19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Well, to be fair that reason is certainly more than enough for the little tyrants that call themselves liberals. Dont know if you noticed but they couldn't give 2 white dog turds about ruining people they don't like based on nothing more than their feelings and assumptions. 

Really??rember you are defending the guy who separates toddlers from their parents stabs allies in the guts then throws them to the wolves stiffs venders personally I think Donald gets off on destroying lives and please stop trying to label everyone this is about what’s acceptable and what’s not lawful or not

18 minutes ago, rabas said:

ou did hear Sondland testify to Nunes, the EU ambassador, about President Trump's passion to limit money to EU members because they are not pulling their weight, particularly on things like NATO defence? Trump's businessman sense of saving US tax payer dollars? And that Trump had deeply negative views of Ukraine because of its world renowned corruption?

And yet rather than ask American agencies to investigate Biden, he went to " Ukraine because of its world renowned corruption"

4 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

He always praises and encourages his underlings. 

 

Really?

 

Well then I imagine he'll be encouraging" them to cooperate with the investigation.

 

"Underlings", how appropriate. I mean in a mob family sort of way. Well done sir.

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

 

Interesting that in his opening statement Sondland said there was a quid pro quo.  Then under questioning he admitted no one on the planet had told him there was a quid pro quo, that he had presumed it, made it up.

18 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Punishment must be meted out to the perjurers like Schiff and Vindman who both swore on oath they do not know the "whisleblowers" identity.

 

Schiff is a massive liar its all he does. Say what you want about Trump lying but ole Schiff racks them up with the best of them.

 

His latest garbage is worth three pinnochios as well. 

 

Schiff’s claim that the whistleblower has a ‘statutory right’ to anonymity.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/schiffs-claim-that-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

None of your round the clock trolling stops the People seeing the evidence.

Some of the evidence, that which Schiff and the Democrats want you to see. I really want to see it all, including everything to do with pre/post election 2016.

 

You seem to ignore: Nothing wrong, nothing to hide.

 

Sondland certainly made the case that pompeo bolton giuliano need to testify.

 

But only if you want to know the truth. Perhaps trump also letting him see his documents could help him confirm the truth.

 

But trump doesnt want the truth.

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Some of the evidence, that which Schiff and the Democrats want you to see. I really want to see it all, including everything to do with pre/post election 2016.

 

You seem to ignore: Nothing wrong, nothing to hide.

 

You want to see a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to the ongoing impeachment of Trump.

 

I get that.

 

Maybe do that later.

Once again, a big fat nothing burger.

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Some of the evidence, that which Schiff and the Democrats want you to see. I really want to see it all, including everything to do with pre/post election 2016.

 

You seem to ignore: Nothing wrong, nothing to hide.

 

Easy, all the WH has to do is release the documents and allow testimony from all.

47 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

I see were back to quid pro quo now. How cute. 

 

And an allegation is not 'evidence' buddy. 

Do you agree that aid was withheld?  the allegation was that it was withheld for mercenary reasons , testimony from all that were there and allowed to testify substantiates the allegation.

What evidence do you want ?

As one of the congressman asked Sondland "If someone walked in here wearing rain gear, yellow galoshes holding an umbrella and water dripping from him, do I need to go out to see if it is raining?"

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Easy, all the WH has to do is release the documents and allow testimony from all.

 

Right and then allow the Dems to leak and frame and confine arguments & witness into what's favorable to them. 

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Right and then allow the Dems to leak and frame and confine arguments & witness into what's favorable to them. 

That's the problem, even the hard, verifiable truth is being disregarded and waved away.

1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Right and then allow the Dems to leak and frame and confine arguments & witness into what's favorable to them. 

Republicans can leak wht is favorable to them, What is stopping them?

Just now, sirineou said:

As one of the congressman asked Sondland "If someone walked in here wearing rain gear, yellow galoshes holding an umbrella and water dripping from him, do I need to go out to see if it is raining?"

 

Yeah that congressman was the number 1 trending topic yesterday twitter - FIY google #fartgate - it got him more noteriety than his presidential campaign. 

 

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Do you agree that aid was withheld?  the allegation was that it was withheld for mercenary reasons , testimony from all that were there and allowed to testify substantiates the allegation.

 

I agree the aid was withheld, that's not a crime and happens all the time. I don't agree that Trump was 'bribing' anyone nor does it even remotely rise to impeachment. 

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

That's the problem, even the hard, verifiable truth is being disregarded and waved away.

 

Verifiable truth is one thing, what the dems are doing right now is entirely another. 

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You want to see a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to the ongoing impeachment of Trump.

 

I get that.

 

Maybe do that later.

How can corrupt events relating to Trump's 2016 election not be related to Trump's interest in seeking information on those events? And how could he trust those involved in the corruption to investigate them? It is the heart of the story.

 

Some troll posts which have been reported have been removed. 

22 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Verifiable truth is one thing, what the dems are doing right now is entirely another. 

I thought Trump fans would jump on the fact that Sondland had confirmed the “no quid pro” conversation and, as usual, that Sondland wasn’t personally privy to being specifically told by Trump himself that aid was dependent on the investigation into the Bidens (just sooo predictable). But there are people who were in that actual conversation i.e. Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and everyone’s favorite lawyer Giuliani. Now if only they could be compelled to appear and clear everything up then I think it would all become much, much clearer.  Im not sure how to do that though. Maybe some sort of congressional request. You know, something that shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe like a subpoena. 

