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.
Silly question, for two reasons:Quote where in the call Trump said he was withholding anything.
Wrong again. Yes, in fact, opinions of witnesses can be evidence.Evidence, opinions aren't evidence.
Get over what? The Schifferbrains clusterfuck he gave the American public today?Republicans ---GET OVER IT
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???
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!
He asked for a favor. As the transcript proves. You may want to try a different line of bullshit.
So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?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?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?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?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.
Republicans ---GET OVER IT
We have the transcript of the call, moron. What needs to be corroborated?What's he going to "corroborate?" We have the transcript of the phone call.Bullshit. Neither was there. All they had to offer was their opinions and feelings of what they claim others told them.Wow, try reading the transcripts. These are people that were involved & know first hand about Trump's extortion demands.So far it is just one massive hearsay slander while the people in question are kept tied and gagged in another room without so much as the chance to defend themselves much less air their side!
There is no hearsay evidence. This is not a criminal trial. It's an impeachment inquiry, and is absolutely allowed to be entered into the record.
Ambassador Sondland, who was on the phone call will be corroborating Ambassador Taylors Testimony next week.
Sondland donated $1 million to Trumps campaign, and for that reason was made an Ambassador.
With that information entered into the record, Ol' Gym Jordan is going to look really fucking stupid when he tries to paint Sondland as a never trumper huh?
And anyone that tries to imply he's a DNC witness will come off looking even more stupid than that huh?
See you at the next hearing.
What's the guy who was actually on the call going to corroborate?
That's your question?
What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.
Will the DOPer mods move the thread to the Badlands to hide real facts now?
Silly question, for two reasons:Quote where in the call Trump said he was withholding anything.
1) trump had already witheld the aid. So that was the existing state of affairs. He also did not have to state, in the phone call, that the sun rises in the east.
2) the phone call is only a small part of the body of evidence, which includes, in no small part, the cover up of the phone call
Wrong again. Yes, in fact, opinions of witnesses can be evidence.Evidence, opinions aren't evidence.
Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.So extortion is legal. Who knew?A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.
How does that work?
It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.
If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.
Discussion of mod actions edited
Silly question, for two reasons:
1) trump had already witheld the aid. So that was the existing state of affairs. He also did not have to state, in the phone call, that the sun rises in the east.
2) the phone call is only a small part of the body of evidence, which includes, in no small part, the cover up of the phone call
We don't have the transcript. Come on man, keep up.Quote the transcript.
Wow.... talk about stupidity in highlight... He cant be this stupid, can he?
