Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Are you interested in watching, or listening to, the public impeachment hearings?

Asked by Dutchess_III (41074points) 2 weeks ago

If so, Here is your Youtube link to do that.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

121 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I am more interested in the verdict when it comes.
The rep/cons are convinced Trump did no wrong, but on the other foot the sky is the limit to impeach a guy for lying about a blow job.

filmfann's avatar

I am watching it all.

gorillapaws's avatar

God no. This is the kind of play-by-play, OJ Simpson trial-esque crap that the media feeds off of at the expense of all of the other important news. The impeachment hearins are important for sure, but the coverage doesn’t need the sensationalism, just a daily, factual summary about the content of the testimony from the day with a bit of analysis is perfectly sufficient.

Also, don’t take my disdain for the minute-by-minute coverage as any indication of support for Trump. I think the fucker has certainly committed a variety of impeachable offenses, namely he violates the emoluments clause every day he’s in office.

ragingloli's avatar

I watched the first two.
It is incredible, how slimebally the cons are.
That Jordan guy is especially grating.

seawulf575's avatar

Unfortunately I work during the day. I don’t have the time to watch them. I’d love to, though, just to get first hand information instead of filtered through media.

chyna's avatar

@lucillex3 I can’t get your link to work, but that’s probably because I’m at work and we have bad internet. But I’ll look at it from home purely because I’m a fact finder, not for the entertainment value of someone farting during an interview. :-)

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’ve watched some of it, but haven’t had time for every single word. Honestly I have very little patience for semantics and tit for tat. Both sides look foolish to me.

@lucillelucillelucille Sorry, but that byline made me laugh. “Don’t toot the messenger”.....bahahaha!

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@chyna- ;)
@KNOWITALL -You summed it all up for me. :)

Vignette's avatar

Nope not in the least. What I do have interest in is a thorough investigation into Trump saying to Russia’s Medvedev how after the re-election he “will have more flexibility”. Now THAT is collusion worth looking into.

seawulf575's avatar

@Vignette that was OBAMA that said that.

Jonsblond's avatar

Yes, though I wish I could fast forward that clown, Jim Jordan.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I just have it on like a radio. I rarely looked at the video.

I guess I missed Jim Jordan.

I don’t think it’s going to eclipse other news, @gorillapaws, unless we individually allow it to.

@seawulf575 you can easily watch all the reruns

gorillapaws's avatar

@Dutchess_III Well Elisabeth Warren essentially abandoned Medicare for All, and I can’t find a single article on the front page of CNN about it. It’s packed with impeachment headlines.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Here is an article on Liz. Warren. You can find anything you want. You aren’t forced to go with whatever they have on their home page. And that’s the difference between this and OJ.

gorillapaws's avatar

The fact that one of the top 3 candidates is radically shifting one of the cornerstone policies in her campaign in a major way, and isn’t on the front page of CNN is shocking to me. You need to learn about this by searching Google for it and then the article doesn’t really even address the point that Warren is essentially abandoning Medicare for All? It kind of makes my whole point.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Some very specific questions made it clear that so called concerns were not reported, but gossiped about.
“National security concerns” discussed with family members or other staff, but not to superiors?

Patty_Melt's avatar

@Dutch, your link is not to YT.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I know. But it IS a YT video playing on The Hill, which is a site I don’t much care for. Not exactly sure why.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m finding it pretty interesting. At least it’s civilized and dignified, unlike most things that revolve around trump.

Jonsblond's avatar

It’s fairly civilized if you don’t count the smear tweets by the White House and Trump during the process. And someone needs to tell Jim Jordan to use his inside voice.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Jim Jordan is coming across as dumb as Trump.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Good girl for posting the link

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I didn’t pay attention to Twitter.

Inspired_2write's avatar

I watch periodically .
Then I watch the commentators and journalists talk about it in detail.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I don’t give a fuck. In large part, because Trump won’t be removed.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Yeah,but hopefully will come across for the sleeze bag he is and won’t get a second term.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Actually, the testimony is clearing him, and shedding light on past administration.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

^Do you watch it with the volume on????

Jonsblond's avatar

Hahaha. I about spit my drink out.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Patty Ha, from day one its been a hot mess.

@SQUEEKY It’s likely to gain him more votes if it doesnt end in impeachment. They’re making him into a martyr to the Reps.

