Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings

[UncleFesterNightmare]

Fantastic idea, put them both under oath and start asking questions so the American people can see their responses.

 

[BobBKK]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No evidence, really?

 

Trump himself says he did it.

The trump summary transcript shows he did it.

Mulvaney says he did it.

All evidence to congress says he did it.

 

But no, no evidence. Even repubs arent going so far to say that. They are just accepting he did it and deflecting.

What you are missing is that there is no problem he asked for help in investigating. Leaders have private phone conversations all the time and ask for assistance. The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems. 

Leave it to 2020 but Dems are scared to lose again so let's have 'Russiagate"  followed by "Ukrainegate"  if that doesn't work let's try "Estoniagate". How about some policy?

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, UncleFesterNightmare said:

Fantastic idea, put them both under oath and start asking questions so the American people can see their responses.

 

Be nice to put them all under oath wouldnt it. But those in a position to exonerate trump are refusing. Funny that.

[UncleFesterNightmare]

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Be nice to put them all under oath wouldnt it. But those in a position to exonerate trump are refusing. Funny that.

Refusing what specifically?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

What you are missing is that there is no problem he asked for help in investigating. Leaders have private phone conversations all the time and ask for assistance. The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems. 

Leave it to 2020 but Dems are scared to lose again so let's have 'Russiagate"  followed by "Ukrainegate"  if that doesn't work let's try "Estoniagate". How about some policy?

Your first sentence is not correct. There certainly is a problem, thats what the impeachment is about. He could have asked the fbi or state dept to investigate but he didnt. He did it the wrong way.

 

You comments re biden have been debunked many times and im not going to go thru it all again. Feel free to read other threads or use google.

 

as for policy, the complaints of ambassadors is that trump has no clear foreign policy and giuliani is too involved. No one knows what trumps foreign policy is, or any policy.

[Sujo]

Just now, UncleFesterNightmare said:

Refusing what specifically?

To give evidence

[UncleFesterNightmare]

Just now, Sujo said:

To give evidence

Who?

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

What you are missing is that there is no problem he asked for help in investigating. Leaders have private phone conversations all the time and ask for assistance. The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems. 

Leave it to 2020 but Dems are scared to lose again so let's have 'Russiagate"  followed by "Ukrainegate"  if that doesn't work let's try "Estoniagate". How about some policy?

If there is nothing wrong with Trump’s requests to Ukraine why then all the efforts to hide evidence, concoct misleading statements, intimidate witnesses and withhold witnesses from giving testimony?

[UncleFesterNightmare]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

If there is nothing wrong with Trump’s requests to Ukraine why then all the efforts to hide evidence, concoct misleading statements, intimidate witnesses and withhold witnesses from giving testimony?

Name an intimidated witness.

 

Who is concocting misleading statements?

And to whom?

 

Who has intimidated witnesses?

 

What is the name of an intimidated witness?

 

Who is withholding witnesses? 

 

Is that against their will?  How are they being withheld?

 

Wouldn't that be considered kidnapping?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, UncleFesterNightmare said:

Name an intimidated witness.

 

Who is concocting misleading statements?

And to whom?

 

Who has intimidated witnesses?

 

What is the name of an intimidated witness?

 

Who is withholding witnesses? 

 

Is that against their will?  How are they being withheld?

 

Wouldn't that be considered kidnapping?

Outing the whistleblower is an act of intimidation. Trump himself called for the whistleblower to be unmasked.

 

The summary of the telephone conversation issued by the WH was doctored.

 

Trump has instructed members of his administration called as witnesses not to attend Congressional inquiry hearings.

 

We’ll know whether or not they were being instructed to act against their will when they give testimony.

 

‘Kidnapping’ - Drink less coffee.

 

[Sujo]

24 minutes ago, UncleFesterNightmare said:

Who?

Bolton

mulvaney

eisenberg

ellis

blair

mccormack

perry

 

try using google yourself

[Eric Loh]

36 minutes ago, UncleFesterNightmare said:

Who?

The “you know who” . 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

You have misrepresented and deflected because of your political beliefs. Ultimately it matters not as the Senate will throw out the charade and hypocrisy. I have been a supporter of Dems values for years (pro choice, pro environment, pro legalization of weed etc.) but I have come to loathe everything about them these days.

Their hypocrisy is astounding and they simply drive more and more to the megalomaniac Trumps camp. I hope they get hammered in 2020 as it will not be a vote FOR Trump but a vote AGAINST the hypocrisy. The only two Dems I have any time for are Gabbard and Yang but they will never stand a chance.

Another "I don't support Trump but..." And just as believable as the rest of them.

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I guess they think the president of Ukraine is too dumb and/or too weak to speak his mind. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to think when they tell me not to listen to what he said about the phone call.

Ya might think about the consequences he knows Ukraine could face if he contradicts Trump. It takes a suspension of common sense not to see this.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Trumpers have an uncanny ability to ignore someone's possible/probable motives if what they say or do agrees with their personal interpretation.  Yet they will dream up all sorts of crazy motives to explain away facts/statements presented by anyone with an opposing view.

 

What would be the possible/probable motives of Biden withholding a billion dollars worth of aid?  Or are you ignoring those possible/probable motives because they don't fit your personal interpretation?  All of us here know the answer to that question.  Unbelievable that you would even attempt to argue that rationale because it's entirely evident that it's precisely what the left is doing in the case of the Bidens.

 

And who here is ignoring facts/statements which point to the Bidens' corruption?

