Welcome to Thunderdome

How about "Doctors think I ate something that my body reacted to badly and as a precaution we came here. I'm fine."

How hard is that? Doesn't give his opponents any ammo to use in the election and it's believable.

Although, the one person who won't say shit about a 73 year old visiting the hospital unexpectedly is Bernie.

I suspect it was a matter of the WH physician seeing something he didn't like and Trump doing the typical male thing where they say "It's fine, leave me alone", but they convinced him to go anyway. When this happened it occurred to me that he hasn't had any of the usual "President had to have a procedure for this or that" that we usually see.

I don't think he likes hospitals.

Can someone explain to me why we're hearing from witnesses of a phone call that they have the actual transcript for?

I'm not being snarky, I just don't get the point.

Leisher wrote: Can someone explain to me why we're hearing from witnesses of a phone call that they have the actual transcript for?

I'm not being snarky, I just don't get the point.

Context + intent, I assume.

Leisher wrote: Can someone explain to me why we're hearing from witnesses of a phone call that they have the actual transcript for?

I'm not being snarky, I just don't get the point.

To be honest, I don't think they thought in a million years that Trump would release the transcript when they started this dog and pony show. That kind of screwed up what they had envisioned. They had no plan B, so they're just plowing ahead.

Leisher wrote: Can someone explain to me why we're hearing from witnesses of a phone call that they have the actual transcript for?

I'm not being snarky, I just don't get the point.

Because once the transcript showed he was guilty, the WH quickly said that the transcript didn't mean what it said it meant, because of context. So now they are interviewing people to provide context.

TheCatt wrote: Because once the transcript showed he was guilty, the WH quickly said that the transcript didn't mean what it said it meant, because of context. So now they are interviewing people to provide context.

Sooo... you haven't been watching any of the testimony?

Vince wrote:

TheCatt wrote: Because once the transcript showed he was guilty, the WH quickly said that the transcript didn't mean what it said it meant, because of context. So now they are interviewing people to provide context.

Sooo... you haven't been watching any of the testimony?

A little bit, and mostly because I do love me a direct and counter line of questioning to a witness.

On the Ukranian call, the democratic witnesses say there was a quid pro quo deal pitched. The Republican witnesses described similar event but say "all of us thought it was inappropriate." Both sets of witnesses are fairly consistent when dealing with the event.

Nunes talked about Hunter Biden a lot, he got a lot of testifying of his own in on questions that were simply answered yes or no. Nunes also caused one of the witnesses, of some high military rank, to have an "A Few Good Men" moment by disregarding his rank which is a touchy subject, even in real life.

Won't this work out like Bill Clinton's impeachment where the whole thing is just a big drag through the mud until they vote and it stalls out in the Senate?

Unfortunately for the prosecution, no witness with the exception of one that claimed there was a quid pro quo pitched had any direct knowledge of it. Once they started to cross examine them, their information turned out to be third and fourth hand knowledge. It was so bad that eventually it led to a lawmaker alleging that hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence. The one witness that claims to have (sort of) directly heard it from Trump says he overhear the conversation that a guy he was having lunch with was speaking to Trump and he overheard the confirmation of the quid pro quo. That witness claims others were at the table, but I don't think anyone else from that incident were called to testify.

At this point I'm not aware of anyone that was on the call that has claimed there was a quid pro quo discussed (or bribery, which is the new preferred Dem charge). A few have said his statements to the Ukraine president were inappropriate, but that's sort of Trump's wheelhouse.

Direct lines of question put to friendly witnesses like the tweet above are unlikely to move my needle. It’s like a defense attorney at drug dealer’s trial digging into the fact the cocaine got called bricks and therefore their client should be let off.

On cross, I think Morrison stayed pretty strong, but was just a transcript reader, like you noted. Volker changed a number of statements from his deposition, which mostly led to those quotes about the investigations being inappropriate.

Sondland up today for more fun. Drag everyone through the mud kicking and screaming!

If being a shitbag President is now “in the wheelhouse” and normal behavior, these hearings should be normal too.

Troy wrote: If being a shitbag President is now “in the wheelhouse” and normal behavior, these hearings should be normal too.

Get used to them then. The front runners opposing Trump don't seen to be quality human beings. Plus, the Rs and Ds ever evolving game of political one-up-manship just gets worse and worse and worse.

Wow. Didn't expect Sondland to coming firing out the gate here:

This was just last month.
E: Catt plz help the tags hate me

I fixed it. When you place a Twitter link delete the question mark and everything after it.

Leisher wrote: I fixed it. When you place a Twitter link delete the question mark and everything after it.

This ^^ It doesn't like querystrings for whatever reason

Sondland gave up the best clean testimony I've seen so far. Republican's cross up next.

I expect them to dirty everyone involved in this and try to keep Trump clean. Sondland might get some shit thrown on him in the next 45m. Big line of questioning ahead.

R's cross notes.

• It's the Democrats that have dirtied up the Trump campaign
  Still trying to out the whistleblower. I'd be worried about a pizza gate style wacko shooting him too.
  HUNTER BIDEN!!
  Did you hear about the quid pro quo on X date? No, I heard about it a few days later. Nunes thinks this was a gotcha, by the smirk. Didn't sound like one though.
  THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE DIRTY ONES!!
  Aha - here it is. They are trying to pin this on Giuliani. Trying to get rid of the link between Trump and his personal attorney. Sondland not being helpful here. "it's his personal attorney" , "We understood if we didn't talk to Giuliani nothing would get done on Ukraine"
  Now trying to dissociate Burisma and Biden. Painting a request to investigate Burisma for the sake of it and not because they hired Biden.
  The President doesn't care about corruption anywhere in the world. Especially not in Russia or North Korea, or any of his other dictator buddy states. But Ukraine, and ESPECIALLY this random company called Burisma, he cared a LOT about.
  R's Counsel just walked into a bad one. Allowed Sondland to let loose on the higher ups about the 50 days of stopping the aid. "Everyone's hair was on fire but no-one decided to talk to us." (POTUS, SEC STATE, etc.) vs (Diplomats)

Mid Sondland testimony Trump apparently went out on the lawn and read parts of the morning's testimony to the press and yelled at them. Didn't think he would get that rattled.

D's up next. Not going to be as interesting when the witness aligns with the questioner though.

D's direct of Sondland has been question and answer discussing demonstratives made from the exhibits that back up Sondland's earlier statements. Shows high level WH involvement from people who refused to testify. Good to see the documents, they could have done a bit better job creating some of the demonstrative, but that's me being picky. Highlighting documents isn't THAT hard.

Sonderland was the best witness for them Dems on this. Everyone else up to now has been kind of worthless.

Trump's "no quid pro quo" argument has always been kind of dumb. The entire purpose of foreign aid is quid for a foreign country's quo. By stating there was no quid pro quo, he's put himself in a much harder position to defend things. One thing has come out with these hearings is that the issues with Biden and Burisma isn't nothing. A loooot of career state department people had raised concerns about it during the last administration we found out yesterday.

I'd fear more from the left than the right if the whistleblower gets outed. If it's the guy they say it is, he had a lot to do with Chalupa and her work in the Ukraine prior to the '16 election. He's also connected with the "civil society 2.0" coming out of the state department. I think that's a lot of what this is about. They're trying to protect that program.

Nunes has moved on and is back to testifying. Now talking about "secret depositions in the basement" which will clear this whole thing up. This guy is kind of a clown. Get the real lawyer back up.