world

Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

113 Comments
By Patricia Zengerle

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

113 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine - not Russia - interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

It could be that some Russians in Ukraine participated in the interference, but the evidence - to all but those who trust the Kremlin's reports and not those of 'western' intelligence agencies - says it was Russia. And Russians and other states continue to interfere in US politics for the benefit of Trump and his fellow GOP enablers.

he is saying that he is above the law,"

As some of the alt right have claimed, laws are for peasants (har har), not for Trump and his bund of elite.

It's worrying watching Russian propaganda demonize the Ukraine in attempts to weaken one of Russia's former soviet bloc states as the Russian Federation and its Eurasian Economic Union try to reclaim their former states. As well as others. And I'm aware 'the US is worse' and 'can't prove it'.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Schiff and the democrats are correct in their approach.  Just because a clown is at the centre of this impeachment process is no excuse for turning this into a circus.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

President Trump's pressure campaign was 'out of bounds,' and every time he insists that it was 'perfect' he is saying that he is above the law," Pelosi said on Twitter.

She missed the memo. It was pressure campaign. then quid pro. quo and neither narrative stuck or was proven.

Over the weekend Dems and their media friends changed it again to “bribery and extortion”, without evidence.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Plus all 3 people testifying were not on the call. This should be easy questioning.

“welcome, were you on the call? No? Thanks for coming.“

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Black, you haven't read the transcripts or the witness statements, have you?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

And Russians and other states continue to interfere in US politics for the benefit of Trump and his fellow GOP enablers.

Hillary should have never tried to interfere and to upstage Putin in 2011, she’s the catalyst for the country being in this mess.

As some of the alt right have claimed, laws are for peasants (har har), not for Trump and his bundof elite.

As if the Democrats follow the laws to a precision tee.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

The US Constitution guarantees the right to face one’s accuser. Trump deserves the right to question the whistleblower.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

Hillary should have never tried to interfere and to upstage Putin in 2011, she’s the catalyst for the country being in this mess.

Hillary's comments were AFTER the Russian elections. This means it is impossible that she interfered in the elections. You've been corrected on this point numerous times, but continue to push this falsehood.

As if the Democrats follow the laws to a precision tee.

When you have absolutely no substantive reply, always resort to I know you are but what am I?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The US Constitution guarantees the right to face one’s accuser. Trump deserves the right to question the whistleblower.

Not now that their information has been corroborated. Confidential informants are not subject to examination after their information had been corroborated and acted upon.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Selling arms to a neo-Nazi, failed state like Ukraine should really be the impeachable offense.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I have for the 3 people testifying plus also Vindman. It’s a bunch of feelings and opinions of people who were not on the call. vindman says Trump is usurping foreign policy. Which Trump actually makes so that’s impossible.

Just partisan overreactions to the same transcript I read that has nothing. The testimony also riddled with hearsay from others and what they read on the Internet.

Black, you haven't read the transcripts or the witness statements, have you

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Well, this is a new one. How about they aren’t subject to examination after we caught them talking to the staff of the lead “investigator” to get advice and coaching. That’s better.

Confidential informants are not subject to examination after their information had been corroborated and acted upon.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Quid Pro Quo is actually standard procedure in foreign affairs. The US routinely withholds aid to Columbia unless so and so drug lord is investigated or elements of corruption are eliminated.

Dems are grasping at straws with this Ukraine conspiracy thing.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

The impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump will not be allowed to become a venue for "sham investigations" into Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son, the head of a congressional committee leading the probe said on Tuesday.

What a hoot. That shifty Schiff-meister missed his calling as a standup comedian. The "sham investigations" held by Mueller, and those Democrat Pelosi-directed House committees, started with a guilty verdict, and then searched for evidence to prove their conclusion. And they failed. But wait, there's more. Now Schiff claims that he will not allow anyone else to turn his latest "sham investigation" into a circus. That his job, and his alone.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Selling arms to a neo-Nazi, failed state like Ukraine

Ukraine's population is over 40,000,000. No doubt among them are far rightists, many supporting Russia, a state with a system of governance more akin to what Italy and Germany tried to force on the world in the 1930s. Russia's pushing its brand of far rightism while its propagandists are calling those opposing it neo-nazis.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Quid Pro Quo is actually standard procedure in foreign affairs.

For the president's personal interest? Nyet.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Schiff especially can't afford to have the whistleblower testify that he had colluded with Schiff, and Schiff's minions, or schemed with a law firm that had been looking for a non-public face for their impeachment quest. Even more voters might get the impression that Schiff has been holding "sham investigations" ever since Hillary lost her 2nd attempt to become POTUS.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

She missed the memo. It was pressure campaign. then quid pro. quo and neither narrative stuck or was proven.

Blacklabel - your posts have definitely been getting harder to understand over the past few days and you seem to be posting more and more frequently.

