As Trump adviser testifies, House Democrats ready impeachment rules

Democrats have accused Trump of pressuring a vulnerable foreign ally to interfere in an American election for his own political benefit. Federal law prohibits candidates from accepting foreign help in an election

I'm trying to square the above with this:

Even before his arrival, some allies of the Republican president, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, sought to attack Vindman's integrity and questioned his loyalty to the United States.

Trump, who's only used his birth country for his own personal gain, seeks help from foreign nations, but the decorated military veteran's loyalty to country is questioned.

But then that's consistent with Trump's true believers and his backers in the media: Trump trumps the nation.

The Trump kakocracy / kleptocarcy / thugocracy continues undermining the remaining bits of the republic.

And you are not the president nor an elected official and don’t have to “agree” with what he says or does. in fact you are in the military and should not be undermining your commander in favor of your county of birth who you are also advising.

This has simply turned into people who wanted to do something else, not anything criminal.

"I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine."

@ptownsend,

”..but the decorated military veteran’s loyalty to country is questioned.”

I see, but its ok to call Tulsi Gabbard (a serving veteran) a russian asset. The hypocrisy is contemptable.

Once foreign powers like Ukraine begin to interfere in America’s elections, freedom and sovereignty are lost.

And then after that’s debunked, who’s next on the map Uzbekistan?

Trump, who's only used his birth country for his own personal gain,

As does every American born in this country or unless you want to be a lazy bum and go on welfare and have the government carry you.

seeks help from foreign nations, but the decorated military veteran's loyalty to country is questioned.

Which is not a crime, but let me get this straight, any military official or lawyer that supports Trump should be scrutinized, should be vilified and ran out of town, if you are a lawyer or military official who hates Trump, they are loyal Americans and we need not question their actions and we always have to respect and believe them....interesting...

@ketrelcla68burningbushI see, but its ok to call Tulsi Gabbard (a serving veteran) a russian asset. The hypocrisy is contemptable.

The book's still out on Gabbard. Her stated political beliefs continue to vacillate. Who knows where her loyalties lie.

Love how all these articles call people “trump adviser”. No, they didn’t advise anything. they listened in on a phone call or heard what was said from someone else and don’t “like” it.

in this case, he was concerned his birth country of Ukraine would have to accept the Trump foreign policy and he didn’t like it. That’s it.

Where is the crime and why do people in the Trump WH get to support other countries when it comes to foreign policy? The President sets that.

Under the Democratic plan, Trump's lawyers could cross examine witnesses, present their case, respond to evidence gathered and raise objections to testimony given.

Part of the Democratic staff hired this year:

Daniel Goldman - former Assistant United States Attorney SDNY.

Patrick Fallon - former chief of the FBI’s Financial Crimes Section.

Barry Berke, expert on federal criminal law.

Norm Eisen, expert on the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

You better take cover GOP!

Typical attack the messenger ploy. Trump is pleading for release of the phone transcript while blocking release of relevant documents. We know the Don is skilled at hinting and avoiding incriminating remarks when he speaks himself; it's what was going on behind the scenes that is important.

in fact you are in the military and should not be undermining your commander in favor of your county of birth who you are also advising.

A military officer swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president. If the President or anyone above him in the chain of command does something illegal, a military officer is bound both by duty and oath to report and do something about it, and can refuse illegal or immoral orders as well.

Part of the Democratic staff hired this year: 

Daniel Goldman - former Assistant United States Attorney SDNY. 

Patrick Fallon - former chief of the FBI’s Financial Crimes Section. 

Barry Berke, expert on federal criminal law. 

Norm Eisen, expert on the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

You better take cover GOP!

Yeah and the Democrats as well including Hunter Biden cross examinations and witness callings are coming.

Which is not a crime, 

Yes it is. Seeking foreign assistance in a U.S. election is against the law. That's why Team Trump kept repeating its "no collusion" narrative during the Russia probe. Also, if it's not a crime, why is Trump refusing to cooperate in the investigation? Why are his lawyers arguing (preposterously) that the president is immune not only to prosecution but also to investigation?!

Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in return for dirt on his political rival. There's ample evidence for that. If Trump were so concerned about wider corruption in Ukraine, he 1) wouldn't have tried to cut the budget for U.S. anti-corruption programs in Ukraine, and 2) he would be able to articulate what corruption he is angered by besides the so-called "corruption" of the Bidens. He can't, because Trump is not concerned about corruption. He is himself corruption incarnate.

The fact that the Democrats wanted to impeach him since the election, even before he ever did anything, is a good enough reason not to believe anything they come up with.

With all due respect to Republicans, which is none, due process has been meticulously followed from the onset of these investigations. Scream all you want, the truth will come out and there's not a damn thing you can do about it except look like toddlers throwing tantrums. Grow the hell up.

Scream all you want, the truth will come out

Yep, Barr and Durham are working on it.

Trump 2020 all the way.

the “truth came out” in the Mueller report too. But that truth didn’t suit you so we are off looking for another “truth” that does.

the truth is that some people don’t like Trump or how he does things. You have been unable to prove any crimes so you just need to get over it.

cant wait until Durham is done to watch you guys flip flop on due process and what you consider as legal and fair. If you question that investigation in any way, it’s obstruction.

The fact that the Democrats wanted to impeach him since the election, even before he ever did anything

I wonder if you realize that’s not actually a fact and are claiming it to be so disingenuously, or if you don’t realize that it’s not actually a fact and just cluelessly claimed so anyways, not being clear on what exactly a fact is.

With all due respect to Republicans, which is none. With all due process to Republicans, which is also none.

"Why are people that I never even heard of testifying about the call. Just READ THE CALL TRANSCRIPT AND THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX IS OVER! Ukrain (sic) said NO PRESSURE,"

Can he READ at all? Certainly not Ukrainian, but I can, and I have read Ukrainian newspapers and they report that pressure on Zelenskiy started two weeks BEFORE he was sworn in as president. Trump's scandalous conduct has created unwanted notoriety for the new president who is now known by the embarrassing moniker: Monica Zelenskij! Dyakuyu, NOT!

Twitter has the best stuff:

“So Alexander Vindman was "concerned" about the conversation the POTUS had with the President of the Ukraine and claims he told the NSC lead counsel, John Eisenberg, oh but wait who else is one of the NSC Legal Counsels? Oh it's his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman. How convenient.”

With all due process to Republicans, which is also none.

Actually, House rules are being followed. It's hard to say that Republicans aren't allowed to do anything when A) they sit in on the same hearings, and B) one of them, Ted Yoho of Florida, has been skipping the hearings. Even though he's allowed to be present, ask questions to those testifying in the hearings and more, Yoho has skipped all hearings because he feels he has "other duties" to take care of.

all due process to Republicans, which is also none.

Just so I can figure out which we are talking about, are we talking about the actual legal term due process which has a clear legal definition, or the boogeyman talking point your team has created and labeled 'due process' which isn't actually defined anywhere, and has no basis in the law whatsoever?

If it's the former, we can discuss why our team thinks that legal due process has been followed, and/or whether it has not.

If it's the latter, well it's not really anything worthy of discussion. Yes, yes, we understand, things weren't done the way you wish they were.

So please, just let us know which we're talking about, so we can properly move this discussion forward. It gets difficult when your team keeps using existing terms to label their boogeymen.

It’s fine. I don’t need to discuss due process any further I will just wait for your flip flop on it when Durham comes calling for your team members.

you have nothing other than people not liking what Trump did. That’s not a crime.

But I will say I can’t wait to see the transcripts of Schiff telling the witness he doesn’t have to answer questions a Republican asked about who he talked to.

@ptownsend,

”the books still out on gabbard.” So you say.

So she can be villified and accused of treason by the Dems?

It’s fine. I don’t need to discuss due process any further

As I thought, we were talking about the boogeyman you guys' decided to label 'due process'. Thanks, that makes it easier to discuss.

Just to re-iterate, in regards to the boogyman: Yes, yes, we understand, things weren't done the way you wish they were.

