Anonymous wrote:

I really really hate Trump but this has too much of a bow on it. Bill Taylor seems like he was trying to set someone up with the comment. The other guy was smart to take it off text.

I need to read the rest of the texts but I am looking forward to Bill Taylor coming in front of Congress - he seems like he may have some stories to tell.

he took the conversation off text because he knew it was incriminating, as evidenced by the reference to the phone call in the following text. Note also, this took place the same day Bolton resigned.

That isn't a coincidence and adds further to the idea of criminality.

These text messages are damning. I seriously question the basic brain function of anyone who would read them and not see that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Wall Street Journal exclusive:
Trump ordered the removal of the ambassador to Ukraine after months of complaints from allies, including Rudy Giuliani, that she was undermining him abroad and obstructing efforts to persuade Kyiv to investigate Biden.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-ordered-ukraine-ambassador-removed-after-complaints-from-giuliani-others-11570137147?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/2yoTb1G7Ow

WSJ, huh? Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.

The ambassador is part of Trump’s administration. He can remove her if he chooses.

Notice how there has been no vote, as traditional, which would allow Rs to participate in the investigation. That’s very telling. I was wondering why all the speculative threads were at the top of this sub-forum. Now I know why....

The House may make the rules as it wishes, see the US Constitution. Elections have consequences. The R's were able to ask as many questions of the witness yesterday as they wished. That was a flat out lie from Jim Jordan. I am not sure why you would want to fracture whats left of the GOP in the House - they are the ones who would risk being primaried if they voted to open the investigation and have more to lose. The fact is, Pelosi already has the votes. This is a null talking point both in law and tactics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:holy crap

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf

the text messages are attached.

Forgive me if this has already been posted.

Very interesting, thanks.

My question: did Volker hope to avoid jail by resigning and cooperating with the investigation?
All the participants in these texts are clearly implicated, even Bill Taylor who texted his misgivings and wrote that it was "crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

These texts are the smoking gun.

And what disgusting liars those GOP Congressmen are to come out after the hearing and say that it's a nothingburger.

They are truly destroying our country.

This is a smoking gun against Trump?

This combined with the rest of the string does seem to be a smoking gun. And that string isn't the whole thing - they are planning to release more.

The texts on July 25 before and after the call are the smoking guns IMO. The ones into August and September are CYA. Taylor was pretty naive with some of the stuff he put into text.

7/25 (before call):
Volker: Good lunch - thanks. Heard from White House - assuming President Z convinced trump he will investigate/"get to the bottom of what happened" in 2016, we ill nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow - kurt

7/25 (after call)
Yermak: Phone call went well. President Trump proposed to choose any convenient dates. ...

9/1:
Taylor: Are we going to say that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
Gordon: Call me

This stuff is just nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

1) Then the FBI and not Rudy Giuliani (being paid by an Oligarch) should be investigating, why isn't it?
2) Conjuecture on your part, it is pretty hard to spin given the President and Rudy have already admitted it. At this point, the question is, is it ok with the Senate and voters or is it illegal?
3) If there is no cover up, then why did Pompeo bar people from testifying, and why are transcripts illegally being reclassified into an NSC server? Why did the DOJ and DNI sit on the whistleblower complaint illegally for three weeks? Those are not actions of innocence.
4) All of the above are obstruction, on the face of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

How long are you going to defend what is clearly two deranged old senile men (Trump and Guiliani) ruining our country? They clearly have large wholes in their brains. You really want to pretend this is normal? That's the kind of world you want to live in?

Sadly it’s not two senile old men. There is a huge machinery behind this: Mercer $, Pompeo with his hunger for the rapture, Barr w/ belief in unbridled executive power, Mitch w/ his grim reaper hard on... and these are only the US players.

Sad to see educated people turned into conspiracy theorists.

This is not a theory, it's the truth, and it's not a conspiracy, it's the way many humans act unless they have clear boundaries. Democrats would do the same thing if they could! This is why we need to impeach and jail some of these people now, and uphold the rule of law, so we don't have the same problems with the next White House.

