Lamar Alexander says what the rest of the GOP knows.

The Democrats proved their case. But the “so what’s it to ya” defense worked.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’

I guess Bolton and the White House emails will fill in the blanks. A Democratic Senate is on the horizon.

IMHO

32 thoughts on “Lamar Alexander says what the rest of the GOP knows.

  1. In America, Mr Trump was presumed innocent from the beginning. It was up to House Dems to prove his guilt.

    Dems, the fakestream media and swamp-staters will lie to the American people and try to convince them that there were no witnesses. However, Dems heard from 17 witnesses. Then, they wanted to call an 18th based on rumors and conspiracy theories from the NY Times, a.k.a. DemoWars.

    Perhaps GOPsters should contact Alex Jones for some “evidence” on Dems.

    In all seriousness, Ms Pelosi and her cabal are nasty and wicked swamp creatures. They have inflicted enormous harm on America. Henceforth, Mr Trump needs to make use of the tools that are available to him, to go after them — and go after them hard. For you know they will continue going after him.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Since it seems posting things twice in this thread are a “thing” today; he reminds me of this Sagan quote:

        “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

        Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “In all seriousness, Ms Pelosi and her cabal are nasty and wicked swamp creatures. They have inflicted enormous harm on America.”

      I agree. To me the question is: To what extent does the public see it; how awakened has the public become? The swampy Dems revealed themselves in the impeachment, just as they did in the Kavanaugh hearings. The worst of them may be approaching the point where they won’t be able to show their faces in public.

      https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @Roberts

        Interesting choice of a slam against the Democrats.

        It is entirely true that after decades of GOP mismanagement of the border and immigration laws that you want to attack Democrats for enforcing the law far more effectively and doing so against the wishes of one of their major constituencies.

        Interesting because it shows how little respect for the law and for integrity one finds in Trump world. Based on what you SAY you believe you should be praising them for stepping up. Instead you want to use it against them.

        Sad

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Again, if exposing the truth about a corrupt Vice President helps Trump’s campaign, so what? It remains Trumps duty to expose that corruption, and all of the similar corrupt arrangements in the swamp. Joe and Hunter are not the only ones.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Trump has already admitted to, and teh Democrats proved, his own corruption. You seem to have no issue with that.

      Even Marco Rubio said that what Trump did rose to the level of impeachment:
      “”Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. …
      “… I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.””

      Yet here we sit, waiting for the preordained conclusion set forth by the White House and Majority Leader, that he will not be removed from office. Yet you continue your little whiny rant about Corrupt Joe Biden. The hypocrisy just drips from every single post.

      And please don’t give me the “I don’t support all of his policies” BS. You are so anti-Democrat, you would vote for Stalin, Putin, or Satan himself, to keep a Democrat out of office. But you are just fine with the current corrupt, criminal, snake oil salesman elected by a minority of voters sitting in the oval Office (or is he at one of his resorts in Florida spending more taxpayer dollars that line his family’s pockets? Can you say Emoluments Clause?) flouting the Constitution that you CLAIM to love. And the GOP that sold its conservative soul. Sad.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. @Tabor

          “If Stalin, Putin and Satan were on the ballot, they would be running as Democrats.”

          I think that you are a person who would like to be taken seriously. Especially when offering opinions about guns or the climate. Do you really not understand that such counterfactual hyper-partisan stupidity makes it impossible for any non-ignoramus to do that? What is going on? Old age? Booze? Or is it Trump-love that has rotted your brain?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Stalin and Putin are already known to be authoritarians and socialists and Satan is an archetype for an ‘ends justify the means’ regime, so what other party could they fit into?

            Like

          2. @Tabor

            Stalin, Putin and Satan! Oh My!

            Doubling down on sheer stupidity? Without an ounce of self-awareness from a “running dog” and “useful idiot” of the only Stalinist authoritarian party ever to disgrace this nation.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. @Tabor

      What truth about a corrupt Vice President? Are you really this stupid? And hypocritical? Apparently so.

      However Hunter Biden’s personal fortunes were advanced by his being named Biden, it is almost literally peanuts compared to Ivanka’s trademarks and Kushner’s gusher of Saudi money. And hiding behind all the smoke you will find Trump’s brother getting special advantages for government business.

      https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/467584-va-based-company-with-ties-to-trumps-brother-awarded-33-million

      Trump the Corruption Fighter! Yeah, right.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Hunter Biden’s personal fortunes were indeed advanced, but in return for a threat of withheld aid if a prosecutor pursuing the oligarch were not removed.

