the Committee call those witness. So are they Nunes' witnesses or not? 

Oh sweetie....... bless your heart.

Not your 'sweetie' Jack. I need no blessing. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @8.2.5    6 months ago
If he called them, then yes.  
Well gee Jack, Nunes and the Minority requested that the Committee call those witness. So are they Nunes' witnesses or not? 

Oh good grief.

And yes...most definitely...bless your heart.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9  Freedom Warrior    6 months ago

If anything has been badly mischaracterized it's the notion that Trump did anything of a criminal nature.  

I especially like the one where the testimony essentially was hurt someone's feelings so he should be impeached.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    6 months ago

I especially like the one where some still believe that there needs to be a crime to impeach. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9    6 months ago
If anything has been badly mischaracterized it's the notion that Trump did anything of a criminal nature.

It is kind of funny that throughout all this NONE of them can state exactly what he did that is impeachable.  

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2    6 months ago
It is kind of funny that throughout all this NONE of them can state exactly what he did that is impeachable.  

They're fact witnesses, NOT experts on what's impeachable. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
9.2.2  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2    6 months ago

NONE of them can state exactly what he did that is impeachable.

That is not their function.  They are there to present factual information.  It is the house membership that will determine if the fact rise to the level of impeachment.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @9.2.1    6 months ago

The "they" I'm referring to are those who THINK that the President has done something that is impeachable.  These are the same blithering idiots who have been on this since the day the President took office (both in washington and most on this site). 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @9.2.2    6 months ago
It is the house membership that will determine if the fact rise to the level of impeachment.

You said "will determine".

I think you mean "have determined".  Probably sometime back in 2016.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2.3    6 months ago
The "they" I'm referring to are those who THINK that the President has done something that is impeachable.  

I KNOW he has. 

These are the same blithering idiots who have been on this since the day the President took office (both in washington and most on this site). 

So let me ask you something Jim. Is it your position that no matter what Trump does, he's untouchable? 

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.4    6 months ago
I think you mean "have determined".  Probably sometime back in 2016.

Well that's okay Jack because all of the conservatives here 'have determined' that the Senate is going to let him off. No worries. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.6    6 months ago
Well that's okay Jack because all of the conservatives here 'have determined' that the Senate is going to let him off. No worries. 

The smart money is most certainly on that outcome.  

At the end of the day, this is primarily a political stunt.  Unless they come up with something much more compelling than a phone call that 8 people interpret 8 different ways, there is no hope of removing him.

But impeaching him appeases their rabid base so they won't get primaried back home, and Pelosi hopes it will weaken Trump enough to enable one of their weak candidates to squeak out a victory.

It would have been better to simply nominate a great candidate, but those don't actually grow on trees and they really don't appear to have one right now.  Pete looks like he wouldn't be a calamity, and he's gaining some traction, so that's encouraging.  If Biden were 58 instead of 78, he'd walk away with it.  He should have run 4 years ago.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.5    6 months ago
I KNOW he has. 

Riiiiight.  

Were you on "the call"?  Do you have super secret documents signed by Trump that demand campaign contributions and a new hat for Melania in exchange for military aid?  Do you also have video of Trump conducting ritual sacrifices of babies and eating them? 

The fact is you don't actually "know" anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know.  The second fact is that you don't actually want to know anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.8    6 months ago
Riiiiight.  

Yep. 

Were you on "the call"? 

Don't you listen you Trump? READ the transcript. 

Do you have super secret documents signed by Trump that demand campaign contributions and a new hat for Melania in exchange for military aid? 

Why would I need that? 

Do you also have video of Trump conducting ritual sacrifices of babies and eating them? 

Pfffft. 

The fact is you don't actually "know" anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know. 

I know what the witnesses testified to, in both their depositions and their open testimony. I also know what Trump said and what Giuliani said. 

I'll put my knowledge about this issue up against yours any day Jack. 

The second fact is that you don't actually want to know anything beyond what the Democrats want you to know

That comment is a lie and it's pretty pathetic coming from a sycophant. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.9    6 months ago
That comment is a lie

You pretend your post history doesn't give you away.

Your rampaging bias blinds you to any other possibility besides the one you desperately want to be true.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.10    6 months ago
You pretend your post history doesn't give you away.

You pretend that you know what I want. 

Your rampaging bias blinds you to any other possibility besides the one you desperately want to be true.

I deal in facts Jack, things with which you're obviously having issues.

BTW, I note that you didn't deny being a sycophant. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

Now how about you get off of your whining jag about me and get back to addressing the topic. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.11    6 months ago
You pretend that you know what I want. 

Oh sweetie....  Everybody knows what you want. 

I deal in facts Jack, things with which you're obviously having issues.

You deal with what you wish the facts were. 

