The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[progressive hunter]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

neither did the republicans or trump,,,

Hahaha good one. The Republicans are extinct. The last one died in Arizona a while back. The rest had to quit or Kiss the Ring and become Trumpublicans. I bet ol'Trumpybear was livid when he found out he was busted in his Ukraine Shakedown.

I think Congress should rename Pennsylvanian Ave too.

Call it:



Send your letters to
President Trumpybear
1600 Shake Down Street
Washington DC 20500

Biden, partners receive $16.5 mln in payments stolen from Ukraine – MP Derkach

 

[BlindBoo]

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

neither did the republicans or trump,,,

Hahaha good one. The Republicans are extinct. The last one died in Arizona a while back. The rest had to quit or Kiss the Ring and become Trumpublicans. I bet ol'Trumpybear was livid when he found out he was busted in his Ukraine Shakedown.

I think Congress should rename Pennsylvanian Ave too.

Call it:



Send your letters to
President Trumpybear
1600 Shake Down Street
Washington DC 20500

Biden, partners receive $16.5 mln in payments stolen from Ukraine – MP Derkach

Derkach is an independent lawmaker who was previously aligned with a pro-Russia party. He is also the son of a KGB agent and attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow.

Giuliani meets in Kyiv with KGB-trained Ukrainian lawmaker looking to investigate Hunter Biden

 

[progressive hunter]

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

neither did the republicans or trump,,,

Hahaha good one. The Republicans are extinct. The last one died in Arizona a while back. The rest had to quit or Kiss the Ring and become Trumpublicans. I bet ol'Trumpybear was livid when he found out he was busted in his Ukraine Shakedown.

I think Congress should rename Pennsylvanian Ave too.

Call it:



Send your letters to
President Trumpybear
1600 Shake Down Street
Washington DC 20500

Biden, partners receive $16.5 mln in payments stolen from Ukraine – MP Derkach

Derkach is an independent lawmaker who was previously aligned with a pro-Russia party. He is also the son of a KGB agent and attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow.

Giuliani meets in Kyiv with KGB-trained Ukrainian lawmaker looking to investigate Hunter Biden

and your point is??

 

[The Original Tree]

I think The President now gets to argue that he gets a 3rd term.

Call this the backlash of unintended consequences.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think The President now gets to argue that he gets a 3rd term.

Call this the backlash of unintended consequences.

Better get started on that new Amendment right away.

I think we should honor old Trumpybear all the same. His face should be forever enshrined on the quarter dollar coin

Good old Two-Bit Trumpybear.

 

[BlindBoo]

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

neither did the republicans or trump,,,

Hahaha good one. The Republicans are extinct. The last one died in Arizona a while back. The rest had to quit or Kiss the Ring and become Trumpublicans. I bet ol'Trumpybear was livid when he found out he was busted in his Ukraine Shakedown.

I think Congress should rename Pennsylvanian Ave too.

Call it:



Send your letters to
President Trumpybear
1600 Shake Down Street
Washington DC 20500

Biden, partners receive $16.5 mln in payments stolen from Ukraine – MP Derkach

Derkach is an independent lawmaker who was previously aligned with a pro-Russia party. He is also the son of a KGB agent and attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow.

Giuliani meets in Kyiv with KGB-trained Ukrainian lawmaker looking to investigate Hunter Biden

and your point is??

I'll have to think about that one for a while.

 

[Slade3200]

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

 

[progressive hunter]

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

key word being "SPECULATING",,,which is another word for OPINION

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

Cool...most progressives don't care if Biden drops out the race...

and more so, if the Bidens are guilty of crimes, then the FBI and DOJ should charge them and they should go to jail...

Now....back to the testimonies of Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc -- do you understand that the bullshit they say on Fox News to appease their sycophant base doesn't play well under oath??

I'm amused that you think any of them are lying, Biff. What pray tell would they have to lie about? The actions that the Trump Administration took with the Ukraine aren't any different than actions taken by the last twenty administrations. When is it going to dawn on you that there isn't any THERE...there?

I don't remember hearing about other administrations asking foreign countries to open and publicly announce an investigation into their political opponent. Do you have a link?

 

[Mike473]

Of course Hunter should be called in to testify.

Romney and the other fence sitters may be willing to vote for witnesses like Bolton. But, they wont even cast that vote if the end result is that only prosecution witnesses end up on the stand. That would look very bad for them. They will go middle of the road and vote for both sides top witness selections.

Chuck and Nancy must come to terms with the fact that getting Bolton and their other witness selections will only occur if the Bidens, Adam Schiff and the Whistle blower also take the stand.

If the Dems don't agree, the GOP has all the reasons they need to simply put it to a vote and dismiss.

The prosecution does not get to decide for the defense which witnesses they can call to make their case. In this case, it will come down to a majority vote in the Senate.

When it comes to the Democrats, if what they say is true, I am sure the Bidens and Schiff would love to testify. It would put them in position to severely damage the Presidents case if what they claim is true. I would think they would be demanding to testify in the trial.

 

[Slade3200]

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

key word being "SPECULATING",,,which is another word for OPINION

They were testifying to what the administrations objectives were from what they saw and what they were directed to do. That’s not speculation thats experience

 

[progressive hunter]

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

key word being "SPECULATING",,,which is another word for OPINION

They were testifying to what the administrations objectives were from what they saw and what they were directed to do. That’s not speculation thats experience

no,,,thats opinion,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

key word being "SPECULATING",,,which is another word for OPINION

They were testifying to what the administrations objectives were from what they saw and what they were directed to do. That’s not speculation thats experience

no,,,thats opinion,,,

That’s your opinion

 

[progressive hunter]

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

key word being "SPECULATING",,,which is another word for OPINION

They were testifying to what the administrations objectives were from what they saw and what they were directed to do. That’s not speculation thats experience

no,,,thats opinion,,,

That’s your opinion

no,,,thats a fact,,,

 

[Slade3200]

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

key word being "SPECULATING",,,which is another word for OPINION

They were testifying to what the administrations objectives were from what they saw and what they were directed to do. That’s not speculation thats experience

no,,,thats opinion,,,

That’s your opinion

no,,,thats a fact,,,

As I said... it’s your opinion that it’s a fact. That’s ok, you can think whatever you want, as silly as it may be.

 

[Olde Europe]

Derkach is an independent lawmaker who was previously aligned with a pro-Russia party. He is also the son of a KGB agent and attended the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow.

Giuliani meets in Kyiv with KGB-trained Ukrainian lawmaker looking to investigate Hunter Biden

Yep, Derkach is a conspiracy crackpot, and, of course, Giuliani is in bed with him. Since that collusion worked like a charm in 2016, and they got away with it, why not repeat it in 2020?

BTW, the Examiner is crap. Here's a better, more detailed account of the man, and his shenanigans, and why he is so irresistible to the other disinformation artist, Giuliani. Apparently, those 150+ contacts between Trump's campaign with Russians in 2016, many of them Russian intelligence, weren't enough, so Giuliani has to add to that to get the ratfuking in 2020 going. It reads like the worst spy novel ever written, as it has "FAKE" printed all over it.

Funny how all those who try to smear Joe and Hunter have, at best, a tenuous connection with reality, and could be said to be highly economical with the truth.

 

[iceberg]

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

you have to admit a "look into that crime please" could be politicized and characterized how the left is doing it now, right?

 

[Slade3200]

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.