The actual Impeachment process:

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

And in the meantime, how much work have the Dims done on the budget appropriations stuff?
The existing Continuing Appropriations Act expires on Nov 21st.

guess they are working on it at a snails pace. lol.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yeah. It is the one and only OFFICIAL transcript, meaning Schitty and company haven't a fucking leg to stand on with their bullshit lies.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

+1


Vindman, a direct witness to the call with the Ukraine president and the leaker source to Eric Ciaramella has not contradicted any of the transcript and will not in what is released soon by the Democrats. he can't, because he knows no such quid pro quo happened and other direct witnesses not named Trump will dispute him if he does.


there are only so many people privy to the actual conversation. not only has Trump said no quid pro quo happened but the Ukraine president has stated so publicly as well. that leaves a very short list of remaining people who were direct witnesses. the truth will expose Schitthead Schiff and Nancy Pants.

Vindman testified he was prevented from making the incomplete abridged memorandum of the phone call more clear. Can't wait until the public hearings. He WANTS to say it publicly.

Donald Trump and William Shakespeare - The Globalist

O, no! Alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself!
I am a villain: yet I lie. I am not.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

….to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” That says it ALL!

Oct. 8, 2019, 9:23 a.m.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Vindman testified he was prevented from making the incomplete abridged memorandum of the phone call more clear. Can't wait until the public hearings. He WANTS to say it publicly.

Donald Trump and William Shakespeare - The Globalist

[/URL]

Proving that Vindman's 'version' of the conversation wasn't the consensus view and that the other parties involved deemed his version to be incorrect. Ain't "democracy" great!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
Vindman testified he was prevented from making the incomplete abridged memorandum of the phone call more clear. Can't wait until the public hearings. He WANTS to say it publicly.

Donald Trump and William Shakespeare - The Globalist

[/URL]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Proving that Vindman's 'version' of the conversation wasn't the consensus view and that the other parties involved deemed his version to be incorrect. Ain't "democracy" great!

let's clarify this further for ecky9.5k shall we?


"Vindman was not allowed to interject his personal opinions into the actual facts of the transcript."


BAHHAHHAAAAAA

[dilbert firestorm]

Vindman is a fraud. he just wants his 10 minutes of fame.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

let's clarify this further for ecky9.5k shall we?


"Vindman was not allowed to interject his personal opinions into the actual facts of the transcript."


BAHHAHHAAAAAA

Stupidity at its finest. You know you could get throat cancer if you keep DEEPTHROATING "Individual 1" don't you?

That doesn't clarify anything dummy. He can't insert his opinions. He's there to be a part of documenting the phone call with clarity. So you know what clarity means? He's an interpreter.

Is it possible he might translate something with bias? No. They were speaking English! Dork. There were other witnesses in on the call. Sondland just got slappes in the face and changed his story because the others were telling the truth.

Trump’s Phone Call Was So ‘Perfect’ That He Doesn’t Want Anyone But Him to Talk About It

According to Vindman, who was on the call, the White House moved the transcript to a secret, hard-to-access server after Vindman alerted White House lawyer John Eisenberg that what Trump suggested was problematic.

Eisenberg, it just so happens, is one of the four officials who is defying a subpoena to testify before Congress on Monday. The others are Eisenberg’s deputy, Michael Ellis; Robert Blair, a deputy to OMB Director Mick Mulvaney who was on the July 25th call; and Brian McCormack, another OMB official.

Ryan Bort

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Vindman is a fraud. he just wants his 10 minutes of fame.

I bet he has more honor in one finger nail clipping than you have in your whole family tree.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Proving that Vindman's 'version' of the conversation wasn't the consensus view and that the other parties involved deemed his version to be incorrect. Ain't "democracy" great!

You're full of shit as usual. There is no "version" of the call. Only the abridged incomplete text memo. He needed to make the record accurate. And all who testified corroborated it. It's in his sworn testimony.

But you trumpets don't care about the truth or accuracy. If you did, you yourselves would ask for the audio to be released. How's that for a fire side chat. Good radio anyway. What about a real transcription of the phone call? Then a comparison with the audio of the call.

You're gonna get throat cancer you know.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You're full of shit as usual. There is no "version" of the call. Only the abridged incomplete text memo. He needed to make the record accurate. And all who testified corroborated it. It's in his sworn testimony.