Could you explain what you were trying to say above in plain English?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

What a hoot. That shifty Schiff-meister missed his calling as a standup comedian. The "sham investigations" held by Mueller, and those Democrat Pelosi-directed House committees, started with a guilty verdict, and then searched for evidence to prove their conclusion. And they failed. But wait, there's more. Now Schiff claims that he will not allow anyone else to turn his latest "sham investigation" into a circus. That his job, and his alone.

From the former CIA agent and Texas Republican in Congress!

Republican Rep. Will Hurd breaks with Trump, insists whistleblower remain anonymous

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-rep-hurd-breaks-trump-185625771.html

Quid Pro Quo is actually standard procedure in foreign affairs. The US routinely withholds aid to Columbia unless so and so drug lord is investigated or elements of corruption are eliminated.

Dems are grasping at straws with this Ukraine conspiracy thing.

Trump impeachment committee ‘has evidence of extortion scheme involving president’ and Ukraine

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-committee-evidence-extortion-172158735.html

Here we go again!

Trump wants to fire the intelligence watchdog who told Congress about the whistleblower's complaint

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-fire-intelligence-watchdog-213638013.html

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Hillary's comments were AFTER the Russian elections. This means it is impossible that she interfered in the elections. 

Not impossible and done way before Trump came on the scene, JT I do remember Obama and Medvedev....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia/putin-says-u-s-stoked-russian-protests-idUSTRE7B610S20111208

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-10-25/vladimir-putins-grudge-hillary-clinton

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I expect to see an amusing bit of testimony considering the Democrats witness list. George Kent has testified that he believed there was a quid pro quo because Taylor had suggested it. Taylor believed there was a quid pro quo because he had heard Morrison suggest it. Morrison believed there had been a quid pro quo because Sondland suggested it. And, of course, Sondland defininately "presumed" there had been a quid pro quo based on his own feelings.

Is that triple hearsay, or quadruple hearsay? This is the reason why the Democrats have been so reluctant to allow any court to look into witness complaints.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Quid Pro Quo is actually standard procedure in foreign affairs. 

Can you give us other examples of where an elected leader used his position to dig up dirt on the family of a potential opponent in exchange for foreign aid?

There must be loads of this is "standard procedure".

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Any US President would highly unlikely be impeached on the word or say so of an anonymous whistle-blower.

Due process states the prosecution must disclose information that forms the basis of its case. Discovery. Which will inevitably mean, sooner or later uncovering the identity of the whistle-blower.

The Democrats could have been expending energy focusing on there policy agenda but no the Democrats have run up a blind alley.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Numan - Republican Rep. Will Hurd breaks with Trump, insists whistleblower remain anonymous

Hurd is entitled to his opinion. As are the opinions of those who believe that the whistleblower (if he can still be called a whistleblower and not an agent of Schiff/Pelosi) should make a public statement, under oath, considering the seriousness of this particular situation.

A Presidential impeachment is both politics, and public relations. If the whistleblower does not testify, a lot of voters will not accept the results of any scam impeachment.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Black: I have for the 3 people testifying plus also Vindman. It’s a bunch of feelings and opinions of people who were not on the call.

Oh boy. You haven't read them at all.

They spell out in incredible detail the shadow diplomacy Trump set up with Giuliani and the specific demands Trump's team made numerous times for an investigation and public statement from Ukraine, as well as specific references to quid quo pro for both from Sondland. Anyone who read them wouldn't toss out some, "They weren't on the call" first inning talking point. The call was one tiny sliver of all of the information.

But that's neither here nor there since the public testimony will soon start. Your job will then turn into brainstorming ways to smear our American diplomats in the hopes of letting a proven scammer and known liar go free. Because that's just the type of man you are.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@arrestpaul

A Presidential impeachment is both politics, and public relations. If the whistleblower does not testify, a lot of voters will not accept the results of any scam impeachment.

The president also didn't testify for Mueller and stopped government officials from testifying.

The same thing can be said about the WH, president and the GOP.

There is no need for the whistleblower to testify because the original complaint has been verified by the firsthand witnesses and the official transcripts.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

arrestpaul: Schiff especially can't afford to have the whistleblower testify that he had colluded with Schiff, and Schiff's minions, or schemed with a law firm that had been looking for a non-public face for their impeachment quest

But remember.....this is the "paid for" investigation by the Right. It's meant for media consumption, message board talking points, and something for the GOP to hide behind when they vote to let a guilty man go free. The authorities are not investigating Schiff because they are in the real world and things operate differently here. It's also why they aren't investigating Hunter Biden, CrowdStrike, Uranium One, and a host of other made-for-TV Republican distractions. They only investigate real things.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Yes only by people who weren’t on the call and by people whose testimony I read. So your point of all this other stuff and other people means nothing until they testify publicly. when is that happening?

Or is your team planning to not have them testify and keep having the media push these narratives?

But that's neither here nor there since the public testimony will soon start.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Certainly. When this started the ”crime” was Trump pressured Ukraine. Their president said no he didn’t. So Dems changed the “crime” to quid pro quo. Can’t prove that either.

