Why do the same people who discounted the whistle blower's charges as being second hand knowledge, now demand to know the whistle blower's identity?

Their stable genius expects them to do so & the stepford clan follows his lead!!!

Since everything the whistle blower said has been born out, the only way to defend against it is to claim this was a partisan attack.

The reason is because he has worked for Joe Biden and Adam Schiff. His name and identity have been published and broadcast dozens of times. It should be widely revealed that his association with these persons, and his motive, needs to be widely known so that the American people can see his motive.

Adam Schiff himself no longer wants this individual to testify because it would reveal his own association with this “whistleblower”

But there are no laws protecting the identity of a “whistle blower”

So…. if it was all maufactured, why wouldn’t Trump cooperate?

@Yellowdog did you just get that response from the White House? You just told a half dozen lies.

The whistleblower’s identity is protected by Federal Law, (but the White House ignores following the law.) He or she did not work for Biden or Schiff, he is a career intelligence officer, whose identity is a matter of National Security.

His motive is that the participants on the call were aware of criminal conduct being undertaken by the President. Like any true patriot, he reported that through proper channels to the Inspector General of his department.

Trump wants to out him to obstruct justice.

@Yellowdog , Does the whistle blower have first hand knowledge or not? All indications, including the whistle blower’s own statements, are that they only had second hand knowledge. Now that we have highly revealing testimony from people with first hand knowledge, what the whistle blower originally said no longer matters. Why does it matter it matter if Schiff or anyone else had contact with them?

What @Yellowdog said. People asking the right questions about this whole whistleblower fiasco has revealed a more sinister back story to the real motives behind this event. From the information being revealed this whistleblower had no direct knowledge, not even second hand information or even 3rd hand information and to unleash this degree of scrutiny on less than zero factual information is why the American public deserves to know all the players involved and original intent. It matters a LOT!

The whistle-blower could have been Bozo the Clown, it doesn’t matter who he/she is if their intel is accurate. Based on primary, first-hand sources—it is.

It appears that our local dog is president of the stepford clan. Yes, my master

@Yellowdog is correct that the whistleblower protection act does not protect the identity of a whistleblower.
It prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.I
But then why is it important to identify the whistleblower, if not to attack him?

Trump would tweet out the name and address and his mindless ilk would:
1) Firebomb their house
2) Bully their kids in school
3) Key their cars

There are reasons Trump “the gangster” has the followers that act like gangsters and thugs.

^Many Trumpers act that way. But they are really just cowards.

The whistleblower’s name will out. It’s but a matter of time. But his identity is insignificant compared with the question of the veracity of his/her revelations.

The whistleblower complaint was rife with inaccuracies and was presented as being second-hand information. Just like with the Russia collusion story, this makes the source suspect. Given the left’s penchant for falsifying accusations, the source suddenly becomes very important while the actual complaint is not. The “whistleblower” is not entitled by any law to anonymity. For the Dems to hide this person’s identity adds to the suspicion. Adam Schiff starts off demanding that the “whistleblower” testify under oath…making a big production of this demand. Even after the phone call transcript was released he was demanding this.
Then it came out that the “whistleblower” actually had contact with his (Schiff) staff prior to making the complaint. Suddenly Schiff, who has publicly claimed he didn’t know who the whistleblower was and had never met him, is saying there is no reason for the “whistleblower” to have to testify. There are accusations that this person worked for Joe Biden and had contact with Adam Schiff. The history of this person and his bogus complaint suddenly becomes much more intriguing than his complaint. If it comes out that this person has ties to these prominent Dems, this suddenly looks more like it was fake from the start and is definitely only a political stunt. Now one of the “whistleblower’s” lawyers has a history of tweeting things like “the coup is starting” and “the impeachment will start soon” back in 2017. If Schiff’s staff recommended this lawyer to the “whistleblower”, that becomes even more indicative that it is a fake attempt to create a charge to try impeachment with.

@MrGrimm888 And how many times have Repubs and conservatives been doxxed by liberals? I can count a few. But how many times have conservatives returned this favor to the left? Pretty much never. So who are the cowards?

@wulfie. What if this person doesn’t have prominent ties to the dems. What if he is a White House staffer? What excuse will you come up with if that came to light?

@seawulf575 So if PeeWee Herman blew the whistle on a Clinton scandal, that was validated by first-hand evidence, you’d say that it didn’t count because the person who tipped off the initial investigation wasn’t particularly credible, ignoring the ACTUAL evidence that validated the concern?

@chyna That is exactly why the name and history of the “whistleblower” is more important than his claim which is garbage. Right now, it looks pretty much like a partisan smear job. Let’s investigate this person…let the country see who this person is. If it is a Republican WH staffer with no ties to the Dems, then that puts that aspect of this whole thing to rest. Why would you NOT want to have this public?

@gorillapaws If PeeWee Herman made a claim on a Clinton scandal and it was as bogus as the one that the “whistleblower” has made? I’d have the same comment. Let’s say ole PeeWee said that he heard that Hillary, when she was Sect of State, said she knew Benghazi was going to be attacked and she just wanted to see it happen. The first problem is that he says “I heard that…” Right there, it is bogus. It has no basis in reality since it is hearsay. The second problem is that the claim itself doesn’t make any real sense. As much as I think Hillary is a bad person, that really doesn’t sound like anything she would do. Now, let’s say he heard she said it on a phone call…a phone call that had many people listening and for which there was a transcript. And almost immediately the transcript is released and it shows that pretty much everything PeeWee was claiming was wrong. That is a slam dunk that it has no credibility and we should not waste any more time or effort on that. It is time to stop the insanity. These incessant cases of “there’s an accusation so we need to treat it like it’s gospel!” are just silly. They are nothing more than fishing expeditions. You have to completely ignore facts and set reality aside to push an investigation into this sort of thing.

@seawulf575 , Complain all you want, but there is nothing that you said which demands that the identity be made known. Even if the charge was completely bogus and even if Schiff were as much of a liar as Trump, I see no reason for revealing the identity other than to wreak revenge and to discourage possible future whistle blowers.

@LostInParadise I think there is every reason for this person to come public. He is being used as the basis for an impeachment proceeding. His complaint started the entire silliness. The POTUS was duly elected whether you like it or not. An impeachment is an effort to overthrow that election, plain and simply. It is an action that is very damaging to the country as a whole and this one individual is the sole cause of that damage. I think every American is entitled to know who this person is.
Look at it this way…if you went to work and found there were indications your boss might be embezzling funds and you came forward with that information, that makes you a whistleblower and, as such, you are protected from retaliation. That means your boss can’t fire you, you can’t be demoted, you can’t be denied normal pay increases, etc. It does NOT mean that you get to remain anonymous. In fact, at some point your identity will likely have to be made known. The protections still apply, but your boss may know who brought forth the complaint. This is no different. Except there is one difference. This “whistleblower” is claiming protection under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA). Unfortunately, his complaint comes from outside the Intelligence community and it does not involve an intelligence activity. So really, he isn’t a whistleblower at all. Really, by the rules he is trying to invoke, he isn’t protected at all. That just means he should be even more publicly known…to verify his credentials.

The whistle blower’s statements are no longer relevant. They were all second and third hand, as was repeatedly pointed out by critics. We now have first hand reports that support the whistle blowers statements. It is doubtful that what the whistle blower said will be offered as evidence in the Senate trial that will follow impeachment. It is no longer of any value.

@seawulf575 . Because when I confront them personally, they tuck tail, and run. That don’t have the backbone, to support their arguments. They are cowards…. Need I explaine myself more?

The whistleblower’s identity is increasingly irrelevant as every civil servant thus far in the loop has verified EVERY claim the informant has made. Even some of Trump’s own appointees have defied his prohibition on testifying and fully verified the whistleblower’s allegations. The Republicans would prefer to obfuscate matters. Lindsey Graham virtually asserts that the fool is too stupid to have committed a crime, and offers as proof the fact that the idiot made his demand in front of so many witnesses. For me, that is the strongest defense thus far. Our President is a man so dense that he doesn’t realize that extortion in pursuit of his personal advancement is a criminal act.

The “transcript” Trump is so proud of releasing corroborated the main beef in the whistle-blowers compliant. They are completely irrelevant at this point.

The real question is why are people dying on the hill for Trump? You just look sad, pathetic, and big-time losers. He will be voted out in a year.. It isn’t like when Trump has some extra free-time he is going to have you over for KFC. You get nothing out of this but losing any credibility you might have had left. .

@stanleybmanly And Lindsey Graham refuses to read the transcript. I think he’s afraid of knowing the truth.

@LostInParadise The “whistleblower’s” statements were not relevant to start with…other than giving the Dems something to base more wasteful investigations on. The Steele Dossier was basically made up and not relevant…yet we wasted millions of dollars because the Dems wanted to give it credibility. Same thing here. So it is time to actually get to the bottom of the this at the start…not wasting time and money and then deciding we need to know more about how it all started. The idiot is right here, the investigation is in progress…let’s find out what ties he has to which players. Why he came forward with lies to start with. THEN we can figure out which side of this sordid issue is really the problem. You say “first hand” reports support his statements? Let’s review a bit, shall we? He claimed on the phone call to Zelenskyy, Trump asked 8 times for the favor of investigating Biden. That never happened. So if someone is coming out saying it did, that too is a lie. We have the transcript. We see what was said. The word B-i-d-e-n came up exactly twice in the transcript…once in reference to Joe and once in reference to Hunter. And in neither case did Trump ask for anything. So it is patently false. The “whistleblower” claimed that Trump offered a quid pro quo on the phone call. We see that, too, is a lie. So anyone that claims it happened is, again, lying. But let’s even dig a little deeper. Remember Yovanovich…the Obama ambassador to Ukraine? Yeah, her testimony was supposedly damning. Now it is coming out that she likely perjured herself. When asked specifically, under oath, about Dem staffers reaching out to her to testify to the Foreign Affairs Committee, she claims she forwarded that person to the State Dept Legislative Affairs Office. Now there are her e-mails coming to light that shows she never did that and responded directly to the staffer. So why lie about it? And if she lied about her ties to the Dems, what else did she lie about? See? This is where the whole charade falls apart…when actual facts start coming up. The “whistleblower” failed to disclose his contact with Schiff’s office to the IG, as he was required to do, when he filed the complaint. Schiff denied knowing anything about the “whistleblower”. Yovanovich lies about her contact with Dem staffers. It looks like a lot of the Dems in this affair are the liars. It looks a lot like they are willing to lie and create the entire affair to push their agenda. These are the people you are supporting. Imagine what else they lie about? As an American, that should worry you.

