Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Views 675.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

  • Paul Wesley
    Paul Wesley

    I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

  • Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

Government data is fun, for those who want to dig in:

Oops dot gov

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Government data is fun, for those who want to dig in:

Oops dot gov

$10,000 appropriated to Saudi Arabia last year...what's the point? Symbolic?

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

So what?  All women are.  

Well, good to know. Then I would scissor the shit out of her cuz her expert testimony and throw down of Collins made my nips hard. That big brained bitch is hawt. 

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm keen on hearing Nadler and company drill down on this concept that Trump had every right to withhold aid to Ukraine because of his long-held concern over political corruption in that country.

This would seem to fly in the face of the fact that the US released multiple rounds of aid to Ukraine during Trump's Presidency.  Specifically, we provided Ukraine with $256M in 2018, and $189M in 2017.  If corruption was such a concern, why did we supply those funds?

The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

Not that facts matter, but Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform.  If ANYTHING, less scrutiny would be warranted, not more.

Just now, Tuco said:

The party line is that he was reevaluating after Zelensky was elected.  Of course, the fact that he didn't inform the OBM of that, and has produced zero evidence that he was trying to make that assessment, would cast doubt on the claim. 

Of course, they had every reason to be concerned about the potential for increased corruption under Zelensky, given he had just been elected on a platform of - check notes - ahh, yes - anticorruption ...

Just now, DixonHur said:

Give this guy a lozenge 

And maybe one without the vodka charge.

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Give this guy a lozenge 

Christ, I had to mute it.

1 minute ago, Gap03 said:

Of course, they had every reason to be concerned about the potential for increased corruption under Zelensky, given he had just been elected on a platform of - check notes - ahh, yes - anticorruption ...

Well, someone here got elected on swamp drainage . . . . 

I hate the argument that it's overturning the 2016 election. NO IT'S NOT!! 

We could be paying Trump to vacation at his own properties. 

"Republicans don't want to impeach so democrats shouldn't impeach" sure is an interesting argument. 

I'm surprised the witnesses haven't gone full Mugatu on the Rs yet.

giphy.gif

You got your report on Monday, and the witnesses in Intelligence were listening to the call. That's not hearsay. 

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Oh great, it's about time for a Gohmert rant. 

I wonder when Gatez is coming up.

Lol, "thanks for bringing down the gavel hard".  What a strange man.

Poor Turley.  The Democrats only question their three witnesses and the Republicans are just monologuing.  

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Republicans are a national security threat.

They sure as shit aren't the national brain trust.

Will the Dem attorney get a crack at challenging Turley?  

 

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

If only he didn't use a cell phone too. 

If he didn't use a cell phone, we might not be having some of these hearings.

Based on the starting lineup of the Judiciary Committee, Gaetz will be up around 250 PM CST. 

 

How come none of the Dems on this committee have asked to enter into the record that "Jim Jordan is a total dipshit and lying to the American people" and then ask for a formal vote on that.  In fact they could do it over and over on all these clowns.  The sad thing is I am starting to believe that this country can't be saved.   I guess I should get my bottle of Pappy ready to take to the ledge.

4 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

Chalupa! 

It all goes back to Manafort and Yanukovych. And Putin's efforts to maintain control over Ukraine and its resources which were "lost," or at least threatened, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. When the Trumpublicans talk about corruption in Ukraine, they mean Putin's definition of Ukrainian  corruption. Pro-democracy in Ukraine, and defiance of Kremlin control, is what they mean by "corruption."

But Obama!

I don't think losing a court case constitutes abuse of power. JFC. 

This is the first republican of the day that I think is making a reasonable point. 

  • Author

such an odd talking point all these republicans are invoking, asking for more "fact-witnesses".

if the facts were on their side, we would (presumably) be hearing from bolton, mulvaney, pompeo, or even trump.  but which fact witnesses do they want?  hunter biden.  insanity.

the democrats continue to make the argument that it was just about the announcement, which shows it's for political gain, and election interference.  the gop says trump was interested in corruption, which is why the aid was withheld.

if the gop really wanted fact witnesses that prove the corruption/investigation angle, they should somehow produce some random ukranians who say their lives were being turned upside-down by investigations into their own corruption.  the gop should produce evidence of other investigations they were/are currently conducting.  this seems like a no-brainer.  obviously they won't do this, because these people don't exist, but that's never really stopped them before.

1 minute ago, Pasken said:

This is the first republican of the day that I think is making a reasonable point. 

Except when he doesn’t.

Half the examples are not for political reasons.

the other half are dubious / I’ve never heard of them. Is he Just making shit up about LBJ and all the Goldwater stuff? 

2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Except when he doesn’t.

Half the examples are not for political reasons.

the other half are dubious / I’ve never heard of them. Is he Just making shit up about LBJ and all the Goldwater stuff? 

Karlan just told him to fuck off.

3 minutes ago, Pasken said:

This is the first republican of the day that I think is making a reasonable point. 

I agree. Pointing out that LBJ abused his power for personal gain is a brilliant defense strategy. 

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol. Narrowest impeachment in history. Right. 

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

...that occurred during an investigation over a supposed shady Arkansas land deal in which the Clintons were ultimately absolved.

Isn't it true that Obama once wore a tan suit while eating 57 arugulas with spicy mustard!! Don't wait for the translation, answer the question!

Just now, Red Five said:

Isn't it true that Obama once wore a tan suit while eating 57 arugulas with spicy mustard!! Don't wait for the translation, answer the question!

And yet the GOP still didn't impeach him!

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.