19 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

 

It was something to behold.  

 

What we learned:

1. The transcript shows that there were no conditions regarding aid to Ukraine.

2. Zelinsky has stated more than once that there was no pressure and no quid pro quo.

3. The Ukraine wasn't even aware that the aid was paused.

4. There was no witness called that testified to any firsthand knowledge of conditions regarding aid to Ukraine.

5. The Ukraine received the aid and did nothing for it -- not even what the gossipers alleged.

6.  Ukraine support was strengthened.

 

 

What you should learn is to fact check before posting.

48 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

I’m not an American so I don’t have a dog in the fight. But watching Fox and reading the posts here, I notice that Trump supporters are unable to accept clear and obvious facts or undeniable conclusions.  Instead they deflect to matters of irrelevance, like the whistleblower and the Bidens, both of which have zero relevance to Trump’s actions. 
Must be the kool-aid. 

Yes, this is well understood by now. 

The 45 movement is not a normal political situation. It's a cult of personality. All that matters is loyalty to that cult. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

It proves nothing of the kind.

It proves trump supporters live in an alternative universe to facts and logic. Where biden is guilty with no evidence, where trump is innocent with lots of evidence.

 

talk about TDS.

28 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

You mean the whistleblower revealed that he had been planning impeachment procedures against Trump for years? Would appreciate a link to that (other than FOX). If true, it still has no relevance as the case against Trump is based on the testimony of 17 other witnesses, not the whistleblower. If false, then it’s yet another example of the thousands of untruths and lies spoken by Trump and his supporters. 
 

Tell me, do you think that Parnas was planted by the Dems and coached on what to say? That all the evidence he is producing has been fabricated? That Sondland was in fact a mole groomed by the Dems to infiltrate the Republican party and that his donation of $1 million was a calculated gambit to ensure that he would be Trump’s appointed ambassador so that the Dems could put their devious plan into action? If so, then the Dems are the real geniuses, not the self proclaimed stable genius. 

Well, the emails were reported by fox, but they do exist. You will disregard it, as it does not appear to fit in the narrative that you have. But the whistleblower is an obvious partisan with an agenda going back to 2016. You can ignore this fact, but it won't make it not true. 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma

 

As for parnas, he has obviously done something criminal. Nothing takes away from the fact that there is no impeachable event in the phone call. Eric ciamarella is trying to protect his involvement in the previous administration attempt to make Ukraine provide dirt on an opposing candidate. 

Hahaha...counting on Lev Parnas to deliver...Dems have truly hit the bottom of the 

bucket here. Parnas is no better than a Michael Avenatti type of witness....not credible

and likely to do anything he is told by the ones squeezing him.

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

my law degree states otherwise.

looks like the law school owes you a refund.

13 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Well, the emails were reported by fox, but they do exist. You will disregard it, as it does not appear to fit in the narrative that you have. But the whistleblower is an obvious partisan with an agenda going back to 2016. You can ignore this fact, but it won't make it not true. 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma

 

As for parnas, he has obviously done something criminal. Nothing takes away from the fact that there is no impeachable event in the phone call. Eric ciamarella is trying to protect his involvement in the previous administration attempt to make Ukraine provide dirt on an opposing candidate. 

And all this has come out under oath. Or just tv talk.

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

looks like the law school owes you a refund.

How so. What type of law did you practice?

8 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Hahaha...counting on Lev Parnas to deliver...Dems have truly hit the bottom of the 

bucket here. Parnas is no better than a Michael Avenatti type of witness....not credible

and likely to do anything he is told by the ones squeezing him.

He was good enough to donate to trump. Good enough to work with trump and giuliani. Good enough for trump to fire the ambassador to ukraine after his advice.

 

only the best people.

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He was good enough to donate to trump. Good enough to work with trump and giuliani. Good enough for trump to fire the ambassador to ukraine after his advice.

 

only the best people.

 

he's not trumps soul mate...hes a campaign donor...that buys you some hand shakes and pleasantries

unless you're a criminal which he wasn't at the time. He's just a shady businessman who wanted to get nto

trumps orbit....the recording he claims to have hasn't been verified. Wonder who's puling his strings.