BTW, I note that you didn't deny being a sycophant.

Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.  You forget I voted against Trump, and have said repeatedly I'd prefer Pence.  But don't let that get in the way of the "facts" you wish were true.

Now how about you get off of your whining jag about me and get back to addressing the topic. 

Sure. 

You claim you "know".  You don't.  You interpret everything you hear through the mist of your extreme brainless bias and then you believe yourself some sort of armchair expert on a case that has divided people much, much, much smarter than you.  You can't even read comments on this forum correctly, yet you imagine you are some sort of constitutional scholar.  You pretend the tiny amount of data you see must be all of it, because you lack the sophistication to even imagine you might only be getting one side of the story.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2.13  katrix  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.12    6 months ago
and have said repeatedly I'd prefer Pence

OK, I just have to ask you, if I may - why would you prefer Pence?

I'm really on the fence about this.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.12    6 months ago
Oh sweetie.... Everybody knows what you want. 

If YOU did, you wouldn't be calling me sweetie. 

Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.  You forget I voted against Trump, and have said repeatedly I'd prefer Pence.  But don't let that get in the way of the "facts" you wish were true.

Gee, Graham called Trump every name in the book. Yet he's a sycophant and so are you. 

you believe yourself some sort of armchair expert on a case that has divided people much, much, much smarter than you.  

I didn't claim to be an expert Jack, I merely claimed to know MORE about the issue than you [Removed]

You can't even read comments on this forum correctly, yet you imagine you are some sort of constitutional scholar. 

I need only be more of a scholar than you Jack, [Removed]

You pretend the tiny amount of data you see must be all of it, because you lack the sophistication to even imagine you might only be getting one side of the story.

I'm sophisticated enough to know that the tiny bit of one sided data that you've offered is a small fraction of what I've reviewed. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @9.2.14    6 months ago
If YOU did, you wouldn't be calling me sweetie. 

Just because we all know what you want doesn't mean you're getting it.

Yet he's a sycophant and so are you.

As I said....Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.

I didn't claim to be an expert Jack,

That's not true, though, is it?  You said, "I KNOW".  

I merely claimed to know MORE about the issue than you

That's not all you claimed, though is it?  So you're backtracking now?  

and I don't even have to be smart for that to be true. 

Well that's convenient for you, isn't it?  It's nice that you've found something you can handle.

I need only be more of a scholar than you Jack,

If you could manage to read posts correctly through your angry biased mist, you would see that I have made no claim about what I know.  Only an idiot would believe that what we see on television and read on the internet is even a small fraction of the pertinent information on the situation.

I'm sophisticated enough to know that the tiny bit of one sided data that you've offered is a small fraction of what I've reviewed.

I've offered data?  What was that, exactly?  Do cite that for us.  You really, really, don't read these posts very well, do you? All I've done is state that you don't know nearly as much as you want to think you do.   

We're talking about the US Government at the highest levels of foreign policy.  We're also talking about a massively partisan political gambit with everything at stake.  Almost everything will be completely clandestine.  

There may actually be an actual "smoking gun" out there.  There may be written communication from Trump or RG stating that the Ukranians are not getting aid until they announce a Biden investigation.  The President of Ukraine may change his story and state publicly that Trump attempted to blackmail him.  Or there may be evidence of Joe Biden being aware of money laundering, bribery or extortion that hasn't been revealed yet.  

The point is we the public are not privy to the overwhelming majority of information.  So there isn't any way you can possibly "KNOW".

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @9.2.15    6 months ago
Just because we all know what you want doesn't mean you're getting it.

Does pretending to speak for anyone other than yourself make you cool in your circle? 

As I said....Given your rampaging bias, I'm sure you think I am.

Well YOU brought up post history as a standard. I rest my case. 

That's not true, though, is it?  

Yes, it's true Jack. 

You said, "I KNOW".  

Why yes, YES I did and I went on to cite what I know, didn't I Jack? 

Saying that one knows something isn't a claim of expertise no matter how desperately you insist that it is. 

Only an idiot would believe that what we see on television and read on the internet is even a small fraction of the pertinent information on the situation.

Only an idiot would believe what Hannity, Solomon, Nunes and Jordan disseminate in leu of factual and historical documentation on the subject. 

As I have stated before, besides the summary of the call, I have read ALL of the opening statements from the witnesses, the text messages, ALL of the witness depositions, the Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification in multiple states, certain chapters of Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", the basic rules of the House and Senate and the additional provisions on Impeachment, too many articles and essays on the subject to list including the bullshit that Dershowitz wrote that was posted here. 

Now perhaps even you may be able to admit that just because I reviewed some to that material on the internet doesn't mean that it is irrelevant or unreliable. 

