• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

[Live] Trump Impeachment Hearings Episode 3: Double Trouble (Vindman & Williams at 9AM, Volker & Morrison at 2:30PM)

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
Welcome to "Trump hard with a Derangement" episode 3! This time we will have two hearings in one day! I know this may be getting tiring but supposedly this time we have first-hand witnesses so we'll see what happens.

The witnesses include Adviser to the Vice President Jennifer Williams & National security staffer Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman all testifying now.

Later in the day there will be a second hearing including US-Ukraine Representative Kurt Volker & National security adviser Tim Morrison.

PBS Stream:

FOX NEWS STREAM:

Washington Post Stream:

ABC news Stream:


So after wasting our time with the first 3 witnesses, we might actually see evidence this time! Maybe, I doubt it, but the claim is that some of these witnesses are first hand. Even if it's nothing but a waste of time there's no way it could be worse than the last hearing, right?

This could be seen as an endurance run, but tomorrow it will be worse, two hearings ad a DC debate. That will be more of a endurance run.

Last time Schiff interrupted and broke the rules less than 7 minutes in, will he mess up the hearings even early this time? Let's find out!
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Tesseract

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
Seems there's talk that Jennifer Williams was a salivating Rubio supporter who applauded Peter Strock when he was caught trying to "stop" Trump from getting elected, who also may have given Mike Pence incomplete information in the past.

Apparently she listened in all the call. But Pence apparently didn't? What?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,859
4,135
435
i dont get why the republicans are so focused on the whistleblower but i guess its all they got. makes no sense though.
Probably because they suspect he's a hack that met with the Democrats in advance instead of just being a guy who was disturbed by something he heard.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: TylersProphecy4.0

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
2,859
4,135
435
...and?
if multiple people have supported the whistleblower report, why does it matter, at this point, if the whistleblower is literally adam schiff?
Because it calls into doubt the whistleblower's integrity and fitness, especially since it's basically a hearsay argument at this point. If his intentions were not to simply bring to light something that bothered him and were instead more nefarious, or if it's uncovered that he's been involved in other questionable acts, it calls into question his fitness as a witness and the credibility of his account of what happened.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
Gotta get the sob story going about guys dad to make the audience as uninterested as possible, invested and sympathetic.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
Already got the first of the two witnesses protected from answering questions in public and we just started. Amazing. Freaking amazing.

Classified sure.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,481
1,759
480
...and?
if multiple people have supported the whistleblower report, why does it matter, at this point, if the whistleblower is literally adam schiff?
Should probably send some people to prison for having loose lips about phone calls between heads of state, eh? Sounds fair.
 

Katsura

Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
901
1,343
455
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
5,087
2,924
565
USA

Nancy Pelosi: 'Dangerous' to let election determine Trump’s fate

I am so fucking terrified of the Democrats!!!🙀
 

Katsura

Gold Member
Aug 7, 2019
901
1,343
455

Nancy Pelosi: 'Dangerous' to let election determine Trump’s fate

I am so fucking terrified of the Democrats!!!🙀
To me, as an outsider, it looks like they're so desperate they're actually willing to completely destroy the foundation on which the country was build in order to beat Trump. It's scorched earth tactics. I genuinely believe some of them are insane
 

ilsayed

Member
Nov 7, 2018
273
168
225

Nancy Pelosi: 'Dangerous' to let election determine Trump’s fate

I am so fucking terrified of the Democrats!!!🙀
i like that "dangerous" is literally the only word in quotes because the rest of the headline is made up. lol.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/19/trump-misquoted-pelosi-impeachment-quote-fox-news-reporter/
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,324
34,201
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
925
1,022
410
The Republican defense:
- but what about Russia hoax (irrelevant)
- but Ukraine interfered in election (no official evidence through intelligence department)
- but Biden is corrupt (no wrongdoing found by intelligence department, no investigations open)
- But Hunter was paid too much (irrelevant)
- But media is fake news (what?)

Schiff just made Nunes his little bitch. Schiff!? lol....
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
5,087
2,924
565
USA
i like that "dangerous" is literally the only word in quotes because the rest of the headline is made up. lol.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/19/trump-misquoted-pelosi-impeachment-quote-fox-news-reporter/
It's literally right fucking there in the Washington Post article you linked!!!

