1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

Now that this attempted coup is coming to an end....I hope the senate is going to

invite Hunter Biden for coffee....just to clarify what he has been up to in Ukraine and China.

Once his dad gets knocked out, they should call him too.

Well that would have been the proper way to do it and none of this needed to happen.

 

How many years have passed and still no investigation into bidens. Whats stopping them.

18 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

So please tell us what wrongdoing and what crime Hunter committed.  If you have none, you just smearing. 

Watch Pam Bondi's presentation.

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Paid a pretty reasonable 50k monthly. Didn't see any investigation by the any agencies. However used as a scapegoat by Trump for his personal agenda. 

Six times the average of a fortune 100 company. Yeah pretty reasonable .... if you say so.

11 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The only buying I have seen is Hunter Biden being paid. That is the only thing that resembles "The Al Capone" days historical reference of yours. 

A company can hire whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants.

 

Why isnt there an investigation after all these years. Trump in office 3 years and still no investigation. Doesnt seem to care about corruption.

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Watch Pam Bondi's presentation.

Shes wrong on so many points. also Irrelevant to trump.

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Six times the average of a fortune 100 company. Yeah pretty reasonable .... if you say so.

Why cant a company pay what it likes. Its an issue for shareholders 

4 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Watch Pam Bondi's presentation.

You mean her presentation that was blocked out by CBS, NBC and ABC. You got to be kidding. Then maybe not as someone asked me to check out Giuliani website. Truthfulness and honesty are seeping away from you real quick

10 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Six times the average of a fortune 100 company. Yeah pretty reasonable .... if you say so.

Yes it’s reasonable for a foreign posting from a very large corporation trying to improve their international image. You should check out what indecent remuneration CEOs get for their overseas assignments. 

15 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Watch Pam Bondi's presentation.

Butt of late night jokes when she has to pause and flip through several pages to find out what year Hunter was employed. 

59 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well that would have been the proper way to do it and none of this needed to happen.

 

How many years have passed and still no investigation into bidens. Whats stopping them.

 

U clearly are a little slow....lindsey announced it a few moments after I posted.

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Anything lethal in this mix? The same Party under Obama Administration that was nowhere to be found when the Russians invaded, but created the conditions for the invasion (Through pushing for NATO inclusion, and interfering rather dramatically in Ukrainian politics-another story), gave no lethal aid , some of their house managers voted against that aid, now stands to condemn the Trump administration? It's farce. Again, these Democrats have simply no shame and continue to dangerously rip the United States apart, all in the pursuit of power at ANY cost!

You described armored Humvees as blankets.  That was worth correcting.

 

I don't recall Obama pushing for Ukraine to be included in NATO, or interference in Ukraine politics.  Can you justify that claim without using Russia Today as a source?

 

Once again, Trump was "condemned" for withholding Congressionally approved aid, and pushing for the announcement of investigations of conspiracy theories.

2 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Yes, but mainly with your stuff.  You posted a bit more than what you quoted here, didn't you? Something about a cover-up? Can you elaborate on that for us?

 

Ref: HERE if you get (more) confused.

 

 

 

I would suggest that you re-read my original post and your reply, but since it is clear that you do have reading comprehension problems it's pointless.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

But people here do understand that statements made under duress can't be assumed to be truthful.  People here also understand that statements made under duress can also be assumed to be exactly that . . . truthful.  You, though, insist that Zelensky was under duress and did indeed lie and state it as "fact."  Those are your assumptions, not facts, which you believe to be true (for which you have zero evidence whatsoever but choose to believe only because they fit your desired and biased narrative) and so because others don't believe your assumptions to be true you accuse those pathetic disbelievers of failing to understand.

 

Oh, the twisted logic.

Zelensky had nothing to gain by confirming that Trump attempted to pressure him, and his country to lose.

 

Is that logic too much for you to grasp?

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

We have all read the transcript.

 

Forgive me for being one who simply sees no evidence of this duress. I have read the transcript, witnessed both President's discussing the call, watched witnesses of the call give testimony.

