White House Ukraine expert to testify he reported concerns about Trump-Zelensky call

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  198 comments

White House Ukraine expert to testify he reported concerns about Trump-Zelensky call
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Washington (CNN)The National Security Council's top Ukraine expert plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he was so troubled by President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's President that he reported his concerns to a superior, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by CNN.



"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman plans to tell lawmakers, according to his opening statement. "I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained."

"This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel."


The New York Times   was the first to report on Vindman's planned remarks.







That phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump had solicited foreign interference to dig up information on a political rival and the White House tried to cover it up.



US officials have previously told CNN that standard operating procedure suggests Vindman also would have been listening in on the July 25 conversation and likely played a role in the handling of the call's transcript.


In addition to questions about the content of that conversation, Vindman is likely to be pressed on how the transcript of the call was handled by White House officials who moved to contain the fallout in its aftermath.


CNN previously reported that the scramble that occurred in the hours and days after the call, described by six people familiar with it, parallels and expands upon details described in the whistleblower complaint.


The anxiety and internal concern reflect a phone conversation that deeply troubled national security professionals, even as Trump now insists there was nothing wrong with how he conducted himself. And it shows an ultimately unsuccessful effort to contain the tumult by the administration's lawyers.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Another bad witness for Trump. 

He heard with his own ears that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden,. which is abuse of the president's power. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Not even close to abuse is actually a duty of him to have this investigated such a bizarre twist I can’t imagine why anybody would think that because of who you are you shouldn’t be uncovering the crime of the previous administration which we are finding out more and more ever day about the corruption and crimes that occurred under obummer’s leadership 

 
 
 
bbl-1
1.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    2 weeks ago

Can't understand why the Trumpers want to investigate Ukraine corruption.  Been corrupt since their 1991 independence and the Russian money people moved in.

And lo and behold, there was Manafort and others standing in line for the Russian money gravy train.  Uncover to much then beware of Polonium on door knobs.

This why Manafort can't cooperate.  He knows to much.  He danced with the devil then the band left the building.  He is screwed.

Corruption?  Really?  Obama's leadership?  Sure.  Damn him and that Lily Ledbetter stuff, right?

Hell, the only thing Obama can be accused of aiding corruption is his absolute failure to demand the congress audit all war funding from 2001 to the day he took office.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    2 weeks ago

 Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert , a man apppointed to his position by Donald Trump, is going to testify that he felt Trumps actions were improper.  People are seeing through your brand of bullshit. Biden is trump's election rival. IF Trump thought he had legitimate suspicions that Biden had done something wrong Trump's proper course was to ask the DOJ or the US Senate to investigate, not the president of a foreign country. Neither the DOJ, the FBI, or the US Senate has investigated Biden over this matter, because they all know it was bullshit.  Giuliani, not even part of the government, was doing this dirty work, but then Trump made the fateful mistake of leaving his fingerprints on it. 

It makes any sensible person wonder what Trump asked Russia to do during the 2016 election. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
he felt Trumps actions were improper.

Aren't most of Trump's actions "improper"?  Isn't that the whole point of him?  Isn't that why his supporters like him?

But "improper" is not "impeachable".  They're going to need something more than that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Why in the world should we have five more years of this shit? If you want to worship him join his fan club. 

Aren't most of Trump's actions "improper"?  Isn't that the whole point of him?  Isn't that why his supporters like him?

You, like many other Trump supporters have no standards to which he must conform. That is not the purpose of the presidency of the United States.  Unless you are advocating anarchy. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Trump's actions are impacting American National Security..... 

The quid-pro-quo aids Russia by not sending the approved weapons support to Ukraine. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.6  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Ukraine got the money so it has been sent you have no point zero.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Ukraine got the money so it has been sent you have no point zero.

The money was sent several months late. Why? 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

Knowing Trump, the check bounced. ;)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Trump's actions are impacting American National Security.....  The quid-pro-quo aids Russia by not sending the approved weapons support to Ukraine.

Also not impeachable.

High crimes and misdemeanors.

If he's committed a crime, impeach him.  Everything else is just more noise.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
Also not impeachable.
High crimes and misdemeanors.
If he's committed a crime, impeach him.  Everything else is just more noise.

Thank you so much for perfectly illustrating what I stated in Sinners yesterday.

 They have to deny, lie, deflect, misdirect because they have nothing else and then, when called out on their bullshit, they either lash out or bail, only to come back the next day [or sometimes just a different seed] spewing the exact same debunked bullshit.  https://thenewstalkers.com/trout-giggles/group_discuss/7165/12-republicans-stormed-lawful-impeachment-proceedings#cm1190208

Here's just a snip of the debunking:

The 2nd Article accuses Nixon of specific crimes.  It even uses the word "unlawful".   

Nope, it sited no 'crimes'. The word 'unlawful' doesn't equate to 'CRIMINAL'. 

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies. 

It goes on to cite Nixon's multiple violations of his oath of office. They aren't CRIMES, nor are they indictable. They are POLITICAL violations of the Constitution because his violation of his OATH. 

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/48472/house-republicans-storm-secret-impeachment-hearing-schiff-reportedly-gets-up-and-leaves-with-the-witness#cm1188952

Note that you didn't refute anything I said in that post. You bailed. 

I then posted a video and since you insist that you don't watch online videos, here is what Lindsey Graham said during the Senate trial of Clinton:

A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

Even though your posit has been debunked, here you are again spewing the same bullshit.

So just so it's crystal clear; there is NO requirement in the Constitution [or anywhere else for that matter] that a charge in an Article of Impeachment need be a CRIME. NONE.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Still beating your head on this brick wall, I see.

Your own citation on  Nixon outlines his obstruction.

If Lindsey Graham is your authority, I feel bad for you.  Regardless of his grandstanding at the time, Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction and witness tampering.

So just so it's crystal clear; there is NO requirement in the Constitution [or anywhere else for that matter] that a charge in an Article of Impeachment need be a CRIME. NONE.

Except in the Constitution itself.  Why that sends you into orbit, I can't imagine.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
Why in the world should we have five more years of this shit?

If you nominate somebody decent, we probably won't.

