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.
Well, he could have always send BLANKETS INSTEAD OF MILITARY AID LIKE THE SURRENDER MONKEY DID...LOOK IT UP. ASSWIPE!If that was the case why wait TWO DAYS...WHY NOT IMMEDIATELY???And he didn't waste any time once he knew Congress had been informed of the whistleblower. The jig was up.
What's the rush? He had 20 more days,
The problem is what Trump was asking for in exchange for releasing the aid - whether weapon or wampum doesn't matter. You fellas have a knack for irrelevance.
He asked for NOTHING as the transcript proves....but low IQ liberals will follow lying talkingvpoints to their deaths!
didn't the PM say he didn't know aide money was held?It is his interpretation with a bias, nothing more. He is stating it was more than the words actually spoken. That would be like me saying the sky is blue, but someone else stating what I really meant is the sky is gray. No, I meant what I said. Not their interpretation.What is "fantasy" about Ambassador Taylor's testimony?Don’t forget this is their fantasy scenario they are trying to sell here. Nothing else.Well, after hearing his testimony, I have no question any longer what Trump was up to. He was more interested in getting Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into Burisma and interference in the 2016 election (by Democrats, naturally) than in Ukrainian security. Sondland said so. Twice. Clearly. No innuendo.
Handpicked by dems who looked the other way when Biden did it. So.....possible but still broke no laws.
Didn't trump release the aide? nothing investigated. nothing in return. Nothing.
Really...The most explosive revelation came from Taylor, who told lawmakers that one of his aides overheard Gordon Sondland — the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a top Trump campaign donor — on the phone with the president, during which the aide could hear Trump ask about “the investigations.” Taylor said Sondland told the president that the Ukrainians were “ready to move forward.”
The aide told Taylor that Sondland subsequently relayed “that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which [Rudy] Giuliani was pressing for.” Taylor said he was “not aware of this information” when he testified at a private deposition on Oct. 22, and only learned of it last week.
Democrats land damning new evidence in impeachment testimony
Amb Taylor testified under oath that one of his staffers was walking by and heard Trump on his cell phone talking to Sondland about Ukraine. The only problem with his testimony is he told the committee how Sondland responded to a question by Trump.
If this guy was just walking by and eves dropped on Trump's end of the call, how does he know what Sondland was saying on the other end?
This is how amateurish this entire farce is.
Opinions are not admissible in court unless it's from an expert witness.Pure opinion, dumbass.Still purely opinion......In other words "orange man bad."
LOL...
No. Not in any way, dope.
More like first hand corroboration of the WB's complaint.
No.
Sworn, first hand testimony, dope.
Still sworn testimony, dope.
See post #1129. VideoAmb Taylor testified under oath that one of his staffers was walking by and heard Trump on his cell phone talking to Sondland about Ukraine. The only problem with his testimony is he told the committee how Sondland responded to a question by Trump.
If this guy was just walking by and eves dropped on Trump's end of the call, how does he know what Sondland was saying on the other end?
This is how amateurish this entire farce is.
You are not even close to having this correct. You clearly did not watch the hearing.
The phone call took place at a restaurant and the staffer was present when the call was placed FROM Sondland TO Trump on July 26.
The staffer could hear Trump's end of the conversation.
Taylor says staffer overheard Trump ask Sondland about 'the investigations'
If Hillary went to prison for 30 years, as she deserves, do you think she'll be saying that many, many, many people are still hounding her to run for President the day she gets out?right? Joe Biden must be taken down for using my money to make millions from Ukraine. I completely agree with you! thanks. Such corruption should be exposed and eliminated by sending the guilty Joe's to jailAny one who supports this countries biggest threat and enemy are the real traitors here,We won't let you piss on our constitution , spit on our flag or force a dictatorship on us. Scum bag is your God and Leader as he is for all evangelicals..We have a lot of work to do. Anyone who is drawing this out and making believe actual crimes have been committed are guilty of obstruction. But that doesn't bother libs. They've been obstructing for the last three years.
First you have to send Hillary to jail. Got another 30 years to waste?
\
If Hillary went to prison for 30 years, as she deserves, do you think she'll be saying that many, many, many people are still hounding her to run for President the day she gets out?
Hearsay is not admissible evidence, as Jordan made very clear with Sondland's correction that had 6 men and 4 conversations making a mockery of Taylor's "clear (3rd hand) understanding".
Ken Starr nailed the summary, not a hint of a crime was presented, let alone an impeachable crime.
sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.
You missed everything.Okay, seems I understand the DOPers fully here.
the Great Douche being Impeached as involved in Missles-For-Dirt-GATE!
the Great Douche Lies and Deeds are fully illegal. And they are not Americans giving IT Dirt.
Compared to!
Bubba Clinton being Impeached on a Lie over a legal BlowJob.
(Nobody really cares about, really, and as we see the DOPer leader pays Porn stars for sex.).
Where if not done with an underage partner is not illegal. Well, the Great Douche paid for sex and no movie was made to follow the laws on pron star Raw Dogging.
So, both of them are liars, and it seems to the DOPers, care more about a lie about a legal Blowjob are more impeachable here?
As we all are okay the Blowjob never put America at risk, like being involved with a foreign county in election fraud on the USA voters.
Clear this up DOPers. Did I miss anythang?
"The GOP defense of Trump has essentially cratered."The GOP defense of Trump has essentially cratered. "The Ukraine President felt no pressure" since he didn't know at the time of the phone call that the aid to Ukraine had already been withheld--and illegally to boot. The matter of Treaty-bound "investigation" was in the OP.
The withholding was illegal all by itself, and then matters go to when even hearsay is admissible, even in Court. The opening witnesses had been aware for some time that aid was being withheld, and unlawfully. The government employees assigned to Ukraine seem to have known about it. Ukraine officials seemed to know about it. Comments about it are admissible--usual federal rules of evidence.
Then if Ukraine President didn't know about the Banzai Surprise Attack already in progress: Then White House now has major explaining to do. At the moment, even hoping that the appropriations illegally not sent to Ukraine--might prompt some Russian response: Is then an appropriate inquiry. The Congress was going one way. State Department was Going a different way. Guliani was going nowhere, and Ukraine had badly equipped boots on the ground.
US Government provoking a Russian military initiative--met with a Vietnam-war like response?
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Being on the phone call, but not in the room(?): Too far away to be anything other than on the phone call--asking GOP?)
A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?Hearsay is not admissible evidence, as Jordan made very clear with Sondland's correction that had 6 men and 4 conversations making a mockery of Taylor's "clear (3rd hand) understanding".
Ken Starr nailed the summary, not a hint of a crime was presented, let alone an impeachable crime.
sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.
That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.
sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
goodbye to the republic. goodbye to democracy. america is over if trump is impeached
Explain?You missed everything.Okay, seems I understand the DOPers fully here.
the Great Douche being Impeached as involved in Missles-For-Dirt-GATE!
the Great Douche Lies and Deeds are fully illegal. And they are not Americans giving IT Dirt.
Compared to!
Bubba Clinton being Impeached on a Lie over a legal BlowJob.
(Nobody really cares about, really, and as we see the DOPer leader pays Porn stars for sex.).
Where if not done with an underage partner is not illegal. Well, the Great Douche paid for sex and no movie was made to follow the laws on pron star Raw Dogging.
So, both of them are liars, and it seems to the DOPers, care more about a lie about a legal Blowjob are more impeachable here?
As we all are okay the Blowjob never put America at risk, like being involved with a foreign county in election fraud on the USA voters.
Clear this up DOPers. Did I miss anythang?
HTH
He can tell his AG to prosecute them, moron.The President runs the DOJ, moron. He's the AG's boss. He's the boss of everyone in the DOJ.The DOJ prosecutes scum like Biden, moron, and Trump is their boss.Wrong, moron. It's enforcing the law. See, when people break the laws of this country, as Biden did by taking bribes, then it's the official duty of the President to prosecute them. Apparently you believe Trump isn't allowed to prosecute any Democrats.
Don't lie. We all know that's what douchebags like you believe.Wrong, moron. It's enforcing the law. See, when people break the laws of this country, as Biden did by taking bribes, then it's the official duty of the President to prosecute them. Apparently you believe Trump isn't allowed to prosecute any Democrats.
Don't lie. We all know that's what douchebags like you believe.
Damn, you get dumber by the post.Wrong, moron. It's enforcing the law. See, when people break the laws of this country, as Biden did by taking bribes, then it's the official duty of the President to prosecute them.
The president has no such duty, dope. The president cannot prosecute anyone.
You have to be brain damaged not to understand such simple concepts.
The president isn't the DOJ.
Where's Barr in this equation, dope?
The president cannot prosecute anyone, dope.
Speaker phone?Amb Taylor testified under oath that one of his staffers was walking by and heard Trump on his cell phone talking to Sondland about Ukraine. The only problem with his testimony is he told the committee how Sondland responded to a question by Trump.
If this guy was just walking by and eves dropped on Trump's end of the call, how does he know what Sondland was saying on the other end?
This is how amateurish this entire farce is.
Even Republicans are conceding quid pro quoA shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?Hearsay is not admissible evidence, as Jordan made very clear with Sondland's correction that had 6 men and 4 conversations making a mockery of Taylor's "clear (3rd hand) understanding".
Ken Starr nailed the summary, not a hint of a crime was presented, let alone an impeachable crime.
sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.
That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.
sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
