Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?Hey NAZI, Starr was the impeachment inquiry, do try to keep up.Hey commie, we're talking about the actions of the house, not Starr. Do try to keep up.
.
No, he was an independent counsel. But Clinton blew it in State court, Starr just summarized his crimes.
.
In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?Hey NAZI, Starr was the impeachment inquiry, do try to keep up.
No, he was an independent counsel. But Clinton blew it in State court, Starr just summarized his crimes.
.
In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
Tough shit. Take back the House, then. Until then...let the tears flow...just get out from behind secret doors.
then it's a lynching by definition,Tough shit. Take back the House, then. Until then...let the tears flow...just get out from behind secret doors.
As you well know, aid was not the only Quid Pro Quo that was held up by Tramp. As early as May Zelensky was aware that he was being pressured to investigate Biden or there would be no promised meeting with lying scum POS Tramp.And how exactly do you what Taylor said, HEARSAY since YOU weren't there, that might be different from what he wrote? Notice how HEARSAY is perfectly OK for their side!!!!!Actually what he said was different than what he wrote, you seem to have trouble disguising the difference.
The congresscritters in the room couldn't say what he said, they could however say what he didn't say, and that was Ukraine knew the aid was being held up. Without that knowledge there could have been no quid pro quo, could there? Ukraine didn't find out the aid was being held till 29 Aug. Shortly after the aid was released and the sale of the anti-tank missals was completed and Ukraine had started no new investigations. They did have an ongoing investigation into Burisma that started in Feb, that wasn't mentioned in the call.
.
Funny Zelensky said there was no pressure, are you calling him a liar?
.
Ukrainian leader felt Trump pressure before taking office
Hmmmmm, who to believe....The guy Trump is putting pressure on or THREE people in a meeting with the Ukrainian President?
well fine let's see the leaker? why are you afraid for him? do you or don't you want to know? BTW, How....do.....you.....know......the transcript.........isn't real? come on commie fk.You have ZERO evidence Trump obstructed justice. The transcript Trump released exonerates him.Fake news from the fake news media and fake American Dems.
Ah the loyal Trumpettes- anything that anyone says that might be construed to make their orange Messiah look bad must be 'Fake News!'
And in this case you are saying that the actual words by the acting Ambassador to Ukraine is 'Fake'
Can't get more Trump/Orwellian than that.
Yep, everything you clowns have chased for the last three years has turned out to be bullshit. You fricken idiots have become so predictable, my guess is you'll find two different new things to piss and moan about tomorrow.
And by 'bullshit' you mean that you are happy with Trump obstructing justice and demanding that a foreign country dig up dirt on his political rival in order to receive military aid.
a) Its not really a transcript
b) It doesn't 'exonerate' Trump from anything
c) Trump only released it after the whistleblower filed his official complaint- if not for the whistleblower Trump would have kept the conversation quiet.
d) The obstruction of justice is what is happening now- Trump's effort to prevent the House from finding out the facts of what happened in Ukraine.
Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?No, he was an independent counsel. But Clinton blew it in State court, Starr just summarized his crimes.
.
In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
That the Ukrainain President is saying that "There was no pressure" was something he HAD to say. Notice that he followed up that support of the President by adding that he's still waiting for an invitation to the White House. IOW's he showed that he's still under pressure to conform with what Trump wants.
Both Trump and Mulvaney have already confessed to the exortion of the Ukrainians. We have the transcript released by the White House. What we're finding out from the witnesses is exactly how that pressure was used and acknowledged - the dual track of foreign policy, and the coverup of these abuses.
They're not "fishing". Trump's behaviour, and that of his officials, so alarmed real diplomats, and American patriots, that they're defying White House orders not to testify and not to provide evidence. And the courts threw out Trump's "I can't be investigated" argument out as "Repugnant to the Constituion".
only witnesses that dems brought in. not questioning their witnesses. why not? come on commie double secret meetings, like the kremlin fks. dude how are your comrades?Republicans have been questioning ALL the witnesses...
they're not worth our time. it is obvious they aren't american.Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
That the Ukrainain President is saying that "There was no pressure" was something he HAD to say. Notice that he followed up that support of the President by adding that he's still waiting for an invitation to the White House. IOW's he showed that he's still under pressure to conform with what Trump wants.