If you want to worship him join his fan club. 

*eyeroll*   These tantrums you throw......

You, like many other Trump supporters have no standards to which he must conform. That is not the purpose of the presidency of the United States.  Unless you are advocating anarchy. 

Cite me supporting Trump.  Not pointing out your unhinged batshit lunacy...but actually supporting Trump.

Whatever standards I may or may not have don't matter any more than whatever standards you may have.  He's the president, and there is a Constitutional standard for impeachment.  

I don't understand the angry tirades on this topic.  If the man has committed a crime, impeach him.  If he's actually as terrible as you say, it shouldn't be hard to find a crime.

Otherwise, grow up, stop the tantrums and nominate somebody who doesn't want to double my taxes so they can take away my health plan.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Your own citation on  Nixon outlines his obstruction.

Yet you feel that Trump ordering his people to disobey a fully legal subpoena is NOT obstruction?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Still beating your head on this brick wall, I see.

Not at all. Merely laying out the facts to show just how obtuse your comment was. 

Your own citation on  Nixon outlines his obstruction.

Article 2 for the Impeachment of Nixon was for ABUSE OF POWER, not obstruction. 

If Lindsey Graham is your authority, I feel bad for you.  Regardless of his grandstanding at the time, Clinton was impeached for perjury, obstruction and witness tampering.

Another obtuse comment. Let this sink in: 

here is what Lindsey Graham said during the Senate trial of Clinton

The Senate trial of Clinton was in the beginning of 1999 when Lindsey Graham was a CONGRESSMAN. The reason Representative Graham was speaking on the floor of the SENATE is because he was assigned as a House MANAGER to present the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. 

So contrary to your unfounded assumption, Graham wasn't 'grandstanding', he was acting as one of the House prosecutors for the Senate trial. 

Crack a history book. 

Except in the Constitution itself.  Why that sends you into orbit, I can't imagine.

Some just don't have the capacity to understand precedent, jurisprudence or the concept of 'spirit of the law'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
But "improper" is not "impeachable". 

“ A President doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. So, the point I’m trying to make is that you don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

Congressman Lindsey Graham, Senate Impeachment trial of Clinton, 1999

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
"The House of Representatives is abandoning more than a century’s worth of precedent and tradition in impeachment proceedings and denying President Trump basic fairness and due process accorded every American,"

Congressman Lindsay Graham, S Res.328, October 24, 2019.

So if Lindsay Graham is your authority on impeachment, then I'm sure you'll be writing Nancy Pelosi to rebuke her for being so unfair to Donald Trump.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    2 weeks ago
Yet you feel that Trump ordering his people to disobey a fully legal subpoena is NOT obstruction?

Do cite me saying so.  

Or...better yet...stop guessing.

If the House thinks he has committed a crime, they should impeach him.  I'm not sure how to make that clearer.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
Congressman Lindsay Graham, S Res.328, October 24, 2019.

Actually Jack, that's SENATOR Lindsey Graham. 

So if Lindsay Graham is your authority on impeachment, then I'm sure you'll be writing Nancy Pelosi to rebuke her for being so unfair to Donald Trump.

My post is to prove that Lindsey Graham is the poster boy for HYPOCRISY and an example of how the GOP is gaslighting Trump supporters. 

BTFW, note that nowhere in SENATOR Graham's Resolution does it state that Articles of Impeachment MUST enumerate CRIMES. 

5 days and still waiting for you to prove that one. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

But "improper" is not "impeachable".  They're going to need something more than that.

I would not vote for ANY politician, Dem, Repub, Independent, that would solicit a foreign country for help winning a US election through extortion. I can think of almost nothing less American than that. Impeachable? Damn right it is. What happened to letting the will of the American voters decide who is elected is? Why is it now all the sudden totally ok to bypass the will of the people? 

Honestly, as a veteran, it makes me sick that trump is so egotistical he is willing to resort to tactics like this for no other reason that the thought of him losing is literally not something he can accept. Christ, he won the 2016 election but when he found out he lost the popular vote, he went into a meltdown and made outrageous claims that every vote that he lost by was done by illegals, (something his own commission found to be false). No one likes to lose, and I am guessing on the world stage it would be a blow to ANY ego. 

Honestly, is it so much of a stretch to believe that trump would use extortion to get help from the Ukraine to win an election when he literally complained about losing the popular vote in an election where the popular vote doesn't mean shit? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
High crimes and misdemeanors.

Violating our national security isn't a high crime? Tell that to the Rosenbergs. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.19    2 weeks ago
I would not vote for ANY politician, Dem, Repub, Independent, that would solicit a foreign country for help winning a US election through extortion. I can think of almost nothing less American than that. Impeachable? Damn right it is.

Yes.  Extortion would be a crime, and therefore impeachable.

What happened to letting the will of the American voters decide who is elected is? Why is it now all the sudden totally ok to bypass the will of the people?

People are still free to vote for whomever they choose, at least as long as the leftists are kept out of power. 

Liberals love the notion that the only thing keeping everyone everywhere from embracing their ideology is the lies of one evil master villain or another.  The idea that people make their own decisions and disagree with them is too horrific for them to entertain.  They blamed Facebook after Trump was elected.  And Comey.  They've blamed Fox News for a decade or more.  But at no point will they take responsibility for their own failures.

Honestly, as a veteran, it makes me sick that trump is so egotistical he is willing to resort to tactics like this for no other reason that the thought of him losing is literally not something he can accept. Christ, he won the 2016 election but when he found out he lost the popular vote, he went into a meltdown and made outrageous claims that every vote that he lost by was done by illegals, (something his own commission found to be false). No one likes to lose, and I am guessing on the world stage it would be a blow to ANY ego. 

If Trump's ego makes you sick, you've had a very tough couple of years.  My condolences.

Honestly, is it so much of a stretch to believe that trump would use extortion to get help from the Ukraine to win an election when he literally complained about losing the popular vote in an election where the popular vote doesn't mean shit? 

I certainly wouldn't rule it out.  But that's why there is an investigation. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
Violating our national security isn't a high crime? Tell that to the Rosenbergs. 

Treason is a crime.

