One of you has to have the smoking gun from yesterday's testimony.

We're on the impeachment thread. One of you leftists can surely find it.

These two were your star witnesses. But given that, we just aren't seeing a lot of linking to their testimony.

Judging by the attempts of Schiff's defenders to change the subject, one may well believe that yesterday was a pretty lousy day for Latka and his apologists on this thread.

Mulvaney's statement was horribly taken out of context and purposefully misinterpreted by the media and the left. It was plainly obvious and anyone who still denies this is really self delusional.

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue "investigations," The Associated Press has learned.

---

This is what you think is damning?

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

captkirk said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue "investigations," The Associated Press has learned.

---

This is what you think is damning?

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

But he heard the word "investigations". So what? There were legitimate investigations going on. Barr and Durham have been very open about this. Is there anything more than he/they heard the word "investigations"?

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

Nobody without first hand knowledge can corroborate anything but a circle jerk

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

Feelings, opinions, thoughts, concerns, and hearing a sentence or two does not corroborate anything.

captkirk said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

Nobody without first hand knowledge can corroborate anything but a circle jerk

---

Bingo

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

That's your evidence? And if it is, you believe this is enough to impeach a duly elected President?

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

Well it's all hearsay ... which is sometimes better that direct evidence. Right?

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

Only 2 pages ago you argued the testimony didn't matter because of the transcript?

Allegedly Sondland said after the call "Trump cares more about the investigations than Ukraine."

That's the part the left cares about. Remember, this has shifted from quid pro quo, to "extortion and bribery," to "how could you do that to poor little ole Ukraine."

They are trying to impeach him over policy disputes. Schiff straight up said so yesterday. Ukraine, whom the left could not give less of a Schiff about when their savior was in office, is suddenly the most important country on earth in terms of US foreign affairs.

Quote:

---

Sincerely thank you for answering.

If the leaker is irrelevant now, why continue to lie and cover up his highly suspect association with the man?

Why continue the charade that his identity, that even my dead grandmother knows, needs to be "hidden?"

I personally think there is something very fishy going on there. It doesn't matter that his allegations have been corroborated. If the President is exonerated for all of this, we will need to get to the bottom of what started this Schiff show in the first place.

---

I don't know. A quick search shows the "official story" is the whistleblower reached out to a former colleague for advice, not Schiff or the committee itself. I think it's defensible as a general policy to protect whistleblower identity but I don't know the details of this particular case and facts are still rapidly unfolding.

Even if there was an association, it seems only relevant if they conspired to fabricate evidence to produce the complaint, which would get both in a lot of trouble.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Allegedly Sondland said after the call "Trump cares more about the investigations than Ukraine."

That's the part the left cares about. Remember, this has shifted from quid pro quo, to "extortion and bribery," to "how could you do that to poor little ole Ukraine."

They are trying to impeach him over policy disputes. Schiff straight up said so yesterday. Ukraine, whom the left could not give less of a Schiff about when their savior was in office, is suddenly the most important country on earth in terms of US foreign affairs.

---

It doesn't really matter. They are all bad actors and hopefully this impeachment thing does crash into the sea and sink and Trump get re-elected. Just as was glad when the 98 impeachment against Clinton failed. Because again way too partisan, and the combination of Clinton and a GOP Congress was too good. It was what the 90's needed.

Its going to take something can't even conceive---something that makes the Left's agenda tolerable.

Quote:

---

Allegedly Sondland said after the call "Trump cares more about the investigations than Ukraine."

---

OK. Being objective here, IF that is what Sondland thought then that's still just his opinion. This is really what has the the left all worked up? This is Gary's mountain of corroborating evidence?

That would be like someone saying, "Geez, Joe cares more Aggie football than he does about his family" That's really the extent of it?

agsalaska said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

That's your evidence? And if it is, you believe this is enough to impeach a duly elected President?

---

I'm forming a conclusion based on what we know, not prosecuting a criminal trial with high standards of evidence.

You have 3 Trump apointees including one who donated a million dollars. It's hard to make the case for a fabricated conspiracy against Trump with the known facts and testimony.

FireAg said:

---

https://twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

---

It seems like the paper trails for money transfers this large would be very easy for the DOJ to trace. These people thought this would never be investigated. I bet they were sloppy. I hope Trump's and Barr's DOJ has the desire to expose the corruption.

Gary Johnson said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

That's your evidence? And if it is, you believe this is enough to impeach a duly elected President?

---

I'm forming a conclusion based on what we know, not prosecuting a criminal trial with high standards of evidence.

You have 3 Trump apointees including one who donated a million dollars. It's hard to make the case for a fabricated conspiracy against Trump with the known facts and testimony.

---

OK. But in the end, without hard evidence,(something that does actually exist with Biden), would you be willing to support removing a duly elected President over this conclusion you have reached?

I always wondered what Rachael Maddow's target audience looked like.

FriscoKid said:

---

I always wondered what Rachael Maddow's target audience looked like.