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

he's not trumps soul mate...hes a campaign donor...that buys you some hand shakes and pleasantries

unless you're a criminal which he wasn't at the time. He's just a shady businessman who wanted to get nto

trumps orbit....the recording he claims to have hasn't been verified. Wonder who's puling his strings.

They were discussing very high level policy. Much more than pleasantries. Maybe you can admit by now that 45 claiming he didn't know the man was yet another one of his thousands of lies, yeah? 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

They were discussing very high level policy. Much more than pleasantries. Maybe you can admit by now that 45 claiming he didn't know the man was yet another one of his thousands of lies, yeah? 

Nonsense....Parnas' buddy Fruman made that according at a dinner in trumps hotel.

Know is a relative word....Parnas is a donor trying to project some influence, thats it.

To suggest that this so called recording is another BOMBSHELL is just delusional.

Trumps allowed to hire and fire anyone who works for him. You may not like it but he's also allowed to 

say 'take her out...now'! 

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Nonsense....Parnas' buddy Fruman made that according at a dinner in trumps hotel.

Know is a relative word....Parnas is a donor trying to project some influence, thats it.

To suggest that this so called recording is another BOMBSHELL is just delusional.

Trumps allowed to hire and fire anyone who works for him. You may not like it but he's also allowed to 

say 'take her out...now'! 

So he knew him.

45 said he didn't. 

But he did. 

Yet another impeached presidential lie exposed. 

37 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Well, the emails were reported by fox, but they do exist. You will disregard it, as it does not appear to fit in the narrative that you have. But the whistleblower is an obvious partisan with an agenda going back to 2016. You can ignore this fact, but it won't make it not true. 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma

 

As for parnas, he has obviously done something criminal. Nothing takes away from the fact that there is no impeachable event in the phone call. Eric ciamarella is trying to protect his involvement in the previous administration attempt to make Ukraine provide dirt on an opposing candidate. 

Right , so in the interest of pursuing the truth, I read the article you linked through and watched the video. The ‘Ingraham’ angle refers to emails and other matters from 2016. So in 2016, the Dems knew that Trump was going to abuse his power in 2019? See how ridiculous your original claim is?

 

As for Parnas, yes, he absolutely did something criminal. On the direction of this so called commander in chief. A video and audio recording has been released further damning Trump (take out Yovanovitch, how long can Ukraine stand against Russia without the promised aid etc). 
 

I really despair that anyone in their right mind can support someone as detestable and moronic as Trump. Not only is he an insult to Americans, he’s an insult to the human race (and I thought our hosts were buffaloes). He is stereotypical of the American that the world hates - loudmouth, brash and entitled. Worse, he’s egoistical, narcissistic, insecure, racist, a liar and a bully. 
 

There was a time when I was growing up that America was a great country with wonderful people. A well respected country, with great leaders and values. I studied history and learned about Lincoln and Washington. I remember Kennedy’s speech about what one can do for one’s country. Sadly, Trump will go down in history as the man that brings about America’s downfall, just like all the previous great empires (Mongol, Byzantine, Roman, British etc) fell. I guess that history does repeat itself after all. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

So he knew him.

45 said he didn't. 

But he did. 

Yet another impeached presidential lie exposed. 

Try proving that in court against Pat Cipollone or Jay Sekulow.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Better tell that to the legal scholars. They gave up on it and now only say its not impeachable.

 

my law degree states otherwise.

This isn't the parliamentary system where they can remove a pm at will and whim of a simple vote. 

51 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

This isn't the parliamentary system where they can remove a pm at will and whim of a simple vote. 

Gee thanks for those words of wisdom. Im not a trump supporter so no need to state the obvious.

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

Try proving that in court against Pat Cipollone or Jay Sekulow.

The list of trump not knowing people sure is growing. He wont know rudy shortly.