"I was concerned by the call," Vindman said in his opening statement to the three House committees conducting the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry. "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine."

"I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security," Vindman added.

BINGO! Another Trump admin official stating clearly this was a quid-pro-quo - as if we needed more info after Donnie's confession.

What's also interesting is Trump and his minions trying to undermine and cause discord in Ukraine - exactly what Putin wants as he tries again to install his puppet as President. More of the Master Putin directing his Poodle Donnie.

Yep, Barr and Durham are working on it.

It’s fine. I don’t need to discuss due process any further I will just wait for your flip flop on it when Durham comes calling for your team members.

And as the facts pile up and the case against Donnie grows, the Trumpers are forced to not argue whether Donnie engaged in a QPQ, but only offer their hopes in "just wait for Durham"....very weak...

The disgusting smear of Lt Col Vindman was expected - that's what they do, and shows their disdain and disrespect for our military heroes. If they'd smear Jim Mattis, they'd smear anyone in uniform. And everyone who wears the uniform or has worn it knows this.

But yet the uniform only means something when the person wearing it thinks like you do. You can’t explain that one away re: Gabbard.

so how many more people coming to tell Schiff how they “feel” about a phone call that we have seen transcripts of?

No one has disputed the content of the transcript. Just a steady parade of concern trolling.

“That guy’s a Purple Heart. I think it would be a mistake to attack his credibility,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said in an interview. “You can obviously take issue with the substance and there are different interpretations about all that stuff. But I wouldn’t go after him personally. He’s a patriot.”

“I’m not going to question the patriotism of any of the people who come forward," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of the most hawkish Republicans in the House and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said it would be “shameful” to question Vindman’s loyalty or patriotism to the country. Cheney wasn’t even pressed by reporters on the topic; in her opening remarks during a weekly leadership news conference in the Capitol, she went out of her way to decry the attacks on Vindman, including the outlandish theory that he was a potential spy working against the United States.

"This is the career military officer with a Purple Heart? I'm sure he's doing his best to serve his country," said Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 4 GOP leader. "Somebody can have a wrong sense of where they think the path goes but that doesn't mean that they're wrongly motivated. ... Criticizing this guy? No. I wouldn't be on board."

Hmmmm... Looks like some top Repubs aren't on-board with the far-right media hate machine smear attempt...good for them.

Vindman's testimony puts a pretty tight noose around Trump's neck.

It corroborates a lot of the information already given by Taylor and Hill, and shows how at each level there was concern with Trump's behavior. Taylor's brilliant recap of the meetings, conversations, people, etc. has been confirmed at every turn. The last piece of the puzzle will be Bolton, but even he's not needed if there is a record he voiced concerns to NSC attorneys which would be a matter of record.

From Vindman's statement:

"Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate. Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel."

Sondland has since admitted there was quid pro quo. There's also Mulvaney's disastrous press conference.

If you've read the statements they've released, you'll realize Trump is out of his depth and mentally unstable. All three voiced how critical Ukraine was to counter Russia's influence west and closer to Europe. The aid was critical. Trump took this incredibly important situation to US strategic interests and tried to leverage it for investigation into his rival and some crackpot server conspiracy theory. He just doesn't get it.

By the end of the trial everyone will know Trump is guilty. They will know he put his interests above those of the country and did it in a harmful way to our country. But it doesn't mean he will get indicted. The GOP has a lot of power in the bubble to tell people what to think, and others will go along with it because they just don't care or because they'll support Trump even if he's guilty.

It's going to be bad for Taylor, Hill, Vindman, and eventually Sondland when he flips. Already they are starting smear campaigns against the military man with a purple heart and impeccable credentials. Sounds familiar. Trump and the GOP will make their base believe they are a cabal of radical bureaucrats out to get Trump, the victim.

If Trump does walk then it's not going to be pretty. He will have essentially established himself as a President who is available for sale. He will act against America's interests for personal gain, and the GOP will send the message that they're going to block any attempts to hold him accountable.

Yes it is.

