twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS.

---

Of course we do so routinely. This is why some of y'all are going to be disappointed with the results of this latest witch hunt. No doubt it's therapeutic to pretend that Trump did something out of the ordinary, but at some point reality will weigh in.

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

Biden doesn't get a pass on corruption just because he's running for President.

POTUS didn't ask for dirt. He asked for Ukraine to comply with investigations. We have a treaty for that btw.

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

---

I have no idea who would be bragging about impeachment. Most of the responsible leaders understand this is a terrible moment for American Democracy when a President is impeached. They would also know there is no reasonable expectation that Republicans will act to remove him from office. I have been saying for a while now that congress should review all the facts (in open session) and then, rather than waste time on the Senate, motion to Censure and be done with it.

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

---

I have no idea who would be bragging about impeachment. Most of the responsible leaders understand this is a terrible moment for American Democracy when a President is impeached. They would also know there is no reasonable expectation that Republicans will act to remove him from office. I have been saying for a while now that congress should review all the facts (in open session) and then, rather than waste time on the Senate, motion to Censure and be done with it.

---

Democrats are too afraid to let that happen.

They really don't want anyone getting to the bottom of this leaker complaint.

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

---

I have no idea who would be bragging about impeachment. Most of the responsible leaders understand this is a terrible moment for American Democracy when a President is impeached. They would also know there is no reasonable expectation that Republicans will act to remove him from office. I have been saying for a while now that congress should review all the facts (in open session) and then, rather than waste time on the Senate, motion to Censure and be done with it.

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/86-things-democrats-have-cited-as-reasons-to-impeach-trump/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-isnt-the-threat-to-democracy-democrats-are

Which rock have you been under?

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

---

I have no idea who would be bragging about impeachment. Most of the responsible leaders understand this is a terrible moment for American Democracy when a President is impeached. They would also know there is no reasonable expectation that Republicans will act to remove him from office. I have been saying for a while now that congress should review all the facts (in open session) and then, rather than waste time on the Senate, motion to Censure and be done with it.

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/86-things-democrats-have-cited-as-reasons-to-impeach-trump/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-isnt-the-threat-to-democracy-democrats-are

Which rock have you been under?

---

Read the link, and had a bowel movement, so ..thanks! Not that there is linkage, or course.

First of all, a word too oft repeated does not fall out of being. Yes, countless cries for impeachment at rallies or on liberal talk shows are no different to the multitude of impeachment cries by the right against Obama (Birth Certificate, Prisoner exchange, etc. et al.) . Just as cries of "Lock Her Up" neither convict or exonerate, the citings in the articles are for the most part, Politicals sounding off to their base, and neither further nor diminish any examination of alleged wrongdoing by the President. It would be nice if the prosecutors in the case would be able to control their language: unfortunately, give a congressman a microphone and a camera...

For me, personally, I am disgusted we are entering impeachment proceedings for the third time in my lifetime. This is not something any responsible citizen, any believer in our Constitution would rejoice in, as impeachment is the failsafe mechanism, when Constitutional Government is at its most dangerous point. We are all going to get the chance to hear Bill Taylor and hopefully all of the witnesses in the coming weeks. I hope we will all listen fairly to what is said by both sides. This is a time for Prayer for our Country, not gloating or cursing.

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

---

I have no idea who would be bragging about impeachment. Most of the responsible leaders understand this is a terrible moment for American Democracy when a President is impeached. They would also know there is no reasonable expectation that Republicans will act to remove him from office. I have been saying for a while now that congress should review all the facts (in open session) and then, rather than waste time on the Senate, motion to Censure and be done with it.

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/86-things-democrats-have-cited-as-reasons-to-impeach-trump/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-isnt-the-threat-to-democracy-democrats-are

Which rock have you been under?

---

Read the link, and had a bowel movement, so ..thanks! Not that there is linkage, or course.

First of all, a word too oft repeated does not fall out of being. Yes, countless cries for impeachment at rallies or on liberal talk shows are no different to the multitude of impeachment cries by the right against Obama (Birth Certificate, Prisoner exchange, etc. et al.) . Just as cries of "Lock Her Up" neither convict or exonerate, the citings in the articles are for the most part, Politicals sounding off to their base, and neither further nor diminish any examination of alleged wrongdoing by the President. It would be nice if the prosecutors in the case would be able to control their language: unfortunately, give a congressman a microphone and a camera...