6 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Well, the emails were reported by fox, but they do exist. You will disregard it, as it does not appear to fit in the narrative that you have. But the whistleblower is an obvious partisan with an agenda going back to 2016. You can ignore this fact, but it won't make it not true. 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma

 

As for parnas, he has obviously done something criminal. Nothing takes away from the fact that there is no impeachable event in the phone call. Eric ciamarella is trying to protect his involvement in the previous administration attempt to make Ukraine provide dirt on an opposing candidate. 

During 2014, 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma and his owner. So it's not surprising that there had been some meetings during which the case of Burisma was discussed. Get informed before posting.

On 1/25/2020 at 1:09 AM, Chiphigh said:

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

 

NY times reporter Ken Vogel was doing a story on this subject, but nothing was ever published. 

 

Telizhenko has also just released a new statement saying how we was pressured by chalupa and the state dept to dig up dirt on Trump. 

 

This is going to blow up in the faces of these idiots and it will be long overdue. 

 

The association to schiff staffer and the whistleblower is also been proven as well as the whistleblower talking to the schiff staffer in 2017 about how to impeach trump. 

 

So, let's summarize what the left will say, and the standard liberal torch bearers of this forum:

 

FOX News source is a lie so none of this ever happened. The dnc and the Obama administration have never interfered in any election. 

 

Despite having the emails and the Whitehouse visitor logs, this meeting to coordinate election interference never happened. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

That is quite condescending, but I assume you have not been like this before, for now. If just happened at the time of the post. 

 

So here is the link with the summary. I assume that you will discount it. I will try to get the actual emails pdf and post it as well, so you can't deny its viability. 

 

https://apnews.com/7b7d698b9a660997f5e755d92b775d98

 

Apparently I needed to explain that you need to post a link to a credible source that supports your claim about Laura Ingraham, ERIC CIARMERELLA, andrii telizhenko, etc.  Your link doesn't do that.

19 hours ago, mogandave said:

I would rather the NOT have anyone like Schiff on their team. 
 

He sounds like a buffoon to me yet all the “journalists” seem to be falling all over themselves with how “dazzling” he is.
 

Apparently the left is easily dazzled..

A Trump supporter claiming other people are easily dazzled.  The irony is incredible.

17 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Those involved in the negotiations had no direct contact with Trump other than Sondland.  Some admitted that they had never met Trump or even had any conversation with him ever. All POTUS have the right to executive privilege.  That is not against the law or impeachable.  Mounting a defense vs those undermining your foreign policy and insinuating things that did not happen, is also not against the law or impeachable.

 

Trump's conversation with Sondland took place LONG before the gossipblower was involved in the charade.

 

I don't pretend to know the motivations of the Ukrainian government officials and what they are thinking.  As I understand it, they're a bit peeved that Democrats have accused them of lying.

People with first hand knowledge were prevented by Trump from testifying.  The people who testified had contact with people working for and reporting directly to the President.  All Presidents have the right to Executive privilege; none have invoked it in such an all-encompassing manner as Trump, which makes him look incredibly guilty.  The only foreign policy that was undermined was Trump's policy of bullying another country into aiding his re-election campaign.

 

You are wrong about the time of Trump's "want nothing" statement:

 

" The date of that conversation between Sondland and Mr. Trump was September 9, the date that the House Intelligence Committee learned of the anonymous whistleblower's complaint at the center of the impeachment inquiry. "   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-quotes-sondland-quoting-him-i-want-nothing-i-want-no-quid-pro-quo/

 

You don't pretend to know...but you include an "as I understand it".  Do you understand that without US support the Ukraine has no chance against Russia, and that Trump will withhold US support if President Zelensky's government does anything to peeve Trump?

9 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I’m not an American so I don’t have a dog in the fight. But watching Fox and reading the posts here, I notice that Trump supporters are unable to accept clear and obvious facts or undeniable conclusions.  Instead they deflect to matters of irrelevance, like the whistleblower and the Bidens, both of which have zero relevance to Trump’s actions. 
Must be the kool-aid. 

"watching Fox", that explains a great deal.  Let me guess; you watch the pundits, not the news programs with legitimate journalists.  Correct?

9 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

That's like saying clouds have no connection to making rain.

Or garbage has no connection to a rotten stink.