Then if it is, we might be lucky to see Hillary and most of the Hose Democrats go to prison, good.

Seeking foreign assistance in a U.S. election is against the law. That's why Team Trump kept repeating its "no collusion" narrative during the Russia probe. Also, if it's not a crime, why is Trump refusing to cooperate in the investigation? Why are his lawyers arguing (preposterously) that the president is immune not only to prosecution but also to investigation?!

You can’t charge a sitting President, but if the Dems wat ans early funeral, so be it.

Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in return for dirt on his political rival.

There was no quid pro quo, now Biden its a different story, not only did he admit to it on camera, he was proud of it.

There's ample evidence for that. If Trump were so concerned about wider corruption in Ukraine, he 1) wouldn't have tried to cut the budget for U.S. anti-corruption programs in Ukraine, and 2) he would be able to articulate what corruption he is angered by besides the so-called "corruption" of the Bidens.

Biden won’t even articulate it because he can’t, that’s the reason why he’ll lose.

He can't, because Trump is not concerned about corruption. He is himself corruption incarnate.

Actually, the Democrats are the very definition of gangrene corruption. But they do have a shot in 2024. Hope they repent until then.

the Democrats wanted to impeach him since the election, even before he ever did anything,

Freudian slip? Are you admitting that Trump did something impeachable?

I suspect even diehard Trump fans know their man is guilty. They're just sublimating their shame.

For more information:

Taylor's statement: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__sxL_fgzy5JYqaxB9cysOHwwQSE4/view (15 pages long, but insanely detailed)

Vindman's Statement: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/10/Vindmanstatementfinal.pdf (5 pages, confirmed some key points of Taylor's).

Marie Yovanovitch's Statement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-marie-yovanovitch-s-prepared-deposition-statement/dffbf543-a373-46e0-a957-bc12a9371af4/ (10 pages. Trump removed her as Ambassador)

You'll see common threads about a "side channel" that wasn't working through the regular channels, but directly with Trump and Giuliani attempting to secure investigations. They also describe how Trump's behavior was against the best interests of the country. They'll also talk about how important Ukraine is in their own ways.

There was no quid pro quo, now Biden its a different story, not only did he admit to it on camera, he was proud of it.

Biden, along with the EU and other countries, demanded the firing of a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't prosecuting corruption enough. The withholding of aid was tied to that, not to the prosecutor's nonexistent investigation of Hunter Biden. You people keep repeating this lie. Either you are thick or you are simply arguing in bad faith.

"No quid pro quo" has become the new "no collusion". Quid pro quo in itself has little meaning. What was demanded by Biden was a more stringent prosecution of corruption across the board. What was demanded by Trump and Giuliani was a targeted investigation of a political rival.

There's a pretty consistent refrain from the Trumpers here, as fact upon substantiated fact emerge on the rogue Ukraine operation and Trump's QPQ....

But Hillary....

But Biden....

Wait for Barr and Durham...

They've got nothing else to reply with. The mountain of evidence has come crashing down on them.

We'll see even more bizarre and unhinged posts - like one yesterday where a Trumper said Donnie was right in not telling Congress of Bagdadhi's raid since Schummer and Pelosi would have informed ISIS.

Beyond crazy....

Biden, along with the EU and other countries, demanded the firing of a corrupt prosecutor who wasn't prosecuting corruption enough.

Yes and as VP he was angry that they were looking into his son, Hunter, the one that got a dishonorable discharge, the man who has or had a serious drug addiction and who slept with his dead brothers wife and started working for and being CEO of a gas company making 50K a month a zero experience, none of that is unsettling, but the prosecutor investing this guy is? ROFL!

You bought that line!

The withholding of aid was tied to that, not to the prosecutor's nonexistent investigation of Hunter Biden. You people keep repeating this lie. Either you are thick or you are simply arguing in bad faith.

...or maybe I see through the liberal BS. Well, it’s all good, once the Dems take a vote on impeachment, the GOP will definitely call him up as a witness, so we’ll find out either way. For once Nancy did the right thing.

"No quid pro quo" has become the new "no collusion".

