Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans would benefit from exploring and exposing Ukrainian interference and any Biden corruption.

And Trump corruption as well.

No, don't fall for that trap. There is no evidence of Biden corruption. Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into making up evidence, and announcing an investigation that would make it seems as if there might be evidence. But there is *no evidence* - there is PLENTY of evidence about Trump corruption, though, and I look forward to it being explored in depth.

Asking to manufacture the evidence and asking to investigate are two different things. If there are no evidence of any improper behavior by either Bidens, why to worry so much? It would be great for Biden’s campaign to show wrongful allegations, and it will be great for Ukraine to investigate possible foreign corruption. Why Democrats are so opposed to the investigation? If you think Trump improperly requested it, why don’t any of the Democrats or even Biden himself file a proper request?

Because people who don't wear tinfoil hats know there is no there there. Take yours off already.

We'll soon see:

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/20/not-a-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-expands-investigation-into-burisma-founder/

So now the Ukrainian did do the ask? I could have sworn that Gym and tte Mad Cow have been saying over and over again that it didn't happen and that sonce there was no harm there was no foul.

This was just announced a few days ago in Ukraine and they already had the aide for quite a while. Zelensky ran on ending corruption. He's simply keeping campaign promises

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans would benefit from exploring and exposing Ukrainian interference and any Biden corruption.

And Trump corruption as well.

No, don't fall for that trap. There is no evidence of Biden corruption. Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into making up evidence, and announcing an investigation that would make it seems as if there might be evidence. But there is *no evidence* - there is PLENTY of evidence about Trump corruption, though, and I look forward to it being explored in depth.

Asking to manufacture the evidence and asking to investigate are two different things. If there are no evidence of any improper behavior by either Bidens, why to worry so much? It would be great for Biden’s campaign to show wrongful allegations, and it will be great for Ukraine to investigate possible foreign corruption. Why Democrats are so opposed to the investigation? If you think Trump improperly requested it, why don’t any of the Democrats or even Biden himself file a proper request?

Because people who don't wear tinfoil hats know there is no there there. Take yours off already.

We'll soon see:

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/20/not-a-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-expands-investigation-into-burisma-founder/

So now the Ukrainian did do the ask? I could have sworn that Gym and tte Mad Cow have been saying over and over again that it didn't happen and that sonce there was no harm there was no foul.

No, Uraine has been trying to fix this disaster for weeks now -- including investigating Burisma and Biden and making announcements and whatever they can think of.

They want to stay out of US partisan politics but more importantly, they want to stay on the good side of the president of the US. And the president of the US only knows partisan politics, so partisan politics it is.

Again, Politico's 2017 news story already implicated the Dems.

[Anonymous]

Well, this explains part of Devin's behavior

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

Tell Congress that. It's their aid to give out or withhold, not Trump's. Which is kinda why we're here right now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this explains part of Devin's behavior

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

What a frothy milkshake!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, this explains part of Devin's behavior

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

What a frothy milkshake!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this explains part of Devin's behavior

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

What a frothy milkshake!

The cherry on top:

““Raised in Brooklyn, and now living in Florida, Mr. Parnas is happily married with six children—five living at home—and a zeal for America and its democratic values. At all times throughout, he has believed that what he was doing was furtherance of the President’s and thus our national interests. President Trump’s recent and regrettable disavowal of Mr. Parnas has caused him to rethink his involvement and the true reasons for his having been recruited to participate in the President’s activities. Mr. Parnas is prepared to testify completely and accurately about his involvement in the President and Rudy Giuliani’s quid pro quo demands of Ukraine.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vote on the subpoenas was held and republicans had already left! they asked for it but couldn't stay to vote. Hmmmmm

What happened? Can’t find anything.

[Anonymous]

I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

You got it. Gop succeeding in getting him to say repeatedly that he had made assumptions and Presumptions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

You got it. Gop succeeding in getting him to say repeatedly that he had made assumptions and Presumptions

Gop acting like if trump doesn’t say “yes I want to extort Ukraine” then it’s all good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

There was a definite quid pro quo. You're not missing anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

That phone call was after the White House was aware of the whistleblower report. At that point, the gig was up. And to date, Ukraine is still not whole on the money it needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

Tell Congress that. It's their aid to give out or withhold, not Trump's. Which is kinda why we're here right now...

everyone familiar with the situation said that they had met the goals they needed to get the aid. But trump knew better? The moron who thinks that Alabama is on the Atlantic and that Frederick Douglass is doing a great job? You are not even remotely believable, save your breath.