So now the narrative is bribery and extortion . Yet Nancy still tweeting last month narrative about “pressure”. Someone need to inform her the goalposts have moved twice since that.

Could you explain what you were trying to say above in plain English?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Look it is irrelevant whether the accused is Donald Trump or Donald Duck, inevitability it will boil down to the ability of a defendant to mount an adequate defense.

This whistle-blower will have to be subject to cross examination in open court, The Executive Office of the President of the United States will insist and demand it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Trump claimed his daughter Ivanka has created 14 million jobs in a speech at the Economic Club of New York which would be amazing sinceTrump came to office only 6 million jobs have been created. Trump and his pathological inability to ever tell the truth abd his creepy obsession with his daughter Ivanka Trump.

When she started two and half years ago, her target was 500,000 but noe she has created 14 million, claimed Trump.

Trump claims that he does not know the two arrested associates of Giuliani even though it can be shown he met them 10 times.

Trump has said next May 1st he wants to stand in Red Square alongside Putin for the annual parade.

Toxic twins Trump and Putin cast long shadows over our British democracy. The US tinpot tyrant and his more despotic Russian friend Putin won't be on the ballot papers but the poisonous puppeteers are pulling strings.

Both support the Brexit like a pair of vultures waiting to pick the bones from economic and diplomatic chaos.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

the whistleblower also has a whistleblower against him. He has a secret gofundme account and is accepting money for what he did. Someone turned him in as That’s a big no-no. So he will be testifying about that later for sure.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Blacklabel: Yes only by people who weren’t on the call 

There you go again.

Did you miss the pages and pages and pages and pages of other examples and evidence, meetings and conversations, establishing that Trump made demands? The call was literally one out of dozens of instances referenced.

You obviously did not read it.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Wow right on cue. I posted and here it is!narrative change!

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/470165-schiff-trump-could-potentially-be-impeached-for-bribery

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

the whistleblower also has a whistleblower against him. He has a secret gofundme account and is accepting money for what he did

You’re right! And the proof can be found at the lip of the planet where the flat earth ends.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Did you miss the pages and pages and pages and pages of other examples and evidence, meetings and conversations, establishing that Trump made demands? The call was literally one out of dozens of instances referenced.

You obviously did not read it.

But he’s outraged. That must count for something doesn’t it?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If Trump is culpable he must be impeached, The Republican Party must support this process. However there must be Due Process. All evidence including the whistle-blower identity must be in the public domain.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Let me simplify. This is your needed message.

Trump committed the crime of (....).

which will be proven by the evidence of (pick one: a phone call/a document/a meeting/hearsay ) that will be testified to in public (on date) by a person who (was/was not in attendance) at the time it happened

its that simple. You keep changing the crime, the evidence and which witness who can prove it. Remember when the whistleblower was gonna testify and prove it all? No wonder it’s confusing.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

This is a good retelling of the testimony and the times quid pro quo was mentioned:

Sondland: ...in which he admitted he told Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to (Ukrainian President) Zelensky, that a quid pro quo was in place.

Bill Taylor: “The was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President (of Ukraine) committed to pursue the investigation.”

Tim Morrison: Bill Taylor also testified that Sondland told Yermak military aid was contingent upon a public announcement from Ukraine that it would launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. Morrison testified this was “accurate,”

Vindman: Vindman also pointed to Sondland, particularly his involvement in a chaotic July 10th White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which he laid out the terms of the quid pro quo.

Fiona Hill: She corroborated Vindman’s testimony that Sondland made clear that the launch of investigations into the 2016 election and Biden was required before Zelensky would be invited to the White House.

Ron Johnson (US Senator): Sondland informed him of the quid pro quo with Ukraine. Johnson described Sondland telling him of a desire to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ukraine-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-testimony-evidence-909873/

5 ( +6 / -1 )

A Presidential impeachment is both politics, and public relations. If the whistleblower does not testify, a lot of voters will not accept the results of any scam impeachment.

You aren’t trying to pretend that there is anything whatsoever that could ever get them to accept the results of impeachment are you? The people still supporting trump are clearly beyond the point of logic and are fully operating at hyper-partisan extreme fundamentalist level. You could show them a full confession from trump in front of congress live on national TV, with priests of every religion present and swearing on their respective gods that it happened, and the trumpets would scream “fake news, you’re just angry that he beat Hillary”.

Sorry, but the protests of those that claim they won’t accept the impeachment if X isn’t done can be ignored because the part they leave out is that they still won’t accept it even if X is done.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Proof can be found in the letter his legal team sent to the IG with the link to the gofundme account. Oops. Eric’s getting paid! or are whistleblowers not to be automatically believed now?

You’re right! And the proof can be found at the lip of the planet where the flat earth ends.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

But you guys dropped quid pro quo over the weekend. It’s bribery and extortion now. so who mentioned that in private who will be telling us all about it (with evidence) in public?

why is the supposed impartial leader of the “investigation” Schiff telling the media what happened. Is he a witness?