Like the Russian and UKrainian one?

Quid pro quo in itself has little meaning.

Then Democrats shouldn’t try to impeach this President on a suspicious allegation made by a partisan Democrat who has deep animosity towards Trump and wants to see and is close with one of the leading Democrats. It should all be dismissed.

What was demanded by Biden was a more stringent prosecution of corruption across the board. What was demanded by Trump and Giuliani was a targeted investigation of a political rival.

And all the more reason for Barr and Durham to expand the scope of their inves

"No quid pro quo" has become the new "no collusion". Quid pro quo in itself has little meaning. What was demanded by Biden was a more stringent prosecution of corruption across the board. What was demanded by Trump and Giuliani was a targeted investigation of a political rival.

And all the more reason for Barr and Durham to expand the scope of their investigation on how this all started and how Trump was targeted by angry Democrats that colluded with a foreign government, a British spy to come up with a fake dossier to spy on then candidate Trump. There’s your real collusion.

Amazing how all these secret but “damning” opening statements of opinion are readily available to the media. But no transcripts of testimony, questions or answers.

Amazing how all these secret but “damning” opening statements of opinion are readily available to the media. But no transcripts of testimony, questions or answers.

Not amazing at all. Utterly unamazing, really. Investigations are done in private. What do you think would happen to investigations if it was all done in the open? Do you think you would get the truth?

Donny will get his chance to defend himself when he's tried.

Its disgraceful that the right wing nutters are encouraging the Trumplets in questioning the patriotism of a man who received a Purple Heart . And that too for a man who escaped draft by making up bonespurs!!!!!

Its been reported today that the GOP has accepted that they will lose both Presidency and the Senate in 2020.

Karma sure is a witch!!

@kestrelcla68bushetal”the books still out on gabbard.” So you say.

So she can be villified and accused of treason by the Dems?

I haven't read she's been accused of treason, but I understand partisan extremists will completely exaggerate positions of those they disagree with, take a statement like 'the book's still out' and stretch it to mean someone's been villified and accused of treason. Save the exaggerations for #chan, RT, and the benighted audiences partisan extremists market their whack to.

Amazing how all these secret but “damning” opening statements of opinion are readily available to the media. But no transcripts of testimony, questions or answers.

Must be frustrating that the Republicans set up the impeachment process that way.

You should talk to your team, there's probably a lesson to be learned there on transparency.

It’s disgraceful that the right wing nutters are encouraging the Trumplets in questioning the patriotism of a man who received a Purple Heart.

If only liberals felt the same about Powell, Petraeus and Gen. Flynn as well, but hey, they like Trump so.....

And that too for a man who escaped draft by making up bonespurs!!!!! 

He wasn’t the only President to avoid it.

Its been reported today that the GOP has accepted that they will lose both Presidency and the Senate in 2020.

If you believe that then you will also believe John Kerry will be the next US President.

Karma sure is a witch!!

Yes, it is.

Leaking of the secret opening statements that benefit Dems has nothing to do with Repubs or the process. It’s illegal leaks ignored by Dems because they like those.

“That guy’s a Purple Heart. I think it would be a mistake to attack his credibility,...... He’s a patriot.”

You really got to appreciate how getting yourself injured in a war started by people who only love American's tax money, who get Americans killed in droves in wars of profiteering and lies, somehow makes a man an instant American patriot.

I hate Trump, but skipping such a war on the basis of imaginary bone spurs makes him more of a patriot in my opinion.

Leaking of the secret opening statements that benefit Dems has nothing to do with Repubs or the process. It’s illegal leaks ignored by Dems because they like those.

Its not illegal. You're making yourself look silly now.

I hate Trump, but skipping such a war on the basis of imaginary bone spurs makes him more of a patriot in my opinion.

You'd have a point if Trump was a conscientious objector. He didn't skip, because he was opposed to war. He skipped out, because he was a coward.

as VP he was angry that they were looking into his son, Hunter,

They weren't looking into his son, and Biden wasn't angry about them doing that nonexistent thing.