You all need to understand that we need to be bipartisan here. This kind of corruption goes beyond politics and undermines every single institution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

How long are you going to defend what is clearly two deranged old senile men (Trump and Guiliani) ruining our country? They clearly have large wholes in their brains. You really want to pretend this is normal? That's the kind of world you want to live in?

Sadly it’s not two senile old men. There is a huge machinery behind this: Mercer $, Pompeo with his hunger for the rapture, Barr w/ belief in unbridled executive power, Mitch w/ his grim reaper hard on... and these are only the US players.

Sad to see educated people turned into conspiracy theorists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

1. What criminal matter has the United States opened into former VP Joe Biden or his son, Hunter? That is what the treaty refers to. Also, if there were such a legal matter, it's not the President's job to get help, nor should he, considering Biden may be his 2020 opponent.
2. We don't need a transcript when we have the texts. And these texts are crystal clear.
3. There's evidence of a cover-up in the texts. Pompeo lied on national TV to cover up. Pence is trying to play dumb to cover up.
4. The White House and State Dept are refusing to turn over documents and make witnesses available for a legitimate Congressional impeachment inquiry. That's obstruction.

1. So, Joe Biden and his son, Hunter are off limits. As Kamala said, "leave Joe alone." LOL
2. Yes, the texts are crystal clear that there was no quid pro quo and that the effort was to ensure transparency and reforms on the part of Ukraine.
3. No evidence of cover up. Pompeo did not lie. Pence? LOL. Now, if you want to talk about Schiff and his lies..... he did get 4 Pinocchios.
4. NOPE. It is only "official" if there is a vote. Nancy can take a vote if she wants the docs.

1. Who said they're off-limits? Since you're so sure there was a crime, why don't you call the FBI and report your evidence.
2. LOL
3. I forgot to mention Sonderland's texts too ("stop texting about our crimes - call me")
4. It's official now - no vote needed. The Republicans are lying about that - surprise, surprise (ie: there was no vote to open impeachment inquiry into Andrew Johnson)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

How long are you going to defend what is clearly two deranged old senile men (Trump and Guiliani) ruining our country? They clearly have large wholes in their brains. You really want to pretend this is normal? That's the kind of world you want to live in?

Sadly it’s not two senile old men. There is a huge machinery behind this: Mercer $, Pompeo with his hunger for the rapture, Barr w/ belief in unbridled executive power, Mitch w/ his grim reaper hard on... and these are only the US players.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Wall Street Journal exclusive:
Trump ordered the removal of the ambassador to Ukraine after months of complaints from allies, including Rudy Giuliani, that she was undermining him abroad and obstructing efforts to persuade Kyiv to investigate Biden.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-ordered-ukraine-ambassador-removed-after-complaints-from-giuliani-others-11570137147?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/2yoTb1G7Ow

WSJ, huh? Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.

The ambassador is part of Trump’s administration. He can remove her if he chooses.

Notice how there has been no vote, as traditional, which would allow Rs to participate in the investigation. That’s very telling. I was wondering why all the speculative threads were at the top of this sub-forum. Now I know why....

Sure he can. He can remove any and all ambassadors, good ones and bad ones. Should he? Well, he's the president. He's supposed to have sense and wisdom and, where he's lacking those, good advisors.

But he removed an experienced career ambassador because Giuliani didn't like her, because she was obstructing his efforts to ... make Ukraine investigate Biden for political campaign purposes.

Volker's testimony and texts/emails + all of the public and published facts of the spring and summer = BAD.

Just because she’s a career diplomat doesn’t mean she should keep her job.

I’m amazed at the outrage over Trump asking Ukraine to get to the bottom of whether or not Biden’s son was in the job as a favor to Biden, given the Steele dossier, and the FISA warrants that resulted from that. I’m also amazed that you believe that the texts - where it explicitly says that Trump said no quid-pro-quo, is a smoking gun.

If Pelosi and Schiff are so sure of what they have, open the investigation process to a vote and let the Rs participate.

This.

Sounds to me like another crazy witch hunt.

Another? There *never has been* a crazy witch hunt. There was a legitimate investigation into Russian meddling in our last presidential election that Trump managed to make about himself. The findings of that investigation should be disturbing to all Americans. Now we have another legitimate investigation of obvious wrongdoing.