This is a good retelling of the testimony and the times quid pro quo was mentioned:

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Sondland: ...in which he admitted he told Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to (Ukrainian President) Zelensky, that a quid pro quo was in place.

Bill Taylor: “The was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President (of Ukraine) committed to pursue the investigation.”

Tim Morrison: Bill Taylor also testified that Sondland told Yermak military aid was contingent upon a public announcement from Ukraine that it would launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. Morrison testified this was “accurate,”

Vindman: Vindman also pointed to Sondland, particularly his involvement in a chaotic July 10th White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which he laid out the terms of the quid pro quo.

Fiona Hill: She corroborated Vindman’s testimony that Sondland made clear that the launch of investigations into the 2016 election and Biden was required before Zelensky would be invited to the White House.

Ron Johnson (US Senator): Sondland informed him of the quid pro quo with Ukraine. Johnson described Sondland telling him of a desire to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.”

Well, besides this won’t do anything to get the President removed from office it will at least be amusing to watch Schiff make an even bigger fool than himself, but we'll get through this boring moment. We did in 1998.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Yes only by people who weren’t on the call and by people whose testimony I read. So your point of all this other stuff and other people means nothing until they testify publicly. when is that happening? 

Or is your team planning to not have them testify and keep having the media push these narratives?

Whatever it is, it will be by the rules of impeachment. So your whining falls on dead ears.

Did you forget the electoral college?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

You keep changing the crime, the evidence and which witness who can prove it. 

No, it hasn’t changed. What exactly are they telling you in the bubble, and why didn’t you bother to fact check it instead of staring falsehoods like the above?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Do X first before you talk about people not accepting it. You haven’t even done that yet. Put a person with a name in public who can identify a crime and prove Trump himself did it and I’m all ears.

Sorry, but the protests of those that claim they won’t accept the impeachment if X isn’t done can be ignored because the part they leave out is that they still won’t accept it even if X is done.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Except that it has not been verified. 

Oh, you missed the post made above:

This is a good retelling of the testimony and the times quid pro quo was mentioned:

Sondland: ...in which he admitted he told Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to (Ukrainian President) Zelensky, that a quid pro quo was in place.

Bill Taylor: “The was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President (of Ukraine) committed to pursue the investigation.”

Tim Morrison: Bill Taylor also testified that Sondland told Yermak military aid was contingent upon a public announcement from Ukraine that it would launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. Morrison testified this was “accurate,”

Vindman: Vindman also pointed to Sondland, particularly his involvement in a chaotic July 10th White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which he laid out the terms of the quid pro quo.

Fiona Hill: She corroborated Vindman’s testimony that Sondland made clear that the launch of investigations into the 2016 election and Biden was required before Zelensky would be invited to the White House.

Ron Johnson (US Senator): Sondland informed him of the quid pro quo with Ukraine. Johnson described Sondland telling him of a desire to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ukraine-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-testimony-evidence-909873/

6 ( +6 / -0 )

zichi - Trump claimed his daughter Ivanka.....

Are you trying to impeach Ivanka?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

I posted the link from Schiff that it’s bribery now. Quid pro quo is done.

nedia been changing the wording because that narrative is failing. Here is how it started.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/letters/quid-pro-quo.html

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

nedia been changing the wording because that narrative is failing. Here is how it started.

It’s failing because the goalposts keep changing, I’m not even sure the Democrats really know what they’re trying to impeachment does.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Do X first before you talk about people not accepting it.

That’s why he’s getting impeached.

You haven’t even done that yet. Put a person with a name in public who can identify a crime and prove Trump himself did it and I’m all ears.

Oh, sounds like you don’t like the rules of impeachment. Do you equally disagree with the rules of the electoral college? Why are you trying to reverse the results of a democratic impeachment? You people are still just bitter that the people liked Hillary more than Trump, and logically there cannot he any reason other than that so don’t try to pretend this is all because you guys hate Hillary.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Schiff: so let’s return to what the word “bribery” meant in the 1700s.

“In the interview, Schiff said “bribery,” one of the offenses the Constitution outlines as impeachable, had a different meaning at the time the Constitution was written then how it is commonly understood today.”

also Schiff:

“As the publics hearings draw nearer, Schiff and others have sharpened the language they use to speak about the president, dropping the phrase "quid pro quo" and centering their argument around more caustic, widely-used terminology like "bribery" and "extortion."

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

And?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The frequent lying by Trump should be a concern to all. Trump said he is nearly ready to sign a trade deal with China except nothing has really changed.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

That is hilarious, but not surprising. Of course they want to insulate their sham impeachment from investigation.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

arrestpaulToday  09:31 am JST

zichi - Trump claimed his daughter Ivanka.....

Are you trying to impeach Ivanka?