Show me evidence they were investigating Hunter Biden.

being CEO of a gas company making 50K a month a zero experience,

I don't like nepotism either, but it's not a crime.

And BTW, Hunter Biden wasn't CEO of Burisma.

illegal leaks

Are these supposed crimes part of the act that outlines collusion?

Oh wait, collusion wasn't a crime. But you say these are? Which crime?

What is the cost of lies? It's not that we will mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that, if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all.

They weren't looking into his son, and Biden wasn't angry about them doing that nonexistent thing.

then if that were really true then there wouldn’t have been a need or reason for Biden wanting to have the prosecutor fired that was investigating his son

Show me evidence they were investigating Hunter Biden.

I can’t, I don’t work for the Ukrainian government I am just reading the papers and watching the TV news cycle just like everyone else.

And BTW, Hunter Biden wasn't CEO of Burisma.

Well, Barr and Durham will determine that. Not the WP, CNN or any other liberal media cabal.

then if that were really true then there wouldn’t have been a need or reason for Biden wanting to have the prosecutor fired that was investigating his son

There is no proof of that. Prove it.

There is no proof of that. Prove it.

You can’t prove he didn’t. But what is indisputable is Biden admitting gleefully boasting about his quid pro quo.

You can’t prove he didn’t. But what is indisputable is Biden admitting gleefully boasting about his quid pro quo.

How am I supposed to prove a negative, don't be absurd.

You've been told multiple times on this thread why the prosecutor was fired. He was fired for not investigating corruption. Here are just a few articles from 2016 explaining this. Please notice I am also including international sources.

https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_no_reforms_no_aid_for_ukraine_7020

But despite this progress, dangerous backsliding has taken place in recent months. Kyiv’s hopelessly corrupt Prosecutor Generals’ Office (PGO) is leading an increasingly open war against anti-corruption reformers both inside and outside the organisation. Although the PGO’s hated Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was finally forced out, he managed to fire his only remaining reformist deputy before he left

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/media-prosecutor-general-shokin-submits-resignation-408228.html

The reports came shortly after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he’d asked his appointed prosecutor, who has failed to bring a single major criminal case to trial in a year, to leave.

Failed to bring a single major criminal case to trial. Zero. None. So, with all do respect, the claim that Biden got him fired to protect his son is just right wing fever dream.

Don't have to. The rule of law is "innocent until proved guilty"

Hmmm...unless that’s for a conservative. Well, at least your honest as to who is allowed to be viewed as guilty of innocent and that liberals are the ones to determine that status. ROFL!

There is no evidence of guilt by the Bidens.

Again, Barr and Durham will determine that and no one else, Rachel Maddow included.

There is evidence of Trump and his Ukraine call asking for the dirt on the Bidens.

But no quid pro quo asked unlike Biden’s willful and proud confession.

Thanks for the factual post, Super.

But no quid pro quo asked unlike Biden’s willful and proud confession.

There actually is. Ask Mick Mulvaney.

How am I supposed to prove a negative, don't be absurd. 

No, it’s not. Liberals belive Hunter Biden did nothing, conservatives are not buying it and liberals think because 99% of the liberal media drive that narrative we just have to take it face value? Again, Barr and Durham will find out and will determine that.

You've been told multiple times

As you have been as well.

There actually is. Ask Mick Mulvaney.

As he said, he misspoke.

You seem to be twisting the truth? What Biden proud confession?

No, I never do. https://youtu.be/cBGKEfcj76Q

The White House whistle blowers were there for Trump's Ukraine call.

And the whistle blowers in the WH are there for Trump’s entrapment.

Is it so hard to stay on the path to truth.

I really and truly as well as sincerely as this to liberals on a daily basis.

If only liberals felt the same about Powell, Petraeus and Gen. Flynn as well, but hey, they like Trump so.....

Its difficult for Russians to figure what liberals think, there is plenty of respect for the others.except Flynn.

He wasn’t the only President to avoid it.

We have only one President today, the rest, it might come as a surprise, are ex-Presidents.

If you believe that then you will also believe John Kerry will be the next US President.

