Anonymous wrote:NBC News:

Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered a criminal referral to the Justice Dept. about the whistleblower's allegations that Trump abused his office in pressuring Ukraine.

Barr buried this. Obstruction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NBC News:

Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered a criminal referral to the Justice Dept. about the whistleblower's allegations that Trump abused his office in pressuring Ukraine.

Barr buried this. Obstruction.

ugh. So not surprised.

Barr needs to be investigated. He seems to be deep in some bad stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.

Trump has been publicly worried about Biden long before April. Trump has been convinced that he will lose to Biden in the next election while Biden dithered about whether to even run.

It wasn't only about Biden. The idiotic Ukraine 2016 collusion fantasy to exonerate Manafort and Russia was already out there, and the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and the courting and corruption of Lutsenko predated Biden's official candidacy.

Exactly. The addition of Biden was a three-fer - help Russia (lift sanctions) pardon manafort and now, smear biden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NBC News:

Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered a criminal referral to the Justice Dept. about the whistleblower's allegations that Trump abused his office in pressuring Ukraine.

Barr buried this. Obstruction.

ugh. So not surprised.

Anonymous wrote:NBC News:

Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered a criminal referral to the Justice Dept. about the whistleblower's allegations that Trump abused his office in pressuring Ukraine.

Barr buried this. Obstruction.

Anonymous wrote:NBC News:

Weeks before the whistleblower's complaint became public, the CIA's top lawyer made what she considered a criminal referral to the Justice Dept. about the whistleblower's allegations that Trump abused his office in pressuring Ukraine.

Barr buried this. Obstruction.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.

Trump has been publicly worried about Biden long before April. Trump has been convinced that he will lose to Biden in the next election while Biden dithered about whether to even run.

It wasn't only about Biden. The idiotic Ukraine 2016 collusion fantasy to exonerate Manafort and Russia was already out there, and the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and the courting and corruption of Lutsenko predated Biden's official candidacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.

Trump has been publicly worried about Biden long before April. Trump has been convinced that he will lose to Biden in the next election while Biden dithered about whether to even run.

It wasn't only about Biden. The idiotic Ukraine 2016 collusion fantasy to exonerate Manafort and Russia was already out there, and the smear campaign against Ambassador Yovanovitch and the courting and corruption of Lutsenko predated Biden's official candidacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.

Trump has been publicly worried about Biden long before April. Trump has been convinced that he will lose to Biden in the next election while Biden dithered about whether to even run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.

Nor did Sondland ever say that Trump told Sondland it was a quid pro quo. The opposite is true. These bureaucratic functionaries seem to frequently misrepresent their superiors' positions in an effort to get leverage in a negotiation. "Give me what I want because unless you do, you won't get what you want, and that's coming straight from the top." Except it wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:Economist/YouGov Poll:

should House try to impeach Trump?
50% yes
39% no

if House impeaches, should Senate remove Trump from office?
51% yes
39% no