"Doing something MrFrost thinks violates our national security" is not a crime.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.23  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
Yes.  Extortion would be a crime, and therefore impeachable.

And trump withheld funding for the Ukraine for how long? And why?

It's impeachable. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.24  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
If Trump's ego makes you sick, you've had a very tough couple of years.  My condolences.

I bet the 8 years of Obama must have been tough for you as well. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
And trump withheld funding for the Ukraine for how long? And why?

I'm sure the investigation will tell us.  

It's impeachable. 

Constantly claiming everything is impeachable is like constantly crying wolf.  After a while, nobody takes it seriously.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.26  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
I bet the 8 years of Obama must have been tough for you as well. 

Not so much.  I think he was a pretty good president, especially during the last 6 years.

The first two years weren't very good.  But after 2010 when the rate of new legislation slowed down and the government stopped "helping", the economy began to heal and we got on a good trajectory.

We've continued that good trajectory with Trump...which TBF is contrary to what I expected.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.27  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1.18    2 weeks ago
My post is to prove that Lindsey Graham is the poster boy for HYPOCRISY and an example of how the GOP is gaslighting Trump supporters. 

A politician who is a hypocrite?  I'm astonished.  Who saw that coming?

In the red mist of your angry leftist tirade, you seem to miss the fact that Clinton was, in fact, impeached on the basis of actual crimes, regardless of what Graham attempted to argue at the time.  Nixon wasn't impeached at all.

BTFW, note that nowhere in SENATOR Graham's Resolution does it state that Articles of Impeachment MUST enumerate CRIMES. 

Well again, if Graham is your authority, you should oppose the current investigation.  Yet somehow I suspect you do not.  I guess Lindsay's not the only hypocrite.

5 days and still waiting for you to prove that one. 

I've shown you the pertinent text.  You insist that the Constitution means something other than what it clearly states.   

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.28  MUVA  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.27    2 weeks ago

It seems to some as long as they agree with a politician hypocrisy is OK.Three on the bounce Fred and Mctominay look good glory glory man united.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.27    2 weeks ago
In the red mist of your angry leftist tirade, you seem to miss the fact that Clinton was, in fact, impeached on the basis of actual crimes

You still haven't proven that an Article of Impeachment MUST include a crime. You mad? 

Well again, if Graham is your authority, you should oppose the current investigation. 

Nope, just pointing out that Grahams resolution doesn't give you any help. 

Yet somehow I suspect you do not. 

You'd be right, for once. Despite the GOP's gaslighting, the investigation has followed House rules. 

I guess Lindsay's not the only hypocrite.

Who else is on your list Jack? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.30  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
You still haven't proven that an Article of Impeachment MUST include a crime.

And you still haven't proven a president can be impeached for anything other than high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nope, just pointing out that Grahams resolution doesn't give you any help.

Well do make up your mind.  

You'd be right, for once. 

Good for you that you can admit your hypocrisy.    Acknowledgement is the first step to recovery.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.31  Jack_TX  replied to  MUVA @1.1.28    2 weeks ago
It seems to some as long as they agree with a politician hypocrisy is OK.

That is the standard position of religious extremists, and Hard Core Liberalism is definitely a religion.

Three on the bounce Fred and Mctominay look good glory glory man united. 

Did you see the Rashford free kick?  Oh my.  I had to check that he wasn't Portuguese and wearing #7

The Chelsea forward had a helluva goal, too.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.30    2 weeks ago
And you still haven't proven a president can be impeached for anything other than high crimes and misdemeanors.

Been there done that DAYS ago. 

Well do make up your mind.  

I'm not the one vacillating Jack. 

Good for you that you can admit your hypocrisy. Acknowledgement is the first step to recovery.

Don't misrepresent my comments Jack, it chips away at what little credibility you retain. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

Let's have some fun shall we? 

Here are the 11 Articles of Impeachment passed by the House against Andrew Johnson.

 
1. Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office after the Senate had voted not to concur with his dismissal and had ordered him reinstated. 
2. Appointing Thomas Secretary of War ad interim despite the lack of vacancy in the office, since the dismissal of Stanton had been invalid. 
3. Appointing Thomas without the required advice and consent of the Senate. 
4. Conspiring, with Thomas and "other persons to the House of Representatives unknown", to unlawfully prevent Stanton from continuing in office. 
5. Conspiring to unlawfully curtail faithful execution of the Tenure of Office Act. 
6. Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War". 
7. Conspiring to "seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War" with specific intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act. 
8. Issuing to Thomas the authority of the office of Secretary of War with unlawful intent to "control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War". 
9. Issuing to Major General William H. Emory orders with unlawful intent to violate federal law requiring all military orders to be issued through the General of the Army. 
10. Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States". 
11. Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.

Which of the above Articles are crimes Jack? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.34  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
Dismissing Edwin Stanton from office

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

So your very first example is Johnson committing a crime by breaking the Tenure of Office Act.

Why does this matter to you so much?  Are you afraid Trump hasn't actually committed any crimes?  I can't imagine you believe that.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.34    2 weeks ago

There are 10 more there Jack. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

No quid pro quo, or any credible evidence of one.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 weeks ago

Got written, video tape, and under oath testimony of the said quid pro quo comrade.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

Apparently it's easy not to see the forest.

256

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.3  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

No you have a opinion.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 weeks ago

No quid pro quo, or any credible evidence of one.

You mean other than the call logs, trump, rudy, whistleblower and all the people that have testified under oath? 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.5  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Opinion...?  Nah...… that's what you seem to be working with MUVA.

The House of Representatives, the media, and even Fox News have the documents, videos, and testimony of the quid pro quo.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

It’s all in your imagination of course show us the quo.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.8  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.7    2 weeks ago

Seriously....?

Quid:  Go dig up dirt on my political opponent.

Quo:  Do that and I'll release the $400 million dollars you need to fight off my Russian friend that Congress authorized to do just that.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.9  Freedom Warrior  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.8    2 weeks ago

Just like I thought no quo.  Meanwhile you have wanton corruption that is excused because someone is well connected politically yeah that must work really well for Democrat douche bags

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

This is idiotic John. We already have the details of the call, regardless of what this Intelligence official plans to say today. I'm sure Schiff will tell us what was said.