Anyone, just about anyone could be President today, seeing the train wreck the current one is, hey if we resurrected Nixon they might elect him too.

No, it’s not. Liberals belive Hunter Biden did nothing, conservatives are not buying it and liberals think because 99% of the liberal media drive that narrative we just have to take it face value?

No, no. You don't have to take it at face value. There are numerous contemporaneous articles written specifically about the prosecutor's failure to prosecute corruption. I've posted several here, which you've ignored; Opting instead to go full bore with an absurd conspiracy theory. Do you think all of those articles were just made up? Come on now.

As he said, he misspoke.

Did Donny misspeak, too? What an amazing coincidence it is that a guy who makes millions in graft chooses now, in the midst of an election cycle, to ask a foreign country to investigate a rival candidate. I am sure its all just a big coincidence.;)

No, I never do. https://youtu.be/cBGKEfcj76Q

Yeah you do, you rightwingers lie all the time. Why don't you post the whole talk and not just 30 seconds? I'll do it for you. Who is really lying? ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0_AqpdwqK4

No, no. You don't have to take it at face value.

Good, I don’t.

There are numerous contemporaneous articles written specifically about the prosecutor's failure to prosecute corruption.

Yes and there are many pundits on TV and other conservative networks that dispute those claims.

I've posted several here, which you've ignored;

Ditto

Did Donny misspeak, too? What an amazing coincidence it is that a guy who makes millions in graft chooses now, in the midst of an election cycle, to ask a foreign country to investigate a rival candidate. I am sure its all just a big coincidence.;)

...or walking down the liberal conspiracy lane as usual.

So liberals support innocent until proven guilty for Biden.

but guilty from day 1 for Trump the whole time you tried to prove him guilty and couldn’t. and even after found not guilty by your boy Mueller.

So again what has Trump been found guilty of, exactly? not what you think he did or hope he did but actually found guilty of?

i ammmmm an innnnnocent mannnn....goes the song.

Yeah you do, you rightwingers lie all the time.

Wow! That’s a very bold, one sided and provocative statement.

Why don't you post the whole talk and not just 30 seconds? I'll do it for you. Who is really lying? ;)

Yes, but it doesn’t matter, those last 30 seconds are what perked up Durham and Barr’s ears. Hey, I’ll leave it up to them to extrapolate what and how they want to.

Yes and there are many pundits on TV and other conservative networks that dispute those claims.

They aren't claims. They're facts. Ukrainian parliament sacked him for corruption. No one disputes this, which is why you can't prove it.

Yes, but it doesn’t matter, those last 30 seconds are what perked up Durham and Barr’s ears.

Ahhhh, so facts don't matter. Context doesn't matter. Fine. Barr goes after Biden. What do you think will happen when the court views the whole tape? The court will know its BS, and it'll get thrown. Conservative logic. lol

Also, it wasn't the last 30 seconds. Also, the part about Ukraine comes up at minute 50:30 if you're interested in learning the truth.

They aren't claims. They're facts.

If you think so. I posted enough counterclaims, but liberals refuted them as well. It goes both ways.

Ukrainian parliament sacked him for corruption.

As well as for investigating Biden’s son and threatening to withhold ad to Ukraine. Classic quid pro quo.

Ahhhh, so facts don't matter. Context doesn't matter.

Hey, tell that to shifty Schiff and Pelosi.

Fine. Barr goes after Biden. What do you think will happen when the court views the whole tape? The court will know its BS, and it'll get thrown. Conservative logic. lol

Equally, it will be the same with this impeachment hoax...again, the democrats will impeach him but the Senate won’t convict and remove him.

Also, it wasn't the last 30 seconds. Also, the part about Ukraine comes up at minute 50:30 if you're interested in learning the truth.

Again, The focuses on Biden‘s confession with saying proudly and assertively that he was happy to withhold money from the Ukrainian government unless they fired the prosecutor that was investigating his son.

So joe Biden is concerned about corrupt prosecutors in Ukraine for some reason. Please provide the names of the prosecutors he expected to be fired for corruption?

oh it was only 1 guy, you say?