Quote:

---

All without ever hearing from the original complainant who started the whole mess.

---

The bribery scheme was started by Trump and carried out by his subordinates Giuliani, Sondland, Mulvaney, and Parnas.

It is true the Congress and the American people need to hear those four persons testify under oath.

The only thing preventing those four principal actors in this bribery scheme from testifying under oath are the principle actors themselves: Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, & Mulvaney.

Likewise, the only thing preventing the release of the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails: Trump himself.

However, we do have Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney themselves on videotape making self-incriminating admissions:

-- Trump and Giuliani specifically stated their intent was to get the President of Ukraine to order investigations into the Bidens.

-- Mulvaney confessed the withholding of the aid to Ukraine was a quid pro quo for a Ukrainian investigation into the President's conspiracy theory.

Also: you & I disagree on a lot, hawg, but there's one thing we now agree on. Castor's cross examination skills. He has been unimpressive in every televised session thus far.

Quote:

---

The only thing preventing those four principal actors in this bribery scheme from testifying under oath are the principle actors themselves: Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, & Mulvaney.

---

Schiff can subpoena Parnas and Rudy if he so desires.

Quote:

---

The bribery scheme was started by Trump and carried out by his subordinates Giuliani, Sondland, Mulvaney, and Parnas.

---

Speculation. Why won't Schiff issue subpoenas? Did Sondland say he bribed somebody or was aware of a bribe?

MetoliusAg said:

---

-- Mulvaney confessed the withholding of the aid to Ukraine was a quid pro quo for a Ukrainian investigation into the President's conspiracy theory.

---

You keep repeating this lie. Mulvaney confessed to Trump acting upon a foreign policy position he has held and publicly stated in interviews and published books for 20 years.

The U.S. should withhold funding to any countries receiving aid 1) To force regional countries to pay more 2) To leverage economic relationship 3) To battle American dollars being used for corrupt purposes or by corrupt regimes

QPQ can be used and are often used legally for all of these purposes. Trump is being consistent with the very platform he ran on.

That the Bidens are caught up in this execution of a 20 year long stated policy position of the President should actually be a problem for the Bidens not Trump.

Pretty clear evidence of a quid pro quo to me. For crying out loud, we have Trump on a hot mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin just to give him more time and he would have a lot more flexibility after the election, thus treating United States interests secondary to his own political career.

policywonk98 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

-- Mulvaney confessed the withholding of the aid to Ukraine was a quid pro quo for a Ukrainian investigation into the President's conspiracy theory.

---

You keep repeating this lie. Mulvaney confessed to Trump acting upon a foreign policy position he has held and publicly stated in interviews and published books for 20 years.

The U.S. should withhold funding to any countries receiving aid 1) To force regional countries to pay more 2) To leverage economic relationship 3) To battle American dollars being used for corrupt purposes or by corrupt regimes

QPQ can be used and are often used legally for all of these purposes. Trump is being consistent with the very platform he ran on.

That the Bidens are caught up in this execution of a 20 year long stated policy position of the President should actually be a problem for the Bidens not Trump.

---

Except the money had already been appropriated, and the DOD had already completed the required certification that the anti-corruption work by the Ukrainians.The White House didn't have a role in holding up the money.

agsfan said:

---

policywonk98 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

-- Mulvaney confessed the withholding of the aid to Ukraine was a quid pro quo for a Ukrainian investigation into the President's conspiracy theory.

---

You keep repeating this lie. Mulvaney confessed to Trump acting upon a foreign policy position he has held and publicly stated in interviews and published books for 20 years.

The U.S. should withhold funding to any countries receiving aid 1) To force regional countries to pay more 2) To leverage economic relationship 3) To battle American dollars being used for corrupt purposes or by corrupt regimes

QPQ can be used and are often used legally for all of these purposes. Trump is being consistent with the very platform he ran on.

That the Bidens are caught up in this execution of a 20 year long stated policy position of the President should actually be a problem for the Bidens not Trump.

---

Except the money had already been appropriated, and the DOD had already completed the required certification that the anti-corruption work by the Ukrainians.The White House didn't have a role in holding up the money.

---

Who else would ensure the terms of the treaty with Ukrain would be upheld?

Are you suggesting it's illegal for the president to withhold funding after DoD or State Dpt certs?

What law is this? I'm genuinely asking.

I have no doubt that Trump causes literally hundreds if not thousands of things to be done in ways that are not normal course of business in the Executive Branch operations and washington in general. But the important question is, what is abnormal and what is illegal?