@johnpowell Let me quote Rep Al Green:

” I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

Think about that one. What he is saying is that the Dems don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election unless they can impeach Trump. That is their only hope is effectively what he is saying. So to say Trump will be voted out is ignorant. You know as well as I do that none of the Dems stand a chance against him in the 2020 election.

Face it. The fool’s sleaze fest is at an end, and as Tuesday’s election duly illustrates, he is dragging the Republican party right down the toilet with him. Already he can’t strip his toxic name from his tacky properties fast enough. The fool dare not show his face in public at any assembly short of a klan rally and he has effectively been run out of New York barely a step ahead of being tarred and feathered. There isn’t a SINGLE Democratic candidate who isn’t leading the jackass currently in every poll in existence, including those from Fox and the idiot couldn’t pry a favorable court ruling from any judge, liberal, conservative or comatose. The one certainty in this is that the longer he remains, the greater his assured disgrace. The fuckups are neither going to cease or diminish, as meanwhile no rock can be overturned without revealing some new scandal.

@LostInParadise The 6th Amendment guarantees the right for the accused to know the identity of this whistleblower. The Whistleblower act only protects them from retaliation from the accused or other parties to the alleged wrong doing. All whistleblowers know this going into presenting their allegations.

The Sixth Amendment only relates to criminal proceedings. The impeachment inquiry is a political proceeding, not a criminal one. Link

Stanley. You make me laugh, with your faith in the system, and the American people. Trump will not be removed, and he will win again in 2020. He’ll fuck up, almost daily. But it won’t matter. In fact, I wager his reelection, will embolden him, to be more radical.

As far as I am concerned, if he keeps the US out of military conflicts, I could withstand another 4 years. My biggest concern is that the SCOTUS will be affected. THAT will fuck the country up good. And the world will suffer, as well.
Has it occurred to you, that a country that elects Trump twice, deserves what it gets?...

But mine is exactly the opposite of faith in the system. Faith in the system would be a belief that this country is incapable of fielding people of such stupidity in numbers sufficient to permit the election of a turd the size of our fool.

^With all due respect, you’re obviously wrong… Or the government’s way of doing things is wrong. (I vote the later.)

@LostInParadise Impeachment is a political act, that is true. But it is a criminal one as well. It is how we try a sitting POTUS of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Additionally, when the case comes to be tried in the Senate, the whistle blower’s testimony is not going to be used, due to its hearsay nature. Since no whistle blower accusations will be used, the whistle blower will not be an accuser, and the Sixth Amendment is irrelevant.

@LostInParadise Except….it was his complaint that was the initiation of the entire “inquiry”. So it will be pertinent. Again…his ties will have bearing. You can bet it will come up. And for his ties to be established, it will require his name and history to be brought forth.

Totally irrelevant. No accusations at trial means not being an accuser means no application of Sixth Amendment. It is like the difference between being a police informant and being an eyewitness at a trial. Police informants can provide helpful information allowing police to solve a crime, but as long as they don’t testify and as long as there is no compelling public gain in knowing who they are, their identities can remain secret. The burden of proof is on you to show what we can gain, other than revenge, by knowing who the whistle blower is. Informant’s Privilege Along these lines, the whistle blower has offered to answer in writing any questions that anyone has. Not surprisingly, nobody has submitted any questions, because (why do I have to keep mentioning this?), subsequent first hand accounts have made the whistle blower’s statements irrelevant.

Deep Throat from the Watergate era provides a good example of a whistle blower whose identity was kept secret until he chose to reveal it near the end of his life.

@LostInParadise Nice try. There are several problems with that statement. First, Deep Throat predated Whistleblower protection laws. Deep Throat was active in 1972 through 1973. The first Whistleblower Protection act was 1989. Not even close. So he wouldn’t have had any protection against recriminations and retribution. And second, and probably even more problematic for your statement, Deep Throat didn’t raise the concern through legal channels. He was an informant for Woodward and Bernstein on the WaPo. So calling him a “whistleblower” is disingenuous.

Talk about being disingenuous. @seawulf575

Origin of term “Whistleblower” Taken from Wkipedia

U.S. civic activist Ralph Nader is said to have coined the phrase, but he in fact put a positive spin on the term in the early 1970s to avoid the negative connotations found in other words such as “informer” and “snitch”. However, the origins of the word date back to the 19th century.

The word is linked to the use of a whistle to alert the public or a crowd about a bad situation, such as the commission of a crime or the breaking of rules during a game. The phrase whistle blower attached itself to law enforcement officials in the 19th century because they used a whistle to alert the public or fellow police.Sports referees, who use a whistle to indicate an illegal or foul play, also were called whistle blowers.

An 1883 story in the Janesville Gazette called a policeman who used his whistle to alert citizens about a riot a whistle blower, without the hyphen. By the year 1963, the phrase had become a hyphenated word, whistle-blower. The word began to be used by journalists in the 1960s for people who revealed wrongdoing, such as Nader. It eventually evolved into the compound word whistleblower.

@seawulf575 , Even without the Whistle Blower Protection Act, Deep Throat made anonymous accusations with no invocation of the Sixth Amendment. With the Whistle Blower Protection Act, the Sixth Amendment is certainly no more relevant.

@LostInParadise again…he was an anonymous press informant…not a whistleblower. He pointed to where facts were that the press could use to uncover the truth. Now, let’s compare that to the current whistleblower. NOTHING he stated was true other than Trump had a phone conversation with Zelenskyy. If Deep Throat had information like that, Nixon would have finished out his term untroubled by anyone. Basically, our current fool made up a story to give the Dems an out to open another fishing expedition on Trump. If I made up a story…let’s say I came out and said you molested small children…and I tell you up front that I don’t know this as fact, that I overheard it from someone else…someone I won’t or can’t name…does that mean I should automatically have credibility and we should waste tons of tax payer dollars investigating every aspect of your life? Now let’s go the step further. Let’s say I said you did this foul deed on October 25th. And you immediately show a hotel reservation that dinner receipts that show you weren’t anywhere near where I said you were. Wouldn’t that seem to be enough to say my statement is bogus? Yet that is not what happened with our current fool. He was given credibility and facts were ignored right up until it came out that he lied to the IG and had met with Schiff’s team prior to writing his complaint and that Schiff lied about never hearing anything about it before the complaint came out. Suddenly we didn’t need the whistleblower any more…we had the transcript. That U-Turn by Schiff alone should make any sane, rational human question his motives and the motives of the whistleblower.

You don’t need the Whistle Blower Protection Act to be a whistle blower If the current whistle blower said things that are not accurate, that is even less reason to reveal their identity. I don’t want to argue about what you read on Breitbart. There will be open hearings this week as part of the impeachment inquiry. My only point now is that there is no compelling reason to reveal the whistle blower’s identity. So far you have not provided a good argument to counter this.

Uh oh. Sounds like everyone connected to the situation, are publicly claiming what Trump, is charged with. That negates anything else the “whistle blower,” says.

Who cares about the whistle blower, when the important people, are saying he did it?

The bar has lowered to whether or not there was a “quid pro quo” involving the investigation of corruption in Ukraine. I am also discovering that the “summaries” of the interviews do not accurately reflect the context of what was said in the interviews when entire transcripts are released.

In any case, what was actually said and known accurately trumps what is said in anyone’s opinion or feelings; especially those who have a history of bias and connections with Adam Schiff and the Obama/Biden administration.

Sticking with what was factually said is all that matters.

@seawulf575 The whistleblower complaint was rife with inaccuracies and was presented as being second-hand information

What inaccuracies?

Saying that the call was Trump asking the president of Ukraine to dig up or manufacture dirt on Joe Biden, is the first innacuracy that comes to mind.

Saying that it was done eight times is another inaccuracy.

But he did. He admitted it.

@LostInParadise Unfortunately for you jewels on the left, there is a compelling reason to reveal the whistleblower’s identity. The Repubs are getting a subpoena for him to come testify in those public hearings. Hunter Biden as well. Apparently those on the right see what a farce this whole thing is.

@MrGrimm888 Important people aren’t saying he did it. They are saying they had feelings about what he said. They are saying it could be something. Not the same as he DID say something. Meanwhile, others that were actually in on the call heard nothing wrong. I give you Tim Morrison as the perfect example. He was the WH adviser on Ukraine and Russia at the time. He testified to the committee that everything he heard was find. And he’s one of the ones the Dems hoped would roll on Trump since he had been let go recently.

@filmfann when? When did Trump admit he asked Ukrainian president Zelenskyy to dig up or manufacture dirt on Biden? Please…enlighten us all.

He never asked them to manufacture dirt.