You cut off the rest of the comment, which would have made your assertion look totally ridiculous. Rather disingenuous.

zichiToday  08:55 am JST

Trump claimed his daughter Ivanka has created 14 million jobs in a speech at the Economic Club of New York which would be amazing sinceTrump came to office only 6 million jobs have been created. Trump and his pathological inability to ever tell the truth abd his creepy obsession with his daughter Ivanka Trump.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It must be a very strange little Trumpophile fantasy world you live in if you think such people actually exist.

They don’t? Come on.....

Or are you just parroting a phrase you've read somewhere without really thinking too hard about it?

Sounds like the House Democrats daily diatribe. Lol

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Of course they want to insulate their sham impeachment from investigation.

Oh, you misread it. It said they were protecting the democratic impeachment that the Hillary haters are trying to overthrow because they are still bitter the people liked her more than trump in 2016, from sham investigations by those who haven’t stopped talking about her non stop since the people showed that they loved her and were disinterested in trump.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It’s not a democratic impeachment. It’s an impeachment by Democrats. And there are no “results” to reverse.

Why are you trying to reverse the results of a democratic impeachment?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

You claimed my comment about quid pro quo being dropped was conspiracy theory. Just like you try to deflect from everything else that is true by screaming out “conspiracy theory”. So and? And It’s true and a fact per Schiff himself.

And?

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Serious warning that Trump wants to stand in Red Square with Putin.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Serious warning that Trump wants to stand in Red Square with Putin.

Russia is one of the few countries in the world where Trump is popular among the people. I saw a bookmaker was offering odds on Russia naming an airport after him.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The president also suggested on Tuesday that he would likely release the transcript of an April 12 conversation with Zelenskiy "before week's end" but gave no other details.

We've heard that for quite some time now but still no transcript.

How much editing do they require to hide Donny's extortion of Ukraine????

They obviously don't have the smartest editors because it failed miserably the last time, the 'Perfect Call' turned out to be a clear case of Quid Pro Quo...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Russia is one of the few countries in the world where Trump is popular among the people.

Obama was popular to, that whole hope and change thing.

I saw a bookmaker was offering odds on Russia naming an airport after him.

I think Israel named something after Trump as well. A street or some center.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Obama was popular to, that whole hope and change thing.

But, unlike Trump, Obama was popular in the US. He even won the popular vote - twice!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

You claimed my comment about quid pro quo being dropped was conspiracy theory. Just like you try to deflect from everything else that is true by screaming out “conspiracy theory”. So and? And It’s true and a fact per Schiff himself.

Just like with the Russian hoax debacle where Mueller exonerated Trump, that entire thing is a farce and now we moved to the Ukrainians and what do they hope will come out of this? They hope the Republicans will vote in mass numbers to kick Trump out? The GOP thought the Dems would in Clinton’s impeachment, they didn’t do it, so they can bank on the GOP doing the same. Even Romney didn’t side with the Democrats. What a joke, but I give the Dems for being idiotically persistent.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Just like with the Russian hoax debacle where Mueller exonerated Trump

Another lie.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

More weak, fact-less posts by the Trumpers...nothing of substance.

On the other hand, Donnie's absolute worst week in three years just got much worse...

Bill Taylor will start his open testimony tomorrow - a former Vietnam Vet who served both Repb and Dem administrations - he'll say clearly this was an extortion QPQ shakedown. Oh My...

“That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the president committed to pursue the investigation,” Taylor said.

He was asked if he was aware that “quid pro quo” meant “this for that.”

“I am,” he replied.

Then, during Roger Stone's trial we learn that Stone was in constant contact with the Trump campaign (Gates and Manafort) on getting the Russian stolen Wikileaks e-mails. Stone contacted Trump directly - which contradicts Trump's own answers in the Mueller investigation...oh my...

Buried amid days of blasphemy and bombast were quieter new details that collectively showed Trump and his aides discussed WikiLeaks with Stone months earlier than anyone has acknowledged. The revelations have immediately raised questions about Trump’s claims — made months later under oath to the special counsel — that he did not recall any such conversations with Stone.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368

Next we have Rick "Woops" Perry who inserted himself on behalf of some of his energy buddies and got them a oil and gas contract from Ukraine...can we all say "corruption"...oh my...

Two political supporters of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secured a potentially lucrative oil and gas exploration deal from the Ukrainian government soon after Perry proposed one of the men as an adviser to the country’s new president.

https://apnews.com/6d8ae551fb884371a2a592ed85a74426

And we also hear today that Steven "I'm Nuts" Miller, a close Trump aid was sharing white supremacy views in e-mails with Breitbart...oh my....

Hundreds of private emails White House senior adviser Stephen Miller sent to a former Breitbart editor show that he recommended white nationalist websites and literature and upheld the 1920s Coolidge administration as a model for setting highly restrictive immigration policies, according to a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/12/20961458/stephen-miller-white-supremacist-anti-immigrant-emails-breitbart-southern-poverty-law-center

That melted down orange puddle in the corner - it's just what's left of Donnie...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Your case is so weak about Trump and Ukraine that you need to bring up Miller, gates, manafort, Stone -and- Perry plus try to create another military hero in Taylor. Is the impeachment expanding into all those unrelated To Trump areas now too?

nice move combination to say extortion QPQ as well. But Schiff ordered you to stop saying QPQ as it failed the test screening.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Based on the contents of a phone call he wasn’t on? Based on meetings he didn’t attend? Regular people might not believe that like you hope.

he'll say clearly this was an extortion QPQ shakedown.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

But if he were so popular then Hillary would have won, but that luster didn’t transfer over. So much for the Midas touch.

