Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol. Where did Clinton attack gold star families and John Mccain's service to our country?
Simmer down man. Wow. Way to name call me. I get you dont like Trump.Lol. Where did Clinton attack gold star families and John Mccain's service to our country?
Please mofo.... All you needed was a Clinton reference to post that here. Clinton didn't serve in the military, he also didn't call veterens un american or not so good etc.
Fact is that conservatives hate that they have to love this guy right now. Because if they admit they fvcking hate the bag of excrement that means 'they' won.
Uh sure. You don't like Clinton we get it. Welcome to the present. Sorry about your feelingsSimmer down man. Wow. Way to name call me. I get you dont like Trump.
I dont like double standards but you do you man.Uh sure. You don't like Clinton we get it. Welcome to the present. Sorry about your feelings
I dont like double standards but you do you man.
Good call. Been listening to audio of Biden and many other dems using the word "lynching" back in 1998 to describe Clinton's impeachment.
Both sides do it. But that doesnt mean we have to accept it either way.Good call. Been listening to audio of Biden and many other dems using the word "lynching" back in 1998 to describe Clinton's impeachment.
I like this comment except that i am not sure he.violated the law. So far everything I have heard about the quid pro quo stuff would have removed every president ever. There is a line between negotiation and quid pro quo. And I am not seeing where he crossed it yet.Again, I actually like this post, b/c I can't stand double standards. And that's just ONE of the reasons I despise Trump. He thinks the law and rules are for OTHERS, not himself. But both Dems and Republicans are full of double standards. I actually don't have a problem with Trump and his lynching comment. I think it's inaccurate, but I don't see anything wrong with it per se. Just like our senator Graham. He said back in the day that the President didn't even have to break the law (just act badly) to be impeached. My how he has changed. But I digress.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Bill Clinton should have been removed from office. He committed Perjury. Period. That's a felony. It's becoming more and more clear that Trump violated the law (although we still don't KNOW that... that's what the impeachment process in the HoR is for). I have a REAL problem with Pelosi not calling for an impeachment vote. She's having it both ways (investigating the President w/o committing to anything... that's wrong... not surprising, but wrong). As much as I despise Trump, I'm still not sure that what he did (IF he did it) rises to a crime that should have him removed.
I like this comment except that i am not sure he.violated the law. So far everything I have heard about the quid pro quo stuff would have removed every president ever. There is a line between negotiation and quid pro quo. And I am not seeing where he crossed it yet.
I agree that that would be illegal. But so far has not been proved. The big smoking gun lately was a quid pro quo not related to Biden.The law is pretty clear. You CAN'T get anything of value from a foreign government that can help you in a federal election. It DOES NOT MATTER if the person in question is engaging in criminal activity or not. You can't do it. Period. Now we've only seen a memo of the actual transcript of the phone call. And the investigation is still ongoing. But William Taylor just testified that Trump held up the aid until Ukraine started a Biden investigation. Taylor was appointed by Trump's Sec of State and has been a diplomat for years, first appointed by Bush in 2006, so this is NOT some Dem that's lying his ass off.
I agree that that would be illegal. But so far has not been proved. The big smoking gun lately was a quid pro quo not related to Biden.
The law is pretty clear. You CAN'T get anything of value from a foreign government that can help you in a federal election. It DOES NOT MATTER if the person in question is engaging in criminal activity or not. You can't do it. Period. Now we've only seen a memo of the actual transcript of the phone call. And the investigation is still ongoing. But William Taylor just testified that Trump held up the aid until Ukraine started a Biden investigation. Taylor was appointed by Trump's Sec of State and has been a diplomat for years, first appointed by Bush in 2006, so this is NOT some Dem that's lying his ass off.
Under questioning from Rep. Radcliffe, Taylor admitted there was no Quid Pro Quo. There has to be a Quo before there is Quid Pro Quo. The aid was ultimately released and there is no evidence that the Ukrainians even knew the aid was being held back. Their words; not mine. To my knowledge, the Ukrainians never re-opened an investigation into Burisma.
Like him or not, Trump has been questioning all of the foreign aid dole outs since he first began campaigning. In my view, he should be careful about doling out money; especially to countries that have a history of systemic corruption.
un.f*cking.believable.
You trump disciples ability to constantly move the goal post is astonishing. Before yesterday you were adamant that trump did not withhold money to Ukraine to pressure them to investigate Burisma. After Taylor's testimony yesterday, now your story is yes he did but he eventually released the money so it doesnt count? ****s sake man.