BULLSHIT. There is no longer any debate over WHAT the fool said. The transcripts and testimony of impeccable witnesses means that ship has sailed. The fallback defense is now about what the fool meant—his intent. THIS is the current dispute, but it hangs on a scaffolding of manifest difficulties for Trump and his crowd, because CLEARLY his house is divided on the efficacy of this line of defense. It isn’t just Trump who is at risk here, but everyone in the room or on the line who can tumble with the fool as a result of this phone call. If the fool is removed, it won’t be Pence who replaces him! This has certainly dawned on the few bright bulbs involved in the phone call, and there are pointers to just how bleak things now appear, with Graham’s preposterous promise to ignore the transcript as an example

^My understanding is that there are many Republicans, who won’t read the transcript, even though they demanded it…

And people call me out, for not voting. LOL. It seems that many Americans, are definitely blind, to how powerless they actually are. DC, will do whatever it wants, and face NO ramifications. What a great democracy…

The trouble with the assertion of no quid pro quo, is that the smart people in that room recognized the requested “favor” for what it is. Proof? The decision to bury all record of the conversation in an obscure top secret server.

@stanleybmanly Asking a favor of Ukraine for them to look at any possible corruption on their end with our 2016 election (which is the favor that was asked), is entirely appropriate for a POTUS. As for your proof, if someone was trying to hide this conversation, why publicize the transcript almost immediately? Seems contradictory. Of course I know that when you compare facts with your innuendo, you will always take the innuendo.

No, asking a foreign leader for a favor that interferes with the 2020 election is not appropriate, and using tax money to do it makes it far worse, an impeachable offense. The incomplete transcript was an attempt to halt further investigation.

The whistle blower will not be testifying.

@seawulf575 The transcript was NOT publicized immediately, but as I said squirreled away, hidden in an obscure server, where it would remain to this day had it not been for the whistleblower. The ONLY reason the transcript saw the light of day is because the whistleblower reported the conversation’s existence and its criminal implications.

Yeah. The tried to hide the information. Not exactly the strategy of innocent people…

It is as about as clear an attempt at a cover up as I can imagine, and a very strong indication that others in the room understood that the fool through his big mouth had steered the SS Trump smack into the iceberg of criminal extortion, thus threatening the loss of all hands.

Well. That’s what a clear thinking person should think. If it was nothing, why try to hide the evidence, and find out who the whistle-blower is?

I would suggest that conversations with foreign heads of state should be considered private and classified. That will ensure that they will not be hesitant to speak with us. That would be a really good reason for keeping them in a secure location. In fact, if you remember, Trump reached out to Zelenskyy to get his concurrence that the transcript could be released prior to making it public. These phone calls have two ends, after all. And Trump made this one public as quickly as possible when the Dems tried making a huge deal out of it. That isn’t that action of a guilty person. And, as you can see if you care to actually read it, there is nothing there that bubbles up to any level of criminal activity. However it did show that the entire whistleblower complaint, that which the Dems were using as a basis for their witch hunt, was complete bunk. Now…let’s look at the other side for a moment. The “whistleblower” was asked by the ICIG if he had had contact with anyone on the various committees concerning this matter. He said no. Yet it came out later he had, indeed, reached out to Adam Schiff’s team about this matter prior to writing the complaint. Why would he lie, then? That isn’t the actions of an innocent person…to lie to an IG. But it gets worse. Adam Schiff stated several times publicly that he knew nothing about this whistleblower prior to the IG coming forward with the complaint. And as we just discussed, he knew about it long before the complaint was ever authored. So again…why lie about it? That isn’t the actions of an innocent person. Both of these situations are actions of people that are being purposely deceptive. So why is it that you support this sort of lying and can’t actually acknowledge the honorable actions of Trump?

I agree that we should totally disregard what the whistle blower said. No need for identification. We have plenty of first hand accounts that point to impeachable behavior.

Actually, you have zero,

Besides Donnie Jr, tweeted the WH Whistleblower’s name last Wednesday !

Isn’t that witness tampering or threatening a witness ? Asking for a friend. ;>)

And Donnie Jr told El Jefe (Donnie dad) that he was going to tweet out his name, isn’t that another offense?

There is nothing illegal about tweeting his name. It is not protected, and has been publicized and broadcast more than 30 times already.

All you have is a transcript of a congratulatory conversation regarding the Ukraine president’s election, and a request for cooperation in uncovering corruption and interference regarding crowdstrike and the 2016 election. The transcript of the conversation is self evident, and no one in the Ukraine is claiming any different from what the transcript says, nor felt pressured. The feelings about 2016 election interference and corruption were mutual between both leaders,

@Yellowdog yes BUT Trump was holding back the money for Ukraine, therefore “Quid pro quo !”

That wasn’t even in the discussion between the leaders, nor had the Ukraine president even heard of this,

Joe Biden is on tape bragging about doing this. Obama withheld money.

Whose fault is it Hillary or Obama or Biden or Barney the Dino? @Yellowdog

Trump (the gangster from NYC) clap trap! Your guy is being “circled” even GOP leaders like; Sen. Chuck Grassley, the president pro tempore of the United States Senate, want him to stop putting pressure on the WH whistleblower. This really is true now that other people and documents have come to light.

@Tropical_Willie How can it be witness tampering if Schiff won’t let him be a witness?

Okay first witness is threatened, remove from list of witnesses; other witnesses have first hand knowledge—Better for House Impeachment proceedings worse for Trump.

@Tropical_Willie What I said / meant was, Trump granted aid and money to the Ukraine. Obama withheld money and military aid and only permitted blankets,

@Yellowdog Wrong again ! ! ! ! But your go to media outlets are Breitbart or Circa and you can quote away with their mis-NEWS (all propaganda against people or color, female, people with disabilities and the poor). The Impeachment today specifically had a witness that said Trump INSTRUCTED the money be withheld from Ukraine.

@Tropical_Willie Of course Trump instructed the money to be withheld. He said as much. This isn’t news. What your uber-liberal brain cannot grasp is that those bogus news outlets you follow never really give facts. All they give you is innuendo. For instance, in this case. I saw an article that someone testified that the Ukrainians were worried about the money being held up. I bet they were. But what it really doesn’t say is that they were upset because they were being coerced into some action. Trump gave absolutely proper reasons for holding up the money. Oh! and here’s the other piece your biased outlets forget to tie in: Zelenskyy, who was the supposed recipient of the quid pro quo, already announced several times that he knew nothing of the delay in aid and that he was not pressured at all to look into the corruption in his country. And, after all, it would have to be Zelenskyy that was pressured for any of the Dems bullshit claims to hold any water.

What do you know that Bill Taylor does not know?

@seawulf575 Just be honest with yourself. If this were Clinton, with the exact same evidence against her, you’d be screaming from the rooftops (and rightly so).

@seawulf575 once again you say “Quid pro quo” is okay because it was President Trump that did it.
You and he believe the ends (getting revenge on the liberals) is justification for the means (breaking the law) !

Again. My biggest problem with Trump, and Biden’s extortion, was that it could have gotten a lot of people killed. In fact, if Russia steam tolled the Ukraine, it could have put several Eastern Europe countries in harm, as well. Putin has a plan. I’m not sure how far he would like to pushare into Europe.
IfI were an Eastern European country, I’d be building up my defenses. Fast…

Russia has been putting an awful lot of money into tanks. That’s a clear sign that they have possible intentions, of pushing West. The already have a very powerful military. I would argue that they are a close 2nd to the US military. They could do some serious damage to Eastern Europe. And they are a fairly ruthless military.
China, is building up it’s NAVY, to obviously control the South China Sea. Those two Asian super powers, are in expansion mode.

Again, I don’t support US troops on the ground there. But I’m fine with us giving/selling our slightly obsolete weapons to the Ukraine, or giving them money, to develop their own strategies.

Proven collision, it not, Trump is making any objectives Putin might have on Europe easier to accomplish. In fact withholding funds from the Ukraine, to hurt Biden, would help both. Trump could gain power, in the US, and allow Putin to make moves in the region.

This cannot go unrecognized…

@Tropical_Willie No, I said there was no quid pro quo. Please get some reading comprehension lessons. Trump says he held up the funding for a couple reasons. First was he wanted to make sure Ukraine’s corruption was under control and secondly, and probably more importantly, he was trying to get other NATO nations to pitch in…like they should. Both of those are very valid reasons for not jumping forward with millions of dollars.
And you truly believe Trump is trying to get revenge on liberals? You are a sad, paranoid little creature. How does looking into corruption equate to getting revenge on liberals?

@seawulf575 the problem with that line of reasoning is the one thing painfully clear from these hearings so far. Forget about the preposterous idea that Trump might actually pursue the “honorable” path toward anything, then address the fact that he held up the aid to Ukraine IN SECRET, with HE ALONE aware of it. HIS state department, HIS cabinet, HIS defense department, HIS intelligence agencies, and most of the people in on the phone call were caught flat footed, clearly out of the loop. The smart ones were instantly horrified at the ramifications. The fool had put a noose around EVERYONE’s neck by in effect forcing them into a conspiracy. Half of them told him that what he was doing was PATENTLY illegal in failing to disburse aid legislated by CONGRESS. The great lesson of Trump lies in what can happen to men and women of true honor and ability when they hitch their wagons to an ignorant fool. Those who share the idiot’s penchant for sleazy stupidity and open turpitude
ate clearly in for the future facing Giuliani on the other side of the criminal justice system as the panic of desperation accumulates in the Republican crowd.