Jonsblond's avatar

^Keep dreaming.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s ridiculous. The truth is that these hearings are a constant showcase on just how fkd up the fool is. They are the formal display and emphasis on the craven idiocy that is Donald Trump. Any of you who believes that these proceedings are good press for the fool should consider what benefit there is to having the fool’s “talents” blaring out in the open from people of impeccable credentials.

MrGrimm888's avatar

The “fool” is empowered, by his base. And apparently, the dems only solution to getting him out of office, is to try to remove him. They won’t field a candidate, that can get him voted out.

ragingloli's avatar

Unfortunately, drumpf supporters do not actually listen to what is said in these hearings.
Multiple witnesses already testified that there was a “quid quo pro” and extortion, and still they think: “Actually, the testimony is clearing him, and shedding light on past administration.”.
It literally does not matter to them, what is revealed in those hearings.
No matter how condemning it is, they will conclude the opposite, and just see these proceedings as part of their imagined “witch hunt”, and their dear Führer as a blameless victim.

As an aside: It actually does not matter if there was a “quid quo pro” or not. There mere solicitation of that investigation of Biden is illegal.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@ragingloli I totally agree with your answer.^^^^^^^^

Patty_Melt's avatar

Ambassador Sondland, right now, “the only quid pro quo was an assumption I made, I was wrong.”

Dutchess_III's avatar

They can’t understand what they are saying, either, @ragingloli.
There was a question as to whether the Ukraine president felt he was being ordered to do something (or else no support.) The republican cross fixated on whether either man had served in the military (no, they hadn’t) thus you couldn’t regard trumps “request” as an order.

Jonsblond's avatar

^^You need to read what @Loli wrote. Or continue to stick your fingers in your ears.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Exactly, @Dutch.
All the Dems have are assumptions and misinterpretation.
The President was right in delaying the aid on the grounds that he wanted to see evidence their new president would function on the promises which were the basis of his campaign, which was to expose and eradicate corruption.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying @Jonsblond. No need to be sarcastic. Feel free to correct my interpretation.

KNOWITALL's avatar

It’s very interesting how so many people can watch the same proceedings with completely different interpretations, isn’t it? Fascinating.

Jonsblond's avatar

@Dutch my response was to Patty. That’s why I used two of these “^”. I’m on my phone so I can’t tag people properly.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh. Well. I didn’t know the number of snake bites meant anything. Learn something new every day.

Jonsblond's avatar

@Dutch They do. :)
I know you and I agree on the topic of the OP and what is happening before our eyes. This back and forth with Trump supporters is a waste of my time so I shall leave now. You and I know what an amoral, disgusting and corrupt person this president is. I’m in disbelief that the party of family values supports this man child.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I agree Trumpers believe this idiot can do no wrong, if Trump actually shot someone his base would blame the victim of getting in the way of his bullet,

Dutchess_III's avatar

“I’ve been very forthright…” HAHAHAHAHA!!! He got asked the same question 3 different times in 3 different ways.
Trump Jr. was wrong. This isn’t boring. It’s a comedy.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do I have this right?
If you’re innocent you don’t need to block documents and other evidence of your innocence! Sondland couldn’t back up what he was saying IN TRUMP’S DEFENSE because the White House wouldn’t release the documents he needed to prove it! The Republicans almost forced him to flip on trump today.
Is that a true statement? (Unlike some, I prefer the truth, even if it’s not what I want to hear, and if it’s not true I will apologize and retract, if I can.)

Dutchess_III's avatar

@gorillapaws I would also point out that this may be over and done in the next month. Warren still has a year until the elections. Plenty of time for people to learn that she dropped her Medicaid for All platform..
BTW, may I ask how you found out she had done it?