BTW  let's see if you can add:

EIC36X3XkAMaz5g?format=png&name=small

question from USAToday-Suffolk impeachment poll:

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago

We know that about 30% of Americans would support Trump if he shot a nun in Times Square, so that explains C). 

The 21% in the middle and the undecideds are who the impeachment hearings are meant for. 

Since an admission of the offense exists (Trump, Mulvaney) the hearings are more than justified. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

21% plus 30% = 51%.......It's a minor point. I STILL OWE YOU!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.3  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Since an admission of the offense exists (Trump, Mulvaney) the hearings are more than justified. 

Lets not forget Rudy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

37.9 % + 21.1 % = 59% It's a MAJOR point. 

You own no one. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.3.5  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

So you think B are people claiming it is an impeachable offense. No wonder the Democrats are pulling this shit. Their supporters can't read!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago
We already have the details of the call

We have the details of a 12 minute call, not the 30 minute one Trump made to Erdogan.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3.5    2 weeks ago
So you think B are people claiming it is an impeachable offense. No wonder the Democrats are pulling this shit. Their supporters can't read!

No, I think that B can be EDUCATED to understand that the conversation was not only wrong but impeachable. 

I note that you don't seem to have an issue with Vic adding B into those that believe there was nothing wrong with the conversation. Why not? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    2 weeks ago
We have the details of a 12 minute call, not the 30 minute one Trump made to Erdogan.

  PROVE IT

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.3.9  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    2 weeks ago
  PROVE IT

Since you're shouting (CAPS LOCK), I assume you know the details of Trump's conversation with Erdogan.

Please post the link to that call.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.9    2 weeks ago

You made the claim - now prove it.  Iv'e called you out!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.3.11  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.10    2 weeks ago
Iv'e called you out!

Wow!  WTF?  You called me out, tough guy?

What claim did I make?

Oh yeah, I claimed you used "CAPS LOCK".

Here's the proof:

1.3.8   Vic Eldred   replied to  Ozzwald @ 1.3.6     4 hours ago (We have the details of a 12 minute call, not the 30 minute one Trump made to Erdogan.)   PROVE IT
 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.12  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.11    2 weeks ago

It's hilarious when they loose the thread and then get indignant. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.3.13  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @1.3.12    2 weeks ago
It's hilarious when they loose the thread and then get indignant. 

Uh-oh.

Be careful.

You might get "called out".

512

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.11    2 weeks ago

You claimed that there was a 30 minute call to "Erdogan".  Kind of odd in many ways.  So fill us in on the 30 minutes!  What was said?  Are you sure this is a call to the leader of Turkey?  Or the Ukraine?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    2 weeks ago
We have the details of a 12 minute call, not the 30 minute one Trump made to Erdogan.
  PROVE IT

Are you that unable to look for yourself????  Directly from the White house itself.

Ukraine Transcript

From the 1st page of the "transcript" memo.

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a
discussion.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.16  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.3.13    2 weeks ago
Uh-oh.
Be careful.
You might get "called out".

No worries, I'm no ordinary rabbit:

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.3.17  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.14    2 weeks ago
You claimed that there was a 30 minute call to "Erdogan".

That's a fucking lie.

I never said that.

BTW, your pants are on fire.

800

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.4  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
asked Ukraine to investigate Biden

What law was broken?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4    2 weeks ago

Section 8, paragraph 22, clause 14b.. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.4.2  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.1    2 weeks ago
Section 8, paragraph 22, clause 14b..

Of what????????

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.4.3  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.1    2 weeks ago

No you need to look at Section 13, page 98, paragraph 6, clause 2c,  part 1, verse 3, Book 5, Set 3, Addition 4, Revision 2  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
He heard with his own ears that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden

Could you give us a link to that testimony?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.5    2 weeks ago
Could you give us a link to that testimony?

Here you go:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/10/Vindmanstatementfinal.pdf

Not that you'll read it or acknowledge it's content. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

The trouble with witnesses in these particular investigations is that 40% of the electorate is conditioned to disbelieve them.  Putin's SVR, CSR and FSB do their work very well.

What the public thinks is a misnomer.  To many times in history, popular public sentiment ended up not being good for the public.  Example;  By late 1944 the Allied bombing

campaigns were simply bouncing rubble more often than not.

Watched several GOP representatives today commenting on testimony and depositions.  General consensus was standard fare witch-hunt. 

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @2    2 weeks ago
The trouble with witnesses in these particular investigations is that 40% of the electorate is conditioned to disbelieve them.

Well I think we now have an idea of who it was that whined to the so-called WB and may have leaked secret information. And he showed up for testimony in his military uniform!  I guess that was to make an impression on the 40%.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago
Well I think we now have an idea of who it was that whined to the so-called WB and may have leaked secret information.

Do you never tire of spewing false innuendo? 

And he showed up for testimony in his military uniform!  I guess that was to make an impression on the 40%.

Lt. Col. Vindman EARNED the right to go wherever the fuck he wants in his uniform. 

I've quickly tired of those here who demean a man who has fought and bled for this country merely because he is testifying truthfully about what he witnessed Trump do in office. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Bullshit!  Only when they are trying to screw the President. We saw what happened with former Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Michael Flynn

The unregistered foreign agent that Trump made his National Security Advisor.

Lock him up!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Bullshit!  Only when they are trying to screw the President. 

WTF are blathering about Vic? 

What's part of my comment is bullshit? 

What's 'only when' and who are 'they'? 

We saw what happened with former Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.

Flynn LIED and the DOJ let him off easy. At this point, his 'star' legal team might get him jail time if they're not careful. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

His star legal team just won a ruling.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.6  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
His star legal team just won a ruling.

Really? Link? 

Oh and I'll say bye now since that's the last I'll hear from you on this...

 
 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

So by 'just' you mean 6 MONTHS ago. Sheesh. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.9  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

There is more to come the access to all discovery and redacted emails.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.10  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.1.9    2 weeks ago
There is more to come the access to all discovery and redacted emails.

You know that the link that you posted is about a victory for Flynn's PARTNER'S lawyers right? 

The date on it is 4/10/2019 and Flynn didn't fire his lawyers until June. 

Try harder. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3  al Jizzerror    2 weeks ago

Laura Ingram (on Faux Noise) accused Lt. Col. Vindman of "espionage".

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1  bbl-1  replied to  al Jizzerror @3    2 weeks ago

Are there any 'nekked' pictures of Laura Ingraham?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1    2 weeks ago
Are there any 'nekked' pictures of Laura Ingraham?
laura_ingraham-670x447.jpg

Probably not. 

There is this though. 

laura-ingraham-142f81b2-cb54-4af9-9acc-c

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1    2 weeks ago

Why would you want them?  She is one nasty hateful ugly bitch.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @3.1    2 weeks ago

Geeze, I hope not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
There is this though. 

They were so dumb that when they raised their arms as a sign of loyalty to Trump they didnt realize it would look exactly like the Nazi salute to Adolf Hitler. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
they didnt realize it would look exactly like the Nazi salute to Adolf Hitler. 

The fucking Nazis saluted Trump too. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.6  bbl-1  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

Hey, I used to be a GOPER, remember?  Nekkedness is next gawdliness.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  al Jizzerror @3    2 weeks ago

Well if Fox News called Vindman an un American traitor, you can be sure Trump wont be far behind in saying it. Probably by morning. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 weeks ago

Politico called him the "breakout witness"....Shhhhhhh....he may even be the other WB!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

So I guess this distinguished 20 year veteran is a traitor, too?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
So I guess this distinguished 20 year veteran is a traitor,

Hardly.  But he is Ukrainian by birth and came here as a three year old with his parents when they fled Soviet Ukraine.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

What's that got to do with the price of rice in Arkansas?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
What's that got to do with the price of rice in Arkansas?

Familial ties and loyalty to Ukraine?

And just how much is the price of rice in Arkansas?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

I guess someone who has immigrated to this country to escape totalitarianism, starvation, and poverty, became a citizen, served his country in the Armed Forces....yeah he's the guy we need to worry about.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.3  Kavika   replied to  al Jizzerror @3    2 weeks ago

I find that comment by Ingram to be at best disgusting. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a decorated US Army combat veteran. 

His expertise is so far beyond anything that Ingram could ever hope to attain. 

As for our service people that have served and were not born in the US or in many instances were not citizens a bit of research is due. 

In WWII 14 Medal of Honor recipients were born outside of the US.

Korean War 2 Medal of Honor recipients were born outside of the US.

Vietnam War 8 Medal of Honor recipients were born outside of the US. 

Afghanistan 1 Medal of Honor recipient that was born outside the US.

The Medal of Honor is the highest award that is given for bravery under fire. I wonder if Ingram would question their patriotism. 

The list of MoH non-US born citizens is hundreds of servicemen dating back in all of our wars. 

This does not include the tens of thousands of foreign-born members of the US military that have served with distinction.

08931ee4-c2de-4854-ad64-70478c492b03-AFP

The decorations and unit insignias that Lt. Col. Vindman is wearing are not for sitting on his ass in some Washington hotel. 

To attack this man is beyond the pale. When any of the attackers have served in combat and have accomplished what he has then they can carry duffle bag. Until then they should STFU.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @3.3    2 weeks ago

Kavika, I have a question about the Purple Heart. If you wounded more than once, does one get a device for one's medal?

 
 
 
Kavika
3.3.2  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    2 weeks ago
If you wounded more than once, does one get a device for one's medal?

Yes, for each additional wound they receive an Oak Leaf Cluster to attach to the original Purple Heart.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

I thought so. Thanks.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

I'm still not convinced it's worthy of impeachment on grounds of abuse or corruption, but I do  think it was sloppy. Unfortunately, that has been a feature of the Trump administration because he - and several people in his administration - really don't have any experience in government. It shows in events like the Ukraine thing.

If Trump was genuinely concerned about Biden's doings while VP, he definitely has a right to pursue it, but he should do everything he can to avoid making it look political. It seems to me that an independent counsel would have been the most appropriate agent of investigation. There still might have been a need to discuss the matter with Ukrainian leadership, but that might have been better left to the Senate or the State Department.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago

So Tacos, you're good on both points:

1.)  Emboldening a known national security threat to the United States know as Russia by weakening Ukraine's ability to defend itself against the same.

2.)  Involving foreign entities to involve themselves in our election system.

Neither rise to the level of impeachment for you eh? 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.1  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1    2 weeks ago

It isn't like Trump let russia take over Crimea.Neither raise to level of impeachment for me first because either happen.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
1.)  Emboldening a known national security threat to the United States know as Russia by weakening Ukraine's ability to defend itself

So I guess Obama's failure to send any arms at all to Ukraine as it was fighting off an actual invasion was  a super impeachable offense.

But that's right, in the Obama years, Dems  mocked anyone who said Russia was a threat, gladly took millions from Putin's cronies and sent foreigners to get fake propaganda about the Republican candidate from Putin's officials.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Are you ever going to stop making excuses for Donald Trump? 

Your reflexive attacks on anyone who disparages the abominable Trump presidency is disconcerting. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
get fake propaganda about the Republican candidate from Putin's officials.

Ok, you know that didn't happen, right? Putin HATED Clinton, pretty sure he wouldn't give dirt on trump, (who he said he wanted to win the election). Just trump once again blaming his enemy of that which he was guilty of. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Ok, you know that didn't happen, right?

Of course it did. Haven't you read the Steele dossier?  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
is disconcerting

What's disconcerting is the inability of many here to keep their attacks on Trump grounded in reality.

 Obamaites claiming Trump deserves impeachment for "emboldening Russia" after 8 years of Obama's foreign policy is simply too much to stomach.  History remembers the Obama Presidency, even if his most devoted supporters don't. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

Of course it did. Haven't you read the Steele dossier?  

Nope, fox news said it was all lies, so no need to read it. Besides, why would putin give up dirt to someone he hates, in an effort to discredit the person he wanted to win the election? 

In no way shape or form does that make any sense at all. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.7    2 weeks ago
so no need to read it.