Is all of that a 'small fraction of pertinent information on the situation'. Why yes, YES I'm sure it is. Yet there is no doubt that it is a MUCH LARGER fraction than you or any of your fellow travelers have bothered to pursue. 

I've offered data?  What was that, exactly?  Do cite that for us.  You really, really, don't read these posts very well, do you? All I've done is state that you don't know nearly as much as you want to think you do.   

So you're stating that you haven't offered any facts in any of your repllies to me. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Almost everything will be completely clandestine.  

That's a ridiculous statement Jack. We have transcripts of every word stated in the SCIF and two weeks of OPEN hearings broadcast live across the nation. NONE of that meets the definition of 'clandestine'. 

There may actually be an actual "smoking gun" out there. 

Well see what the FOIA suits expose. Pompeo just had to release a tranche of documents yesterday. Oh, I READ those too...

The point is we the public are not privy to the overwhelming majority of information.  

Trump is doing his best to keep it that way. 

So there isn't any way you can possibly "KNOW".

One thing I KNOW for a fact is that your supercilious strawman FAILS. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @9.2.5    6 months ago
I KNOW he has. 

And your evidence of this is where?  Apparently it only exists in your mind.  Have another sip of the kool aid.

These are the same blithering idiots who have been on this since the day the President took office (both in washington and most on this site). 
So let me ask you something Jim. Is it your position that no matter what Trump does, he's untouchable? 

1. Who is Jim?  

2.  No he's not untouchable.  So far there is nothing to prove he's done anything wrong.  Liberal / Leftist / Democrat freak out because they cannot handle loss is not an impeachable offense.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2.17    6 months ago
And your evidence of this is where? 

Read 9.2.16 for what I have reviewed to reach my opinion. 

Apparently it only exists in your mind.  

That's only apparent in your mind and in those who are obtuse. 

 No he's not untouchable.  So far there is nothing to prove he's done anything wrong. 

There is overwhelming evidence that he has done a hell of a lot wrong. 

As an aside, there isn't enough popcorn on the planet for the day McGahn testifies. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
9.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @9.2.18    6 months ago
Read 9.2.16 for what I have reviewed to reach my opinion. 

So I was right.  It's only in your mind.

There is overwhelming evidence that he has done a hell of a lot wrong. 

Then why, after about 3 years of "investigating" is there no evidence?  Why was he not indicted?  Oh that's right. Because the crime is that he LEGALLY beat the Democrats.  Now the Democrats, left and liberals can't handle rejection and you all have been crying like spoiled little shits in Walmart.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.2.19    6 months ago
So I was right.  It's only in your mind.

Obtuse. 

Then why, after about 3 years of "investigating" is there no evidence?  Why was he not indicted?  

Go review the OLC opinion. 

Oh wait, you have no fucking clue wtf I'm talking about. Go LOOK UP the OLC opinion about a POTUS being immune to prosecution while in office. 

You've played your last 'hold my hand' card. 

Oh that's right. Because the crime is that he LEGALLY beat the Democrats.  Now the Democrats, left and liberals can't handle rejection and you all have been crying like spoiled little shits in Walmart.

More obtuseness. Well done. 

 
 
 
freepress
10  freepress    6 months ago

Even Fox is starting to see the writing on the wall. Lies, misinformation, disinformation is the basis for Republicans and Fox. Add gerrymandering, voter suppression and allowing election interference by hostile foreign influence and the GOP proves time and time again, they know they cannot win with the real majority of Americans and the popular vote, so they cheat and lie. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
11  It Is ME    6 months ago

"Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting   that many of them   became immediately upset "

Chris has "rapped" jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif himself up in the "Feelings" train ! jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

Even Chris didn't say it was an "Impeachable" offense ….. just like "NONE" of the "Others" have ever said either ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

In fact....."NONE" of the so-called "Witnesses" have said anything of the sort. All they can "Report" on…. is that they "Feel" ! jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
11.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  It Is ME @11    6 months ago

Nice gymnastics with the truth....

The "Witnesses" are providing facts/testimony of the call when asked questions on the substance of that call.

When asked about their feelings of the substance matter, they are supplying their feelings.

Two distinct differences, but you seem to only realize one because you have a narrative you want to push.  Being a "Forever Trumper" is quickly becoming as popular as a case of gonorrhea....  

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @11.1    6 months ago
The "Witnesses" are providing facts/testimony of the call when asked questions on the substance of that call.

Like:

NO....to hearing Bribery ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

NO....to hearing extortion ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

NO....to hearing a "Prid-Quo-Pro" (Which isn't used by Democrats anymore. Not "SHOCKING enough) ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

But - #feelingsmatter jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

It Is ME
XDm9mm
r.t..b...
Sparty On
Kathleen
Snuffy
Eat The Press Do Not Read It


39 visitors