Again, just like with Mulvaney.

You are stating things about Sondland that are the complete opposite of what he said.

The "I want nothing" rant was September 9th, after he got caught. That's the context for the after the fact denial.

Agnzona said:

---

You should get a perma ban for the above troll post.

Hillary ordered subpoenaed evidence destroyed. You had no issue with that.

---

That's one hell of a WHADDABOUT?!

Gary Johnson said:

---

The "I want nothing" rant was September 9th, after he got caught. That's the context for the after the fact denial.

---

Prove it.

policywonk98 said:

---

Are you suggesting it's illegal for the president to withhold funding after DoD or State Dpt certs?

---

If President Trump's reason for ordering the withholding of the $400M in Ukraine aid was to use it as leverage to get Zelensky to do specific actions for the personal benefit of the President, that is both an impeachable act and an illegal act.

-- Numerous senior-level people in the State Dept, Defense Dept, NSA, and OMB asked internally why the aid was being withheld. Thus far, multiple sworn witnesses have testified the answer they received from the WH and OMB was: "Because the President ordered it."

-- OMB head / WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney stated in front of tv cameras that the aid was withheld as part of a quid pro quo demand. Mulvaney said the demand was for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's server conspiracy theory (i.e., Trump's oddball claims about the 2016 election, the DNC server, Manafort's black book, etc).

-- Trump and Giuliani also publicly admitted they wanted Zelensky to make a public statement that he (Zelensky) was opening an investigation into the Bidens.

-- As Sondland and others have testified: one by one all other objections were removed or agreed to by Zelensky and no other objections remained, thus it gradually became obvious why the aid was still being withheld.

-- The impeachment committee would very much like for the subpoenaed documentary evidence to be released and for Mick Mulvaney to testify under oath what he knows. Trump has opposed that.

There's nothing classified in all of this, so the 24,000 ton elephant in the room is: Why hasn't the subpoenaed documentary evidence been released, and why hasn't OMB Director / WH Chief of Staff Mulvaney agreed to testify?

How is it a personal benefit to Trump?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The only thing preventing those four principal actors in this bribery scheme from testifying under oath are the principle actors themselves: Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, & Mulvaney.

---

Schiff can subpoena Parnas and Rudy if he so desires.

---

hawg: As you already know,

-- Rudy has said he will not appear and give sworn testimony even if subpoenaed.

-- Mulvaney too has refused to be deposed.

-- Parnas is under federal indictment. His attny has claimed Parnas can provide testimony which is material to the ongoing impeachment investigation. What Parnas' attny didn't state is what he wants in return, i.e. very likely some form of immunity.

-- Trump himself could offer to be deposed, and he could order the release of all the subpoenaed documentary evidence. He has done neither.

-- What Trump has done is: repeatedly tell lies to the American people about the quid pro quos; make implied threats toward witnesses; falsely smear the witnesses; withhold subpoenaed evidence; oppose material witnesses from testifying. All of these actions by Trump are indicative of consciousness of guilt.

Been watching you post. How does this hearing impact your daily life?

ANSC Ag said:

---

Been watching you post. How does this hearing impact your daily life?

---

It dominates it.

wtf are you even talking about?

1) trump gave up his fortune, freedom, reputation, and risked his life to go try to drain this ****hole swamp. any idiot knows this, he is not corrupt, he is the anti corruption president.

2) everyone in this **** show is a compromised leftist politician who made illegal fortunes from the corruption that trump is exposing.

3) for instance, the obama/biden/ukraine scam. one of many.

no rational human could think that this charade is anything but projection from corrupt people that control the media in order to hope to derail the exposure of their own corruption.

you are either not a rational human, or you are incentivized to push their agenda.

Troutslime said:

---

How is it a personal benefit to Trump?

---

It would have been very beneficial to his personal election campaign and his personal desire to be re-elected.

ANSC Ag said:

---

Been watching you post. How does this hearing impact your daily life?

---

Well, it's his job, so...

ANSC Ag said:

---

Been watching you post. How does this hearing impact your daily life?

---

Rumor is that Met gets paid to troll this site.
Tailgate beat me to it.

I thought y'all wanted our elections to be free of meddling. Is it Trump's fault Biden was involved with one of the meddlers?

MetoliusAg said:

---

policywonk98 said:

---

Are you suggesting it's illegal for the president to withhold funding after DoD or State Dpt certs?