At least you admit your ignorance.

hy would putin give up dirt to someone he hates

Think real hard. I'm sure you can come up with it!   Why would Putin give millions to someone he hates? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

Anyone who votes for Trump in 2020 after four years of watching this shit show on an hourly basis is not a conscientious American citizen. 

You dont like Democrats or liberals? then nominate a conservative in place of Trump as the GOP presidential candidate. There are hundreds of "respectable" conservatives out there who would like to run for president. There must be at least a few of them that you think can beat Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg. 

To continue on with this utter absurdity known as the Trump presidency  for one second longer than necessary is a travesty. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

As are yours to any that do not share your views.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
hourly basis is not a conscientious American citizen

So, in your view, conscientious citizens should lie and make things up to take down a President who lies and makes things up.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.12  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

Think real hard. I'm sure you can come up with it!   Why would Putin give millions to someone he hates? 

The right really needs to sort out their talking points.

Before the election: "Don't vote for Hillary she will start WWIII with Russia!!!!!!"

After the election: "Hillary got dirt on trump from Putin because they are friends!!!!"

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.13  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    2 weeks ago

Sounds par for the course for Schiff face , Pelosi, and their gang.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.12    2 weeks ago
The right really needs to sort out their talking points.
Before the election: "Don't vote for Hillary she will start WWIII with Russia!!!!!!"
After the election: "Hillary got dirt on trump from Putin because they are friends!!!!

We are still trying to sort out Democratic talking points:

Trump will have us in new wars.

Trump will have us in a nuclear war.

Unemployment will skyrocket under Trump.

Stock market will crash under Trump.

Trump has no path to 270.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

Hillary got dirt on trump from Putin because they are friends!!!

Who said that? Why do you need to make things up?

Do you really need help figuring out what Putin was doing? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.16  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    2 weeks ago
You dont like Democrats or liberals? then nominate a conservative in place of Trump as the GOP presidential candidate.

Won't happen John, several red states have already said there will be no republican debates in those states. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.16    2 weeks ago
Won't happen John, several red states have already said there will be no republican debates in those states. 

Each political party sets its own rules regarding debates and nominations.

Well, at least, that is what I was told when Hillary bought the DNC.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.17    2 weeks ago
when Hillary bought the DNC.

She won the nomination because she got the most votes. No payment necessary. But it's nice to see that the cons want to make sure the lying con man gets the nomination by canceling debates, I mean, because it's just not cool to give Americans a choice. [eye roll]

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.18    2 weeks ago
She won the nomination because she got the most votes. No payment necessary. But it's nice to see that the cons want to make sure the lying con man gets the nomination by canceling debates, I mean, because it's just not cool to give Americans a choice. [eye roll]

That's not exactly how Donna Brazile described it.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/04/donna-brazile-book-on-hillary-clinton-campaign-dnc...

Which red states have cancelled debates or even had debates scheduled?

Which blue states had debates when Obama ran for his second term?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.20  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Obama....! Her Emails....!  Deflection is all you and MUVA have since nether of you can argue the facts of the day.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.21  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

If your stomach is bothering you Sean, I suggest you lay off the Trump/GOP Koolaid you've been drinking for the last decade.  It's already proven to cause brain damage given how badly you remember or interpret historical details.  Why risk your G.I. track as well?

Besides comrad.... Putin is going to need you to be strong in coming days when his Trump sock-puppet is exposed for the Russian enabling bastard that he is.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.22  al Jizzerror  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.21    2 weeks ago
Trump/GOP Koolaid

Maybe he prefers "Fool-Aid".

512

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1    2 weeks ago
Emboldening a known national security threat to the United States know as Russia

I see no evidence that the exchange between Trump and the Ukrainian president emboldened Russia in any particular way. And even if it had, what is the significance of that? "Emboldening?" That's pretty vague. Almost anything could embolden someone.

weakening Ukraine's ability to defend itself against the same.

Any ability Ukraine has to defend itself has only been enhanced by American involvement. The aid is still there.

Involving foreign entities to involve themselves in our election system.

The potential consequence of an investigation could be that Biden's chances to win the election would be damaged. But that's his fault if he did something wrong. You don't blame the cops for investigating a crime.

And such an investigation - in no way - messes with our election system. All it does is expose information the voters have a right to know. If Biden was improperly using his power and influence as Vice President, voters absolutely have a right to know that. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
Are you ever going to stop making excuses for Donald Trump?  Your reflexive attacks on anyone who disparages the abominable Trump presidency is disconcerting.

Neither of those things happened in the comment you replied to.

making excuses for Donald Trump

Trump isn't even mentioned.

Your reflexive attacks on anyone

Nobody was attacked either.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.25  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.9    2 weeks ago

And you complain about others reflexively attacking anyone who disagrees with them. Amazing. Look in a mirror.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.26  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

You Just Can't See It? What the bloody hell? Just exactly how could Trump withholding the military aid that Ukraine needed badly for its fight against the Russian Incursion into Ukraine not embolden Russia?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.27  XDm9mm  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1    2 weeks ago
1.)  Emboldening a known national security threat to the United States know as Russia by weakening Ukraine's ability to defend itself against the same.

Like when Obama sat on his thumbs when Russia annexed Crimea, then part of Ukraine?  Weakening like that?

2.)  Involving foreign entities to involve themselves in our election system.

Like when Obama gave a firm "Stop it" to Vladimir Putin when Russia was interfering with the electoral process in 2016 ON THE WATCH OF PRESIDENT OBAMA?

Neither rise to the level of impeachment for you eh? 

Actually, impeachment is a bit late, considering Obama is out of office.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.21    2 weeks ago

o cause brain damage given how badly you remembe

Nothing but gas lighting the forum and name calling from you. No surprise.  An honest person would probably point out an actual  fact I had wrong before alleging brain damage. But you just skipped to the name calling. 

Sad.

So come on, chief. Redeem yourself.  What lethal aid did Obama provide Ukraine when it was attacked?  Trump supplied Ukraine with lethal aid, Obama didn't.

Where were your calls for Obama's impeachment for "emboldening Russia?" If you actually argued from principle rather than from simple partisanship, you could respond substantively. But of course, partisanship is really all you have, isn't it? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.22    2 weeks ago

It's a good thing you stick to pictures.

Arguments aren't your thing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

In a very robotic way, you continue to justify Trump asking the president of a foreign government to investigate Trump's election rival for 2020. 

HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT.   THAT IS WHY HE IS BEING IMPEACHED.

Yet you just go merrily along, arguing "nothing to see here".   

It borders on strange. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.31  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.30    2 weeks ago

All you have to do is prove it; which the transcripts released of the phone conversation don't.

Funny, the left have no problem with Ukraine helping out Hillary against Trump. Nor Ukraine releasing information to the media that was damaging to Trump's campaign. Material they admit shouldn't have.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S. administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about Poroshenko’s regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin’s regime.

Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings with U.S. government officials “to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations.”

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort (pictured) and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. | Getty

Revelations about Ukraine’s anti-Trump efforts could further set back those efforts.

“Things seem to be going from bad to worse for Ukraine,” said David A. Merkel, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who helped oversee U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine while working in George W. Bush’s State Department and National Security Council.

Merkel, who has served as an election observer in Ukrainian presidential elections dating back to 1993, noted there’s some irony in Ukraine and Russia taking opposite sides in the 2016 presidential race, given that past Ukrainian elections were widely viewed in Washington’s foreign policy community as proxy wars between the U.S. and Russia.

“Now, it seems that a U.S. election may have been seen as a surrogate battle by those in Kiev and Moscow,” Merkel said

Nor do you have a problem with the US intelligence agencies being used to spy on a political opponent during an election. So long as they are spying on a Republican that is.

But you sure as hell have a problem when Trump calls for an investigation of loud mouth Biden for bragging about extorting Ukraine, and claiming Obama backed him up, to fire the lead prosecutor that was investigating the company his son works for!

Hypocrite much?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.32  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.27    2 weeks ago
Weakening like that?

No weakening like holding up aid for his own personal benefit. 

Like when Obama gave a firm "Stop it" to Vladimir Putin when Russia was interfering with the electoral process in 2016 ON THE WATCH OF PRESIDENT OBAMA?

You realize that asking Ukraine to get involved is the OPPOSITE of telling Putin to Stop it right? 

Actually, impeachment is a bit late, considering Obama is out of office.

512

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.33  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.30    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

asking the president of a foreign government to investigate Trump's election rival for 2020. 

No, he asked the president to help investigate the former Vice President when he was using his power as Vice President. Now that that man is no longer Vice President, he has chosen to run against Trump for president, but that does not excuse him from accountability while he was in office. The fact that you want his potential wrongdoing ignored because he is running against Trump (whom you hate) is pretty disturbing.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.31    2 weeks ago
Nor do you have a problem with the US intelligence agencies being used to spy on a political opponent during an election. So long as they are spying on a Republican that is. But you sure as hell have a problem when Trump calls for an investigation of loud mouth Biden for bragging about extorting Ukraine, and claiming Obama backed him up, to fire the lead prosecutor that was investigating the company his son works for!

All you have to do is prove it.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.35  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.33    2 weeks ago
The fact that you want his potential wrongdoing ignored because he is running against Trump (whom you hate) is pretty disturbing. You also said above: If Trump was genuinely concerned about Biden's doings while VP, he definitely has a right to pursue it

Why? Why should the President be able to investigate Americans for no other reason than that they were a former elected official? There was no whistleblower who came forward to complain of some corruption or illegality in regards to Biden. There is no evidence Biden did anything wrong. Trump is instigating an investigation into a political rival not based on some known evidence, if he had the evidence of a crime he'd already be telling everyone about it, not asking a foreign leader to find some for him.

The fact that you want "potential wrongdoing" investigated without any evidence of wrongdoing is pretty disturbing. I have yet to hear an actual claim of any crime committed by Biden, all I hear so far are ethereal claims of needing to investigate "corruption". NO one has presented any evidence of a quid pro quo in regards to Biden, but we have a transcript of Trump clearly asking for something he can use in the upcoming election in return for over $300 million in military aid.

The President should not have free reign to use the federal governments resources to investigate any and all of his political or business opponents. It should not be allowed for a President to dislike someone like Jeff Bezos, then send the power of the FBI or justice department after him because he didn't like the unflattering portrayal of himself in the WAPO. We should not allow a President to see poll numbers where he's losing miserably by double digits to Joe Biden then decide to withhold millions in congressionally approved military assistance till a foreign leader at least announces that they'll be investigating the Presidents political rival which is obviously something the Trump campaign would use as an attack on Biden.

We simply cannot allow this kind of behavior to go unaccounted for as it will set a precedent for all future Presidents. Trump should be impeached and then have the trial in the Senate, whether they end up removing him will be immaterial.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.33    2 weeks ago
No, he asked the president to help investigate the former Vice President when he was using his power as Vice President.

Yet it was based false innuendo.

Trump said that Biden 'stopped the prosecution'. That is false. PERIOD full stop. 

Secondly, Biden was acting in the benefit of the Ukraine, NOT against it. The EU, the IMF and other Western countries wanted Sorkin, who was enabling corruption, gone. Pretending that it was all about what Biden wanted is just a fabricated load of bullshit used to try to gaslight the willfully obtuse. 

Now that that man is no longer Vice President, he has chosen to run against Trump for president, but that does not excuse him from accountability while he was in office.

That's just throwing shit at the wall. Cite a cogent allegation. Other that what has already been debunked, WHAT are you or they  alleging that Biden did that requires investigation? 

The fact that you want his potential wrongdoing ignored because he is running against Trump (whom you hate) is pretty disturbing.

What's actually disturbing is that Trump and his sycophants used the excuse of a debunked conspiracy theory to withhold a WH meeting and military aid to Ukraine. 

As you said, IF Trump was 'was genuinely concerned about Biden's doings while VP' he has innumerable venues to investigate. It strains credulity that on one hand Trump and his sycophants point at Ukrainian corruption and on the other they insist that Trump just wanted to rely on Ukraine to do a transparent investigation of American citizens. It's a ridiculous posit. 