But it did rub off on the lecture speech tours with the highest in demand and the highest paid and a $100 million book deal to boot.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation,” said Taylor, who testified during his closed-door deposition “that was my clear understanding.”

not what he was told by (person name) or what he heard from (person name) who hears from (other person name). or the response from the President who he didn’t even bother to ask.

Just his “understanding”. based on what from who? (Remember Schiff flew his staff to meet with Taylor before the whistleblower report was made public. Thanks for helping me understand, Coach Schiff!)

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Gonna be a total dumpster fire for Dems when these people have to tell us how they “know” these things and who told them and how those people “know”.

im taking a day off so I can stay up tomorrow night and watch this nonsense.

until then, can’t wait!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

If Donny gets a dollar for every lie he tells, he might be a millionaire, a real one!!!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

No, to Americans.

Not to All Americans and not to most conservatives.

California and NY aren't the opinions of the entire country, true, but here's the thing: Obama won the popular vote of all the people of the country.

We don’t go by the popular vote.

Trump didn't. Obama is popular. Trump isn't.

But Trump was popular by 65 million and most importantly, he won’t the EC. That’s the only thing that matters and wins elections. This is why the Democrats are dumb for doing this, they’re shooting themselves in their own foot trying to impeach this President who’s extremely popular in Key swing states, but the Dems want to sow their fate, so be it.

He gets booed at UFC fights, for goodness sake.

But gets a standing ovation in Alabama as well as NASCAR.

https://youtu.be/LS2Lcz-pTLM

No-one said he had a "Midas touch".

Liberals think he did.

Again? Was he impeached before?

The failed Mueller report.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

But it did rub off on the lecture speech tours with the highest in demand and the highest paid and a $100 million book deal to boot.

Wait until Trump gets his book deals 4 years later

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Your case is so weak about Trump and Ukraine that you need to bring up Miller, gates, manafort, Stone -and- Perry plus try to create another military hero in Taylor. Is the impeachment expanding into all those unrelated To Trump areas now too?

nice move combination to say extortion QPQ as well. But Schiff ordered you to stop saying QPQ as it failed the test screening.

Notice it's all whine, no facts. Nothing to rebut that Taylor (and Vindman, Hill, and Sondland) confirmed the bribe, that Donnie lied in his deposition to Mueller on his contacts with Stone, that Stone was working with the Trump campaign to publish the Russian stolen e-mails, that Perry corruptly used his position to get his buds a sweetheart deal, and that Miller was pushing white supremacy views...

We get it, and the Repubs in Congress do too - you got nothing to offer to counter the facts....just whine and bluster...

And now we know where Trump got his Hunter Biden smear - he just saw what Perry was doing peddling influence for his buddies in Ukraine...

And the orange puddle just grows larger...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The bottom line is that President Trump is out-Nixoning Nixon. And while the Ukraine allegations will take center stage in the coming days, the actors offstage are at least as important as the ones on it. The American people deserve answers. Any claim by the president to hide the truth is itself a grave wrong and an impeachable offense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/opinion/trump-impeachment-hearings.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Wait until Trump gets his book deals 4 years later

The post Trump president book deals and tours will never catch up with both the former president and first lady.

I think you mean a Trump book deal after 2020.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

But gets a standing ovation in Alabama as well as NASCAR. 

Alabama, where racism is still a value!!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@basF4Just like with the Russian hoax debacle where Mueller exonerated Trump,

Save outright lies like this for #chan, RT, infowars and other sites catering to far right zealots and the terminally benighted.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I think Israel named something after Trump as well. A street or some center.

Actually it was a bomb which was dropped on Gaza.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Dems are grasping at straws with this Ukraine conspiracy thing.

The Dems have set out to impeach Trump the moment he set foot in the Whitehouse, and this straw is all they have...

0 ( +5 / -5 )

all of which have nothing to do with Ukraine impeachment, which is the topic.

that Donnie lied in his deposition to Mueller on his contacts with Stone, that Stone was working with the Trump campaign to publish the Russian stolen e-mails, that Perry corruptly used his position to get his buds a sweetheart deal, and that Miller was pushing white supremacy views...

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

ok, I am looking forward to this supposed "bribe" (new narrative alert!) being confirmed tomorrow with facts.

As only Taylor is testifying, he cant corroborate himself. Well, maybe Schiff can vouch for him as his team is the one who helped Taylor In August to "understand" what he now "knows" before the whistleblower came out in September.