 

This idea of duress is a supposition made to backfit into a narrative.

 

What if immediately following the call, or even once the whistleblowers complaint went public, Zelensky immediately went public and immediately claimed he was indeed under Duress?

 

Many in both countries would have doubted him wouldnt they? Why? Because he would be saying that his behavior on a call with the President of the United States was not truthful, and that in his subsequent characterizations he was lying. It would also be brought up that in subsequent meetings between high level officials no claims of duress were brought up, or claimed.

 

How could Zelensky explain such behavior, acting "happy" while under duress? You are asking me, and everyone here that your theory, that President Z, and his high level Ministers have partisipated in an elaborate lie to hide their true feelings of Duress.

 

You also must have me believe that despite no malice apparent in the call transcript, that Trump was behaving malevelently in plain sight of everyone. Another acting show.

 

If I do not accept these suppositions of yours, based on a general notion of how people behave under duress, despite no evidence of duress, you claim something is wrong with my reasoning. I doubt YOUR suppositions which conflict with the evidence, and you fault MY logic? 

You have a very imaginative interpretation of that meeting notes summary that is not a transcript.  You also have ignored all the sworn testimony about Rudy Giuliani and company.

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

Watch Pam Bondi's presentation.

Ah yes, crooked Pam Bondi.  The Florida AG who sold out the Florida victims of the Trump University scam for a $25k donation to her re-election campaign.   https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/tracing-the-controversy-of-trumps-25000-donation-to-pam-bondi/2292544/

 

The fact that you find her credible says something about you.

3 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Those with hurt feelings who testified, and were asked about their first-hand knowledge, all admitted that they had no direct knowledge.  All who were asked if they were aware of any action taken by Trump was impeachable, they responded 'no' or sat silently. 

 

Since Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses in the House, there were no rebuttal witnesses with exculpatory evidence.

 

It is notable that the bombshell witnesses in the House all provided information that did not implicate Trump in anything.  It is also notable that those who were on the phone call testified under oath that the transcript is accurate.

No one contradicted it under oath, nor any document. If it were not true, it would have been easy for Republicans to call witnesses to contradict the accumulated evidence. They the right to call true witnesses and they did. It's just funny they called exactly the same witnesses the Dems called before.

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Like the Capone days when politicians can be bought to look the other way. 

An obvious cover up.

37 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

U clearly are a little slow....lindsey announced it a few moments after I posted.

Remind me how many years have passed.

36 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Zelensky had nothing to gain by confirming that Trump attempted to pressure him, and his country to lose.

 

Is that logic too much for you to grasp?

More than likely.

41 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

U clearly are a little slow....lindsey announced it a few moments after I posted.

Interesting. Source?

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Interesting. Source?

My eyes....????

My ears???

He was on Hannity. (cue raucous anti trump supporter laughter and derision)

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

My eyes....????

My ears???

He was on Hannity. (cue raucous anti trump supporter laughter and derision)

I see. Let's wait for an official announcement then....

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Why cant a company pay what it likes. Its an issue for shareholders 

Ok, I understand. Nothing to see here, Hunter Biden, drug addict, recently booted from USNR Officer program for cocaine, no background in foreign relations, gas/oil Ukraine, or Russian, non-Ukrainian, or Russian speaking, is also the son of the sitting VP at the time, the pointman for Ukraine, when the US is trying to have Ukraine increase gas production, is the perfect guy to put on a board of Burisma Gas, and pay in muliples, more then someone on the board of Exxon Mobil. 

 

You must be right I just can't see anything wrong here at all. $85k a month for...........oh it doesn't really matter....does it? 

 

Move along folks everyone knows the real sin here is Presidential curiousity.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

I see. Let's wait for an official announcement then....

I want him to take his time...let the Bidens stew in their own corrupt juices for a bit.

10 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Ok, I understand. Nothing to see here, Hunter Biden, drug addict, recently booted from USNR Officer program for cocaine, no background in foreign relations, gas/oil Ukraine, or Russian, non-Ukrainian, or Russian speaking, is also the son of the sitting VP at the time, the pointman for Ukraine, when the US is trying to have Ukraine increase gas production, is the perfect guy to put on a board of Burisma Gas, and pay in muliples, more then someone on the board of Exxon Mobil. 

 

You must be right I just can't see anything wrong here at all. $85k a month for...........oh it doesn't really matter....does it? 

 

Move along folks everyone knows the real sin here is Presidential curiousity.

are you a shareholder in burisma? If not, its none of your business who a private company employs and for what reason. Z already stated that. Nothing there.

 

At the other end of the spectrum. Public office. How are the credentials of jared and ivanka.

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

I want him to take his time...let the Bidens stew in their own corrupt juices for a bit.

What evidence do you have to call the bidens corrupt.

 

Condidering all the evidence against trump that you refuse to believe.

 

Hipocritical much.

15 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Ok, I understand. Nothing to see here, Hunter Biden, drug addict, recently booted from USNR Officer program for cocaine, no background in foreign relations, gas/oil Ukraine, or Russian, non-Ukrainian, or Russian speaking, is also the son of the sitting VP at the time, the pointman for Ukraine, when the US is trying to have Ukraine increase gas production, is the perfect guy to put on a board of Burisma Gas, and pay in muliples, more then someone on the board of Exxon Mobil. 

 

You must be right I just can't see anything wrong here at all. $85k a month for...........oh it doesn't really matter....does it? 

 

Move along folks everyone knows the real sin here is Presidential curiousity.

Presidential curiosity. Too funny. He isnt curious enough to order an investigation, just for a corrupt country to announce an investigation that Z already stated there is nothing.

48 minutes ago, candide said:

No one contradicted it under oath, nor any document. If it were not true, it would have been easy for Republicans to call witnesses to contradict the accumulated evidence. They the right to call true witnesses and they did. It's just funny they called exactly the same witnesses the Dems called before.

There is no need to call another witness to contradict testimony that is either irrelevant, hearsay, or not true, and already shown to be so. The Trump Attorney's did a fine job without needing additional witnesses.

 

I will prove it. Here I make up something false, obviously so and without any facts. I say you murdered someone.

 

Do you now need a witness to prove you didnt murder someone? Does a lack of allibi prove the case against you?

 

How about you have a motive does that prove a case against you?

 

But if the witnesses against you go on the stand, and your Attorney's prove them liars, or mistaken, or to be presenting only supposition and hearsay, the prosecution against you crumbles. You have no need to call any more witnesses. Despite a motive, and lack of a witness to an alibi.

 

Thus the Perry Mason moment never arrived. Never was needed by the defense, and the House had acresponsibility to button down the case before the dared to bring it to the Senate! They failed!

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Presidential curiosity. Too funny. He isnt curious enough to order an investigation, just for a corrupt country to announce an investigation that Z already stated there is nothing.

I appreciate your additional supposition about the President having no Curiousity, but the President's words on the transcript seem to contradict you.

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

There is no need to call another witness to contradict testimony that is either irrelevant, hearsay, or not true, and already shown to be so. The Trump Attorney's did a fine job without needing additional witnesses.

 

I will prove it. Here I make up something false, obviously so and without any facts. I say you murdered someone.

 

Do you now need a witness to prove you didnt murder someone? Does a lack of allibi prove the case against you?

 

How about you have a motive does that prove a case against you?

 

But if the witnesses against you go on the stand, and your Attorney's prove them liars, or mistaken, or to be presenting only supposition and hearsay, the prosecution against you crumbles. You have no need to call any more witnesses. Despite a motive, and lack of a witness to an alibi.

 

Thus the Perry Mason moment never arrived. Never was needed by the defense, and the House had acresponsibility to button down the case before the dared to bring it to the Senate! They failed!

 

 

 

 

Yeah bolton mulvaney et al. Just heresay.

 

Bolton will have lots to say.repubs will have to answer why they refused him when it comes out. Will not be good for them.