@LostInParadise Let’s look at what old Billy boy said. Actually, we are looking at what SCHIFF says that Billy Boy said. We really don’t know how edited the released statements are. But let’s go with the assumption for now that Taylor said these things. He says that Trump repeatedly said he demanded that his Ukrainian counterpart announce an investigation into the 2016 election and Biden. Let’s dissect that a bit, shall we? Did Zelenskyy ever announce an investigation into either? The answer to that is no…he didn’t. He mentioned on the phone call that he was trying to drain Ukraine’s swamp and was going to be looking into a number of things. Trump asked the favor if Crowdstrike could be part of that. That would be the 2016 election issues. So let’s stop there for a second. This phone call was supposed to be private, not the public spectacle it has turned into. So anything said on that really isn’t “an announcement”. Also, asking Ukraine to look into the aspects of the 2016 election interference is entirely appropriate. I swear, you libs act like as long as it is Dems cheating, we shouldn’t look into it. But let’s keep going!
Taylor supposedly says that Trump wanted to hold back aid for “domestic political reasons”. Gee…not wanting to waste money on a corrupt government AND trying to get our allies to kick in their share would both be considered “political reasons” for holding back aid. After all, if he just threw money at whoever asked for it, he would rightly be politically skewered. So right now we don’t have an accurate description of what “domestic political reasons” would be. We have innuendo.
Continuing: If you look at the article you cited, you find something interesting. Nowhere does it say that the Whistleblower admitted he had no first hand knowledge. Nowhere does it show how absolutely wrong the whistleblower complaint was. Nowhere does it address that Zelenskyy denied ever knowing aid was withheld at the time of the phone call. Nowhere does it say that Zelenskyy stated publicly that he was under no pressure during the July 25 phone call and that he felt it was a pleasant, relaxed phone call. It’s amazing how when you don’t list all the facts you can slant a story, isn’t it? But it gets even better. It states that Bill Taylor says that Sondland told him on Sept 1 that Trump wanted Zelenskyy to publicly announce an investigation into Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference into the 2016 election. Funny….September 1 is 38 days after July 25th. Zelenskyy had made no public announcements. The funds were released on Sept 11th…again, with no public announcements. Kinda hard to say there was quid pro quo when all the claims that Trump demanded a “quo” turned out to lead nowhere. As I have said before: when you have Zelenskyy denying any pressure whatsoever and, in fact, didn’t know about any hold on money at the time of the phone call, it’s kinda hard to say there was a quid pro quo.

@gorillapaws If this was all the evidence that they had on Hillary (or Bill, not sure which Clinton you were looking for), I’d be saying the same thing: There’s nothing there. Especially if all the facts were the same…the Ukrainian president being unaware of any hold on funds, the entire fabrication of the whistleblower’s complaint, the supposed second-hand nature of that complaint, the ties between the whistleblower and the lead on the impeachment inquiry AND to a political rival of the POTUS, and the lies by that same lead on the impeachment inquiry. Given all those FACTS, I can’t get behind anything that says this is a valid investigation. But here’s a question for you: Be honest…when Biden admitted to using a quid pro quo on Ukraine, you have voiced no interest in finding out if this was true or not. Why not? Isn’t he running for POTUS? Do you see it okay that someone that he bragged about threatening another country unless they do a specific act that has nothing to do with his office? So if you were truly honest and fair minded you’d be as much up in arms about Biden as you are about Trump…even more so because we have his own testimony as proof of his crime.

What reason is there for believing Zelensky, with Trump constantly applying pressure. Three top witnesses mentioned pressure being applied. And what the heck is Trump’s personal attorney doing here? Acting like a hit man,trying to force an examination of Biden and son.

@stanleybmanly Let’s dissect what YOU just said. You truly believe that Trump has the authority to withhold funding without anyone else knowing? Really?!? Think about that for a moment. It is the heart of your rant and is patently absurd. Care to rethink that?

@seawulf575 The point is, trump THINKS he has that authority. He’s clueless.

@LostInParadise There is innuendo that three top witnesses said pressure was applied. But they don’t say what form that pressure took. Nor do they actually come out to say that Trump actually got what they say he wanted. Nor does the conversation released of the July 25th phone call show any animosity or discomfort between the two leaders. It actually looks like exactly what Zelenskyy said it was…a very pleasant phone call. So why would you doubt Zelenskyy? He has given no indications whatsoever that he was pressured in any way and did, in fact, state that he had no idea the funding was even frozen when he was talking to Trump. So is it just that calling him a liar helps you believe all the rest of the claptrap from the Dems? Here’s a thought for you: Trump aired the phone call transcript AND Zelenskyy made public statements. Yet what have the Dems done? They have lied, they have tried controlling what information is allowed out of their secret chamber concerning what was actually said, they have done everything they can to show complete partisanship and have been nothing approaching transparent in any way, shape, or form. So why is it that you believe those that are secretive and dishonest and refuse to believe those that actually have been transparent?

@chyna No, that is not that point. What you believe he thinks is immaterial. Facts, dear, facts. He is entirely unable to freeze funding to Ukraine without anyone else knowing, which is what @stanleybmanly was saying. If you believe he can do this, as @stanleybmanly apparently does, please enlighten me as to how this miracle of bureaucracy is achieved.

@seawulf575 of course some people were in on it with him—folks like Giuliani who is clearly on the express path to prison. Trump’s actions were both clandestine and in direct defiance of the expressed interests of the United States. The decision to bury the evidence in that secret server is all the proof required that those hiding the goods understood what Trump to this day does not.

And that is just the point. The “miracle of bureaucracy” very nearly WAS achieved, secret server and all. Were it not for the whistleblower, the fool might have gotten away with it.

@stanleybmanly Obviously you have never dealt with a bureaucracy. Especially in something like this. Trump cannot just wave his magic wand and stop the payment of the money. Neither can Guiliani since he really isn’t a government employee either. There are procedures that have to be followed. Even if he wanted to avoid those, he can’t. He can only tell someone not to pay the money. The money came from two places…the Defense Dept and the State Dept. In either case, Trump would have to tell someone to hold up paying that money. You have tried saying that no one other than Trump knew he held up the money. That is patently absurd. Especially when the payment was authorized by Congress. People have to know. So your statement that he acted alone without any other departments knowing it is wrong. And try to spin it as you might, you will still be wrong.

and, @stanleybmanly, your paranoia is showing through again. You and your “secret server” conspiracy theory. Here’s a question: if he really wanted it hidden, why would he kick out the transcript so fast? Yes, I know it is the liberal talking point on your card that gives you what talking point to try, but it is really only liberals that believe it is some super secret attempt to hide something. And the whistleblower was entirely wrong in pretty much everything he said in his complaint. Yes, thank goodness for that idiot. Face it, Trump did exactly what he was supposed to…he had all the proper people listening in on the phone call, he followed the proper procedure for having the transcript generated, he kept the file under wraps because it is a discussion with a fellow head of state and it SHOULDN’T be aired without that person’s permission, and when the bogus “whistleblower” wrote up a pack of lies and the Dems started trying to weave some subterfuge out of it, he got Zelenskyy’s permission and released the transcript. He has been doing exactly what he should be doing. And it is driving the Dems crazy. I’m going to put the same question to you that I put to @LostInParadise earlier.“Here’s a thought for you: Trump aired the phone call transcript AND Zelenskyy made public statements. Yet what have the Dems done? They have lied, they have tried controlling what information is allowed out of their secret chamber concerning what was actually said, they have done everything they can to show complete partisanship and have been nothing approaching transparent in any way, shape, or form. So why is it that you believe those that are secretive and dishonest and refuse to believe those that actually have been transparent?”

@seawulf575 I’ve stopped listening to your Neo-Nazi diatribe.

He will get your VA benefits and sell those for a bigger wall that a $100 cordless saw can destroy, I wish you well ! Oh my liberal head hasn’t popped.

How’s Putin Chef treating you ??

@seawulf575 You do nothing but reinforce my argument. There is no point discussing whether or not Trump alone can hold up the money. The point that matters is that HE DID IT. EVERYONE KNOWS HE DID IT. HE ADMITS HE DID IT. Everyone knew that Trump withheld the money. What most didn’t know was WHY. The phone call was an open admission in DETAIL as to why and immediately jeopardized anyone complicit in the call. And you should stop repeating the blatant lie that the fool immediately released the transcript. He did so ONLY after the whistleblower snitched him out! Even then the fool had no idea how much trouble he was in. You are arguing that he couldn’t hold up the money, while the charge is that is EXACTLY what he did. No one involved in this thing denies it.

@stanleybmanly so your initial statement was wrong? Or are you continuing to believe in magic wands where bureaucracy can mysteriously be bypassed?

^Well. People would have definitely noticed that there was an extra $400 million in our account.

The point is that it isn’t I but the idiot President who does not understand, let alone believe in the rules of the road, which is why the Congress will smoke his ignorant orange ass like a flounder. And my initial statement is that the whistleblower’s identity is irrelevant. He/she merely yelled “FIRE”, and at this stage, only a fool continues to claim there is no smoke. Trump literally broke the law, and then verified EVERY charge the whistleblower has made,

^He will probably be impeached. But, do you really believe that he will be removed? Last I heard, they would need something like 22 republican votes, and a couple independent votes, to make it happen…

And they’d need a crime. You forget that.

Personal use of federal funds to force a foreign leader to interfere with an election. It may not be a crime, but it is an abuse of power and unconstitutional.