---

If President Trump's reason for ordering the withholding of the $400M in Ukraine aid was to use it as leverage to get Zelensky to do specific actions for the personal benefit of the President, that is both an impeachable act and an illegal act.

-- Numerous senior-level people in the State Dept, Defense Dept, NSA, and OMB asked internally why the aid was being withheld. Thus far, multiple sworn witnesses have testified the answer they received from the WH and OMB was: "Because the President ordered it."

-- OMB head / WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney stated in front of tv cameras that the aid was withheld as part of a quid pro quo demand. Mulvaney said the demand was for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's server conspiracy theory (i.e., Trump's oddball claims about the 2016 election, the DNC server, Manafort's black book, etc).

-- Trump and Giuliani also publicly admitted they wanted Zelensky to make a public statement that he (Zelensky) was opening an investigation into the Bidens.

-- As Sondland and others have testified: one by one all other objections were removed or agreed to by Zelensky and no other objections remained, thus it gradually became obvious why the aid was still being withheld.

-- The impeachment committee would very much like for the subpoenaed documentary evidence to be released and for Mick Mulvaney to testify under oath what he knows. Trump has opposed that.

There's nothing classified in all of this, so the 24,000 ton elephant in the room is: Why hasn't the subpoenaed documentary evidence been released, and why hasn't OMB Director / WH Chief of Staff Mulvaney agreed to testify?

---

So, in other words. You cant find a law that was broken.

Beauracrats being bothered by and speculating on whether Trump filed the correct TPS reports is not a broken law. Trump ignoring the advice of a beauracrat is also not against the law. A President asking for an investigation, even if based on a rumor, or as you put it, "a conspiracy theory", is also not breaking the law. Now, a president asking someone to plant evidence or charge someone with a crime where no crime exists, now that is something.

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

Perry sent letter too. He denied the Sondland testimony.

Sondland went way out on his own to be the hero and he's going to hang.

MetoliusAg said:

---

---

He, like you, made it up and admits it here.

A video clip of Nunes and Castor when Sondland's first 4 hours of testimony ended earlier today. Warning -- this is not safe to click at work unless you turn the sound off (because it's loud).

Nunes' expression is a good tell of how the sworn testimony from Sondland contradicts the Nunes' narrative that ignores the facts.

Jordan is up again

The bombs keep

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

All without ever hearing from the original complainant who started the whole mess.

---

The bribery scheme was started by Trump and carried out by his subordinates Giuliani, Sondland, Mulvaney, and Parnas.

It is true the Congress and the American people need to hear those four persons testify under oath.

The only thing preventing those four principal actors in this bribery scheme from testifying under oath are the principle actors themselves: Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, & Mulvaney.

Likewise, the only thing preventing the release of the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails: Trump himself.

However, we do have Trump, Giuliani, and Mulvaney themselves on videotape making self-incriminating admissions:

-- Trump and Giuliani specifically stated their intent was to get the President of Ukraine to order investigations into the Bidens.

-- Mulvaney confessed the withholding of the aid to Ukraine was a quid pro quo for a Ukrainian investigation into the President's conspiracy theory.

Also: you & I disagree on a lot, hawg, but there's one thing we now agree on. Castor's cross examination skills. He has been unimpressive in every televised session thus far.

---

Even though most of what you say is hypocritical BS that would never be called out if it was a Democrat president. Let's assume the bolded section is true for this question.

Can anyone prove that the intent was to influence the election instead of rooting out corruption at high levels as agreed upon by treaty? The latter of which is highly beneficial to both the American and Ukrainian publics.

If your position is that the intent was to influence the election, that's your right; however, there's nothing illegal about investigating corruption. Just because (in your highly biased opinion) the intent was to influence the election, that doesn't turn a legal action into an illegal action.

Was Obama using taxpayer dollars to kill Bin Laden illegal? No

Would it have been if his intent was fully or partly to influence his upcoming election? No

How many foreign officials do you think were bribed by the CIA to get information on his whereabouts?

The Democrat argument is weak at best, nothing but throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately for America, the Democrats get stickier **** due to extreme media bias. If this was a Democrat president, it wouldn't have even made the news. Nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites with no ethical boundaries.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Troutslime said:

---

How is it a personal benefit to Trump?

---

It would have been very beneficial to his personal election campaign and his personal desire to be re-elected.

---

Yes, every single action taken by a president, is in the hope it benefits his reelection.


Libs should impeach Trump for the unemployment rate, obviously it was only done to help his personal election campaign.