But you trumpets don't care about the truth or accuracy. If you did, you yourselves would ask for the audio to be released. How's that for a fire side chat. Good radio anyway. What about a real transcription of the phone call? Then a comparison with the audio of the call.

You're gonna get throat cancer you know.

Your boy friend must have fucked you in your ear and knocked what little brains you had out the other side. There is only one OFFICIAL transcript, and its content was reviewed for accuracy. Vindman did have some portions amended, but on other parts he was overruled because the majority believed those other Vindman changes didn't accurately reflect what was said. So, Vindman and his over zealous defenders can go fuck themselves in their supercilious-asses.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Stupidity at its finest. You know you could get throat cancer if you keep DEEPTHROATING "Individual 1" don't you?

That doesn't clarify anything dummy. He can't insert his opinions. He's there to be a part of documenting the phone call with clarity. So you know what clarity means? He's an interpreter.

Is it possible he might translate something with bias? No. They were speaking English! Dork. There were other witnesses in on the call. Sondland just got slappes in the face and changed his story because the others were telling the truth.

Trump’s Phone Call Was So ‘Perfect’ That He Doesn’t Want Anyone But Him to Talk About It

Ryan Bort



I bet he has more honor in one finger nail clipping than you have in your whole family tree.

Rolling Stone. such a credible source .


Rolling Stone to Pay $1.65 Million to Fraternity Over Discredited Rape Story

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/b...tone-frat.html


do catch up on your reading ..


Trump administration changed foreign-leader call-storage methods after leaks

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=65917080


these two edits?


"The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter"


"But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made"


so what exactly does the above show a quid pro quo? how exactly is that abuse of power? what exactly is is a high crime or misdemeanor?


"In hours of questioning on Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans, Colonel Vindman recounted his alarm at the July 25 call, saying he “did not think it was proper” for Mr. Trump to have asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate a political rival, and how White House officials struggled to deal with the fallout from a conversation he and others considered problematic"


mere opinion.


but it gets better ..


"His testimony about the reconstructed transcript, the aftermath of the call and a shadow foreign policy being run outside the National Security Council..."


awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions". Where do you see "the NSC makes foreign policy" in the below ...


Foreign affairs


Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls (subject to confirmation by the Senate) and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials.[29] With the secretary of state, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments.


On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.[43] For example, President Wilson led the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.


Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments,[44] and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate executive agreements with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.[45]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers...oreign_affairs


Oh My! the NCS DOES NOT make foreign policy. the PRESIDENT does!!


these deep state establishment shitheads don't like being told they don't make decisions for the President. so like Vindman, they have "objections"


"In hours of questioning on Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans, Colonel Vindman recounted his alarm at the July 25 call, saying he “did not think it was proper” for Mr. Trump to have asked Mr. Zelensky to investigate a political rival, ..."


Biden is on record bragging about forcing Ukraine to do Obama's bidding by threatening to withhold aid. where was Vindman's "alarm" then?

[rexdutchman]

4 More ,,,,,,,,,

[Jacuzzme]

There is no impeachment, just fodder for mind-numbed dumbocrats.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions".

Pretty much sums up "Individual 1" from his birth. "Individual 1" does not care about national security. AKA: Treason.

Why would "Individual 1" ask the Attorney General to publicly state "Individual 1" did nothing wrong on the call.

[Unique_Carpenter]

So.....
Here a server, there a server, everywhere a server....
So now folks will start talking about what happens in alternative universes.
Some of these folks need to realize that 10 min of fame in their universe, can easily be a nano second in the universe that most of us live in.

Btw, 14 days till Fed runs out of money and there's a shutdown. Opps, will the lights be off at Schiff's playroom?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Pretty much sums up "Individual 1" from his birth. "Individual 1" does not care about national security. AKA: Treason.

Why would "Individual 1" ask the Attorney General to publicly state "Individual 1" did nothing wrong on the call.

it's treason to oppose the lawful directions of the sitting president.


butt .. you knew that, right???

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

it's treason to oppose the lawful directions of the sitting president.


butt .. you knew that, right???

No citation mein führer? He doesn't know the law stupid. Doesn't take the advice of the National Security Council, and you expect him to know what he's doing?

Now I'm not so sure you served. And so close to the eleventh hour of the eleven day of the eleventh month. Shame on you. Traitor. What did Lindsey Graham say about his policy?