My understanding is that the scif room was being used by the foreign affairs committee, which seems to have 20+ GOP members in it.
I believe the GOPs gripe was about it not being open to everyone, which is pretty standard
No. In fact, some of the republicans who complained about not having access actually had access. It was all a show for those Americans who are too lazy to think for themselves.
1 Like
Like this. Sounds plausible, right? Or even worth investigating. Denying visas, sounds like a serious abuse of power.
Joe diGenova told Breitbart News that his wife, Victoria Toensing, and Rudy Giuliani were both blocked from obtaining visas to visit Ukraine due to pressure from the American embassy in Ukraine.
And then you read about non-existent visas for US citizens coming to Ukraine.
https://usa.mfa.gov.ua/en/consular-affairs/services/new-visa-rules
The citizens of the United States of America are eligible to enter or transit through the territory of Ukraine on a visa-free basis if their stay doesn’t exceed 90 days in 180 days period.
Indeed.
Their little “protest” was enough to make anyone who knew better throw up.
1 Like
It was all about pushing the coup narrative to aggravate a certain segment of Trump supporters.
1 Like
Ok, however it still begs the question why were there secret meetings anyway? Doesn’t the entire house vote to impeach or not? Why isn’t the whole process transparent to the entire house? Don’t they need all the information in order to vote yay or nay? Isn’t the very fact that democrats are meeting in secret with witnesses proof that things are not being conducted fairly?
And for what it’s worth, Matt Gaetz in a news article all but admitted it was a stunt meant to bring attention to the shady way Schiff was handling the investigation. So I don’t think they’re trying to mislead the Trump supporters, rather keep them apprised of how the investigation was being conducted.
I guess it depends where you get your news from.
What do you mean by shady?
Also, it is worth noting that the Benghazi committee had 107 closed door interviews before the first hearing open to the public.
2 Likes
On a similar note, do you think it was BS how Pelosi was withholding sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate? I’m curious how you guys view that.
Not to be rude, but the fact that we know that there were interviews being conducted doesn’t really make them secret. There were republicans present.
There is something known as national security so it wouldn’t make sense to make the interviews public when there are potential security issues related to the case. Grand juries are not open to the public so it’s not like this is something unheard of.
And no, it was not a stunt to show how shady Schiff was; it was a stunt to trick people into believing it was shady. It has nothing to do with where you get your news from but whether or not you know how the impeachment process works.
1 Like
I think it’s bs that people complain about it. What did the GOP do about Obama nominating a SC Justice? They delayed it until he was out of office. This is the government we have now. So unless you complain about all of it, you can’t complain about some of it. It comes as childish and effeminate and says you have no integrity as a person.
Little far IMO.
Could be that he actually does not know how these things work, and if one was to get their news only from fox or similar, that is the view they would have. The poster could be writing these posts honestly.
To @ntrojnky, my personal view is that the Republicans have no good argument to defend the president, so they are going for a diversion. I listened to the open hearings, and tried to stay neutral. Democrats basically said this is what was done, and this is why it is wrong, and the Republicans have just said the trial was secret, and rushed, and therefore a sham (but in reality it was similar to proceedings that will either help or hurt one party).
Give the hearings an honest listen, and see what you hear.
4 Likes
Same
Which, to me, came across as the ‘adults in the room’ and the ‘petulant teenagers,’ respectively
For me, “bemused chuckle” became “throw up” which in turn became full-blown “re-examining of No Party Affiliation status”
-edited-
The information on how these things work is out there. If someone can join an online forum, he can use Google. It’s about tribalism and getting your news from a source that (coincidentally?) tells you what you want to believe is true. People find it easier to invest in rage than in edification.
and @pfury
Sorry, not on here much lately.
I don’t think refusing to allow full questioning of all ‘witnesses’, giving zero input to GOP to call witnesses, and basically writing a daily one sided summary from the basement testimony is the foundation of getting to the bottom of this. If you do - your opinion, l guess.
From the start, I have said if there is no ‘equal protection’, then let’s just move on to a trial, even a Senate one, where some tenets of the vaulted Western legal theory can be utilized to ascertain some modicum of truth. If Schiff’s and all Liberals’ accusations are true, let it come out.
If either of you feels the investigation phase was truly an honest attempt to show irrefutable guilt, then I have nothing to add. I sit squarely on the opposite side of that divide.
PS H - KC looked pretty tough, until I saw SF game.
Should be fun. Elite O vs Elite D. I’ll be shocked if the Chiefs can shut down the 49ers run like they did the Titans but who knows.
1 Like
I know you typically use politfact, the guardian, wapo, nyt, etc to “verify”.
Believe me when I say - ZERO conservatives trust these sources.
Yes, I know that’s why you have “alternative facts” that you believe in.
Lock her up?
I could post Breitbart on here, which is correct as much as any of those you use.
Your first reply would be white supremacist
Oh no, that’s typical postmodernist Marxism, employed by supposed conservatives. That both truths are equally valid.
look at that post with alleged “withholding of visas” for Guliani and co for a country where Americans can travel freely. Seemingly trivial, but telling.
“Liberal facts” is not a thing.
If competing “conservative facts” were true, then why hasn’t AG Barr arrested Hillary Clinton for killing all those Americans in Benghazi, not to mention her rapist husband.
It’s been three years now, what’s the holdup?
1 Like
If you’re saying it was/is a partisan mess I’m not disagreeing. But I don’t believe it is a partisan mess solely because of the Dems. Isn’t partisanship the whole reason Trump wanted this to happen in the first place? I mean he wanted to find dirt on the other side.
The White House said to call it off and wouldn’t participate. And now you want it to go to the Senate for a fair trial when the leader of that body has said he’s in total coordination with the White House on it. You have Lindsey Graham whose already made up his mind before it’s taken place. The President said he would testify but we know he won’t. He lied about saying he would with the Mueller report. Everyone knows his own mouth is a huge liability and all the right will pressure him not to speak.
Does that strike you as a side that is interested in looking at guilt?
1 Like