@stanleybmanly But it was not Trump, but the idiot YOU that made the statement ” Forget about the preposterous idea that Trump might actually pursue the “honorable” path toward anything, then address the fact that he held up the aid to Ukraine IN SECRET, with HE ALONE aware of it. HIS state department, HIS cabinet, HIS defense department, HIS intelligence agencies, and most of the people in on the phone call were caught flat footed, clearly out of the loop.” That clearly shows you believe Trump is capable, without notifying any other entity of holding up money. That is just a deranged thought in itself, yet you are still trying to justify it. So enlighten us all…how did Trump pull this off? Remember, he can’t have told anyone in the DoD, the State Dept, his cabinet or the intelligence agencies. So how did he keep the money from moving forward without talking to anyone about it? That is what you are saying so please…help us all understand what our inferior wits missed.

@LostInParadise interesting that you would say that. It is pretty much exactly what I said about Biden. No, it is pretty much exactly what Biden said about his own actions. Yet you don’t want that even looked at. Is it criminal or not? I mean Biden is running for POTUS, right?

Once again, as vice president, Biden could only act on instructions from Obama. Biden’s view of the prosecutor coincided with that of our European allies. There is no evidence whatever that Hunter Biden did anything wrong or that the prosecutor was examining Hunter Biden or the company he was working for. Quite the contrary. The gripe against the prosecutor is that he did not prosecute, Hunter Biden or anybody else.

@LostInParadise Yet he interfered in Ukrainian state stuff…not something that impacted us at all. So you want to say Obama was okay with the coercion as well? I’m okay with that. But here’s the whole part you are missing: Biden is the one that did the coercion. And bragged about it. That shows exactly what sort of character he has and the entire thing smacks of corruption. Yet you don’t seem interested at all and are attempting to pooh-pooh the entire thing. That tells me all I need to know.

Biden was vice president. He could not take any foreign policy actions unless directed to do so by Obama. So your case boils down to the fact that Biden bragged about doing what he was authorized to do. Really, who cares, especially since our European allies were in complete agreement.

@LostInParadise So if your boss asked you to take action to embezzle money for him, you’d do it? I mean, after all…he authorized it, right? Taking a criminal action is okay as long as someone else tells you that it’s all right?

^I think Biden was bluffing. He didn’t really have the power to do, what he said he would. But he did do it, and as you say, it points to serious character flaws.
But Trump has exhibited severe character flaws, and yet you back him…

The 2 situations are in no sense equivalent. Biden carried out the express will of his government and its allies to the approval of them all. Trump did exactly the opposite. The fool deliberately sought to undermine the will of the Congress and his own professed policies through extortion of an ally to further his political ambitions. That’s the sordid story in a nutshell. And it is the clear cut reason the fool is on the fast track to impeachment and the dragging of Biden and his kid into the discussion but a hopeless act of transparent desperation.

You do realize that there are tapes of Biden and transcripts of the telephone conversation, don’t you? Reality begs to differ from your postulation.

So what? Do you really mean to imply that the REPUBLICAN Congress passed on an opportunity to impeach both Biden and Obama?

@stanleybmanly Think about the timeline, man. Biden didn’t do his public bragging until AFTER he was out of office. And per his own words, his threat to the Ukrainian leaders was face to face as he was heading for his car. It was not part of an official meeting where it might be recorded even. So there was no way for that REPUBLICAN congress to know about it until now.

You are saying that the Republican Congress did not realize until NOW that the declared policy of the United States was to .pressure Ukraine toward the elimination of corruption? Nonsense! Biden said “get rid of the crook”. Trump said “investigate my opposition” and “announce it publicly.” Biden bragged over his influence in achieving a primary goal in the direct interest of the United States. Trump is plenty stupid, but not dumb enough to brag about his effort to enlist a foreign government in slandering his political opposition. Why must you travel down a road that marks you as so impossibly obtuse? And why does your every position on every matter involving the fool coincide with goals favoring the Russians?

Psst psst @stanleybmanly that’s where Trump got his money for building resorts after going bankrupt several times ! !

@seawulf575 , What embezzlement money are you talking about? I am going to repeat this one last time. It is perfectly fine to threaten to withhold aid money as part of foreign policy, as Obama did. It is unconstitutional to do it for personal gain, which is what Trump is being accused of.

So, you’re saying the Bidens didn’t profit to the tune of millions off Ukraine and China?

Hunter Biden benefited from his family name. Even if Hunter was part of some corruption, Joe Biden had no control over Ukrainian politics. All he did was follow Obama’s requests. The worst thing he did was to engage in some bragging about following Obama’s orders to pressure the firing of a prosecutor who Obama and our European allies believed not to be doing his job. None of this justifies Trump’s withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to force an investigation of Hunter Biden years after he left the Ukraine.

First of all, the only thing the prosecutor was doing was currently investigating Burisma Holdings corruption, which is very real, and Hunter Biden.

Our own media has covered it in the not so distant past.

Secondly, no one is saying Trump’s withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to force an investigation of Hunter Biden years after he left the Ukraine, except the Democrats. No one in Ukraine is saying it. It is NOT in the transcript. There is no evidence of it. This is a total fabrication of the Democratic party, who control the house, and their media.

^Lol.

Do you have evidence to the contrary, @MrGrimm888 ?

Is there anyone involved making these allegations? Is there any transcript? tape (as with Biden)? Telephone call? Any evidence at all?

Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it real.

^I didn’t say it. Trump admitted to it. And I guess I need to remind you that I have already opined, that Biden should be thrown out of the POTUS race, for his remarks/actions…

@LostInParadise You keep trying to cover Biden’s ass by saying he was just following orders, so his actions are A-OK. So I put that mentality into something that might hit you closer to home. If you embezzle money because your boss told you to do it for him, does that mean you didn’t embezzle? Nope. It means that you were corrupt enough to go along with a criminal activity that your boss suggested. Saying Biden was only following orders is the biggest cop out of all.

That line of nonsense holds ONLY if the order itself is criminal. In other words, it would be Biden, and Obama as well as the Congress—the government of the United States behind the “crime”.

@stanleybmanly Sorry hoss…what Biden described doing had nothing to do with anyone other than him and Obama. Can’t try spreading that blame to congress or the rest of the government of the United States. We had agreed to give them aid and there were no strings attached when Congress approved it. Biden added the string 6 hours before he was leaving Ukraine. He admits it. He also implicates Obama in the scam.

@seawulf, It was nothing like embezzlement. Unlike Trump, Obama did not personally benefit. The prosecutor was corrupt. He did not prosecute. It was totally appropriate to threaten withdrawing aid to get rid of the corruption. Our European allies backed us up on this.

@LostInParadise Quit trying to avoid the point. You are saying what Trump is being accused of doing (withholding aid for a personal favor) is a crime yet when Biden did it, you can’t quite bring yourself to say he did anything wrong because he was just following orders. If it was a crime for Trump, it was a crime for Biden. And the tie to embezzlement was just that embezzlement is a crime which you could find yourself involved in because your boss asked you to do it…the same excuse you are saying make Biden an innocent person.
You want to say Obama did not personally benefit? We don’t know that, do we? Because the Dems are fighting hard to have any investigation into it blocked. And your other premise, that Trump personally benefited is also nothing but a liberal talking point. How did he benefit? Aid was rendered without any investigations into Biden being conducted or even announced. There was no quo.
And you are also trying to use the exact reason Trump gave for holding up aid as an excuse for Obama. Trump said he wanted to make sure the new president was not part of the rampant corruption that was going on in Ukraine. So by your reasoning, he was acting totally appropriately by holding up aid. So why is there any impeachment inquiry? Oh yeah…because Orange Man Bad. Face it…no matter how you slice it, either Biden is just as guilty as Trump…more so since he actually admitted to it…or both are innocent and were only doing their jobs. You can’t have it both ways.

Blowing smoke as usual! Trump is clearly on the road to impeachment. Biden and Obama were not. If Obama and Biden committed impeachable offenses while the Republicans controlled BOTH chambers of Congress, are you going to pretend that the Republicans passed on the opportunity? The Congress is roasting your fool to a fine turn, and you whine like a sissy over silly shit like Benghazi and the Steele dossier, much like the cowardly slab of orange flab you so persistently defend as credible—another despicicable and persistent whiner reputed only for his malevolent disposition and empty head to match your own.. Nobody gives a shit whether or not you believe the duplicitous idiot is getting a fair shake. Prison is better than he deserves, and you deserve little other than a dunce cap for your efforts.

@stanleybmanly that is an interesting take on things. As I already pointed out to @LostInParadise, Biden did his actions face to face without any transcriptions and no way for the Repubs to know about it. Until he bragged about it after he was already out of office. So to claim the Repubs “passed” on the opportunity to impeach Obama is disingenuous or just plain out stupid. You don’t hit me as a stupid person.
As for Congress roasting Trump, I guess that depends on what you consider roasting. What I have seen so far is two “star” witnesses whose testimony has been “all I can tell you is what others have told me”. That really isn’t evidence of anything…it’s called hearsay. And it is lunacy to believe that is a strong enough case to get a conviction on. Oh! and we had a former Ukrainian ambassador with an ax to grind that had no knowledge of anything concerning any of the phone conversations between Trump and Zelenskyy, who was out of office before Zelensky was elected, who can contribute nothing except opinion of the guy who fired her. Yeah…that’s a rock solid case.
As for “silly shit”, I guess that’s what you call the death of a US ambassador and several American soldiers trying to protect him. Of course they were on their own since their repeated calls for beefing up security at the Embassy well before they were attacked were completely ignored by the State Dept and the Administration. And those same entities tried saying it was an impromptu mob that were upset about a Youtube video that attacked. We all knew that was a lie since impromptu mobs don’t carry automatic weapons and rocket launchers, even in Benghazi. But I understand how that is “silly shit”. Also, unverified research opposition (that later was vetted to be mainly false) being used by our intelligence agencies as a basis for violating Americans’ rights is pretty “silly shit” as well. Yeah…it is pretty silly for our government to act like SS thugs or KGB terrorists. Ya got me there.
Tell me…do you actually believe all the “silly shit” you shovel?