For me, personally, I am disgusted we are entering impeachment proceedings for the third time in my lifetime. This is not something any responsible citizen, any believer in our Constitution would rejoice in, as impeachment is the failsafe mechanism, when Constitutional Government is at its most dangerous point. We are all going to get the chance to hear Bill Taylor and hopefully all of the witnesses in the coming weeks. I hope we will all listen fairly to what is said by both sides. This is a time for Prayer for our Country, not gloating or cursing.

We are all going to get the chance to hear Bill Taylor and probably the rest of the key witnesses in the coming weeks. I am hopeful we will all of us

---

IMO this "impeachment" is as silly and uncalled for as Bill Clinton's...waste of time and money

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

twd74 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Guess it wasn't a transcript at all, just as some of us had been saying all along...

Where did all the Trumpers in this thread go, did the updates get too hard to spin?

---

Nah we read the transcript. It's a big nothing burger.

A Low-level NSC staffer tries to dictate National Foreign Policy.

A Lt. Colonel - an 0-5 level employee - who offered his personal opinion in a matter he had no business doing so is your source?

Good luck with that.

I get why you buy the spin because our MSM overlords told you this is bad...but out there in the real world this whole thing is a joke. It's a joke to even some Democrats in D.C.

---

So a first hand witness to the call shouldn't be trusted because he wasn't ranked high enough? I have to say, that is an incredibly weak-ass spin, even for your usual efforts. A witness who, btw, says that "transcript" is incomplete and was deliberately scrubbed of pertinent information. I.e. a clear cut attempt at a Nixon-style cover-up.

You didn't read a transcript of the call, you read a memorandum summary released by a man who uses flagrant lying as a deliberate strategy (which was still damning even if you refuse to admit it). Why y'all continue to eat the sht he feeds you, I will never understand. Especially now after someone else who was on the call says the transcript is not correct. Nevermind all of the extraneous evidence and testimony outside of the alleged "transcript".

---

Since--and thanks to--Watergate, the White House goes to enormous lengths not to tape phone conversations. There is a team of intelligence offices each assigned separate tasks of repeating the words of each person on the phone conversation, the resulting transcript is compiled, looked over, signed off by the officer;... so now we have a discrepancy between what the WH released and what someone listening in on the call remembers of the call. It might end there except for one thing --one thing that is probably keeping folks up at night in the WH, and one thing that will explain why WE DO NOT ASK FOREIGN NATIONS TO GET DIRT ON OUR OPPONENTS. Why is this? There were other people on the call. Now, we are told there is no tape of the conversation. But do you fully believe that the Ukrainian Govt. went to the enormous lengths we do not to record the conversation? How much do you want to bet they have a tape? So, over the past few days/weeks, Ukrainians have been wondering, Trump held up $400mm for dirt on Biden, how much does he pay us for the tape?

---

You're missing the point. He didn't do that.

---

He didn't do what? Ask Ukraine to investigate Biden? He has admitted to that--repeatedly.
Was the Military aid to Ukraine held up. Was Ukraine aware of the hold up. Were the Senior Diplomats involved concerned about linkage. Was there questions from Ukrainian Diplomats about linkage?
Why did John Bolton refer to it as a "drug deal" and wanted no part of it?

My point is that by airing any of these items on a call to a foreign leader, where such conversations may be considered a bribe, or merely a violation of campaign laws-- creates a discrepancy where the foreign power may have the smoking gun. I am not sure what is on the tape, I am betting Ukraine has one.

---

1. Yes he did ask for them to investigate the previous vice-president not only withholding aid but also getting someone fired
2. Yes it was held up admittedly because of Ukraine corruption
3. No, they were not
4. Some were but other senior advisors explained that they were linking things that weren't meant to be linked...like you are
5. We're you concerned about Biden's dealings or this this just about Trump?
6. Why is Ukraine saying that they felt no pressure, no quid pro quo?

Maybe I'd take this serious if the Dems, from even before Trump took office, weren't bragging about impeachment. Why should I take their comments seriously this time?

---

I have no idea who would be bragging about impeachment. Most of the responsible leaders understand this is a terrible moment for American Democracy when a President is impeached. They would also know there is no reasonable expectation that Republicans will act to remove him from office. I have been saying for a while now that congress should review all the facts (in open session) and then, rather than waste time on the Senate, motion to Censure and be done with it.

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/86-things-democrats-have-cited-as-reasons-to-impeach-trump/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-isnt-the-threat-to-democracy-democrats-are

Which rock have you been under?

---

Read the link, and had a bowel movement, so ..thanks! Not that there is linkage, or course.

First of all, a word too oft repeated does not fall out of being. Yes, countless cries for impeachment at rallies or on liberal talk shows are no different to the multitude of impeachment cries by the right against Obama (Birth Certificate, Prisoner exchange, etc. et al.) . Just as cries of "Lock Her Up" neither convict or exonerate, the citings in the articles are for the most part, Politicals sounding off to their base, and neither further nor diminish any examination of alleged wrongdoing by the President. It would be nice if the prosecutors in the case would be able to control their language: unfortunately, give a congressman a microphone and a camera...

For me, personally, I am disgusted we are entering impeachment proceedings for the third time in my lifetime. This is not something any responsible citizen, any believer in our Constitution would rejoice in, as impeachment is the failsafe mechanism, when Constitutional Government is at its most dangerous point. We are all going to get the chance to hear Bill Taylor and hopefully all of the witnesses in the coming weeks. I hope we will all listen fairly to what is said by both sides. This is a time for Prayer for our Country, not gloating or cursing.

---

It is disgusting.

But what you need to understand is D.C. isn't what you've been told it is all your life. It's not a place of democracy and moving forward.

D.C. is no different than the stock market. 435 representatives mostly looking to make bank using their power. Whips and leaders of both parties forcing the rest of congress to play along with extortion and kickbacks.

Impeachment, hyper partisanship, chaos...it's their way of protecting their power and financial interests.

It's not supposed to be this way, but money is politics and it won't change until that changes.

fadskier said:

---

I just read it. It's absolutely nothing. Dems should have waited until the transcript was released. He asks the Ukrainian president to look into whether or not the Ukraine has a server with all of Hillary's emails on it and then asks to with with attorney general to see if Biden committed any crimes regarding his son.

There's nothing wrong with either of those things. Even Jim Acosta of CNN says it is underwhelming.

---

You have not read the transcript. You have read a call summary that does not contain critical parts of the conversation.

cinque said:

---

fadskier said:

---

I just read it. It's absolutely nothing. Dems should have waited until the transcript was released. He asks the Ukrainian president to look into whether or not the Ukraine has a server with all of Hillary's emails on it and then asks to with with attorney general to see if Biden committed any crimes regarding his son.

There's nothing wrong with either of those things. Even Jim Acosta of CNN says it is underwhelming.

---

You have not read the transcript. You have read a call summary that does not contain critical parts of the conversation.

---

The burden of proof falls on the accuser. Put up or shut up.

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

---

Your Google law degree has let you down again. Testimony is evidence.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

---

Your Google law degree has let you down again. Testimony is evidence.

---

Actually it's just testimony. Proof is something entirely different.

Just because someone claimed it, doesn't mean it's true.

How do you know he's not lying?

Are you really on board with this guy's claims and Democrats foaming at the mouth saying "this proves DJT is bad man impeach!". You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

It is disgusting.
But what you need to understand is D.C. isn't what you've been told it is all your life. It's not a place of democracy and moving forward.
D.C. is no different than the stock market. 435 representatives mostly looking to make bank using their power. Whips and leaders of both parties forcing the rest of congress to play along with extortion and kickbacks.
Impeachment, hyper partisanship, chaos...it's their way of protecting their power and financial interests.
It's not supposed to be this way, but money is politics and it won't change until that changes.

I have no delusions about the corruption in Washington. We have allowed outside influence and unlimited campaign $ to distort the process to the point Congress no longer represents their District, but are consumed by a never-ending fundraising effort to fund the next campaign, placating the outside money that will threaten them with a primary challenge if they don't toe the line.
Yet our skepticism also may keep us from finding good men and women when they are in our presence. We assume everything is corrupt, everything is political. Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right. I think they deserve to be heard.


At this point, I feel like Abraham bargaining for the life of the City of Sodom: If we can find 10 good men or women in Washington, will God spare us?