        I have no illusions that Shokin was not also corrupt, and likely in service to a competing oligarch, but that does not excuse Biden taking a reward though his son to intervene in the competing corruption by using US aid.

        Ivanka and Kushner are irrelevant, and aside from that, were successful in their businesses before Trump was elected.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. So you assume there is no doubt Joe had Shokin fired to help his son. I can’t help you there because I am not privy to the proof you have.

          But to say that Trump’s family is irrelevant to his incredible corruption in office is really hiding your head in the sand. And to say that they were successful before and that excuses the corrupt benefits of nepotism is truly a work of hypocritical artistry.

          Kushner’s dad was a convicted felon. Jared almost went under but for huge favors from the Saudis in which they bailed him out. No obligations there I am sure. Ivanka getting patents heretofore impossible for anyone right after dad lifting sanctions on a tech thieving Chinese company. Gee, that’s on the up and up.

          Trump may be a corrupt and petty slimeball, but as Republicans are telling the world, he is our corrupt and petty slimeball. So there.

          Some Republicans are even saying that yes he did all those things and they are impeachable offenses. But, hey, nothing more to see here. They took oaths to support Trump, not the Constitution. And that’s their story and they’ll stick to it.

          That’s just lovely.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @Tabor

          “But in return for a threat of withheld aid if a prosecutor pursuing the oligarch were not removed.”

          Well, since that “fact” has been shown to be a lie countless times I guess the answer is “Yes, that stupid.” Or, are you such a worshiper that you don’t mind spreading known lies if it serves Dear Leader?

          Liked by 1 person

        3. “Hunter Biden’s personal fortunes were indeed advanced, but in return for a threat of withheld aid if a prosecutor pursuing the oligarch were not removed.”

          I have a two word answer for this; Bull Shit!

          Liked by 1 person

    3. @tabor

      You keep reminding me of a favorite (and true) Carl Sagan quote:

      “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

      Liked by 2 people

    4. “if exposing the truth about a corrupt Vice President helps Trump’s campaign, so what?”

      You’re right, but the truth won’t do that. The lies do. Timeline. Look at the Biden timeline.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. You mean the Joe Biden timeline in which he went directly from college to politics without ever creating wealth in the private sector yet wound up a millionaire and the patriarch of a family of millionaires while continuously in office?

          Or the Hunter Biden timeline in which he went from a dishonorable discharge from the Navy for cocaine use to a multimillionaire businessman buoyed by the influence if his father?

          Like

          1. @Tabor

            PRETENDING that you believe that a 77 year old man and his wife both working continuously for about 50 years, living frugally and investing wisely cannot build up that kind of wealth honestly is pretty nauseating and would the kind of bull one would expect from a sorry excuse for a human being.

            Joe Biden’s Net Worth is estimated by Forbes to be $9 million. And that is counting the value of his house and his government pension. A large part of that wealth is from books and speaking fees after leaving office. While spending a long career in the Senate he was one of very few to NOT leave it a millionaire.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/28/joe-bidens-net-worth-how-the-2020-presidential-candidate-built-a-9-million-fortune/#1596e146104d

            This scummy smear reminds of the way scummy people Swift-boated John Kerry by attacking a strong part of his resume with disgusting and dishonest lies. Joe Biden is one of the LEAST corrupt people in high office so lets start smearing him. And that is being lead by someone who is the personification corruption.

            “Nauseating” is almost literally true. You people are enough to make any decent person feel ill. But please keep it up. Remind everybody what the stakes are in November.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. Instead of just repeating the line, “He’s corrupt,” state your evidence in one sentence per line, e.g., “he asked that the prosecutor be removed”, “he threatened aid”, “Barisma was investigated”, etc.

          Then arrange them in time order.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Then arrange them in time order.”

            Point being you didn’t actually have a documented time line in mind when you made the statement. If you’d like to build one together, two entries can be my contribution:

            Feb. 2, 2016: In pursuance of an active investigation of Burisma, Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin obtains a court order to seize the assets of the company’s owner.

            March, 2016: Joe Biden leverages a promise of U.S. aid to Ukraine to have Shokin fired, an action which incidentally benefitted Biden’s son, who had a lucrative job with Burisma at the time.

            Like

          2. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

            “ Kasko resigned in February 2016, citing corruption and lawlessness in the prosecutor general’s office.

            The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.”

            I found nothing about a court order from Shokin, just that his deputy resigned amid lack of action by the prosecutor.

            And note that apparently Biden did not even originate the pressure on Shokin.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “I found nothing about a court order from Shokin”

            That just means that your Bloomberg timeline is incomplete, and you are misinformed if you believe it to be the whole story. I have previously provided links to substantiate the two dates on the timeline I offered above.

            RE: “And note that apparently Biden did not even originate the pressure on Shokin.”

            That the State Department was aware of corruption in the prosecutor’s office is of no high relevance to the matter at hand. The State Department was also aware of corruption at Burisma, and that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm represented a conflict of interest for his father when the VP was made point man for Ukraine policy. That, in fact, is of high relevance because the State Department communicated their COI concerns to the White House.

            Like

          4. 2015! February 2nd of 2015.

            “on Feb. 2, 2015, the Prosecutor General’s Office seized personal property attributed to Zlochevsky but legally owned by his family, including a mansion, a luxury car and plots of land, according to AntAC. The court order was not published, but journalists eventually exposed what had happened later in 2015.”

            “On Dec. 25, 2015, the seizure was canceled, and the case was transferred from the PGO to an anti-corruption organization funded by the EU and the US and supported by the FBI. But the court order was not published until Jan. 27, 2016, and it prompted a public outcry, according to AntAC. So the PGO scrambled to get it reinstated, and the order was published Feb. 4, 2016.” (This is AFTER the PGO was no longer prosecuting the case)

            This account led Lindsey Graham to claim the raid occurred in 2016, not 2015.

            The seizure was cancelled for good in Nov 2016 when the case against Ziochevsky was cancelled and devolved into a tax evasion case against Barisma. A subsidiary of Burisma paid the back taxes.

            ==========

            March 2016??? Oh, the Nunes crap.

            According to White House records

            “Feb. 18, 2016 A call took place between Biden and Poroshenko, two days after the president had announced he had asked Shokin to resign. “The Vice President also commended President Poroshenko’s decision to replace Prosecutor General Shokin, which paves the way for needed reform of the prosecutorial service.”

            https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/19/readout-vice-president-bidens-call-president-petro-poroshenko-ukraine

            Liked by 2 people

          5. @Roberts

            Re: Corrected “Biden Timeline”

            Duped again. Truth is so darn inconvenient!

            But don’t feel too bad. Getting duped is par for the course if you support Trump. A lot of people – maybe you are one – really seem to enjoy it. So much easier than thinking for yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. All this based upon the opinion of one Senator?

    On and before November 7, 2016…I can’t recall where CNN, FOX or MSNBC showed how Donald Trump could win. But I do recall statements from the Trump campaign (or his Tweets) that he can and will.

    On November 8, 2016…I didn’t vote for any of the POTUS/VPOTUS candidates because I didn’t find either worthy of my vote.

    As the returns came in, admittedly I was transfixed by them (flipping between CNN, MSNBC and FOX) specifically because of what was happening in Florida plus some upsets. Shoo…I started a pot of coffee so I could stay awake and watch that unfold.

    Over the next days? I watched and heard the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC discussing faithless electors and days later begin discussing impeachment (yeah-most of FOX was “wooting” it up).

    Here it is almost 4 year’s later. I still see a dysfunctional (but more polarized) Congress.

    Like

    1. “ All this based upon the opinion of one Senator?”

      No, there were quite a few, both on record and off, that agreed the Democrats had made their case and Trump had acted “inappropriately”. But it was not enough to remove a president from office, or so they said.

      He never would have been convicted. And that was the overriding rationale for many. Why hear first hand witnesses when they are going to acquit anyway regardless of how damning the new testimony. It would just make acquittal that much more difficult to rationalize.

      Look at Romney. A staunch conservative if there ever was one. He was uninvited to CPAC festival in a petty manner because Trump said so. OK, I’m guessing the reason, but the fear of Trump by the GOP is downright nauseating.

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s