Both Trump and Mulvaney have already confessed to the exortion of the Ukrainians. We have the transcript released by the White House. What we're finding out from the witnesses is exactly how that pressure was used and acknowledged - the dual track of foreign policy, and the coverup of these abuses.
They're not "fishing". Trump's behaviour, and that of his officials, so alarmed real diplomats, and American patriots, that they're defying White House orders not to testify and not to provide evidence. And the courts threw out Trump's "I can't be investigated" argument out as "Repugnant to the Constituion".
Yeah, can't have a president ask another country to comply with a treaty, that's criminal, right?
.
Which committee Republicans have not been allowed to ask questions?Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?Hey NAZI, Starr was the impeachment inquiry, do try to keep up.
No, he was an independent counsel. But Clinton blew it in State court, Starr just summarized his crimes.
.
In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
Not if it violates U.S. law, you can't.Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
That the Ukrainain President is saying that "There was no pressure" was something he HAD to say. Notice that he followed up that support of the President by adding that he's still waiting for an invitation to the White House. IOW's he showed that he's still under pressure to conform with what Trump wants.
Both Trump and Mulvaney have already confessed to the exortion of the Ukrainians. We have the transcript released by the White House. What we're finding out from the witnesses is exactly how that pressure was used and acknowledged - the dual track of foreign policy, and the coverup of these abuses.
They're not "fishing". Trump's behaviour, and that of his officials, so alarmed real diplomats, and American patriots, that they're defying White House orders not to testify and not to provide evidence. And the courts threw out Trump's "I can't be investigated" argument out as "Repugnant to the Constituion".
Yeah, can't have a president ask another country to comply with a treaty, that's criminal, right?
.
No, I didnt read it, so I have no opinion. I'm just saying, let's do this thingy. If the evidence is there, let's get it started.Did you read Bill Taylor's statement? You can certainly have an opinion on what he said.
It is started.
And why didn't you read Bill Taylor's statement?
Is it just that you prefer to be ignorant?
I know the inquiry has started, what I mean is, let's get the articles written, sent to the house, get them voted on, passed, and the start the trial.
What's the point of reading his statement? Is he being honest? Yes? How can you be sure? If i read it and come to a different conclusion, and then come here and explain it to you, are you going to believe me? Likely not.
Here's what it boils down to, I'm tired of all this nonsense. It really doesnt matter what I think. He is either guilty or he is not. So, rather than keep this side show going, let's just get on with it.
The dems are convinced beyond a doubt that he is guilty, the repubs are convinced beyond a doubt he is innocent. The only way this is going to end is to just get to it. Write the articles, take the vote, hold the trial.
I'm sorry, I wish my feelings on it went deeper than that, but, they dont. So, if the dems got him, I mean truly got him, then I'm with ya, so dont delay any longer, make a move.
The House will vote on it when it is ready to. We are still in the very early days of the investigation.
What is the point of reading his statement? What is the point of reading anything? Hell what is the point of you posting here?
What Bill Taylor's statement does is recount what he was told by several people regarding the hold on Ukrainian funds and the push to get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the Biden's.
Next comes interviewing the people who Bill Taylor said told him these things- including getting Ambassador Sondland back and under oath to address the very specific claims that Bill Taylor said he had made.
The threads need to be followed- and then the vote will come before the House.
You're right, why do any of us post here? We enjoy the torture I suspect? If you think that any amount of posting on these forums will ever convince the other side, or sway them to your way of thinking, you are kidding yourself. We here, are locked in perpetual disagreement....again, I suppose we all like the torture.
You believe his testimony, I have no problem with that, and for every fact you lay out, you'll have 20 Repubs with facts of their own to refute it. See my point? This is all a game, a game meant to never be won. We just go round and round from one game to the next. Sometimes the game is fun, there is always excitement in debate, trying to out "fact" the other side, out wit them, and try to win....but I've realized, you cant win...because nobody is willing to concede. We are all so divided, partisan, and hate filled, our egos and pride wont allow us to admit defeat, and when we are wrong...so, the game continues.
On this particular issue, for some reason, I've just thrown my hands up and said "go for it dude, whatever makes ya happy".
There will be one of two outcomes, and they are the same outcome, someone will have egg on their face....and then the next game starts. Can ya guess what that game is? I already know....its the "your side cheated/lied/obstructed/faked/conspired" game.