 

Except Biden didn't withhold the aid. The USA did. Biden was merely the messenger. Or are you seriously claiming that he did this in opposition to what Obama and the State Dept wanted? What the EU wanted? What the IMF wanted?

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use and the replies to it have been reported and removed.  

 

[johnnybangkok]

42 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

What you are missing is that there is no problem he asked for help in investigating. Leaders have private phone conversations all the time and ask for assistance. The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems. 

Leave it to 2020 but Dems are scared to lose again so let's have 'Russiagate"  followed by "Ukrainegate"  if that doesn't work let's try "Estoniagate". How about some policy?

You have had this explained to you many, many times so you are either willfully ignoring the facts or really a secret Trump fan.

Let's start with this statement - 'The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems.'

In his capacity as VP, Biden at the time could do this as it was IN THE INTEREST OF THE US (and the IMF and the EU) and was not for personal, political gain. This is a common political tactic, where money and aid is used as leverage.

Trump on the other hand wanted an investigation into a political opponent for his own political gain. This is a clear violation of campaign finance law which prohibits any person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election (and by virtue of Biden being the leading Dem nominee, he is part of the US election). The law doesn’t just apply to money — investigations or political dirt that benefit a particular campaign counts as “things of value” too. 

You claim to be 'have been a supporter of Dems values for years' yet all I see is you trying to defend Trump with the flimsiest of facts, deflections and conspiracy theories. If you truly support Dem values then you should be behind this impeachment because the Dems are correct in what they are doing as it is just the right thing to do.   

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

<snip> The summary of the telephone conversation issued by the WH was doctored. <snip>

 

 

That's a blatant lie, Chomper.  And this is the second time you've posted it.  What actual proof do you have?  Post it.

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I don't need an editorial on the phone call. I read the transcript.

Then why did you write this?

"I'm not sure what Giuliani has to do with the phone call in which Trump supposedly blackmailed Zelensky."

What don't you understand about Trump asking Zelensky 8 times to work with Giuliani? What don't you understand about the wrongness of asking Zelensky 8 times to work with someone who explicitly says he is acting as Trump's private attorney and is working to defend Trump?

[Tug]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Except Biden didn't withhold the aid. The USA did. Biden was merely the messenger. Or are you seriously claiming that he did this in opposition to what Obama and the State Dept wanted? What the EU wanted? What the IMF wanted?

Why can’t trump supporters understand the difference of holding to USA policy eu policy in getting rid of that guy and trump on the sneak trying to extort another country in order to smear a political rival encouraging foreign governments to interfere in our democracy that’s not right or left that’s wrong and criminal 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[candide]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's a blatant lie, Chomper.  And this is the second time you've posted it.  What actual proof do you have?  Post it.

Now you care about facts? Lol.

It has been confirmed by one of the witnesses. I don't remember which one.

[Sujo]

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's a blatant lie, Chomper.  And this is the second time you've posted it.  What actual proof do you have?  Post it.

Read vindman testimony

[bristolboy]

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's a blatant lie, Chomper.  And this is the second time you've posted it.  What actual proof do you have?  Post it.

Can you please define "blatant lie"?

Top national security aide said White House transcript left out direct mention of Burisma and other details from Trump call

 

• Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert on the White House National Security Council, told congressional investigators on Tuesday that he suggested edits to the White House summary of a July 25 call between President Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine, The New York Times reports.
• Vindman reportedly said some of his edits seemed to make it in but others adding a direct mention of Burisma by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a mention by Trump of recordings of Biden discussing Ukraine corruption did not.
• The Times said White House summaries of the kind documenting the July 25 call were made using note-takers as well as voice-recognition software "to create a rough transcript that is a close approximation of the call."

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-not-include-key-phrases-trump-call-ukraine-expert-2019-10

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Now you care about facts? Lol.

It has been confirmed by one of the witnesses. I don't remember which one.

It was Vindman's testimony, and as far as I know only Vindman, who made the claim that the transcript had omissions.  Now that's a fact.  What's not a fact is that Vindman's claim is true.  You and Chomper are stating Vindman's testimony as factual truth.  That BS.  And you and Chomper know it.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It was Vindman's testimony, and as far as I know only Vindman, who made the claim that the transcript had omissions.  Now that's a fact.  What's not a fact is that Vindman's claim is true.  You and Chomper are stating Vindman's testimony as factual truth.  That BS.  And you and Chomper know it.

So that makes it a "blatant lie"? ANd no one has denied Vindman's assertions.

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It was Vindman's testimony, and as far as I know only Vindman, who made the claim that the transcript had omissions.  Now that's a fact.  What's not a fact is that Vindman's claim is true.  You and Chomper are stating Vindman's testimony as factual truth.  That BS.  And you and Chomper know it.

And of course you know better than the guy who listened to the call. Lol

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

That's a blatant lie, Chomper.  And this is the second time you've posted it.  What actual proof do you have?  Post it.

Always a pleasure to call out your nonsense:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

[Tippaporn]

Just now, bristolboy said:

So that makes it a "blatant lie"? ANd no one has denied Vindman's assertions.

Absolutely makes it a blatant lie.  Someone's testimony is not the same as hard truth.  Everyone knows the distinction.  So when someone tries to pass off testimony as truth it's a blatant lie.

 

No one has backed him up, either.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Always a pleasure to call out your nonsense:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Do you understand that claims made in testimony are not to be taken as actual truth?  Talk about nonsense, Chomper.  You and others are actually trying to argue that Vindman's claims are tantamount to truth.  LOL