 

Any reason why these people are refusing to obey a congressional subpoena Trump fans other than they know they will have to commit perjury to defend Trump? 
No? Thought so. 
 

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I thought Trump fans would jump on the fact that Sondland had confirmed the “no quid pro” conversation and, as usual, that Sondland wasn’t personally privy to being specifically told by Trump himself that aid was dependent on the investigation into the Bidens (just sooo predictable). But there are people who were in that actual conversation i.e. Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and everyone’s favorite lawyer Giuliani. Now if only they could be compelled to appear and clear everything up then I think it would all become much, much clearer.  Im not sure how to do that though. Maybe some sort of congressional request. You know, something that shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe like a subpoena. 

 

Any reason why these people are refusing to obey a congressional subpoena Trump fans other than they know they will have to commit perjury to defend Trump? 
No? Thought so. 
 

While you're at it bring in the "whistleblower"

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

While you're at it bring in the "whistleblower"

Straight out of the Big Book of GOP Deflections (Impeachment Addition). 
Would you also like the Bidens to appear? Or perhaps Elvis? I mean if you’re going for the “list of people that don’t matter to this investigation” why stop at the living. 

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

But there are people who were in that actual conversation i.e. Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and everyone’s favorite lawyer Giuliani.

 

Rick Perry got "bussed" today as well.

 

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Now if only they could be compelled to appear and clear everything up then I think it would all become much, much clearer.

 

This is a classic prosecution, with savvy prosecutors like Rep. Schiff and Dan Goldman, working their way up, building their case (and blowing away all of the many 'defenses') slowly. This is how organized crime  prosecuctions work.

 

Documents and communications ("Russia, if you're listening.") would either clear the president or further implicate him.

 

One or both of Rudy's henchman (I can't keep Lev and Igor straight) seem like likely next witnesses.

 

Parnas claimed Trump ordered “secret mission” to push for Biden probe at White House Hanukkah party

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/18/parnas-claimed-trump-ordered-secret-mission-to-push-for-biden-probe-at-white-house-hanukkah-party/

 

Then bolton or rudy, perry, pompeo, pence?

 

15 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Im not sure how to do that though. Maybe some sort of congressional request. You know, something that shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe like a subpoena. 

 

 

Yes, this seems like it's a possibility but any legal/court challenges must be addressed in hours/days, and not weeks/months.

 

 

 

It feels like the president's embarrassment, at being revealed to be all that he knows he is (fraud/criminal), might compel him to resign owing to health/family reasons?

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Would you also like the Bidens to appear?

No. Seeing as the video footage of Biden sr bragging about successfully extorting the Ukrainians has been seen by all there is no point. Clearly the democrat elite are immune from any and all crimes. This is one of the reasons this hoax has no legitimacy, and also the reason why Trumps popularity is skyrocketing. Nice job dems!

19 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

While you're at it bring in the "whistleblower"

The whistle blower is now make redundant by the volume of testimonies and evidences mount against Trump. Those key witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney and Trump should be brought to the inquiry not the whistleblower. 

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

No. Seeing as the video footage of Biden sr bragging about successfully extorting the Ukrainians has been seen by all there is no point. Clearly the democrat elite are immune from any and all crimes. This is one of the reasons this hoax has no legitimacy, and also the reason why Trumps popularity is skyrocketing. Nice job dems!

Exactly but it's a Coup by any other name and although Trump does use 'untidy' language sometimes they can't possibly really expect Senate to impeach. This is all about 2020, they fear losing, so will happily break all the precedents in impeachments, use partisan pencil pushers who hate Trump and ignore THIS:

did you speak to POTUS?  NO

did you hear POTUS try to bribe? NO

Mr Schiff did you meet the whistleblower?  NO  do you know his name?  NO

 

what a farce

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

The whistle blower is now make redundant by the volume of testimonies and evidences mount against Trump. Those key witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney and Trump should be brought to the inquiry not the whistleblower. 

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Exactly but it's a Coup by any other name

Uhm, no, it isn't. Were you similarly vexed circa 1998-1999?

 

It is a Constitutionally approved process.

 

Shocking that you don't know what a "coup" is? OK, maybe not so shocking.

 

You do realize that the Senate will not convict, assuming it goes that far. And even if they do, that doesn't make Hilary president. 

 

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser.

First off, no one has accused anyone of anything yet. That step comes with an up or down vote on Article of Impeachment.

 

And the Whistleblower is not the "accuser" here, it may end up being the House of Representatives.

 

If I call 9-1-1 and report a crime in progress I am not an "accuser".

 

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

They are AFRAID to name him.

Not sure who "they" is but Whistleblowers are protected by law.

 

11 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

Well then, you should be pleased? Why do your posts indicate a level of displeasure?

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

This is Reps only defence now. Nunes keep repeating that at every opening and closing statement. He got laugh off last night. Get over it. It’s over for Trump. 

40 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Straight out of the Big Book of GOP Deflections (Impeachment Addition). 
Would you also like the Bidens to appear? Or perhaps Elvis? I mean if you’re going for the “list of people that don’t matter to this investigation” why stop at the living. 

So, the whistleblower has no part in this according to you, unbelievable.