So....yeah, I've said way too much I guess. On this topic, I just dont care anymore, my opinion isnt relevant, my facts are irrelevant, and my thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. My opinions will have zero impact on the outcome of what happens, or doesnt happen, to trump.
[emoji2957]
And how exactly do you what Taylor said, HEARSAY since YOU weren't there, that might be different from what he wrote? Notice how HEARSAY is perfectly OK for their side!!!!!Actually what he said was different than what he wrote, you seem to have trouble disguising the difference.
The congresscritters in the room couldn't say what he said, they could however say what he didn't say, and that was Ukraine knew the aid was being held up. Without that knowledge there could have been no quid pro quo, could there? Ukraine didn't find out the aid was being held till 29 Aug. Shortly after the aid was released and the sale of the anti-tank missals was completed and Ukraine had started no new investigations. They did have an ongoing investigation into Burisma that started in Feb, that wasn't mentioned in the call.
.
You mean why are Democrats acting like the GOP did during the secret Benghazi hearings?only witnesses that dems brought in. not questioning their witnesses. why not? come on commie double secret meetings, like the kremlin fks. dude how are your comrades?Republicans have been questioning ALL the witnesses...
and? I see no secret meeting threat in that statement. prove the secret meeting. especially the now famous double secret meetings.You mean why are Democrats acting like the GOP did during the secret Benghazi hearings?only witnesses that dems brought in. not questioning their witnesses. why not? come on commie double secret meetings, like the kremlin fks. dude how are your comrades?Republicans have been questioning ALL the witnesses...
Remember then what the GOP said?
"It's clear that questions remain, and the administration still does not respect the authority of Congress to provide proper oversight," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. "This dismissiveness and evasion requires us to elevate the investigation to a new level.
Yes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?In this instance, the House committees are playing the role of independent counsel. They are doing the investigating in this case that was done by Starr in the Clinton case. The committees include Republicans.
Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
That the Ukrainain President is saying that "There was no pressure" was something he HAD to say. Notice that he followed up that support of the President by adding that he's still waiting for an invitation to the White House. IOW's he showed that he's still under pressure to conform with what Trump wants.
Both Trump and Mulvaney have already confessed to the exortion of the Ukrainians. We have the transcript released by the White House. What we're finding out from the witnesses is exactly how that pressure was used and acknowledged - the dual track of foreign policy, and the coverup of these abuses.
They're not "fishing". Trump's behaviour, and that of his officials, so alarmed real diplomats, and American patriots, that they're defying White House orders not to testify and not to provide evidence. And the courts threw out Trump's "I can't be investigated" argument out as "Repugnant to the Constituion".
Yeah, can't have a president ask another country to comply with a treaty, that's criminal, right?
.
Turkey most recentlyYes and? The trial hasn't started yet. This is the investigation. Which accused individual ever gets to part in the investigation?Well guess what, the supreme court says due process applies to congressional hearings. And congress has no authority to act as anything other than congress, and they have 435 members. Today they had a witness form the pentagon and wouldn't allow members form the armed services committee to sit in, when they have primary jurisdiction over that witness. None of the committees committing this sham, can say they had primary jurisdiction over that witness. In fact they had no jurisdiction at all.
.
You can't have an investigation when all the "investigators" can't interview all relevant witnesses. The conclusion has already been reached, now all they are doing is fishing for anything to support it. Your problem is the so called "victim" says there was no crime. Feel free to take that to court.
.
That the Ukrainain President is saying that "There was no pressure" was something he HAD to say. Notice that he followed up that support of the President by adding that he's still waiting for an invitation to the White House. IOW's he showed that he's still under pressure to conform with what Trump wants.
Both Trump and Mulvaney have already confessed to the exortion of the Ukrainians. We have the transcript released by the White House. What we're finding out from the witnesses is exactly how that pressure was used and acknowledged - the dual track of foreign policy, and the coverup of these abuses.
They're not "fishing". Trump's behaviour, and that of his officials, so alarmed real diplomats, and American patriots, that they're defying White House orders not to testify and not to provide evidence. And the courts threw out Trump's "I can't be investigated" argument out as "Repugnant to the Constituion".
Yeah, can't have a president ask another country to comply with a treaty, that's criminal, right?
.
When did Trump ask any other country to comply with a treaty?
Pretty sure that asking a foreign President for a 'favor' and secretly insisting that the foreign President publicly announce an investigation is not 'asking another country to comply with a treaty'