---

Boom!

Headshot!

MetoliusAg said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Enlighten me. Please shed the light on my ignorance.

---

Met is right here, the FISA court doesn't investigate the authenticity of the data presented. That is the job the DOJ/FBI, who unethically (and possibly criminally) mislead the courts by providing unverified information as facts to spy on American citizens.

---

You're closer to the truth about FISA warrants than SFTL was, but it is clear you too don't fully understand FISA warrants and the FIS Court. Kudos to you, though, for getting closer to the mark than 90% of your rightwing pals.

---

Nah, I gotta pretty good grasp. You made 0 arguments in your post, again.

Gary Johnson said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

That's your evidence? And if it is, you believe this is enough to impeach a duly elected President?

---

I'm forming a conclusion based on what we know, not prosecuting a criminal trial with high standards of evidence.

You have 3 Trump apointees including one who donated a million dollars. It's hard to make the case for a fabricated conspiracy against Trump with the known facts and testimony.

---

OK .. and based on that, and without hard evidence ... you want to impeach a POTUS?

There was hard evidence vs. Nixon and Clinton.

aginlakeway said:

---

FireAg said:

---

https://twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

---

Serious **** there ...

---

So is this.

I don't think he'll be impeached and removed unless he perjures himself or something else is revealed(obstruction?). I'd get some schadenfreude from the embarrassment of a trial and censure. I've long thought he was a grifter, con man, tax cheat, and an insufferably stupid man.

To your question, yes, in a real senate trial they'll need more hard evidence and testimony that Trump is currently blocking.

Still waiting for comment.

If an investigation is "something of value", that means HRC and the Obama administration took bribes from the Russians/Ukrainians in the form of the Steele Dossier.

Gary Johnson said:

---

I don't think he'll be impeached and removed unless he perjures himself or something else is revealed(obstruction?). I'd get some schadenfreude from the embarrassment of a trial and censure. I've long thought he was a grifter, con man, tax cheat, and an insufferably stupid man.

To your question, yes, in a real senate trial they'll need more hard evidence and testimony that Trump is currently blocking.

---

So this is all for show?

Quote:

---

To your question, yes, in a real senate trial they'll need more hard evidence and testimony that Trump is currently blocking.

---

Guilty until proven innocent. How "libertarian" of you.

Any comment on the Russian disinformation campaign that lead to the Mueller investigation into a complete hoax?

How could the Obama admin and HRC take a bribe (investigation) from Russian and Ukrainian sources?

Gary Johnson said:

---

I don't think he'll be impeached and removed unless he perjures himself or something else is revealed(obstruction?). I'd get some schadenfreude from the embarrassment of a trial and censure. I've long thought he was a grifter, con man, tax cheat, and an insufferably stupid man.

To your question, yes, in a real senate trial they'll need more hard evidence and testimony that Trump is currently blocking.

---

I was asking YOU. Not what you think would eventually happen. Would YOU support his impeachment.

agsalaska said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

That's your evidence? And if it is, you believe this is enough to impeach a duly elected President?

---

There are a lot of witnesses scheduled to testify in public in the next few weeks. Some of them listened to the call and were eyewitnesses to Sondland carrying out the directives given to him by Trump and Giuliani.

And there are **other** WH, OMB, State Dept, and NSC eyewitnesses and participants in Trump's scheme which the impeachment investigation committee wants to interview under oath. But Trump doesn't want these people to testify. And there is evidence in the form of texts, documents, and emails being withheld by Trump, too.

Any idea why that is?

MetoliusAg said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Quote:

---

He wasn't on the call. He just claims he could hear it because he was close Sondland and could make it out. Good luck with that

---

All these guys independently just making stuff that perfectly corroborates each other is some really bad luck for Trump.

---

That's your evidence? And if it is, you believe this is enough to impeach a duly elected President?

---

There are a lot of witnesses scheduled to testify in public in the next few weeks. Some of them listened to the call and were eyewitnesses to Sondland carrying out the directives given to him by Trump and Giuliani.

And there are **other** WH, OMB, State Dept, and NSC eyewitnesses and participants in Trump's scheme which the impeachment investigation committee wants to interview under oath. But Trump doesn't want these people to testify. And there is evidence in the form of texts, documents, and emails being withheld by Trump, too.

Any idea why that is?

---

Because she lost?

Quote:

---

But the open use of false stories and conspiracy narratives by Republican members of Congress is not a hurdle that I anticipated.

---

That's preposterous what she says -- what they were talking about is known. It is simple fact that in Trump's very inauguration month the Democrats declared intention to find a way to impeach him and declared a "resistance." The sordid story of how that dossier figured in the back scenes of the framing attempt is not a `conspiracy narrative', whateve details one might argue about.

Sorry yo boy's dumb conspiracy theory lost and got him impeached.

Hate to break it to you. They started planning his impeachment the day he was sworn in, before he did ANYTHING.