The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 Viewers)

Lazybones said:

1. the leadership was not a slight at you by any means. It was like “are you asking me out” kinda thing. You asked how schiff could have acted different. I referenced a leadership seminar by echelon front. You pressed further and you got my response.

2. it seems you are taking my words out of context or extrapolating a meaning that is not there. My comments about schiff had nothing to do with nunes. It could have been bozo the clown it was not the point. The pin t I made was that schiff handled the disruption in a very immature way.

if you don’t see it that way, fine. If you think I’m a moron for thinking schiff acted petulant in that clip, fine as well.

Click to expand...

At least two people have asked you how Schiff could have handled or differently. You admit in the bold section that you understand what I am asking, yet you refuse to answer.

I will reiterate Saintamaniac’s point that it seems like you don’t actually care to have a discussion. This begs the question: why are you here?

Lazybones said:

Man I’m not trying to avoid you or not answer your question. I’m damn sure not being closed minded, I just don’t know what to tell you. I guess if I were not so lazy, I would go find videos of confessional leaders handling conflict better.

it’s hard to describe how someone should act in this format. If you want to participate in a video maybe we could put together a skit.

it seems y’all are making a big deal over the way I view someone’s lack of leadership. Very odd.

Click to expand...

You are making a big deal out of avoiding answering the question. You said that he was unprofessional. If you can spot what he did that was unprofessional, surely you can give an example of how one would behave professionally in that situation.

Lazybones said:

Man I’m not trying to avoid you or not answer your question. I’m damn sure not being closed minded, I just don’t know what to tell you. I guess if I were not so lazy, I would go find videos of confessional leaders handling conflict better.

it’s hard to describe how someone should act in this format. If you want to participate in a video maybe we could put together a skit.

it seems y’all are making a big deal over the way I view someone’s lack of leadership. Very odd.

Click to expand...

I watched live as it happened. I came away with a similar take as other who has asked you how you would have handled it. There are some things that i think he could have done differently but I didn't see his actions as someone new to authority. Quite the opposite, I felt like he handled it exactly as someone in a leadership role should have.

I work in management at a Fortune 500 company. I've been through more leadership seminars than I care to remember. He didn't get personal. He didn't raise his voice and he didn't speak in a demeaning tone. He treated them and spoke to them in a manner that people who know they are violating rules they agreed to should be spoken to. And that is why I see it the way I see it.

But I realize all of this is of no use to you. You're not here for that. I get it.

Y’all may have covered this, but the last several pages seem to be on this drivel about process, so please share what do y’all think is the main points made by Yavanovich?

Saintamaniac said:

I watched live as it happened. I came away with a similar take as other who has asked you how you would have handled it. There are some things that i think he could have done differently but I didn't see his actions as someone new to authority. Quite the opposite, I felt like he handled it exactly as someone in a leadership role should have.

I work in management at a Fortune 500 company. I've been through more leadership seminars than I care to remember. He didn't get personal. He didn't raise his voice and he didn't speak in a demeaning tone. He treated them and spoke to them in a manner that people who know they are violating rules they agreed to should be spoken to. And that is why I see it the way I see it.

But I realize all of this is of no use to you. You're not here for that. I get it.

Click to expand...

dude I get it. I think it was a horrible display of leadership You and your buddy disagree.

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I totally said I see it this way and if you don’t that’s cool. What else do you want me to do. Change my mind on how I view someone’s conflict resolution based on a couple dudes in an Internet forum with no credibility? (I’m not saying y’all aren’t credible, but I don’t know you from Adam)

Let’s try this. First I’m taking your words that it was an illegal format. I have not researched nor care to.