The weak response to these hearings has been, “Let the election decide.” That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.

He's "jeopardizing the integrity" of the election because he might put unfavorable information in the hands of the voters??? This was the same thing with Wikileaks - we could've had a fair election, if only the voters were less informed!

The fact that the media is coming out of the woodwork to pretend she didn't actually say this, and that you bought it, is fucking horrifying!!!
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,324
34,201
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Why was it appropriate for Schiff to stop Nunes' line of questioning under the excuse that "we can't reveal the whistleblower's identity, and we can't answer that question, but we're not pleading the fifth"?

What is the purpose of a hearing if one side is artificially blocked from asking pertinent questions?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
You know, it's funny when you think about it.

3 Trial-like hearings that are based on serious accusations aimed toward an elected official and not one brought "evidence" to any of the hearings, despite three of the 5 witnesses so far saying they have physical evidence from files to tapes.

Seems very strange, almost like the reality maybe be they never had direct/physical/recorded evidence and were lying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wwg1wga

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,803
641
510
Why was it appropriate for Schiff to stop Nunes' line of questioning under the excuse that "we can't reveal the whistleblower's identity, and we can't answer that question, but we're not pleading the fifth"?

What is the purpose of a hearing if one side is artificially blocked from asking pertinent questions?
I took it as if Vindman specified which intelligence agency the whitestleblower was from it could compromise his identity which the Democrats are trying to protect. The Republicans absolutely want to know who it is.

Regarding the Republican strategy, what they're doing well is trying to establish the reason military aid was withheld was because of corruption in Ukraine, not because of any pending deal with investigating the Bidens. To me, either scenario, or perhaps both, are plausible.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
What is the purpose of a hearing if one side is artificially blocked from asking pertinent questions?
I have no idea why you are asking this question, you were in the thread that covered the house voting on the rules, which clearly had it so that the Democrats could do this with no penalty and can restrict cross-examinations.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
"So why do you consider it a order or command instead of a request by the President?"

Vindman: "Well in the military when an officer gives a statement like that it would be an order not a request in military culture"

And Trump isn't a commander, or in the military, and you are not serving an obedience rank under him and he's not your drill sergeant, and the White house isn't "military culture" so what a load of potatoes.

That's just a terrible attempt to make nothing into something.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
27,246
31,935
1,170
Is right to anonymity not a thing for American whistleblowers?
Ask Snowden or Manning. Ironic the Dems were all about plastering their names, everywhere.

Shit, they wanted to snuff Assange. (Hillary's eluded comments.)
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
Wait, so they both said they didn't have first hand information?

I thought these were the witnesses that were first hand?

What????
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,698
385
915
We finally have first-hand witnesses, who were in on the call, one of whom reported it up the chain of command as improper.

So now the "hearsay" talking point is gone. What a great opportunity to ask these witnesses about the call. But instead the republicans are spouting conspiracy theories and sleazily trying to get the identity of the whistleblower. No actual questioning of substance.

The goalposts will always move.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,324
34,201
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
the issue being that the questions aren't pertinent.
Lt. Col Vindman's possible connection to the whistleblower aren't pertinent?

I took it as if Vindman specified which intelligence agency the whitestleblower was from it could compromise his identity which the Democrats are trying to protect. The Republicans absolutely want to know who it is.

Regarding the Republican strategy, what they're doing well is trying to establish the reason military aid was withheld was because of corruption in Ukraine, not because of any pending deal with investigating the Bidens. To me, either scenario, or perhaps both, are plausible.
Well I'm glad you're willing to entertain the possibility.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
5,261
3,553
1,010
We finally have first-hand witnesses, who were in on the call, one of whom reported it up the chain of command as improper.

So now the "hearsay" talking point is gone. What a great opportunity to ask these witnesses about the call. But instead the republicans are spouting conspiracy theories and sleazily trying to get the identity of the whistleblower. No actual questioning of substance.

The goalposts will always move.
This whole hearing has been hearsay outside the phone call, for everything else, right after they came from break, both of them said they were not first hand witnesses for anything else.

The only thing we got on the phone call was that Vindman decided the President was his boot camp leader and that his statement "felt" like it was an order and not a request.

Oh noez, we got him now right?