Nothing to rebut that Taylor (and Vindman, Hill, and Sondland) confirmed the bribe

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump will not be allowed to become a venue for "sham investigations" 

Oh, the hypocrisy. The whole impeachment inquiry is a sham.

Quid Pro Quo? Um, here's a good example -

Quid Pro Joe Biden: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’

At the rate the Democrats are going, Trump won't even have to bother to campaign in 2020, they're handing it to him on a silver platter.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

last question for today; Did Trump give the "bribe" or receive the "bribe"?

Biden even used the if/then statement. If you dont x , then you dont get y. total quid pro Joe.

Im looking for someone to show me that same pattern in the Trump statement. Thats why they changed quid pro quo to "bribery" and "extortion".

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

So they are going to insulate the investigation from themselves? This is an unprecedented and partisan attack on the US Constitution. Schiff will conduct his inquisition like a dictator and will expose his kangaroo court for what it is - a sham.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

This impeachment farce is appalling. Its obviously a desperate tactic by the Democratic party to try and win the election next year, and it looks terrible.

No matter what party or who you support politically its clear that Pelosi, Schiff etc are way out of bounds on this. Only rabid Trump haters blinded by hate could support this farce.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The Democrats need to be investigated to see if they have any connections with the American people.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The elephant in the room that the Dems and MSM keep dancing around is the fact they have been after Mr Trump during and ever since, the inauguration. This is the main issue here, not all this other crap.

They are working themselves into a hissy about this witness and that document, none of it matters to most Americans who count.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

"Sham Investigations" : Pot Calling Kettle Time here folks, that's how this all started...just like

those foreign dontations that came in, right before it became illegal to take it from HongKong.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The bottom line is that President Trump is out-Nixoning Nixon.

How? Nixon did a real crime, phone made a stupid phone call, Ukraine got money, Obama sent them blankets. So what crime are we talking about?

And while the Ukraine allegations will take center stage in the coming days, the actors offstage are at least as important as the ones on it.

Ok and?

The American people deserve answers.

At this point most Americans could care less and have already made up their minds.

Any claim by the president to hide the truth is itself a grave wrong and an impeachable offense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....anyway, nothing will happen, he won’t be removed, but if this makes Democrats happy go for it.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Save outright lies like this for #chan, RT, infowars and other sites catering to far right zealots and the terminally benighted.

Soooo we should just allow lies from all the bias media like Mother Jones, MoveOn.org, NYT, CNN ans msnbc bleed through with their partisan politics? Really?

Alabama, where racism is still a value!!

Tell that to the minorities struggling in SF and LA.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Even if Bill Taylor and the other public servants give damning and believable testimonies about Trump's shenanigans, it's doubtful whether it'll make any difference. In general, the political IQ of most Americans is in the mud. The evidence? Look no further than the election and popularity of the current president.

It's also strange that we watched Bill Clinton's testimony on TV about oral sex but nothing about Trump and any of his various scandals. I'm not against airing dirty laundry in public on TV, but let's at least be fair about it. Furthermore, where in the U.S. constitution does it say that lying about oral sex is an impeachable offense? On the other hand, extorting a foreign government and trying to bribe that foreign country for dirt on a domestic political opponent clearly is an impeachable offense according to the U.S. Constitution.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My the Trumpers are in quite a tither - we understand, crushing evidence can do that of you're a criminal...

Notice it's all whine, no facts. Nothing to rebut that Taylor (and Vindman, Hill, and Sondland) confirmed the bribe, that Donnie lied in his deposition to Mueller on his contacts with Stone, that Stone was working with the Trump campaign to publish the Russian stolen e-mails, that Perry corruptly used his position to get his buds a sweetheart deal, and that Miller was pushing white supremacy views...

Let's see, 11 posts from the Trumpers, yet all have evaded Sondland, Hill, Vindman, Stone, Perry, and Miller...

Well, when you have no facts, just whine...loudly....

2 ( +4 / -2 )

With the exception of Taylor, they have nothing to do with Ukraine impeachment hoax public testimony and are off topic distractions of unrelated events that have nothing to do with Trump. When you have no facts, just distract, over and over, while claiming no one is addressing your lack of facts. (I just did- these people are irrelevant to tomorrows testimony).

all have evaded Sondland, Hill, Vindman, Stone, Perry, and Miller...

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

My the Trumpers are in quite a tither

You mean on a roll, hehe. Amazing how when Trump supporters express their opinion they're "in quite a tither."

My question is, when Ukraine fails, will the Dems try Russian collusion again or bring out Stormy 2.0?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

TheLongTermerToday  12:02 pm JST

The elephant in the room that the Dems and MSM keep dancing around is the fact they have been after Mr Trump during and ever since, the inauguration.