I don’t think there is anything more important going on in the United States today than these hearings.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Correct me then @si3tech. What happened with Sondland?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Open your eyes and look at things honestly. There might be very good reasons for blocking documents. Your are jumping on that piece of innuendo as if it solves the entire puzzle. But there are so many oddities about this whole thing that your incredulity over that seems over the top. I mean, why not have the whistleblower testify? If you are innocent there is no need to hide behind anonymity and you would still be protected by whistleblower laws. Well, you would if you actually fell under those laws. Why not have a charge for impeachment that you are trying to establish the facts about? I mean, if you are actually considering impeachment you might want to start with a crime and go from there…not start with an inquiry and see if you can find a crime. Why not actually adhere to legal standards? I mean, if you have a solid case you don’t have to try convincing everyone that hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence. Why not actually do what you really believe? I mean if your case is solid, you don’t need to get focus groups to see how it is playing with the public. Why make it so partisan at every turn? I mean if you have an actual crime you are investigating, the facts should carry the day, right? Why make it super secret squirrel stuff and try to control the narrative? After all…it’s an impeachment effort, right? It isn’t really a political stunt, right? That would be just horrible to subject our country to that sort of thing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t ask you @seawulf575. I asked @si3tech.

BTW, are you even bothering to listen to it, or watch it?

si3tech's avatar

Some come here to exercise their anger/add chips to their shoulders/vent sarcasm.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m asking what your take of Sondland’s testimony was @si3tech? It was paraphrased from things I’ve seen on the news, and a political journalist’s take in an interview after the testimony. You said I had it wrong. You may know politics better than I do. What is right take?

I don’t mind being corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on subjects than me.

seawulf575's avatar

Funny, @Dutchess_III I didn’t see any person associated with your comment to which I was responding. It just looked like the same frantic liberal spew you usually put out.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sorta like the same conservative crap that you try and shovel down our throats??^^

seawulf575's avatar

If by “conservative crap” you mean facts and logic then Yeah…I do try to shovel that pretty hard

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You mean Breitbart logic and fats< and no I didn’t spell that wrong.
Sorry it comes off more as fright wing propaganda than actually facts.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Hey wolfie let me know what ya think of this video…..
https://youtu.be/dMf4eQ0tKgA
Bet you will blow it off as left wing propaganda.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Um,yes I did have a name, and it wasn’t yours @seawulf575.

My politically savvy friend on FB is helping me understand. Sondland originally claimed he had no knowledge of a quid pro quo, but it can came to his lawyer’s attention that he actually.DID have knowledge of it. His lawyer told him he could get hit with perjury charges. So he backed off of lying…..and the WH won’t allow him access to his own notes on the matter. Not sure what that means.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Wulfie Better listen to the Canadian who admits he only cares how tariffs and Trump affect his own country.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I call bullshit. The people who are against Trump, heard the phone calls through the halls. That’s not provable evidence. But Trump extorted the Ukraine, for his own benefit. There are hundreds of more cases, he could have done the same thing with. He didn’t. He was not concerned about corruption. He was concerned about his campaign. And maybe more. It sure benefits Putin, to do what he did, there, in Syria, and in practically pulling out of NATO. THINK people.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Okay, we will play this game out. Here’s the comment BY YOU to which I was commenting.

“I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay,” Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

Hhhmmm…I see no name associated with that. so maybe it was part of a larger conversation, right? Okay…I look back. The comment before that was:

“I’ve been very forthright…” HAHAHAHAHA!!! He got asked the same question 3 different times in 3 different ways.
Trump Jr. was wrong. This isn’t boring. It’s a comedy.