Whether I believe it or not, I am satisfied that the Congress DOES with actions well underway toward resolving MY shovel load. Between the Congress and the courts and SS intelligence thugs, the corrupt clown is receiving the treatment he so richly deserves. He cannot be degraded nor humiliated to nearly the levels commiserate to the threat he represents. And I can only hope that he is ground into the dirt as is deserving of the disgusting insect he is.

So it doesn’t really matter to you if any of it is true or whether it is a complete waste of time, effort, and money, and that it is damaging to the country…only that Trump is cause discomfort. Let me ask…did you pull the wings off flies as a child? Burn ants with a magnifying glass? Torture small animals? It seems like you are only truly happy when others are under distress. I suggest you seek professional help.

And you of course are aware of my regard for you and your suggestions. You may rely on my assurance that I shall accord them the consideration they deserve as I relish the current “waste of time and effort” in gleeful anticipation of the ongoing destruction of the dumbell and his sleazy cabal.

@seawulf575 , Leaving aside whether or not he is guilty, what Trump is being accused of is an abuse of power. Nobody, except maybe you, is accusing Obama of doing anything similar. It is perfectly fine to withhold aid to a country as part of foreign policy. That is what Obama did. He forced out a prosecutor who was not doing his job.

Trump held back hundreds of millions of dollars in order to have investigated one person, the son of a potential Democratic nominee. Hunter Biden was not even in Ukraine anymore.

If you think the situations are similar, I have nothing more to say. Believe what you want.

@LostInParadise So why is this Ukrainian prosecutor soooo bad that he warrants withholding over $1B in necessary aid? Why is it the job of the US federal government, the VP and apparently the POTUS to get into the nuts and bolts of another country to the point where they threaten that country to take action against a lesser government officer?
And let me remind you, it was YOU that was making the excuse that Biden didn’t do wrong because his boss told him to do it. YOU are the one that brought Obama into this.
I also suggest you go back and read the telephone transcript and listen to the testimony of the Dems first two witnesses. The telephone transcript says the only “favor” that Trump asked was to look into Crowdstrike and any interference Ukraine may have participated in for the 2016 election. Biden was brought up later as an oh-by-the-way later in the conversation. It was brought up as an example of potential corruption that had happened. And the first two witnesses the Dems brought up both stated uncategorically that they had never found a link between the delay in funds and an investigation into Biden. In fact, the investigation never happened and was never announced. So all those claims are false.
Might want to check your premises.

So why is this Ukrainian prosecutor soooo bad that he warrants withholding over $1B in necessary aid? Why is it the job of the US federal government, the VP and apparently the POTUS to get into the nuts and bolts of another country to the point where they threaten that country to take action against a lesser government officer?
^^^Not relevant to impeachment ^^^

Whatabout is not a defensible position. It’s all about Trump and his repeated abuse of power for his personal gain.

Speaking of abuse of power—when Trump turned the Kurds over to the Turks to be slaughtered was Trump Towers negotiating to build a resort in Ankara Turkey ? ?

It is a tiresome and useless defense to claim the fool is being treated unfairly, and dragging up Obama, Biden or Hillary as excuses that “they got away with it” is about as useful an argument as “the devil made me do it”

@Tropical_Willie I’m just going to tell you that hypocrisy is obvious and doesn’t sit well with rational people. That’s why the Dems are digging their own graves with this whole impeachment effort. And part of that hypocrisy has to do with Biden. But that is just one small piece. Avoiding discussing it just shows you have no answers and can’t actually deal with facts. That pretty much defines the impeachment inquiry too. They were sure they had a slam dunk…but their first two “star” witnesses had nothing except hearsay evidence. Not really what you need to establish a case for impeachment. The third had nothing other than “look at my record and feel sorry for me”. The most damning things she said were that she felt a certain way or had a specific opinion about things. Neither feelings nor her opinions have any relevance on the impeachment either.
And while you are ranting about Whatabout, what does Trump, the Kurds, Turkey, or Ankara have to do with anything either? Funny how you don’t see your own desperate attempts to dodge conversations and only want to project your own efforts onto me.

^^^ Abusive of power by Trump but in your (and Putin’s Chef’s) eye, all fair in for GOP and Trump (to profit).

Trump Tower is trying to get a resort in Turkey; oh you can’t understand (don’t want to admit) Quid pro qo ! He traded the Kurds for a resort approval.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~You figure you’ll get recalled to Russia ?

The numbers are going bad for Trump (and GOP) because of his China tariff impact, it is a disaster. At the federal level five positions went to Dem’s this past election and economists think more will come. Some customers in China will never buy from US companies or farmers again. In some states 49% of the exports went to China.

@Tropical_Willie Once again you are making great leaps without real evidence. Sorry, but that is exactly what is sinking the Dems.

As for the negotiations with China, I have stated that the “trade war” is a risk. It could turn out to be really good for the USA or it could hurt us. But the answer is really in the long run, not in the short term. If Trump can get China to commit to a trade agreement that isn’t lopsided in their favor and levels our playing field a bit, that could be great for our country. It is very much worth the effort, I think. But it is a risk, especially for Trump. So let me ask: Trump knows it is a risk especially for him, yet he is willing to take that risk. Why would he do that?

Look at the opening statement of this.
THAT is what every government official should be about. Not the lying orange cretinous clown.

Read the FUCKING article or can’t you read a neutral news source (against Kremlin law ?)

Seriously you are becoming more and MORE a TROLL !

Make a contribution to Fluther not just a platform for your Neo-Nazi views (because they support Trump maybe?)

Once again read it and I’m getting out of any stocks for companies that have had a history of doing business with China)

And this business about “sinking democrats”? It’s the Republicans who are going to jail, resigning from office and losing elections.

ABC news cannot be considered a ‘neutral source.’ Every time the news is on, they identify the issue as Trump withholding military aid / funding until they investigate ‘political rival Joe Biden.”

In the actual call, Trump askes a favor (after funding was granted) to cooperate with an investigation of Crowdstrike (The Dem’s baby—you know, the Russian Dossier hoax the Dems put this country and the president through for 3 years) and Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.

It is Zelensky who brings up Joe Biden, whose corruption is well known over there.

You have to stick with what was actually said, and what records actually show – not ABC News’ spin of the narrative which is intentionally misleading. To get it THAT wrong is clearly not a ‘neutral source.”

@Tropical_Willie Your article starts with the problem word in the title…MAY. It then goes on to get the opinion of one Brad Setser from the Council on Foreign Affairs. The article gives some impacts to our nation from the tariffs and it gives Mr. Setser’s opinion of the longer term impact on our nation. But here’s a kicker for you! “The recovery time for various U.S. products will depend on the nature of the trade deal, he said.” Isn’t that what I just said? The final trade agreement isn’t even close to being finalized so we don’t know what the impact on our nation will be. It’s a long term goal. A trade agreement impacts our nation going forward. If the trade agreement is good for both sides, our economy could soar with more equal trade rates with China. If it isn’t structured right, we could suffer. But at this point we don’t know what the agreement will look like so we cannot say what the long term impact on our nation could be.
I’m just going to point out that you are so steeped in Trump hating that you cannot even read or understand your own citations. You only pick out what you want to see and run with it. Want to know what the biggest threat to an equitable trade agreement with China is for us? The Democrats. They are the biggest threat for a number of reasons. First is that their irrational hatred of Trump has prevented them from doing really any substantive work for 3 years. Their goal has been to ensure Trump does nothing good for the country. If he proposes an idea that is good all the way around, they work diligently to shoot it down just so he can’t get a “win”. This attitude plays into the second reason they are the biggest threat. Congress has to approve any trade agreement Trump works out with China. And I will predict right now that when it comes to approval, they will vote party line against it. It doesn’t matter how good the deal might be for out country. They will do everything in their power to make it personal against Trump.

@Dutchess_III One thing you need to know about this witness…he wasn’t part of a phone call between Sondland and Trump. He claims he heard it through the earpiece of the phone Sondland was using. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it isn’t necessarily the most solid of testimony based on that. He may not have had as clear a “connection” as he claims. He may only have heard snippets. He may not have heard anything. Or he may have heard it all clearly. That’s the point…we don’t know. So taking one line out of an article and claiming it is what all government employees should be about is ludicrous. What happens if Sondland testifies and says none of what Holmes said is accurate? What happens if Sondland denies that Holmes was even there? What if Sondland says Trump has never made any tie between Ukraine corruption that may include Biden and foreign aid?
This “we got him now!” attitude is getting old. Liberals are really sounding more and more desperate. They are trying to take hearsay evidence and make it fact which it just isn’t. We even had the one idiot saying that Hearsay Evidence is better than Direct Evidence. ??? That is nothing more than putting out a lie to try making your case sound more solid. I’d say you need to be better than that, but honestly I don’t think you can. Your hatred keeps you from being objective.

Hatred again? The inevitable fallback when your narrative runs counter to the facts. Well just like the huge parade of convicts this President has thus far generated from his close associates and inner circle, the parade of witnesses against the fool and his shenanigans has barely begun. Everybody hates him. Civil servants with 30 & 40 years of impeccable character and service stacked up against a man distinguished for little beyond a lifetime of swindling thuggery and appalling tacky self aggrandizement. A man who literally cannot tell the truth when his life depends on it. You, smokewolf can sit there on your side of the argument, and level charges of blind hatred against those roasting the turd, but in the end you will always be confronted with the dilemma of hopelessness that must accompany the simple fact you and the other conservatives are stuck with defending an unmitigated turd. Now you might counter with the argument that character is not the issue and your turd is no more smelly than the others, but you then are confronted with the fatal flaw for which there is no remedy. Your turd is every bit as stupid as he is mean and vulgar. With odds like that against you, there can be but one result, certain death! These impeachment proceedings are in effect the spotlight and magnifying glass on just how stupid, smelly and ethically deficient your turd is, and here’s the thing—they are going to last as long as he does and even beyond his Presidency. Thus far he has more or less gotten away with it because there are enough voters out there nearly as stupid as himself, but those days are winding down fast, because simply put —even stupid people prefer not to be ranked with the dummies.

^You’re underestimating Trump’s base. They aren’t ALL stupid. Some of them are hardline anti-abortion, and/or Christians, who think that this will all end up with Jesus coming back. And they are willing to sacrifice large portions of their morality, to ensure that these things happen.

You’re also overestimating the Democrats. They don’t have any simple plans. They have no united ideas, or at least realistic policies, that could make them work. Each candidate, has at least one radical idea, with no easy solution. That’s why Trump will win again, in 2020. So far, they’ve brought a knife, to a gunfight.

Trump’s base, is united on several fronts. And yes, some are sheep, who take his words as scripture. It’s going to be a much closer fight, than you suggest.
The impeachment, will have an unpredictable outcome, as far as how it affects the 2020 election. It will NOT result in Trump’s removal.

While the wulf, and I, disagree on many political factors, he’s right about one thing. Both parties are backing up their team, regardless of the situation.
I think that’s fucking pathetic.
The Republicans going to jail, are done for. But those resigning, are simply distancing themselves from Trump. But I’ll bet they all come back, when he’s gone, and claim moral high ground.

It’s a sad situation. One that our founding fathers tried to prevent. But the battle grounds, are set.

Neither party seems to care about the country. It’s just blue vs red. That is only going to hurt America.

@stanleybmanly Thank you for showing my comments about hatred are well founded.

@MrGrimm888 GA. I have never said the Repubs were the end all be all or that Trump was the greatest president of all time. But I don’t buy into all the negative hype either. Our congress has been dysfunctional for many, many decades. They have gotten away from the concept that they are elected to help solve problems and moved into the idea that they are somehow entitled to say or do whatever they want and that we owe them their seats. That is why Trump getting elected created such a shit-storm. He was not part of “the team” or “the good old boys’ club” and yet he got elected. The people didn’t follow the way they were supposed to. That shook our corrupt government to its core…that the people actually exerted power in a way they were not told to exert it.

^It’s a mess. Instead of DC doing its job, they are most interested in power. I understand that Trump, is an unexpected anomaly, but what about helping the citizens of our country?

All politicians claim that is their goal. I call BULLSHIT. There is clearly a war between both parties. And THAT, is the driving force in DC.

I can’t think of a solution. As long as 2 parties battle for control, American interests are a distant second. In my lifetime, I see not much getting done, and each party trying to obstruct the other… It seems like when 1 party has the executive branch , the other party controls congress,and/or the house. And they just cancel each other out.

I’m personally fed up with it… The end result is that a lot of politicians get rich, and our citizens suffer. That’s ALL I see…

@Yellowdog ABC is not biased. People of your ilk remind me of an early SNL skit where trump is complaining that the media is making him look bad by reporting everything he does and everything he says. And…pout.

@seawulf575 well founded? The accusation of hate is nothing but a cop out. The answer to “Trump is stupid” or “Trump has the morals of a bed pan” is not “you hate Trump”. The accusation is a dummy’s solution for skirting the issue. Why is it always necessary to deflect the conversation toward my supposed hatred instead of just admitting the obvious? Let’s discuss whether my level of “hatred” is on par with the combined stupidity and ignorance displayed by the fool and the Kremlin’s resident apologist here.

Don’t insult bed pans.

@stanleybmanly I think you could really benefit from psychological help. You cannot discuss anything except your hatred of Trump. You are the classic example that created the term Trump Derangement Syndrome. Harboring that much anger and hatred cannot be good for you or those around you.

Trump is a moron. No one who knows that needs psychological help. We are normal.
It’s brainless trump supporters who continue to support him in the face of overwhelming evidence of what a morally bankrupt crook he is who needs psychological help. They are denying their own senses in the face of everything, and that’s so weird.

@Dutchess_III And yet, it is those same Trump supporters that have called bullshit on the bogus Russia Collusion claims, that called bullshit on the whistleblower’s claims before the phone call transcript was released, that recognized Schiff was lying about stuff before it came to light in the media, that have pretty much called bullshit correctly on every attempt at smearing Trump. And yet it is those loyal liberals that refuse to acknowledge all the corruption, deception, and lies from the Democrats and blindly follow them, parroting their lies as they go. So who is it that really is lacking a firm grasp on reality?

Do you think the stable genius knows the definition of exculpatory? Nancy Pelosi assumed not Cracked me up.

One thing is true, Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. This won’t stop many of his supporters….

He is so fucking stupid he doesn’t even grasp how badly he has fucked up.

@LostInParadise Here’s a thought on that: It isn’t up to the defendant to prove his innocence which is exactly what Pelosi is saying. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show guilt. And if they have evidence that helps the defendant (exculpatory) they HAVE to provide it. So far, it appears Schiff has nothing in the way of proof other than hearsay evidence and is purposely trying to suppress evidence and witnesses that would help Trump. So now that we have that cleared up, do you better understand why the right says this entire thing is an illegal farce?

They’re working on proving just how guilty he is. I hear rumors he’ll be gone by Christmas. Oh, I hope so.

@seawulf575 I think most of us could probably benefit from psychological attention, particularly those of us who view the less than favorable depiction of a proven weasel as “hatred”. After all, it is much simpler for a backwoods jerk water know nothing to label my complaints as hatred than to address the issue of the fool’s fitness for which after all—THERE IS NO DEFENSE. It’s all part of your cheap and sleazy disinformation campaign. Let’s have a glance.at your view of the world. It isn’t the fool that’s crazy. It’s Stan! And the proof ? Stan says the fool is dishonest, stupid, etc.solid proof of Stan’s “rabid hatred”. But wait! The press?—liberal mouthpieces, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall st Journal—doesn’t matter all liberal devices put on this earth to slander the fool—Trump hatred again—plain and simple. The nation’s intelligence services—again hateful tools of the left out to destroy the fool!. I will tell you frankly if you are not a paid agent set up to spread scurrilous and transparently stupid disinformation, you are truly a guaranteed “Freudian delight” worthy of close observation and probable institutionalization. I will advise you again to go easy on the escape hatch of “hatred” and for a change address the issue. Is the fool an arrogant, stupid, functionally illiterate, dishonest, lying turd—-yes or no? And what exactly should my view be of someone trying to pass such a turd off as the acceptable norm?

@Dutchess_III remember those exact same statements with the Russia Collusion? They are working on proving just how guilty he is, he’ll be gone soon…it is propaganda to rile up the left’s base.

@stanleybmanly Your rants really do make my point very eloquently. Keep ‘em up!

I live only to make you happy.

@seawulf575 , If Trump has evidence that would clear him, why doesn’t he testify? Why won’t he let his aides testify? If there is exculpatory evidence, let’s get it out there. And don’t give me the line that the witch hunt should not be supported. The best way to end it is with solid evidence.

What we know for certain is that Trump temporarily withdrew aid from the Ukraine and requested that Biden be looked into. The reinstatement of the aid may be due to hearing about the whistle blower. Giuliani’s role in all of this is also a bit shaky. And now Taylor said that a staff member overheard a conversation with Trump where he said that the Biden investigation was more important than the aid. That staff member will be testifying soon. And what the heck was Trump doing having a phone call about official business with someone in a restaurant? What a bunch of screwups!

^Trump’s lawyers, all agree he shouldn’t testify. They (I think,) that he will incriminate himself….

Uh, you do know that Trump isn’t allowed to attend, testify or challenge his accusers, don’t you? Nor are his representatives.

If this goes to a trial in the senate, the rules will be followed and Trump or his representatives will be allowed to testify. The Dems don’t want it to go that far, because Adam Schitt and the Whistleblower and others will be subpoenaed and called to testify, and cross examined.

The Dems only want this to go far enough for their own controlled narrative to get publicity / media coverage,

And no, no one overheard Trump on the phone in some restaurant. Trump doesn’t go to Wendy’s to kick back and discuss foreign policy on his Smart Phone.

Of course he’s allowed to attend and testify! What makes you think he isn’t?
So dumb.

Giuliani said don’t go, all of his lawyers are afraid he would incriminate himself and them in less then ten minutes!

And he would because he is so stupid.

I stand corrected—Nancy Pelosi has recently invited Trump to testify.

Schiff still controls what witnesses are allowed to say so it will be interesting to see where this goes. I think Pelosi just wants to say Trump was invited to testify and chose not to, now that the schittshow is so unfavorably viewed.

I’d still recommend it to go to the Senate, where actual rules will be followed, witnesses can testify freely and be cross-examined.

Everyone living understands that ANY testimony from Trump is equivalent to a suicide attempt on the part of the fool. Overarching ALL of this as well as any other difficulties that will afflict the Donald is the indisputably fatal fact that THE FOOL SIMPLY CANNOT CONTROL WHAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH. According to the fact checking unit of the New York times devoted specifically to the topic, the tally of lies from the fool on the public record since reciting the oath of office was 13,435 back in August of this year. The nightmare certainty of perjury from the fool on ANY witness stand is all but guaranteed. It is an extraordinary truth that Trump’s troubles are almost exclusively the result of running his mouth!!

“Overarching” “all of this as well as any other difficulties” is the reality that this is political theater at its worst and a sham which has not followed any sense of the rule of law or the normal proceedings of hearings or public proceedings.

Only if there is a senate trial, will anything like a normal proceeding and fair testimony emerge. But its dead on arrival in the senate because there is no evidence of any actual crime, nor any due process for the accused, and its partisian nature is very obvious

Have you watched any of it? How do you know that what you’re saying is true?

Oh my. If Trump testifies….He’s fucked. That would be fun to watch.

The charge of political theater is meaningless. The answer to such a charge is “So what”? If perjury is a crime, the fool cannot be allowed to take the stand—EVER!

I heard he’s willing to testify…in writing.

Its most likely a perjury trap. You can get an answer, live or in writing, and find a “witness” to contradict it, and go with the contradicting witness as the arbitrator of all truth, and make a perjury charge, which IS a high crime and misdemeanor.

Of course, it would be exposed by Rule of Evidence in the Senate, but the House could still make a perjury charge as justification for impeachment. Then again, as I said earlier, it is highly unlikely the democrats would want this to get to the Senate. I think the Senate will be issuing subpoenas anyway of the heresay witnesses in the House.

@Yellowdog You spelled it out – - he’d open his mouth and commit perjury (perjury trap = opening his mouth) !

Rule of Evidence will not keep him from opening his mouth and . . . “perjury trap”.

Definition of perjury trap must be Trump opening his mouth, he lies 11 to 18 time a day (and can’t remember what he said yesterday) that would be perjury !

@Yellowdog of course they would call it perjury. How many times have they (the left) sworn up and down that he lied about something only to have it proven true? How many times have they tried taking a piece of a statement to try giving it an entirely different meaning? How many times was he accused of lying about no collusion with Russia only to have it confirmed by Mueller? He would say something like “thank you” and the left would scream he was lying about it. Just look at @Tropical_Willie as a perfect example of what you can expect.

13,435 public lies since taking his oath of office. And that was the count in August. You 2 are more delusional than the fool himself! For this idiot, LIFE and his very existence is little more than an exercise of profound fraud. Perjury is his actual profession. He literally cannot tell the truth when his life depends on it. This is why your feeble attempts to stand up for the jackass are treated with the contempt they deserve. To try to pass this arrogant feeble minded turd of a man off as a decent human being worthy of respect insults any and everybody hearing you.

My hypothesis is, since nothing in the hearings is firsthand nor an impeachable offense, they will try to get him to testify on something totally unrelated in the hearings that they can say is perjury.

For instance, they will ask if he was sexually molesting underage girls while making the Ukraine phone call. He will deny it, and someone will testify that they overheard it from someone in a restaurant that he was, and it is a perjury charge.

It wouldn’t stand up by any Rule of Evidence and would be immediately rejected by the Senate, who would subpoena anyone making the charge to have to account for themselves, and who might face a REAL perjury charge. But it would work at the infestation-of-the-house level to levee an impeachment,

@stanleybmanly so how many of those 13435 “lies” were from the Russian collusion when you all swore he was lying? How many were snippets that some lefty “news” outlet took out of context and tried calling it a lie? How many were nothing more than opinions that some idiot on the left swore was a fact? And…what is your source? You know…if you only gave sources, you might actually gain some semblance of credibility.

@Yellowdog _”...nothing in the hearings is firsthand…”

I think you’re very confused about how evidence and hearsay works. If I overhear one person making an illegal agreement with another, then that is absolutely admissible. I know you’ve probably got your law degree from Judge Judy reruns and reading bumper stickers, but there are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule, despite the fact that much of the testimony isn’t even hearsay, it’s direct testimony by witnesses who were included on the call.

Honest to God, can you name an individual at greater risk of a perjury charge than the fool himself?

For instance, at Walmart, I heard that Double Bubble Bubblegum is made of spider eggs. So it it counts as evidence. More important than hard evidence.

@seawulf575 The NYT list of lies has nothing to do with snippets or debatable truth. These are irrefutable lies—you know what I’m talking about: the largest inaugural crowd ever, the best economy in the country’s history, Mexico will pay for it, Russia didn’t hack the election. And as for collusion with the Russians, the fool has by no means been absolved. This Ukraine thing raises that issue once again, and is shedding more light on that matter daily.

@Yellowdog “For instance, at Walmart, I heard that Double Bubble Bubblegum is made of spider eggs. So it it counts as evidence. More important than hard evidence.”

Please get back on your meds !

@Yellowdog “For instance, at Walmart, I heard that Double Bubble Bubblegum is made of spider eggs. So it it counts as evidence. More important than hard evidence.”

Actually, if the crime was fraud and the person was deceiving the other party into buying something that isn’t real, then YES that would actually be evidence. If the person wants to be buying spider-egg-based-bubble-gum, and is deceived, then it isn’t hearsay and IS evidence.

There is no one alleging any actual criminal activity in their depositions or testimony.

Just a desperate attempt to not go where evidence of interference in the 2016 leads, and to protect Joe Biden.

The Democrats created this mess, and it will be exposed in the senate.

@gorillapaws, When Bill Taylor admits to the committee “All I can tell you is what I have heard from others”, that is a pretty good definition of hearsay.

Very good. But THEN they subpoena those “others” to appear to testify.

But just as the smokewulf famously reminds us, these proceedings are not a trial. Hearsay evidence might be deemed inadmissible in a court of law, but the issue here is no
longer over what the fool did, but whether what he did directly violates his oath of office. To my mind, the reason Trump will always wind up cooked is because every mark against him boils down to a matter of character.

@stanleybmanly very good! You have the liberal talking points down perfectly!

“I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay,” Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois, said to close his questioning of Kent and Taylor. “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it’s certainly valid in this instance.”

Yeah…that’s Dem Rep Mike Quigley from Illinois tell us that hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence. In other words, rumor beats facts. Yep…that pretty much sums up the Dems efforts and captures your views perfectly!

@Dutchess_III Except those were their “star” witnesses. They were the “gotcha” on Trump. And all they had is rumors they heard. And as I just told our buddy Stanley, even the Dems were trying to spin it by telling us hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence. I guess it is when the direct evidence disproves the entire narrative you are trying to spin.

@gorillapaws Federal Rules of Evidence do NOT permit conjecture, feelings, or heresay as evidence. I’m not confused, but you seem to be.

Thus far, no witness has testified to Quid-Pro-Quo, Extortion, or Bribery (except in reference to Joe Biden—which WILL come out in a Senate trial). As for hard evidence, none of the witnesses have found any problem with the transcript.

@seawulf575 You and your client remind me very much of Al Capone. Remember him? Like Trump, he was merely an alleged gangster. His criminal enterprises to this day remain hearsay. But the difference is that unlike Capone our fool is dumber than a box of rocks. Of course, that too is hearsay along with the allegation that your client has the ethical content usually restricted to septic tanks. In the end the reality around the fact that the man is a sludge bucket will be the ruin of him. Meanwhile, you will never fully appreciate the pleasure I find here with your silly rationalizations toward defending monstrous smelly turd. I should think you might tire of presenting me with ceaseless opportunities to rub your hapless nose in the disgusting pile of shit.

@stanleybmanly sigh You will never learn. You spewed very similar statements for two years as the Dems pushed their Russia narrative. Remember? Trump was dumber than a box of rocks, Trump is lying about everything, it’s obvious to everyone except a fool that Trump is guilty, Mueller is taking his time, stitching together a net to catch the fool, just wait…Mueller will come out with charges any day now….How’d all that work for you? You were wrong on every count. In the end, NO Americans had anything to do with any Russian interference into the election. There was no tie to Trump doing anything. Yet you had that same smarmy attitude throughout, and were wrong throughout. Now you are doing it again.
Here’s the reality of the situation. The Dems don’t have any actual charge against Trump for anything. They are fishing, hoping to find SOMETHING they can use that has enough spinability to be able to say it is impeachable. They are even trying to justify using hearsay as a basis for impeachment. In the end, the House will vote to impeach Trump on something. The Dems have pushed to hard for too long to have any other end. But when it gets to the Senate, he will not be convicted. There will basically be no evidence of anything. Evidence relies on facts, not hearsay, not feelings, not innuendo, and not desperation. And when Trump is acquitted in the Senate, he will roll through the 2020 election and you will get to enjoy another 4 years of the guy.

The turd will never make it. The bottom line remains. He is a turd plain & simple. Regardless of the stupidity of whatever percentage of the electorate responsible for the elevation of the dystopian turd, character matters, and HIS character must be his downfall as surely as you breathe—and you know it! Dems need not look for anything to pin on the fool!!! His character is such that he will hand them the instrument of his demise almost certainly through his big lying mouth. And all the while I promise to relish rubbing your arrogant duplicitous nose in your festering mountain of a turd. GOOD LUCK !

^Some turds, are too big to flush…
The dems` only hope, was Biden, and he was dumb enough to brag about something he could have just kept his mouth shut about…

”Some turds are too bit to flush… So him being a turd is actually a compliment? Sounds about right for your ilk.
I’m sure the men of your ilk just adore him for all the women he can get. (They don’t consider that it has nothing to do with the man himself, it has to do with his money. Period. Any woman in her right mind wouldn’t get near the creep.)

Dutch. You should know, by now, I hate Trump. I’m just being realistic. You should try it sometime…

Oh shit @MrGrimm888! I’m sorry! I assumed it was Yellowdog. I’m sorry.

^No. It wasn’t. Apologie accepted.

And @Yellowdog isn’t a bad person, he’s just delusional. We all are, to an extent…