Ma’am it is not your time to speak. You can keep seeking if you would like and burn the allotted time given to me nunes that is up to you, but the witness will not answering and we will be at a stand still until mr nunes Time is up. Mr nunes the floor is yours.

is that what y’all are wanting? Should I get spielberg to produce it with al kind of crazy staging. The fact that both of you are going down the path that you are heading tells me lots about future conversations.

what company do you work for? Maybe we can share leadership notes.

cuddlemonkey said:

You are making a big deal out of avoiding answering the question. You said that he was unprofessional. If you can spot what he did that was unprofessional, surely you can give an example of how one would behave professionally in that situation.

Click to expand...

It feels like he is not on my side so I will speak negatively about him. If you already have a preconceived notion of someone, your view will be tainted by that notion.
We are all guilty of this at times.

SaintForLife said:

Click to expand...

Not every witness has to witness the entire crime.

This is why trials usually have more than one witness.

she spent 6 hours testifying. I suggest you watch it all.

V Chip said:

Again, collusion is not a legal term and therefore one cannot be charged with nor found guilty of collusion.

Click to expand...

The Mueller report addressed collusion, conspiracy, and coordination:

"We applied the term coordination in the sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian goverment in it's election interference activities."

Lapaz said:

Y’all may have covered this, but the last several pages seem to be on this drivel about process, so please share what do y’all think is the main points made by Yavanovich?

Click to expand...

Hi Lapaz,

Lots of second-hand, overheard conversations, with no direct knowledge of anything.
She did not have any first-hand knowledge of any bribes or criminal behavior.
Her feelings were hurt by the way the president canned her, that he bullied her, and mistreated her.
She felt . . . threatened? Good grief.

I thought of Douglas MacArthur having to tuck his tail and say, "Yes, sir" to Harry Truman unceremoniously putting an end to his career.

My next thought about that was, "So? He's the president. You're his appointee. He can fire you at the stroke of a pen. Suck it up, buttercup! Go get a cushy job as a political analyst at CNN, it'll pay a lot more than your government job."

My impression was that I had suddenly entered a time warp and we were back at the Kavanaugh hearings, listening to Christine Blasey all over again.

Nice talking with you, Lapaz.

Dadsdream said:

Hi Lapaz,

Lots of second-hand, overheard conversations, with no direct knowledge of anything.
She did not have any first-hand knowledge of any bribes or criminal behavior.
Her feelings were hurt by the way the president canned her, that he bullied her, and mistreated her.
She felt . . . threatened? Good grief.

I thought of Douglas MacArthur having to tuck his tail and say, "Yes, sir" to Harry Truman unceremoniously putting an end to his career.

My next thought about that was, "So? He's the president. You're his appointee. He can fire you at the stroke of a pen. Suck it up, buttercup! Go get a cushy job as a political analyst at CNN, it'll pay a lot more than your government job."

My impression was that I had suddenly entered a time warp and we were back at the Kavanaugh hearings, listening to Christine Blasey all over again.

Nice talking with you, Lapaz.

Click to expand...

The allegation here is not that the president accepted bribes, it’s that he solicited one and used his office to extort it out of the Ukrainian government.

And perhaps you weren’t around, but yesterday in a closed-door deposition David Holmes testified under oath to overhearing directly the conversation with Sondland and Trump where Trump reiterated his primary concern of getting Zelensky to investigate the Biden’s. To which when asked of Sondland by Holmes, Sondland said emphatically Trump doesn’t give a shirt about Ukraine, he cares about the Biden’s. This is able to be corroborated by 3 additional witnesses. So we can drop this line.

And I also firmly remember you have quite the opposite posture when it was Obama you alleged to have abused his power. After all, you once said to the audience that it if Obama nudged the FISA court or directed the US government resources to pressure investigations on his party’s rival candidate for president it is such an abuse of power it constituted near treason. So certainly you understand that the authority to do something does not mean you are free of consequence from abusing that authority?

Yovanovitch’s testimony simply reinforced what anyone with an honest brain and understanding of the situation already knew, she has been a stalwart diplomat since the Reagan administration, most recently the strongest force fighting corruption in Ukraine, and that Trump and Rudy’s activities, that relied on relationships with corrupt figures like Lutsenko, Yanukovych, Parnas, Fruman, Shokin, and Kholodnytsky who Rudy was either profiting off or was helping facilitate the campaign to gin up dirt first on Mueller, then on the Biden's. Yovanovitch took issue and even publicly called out the corruption that touched upon Lutsenko and Trump removed her. Who was eventually replaced by Taylor, who just got done testifying about Trump's clear and concise pivot toward withholding critical military aid that was undermining US national security to elicit a public announcement of investigations into his chief political rival.

Lazybones said:

dude I get it. I think it was a horrible display of leadership You and your buddy disagree.

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. I totally said I see it this way and if you don’t that’s cool. What else do you want me to do. Change my mind on how I view someone’s conflict resolution based on a couple dudes in an Internet forum with no credibility? (I’m not saying y’all aren’t credible, but I don’t know you from Adam)

Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself when I say that what I expect is reasonable discourse where all participants not only ask honest and reasonable questions, but receive honest and reasonable answers.

Let’s try this. First I’m taking your words that it was an illegal format. I have not researched nor care to.

Click to expand...

No need to take anyone's word for it. This is the relevant portion of HR 660:

"Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the chair. The time available for each period of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI."

Ma’am it is not your time to speak. You can keep seeking if you would like and burn the allotted time given to me nunes that is up to you, but the witness will not answering and we will be at a stand still until mr nunes Time is up. Mr nunes the floor is yours.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that this is something Schiff could have said that you would consider to be more professional than what he actually said?

So the latest "defense" to impeachment is "Adam Schiff was rude to that lady who was breaking the rules." Cool, cool cool.

cuddlemonkey said:

When a judge bangs their gavel and repeats themselves in an effort to restore order and remind people of the rules, are they also acting in a petulant and unprofessional way that is worthy of demotion?

Click to expand...

The better judges never have to touch a gavel. They don't lose control in the first place, their presence is enough.

I think if Schiff conducted himself in a professional manner and displayed fairness to all he would have the respect of the minority party.

Beach Friends said:

The better judges never have to touch a gavel. They don't lose control in the first place, their presence is enough.

I think if Schiff conducted himself in a professional manner and displayed fairness to all he would have the respect of the minority party.

Click to expand...

What did Schiff do that was unfair?

EmBeeFiveOhFour said:

So the latest "defense" to impeachment is "Adam Schiff was rude to that lady who was breaking the rules." Cool, cool cool.

Click to expand...

Hi EmBeeFiveOhFour,
And, conversely, the latest "offense" to impeachment is "I have no information, but I felt threatened." Awesome.

Beach Friends said:

The better judges never have to touch a gavel. They don't lose control in the first place, their presence is enough.

I think if Schiff conducted himself in a professional manner and displayed fairness to all he would have the respect of the minority party.

Click to expand...

I asked it yesterday with no replies, perhaps asking directly to someone will actually garner a response:


What is unfair about the rules? Specifically? Equal time allotted for opening statements, 45 minutes for each side, 5 minutes to question per round, all inquiries need to stay relevant to the witness, deferrals of time must fit the particular process rules agreed to and both sides must follow equally.

Republicans all day were complaining and calling fouls for being sanctioned for rules they were constantly violating because they are not being allowed to violate them. It's nonsensical. Under the rules agreed to and established Nunes did not follow procedure in shifting his time in opening statements. Later in the hearing, under the rules, that ability was afforded and he did so, and because it was allowable under the rules Schiff allowed. And not only did he allow it but he allowed the rules to actually be broken by spamming the inquiry with complaint and accusations unrelated about the whistleblower. So again I ask, what was unfair?

If Adam Schiff had not been so darn unprofessional yesterday, he would surely have won the respect of a very serious and respectful party whose leader calls him "Adam Schitt" in his own respectful and professional public statements.