Hhhmmm…still no name. I went back further. You started putting a couple names in…you had one comment to @Jonsblond and another to @ragingloli, but those were several above and seemed directed at something they had commented. In fact, here’s a kicker, you tried shutting me down by saying you were commenting to @si3tech, but he hadn’t even commented in the thread until after the comment to which I was responding. And that response was very basic: “No” You then responded to them by assuming he was challenging what you said. Here’s a thought…and I know in your self-centered mind you cannot conceive it…maybe…JUST MAYBE… @si3tech was answering the initial question of whether he is watching or listening to the public impeachment inquiry. But you assumed he was responding to your most recent comment (which, BTW, I was).
So, Miss I-prefer-the-truth, care to retract your comment? You were W-R-O-N-G…you didn’t have a name on the comment to which I was responding. Face it, you are just afraid of me. You get frantic every time I respond to you. And I can understand because my comments usually threaten that fragile little fantasy world you have created.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I watched the first half of your YouTube citation. Here’s what I think about it. It IS typical left wing propaganda. Rep Malone was grilling Sondland, he changed the question to get the answer he was looking for. He asked Sondland about his interpretation of Trump’s discussion about investigations. THEN he says investigations as they have now established means the Bidens. So that, right there, is disingenuous. It takes an interpretation he has established for the current conversation and tries to apply it to a past conversation to which he wasn’t even a part. So that is bogus to start with. But it gets worse. When Sondland tries answering the question by explaining again that in his conversation with Trump at the time his understanding was that the “investigations” had to do with corruption and the Bidens weren’t even in his understanding, Malone quickly cuts him off to ask for the answer he is looking for. Sondland tells him he is asking two different questions (which he was) and Malone then turns it into one question…the one he wants. Who would benefit from an investigation into the Bidens? Sondland answers partially correctly…he assumes it would be Trump. And Malone acts like he just admitted Trump asked for investigations into the Bidens. See how that plays out? Sondland admitted no such thing. He answered the question that was asked, but the question that was asked had nothing to do with his conversation with Trump. And I say he only answered it partially correctly, because while Trump MAY have benefited from an investigation into the Bidens, the American People would have benefited greatly into it. Especially if it exposed mass corruption that cost those same American People billions in taxpayer dollars that went to benefit those same Bidens.
But here’s the part I don’t understand: Why can’t liberals just admit there is nothing? Why do they have to go through these massive twists of reality to try getting to something that helps them keep their fantasies alive? I mean you saw the exact same thing I did. I just showed exactly what happened. Yet you cannot see the lies that are dealt to you as anything but reality because they stoke your hatred. Why?

MrGrimm888's avatar

I watched an exert, from Sondland’s testimony. He opined, that Trump had no real interest in an actual investigation. He just wanted the Ukraine, to publicly announce that they were investigating the Bidens. If Trump REALLY cared about corruption, why would he not insist on an outcome, rather than just what appears to be a smearing of Biden?

Vignette's avatar

@MrGrimm888 So wanting to investigate the reasons behind Mr. Joe Biden demanding that a Ukranian prosecutor be fired if he did not get his way is somehow a “smear” of Joe Biden? Look a little closer. Here is his full quote of Mr. Joe Biden bragging in his own words on public television which should illustrate just how serious a matter this “smear” is…

” I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. … I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

Not quite sure if you are a seeker of truth or merely the sensational, but this investigation of both Biden’s will provide oodles of both.

ragingloli's avatar

How often do we have to go over this?
Getting the corrupt prosecutor removed was official policy, and in partnership with other european countries.
Furthermore, if you want Biden investigated, there are official channels you are required to go through.
And, as Sondland testified, Zelenski only had to announce the investigation, not actually do it. That alone shows, that it was not about investigating corruption, but solely to help drumpf in the election.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Ok we all have stated time and time again if Biden is guilty of a quid quo pro he should pay, SAME as the orange hair blob.
But I think that isn’t good enough for the right they simply want him executed or worse.

Now let me ask how would Biden’s so called crime benefited Biden?
There were conservatives at the time that wanted that Ukraine prosecutor fired, Biden simply got the job done.
Where clear as day Trumps would have benefited only Trump.

seawulf575's avatar

Here’s another problem with the questions that are being asked and they go back to the exact same discussion I just gave. Everyone says Trump asked Zelenskyy to investigate Biden. That really isn’t even accurate. He was more concerned with (a) corruption in Ukraine and (b) possible interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election. Now, we have testimony that someone overheard Trump asked for Zelenskyy to do “the investigations”. It is only the liberal media and those foolish enough to buy into their propaganda that connect that dot to “investigate Biden” and “Dig up dirt on Biden”. There are a number of other investigations that were discussed, such as possible Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election or even Crowdstrike working through Ukrainian operatives. But all the Dems and the left can do is push the idea that “investigation” only means “investigate BIden to help me in the election” Want proof of this? Okay…this impeachment inquiry, as bogus as it is, has had quite a few people that were directly involved in the phone call and subsequent conversations that have testified that there was no linkage between withholding aid and Ukraine doing investigations. That right there shoots the entire concept of quid pro quo out of the water. Yet, apparently those that still want to believe the narrative will adopt the thought process of Rep Quigley…hearsay is better than direct evidence. Basically, all the witnesses who have testified and had anything even vaguely negative to say about Trump were speaking, by their own admission, from a position of hearsay, opinion, or complete ignorance of anything that went on.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@Vignette . That is my assessment. I don’t sugar coat things, or offer bullshit. I respect your opinion, although I disagree with it….

