New Explosive Emails Democrats Call for Witnesses

[2aguy]

Democrats are already working on impeaching Trump second time.

Now that they have discovered that their tactic of false accusations with no evidence works if they have the mob, why not impeach Trump every day?

They have yet to impeach Trump for taking two scoops, followed by two sips of water. That's four impeachments we are lacking right there.

What you need to understand, is that the next impeachment will be really, really, real impeachment......and then after that even more really impeachment........

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Got to love the spin. McConnell is proposing using the exact same rules that were adopted for the Clinton trial 100/0. Funny how the commies change their tune when it's not their guys head on the chopping block. You commies just crack me up.

.

That set of rules allows for dismissal by simple majority. Democrats want a trial.

WAAAAAA fucking Waaaaaaaa

You dont get to chose how the senate does its business...

Maybe in this case we do.

Nothing new... no new bombshells nothing... Just more lefts spin....

 

[Dragonlady]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

They didn't know about it before the call, but they knew the next day or the day after. Trump's argument that they didn't know was refuted by the OBM official who said her people were getting enquiries from the Ukraine asking if the aid was being held up the next day after the phone call.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Got to love the spin. McConnell is proposing using the exact same rules that were adopted for the Clinton trial 100/0. Funny how the commies change their tune when it's not their guys head on the chopping block. You commies just crack me up.

.

That set of rules allows for dismissal by simple majority. Democrats want a trial.

And they'll get one, just like they got for clinton, with rules that were approved by 100% of the senate for the last impeachment. You commies help set the precedent, live with it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

They didn't know about it before the call, but they knew the next day or the day after. Trump's argument that they didn't know was refuted by the OBM official who said her people were getting enquiries from the Ukraine asking if the aid was being held up the next day after the phone call.

Yeah let's just ignore reality. The Ukraine president and his top adviser saying they weren't pressured to do a damn thing. Five high level meetings took place after the call and aid was never mentioned. I guess everyone is lying except house commies, right?

.

 

[OldLady]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

 

[Maxdeath]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is just evidence for why the left MUST be removed from the majority otherwise this dog and pony show will be endless.

 

[debbiedowner]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

You know the board members on the right in a few days will say that the dems would not let anyone testify, I see it everyday although the congress invited Trump and WH witnesses to testify and declined.

 

[debbiedowner]

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

If he isn't guilty then there should be no fear of testifying.

 

[OldLady]

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

 

[Maxdeath]

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

If he isn't guilty then there should be no fear of testifying.

I would never have agreed to testify in the Schiff third Riech type of setup (trial isn't even close). Only those with the authority given by herr Schiff were allowed to ask questions, only questions approved by herr Schiff, only those approved to testify by herr Schiff. Even the transcript was read with added words and added emphasis.

I have no doubt that herr Schiff would have turned any nothing happened into he killed a baby.

 

[Maxdeath]

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

So you weren't cheering the marches and the riots? Could have sworn you were on here talking up how the woman's March was great. Guess that was someone else useing your screen name.

 

[Rambunctious]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

It looks like a 12 year old put together your link....try again butthole....

 

[B. Kidd]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Not another Dem-state media explosion!

We've only had thousands of these since Trump took office!!

 

[easyt65]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Ahhh, the latest heart-breaking disappointment Democrats are feeding snowflakes.

'We've got him this time's.

Bwuhahahaha....

 

[OldLady]

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

So you weren't cheering the marches and the riots? Could have sworn you were on here talking up how the woman's March was great. Guess that was someone else useing your screen name.

The Woman's March was great. It certainly wasn't a riot. I was proud of the women who came together and reminded D.C. that they are also a power to be reckoned with. I didn't see it so much a criticism of Trump as an affirmation of who we are.

 

[Maxdeath]

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

So you weren't cheering the marches and the riots? Could have sworn you were on here talking up how the woman's March was great. Guess that was someone else useing your screen name.

The Woman's March was great. It certainly wasn't a riot. I was proud of the women who came together and reminded D.C. that they are also a power to be reckoned with. I didn't see it so much a criticism of Trump as an affirmation of who we are.

Really? Funny not one of the boneheads even thought of marching during either of 44 elections. Part of the stated reason for the march was that they felt Trump would take away women's rights. I see that happened, all women have become second class citizens, NOT.
By the way I never meant to even hint that it was a riot. There were other riots.

I am not exactly sure why anyone would be proud to run around in that type of costume. Especially with children in tow and some even dressed in the same costume.

 

[OldLady]

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

So you weren't cheering the marches and the riots? Could have sworn you were on here talking up how the woman's March was great. Guess that was someone else useing your screen name.

The Woman's March was great. It certainly wasn't a riot. I was proud of the women who came together and reminded D.C. that they are also a power to be reckoned with. I didn't see it so much a criticism of Trump as an affirmation of who we are.

Really? Funny not one of the boneheads even thought of marching during either of 44 elections. Part of the stated reason for the march was that they felt Trump would take away women's rights. I see that happened, all women have become second class citizens, NOT.
By the way I never meant to even hint that it was a riot. There were other riots.

I am not exactly sure why anyone would be proud to run around in that type of costume. Especially with children in tow and some even dressed in the same costume.

There were nearly half a million people there, and the couple of people in the stupid vagina costumes are all you can think of, right? Do you know what the women in the march were there for? Look it up.

 

[OldLady]

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

So you weren't cheering the marches and the riots? Could have sworn you were on here talking up how the woman's March was great. Guess that was someone else useing your screen name.

The Woman's March was great. It certainly wasn't a riot. I was proud of the women who came together and reminded D.C. that they are also a power to be reckoned with. I didn't see it so much a criticism of Trump as an affirmation of who we are.

Really? Funny not one of the boneheads even thought of marching during either of 44 elections. Part of the stated reason for the march was that they felt Trump would take away women's rights. I see that happened, all women have become second class citizens, NOT.
By the way I never meant to even hint that it was a riot. There were other riots.

I am not exactly sure why anyone would be proud to run around in that type of costume. Especially with children in tow and some even dressed in the same costume.

'boneheads?' They had nothing to worry about with supporters like you around, huh?