This is similar to your argument about the Mueller report that Trump didnt obstruct justice because he never committed the original crime. That is the same as me being investigated for murder, then going out and murdering the witness, then claiming I cant be prosecuted for the witness murder because I was not proven guilty of the original murder.
Under questioning from Rep. Radcliffe, Taylor admitted there was no Quid Pro Quo. There has to be a Quo before there is Quid Pro Quo. The aid was ultimately released and there is no evidence that the Ukrainians even knew the aid was being held back. Their words; not mine. To my knowledge, the Ukrainians never re-opened an investigation into Burisma.
Like him or not, Trump has been questioning all of the foreign aid dole outs since he first began campaigning. In my view, he should be careful about doling out money; especially to countries that have a history of systemic corruption.
Under questioning from Rep. Radcliffe, Taylor admitted there was no Quid Pro Quo. There has to be a Quo before there is Quid Pro Quo. The aid was ultimately released and there is no evidence that the Ukrainians even knew the aid was being held back. Their words; not mine. To my knowledge, the Ukrainians never re-opened an investigation into Burisma.
Like him or not, Trump has been questioning all of the foreign aid dole outs since he first began campaigning. In my view, he should be careful about doling out money; especially to countries that have a history of systemic corruption.
I'd like to see your sources on this. Because what I'm seeing is that after being told that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Taylor said Sondland told him that if Zelenskiy didn’t publicly announce the investigations, there would be a “stalemate.”
He took “stalemate” to be code for holding up the assistance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor’s text messages take the story forward:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” he wrote to Sondland.
Sondland waited five hours to respond with a clinical denial of any such contingency: “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He reportedly talked to Trump before he sent the response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is from the AP Article here: https://www.apnews.com/4f32a3adcf2943bd901cf37446260c9d
So SONDLAND told Taylor via text there was no quid pro quo NOT TAYLOR. BIG DIFFERENCE! And FWIW Taylor did not believe the explanation.
Like I said, show me where Taylor admitted this.
Well, of course there is no link because Schiff/Pelosi have put a gag on the Repubs in the closed door hearings. Everything you're referencing is what Schiff is leaking to the press. McCarthy and other repubs have stated that can't reveal what happened in the room, but that Rep. Radcliffe shot down Taylor's testimony in the first 90 seconds of his questioning. Until Schiff makes the hearings and testimony public, we don't really know anything except what Schiff leaks. Can a POTUS be impeached behind closed doors in a SCIF without being given basic legal rights? Why can't the public watch or even read transcripts. WTH is Schiff up to?
I don't trust anything Schiff would ever do or say. He's already lied a couple of times regarding the WB. In fact, I believe he conspired with the WB.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/23/...john-ratcliffe-impeachment-witness-testimony/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...d-ukraine-aid-collapsed-destroyed-at-hearing/
FYI: I don't have to tell you that Breitbart and DC are right wing sites. lol. I also watched McCarthy state the same things on FOXnews last evening.
Well, of course there is no link because Schiff/Pelosi have put a gag on the Repubs in the closed door hearings. Everything you're referencing is what Schiff is leaking to the press. McCarthy and other repubs have stated that can't reveal what happened in the room, but that Rep. Radcliffe shot down Taylor's testimony in the first 90 seconds of his questioning. Until Schiff makes the hearings and testimony public, we don't really know anything except what Schiff leaks. Can a POTUS be impeached behind closed doors in a SCIF without being given basic legal rights? Why can't the public watch or even read transcripts. WTH is Schiff up to?
I don't trust anything Schiff would ever do or say. He's already lied a couple of times regarding the WB. In fact, I believe he conspired with the WB.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/23/...john-ratcliffe-impeachment-witness-testimony/
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...d-ukraine-aid-collapsed-destroyed-at-hearing/
FYI: I don't have to tell you that Breitbart and DC are right wing sites. lol. I also watched McCarthy state the same things on FOXnews last evening.
So you don't believe Schiff b/c he's lied a couple of times. Hell, man Trump lies ALL THE TIME and you believe every damn word he says. I don't really trust Schiff either, but if Donald Trump told me it was raining, I'd damn sure look out the window before grabbing a rain coat.
I've linked an article with actual quotes from the testimony from the associated press. I'd be willing to be that there's more than a single Representative behind it. Like recordings or something to take quotes from. The AP is pretty accurate as a rule.
And Republicans can't reveal what happened but they revealed what happened?
AND the dailycaller is not just a right leaning site they are fact challenged:
Overall, we rate the Daily Caller strongly right biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact checked on a per article basis.
and good Lord, breitbart
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims.
lol. Who is fact checking your fact checker?
