Trump Ukraine V 13 -Impeachment Hearing

[Anung Un Rama]

Nah. I still need at least 1 rape explained

For all I know it was a typo in the article. Because it makes no sense to call ANYTHING we actually know rape.

And that is what makes it an insult to actual rape victims

The WP is known to be dishonest so it wouldn't shock me if they took unethical liberties with this story, but you'd have to take that up with them as all I know is what I've read on the issue.

 

[PEB]

FOX raging libs.

 

[TheOldMan]

And in reality.......

And the real "reality":

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Lol. "The impact of this Tweet cannot be overstated".

 

[Darkballs]

Excuse my ignorance, but she didn't even posses relevant 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge regarding the core accusations.

The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.

This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.

Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.

Christ. If you're so upset about a lack of 1st hand information coming your way, aren't you livid for the WH preventing anyone with actual first hand knowledge of the contents of that phone call, in testifying? What's your excuse for that one?

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.

This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.

Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.

P1. He didn't do any of that.
P2. She was fired for talking shit and being another Politically subversive Obama holdover.
P3. It's called heresay and if this is all they've got, then impeachment will either not happen at all, or (according to Lindsay Graham) it will be quashed in the Senate for cause.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Hey it's not my fault you put all of your personal info on public websites. If I really wanted to, I could just type your name into my Lexis Investigations portal. Don't worry, you're not that interesting, and I don't care what you do. But really, you should think about maybe not putting your life story on the internet.

lexis nexis is scary good.

 

[Letssnuggle]

The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.

This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.

Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.

Christ. If you're so upset about a lack of 1st hand information coming your way, aren't you livid for the WH preventing anyone with actual first hand knowledge of the contents of that phone call, in testifying? What's your excuse for that one?

Do you agree ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the current president?

 

[JamesRussler]

Threatening to dox someone. Classy.

I have never threatened to dox anyone.

 

[TripleAz]

The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.

This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.

Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.

Christ. If you're so upset about a lack of 1st hand information coming your way, aren't you livid for the WH preventing anyone with actual first hand knowledge of the contents of that phone call, in testifying? What's your excuse for that one?

According to master Schiff and his puppets, lol. Another fail by the dems.

 

[Joe]

This too stupid to be true right??

 

[JamesRussler]

lexis nexis is scary good.

The investigation tools are great, especially for people with common names or lots of aliases. The legal research database, is... it's okay. I guess I just prefer WestLaw.

 

[Darkballs]

I have never threatened to dox anyone.

No you just mentioned how easy it would be for you to do so and creepily laid out how.

I'm sure that distinction will be enough to completely befuddle our mods.

 

[Joe]

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

No you just mentioned how easy it would be for you to do so and creepily laid out how.

I'm sure that distinction will be enough to completely befuddle our mods.

Look at you trying to get conservative posters kicked out of the discussion. You can't win fairly, so you try to use your perceived connections behind the scenes to rig the outcome. Sounds about right for your side.

 

[TheOldMan]

 

[JamesRussler]

No you just mentioned how easy it would be for you to do so and creepily laid out how.

I'm sure that distinction will be enough to completely befuddle our mods.

It is indeed easy. I don't use my investigation tools to dox people because (a) it costs me money, and (b) I don't really care about your identities. FWIW, most of you put plenty of personal details on this site anyway. So why bother doxing them? They dox themselves.

 

[Darkballs]

Do you agree ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the current president?

I believe that it is an impeachable offense to fire ambassadors because Ukrainian criminals ask you to, especially when those criminals are clients of the same attorney as the president, whom he sent in private to secretly request a foreign nation to publicilly announce a fraudulent investigation into a political rival in exchange for releasing congressionally approved aid in violation of US law.

Leading out all of that relevant information just makes you dishonest, and won't get you to lead others to the stupid answer you're hoping for.

 

[syct23]

The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.

This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.

Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.

Christ. If you're so upset about a lack of 1st hand information coming your way, aren't you livid for the WH preventing anyone with actual first hand knowledge of the contents of that phone call, in testifying? What's your excuse for that one?

You made the already valid point,

Just don't read or (drink & read) any of the responses for the rest of the night, probably not even into the early morning..

Don't become a triggered meme

 

[Factory]

The core accusations are that trump abused his office by withholding congressionally approved funds in exchange for a public announcement of the start of a fraudulent investigation into a political rival.

This ambassadors testimony was what we already knew: That in addition to the above, trump fired a lifelong public servant, for no discernible reason other than two Ukrainian criminals working with his private attorney (who was also the person sent in secret to negotiate the CORE offenses in Ukraine) asked him to, so as to promote pro-russian positions.

Do you guys really think that playing dumb and repeating "No 1st hand," is a valid smokescreen? She DID have first hand knowledge of how she got fired. And that is relevant.

Christ. If you're so upset about a lack of 1st hand information coming your way, aren't you livid for the WH preventing anyone with actual first hand knowledge of the contents of that phone call, in testifying? What's your excuse for that one?

This isn't dumb. In a constitutional state, you have to deliver hard evidences to judge a person guilty. She didn't have first hand knowledge regarding any potential crime. She was even asked directly if she thought President Trump committed a crime and said: "No."