So much fail and pathetic in this statement all I can do is laugh.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

You're off and running early this morning ...Hope you have a great day!

---

Thanks. Every day is a good day.

---

So no reply to my wager on 2020 election? $500 payable to SPCA. I get Trump. You get field. Deal?

---

Don't waste your time. I have made similar wager proposals, and he is too chicken **** to put his money where his mouth is.

---

I figured. Big time troll.

---

He almost never responds, just goes on to the next talking point.

---

I'm doing exactly what your texags mods advised me to do. They told me to ignore juvenile internet posters who constantly make personal attacks, troll, and blatantly attempt thread derails via ploys like demanding repeatedly to make bets.

---

You ignore yourself?

annie88 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

You're off and running early this morning ...Hope you have a great day!

---

Thanks. Every day is a good day.

---

So no reply to my wager on 2020 election? $500 payable to SPCA. I get Trump. You get field. Deal?

---

Don't waste your time. I have made similar wager proposals, and he is too chicken **** to put his money where his mouth is.

---

I figured. Big time troll.

---

He almost never responds, just goes on to the next talking point.

---

I'm doing exactly what your texags mods advised me to do. They told me to ignore juvenile internet posters who constantly make personal attacks, troll, and blatantly attempt thread derails via ploys like demanding repeatedly to make bets.

---

You ignore yourself?

---

You would all be doing yourselves a favor if you just click the ignore feature on that dude...he's really not worth the time or effort...

Funny thing about her speech also...she stated it's in our National interest to protect Ukraine from Russia, that Ukraine has already lost 13,000 people fighting Russia.

I agree with Pelosi. My question is, where was this outrage when we allowed Russia to takeover over Crimea from Ukraine? Why werent Obama and Congress sticking up for Ukraine then? Why did we allow Russia to walk all over our ally, and hurt our own national interest? Where was our aid then?

But now we're supposed to be upset that aid was held up for 2 months, and ultimately given, while Ukraine was going through national elections and we didn't know quite yet who we were dealing with?

captkirk said:

---

---

Nice half truth from Solomon here. He knows his "do not prosecute list" was a fabrication


This is the NYT article he's referencing:

Quote:

---

The State Department dismissed Mr. Lutsenko's claim as "an outright fabrication," and he later acknowledged that the "don't prosecute list" never existed. In the interview, he blamed the misstep on a bad translation and insisted that Ms. Yovanovitch had, in fact, pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/europe/ukraine-prosecutor-trump.html

---

This is the top notch work Giuliani and his ragtag bunch of international criminals were doing in Ukraine. And Trump fell for it.

annie88 said:

---

So much fail and pathetic in this statement all I can do is laugh.

---

Just shows you that first of all the media is biased (there was little substance yesterday that wasn't already known from their private testimony--hearsay evidence only) and this whole public farce is nothing more than an attempt to grab the public's interest on impeachment as many Americans largely don't care. Also to try to improve poll numbers in favor of impeachment in vain hope some Republicans might cross the aisle and go for it. None of that is happening.

Pelosi and Schiff if they want this are going to have to take it to the Senate on strictly partisan vote with some Dems actually crossing over and voting against it with the Rs. That in and of itself makes it DOA in the Senate. McConnell will do his duty and have a trial but it will largely be a show trial because there won't be the votes to convict. Trump is also raking in the cash for him and the RNC on the back of this impeachment and no Republican Senate is going to disrupt that cash train to vote him out of office. It would be political suicide.

Please provide support for your assertion that Zelinsky was about to go on CNN and provide the quo.

captkirk said:

---

Please provide support for your assertion that Zelinsky was about to go on CNN and provide the quo.

---

Where is the CNN employee that claims that he backed out of a scheduled interview? That's your best evidence.

txaggie_08 said:

---

Funny thing about her speech also...she stated it's in our National interest to protect Ukraine from Russia, that Ukraine has already lost 13,000 people fighting Russia.

I agree with Pelosi. My question is, where was this outrage when we allowed Russia to takeover over Crimea from Ukraine? Why werent Obama and Congress sticking up for Ukraine then? Why did we allow Russia to walk all over our ally, and hurt our own national interest? Where was our aid then?

But now we're supposed to be upset that aid was held up for 2 months, and ultimately given, while Ukraine was going through national elections and we didn't know quite yet who we were dealing with?

---

Exactly. Fifty-five days versus nearly two years under Obama for lethal military aid. And don't forget Ukraine's neighbors. What were they doing, if anything?

Just curios what do you think of giving the money to the Ukraine?

Gary Johnson said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

Nice half truth from Solomon here. He knows his "do not prosecute list" was a fabrication


This is the NYT article he's referencing:

Quote:

---

The State Department dismissed Mr. Lutsenko's claim as "an outright fabrication," and he later acknowledged that the "don't prosecute list" never existed. In the interview, he blamed the misstep on a bad translation and insisted that Ms. Yovanovitch had, in fact, pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/05/world/europe/ukraine-prosecutor-trump.html

---

This is the top notch work Giuliani and his ragtag bunch of international criminals were doing in Ukraine. And Trump fell for it.

---

Uh....

Quote:

---

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Lutsenko blamed the confusion on the interpreter who handled his interview with The Hill. But he insisted that the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, had in fact asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

---

One of these groups was Soros-backed. Sounds legit

MetoliusAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

You're off and running early this morning ...Hope you have a great day!

---

Thanks. Every day is a good day.

---

So no reply to my wager on 2020 election? $500 payable to SPCA. I get Trump. You get field. Deal?

---

Don't waste your time. I have made similar wager proposals, and he is too chicken **** to put his money where his mouth is.

---

I figured. Big time troll.

---

He almost never responds, just goes on to the next talking point.

---

I'm doing exactly what your texags mods advised me to do. They told me to ignore juvenile internet posters who constantly make personal attacks, troll, and blatantly attempt thread derails via ploys like demanding repeatedly to make bets.

---

Posting articles with no substance or your own comment and never engaging in policy debate is the very definition of a troll.

FriscoKid said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Please provide support for your assertion that Zelinsky was about to go on CNN and provide the quo.

---

Where is the CNN employee that claims that he backed out of a scheduled interview? That's your best evidence.

---

He better have some links, otherwise he just got caught totally making **** up

He heard it from friend who heard it from a friend who

Misinformed posts I can understand. Dishonest posts are another matter

Quote:

---

As a corollary, Pelosi was just on doing her weekly presser. She flat out accused Trump of bribery and then completely dismissed the notion that hearsay was inadmissible in court.

---

You were taught all hearsay is inadmissable in court? Interesting.

Just out of curiousity, what law school taught you this? Because your claim contradicts what numerous ex-DOJ attorneys and criminal defense attorneys have stated.

Quote:

---

Bribery? I'll give you lethal military aid if you give me Biden's head on a silver platter. Is that supposed to be the "bribe" here? Doesn't exactly fit, does it?

---

It fits like glove. Thank you for stating concisely what Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and Sondland attempted. Iirc, a few months ago your legal opinions on the 4A and Manafort search warrants were exposed as egregiously incorrect. Now you're claiming the bolded description you stated above isn't bribery and extortion. Good luck arguing that assertion in a debate.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

As a corollary, Pelosi was just on doing her weekly presser. She flat out accused Trump of bribery and then completely dismissed the notion that hearsay was inadmissible in court.

---

You were taught all hearsay is inadmissable in court? Interesting.

Just out of curiousity, what law school taught you this? Because your claim contradicts what numerous ex-DOJ attorneys and criminal defense attorneys have stated.

Quote:

---

Bribery? I'll give you lethal military aid if you give me Biden's head on a silver platter. Is that supposed to be the "bribe" here? Doesn't exactly fit, does it?

---

It fits like glove. Thank you for stating concisely what Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and Sondland attempted. Iirc, a few months ago your legal opinions on the 4A and Manafort search warrants were exposed as egregiously incorrect. Now you're claiming the bolded description you stated above isn't bribery and extortion. Good luck arguing that assertion in a debate.

---

Its weird Zelinsky didn't know about this plan. Man that Trump is diabolically subtle

There is not a shred of evidence collaborating that article and it directly contradicts testimony from Taylor yesterday.

This coming from the guy who loves throwing Solomon under the bus.

Nice try, Gary.

Quote:

---

Its weird Zelinsky didn't know about this plan. Man that Trump is diabolically subtle

---

The words "subtle" and "Trump" don't often collide in the same sentence.

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

Zakaria admits he has no idea if this reporting from the NYT was accurate and Zelinsky or his staff never discussed this planned "bombshell" disclosure. 100% conjecture and made up nonsense

Gary Johnson said:

---

Is it in anyone's interest for this to drag out for months? I don't think so.

I find it highly unlikely this would work otherwise a president could break any law and block investigation effectively putting himself above the law and above congressional check.

---

Dems have dragged this out for 3 years (whats another 12 months?)... Mueller was always aiming to deliver "impeachable" material to the dems in congress

captkirk said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

Zakaria admits he has no idea if this reporting from the NYT was accurate and Zelinsky or his staff never discussed this planned "bombshell" disclosure. 100% conjecture and made up nonsense

---

Are you sure? I've heard dems have this 6th sense that enables them to "know what a person thinks".

I caught some of Mad Cow and O'Donnel yesterday and they were trying so hard to reassure the brainwashed plebeians that watch MSNBC that Schiff was a paragon of decency and awesomeness with the way he was conducting the hearings.

The guy flat out lied on multiple occasions about knowing the identity of the leaker. You would truly have to be a brain dead moron to believe he doesn't know. I mean, WE KNOW, but Schiff doesn't? Not too mention the transcripts show that he clearly knows because he shut's down the questioning every time his name is mentioned.


These are the people Met goes to to get his talking points. Completely dishonest spin artists.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

Even if you (wrongly) assume that a QPQ is in fact an "abuse of power" by POTUS, doesn't the power actually have to be officially "abused" before you can call it a crime?

---

Holding American/Ukrainian foreign policy hostage for 2 months in exchange for personal gain is a crime.

No its not. Name the statute. Its not bribery/extortion because an investigation is not "something of value". It was also in the interest of the United States (as testified by YOUR witnesses yesterday)

Quote:

---

The Ukrainians were clueless,

---

No they found out by early August

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

Quote:

---

AND they received the money within the standard timeframe anyway, without doing anything for it...

---

They were making plans to deliver the goods to King Trump, because the message was received loud and clear.

Quote:

---

In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014.

By then, however, Mr. Zelensky's staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html

Then luck intervened. Trump got busted and the aid was released 2 days later.

Speculation, you have not idea what did or didn't prompt the Trump team to do anything

Quote:

---

Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky's office quickly canceled the interview.

---

---

Its hilarious that you dems are all upset about this military aid that Obama withheld for YEARS while allowing Russia to steal Crimea.

foreign policy experts.

captkirk said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

Zakaria admits he has no idea if this reporting from the NYT was accurate and Zelinsky or his staff never discussed this planned "bombshell" disclosure. 100% conjecture and made up nonsense

---

Thank you for noticing this, I was just about to state the same thing.

In fact, CNN wanted the interview for the intriguing story of comedian actor turned president, CNN was pushing the interview up until Zelinsky cancelled the interview. Everything beyond that is speculation as to why he may have cancelled it, but zero facts.

CNN wasn't getting ready for dramatic news conference, it was a story on an actor turned president.

IMPEACHMENT HEARING FUNDRAISING UPDATE: $3,144,257

Trump is raking in the cash in the last 24 hours.

Quote:

---

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said Thursday he never saw a direct link between the Trump administration's delay of military aid to Ukraine and President Trump's request that the country investigate Joe Biden's connections to a Ukrainian gas company.

"I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events," Prystaiko told reporters Thursday in Kyiv, according to Interfax-Ukraine.

"Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. You should ask him. I do not recall any conversation with me as with foreign minister. It was not we, the Ukrainian officials [who were told this]," the foreign minister said, adding that he has not had contact with Sondland as an official.

---

National Review

annie88 said:

---

So much fail and pathetic in this statement all I can do is laugh.

---

In other words, admitting not enough style in the face of having no substance. Amazing.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

As a corollary, Pelosi was just on doing her weekly presser. She flat out accused Trump of bribery and then completely dismissed the notion that hearsay was inadmissible in court.

---

You were taught all hearsay is inadmissable in court? Interesting.

Just out of curiousity, what law school taught you this? Because your claim contradicts what numerous ex-DOJ attorneys and criminal defense attorneys have stated.

Quote:

---

Bribery? I'll give you lethal military aid if you give me Biden's head on a silver platter. Is that supposed to be the "bribe" here? Doesn't exactly fit, does it?

---

It fits like glove. Thank you for stating concisely what Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and Sondland attempted. Iirc, a few months ago your legal opinions on the 4A and Manafort search warrants were exposed as egregiously incorrect. Now you're claiming the bolded description you stated above isn't bribery and extortion. Good luck arguing that assertion in a debate.

---

Yes, there are exceptions to hearsay, but you think the general public knows that... It also, rightfully, makes your "evidence" look so weak, sad, and pathetic.



The framing in that quote is hyperbole. Biden's head would only be on a silver platter if he is guilty! An investigation guarantees no political damage (see mueller), unless you are suggesting Biden is obviously guilty?

So take into account the obvious hyperbole, you still don't have bribery and extortion because AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT SOMETHING OF VALUE. I wish I could make the text size 32 because its the point you always ignore.

Plus. You believed Trump was a Russian asset, so I wouldn't throw any stones on being wrong in the past. Engage the argument lightweight.

So maybe Rudy Gulliani should run for President. Then they couldn't investigate him. /liberal thought process

captkirk said:

---

Please provide support for your assertion that Zelinsky was about to go on CNN and provide the quo.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

As a corollary, Pelosi was just on doing her weekly presser. She flat out accused Trump of bribery and then completely dismissed the notion that hearsay was inadmissible in court.

---

You were taught all hearsay is inadmissable in court? Interesting.

Just out of curiousity, what law school taught you this? Because your claim contradicts what numerous ex-DOJ attorneys and criminal defense attorneys have stated.

Quote:

---

Bribery? I'll give you lethal military aid if you give me Biden's head on a silver platter. Is that supposed to be the "bribe" here? Doesn't exactly fit, does it?

---

It fits like glove. Thank you for stating concisely what Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, Mulvaney, and Sondland attempted. Iirc, a few months ago your legal opinions on the 4A and Manafort search warrants were exposed as egregiously incorrect. Now you're claiming the bolded description you stated above isn't bribery and extortion. Good luck arguing that assertion in a debate.

---

Yes, there are exceptions to hearsay, but you think the general public knows that... It also, rightfully, makes your "evidence" look so weak, sad, and pathetic.



The framing in that quote is hyperbole. Biden's head would only be on a silver platter if he is guilty! An investigation guarantees no political damage (see mueller), unless you are suggesting Biden is obviously guilty?

So take into account the obvious hyperbole, you still don't have bribery and extortion because AN INVESTIGATION IS NOT SOMETHING OF VALUE. I wish I could make the text size 32 because its the point you always ignore.

Plus. You believed Trump was a Russian asset, so I wouldn't throw any stones on being wrong in the past. Engage the argument lightweight.

---

BINGO. You can't commit bribery or extortion without trying to obtain something of value. Just a fact ...

Quote:

---

Speculation, you have not idea what did or didn't prompt the Trump team to do anything

---

He got busted. A cabal of angry senators and congressmen demanded it be released. 36 hours later they did it. It's not rocket science.