I see your fact checker getting fact checked often. Plus, both of these sites were spot on during the Russia Hoax investigation whereas anything else you can point to, was not. Or, do you still the Russia investigation was legit? lol
Hey send this one to your "fact checker"
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/23/military-leader-of-syrian-kurds-thanks-trump/
...and this one:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ss-bill-taylor-he-has-fourth-hand-info-video/
I say lets cut out all the secrecy and have open meetings. I will certainly not believe anything that is leaked by Schiff to Marxist press. Hey, for that matter, remember when the dems were screaming for Barr to release the Mueller report, which he was not legally required to do? He always said he would, but the dems screamed anyway, you know, for effect. Why now, does everything have to be is secret. Are you not the least bit concerned about the lack of transparency?
The repubs can't state what was said because of Schiff's gag order, but somehow, Taylor's opening statement gets leaked to the press. Go figure. I'll take sides with the people fighting for transparency. If you believe this secret inquiry is legit, then you have have no problem with the USSR or any common Banana Republic where people are commonly prosecuted without the Due Process that is the cornerstone to the American way of justice. Clinton wasn't treated this way. Neither was Nixon. Respectively, the minority party in each situation was allowed to bring their own witnesses, the POTUS in each situation had his legal representative present for the hearings and could cross examine. You do know this is not happening. It's a kangaroo court.
Trump hasn't lied about what he claimed he would do for America, if elected. He's either done it or is fighting like hell to get it done. Like him or not, no one can say he's not the most transparent president in at least a generation.
So now you're going to excuse Schiff lying about his contact with the WB? Schiff needs to be deposed! I'd be willing to bet that Schiff and Pelosi conspired with the WB,( who once worked for Biden and didn't tell the IG about his prior contacts with Schiff,) to manufacture the whole thing!
AND NOW THIS
https://apnews.com/a089ddade65f42978c45147aa4ec2dca
lol oh man... this is getting unbelievable. Are republicans, who have access to the same witnesses, really simply stopping questioning of those witnesses by another political party, because they are scared? Sure looks like it.
Dude, I said it in another thread. Truth has no place in Trump's defense. It's whatever sounds good and makes Trump look good at the time. There was no quid pro quo is soon going to change to ... yep, there was quid pro quo but it's not impeachable. And every Trumpian on here will be spouting that line like it's directly from God's mouth (which to fair, came from Trump, so it's kind of true for them). The fact that Trump lied to them about it earlier will mean NOTHING.
Trump is right even when he lies. Trumpians will support him NO MATTER what.
Dude, Truth has no place in your post. Sondland doesn't remember any such thing. Fake news still racking your brain. Some of these people are saying they "assumed" a quid quo pro. They admit they had no direct knowledge of anything. In fact, Sondland, who actually spoke to Trump about the situation, was told there would be no qpq from the man himself; not to mention that the situation itself, never played out as a qpq. Keep on hating though, because it is amusing.
Look at the transcript of Sondland's testimony. Especially, the parts that he "forgot" the first time around. He now "remembers" a conversation with a Ukranian staffer where he said that the aid was contingent on an investigation into Biden.
Here's the AP Quote:
"
Sondland, in an addendum to his sworn earlier testimony, said that military assistance to the East European ally was being withheld until Ukraine’s new president agreed to release a statement about fighting corruption as Trump wanted. Sondland knows that proposed arrangement to be a fact, he said, because he was the one who carried the message to a Ukrainian official on the sidelines of a conference in Warsaw with Vice President Mike Pence.
“I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland recalled.
His three-page update, tucked beneath hundreds of pages of sworn testimony from Sondland and former Ukraine Special Envoy Kurt Volker, was released by House investigators "
So basically Sondland has now joined the Deep State because we KNOW that Trump wouldn't lie to us right? You are getting behind the times. I'm sure that if you've watched Hannity tonight he's told you what you NOW think. That even though there was quid pro quo, it's not an impeachable offense. AND Donald Trump NEVER said that there was no quid pro quo and he also NEVER said that the Ukrainians didn't even know about the money being held up. After all, what are you going to believe... the things that came out of Trump's mouth a couple of days ago, or what's coming out now.
And the AP Article here
The only actual quote that you posted:
“I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland recalled.
He actually used the word "likely". This would mean he really wasn't sure, just assuming. The only real evidence he could possibly give is his actual conversation with Trump.
Really don't care what you believe, because you're gonna hate regardless, but here is a fact check of your article:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-sondland-did-not-prove-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/
Trump said it best about people like you...
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?” Trump said, mimicking firing a gun with his fingers. “It’s, like, incredible.”