Dutchess_lll's avatar

@seawulf575 don’t waste your breath trying to explain your world view to me. I do not value your opinion and I don’t bother reading them.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Good to know. I still respect your opinions.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Sorry Grimms. Wasn’t directed toward you.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Ok. I am guilty of drunk Fluthering. This being one of those cases…..

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 I just wonder how your going to spin it ,if Trump is indeed found guilty and impeached.
I an convinced if Trump did shoot somebody you would blame the victim of getting in the way of Trumps bullet and ole orange boy is innocent of everything.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

From what I’ve heard today this presidency is rapidly imploding.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I understand the dilemma arising from your current career assignment as “Defender of the Turd”. Your tireless insistence that accusations of turdiness as the result of hearsay rumors and baseless allegations will never amount to jack in the face of the fact that your client is a stunning, stupendous, INCOMPARABLE turd. What is significant in this running argument is that with the enormous turd looming over it for all to witness, there is never any discussion over whether or not the turd IS a turd of monstrous proportions. Such accusations are quickly relegated to “turd hatred” or the silly hastily erected comparisons to supposed “other turds” are thrown up to avoid realization of the obvious. To state that you and your ilk are on the wrong side of history in this hopeless ramshackle running defense of Superturd is pitifully obvious.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stan Oh did they vote to impeach?! (works crazy now)

Dutchess_III's avatar

Just heard that trump said he’s not interested in stuff like climate change. He’s only interested in BIG STUFF!! Big Stuff as in whatever is about him.

stanleybmanly's avatar

He WILL be impeached. It’s just a matter of numbers. It’s his TRIAL in the Senate where his conviction is in doubt. But it no longer bothers me that the Senate is unlikely to convict him THIS trip. There are SO MANY other impeachable offenses looming above the turd that the verdict from the Senate will not be dry before some other crimes on the fool’s extensive menu are paraded once again before the public by the House. There is enough tinder in the fool’s criminal woodpile to keep the impeachment bonfires going in the House for 20 years!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleyman Trying to catch up now.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You can NEVER catch up, the fool being the fool. It’s like emptying the ocean with a bucket!

Patty_Melt's avatar

You heard none of those things. People said that somebody said and so I figured…

And that phone call in the restaurant, nobody can even verify that whomever was on the other end was Trump. In fact, there is no evidence that the phone call even took place.

Patty_Melt's avatar

A call president to president on a cell phone in a public restaurant?
Puh leeze!

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I have already said the House will impeach Trump. They have to. The Dem’s loony base has been screaming for him to be impeached since Nov 5 2016. At this point they have no viable candidates and have done nothing to show they are working for us. All they have is “hate Trump” as a campaign slogan…that’s all they have pushed for 3 years. So the House will impeach him. But the Senate will not convict. And Trump will get re-elected. I just wonder how you are going to spin it when all this comes to pass.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Patty Bond. Don Bond.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Dutchess_III's avatar

I find the testimony to be very interesting.

Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

The rest of you can compound excuses for why the turd isn’t nearly as smelly as Stan, liberals, the press, the cloud of inexorable flies , and the House claim. Just like the GOP, you all know the truth of it. You’re all on the wrong side of history, morality and for those of you for which such things matter, your own Christian faith. My great hope is that you all live long enough to explain your choice in the matter to your grandchilren.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Patty_Melt This might interest you. Go to 58 seconds. Trump has a big mouth. He yells to make sure people understand what a big man he is.

And you aren’t the only one who found it insane. ”A U.S. ambassador’s cellphone call to President Trump from a restaurant in the capital of Ukraine this summer was a stunning breach of security, exposing the conversation to surveillance by foreign intelligence services, including Russia’s, former U.S. officials said.Washington Post
But that’s a conservative for you. Just not the sharpest tools in the shed.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly just curiosity…what do you know about Christian Faith?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Enough to frown severely at the mention of it. I was reared Roman Catholic.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Enough to frown severely at the mention of it. ” LOLL!

The Christian religion is a religion of love and peace, not a religion of fear.

So what happens if I don’t believe in god?