It is unfortunate that you lack any moral compass and deceive yourself in this way in order to prop up your false hope in this worthless POTUS.

A legitimate investigation into Russian interference in our last presidential election would have investigated what the President then did to prevent such interference, which we now know started before 2014, and why we failed, and how to fix it.

What took place was a crazy witch hunt.

Gee, why not?

SMH

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

How long are you going to defend what is clearly two deranged old senile men (Trump and Guiliani) ruining our country? They clearly have large wholes in their brains. You really want to pretend this is normal? That's the kind of world you want to live in?

The PP to whom you’re responding is displaying a sick combo of sunk cost fallacy and Dunning Kruger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else appreciate the irony that it is State Department electronic communications exposing these crimes?

Crimes?

LOL. No "crimes" have been "exposed."

Asking a foreign government for aid in a domestic election is a crime.
Withholding federal funds to extort a country is a crime.
The cover-up is a crime.
Obstruction of justice is a crime.

There are 4 right there, and that is just the surface.

1. We have a treaty with Ukraine regarding Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. Just because Biden happens to be a candidate, doesn't mean he is immune from investigation.
2. The transcript from yesterday will prove you wrong on this claim.
3. There is no cover up - this administration has released more documents regarding this "scandal" than the Dems expected.
4. There is no obstruction.

How long are you going to defend what is clearly two deranged old senile men (Trump and Guiliani) ruining our country? They clearly have large wholes in their brains. You really want to pretend this is normal? That's the kind of world you want to live in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Wall Street Journal exclusive:
Trump ordered the removal of the ambassador to Ukraine after months of complaints from allies, including Rudy Giuliani, that she was undermining him abroad and obstructing efforts to persuade Kyiv to investigate Biden.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-ordered-ukraine-ambassador-removed-after-complaints-from-giuliani-others-11570137147?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/2yoTb1G7Ow

WSJ, huh? Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.

The ambassador is part of Trump’s administration. He can remove her if he chooses.

Notice how there has been no vote, as traditional, which would allow Rs to participate in the investigation. That’s very telling. I was wondering why all the speculative threads were at the top of this sub-forum. Now I know why....

Sure he can. He can remove any and all ambassadors, good ones and bad ones. Should he? Well, he's the president. He's supposed to have sense and wisdom and, where he's lacking those, good advisors.

But he removed an experienced career ambassador because Giuliani didn't like her, because she was obstructing his efforts to ... make Ukraine investigate Biden for political campaign purposes.

Volker's testimony and texts/emails + all of the public and published facts of the spring and summer = BAD.

Just because she’s a career diplomat doesn’t mean she should keep her job.

I’m amazed at the outrage over Trump asking Ukraine to get to the bottom of whether or not Biden’s son was in the job as a favor to Biden, given the Steele dossier, and the FISA warrants that resulted from that. I’m also amazed that you believe that the texts - where it explicitly says that Trump said no quid-pro-quo, is a smoking gun.

If Pelosi and Schiff are so sure of what they have, open the investigation process to a vote and let the Rs participate.

This.

Sounds to me like another crazy witch hunt.

Another? There *never has been* a crazy witch hunt. There was a legitimate investigation into Russian meddling in our last presidential election that Trump managed to make about himself. The findings of that investigation should be disturbing to all Americans. Now we have another legitimate investigation of obvious wrongdoing.

It is unfortunate that you lack any moral compass and deceive yourself in this way in order to prop up your false hope in this worthless POTUS.

A legitimate investigation into Russian interference in our last presidential election would have investigated what the President then did to prevent such interference, which we now know started before 2014, and why we failed, and how to fix it.

What took place was a crazy witch hunt.

It's funny seeing Trump supporters crying about traditions. Where have you guys been the last 3 years?

PP again - and I'll add that I really couldn't care less about Trump's political opponent who is being unfairly targeted in this scheme. The accusations are not true, they've been investigated by a slew of journalists from the left and right, nothing holds up. But this is not about Biden. This is about the President abusing his powers. You don't want the next President, and the next after that, abusing their powers too!

Be careful what precedent you set.