Ummm... yes, and....? That's kind of what opposition parties and media outlets that support them do. Although in this case they couldn't do anything until Trump played right into their hands with this Ukraine thing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

SerranoToday  11:38 am JST

Quid Pro Quo? Um, here's a good example -

Quid Pro Joe Biden: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’

Going to provide the context for that remark? Either the actual context or the grossly distorted Republican one?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So what do you call the last 3 years of false allegations and dud bombshells from the media? Once again liberals think they have something they can get non political people to believe actually happened. Wrong again.

couldn't do anything 

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Oh, and I missed another one - they are coming so fast....

Rudy's Ukraine buddy has flipped - and is going to spill his guts on Trump and Crazy Rudy's extortion attempt...oh my.....

An associate of Rudy Giuliani’s who was indicted in October on campaign finance charges will cooperate with the House Democrats’ impeachment probe, his attorneys said Monday.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/giuliani-associate-lev-parnas-now-cooperating-impeachment-inquiry-93941

The orange puddle just grew to a small lake...

With the exception of Taylor, they have nothing to do with Ukraine impeachment hoax public testimony and are off topic distractions of unrelated events that have nothing to do with Trump. When you have no facts, just distract, over and over, while claiming no one is addressing your lack of facts. (I just did- these people are irrelevant to tomorrows testimony).

See how confused they are - they can't even recognize Sondland was Donnie's hand-picked guy and lied under oath about the bribe, and had to go correct his testimony, or that Hill saw first hand the bribe in Sondland's meeting, or that Vindman heard the bribe on the phone call and saw Sondland offer it in two meertings.

The mountain of evidence has them smothered and confused...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If/then is quid pro quo regardless of context. Context just helps me decide if it was good or bad, honest or dishonest, helpful or harmful, necessary or unnecessary.

doesn’t make it not quid pro quo.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Serrano: The Democrats need to be investigated to see if they have any connections with the American people.

Sometimes, you do make me smile.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If/then is quid pro quo regardless of context.

Not true. For example: if Trump pressured a foreign government to interfere in US elections by smearing an opponent, then he should be removed from office. See?

Context just helps me decide if it was good or bad, honest or dishonest, helpful or harmful, necessary or unnecessary.

doesn’t make it not quid pro quo.

Ha, typical far-right goalpost moving. From "there was no quid pro quo" to "there was but it was good actually".

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The Dems have set out to impeach Trump the moment he set foot in the Whitehouse, and this straw is all they have...

Then why did Pelosi have to be dragged kicking and screaming to begin impeachment proceedings 3/4ths of the way through Trump's presidency?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

BlacklabelToday  12:51 pm JST

So what do you call the last 3 years of false allegations and dud bombshells from the media?

I call it nothing that the Democrats felt they could launch impeachment proceedings based on. I also call the allegations unproven because unlike his marks I'm not determined to find Donald Trump innocent of absolutely everything no matter what.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Blacklabel: Context just helps me decide if it was good or bad, honest or dishonest, helpful or harmful, necessary or unnecessary.

I'm sorry you're confused as to what to define it. We have a President who swore to protect the Constitution securing his own selfish and nutball positions in a way that ran contrary to the goals of our country. Or, for simple folk, he put himself before country.

He did this by withholding crucial aid to an ally unless they met her personal demands which, again, ran contrary to the goals of our country.

What would you like to call it?

Some are saying quid pro quo since Trump was expecting something in return for the aid. Others are calling it extorsion since the Ukraine really had no choice in the matter as the aid was crucial for their survival. Others are calling it bribery because Trump treated our foreign aid as a resource to gain personal wins.

My description would be "unfit for office." How about you?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Serrano: The Democrats need to be investigated to see if they have any connections with the American people.

Rich come from Putin's biggest booster, someone who believes the Kremlin's reports, not the 'western' ones, someone who pushes for Russia to have even greater inroads into US politics.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well, now we know why Rick "Woops" Perry said out of the blue last month that he would refuse to testify this week, and why he put in his resignation....

He knew he'd get caught with his corrupt lobbying for two of his buddies with the Ukrainians to get them two large oil and gas contracts - more evidence of how much the swamp pervades Trump-world...

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/11/rick-perry-supporters-won-potentially-lucrative-ukraine-oil-and-gas-de/

Issue a subpoena and get him in front of the committee - make him answer the question; "what did you do and who did you talk to - was this another QPQ?"

If he doesn't take the 5th, I'm sure he'll repeat his 2016 debate performance - "I can't..., I don't remember..., woops".....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Your case is so weak about Trump and Ukraine that you need to bring up Miller, gates, manafort, Stone -and- Perry plus try to create another military hero in Taylor.

"Your case is so weak, that you need to bring up evidence to prove your point"

Wow, about as ridiculous an argument as anyone ever put out.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I call it nothing that the Democrats felt they could launch impeachment proceedings based on. I also call the allegations unproven because unlike his marks I'm not determined to find Donald Trump innocent of absolutely everything no matter what.

I don’t know why liberals want to waste their time on fruitless witch hoaxes? You’d think they would have learned earlier this year, but that’s just asking for too much....

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'

*Democrats vow to insulate themselves from the sham impeachment inquiry investigation*

Fixed

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites