43 minutes ago, candide said:

Testimonies under oath by US officials. Text messages letting no doubt therevwas a QPQ. Come on. Even some Republicans have acknowledged there was a QPQ. Give it up!

Fact : Z said,normal,no push ,no blackmail  anybody who claims ,assumes presumes he ,meant or said something to the contrary  is in denial,

 

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

Fact : Z said,normal,no push ,no blackmail  anybody who claims ,assumes presumes he ,meant or said something to the contrary  is in denial,

He very diplomatically said he did not feel pressured, did not act according, etc.. And anyway, no testimony under oath so no value. Evidence confirms there was a QPQ. 

17 minutes ago, candide said:

 

He very diplomatically said he did not feel pressured, did not act according, etc.. And anyway, no testimony under oath so no value. Evidence confirms there was a QPQ. 

More of the same presumptions . Fact , he said what he said and the dems or you can't prove otherwise

18 minutes ago, riclag said:

More of the same presumptions . Fact , he said what he said and the dems or you can't prove otherwise

Come on, even some Republicans acknowledge there was a QPQ. Some diplomatic comments does not change the facts

1 hour ago, riclag said:

You have been told many times before these are the words from the key witness they are fact! You don't deal in fact  you only suppose or presume . Give it up ! 

 

Do you understand what "under duress" means?  Hostages do not say things to provoke those holding a gun to their head.

Great news for Dems!  Lindsey Graham confirms more witnesses will testify in the Senate!  This should satisfy Dems.  Ask and you shall receive (but be careful what you ask for).

 

Foreign Relations Committee:

1. John Kerry's chief of staff who was told about the conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on Burisma's board.

2. Hines, Kerry's step son.

3. Hunter Biden.

 

Judiciary Committee:

4. Rosenstein.

5. Sally Yates.

6. Comey.

 

Senate Intel Committee:

7. The whistle blower (obviously at minimum).

 

 

2 hours ago, riclag said:

More of the same presumptions . Fact , he said what he said and the dems or you can't prove otherwise

There are some things that remain facts:

1. The transcript was released and not one witness in the House disputed its accuracy.  One witness, Vindman, admitted he made up his version of it.

2. Trump says no pressure.

3. Ambassador Sondland testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing for the aid.  Sondland admitted that his concerns of quid pro quo were "presumptions."  Sondland was the only House witness with first-hand knowledge.

4. Ukraine officials say no pressure, and they weren't even aware that the aid was delayed.

5. Ukraine received the aid.

 

Anything else related to these five points is merely conjecture.

 

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you understand what "under duress" means?  Hostages do not say things to provoke those holding a gun to their head.

Exactly!

 

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

The reason for this payment can easily be deduced:  Burisma thought they were hiring influence with the US government.  However since VP Biden did nothing to help Burisma or his son, they were mistaken.

Not true. Biden coerced Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was problematic for Hunter's Burisma scam. It appears their payoff yielded tangible results.

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

The reason for this payment can easily be deduced:  Burisma thought they were hiring influence with the US government.  However since VP Biden did nothing to help Burisma or his son, they were mistaken. 

 

Let's take another hypothetical:  A failed real estate mogul has a string of bankruptcies and can't get financing from US banks.  A large German bank is the only one that will deal with him.  Later it is revealed that this bank has been laundering money on a massive scale for corrupt oligarchs from Russia and other places.  The real estate developer is then elected President in an election in which Russia meddled on his behalf.  The new President defies convention and refuses to put his businesses in a blind trust or reveal past tax returns.  He also sues to prevent the bank and his accounting company from releasing financial details.  Shouldn't this President be investigated?

 

Oh wait, this isn't a hypothetical. 

 

"Not our problem? Until this corruption is rooted out and exposed, and justice is served it most certainly is a problem for the USA, if that is who you meant by "our". It most certainly is our problem."

 

I agree.

Burisma didn't get anything from Biden? Are you sure about that... You did not watch the 3 part Ukrainegate video series documentary posted by Tippaporn did you? I think you should.

 

The description there , presented through interviews with Ukrainians is that the 3 million+ dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden Companies can best be viewed as a bribe to Joe Biden.

 

In other words, as I have been saying since this began, Hunter Biden served as a bagman. He provided the place for the money to flow...his Companies took a bribe on Joe Bidens behalf. The purpose? To prevent a shutdown of Burisma.

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

The reason for this payment can easily be deduced:  Burisma thought they were hiring influence with the US government.  However since VP Biden did nothing to help Burisma or his son, they were mistaken. 

VP Biden did nothing?

 

Among other things he pushed for firing of a prosecuter investigating the most corrupt company in Ukraine, used a threat to do so, installed an even more corrupt prosecutor in his place, who cleared Burisma.

 

That worked out pretty well for Burisma didn't it.

 

Go ahead, take a deep breath and let the the truth fill you. 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Great news for Dems!  Lindsey Graham confirms more witnesses will testify in the Senate!  This should satisfy Dems.  Ask and you shall receive (but be careful what you ask for).

 

Foreign Relations Committee:

1. John Kerry's chief of staff who was told about the conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on Burisma's board.

2. Hines, Kerry's step son.

3. Hunter Biden.

 

Judiciary Committee:

4. Rosenstein.

5. Sally Yates.

6. Comey.

 

Senate Intel Committee:

7. The whistle blower (obviously at minimum).

 

 

John Kerry's son dumped Hunter Biden as a business associate over Hunter's crooked Ukraine deal.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal

 

I'm guessing he'll sing like a bird and do everything he can to distance himself from Hunter Biden.

6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

John Kerry's son dumped Hunter Biden as a business associate over Hunter's crooked Ukraine deal.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal

 

I'm guessing he'll sing like a bird and do everything he can to distance himself from Hunter Biden.

Really nothing to that. Bolton and Micheal Cohen dumped Trump and singing like birds. 

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

. . .

Bolton and Micheal Cohen dumped Trump and singing like birds. 

Cohen: sang off key.

 

Bolton: composition unknown.

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Bolton: composition unknown.

Here, only 42 days to wait:

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Where-Happened-White-Memoir/dp/1982148039/

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Cohen: sang off key.

 

Bolton: composition unknown.

The fat lady has not sang for Cohen and Bolton’s book promotional talk shows and possibly House inquiry under oath will be explosive with lyrics and music. 

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you understand what "under duress" means?  Hostages do not say things to provoke those holding a gun to their head.

I'm very surprised your allowed to  constantly make up things.

You can think of what you want  but you nor any other Trump hater can presume ,infer assume,predict what he meant or felt because at the end of the day Z the key witness said what he said .  

Now you are imagining that he was a hostage and making up  more  unprovable nonsense. Get over it!

4 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Not true. Biden coerced Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was problematic for Hunter's Burisma scam. It appears their payoff yielded tangible results.

Not true.  No evidence to support your claim, all evidence shows VP Biden was executing US policy in pressuring for the firing of an ineffective (either incompetent or corrupt) prosecutor.

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Burisma didn't get anything from Biden? Are you sure about that... You did not watch the 3 part Ukrainegate video series documentary posted by Tippaporn did you? I think you should.

 

The description there , presented through interviews with Ukrainians is that the 3 million+ dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden Companies can best be viewed as a bribe to Joe Biden.

 

In other words, as I have been saying since this began, Hunter Biden served as a bagman. He provided the place for the money to flow...his Companies took a bribe on Joe Bidens behalf. The purpose? To prevent a shutdown of Burisma.

As I've already posted, I don't waste time on videos.  The fact that the only "proof" you have for your statement is an unknown self-proclaimed investigator robs it of all credibility.

 

Why nothing about the need for an investigation of Trump?  Clearly the appearances are extremely bad.

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

VP Biden did nothing?

 

Among other things he pushed for firing of a prosecuter investigating the most corrupt company in Ukraine, used a threat to do so, installed an even more corrupt prosecutor in his place, who cleared Burisma.

 

That worked out pretty well for Burisma didn't it.

 

Go ahead, take a deep breath and let the the truth fill you. 

Really?  How aggressively was that prosecutor investigating Burisma?  What had he uncovered?  Who is this other prosecutor you claim VP Biden installed?

 

• Biden did want Shokin fired, but western leaders had widely criticized the prosecutor general as corrupt and ineffective. Biden was leading a widespread consensus in asking for removal.

• A former Ukrainian official said the investigation into Burisma was dormant under Shokin.     https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/11/donald-trump/trump-ad-misleads-about-biden-ukraine-and-prosecut/

 

"Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired."   https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

1 hour ago, riclag said:

I'm very surprised your allowed to  constantly make up things.

You can think of what you want  but you nor any other Trump hater can presume ,infer assume,predict what he meant or felt because at the end of the day Z the key witness said what he said .  

Now you are imagining that he was a hostage and making up  more  unprovable nonsense. Get over it!

Ok, you clearly don't know what "under duress" means, and you don't know the situation Ukraine is in.

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, you clearly don't know what "under duress" means, and you don't know the situation Ukraine is in.

Under duress is made up,its conjecture! Z said what he said ! Fact!

You have been told this many times

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The fat lady has not sang for Cohen and Bolton’s book promotional talk shows and possibly House inquiry under oath will be explosive with lyrics and music. 

Wishcasting.

 

There is nothing to indicate that either one can/will provide anything that reaches yet another occurrence of predicted "explosive" testimony.   

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Really nothing to that. Bolton and Micheal Cohen dumped Trump and singing like birds. 

I think it's a bit late to say Cohen is singing like a bird. He's old news. He's shot his wad. And what has happened to Trump as a result? Nothing.

 

As for Bolton- who cares? Mueller was supposed to be the end of Trump. The walls have been closing in on Trump for over three years. Trump is still president, on the verge of acquittal and the incumbent in an election year with a strong economy.

 

Trump can only be on the verge of removal from office for so long before people's eyes simply glaze over they get bored.

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, you clearly don't know what "under duress" means, and you don't know the situation Ukraine is in.

People know what "under duress" means. We simply haven't seen any signs of it. Zelensky has said quite the opposite. Your statement of it as fact is obviously not fact but your opinion. But I would welcome any actual evidence you have of duress. Simply saying it's fact does not make it so. Zelensky could easily come out and say Trump pressured him and the media/Democrats would fall over themselves to prop up such a claim.

 

Do you have any actual evidence Zelensky has been lying this entire time?

44 minutes ago, riclag said:

Under duress is made up,its conjecture! Z said what he said ! Fact!

You have been told this many times

And Trump cut off all discussion of military aid with "I want you to do us a favor".  Fact!

We're going to have a lot of this cleared up when the senate intel committee

calls bidens and the whistleblower/s. And senate judiciary looks into FISA.

Until then, anti trumpers can keep spouting their armchair analysis.

17 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Wishcasting.

 

There is nothing to indicate that either one can/will provide anything that reaches yet another occurrence of predicted "explosive" testimony.   

Explosive enough to warrant the senators to stop him from being a witness. What you think? 

2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

People know what "under duress" means. We simply haven't seen any signs of it. Zelensky has said quite the opposite. Your statement of it as fact is obviously not fact but your opinion. But I would welcome any actual evidence you have of duress. Simply saying it's fact does not make it so. Zelensky could easily come out and say Trump pressured him and the media/Democrats would fall over themselves to prop up such a claim.

 

Do you have any actual evidence Zelensky has been lying this entire time?

Trump has already held up essential aid once, and he has shown he has the spineless Senate Republicans cowed into submission.  If Zelensky confirmed that was was being blackmailed Trump could seriously damage Ukraine and leave it in a state such that Russia could easily dominate it.  That is what under duress is, and anyone who is informed knows it is a fact.

 

Do you have any actual evidence that Trump would do nothing bad to Zelensky or Ukraine if Zelensky did confirm the pressure?

 

If not, I can't prove Zelensky didn't mean what he said, and you can't prove he did mean what he said.  Therefore what he said is irrelevant.

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

We're going to have a lot of this cleared up when the senate intel committee

calls bidens and the whistleblower/s. And senate judiciary looks into FISA.

Until then, anti trumpers can keep spouting their armchair analysis.

 

20 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Wishcasting.

 

There is nothing to indicate that either one can/will provide anything that reaches yet another occurrence of predicted "explosive" testimony.   

These posts definitely go together.