Biden's dodgy dealings are very deserving of Trump's

suspicions. The issue isn't that he asked Z to look into it....

we must also understand why he did it. Otherwise every 

corrupt politician will start running for president to avoid being investigated.

"Biden's dodgy dealings" consist of what?  Bragging on camera about implementing US and EU policy in Ukraine?  Do you have anything else?

 

Yes, Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen, which is illegal. 

 

Also, why is the only corruption Trump is concerned with something that happened four years ago and involves a political opponent?

9 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Right...but the alleged misconduct has occurred in a foreign country not in Queens or Orange County.

Foreign assistance, as per international law is not off limits.

And the correct, legal procedure would be to initiate an investigation using a US agency (the FBI, I assume) and have that agency work with its counterparts in the foreign country.

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Impeachment is a totally legitimate constitutional process. The 45 cult objections to the procedure in the house is just another irrelevant distraction. Investigation and impeaching this particular president is not only founded but necessary. It's bad enough that the senate will acquit. He has set a precedent that no president can be subject to oversight. No documents released. No witnesses released. That's not the American system. That's the system of autocratic dictatorships. 

You really like the cult moniker, yet refusing to admit that the house is hiding the testimony of the ICIG. 

 

Do you think hiding evidence is a good example to set while whining about wanting more evidence? 

 

The weakness of the impeachment is obvious. You lost, and you deserved to lose. 

 

Unfortunately, they will try it again and be cheered on by a compliant media. 

 

Looks like the virtue signaling prediction is spot on, sadly. 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

And the correct, legal procedure would be to initiate an investigation using a US agency (the FBI, I assume) and have that agency work with its counterparts in the foreign country.

Actually, the transcript clearly says that he wanted the doj AG to be involved, once again proving that there was nothing wrong with the entire call 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

"Biden's dodgy dealings" consist of what?  Bragging on camera about implementing US and EU policy in Ukraine?  Do you have anything else?

 

Yes, Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen, which is illegal. 

 

Also, why is the only corruption Trump is concerned with something that happened four years ago and involves a political opponent?

Is having several relatives profit directly from your political influence a crime? 

10 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Right , so in the interest of pursuing the truth, I read the article you linked through and watched the video. The ‘Ingraham’ angle refers to emails and other matters from 2016. So in 2016, the Dems knew that Trump was going to abuse his power in 2019? See how ridiculous your original claim is?

 

As for Parnas, yes, he absolutely did something criminal. On the direction of this so called commander in chief. A video and audio recording has been released further damning Trump (take out Yovanovitch, how long can Ukraine stand against Russia without the promised aid etc). 
 

I really despair that anyone in their right mind can support someone as detestable and moronic as Trump. Not only is he an insult to Americans, he’s an insult to the human race (and I thought our hosts were buffaloes). He is stereotypical of the American that the world hates - loudmouth, brash and entitled. Worse, he’s egoistical, narcissistic, insecure, racist, a liar and a bully. 
 

There was a time when I was growing up that America was a great country with wonderful people. A well respected country, with great leaders and values. I studied history and learned about Lincoln and Washington. I remember Kennedy’s speech about what one can do for one’s country. Sadly, Trump will go down in history as the man that brings about America’s downfall, just like all the previous great empires (Mongol, Byzantine, Roman, British etc) fell. I guess that history does repeat itself after all. 
 

 

So you are ignoring the facts of the whistleblowers clear bias and involvement with Biden and Ukraine long before this ever happened, as well as his desire to impeach the president.

 

then you go on a virtue signaling rant stating if people who disagree with you they are mentally inferior to you. 

 

Fortunately, this thing will be over soon and I am sure you will think that your quest for justice was unfair and the republic is in peril of not conforming to your preferred opinion version of the United States. 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"watching Fox", that explains a great deal.  Let me guess; you watch the pundits, not the news programs with legitimate journalists.  Correct?

You mean the "journalists" that YOU deem "legitimate"? 

 

You don't get to pick and choose who is legitimate. 

 

Do you understand the difference between reporting the entire story instead of a narrative?