YOU BURN IN HELL!!! EVEN IF YOU’RE A BABY!!!

stanleybmanly's avatar

By now I find no satisfaction in pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in the cults. You either get it or you don’t. But it is truly peculiar that people confronted with the closest approximation to the devil in the history of this country’s politics claim to be followers of both the fool AND Jesus!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 No one here is the arbiter of religion, my friend. It is a bit comical though, isn’t it?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Which brings me back to why Trump will swing and his entire entourage will tumble with him. An order from the courts and Bolton WILL testify and it’s game over. As it now stands, the gulf is clearly between the career diplomats and the obviously craven political hacks. Sondlond not only broke ranks with his hack compatriots, but flatly came out and said “they were all in on it” Everyone believes this investigation ended, but I think the Congress should wait until the courts rule on the legitimacy of Trump’s blanket defiance of Congressional subpoenas. When the ruling is handed down that the fool is not beyond Congressional oversight, all of the documents pertinent to these matters will come out, and the race will be on among the snakes to betray one another in the fashion that gave Sondland his get out of jail free card. The whole cabal will collapse, with Pence included, and the pardon of the fool and his court will depend on the largesse of the interim President, next in line—the current SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Dutchess, you again prove you watched little if any of the inquiry.
It was not OUR President who made the call. We have no proof that the call even actually had our president on the other end.
The call was placed in Ukraine.

I am amused that you claim to have heard any testimony.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I didn’t say it was your president who made the call. An ambassador made the call to trump. The ambassador made the “stunning breach of security,” not trump.
Here is a 6 minute clip of that specific testimony addressing it. You don’t think trump was on the other end? Take it ups with Holmes. I believe him.

So what if it was placed in Ukraine? Do you think cell phone service won’t reach from Ukraine to the States?

stanleybmanly's avatar

And this is by no means the end of this. The fool’s shenanigans have provided the dems the material to showcase the Trump mob as the premier criminal enterprise in the country’s history. The fool will probably fighting impeachment proceedings on election day of next year, and you dummies can go on thinking it is merely the Democratic brand that will pay the price. There is NEVER any beneficial news for this fool that accompanies ANY exposure of his warped moronic ass to the light.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

I thought that President Trump was a democrat mole designed to ruin the republican party from the inside as a bad president. Decades ago I believe that Trump was a democrat.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think he was like in the 80s and 90s or something.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@RedDeer He’s on record being Pro Choice, too. Even said “If I run for President, it will be as a Republican, they’ll love me” or something to that effect. Lots of Dem running buddies.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, he’s not any more, when it counts.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I am just glued to the internet. It kind of reminds me of Baby Jessica. I have the actual hearings on all day, or recaps, or reruns or Rachel Maddow, or something. I listen while I work and play.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess Exactly!!! Thats why many Reps are staying loyal, the policy is what they care about, not him.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

What policy?

Hell we’re spending our Friday night watching Rachel Maddow on Youtube on our damn 52” giant assed TV.

stanleybmanly's avatar

In for the policy? It’s more like no way out! By now the reps can no longer sacrifice Trump alone. The fool has chained the top tier of the executive branches to his crimes. Sondland said it best “EVERYONE was in the loop.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

Various, the GOP Platform in general.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Now we’re watching “The Man from Snowy River.” I keep thinking Robert Redford is in it but he’s not. But Ally McGraw is.

Brian1946's avatar

@Dutchess_lll

”...Hell we’re spending our Friday night watching Rachel Maddow….”

Who watches it with you?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess I’m watchin the Joran Vandersloot special. International murder, lies, se, wealth.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

My husband @Brian1946. We were introduced to her when Obama first ran. We were both very impressed.

Brian1946's avatar

I bet it’s nice to watch RM with someone who basically shares your views. As I recall, it was RM who broke the Flint water crisis on-air.

My brother and his wife had her on, but they were doing stuff in other rooms, so I changed it to Jeopardy during the commersh. ;-p I think I changed it back when Jep went to commercial.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I like RM. I don’t watch her religiously, but she’s smart, and I like that she will attack a host, and see if they can defend themselves.
I watch Bill Maher too, but he’s a bit left, of me. But will get after a guest, and call them out. Not everyone can back their own views. It’s entertaining, to me, to watch a person respond to such direct questions.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther