will25u said:

---

agsfan said:

---

and it's all been corroborated.
argue all you want about how it started, but he hasn't been proven a liar.
and the President admitted himself that if the whistleblower was accurate, he'd vote for impeachment.

---

The original "WB"? The one with 2nd/3rd hand information?

If you READ his "WB" report, and you READ the transcript, not a whole lot the "WB" says is corroborated in the transcript.

---

Don't get what he says confused with actual "facts".

He's good to say he hasn't been "proven" to be a liar, but has zero facts to prove Trump did anything other than give him a burning case of the red ass.

agsfan said:

---

and it's all been corroborated.
argue all you want about how it started, but he hasn't been proven a liar.
and the President admitted himself that if the whistleblower was accurate, he'd vote for impeachment.

---

You know a transcript was released, right?

Did you read your link?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Gonna take more for me to buy that he is a criminal leaker, because he is a second hand witness. The people who told him this information are the criminal leakers.

He also isn't a WB because the president of the united states isn't under the purview of the DNI or ICIG. Its why there was no "urgent concern" to get this memo to congress. It was a complete misapplication of the law.

---

Agree that Ciaramello is not a leaker, Vindman likely is. But when he didn't alert the authorities to the leak, he committed misprision of a felony.

---

Would he have a defense that through his whistle-blowing, he did alert the correct authorities that he received leaks? I mean he put the evidence in an official document and gave it to his boss...

All to smear trump ofc, but it was in plain English he received confidential info.

agsfan said:

---

Did you read your link?

---

Yes...there was no link between the meeting and the statement...per Volker...

FireAg said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Did you read your link?

---

Yes...there was no link between the meeting and the statement...per Volker...

---

He also sent this message to Ukraine:
"Heard from White House -- Assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."

His answer on QPQ
"The answer to the question is no, if you want a yes-or-no answer. But the reason the answer is no is we did have difficulty scheduling a meeting, but there was no linkage like that,"
If you want to take that and run, go for it. But that isn't a hard no, especially considering the other things he said in his testimony and the messages he was sending to Ukraine.

And we have Sondland admitting to meeting with Ukraine September 1st saying telling them aid would be released if they'd start the investigations.

You are arguing to win a meaningless point. Its not a criminal action to pressure Ukraine to investigate a possible crime.

agsfan said:

---

FireAg said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Did you read your link?

---

Yes...there was no link between the meeting and the statement...per Volker...

---

He also sent this message to Ukraine:
"Heard from White House -- Assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."

His answer on QPQ
"The answer to the question is no, if you want a yes-or-no answer. But the reason the answer is no is we did have difficulty scheduling a meeting, but there was no linkage like that,"
If you want to take that and run, go for it. But that isn't a hard no, especially considering the other things he said in his testimony and the messages he was sending to Ukraine.

And we have Sondland admitting to meeting with Ukraine September 1st saying telling them aid would be released if they'd start the investigations.

---

His answer to QPQ was "NO"...just like I indicated...

I'm glad we agree...there might be hope for you yet...

Stop believing lies and start believing facts...

What day is it and who is POTUS?

agsfan said:

---

He also sent this message to Ukraine:
"Heard from White House -- Assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."

---

You have a copy of the transcript of the call between Volker and the WH and what alleged instructions he was given?

What proof do you have that Volker's actions weren't simply just self-serving? What proof do you have that Volker didn't write that text simply to frame a false narrative and then run to Schiff with it?

There's a reason it's called hearsay, bro...and a reason that it is never used as proof of anything...

agsfan said:

---

FireAg said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Did you read your link?

---

Yes...there was no link between the meeting and the statement...per Volker...

---

He also sent this message to Ukraine:
"Heard from White House -- Assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington."

His answer on QPQ
"The answer to the question is no, if you want a yes-or-no answer. But the reason the answer is no is we did have difficulty scheduling a meeting, but there was no linkage like that,"
If you want to take that and run, go for it. But that isn't a hard no, especially considering the other things he said in his testimony and the messages he was sending to Ukraine.

And we have Sondland admitting to meeting with Ukraine September 1st saying telling them aid would be released if they'd start the investigations.

---

So? No mention of Biden or money or anything else

andyv94 said:

---

Go take your meds

---

Do you not have something of substance to add to the discussion?...Or was this comment all you are capable of? Obviously you disagree....so if you have a compulsion to post something, why note explain why you disagree? Or is it just about validation from others on the board?

Nope...he's quite clear there was no intention of QPQ...he says as much...

Read what you'd like, I wouldn't expect anything else based on your inability to read other links you post.

agsfan said:

---

Read what you'd like, I wouldn't expect anything else based on your inability to read other links you post.

---

I read the link. He is saying that if it's a yes or a no, it's a no.

Can I not read either?

Dems can't even win meaningless points.

aginlakeway said:

---

agsfan said:

---

Read what you'd like, I wouldn't expect anything else based on your inability to read other links you post.

---

I read the link. He is saying that if it's a yes or a no, it's a no.

Can I not read either?

---

Precisely...he said if the question is "yes" or "no", the answer is "no"...

Just as concise as "See Spot Run"...

It's crystal clear in black and white...Volker says no QPQ...

Sondland says "oops yeah I forgot about that QPQ"

Amazing how the prospect of prison time jogs the memory.

Now Sondland is changing his testimony?

Quote:

---

Sondland, a Trump appointee, said in his revised testimony that he spoke with Andriy Yermak, a top aide to the Ukrainian president, on Sept. 1 and said that the aid approved to Ukraine was contingent on a statement from Zelensky regarding the requested probes.

"After a large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said in the written testimony.

---

Quote:

---

---

LINK

WTH is going on?

Quote:

---

WTH is going on?

---

Lies.
Perjury.
Political games

Public anti corruption statement is an interesting way of putting it.

"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be

Gary Johnson said:

---

"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be

---

QPQ is completely proper, and libs are just using political theater to protect their criminal politicians.

You libs are like 6 step behind.

Gary Johnson said:

---

"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be

---

Still waiting on PROOF that Trump demanded QPQ...

I don't care if QPQ is illegal or not (it actually isn't, but I truly don't care because every president trades this for that amongst leaders of other nations)...

I still have yet to see actual proof of the alleged QPQ...all I see is hearsay and innuendo...

When can we expect an investigation into the quid pro quo between trump and the military to murder the leader of ISIS for trumps personal gain?

So all these ambassadors were just going rogue demanding a QPQ Trump didn't ask for? Is that what you mean?

Gary Johnson said:

---

So all these ambassadors were just going rogue demanding a QPQ Trump didn't ask for.

---

You have proof that they didn't?

Give us something tangible...an actual recording...video, SOMETHING...

Once we have PROOF of an actual QPQ, only then can we discuss the ethics or even legality of such, and whether or not that falls under presidential powers...

Gary Johnson said:

---

So all these ambassadors were just going rogue demanding a QPQ Trump didn't ask for? Is that what you mean?

---

Or they can only speculate at the intentions and thoughts of other human beings without direct explanation.

You got a bunch of chuckle head "diplomats" And bureaucrats that all think their ideas are the best ideas and see everything through that frame.

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be

---

QPQ is completely proper, and libs are just using political theater to protect their criminal politicians.

You libs are like 6 step behind.

---

You are here.

So the so called QPQ is Trump wanted an anti-corruption statement?

If that is impeachable, then we have to cut off all foreign aid because it is all a crime.

Gary Johnson said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be

---

QPQ is completely proper, and libs are just using political theater to protect their criminal politicians.

You libs are like 6 step behind.

---

You are here.

---

I've been consistent for over a month. Libs have just been wasting time proving something that doesn't matter.

Rapier108 said:

---

So the so called QPQ is Trump wanted an anti-corruption statement?

If that is impeachable, then we have to cut off all foreign aid because it is all a crime.

---

And that then becomes my next question...if there really was a QPQ arrangement, what was it for? Was it to investigate a dude who won't even win his party's nomination next year, or was it to take a public stand against corruption?

Gary Johnson said:

---

So all these ambassadors were just going rogue demanding a QPQ Trump didn't ask for? Is that what you mean?

---

Was Lois Lerner rogue when she went after the tea party or was Barry pulling the levers?

FireAg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

So the so called QPQ is Trump wanted an anti-corruption statement?

If that is impeachable, then we have to cut off all foreign aid because it is all a crime.

---

And that then becomes my next question...if there really was a QPQ arrangement, what was it for? Was it to investigate a dude who won't even win his party's nomination next year, or was it to take a public stand against corruption?

---

We know the Ukraine president ran specifically on being an outsider and anti-corruption.

Given that and our treaty with Ukraine to fight public corruption, asking him to make a public statement that he is going to do it is not a crime or even a QPQ because it gains Trump nothing.