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

---

Your Google law degree has let you down again. Testimony is evidence.

---

Actually it's just testimony. Proof is something entirely different.

Just because someone claimed it, doesn't mean it's true.

How do you know he's not lying?

Are you really on board with this guy's claims and Democrats foaming at the mouth saying "this proves DJT is bad man impeach!". You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

---

You are just flat wrong. I don't know how else to say it. Evidence, in any form, is a thing which makes a fact more or less likely to be true. Testimony is a form of evidence. You can give less weight to testimony if you like, but testimony will still be evidence at the end of the day. Been this way for centuries.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

---

Your Google law degree has let you down again. Testimony is evidence.

---

Actually it's just testimony. Proof is something entirely different.

Just because someone claimed it, doesn't mean it's true.

How do you know he's not lying?

Are you really on board with this guy's claims and Democrats foaming at the mouth saying "this proves DJT is bad man impeach!". You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

---

You are just flat wrong. I don't know how else to say it. Evidence, in any form, is a thing which makes a fact more or less likely to be true. Testimony is a form of evidence. You can give less weight to testimony if you like, but testimony will still be evidence at the end of the day. Been this way for centuries.

---

You do realize this is not a court room and Adam Schiff is coaching the testifiers and telling them not to answer GOP questions.

The testimony from different parties contradicts each other.

And you're already on board with impeachment? Wow.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

---

Your Google law degree has let you down again. Testimony is evidence.

---

Actually it's just testimony. Proof is something entirely different.

Just because someone claimed it, doesn't mean it's true.

How do you know he's not lying?

Are you really on board with this guy's claims and Democrats foaming at the mouth saying "this proves DJT is bad man impeach!". You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

---

You are just flat wrong. I don't know how else to say it. Evidence, in any form, is a thing which makes a fact more or less likely to be true. Testimony is a form of evidence. You can give less weight to testimony if you like, but testimony will still be evidence at the end of the day. Been this way for centuries.

---

You do realize this is not a court room and Adam Schiff is coaching the testifiers and telling them not to answer GOP questions.

The testimony from different parties contradicts each other.

And you're already on board with impeachment? Wow.

---

There's a difference between "weight of the evidence" and "testimony is not evidence". The former is true.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

As Doc used to tell us, there can be no transcript as there is no tape. But we do know that the summary suggested that congressionally approved funds were held up, public money meant to go towards a US defense purpose were instead held up. Held up as leverage. As leverage for a political purpose.

As Sam notes, money is used for political leverage all the time.

Here, however, the money appears to have been held up to accomplish a campaign goal.

That deserves impeachment if proven, and such proof was strengthed by the testimony of Vindman and others.

---

Sorry quash, testimony isn't proof. Actual documents and intel is proof here.

---

Your Google law degree has let you down again. Testimony is evidence.

---

Actually it's just testimony. Proof is something entirely different.

Just because someone claimed it, doesn't mean it's true.

How do you know he's not lying?

Are you really on board with this guy's claims and Democrats foaming at the mouth saying "this proves DJT is bad man impeach!". You have got to be ****ing kidding me.

---

You are just flat wrong. I don't know how else to say it. Evidence, in any form, is a thing which makes a fact more or less likely to be true. Testimony is a form of evidence. You can give less weight to testimony if you like, but testimony will still be evidence at the end of the day. Been this way for centuries.

---

You do realize this is not a court room and Adam Schiff is coaching the testifiers and telling them not to answer GOP questions.

The testimony from different parties contradicts each other.

And you're already on board with impeachment? Wow.

---

There's a difference between "weight of the evidence" and "testimony is not evidence". The former is true.

---

Look at this evidence and tell me what you think.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

---

My efforts at trying to find ways to agree, to reach to our combined sense of patriotism came crashing down when you refer to an honored Veteran as shady-- with no evidence to support it except his testimony may hurt your guy. You refer to things swampy. It doesn't get any swampier than to make baseless charges about someone just because you are afraid of what he has to say. Disagree on the facts, on his testimony, but please God, be better than that.

