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.
You may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.
Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:
First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.
You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:
Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide
Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs
Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert
I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.
I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.
Vindman and Sondland have already testified. Are you going to enjoy that nothingburger just like the last one, dumbass?
I'm ready to see them testify in public. I will enjoy it a lot, thank you.
Yes, they could one up the Senate by not impeaching Trump and saying they will leave it to the voters to decide. However, that won't work. Trump would claim a victory stating it was another democrat witch hunt to discredit him. I think the democrats have gone too far to back down now.Your side lost the election, IM2, move on and vote him out in a year."Are you saying running for office makes one immune form investigation? If not, we have a treaty with Ukraine on criminal investigations, I haven't seen where politicians are exempted form that treaty."
It is against the law to ask a foreign government to investigate your political rival. Get that through your think skulls Trumpers. Stop being disingenuous.
No laws have been broken and Schiff and Pelosi know it, they are just trying to muddy the waters for
the inept and confused. Your stable of mules couldn't win an election for dog catcher....and they know it.
(R) nutters need to move on from that tired old excuse. if that happened, then y'all could finally stop bring up hillary everytime you hafta defend donny.
Consider this plan.
If the Democrats were actually clever.......they'd hold the hearings......and then vote not to impeach.
Why?
a. they know the Republican Senate is a dead end for the ploy
b. independent voters have made clear that they are sick of the charade
c. the only hope is to damage Trump for the election....and they can see that it isn't working
d. they realize that if it gets to the Senate.....the Republicans can recall not just the same 'witnesses'...and ask what they want
and when they want....
e. but they can call Schiff to testify!!!!
Also, there are a lot of witness yet to testify and there may be more. Unlike last week's witnesses, the upcoming witnesses are much closer to Trump which means they could make things a lot worse for Trump such that a Senate acquittal might be impossible. If republican senators see Trump as a looser, they will desert him.
It doesn't take a crystal ball to put the pieces together.I did not claim Zelensky took Trump's request to be a threat at that time. As you said, he did know the funds were frozen. At that time, Zelensky would could consider it a simple request for a favor. However, in about a week, Zelensky would learn Trump's request for a favor was not a request.So you're saying it is just a coincidence that Trump withheld the military aid just days before the phone call. And it's just coincidental that Trump dropped a request that Zelensky open a corruption investigation when discussing military aid in the phone conversation. And of course, it's just a coincidence that Biden's son worked for the company to be investigated. And it was coincidental that Trump fired the Ambassador to the Ukraine, who was not on the Trump team, just weeks before the phone call. And of course Zelensky's much sought after meeting with the president was being delayed.What you said is like the call transcript. It's available for all to see.
Trump holds up money to Ukraine for whatever purposes he held it up for. But because it may have also benefited him in the event he ran against Biden, that makes it an impeachable offense. Did you not say that?
And if so, that means that Trump couldn't have held up the money for any reason, even if he knew it would end up in corrupt hands, because Biden is in the race. Did you not say that???
WOW! What a strange series of coincidences.
Riddle me this: If Zelensky took Trump's request as a threat, how is it he had no idea US aid was being held up? I mean, if an inspector comes to my house to complain my house paint is chipping, and I offer him 100 to ignore it, we both know I bribed him. I gave him a hundred bucks, and he got in his car and left.
What the left is trying to claim here, is that Trump bribed Zelensky, and Zelensky had no idea he'd just been bribed. Yes, Trump wanted to know the association between Hunter and Ukraine. After all, the drug addict got a job in a field he didn't know anything about, in a country he didn't know anything about; not even the language, all while his father was not only the VP, but in charge of goings on in the country.
Zelensky was told to work with Juliana which made sense because Trump had removed the ambassador. Obviously Juliana's part in this was to act as Trump's go between in regard to a public announcement of the investigation and providing details to the president. No doubt, there would have been an announcement of an investigation had the whisleblower's complaint not come out about 2 weeks after the phone call.
Again, more Thought Police claims. And please tell me where you purchased that crystal ball, because all the ones I purchased never seemed to work.
Trump recalls the Ukraine ambassador a few weeks before freezing Ukraine military aid. Zelenski's meeting with Trump is put on hold. Trump ask Zelenski to open an investigation of the Bidens. He sends Giuliani to the Ukraine and ask Zelenski to work with him. The whistleblower exposes Trump's scheme to force Zelenski to open an investigation. The House announces an investigation of Trump. Military aid is restored.
Should be a Real Snore Fest today and for the rest of the week.the media are acting as if Schitt is the oracle of truth
i call him "Secret Agent Man"
Where is this DOUCHE then?My opinion, since The Democrats are refusing to allow The Republicans any Witnesses of their own, that this is going to be extremely boring. There won't be any back and forth. There won't be any counter narrative, or a lot of cross examining of the Witnesses. All the KEY people are not allowed to testify or are being kept secret from The American People.Should be less than interesting and I'm wondering what Trump and his attorneys will make of it all especially when they get to speak with all the so called witnesses.
Another steaming pile of horse shit brought to you by the Dems who are paving the way for a Trump win in 2020.
Enjoy.
^Lie.
If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.
He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.
There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.
If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.
If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.
He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.
There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.
If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.
Hey dumbass! Being "recalled" means you are removing an ambassador that does not meet with the approval of the host country. Zelensky did not care for Yovanovitch. She was told to get back to the US on the next plane and was fired.
If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.
He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.
There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.
If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.
Hey dumbass! Being "recalled" means you are removing an ambassador that does not meet with the approval of the host country. Zelensky did not care for Yovanovitch. She was told to get back to the US on the next plane and was fired.
Link? What indication do you have that Zelinsky didn't "care" for the ambassador?
Ask penceHelp please. Trump calls Jennifer Williams a "Never trumper." She is a member of Pence's staff. If she is a Never trumper," why was she hired in the first place? Duh.The Law Enforcement Assistance and Cooperation Treaty with Ukraine specifies that the designated officials of the two nations are the US Attorney General and the Ukraine Minister of Justice, (3.1.d.). The treaty binds those two offices--and so the usual rules in both nations, regarding those offices: In the Treaty. So from the New York Times, about the phone--Barbarous Anti-American sentiment is apparently what the White House has documented.
"A Justice Department official said that Mr. Barr had no knowledge of the call until the director of national intelligence and the intelligence community’s inspector general sent the department the whistle-blower’s criminal referral late last month, and that Mr. Trump has not spoken with the attorney general “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son.”
Political interference is not considered cause, stated in the Treaty provisions.
https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf
Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Red-Hatter waving takes on a new appearance. "Banzai! Surprise!" Attack on the USA apparently is supported--or on Ukraine, or Crimea!)
Show that there is an actual leakerI know some of "strategy", and I can tell that a distraction is happening which is dangerous.
The character named as the whistleblower still is working and "spying" in favor of Democrats.
This is what nobody is paying attention to.
His identity must be revealed in order to validate the claims. This is to say, such a character must have followed the correspondent procedure and channels for his assumed report made according to his point of view. Any "I heard this and that" is invalid. Without the present testimony of such a character there is no valid impeachment.
Just check the former impeachments, the accuser was present, evidence was presented which clearly without doubt pointed the former presidents at fault. In this so called impeachment only "heard says" have been presented.
In private business this problem is solved by sending home without pay to all the ones doing the same job of the whistlblower. Eventually one of the affected ones will end pointing the finger on the identity of the suspect.
Just remember, the wistleblower still is continuing with his spy "job" inside that agency.
There is no actual whistle blower. Schitt’s is the personOn with whistleblower laws, assfuck.Biden got what he wanted via threats and mysteriously his son ends up on a Ukrainian gravy train
Trump asked for and got nothing
Trump is being investigated and his primary accuser is hidden
What Nation and what planet are we on?
The WB reported a crime. You stupid fucks act like this is a case of rape where Trump raped the whistleblower.
Actually, they are showing their handlers in Russia, they got itHearsay proves nothing. They are looking for the crime the way Communists do.He can and he has done so.Trump is foreign policy, he really can't do much wrong.No not at all explain?Oh Jesus fucking Christ! Will you people please get on topic or just shut the fuck up. Do you even understand the difference between Clinton's actions and Trump's in relation to national security, the integrity of the constitution and the founders intent regarding impeachment? I don't think so.
Where the impeachment case stands as Democrats prepare to bring a barrage of new witnesses
Are you of the position that trump can’t respond in kind?
He was treated maliciously
MALICIOUSLY
This entire inquiry is malicious
Bullshit. Trump has committed serious violations.
We will much more . They got nothingYou may hear that next week as more witnesses closer to Trump start testifying.Not at all. We're all behind you. Just give us empirical evidence that Trump did such a thing, because so far, not one of you has been able to do it yet.
Keep dreaming. Usually they put their strongest witnesses up first. They shot their load. It's over. What we were treated to was several people who stated in front of Congress they had no first hand knowledge about anything with Trump and the supposed bribery, or quid pro quo, or whatever term they are calming now. But here's the stupidity of all this:
First off, a President delaying funds is not an impeachable offense. Secondly, you can't bribe or blackmail (another lib word going around) a person when the so called subject has no idea they are being bribed. Thirdly, Trump never got anything in return either before or after the funds were released. Fourth of course, nobody can claim Trump was using bribery in effort to promote his campaign, because nobody knows who he'll be running against yet. Lastly, the best thing for Trump would be to have Biden as his opponent. I can't think of anybody more confused, more out of touch in that pathetic Democrat lineup than Biden.
You wish it was over. This week, for your viewing pleasure, we have:
Tuesday -
Jennifer Williams, aide to Mike Pence
Lt Col Alexander Vindman, NSC aide
Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine
Tim Morrison, NSC aide
Wednesday -
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union
Laura Cooper, Deputy Asst Secy of Defence
David Hale, Under Secy of State for Political Affairs
Thursday -
Fiona Hill, Former White House Russia Expert
I am especially interested in the testimony of Vindman and Sondland.
I bought an extra large bag of impeachment blend popcorn. I can't wait.
Vindman and Sondland have already testified. Are you going to enjoy that nothingburger just like the last one, dumbass?
I'm ready to see them testify in public. I will enjoy it a lot, thank you.
If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.
He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.
There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.
If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.
Hey dumbass! Being "recalled" means you are removing an ambassador that does not meet with the approval of the host country. Zelensky did not care for Yovanovitch. She was told to get back to the US on the next plane and was fired.
Link? What indication do you have that Zelinsky didn't "care" for the ambassador?
Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”
Fact check: Trump tweets Ukraine's president spoke unfavorably of Yovanovitch. Here's what we know.
There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.
Did you read your link? He said it after Trump brought her up. Zelensky would do or say anything Trump wanted him to...Trump was extorting him after all.
If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.
There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.
If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.
Hey dumbass! Being "recalled" means you are removing an ambassador that does not meet with the approval of the host country. Zelensky did not care for Yovanovitch. She was told to get back to the US on the next plane and was fired.
Link? What indication do you have that Zelinsky didn't "care" for the ambassador?
Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”
Fact check: Trump tweets Ukraine's president spoke unfavorably of Yovanovitch. Here's what we know.
There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.
Why would the State Department tell Yovanovich that she did nothing wrong if she had lost the confidence of the host country?
We know how this played out. Yovanovich pushed back against the "drug deal" that the "Three Amigos" were scheming and so she had to be removed to let Rick Perry secure Ukrainian drilling rights for his donors and to make conspiracy theories come to life to make Trump look like Russia didn't help him win. ( they did)
. "Enter Ambassador William Taylor, whose testimony has been something to behold. It would be hilariously parodic if the goal of the Democrats - removing a sitting US president - were not so serious.
Rep. Jim Jordan’s recounting of how Ambassador Taylor came to his “clear understanding” of President Trump’s supposed quid pro quo demand of Zelensky reads like something out of Monte Python.
Reciting the words of US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Jordan said: “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermack on Sept 1, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.”
Ambassador Taylor made a mockery of himself and of the impeachment hearings. As Rep. Jordan noted, Mr. Taylor was supposed to be Adam Schiff’s “star witness.”
…his role as a tool of a decrepit kakistocracy ( government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state)…” William Taylor Joins Robert Mueller on the Ash Heap of the Deep State's Altar
NOTHING that Biden may have done will undo what Trump has done. NOTHINGInvestigate them all. But only picking one & wanting an announcement more than the actual investigation should be a hint.
Did any of the others have a son raking in millions from Burisma while they were running point for the country? Even officials from the maobama admin expressed concern, but when Trump express the same concern it's suddenly impeachable. Give me a freaking break.
.
Here's what he did: apply the signed treaty.
This one:
We have a signed treaty to that effect....
If that is a problem.....
....why did Bill 'the rapist' Clinton sign a treaty with the Ukraine with exactly the same purpose?????
"Formal Title
Date Received from President
- Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998, and with an Exchange of Notes signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application.
- 11/10/1999 Text of Treaty Document available as:
- TXT"
- TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
__________
MESSAGE
from
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
transmitting
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH ANNEX, SIGNED AT KIEV ON JULY 22,
1998, AND WITH AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WHICH
PROVIDES FOR ITS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION
Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Of course you didn't know this, huh?
Really, A Trump over calling Bill Clinton a rapist. Who did he rape? Did you forget Trump's rape accusation of a 14 year old? Really?
What US investigation did Trump ask for help with?
It appears that everyone else knows.....except you, RealDumb.
Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm
And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time | Breitbart
And the Liberal elites have admitted what we on the right have said for decades.
1. Had it not been for Trump's election....none of this would be happening!
With Hillary running, the whole rape-apologist program of the Democrats came to the forefront....and they had to pretend that Trump was on the same level (the gutter) as Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
Here's the 'divide:' the Democrats with at least a double digit IQ are ready to admit the truth, the rape history that the Right has been revealing about Clinton for...what....decades.
You, a total dunce, are still fighting the war you've lost.
2. Which Liberal outlets are now admitting what we on the Right have said for decades?
The New York Times
MSNBC
The Atlantic
Slate
Vox
Politico
"So the recent wave of liberals “reckoning” with Bill Clinton’s sexual offenses should be put into proper context. It is not the beginning of the end for the Clintons atop the Democratic Party. It’s just the end.
….the mea culpas from Bill’s defenders proliferating through lefty media, from the New York Times to Politico to Vox, are anything but brave. They’re convenient." https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/dems-...ses-is-the-final-nail-in-the-clintons-coffin/
3. On the other side....lying low-life imbeciles.....you.....who can't keep up with the program.
“Maher asked, "Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998, survive today or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?"
Farrow explained, "Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape. That is nothing to do with gray areas. That is, you know, I think the Juanita Broadderick claim has been overdue for revisiting."
Farrow also said that he is "heartened by the fact that people now routinely express outrage about Bill Clinton and particularly those more serious allegations about him." Ronan Farrow Says Juanita Broaddrick's Rape Claim Against Bill Clinton Should Be Revisited
Is there anything....ANYTHING.....you Leftists have been right about?
Yeah, Trump told him she was bad news, and he agreed. Kissy kissy.If he fired Yovanovitch, that would alert the media so he recalled her. She had to be remove because she would know immediately about the phone call, the freeze on military aid and the implications. Also, if she were there it would be difficult to bring Giuliani into the picture. Giuliani was needed so Trump would not have to be involved in the deal.Because he is covering up his real reason for getting her out of office. Next week, it comes very clear. It's not going to be a good month for Rump.
He doesn't need a reason to get her out of office. He can fire her for being Barry's holdover, or no reason at all.
There were no smears. It's just made up to give her something to complain about.
If the House get's Giuliani in the witness chair, it will be all over for Trump.
Hey dumbass! Being "recalled" means you are removing an ambassador that does not meet with the approval of the host country. Zelensky did not care for Yovanovitch. She was told to get back to the US on the next plane and was fired.
Link? What indication do you have that Zelinsky didn't "care" for the ambassador?
Facts First: Volodymyr Zelensky did say Yovanovitch’s attitude was “far from the best”
Fact check: Trump tweets Ukraine's president spoke unfavorably of Yovanovitch. Here's what we know.
There you go, dumbass! You should have already known.
Actually, I doubt that, because Adam Schiff does not appear at all to me to even be remotely honest.Schiff and Nunes used to be best buddies until Trump came along and Schiff lost his bearings!
