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.
Nothing wrong with being informed, it's just, how does one become informed? CNN? MSNBC? Fox?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.
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]
I find his statement credible. And worth investigating. Not specifically that I believe it.
While I agree with you that what we say here won't affect the impeachment or Trump's Presidency, and is very unlikely to change anyone's mind- I really just don't understand the concept of just not staying informed because I personally can't change something.
Ratcliffe reveals details from closed-door impeachment hearingsThere is another answer MR know it all jackass. I don't know. So blow THAT out your bloated ass!Nice dodge!
You know either Ratcliffe is lying or YOU are!
Just read about it last night-seems moot with the GOP rushing the passer move. Look, I don't care if they remove trump ultimately, but it MUST be fair. I saw Nixon slowly walking the gangplank and it was done in the open to the point of boredom and in a bi-partisan way. It was so transparent, Nixon bolted. This circus is a rush to madness by people I don't respect-Schiff and the squad.
It turns out that there are 48 (FOURTY EIGHT!) Republiscum in on the hearings asking questions!!!!!
OK-BUT-When do we get to see it?!
Did I say toddler or hot toddie?Believe the first oneQuoting you:I am not impatient-I just have a stern standard. Don't try to paint me with the actions of babies or your friends. And if you don't care if the hearings aren't shown, don't be afraid to say so.OK-you don't care, that's fine.
No, we don’t care that you or Trump are impatient toddlers. You can hold your breath until you turn blue. While you’re at it, watch tapes of the Benghazi investigation(s) that went on for YEARS.
And I am impatient-I want to see the evidence Schiff promised two years ago and has yet to show anybody.
Which you should we believe?
The first post where you said you were an impatient toddler?
So in your opinion, when will we see Schiff's evidence?I want to see the hearings-not get second hand reports from the media or Schiff-Understand? And I am impatient-I want to see the evidence Schiff promised two years ago and has yet to show anybody.NO,NO,NO-I mean now while the polls to do it are relevant-give us something NOW to judge. If you wait till the trial, I would say forget the trail-you lost your chance.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Your own impatience?
The Trump Administration has blocked access to the Grand Jury evidence that Schiff promised you two years ago. Trump has also tried to block the testimony of the State Department officials who have testified so far.
When the actual hearings begin, you will get to see all of the evidence. At this point they're gathering the evidence to show you. The witness statements released to the public are pretty damning.
Trump is simply pissed that he can't control the narrative like he did with the Mueller Report. And every time he puts out a story, the next witness statement exposes it as a total lie.
Google Peter Rodino and HONESTLY evaluate if he acted at any time like Schiff. And Trump should provide evidence for Schiff??? Com'on, that's laughable. Mueller tried and struck out. Schiff said I got it, I got it, I don't got it. He's out. I WATCHED THE HEARINGS ON TV- it was transparent-that's all I ask for here-I don't trust any of them D or R. Make it public!Look you sound stupid when you try to describe me-you don't know where I have been or what I have done, so knock it off. Next, My stern standards were at work so I did not follow any Benghazi news-if I did I might have agreed with your position then. I am an Independent not partisan, but I do go after anti trumpers who won't deal fairly. I watched the Watergate hearings many years ago and thought that's how an impeachment inquiry should be run. Just looking for the same transparency now- the difference between Peter Rodino and Schiff is the difference between democracy and fascism check it out.I am not impatient-I just have a stern standard. Don't try to paint me with the actions of babies or your friends. And if you don't care if the hearings aren't shown, don't be afraid to say so.
Where were your "stern standards" during the Benghazi hearings when it was "behind closed doors"?
Oh wait.
You're a partisan pretending you're not.
Oh
The Watergate Hearings had the Special Prosecutor's Report and the Grand Jury Evidence to work from. The Special Prosecutor and Grand Jury gathered evidence in secret.
Trump hasn't even provided the background evidence to the Mueller Report to the House which he should have provided to the Judiciary Committee, and now he's attempting to claim that the impeachment process isn't fair or transparent. So the notion that he's being unfairly treated is probably the most laughable part of all of this.
Trump is trying to suck and blow at the same time.
Ratcliffe reveals details from closed-door impeachment hearingsThere is another answer MR know it all jackass. I don't know. So blow THAT out your bloated ass!
Just read about it last night-seems moot with the GOP rushing the passer move. Look, I don't care if they remove trump ultimately, but it MUST be fair. I saw Nixon slowly walking the gangplank and it was done in the open to the point of boredom and in a bi-partisan way. It was so transparent, Nixon bolted. This circus is a rush to madness by people I don't respect-Schiff and the squad.
It turns out that there are 48 (FOURTY EIGHT!) Republiscum in on the hearings asking questions!!!!!
OK-BUT-When do we get to see it?!
When you human scum stop lying!
So in your opinion, when will we see Schiff's evidence?I want to see the hearings-not get second hand reports from the media or Schiff-Understand? And I am impatient-I want to see the evidence Schiff promised two years ago and has yet to show anybody.NO,NO,NO-I mean now while the polls to do it are relevant-give us something NOW to judge. If you wait till the trial, I would say forget the trail-you lost your chance.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Your own impatience?
The Trump Administration has blocked access to the Grand Jury evidence that Schiff promised you two years ago. Trump has also tried to block the testimony of the State Department officials who have testified so far.
When the actual hearings begin, you will get to see all of the evidence. At this point they're gathering the evidence to show you. The witness statements released to the public are pretty damning.