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

---

My efforts at trying to find ways to agree, to reach to our combined sense of patriotism came crashing down when you refer to an honored Veteran as shady-- with no evidence to support it except his testimony may hurt your guy. You refer to things swampy. It doesn't get any swampier than to make baseless charges about someone just because you are afraid of what he has to say. Disagree on the facts, on his testimony, but please God, be better that that.

---

Dude...

This is shady as it gets. Nobody is off limits just becuase they held office or a title or military service. Corruption is everywhere.

twd74 said:

---

If we can find 10 good men or women in Washington, will God spare us?

---

If we find ten good men or women in Washington, will we spare them?

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

---

My efforts at trying to find ways to agree, to reach to our combined sense of patriotism came crashing down when you refer to an honored Veteran as shady-- with no evidence to support it except his testimony may hurt your guy. You refer to things swampy. It doesn't get any swampier than to make baseless charges about someone just because you are afraid of what he has to say. Disagree on the facts, on his testimony, but please God, be better that that.

---

Dude...

This is shady as it gets. Nobody is off limits just becuase they held office or a title or military service. Corruption is everywhere.

---

Your Twitter friend is a liar. Vindman has testified he does not know who the whistleblower is, so how could he provide him or herinformation? He has testified that the alleged transcript is missing language that he heard on the call. You have no shame.

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

---

My efforts at trying to find ways to agree, to reach to our combined sense of patriotism came crashing down when you refer to an honored Veteran as shady-- with no evidence to support it except his testimony may hurt your guy. You refer to things swampy. It doesn't get any swampier than to make baseless charges about someone just because you are afraid of what he has to say. Disagree on the facts, on his testimony, but please God, be better that that.

---

Dude...

This is shady as it gets. Nobody is off limits just becuase they held office or a title or military service. Corruption is everywhere.

---

Your Twitter friend is a liar. Vindman has testified he does not know who the whistleblower is, so how could he provide him or herinformation? He has testified that the alleged transcript is missing language that he heard on the call. You have no shame.

---

Well your boy Vindman is lying his ass off.

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

---

My efforts at trying to find ways to agree, to reach to our combined sense of patriotism came crashing down when you refer to an honored Veteran as shady-- with no evidence to support it except his testimony may hurt your guy. You refer to things swampy. It doesn't get any swampier than to make baseless charges about someone just because you are afraid of what he has to say. Disagree on the facts, on his testimony, but please God, be better that that.

---

Dude...

This is shady as it gets. Nobody is off limits just becuase they held office or a title or military service. Corruption is everywhere.

---

Your Twitter friend is a liar. Vindman has testified he does not know who the whistleblower is, so how could he provide him or herinformation? He has testified that the alleged transcript is missing language that he heard on the call. You have no shame.

---

Well your boy Vindman is lying his ass off.

---

I'd like to repeat the usual, let's wait for the facts. But when you deny that testimony is evidence and then cite testimony as evidence then I don't even know where to begin

I want to see both sides address obstruction, emoluments, use of public funds for campaign purposes, and whatever else comes out.

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, as I see it, a number of people who have served their Country honorably and for many years, risking everything, have come to stand up to say something is not right.

---

This sentence particularly stands out to me. Think about it, the same people watching the swamp get swampier for decades are saying something isn't right? Where were they two decades ago?

Just like Pelosi and Schumer blaming Trump for the border crisis...they themselves helped create with decades of negligence.

It's almost laughable that the career politicians and bureaucrats blaming Trump for everything are not aware that they are failures by their own rhetoric.

Excuse me if I don't believe a shady officer whose probably getting paid to make up **** about Trump. Just like Kavanaugh's accuser made bank by lying.

---

My efforts at trying to find ways to agree, to reach to our combined sense of patriotism came crashing down when you refer to an honored Veteran as shady-- with no evidence to support it except his testimony may hurt your guy. You refer to things swampy. It doesn't get any swampier than to make baseless charges about someone just because you are afraid of what he has to say. Disagree on the facts, on his testimony, but please God, be better that that.

---

Dude...

This is shady as it gets. Nobody is off limits just becuase they held office or a title or military service. Corruption is everywhere.

---

Your Twitter friend is a liar. Vindman has testified he does not know who the whistleblower is, so how could he provide him or herinformation? He has testified that the alleged transcript is missing language that he heard on the call. You have no shame.

---

Well your boy Vindman is lying his ass off.

---

You know better.