Trump is simply pissed that he can't control the narrative like he did with the Mueller Report. And every time he puts out a story, the next witness statement exposes it as a total lie.
He said he would send people and papers as soon as they vote to impeach OR drop it. Seems like HE is not the hold up.So in your opinion, when will we see Schiff's evidence?I want to see the hearings-not get second hand reports from the media or Schiff-Understand? And I am impatient-I want to see the evidence Schiff promised two years ago and has yet to show anybody.NO,NO,NO-I mean now while the polls to do it are relevant-give us something NOW to judge. If you wait till the trial, I would say forget the trail-you lost your chance.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Your own impatience?
The Trump Administration has blocked access to the Grand Jury evidence that Schiff promised you two years ago. Trump has also tried to block the testimony of the State Department officials who have testified so far.
When the actual hearings begin, you will get to see all of the evidence. At this point they're gathering the evidence to show you. The witness statements released to the public are pretty damning.
Trump is simply pissed that he can't control the narrative like he did with the Mueller Report. And every time he puts out a story, the next witness statement exposes it as a total lie.
How the hell would I know that? Why don't you ask the guy who is currently holding up the show Donald Trump?
So you found time to be outraged here but were too busy to be outraged about Benghazi.Look you sound stupid when you try to describe me-you don't know where I have been or what I have done, so knock it off. Next, My stern standards were at work so I did not follow any Benghazi news-if I did I might have agreed with your position then. I am an Independent not partisan, but I do go after anti trumpers who won't deal fairly. I watched the Watergate hearings many years ago and thought that's how an impeachment inquiry should be run. Just looking for the same transparency now- the difference between Peter Rodino and Schiff is the difference between democracy and fascism check it out.I am not impatient-I just have a stern standard. Don't try to paint me with the actions of babies or your friends. And if you don't care if the hearings aren't shown, don't be afraid to say so.
Where were your "stern standards" during the Benghazi hearings when it was "behind closed doors"?
Oh wait.
You're a partisan pretending you're not.
Oh
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?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.
.
Ratcliffe reveals details from closed-door impeachment hearings
Just read about it last night-seems moot with the GOP rushing the passer move. Look, I don't care if they remove trump ultimately, but it MUST be fair. I saw Nixon slowly walking the gangplank and it was done in the open to the point of boredom and in a bi-partisan way. It was so transparent, Nixon bolted. This circus is a rush to madness by people I don't respect-Schiff and the squad.
It turns out that there are 48 (FOURTY EIGHT!) Republiscum in on the hearings asking questions!!!!!
OK-BUT-When do we get to see it?!
When you human scum stop lying!
I ask to see it and I am lying????????????? Lets SEE it!
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?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?
.
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.
.
By August the Ukranians knew the aid was being withheld- and according to Taylor's statement, were told that unless they made a public announcement of an investigation into, among other things, the Bidens, that the aid would not be coming, that the Ukrainians wouldn't get the sought after meeting in the White House.
And give us that link about the 'ongoing investigation into Burisma since February- since in August Trump's operatives were still trying to pressure Ukraine into starting them.
Yes 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'
What a mess, embarrassing this constant daily in fighting. read Taylors statement make your own judgment, forget the propaganda put forward by both party's, we need to stop & use our rational minds & not get caught up in all the hype.
Ratcliffe reveals details from closed-door impeachment hearingsThere is another answer MR know it all jackass. I don't know. So blow THAT out your bloated ass!Nice dodge!Before you accuse ask. So ask before you say fake news. You will love my answer.
You know either Ratcliffe is lying or YOU are!
Just read about it last night-seems moot with the GOP rushing the passer move. Look, I don't care if they remove trump ultimately, but it MUST be fair. I saw Nixon slowly walking the gangplank and it was done in the open to the point of boredom and in a bi-partisan way. It was so transparent, Nixon bolted. This circus is a rush to madness by people I don't respect-Schiff and the squad.
It turns out that there are 48 (FOURTY EIGHT!) Republiscum in on the hearings asking questions!!!!!
Mueller listed 10 examples of obstruction of his investigation. Once Tramp gets the boot he will be tried for those crimes.Correct, there were no crimes in his report. there were in Starr's. Thanks for admitting it.Mueller had nothing to do with impeachment, and Barr is still holding back Mueller documents. Barr can't interfere with the House inquiry and therefore Tramp is triggered!so was Mueller then. that's done.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.
.
Turkey most recentlyYou 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'
When did Trump ask Turkey for a 'favor' and secretly insisting that Turkey publicly announce an investigation into Trump's political rival?
Wow that is big news
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.
.
By August the Ukranians knew the aid was being withheld- and according to Taylor's statement, were told that unless they made a public announcement of an investigation into, among other things, the Bidens, that the aid would not be coming, that the Ukrainians wouldn't get the sought after meeting in the White House.
And give us that link about the 'ongoing investigation into Burisma since February- since in August Trump's operatives were still trying to pressure Ukraine into starting them.
Was that from 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand information? And I provided a link already, look it up.
.
Mueller listed 10 examples of obstruction of his investigation. Once Tramp gets the boot he will be tried for those crimes.Correct, there were no crimes in his report. there were in Starr's. Thanks for admitting it.Mueller had nothing to do with impeachment, and Barr is still holding back Mueller documents. Barr can't interfere with the House inquiry and therefore Tramp is triggered!so was Mueller then. that's done.Hey NAZI, Starr was the impeachment inquiry, do try to keep up.
Top DOJ lawyers disagree.
.