Oh and IF Trump and his sycophants 'genuinely' wanted Ukraine to assist AG Barr in a DOJ  investigation there is a LAW that Trump is sworn to uphold to make that official request. Ambassador Taylor documented the fact that Zelensky's assistant told Volker that the US should follow that law. To this day, as far as anyone knows, Trump has yet to do so. 

IMHO, the thing that PROVES that all of this wasn't actually about Trump want in the Ukraine to investigate corruption is that Trump kept demanding that Zelensky name Burisma PUBLICLY. It really didn't matter if an investigation actually occurred, as long as it could be reported on Fox news and tweeted ad nauseum. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.37  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.35    2 weeks ago
Why should the President be able to investigate Americans for no other reason than that they were a former elected official?

He shouldn't. Fortunately, that's not the reason Trump gave when he said he wanted Biden investigated. He wasn't just fishing around for something. He had a specific thing in mind and he said so.

There was no whistleblower who came forward to complain of some corruption or illegality in regards to Biden.

Various forms of wrongdoing are investigated every day without a "whistleblower" coming forward.

There is no evidence Biden did anything wrong.

That's your opinion. Obviously Trump feels differently. Consider broadening your idea of what constitutes evidence. You probably already have regarding Trump's activities.

Many people, for example, are convinced there must be some proof of criminal wrongdoing to be found in Trump's tax returns, but their only "evidence" for this is that he hasn't released them to the public. That's pretty thin as evidence goes, but it's plenty good enough for many people to demand that Congress acquire the records through the force of their authority.

Here, Trump sees the son of a VP getting a high paying job that - on the surface - he doesn't appear qualified for. He hears there may be some kind of investigation connected to it and then he sees Biden bragging about using his power to get an investigator (who may or may not be connected) fired. That's relatively, thin, too, but it's at least as suspicious looking as the evidence driving the mania over Trump's taxes.

I have yet to hear an actual claim of any crime committed by Biden, all I hear so far are ethereal claims of needing to investigate "corruption".

That's a valid point of view and I would say the same is basically true for Trump.

we have a transcript of Trump clearly asking for something he can use in the upcoming election in return for over $300 million in military aid.

What's "clear" to you is not clear to very many other people.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.38  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.36    2 weeks ago
Yet it was based false innuendo.

A lot of things are. That's why you conduct the investigation: to see if it's true or if it's false. If it's false, then investigation will exonerate Biden and he will march triumphantly into the White House in January 2021. 

Trying to stop the investigation kind of looks suspicious, doesn't it? At least, that's what you'd probably say if we were talking about Trump instead of Biden.

It certainly is the general rule in Washington, where they often investigate pointless, ordinary behaviors or - contrariwise - blissfully ignore obvious red flags that point to corruption.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.38    2 weeks ago
A lot of things are. That's why you conduct the investigation: to see if it's true or if it's false. If it's false, then investigation will exonerate Biden and he will march triumphantly into the White House in January 2021. 

Really? Is your posit that innuendo is a reason why you withhold a WH meeting and military aid to a desperate country? Again, that stretches credulity.  

Trying to stop the investigation kind of looks suspicious, doesn't it? At least, that's what you'd probably say if we were talking about Trump instead of Biden.

WHO tried to STOP the investigation Tacos!? Seriously, there is documentation from Taylor's opening statement that shows that they spent MONTHS trying to MOTIVATE an investigation. 

The fact that we now KNOW about it isn't about STOPPING the investigation, it's about STOPPING Trump from using his office for his own benefit. 

It certainly is the general rule in Washington, where they often investigate pointless, ordinary behaviors or - contrariwise - blissfully ignore obvious red flags that point to corruption.

Thanks so much for trying to normalize the actions by Trump. Well done. /s 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.37    2 weeks ago
He shouldn't. Fortunately, that's not the reason Trump gave when he said he wanted Biden investigated. He wasn't just fishing around for something. He had a specific thing in mind and he said so.

Why yes, YES Trump did and it was a conspiracy theory that has been debunked. Here is what Trump said:

There's a lot talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. 

Now unless you have some evidence that Biden stopped a prosecution or bragged about stopping a prosecution, you should just ADMIT that Trump is FULL OF SHIT. 

Oh and PLEASE don't post the debunked video because Biden DOES NOT say a fucking thing about stopping a PROSECUTION. Period, full stop. 

Various forms of wrongdoing are investigated every day without a "whistleblower" coming forward.

How many of those investigations are motivated by withholding desperately needed military aid? 

Consider broadening your idea of what constitutes evidence.

Why, you haven't. 

That's a valid point of view and I would say the same is basically true for Trump.

You'd be wrong. 

What's "clear" to you is not clear to very many other people.

Those 'many people' are in a dwindling minority.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.41  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.39    2 weeks ago
Is your posit that innuendo is a reason why you withhold a WH meeting and military aid to a desperate country? Again, that stretches credulity.

Your repeated ability to simultaneously misunderstand simple language and create straw men is what strains credulity. And yet, there it is.

WHO tried to STOP the investigation Tacos!?

You're advocating that right now (like many people). Or will you now support the investigation?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.42  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.40    2 weeks ago
Why, you haven't. 

How fascinating. You measure what you should do based on what I am doing. There's hope for you after all.

Those 'many people' are in a dwindling minority.

Argumentum ad populum is a common logical fallacy. I am not surprised to see you try it.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.43  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.23    2 weeks ago

I see no evidence that the exchange between Trump and the Ukrainian president emboldened Russia in any particular way. And even if it had, what is the significance of that? "Emboldening?" That's pretty vague. Almost anything could embolden someone.

I'm guessing its for the same reason that so many have problems assembling Ikea furniture, or Tinker-Toys.  

Keep putting party over country Taco's.  You've got that skill nailed comrade.

OBTW..... We've located the "Deep State" the right-wing conspiracy theorists have been talking about for so many years now.  They are the career patriots in this country that took to heart their oath to "uphold and defend the constitution" and put it ahead of themselves.  It is a shame those that support Trump at every turn can't seem to align themselves with that same thinking.  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.44  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.41    2 weeks ago
Your repeated ability to simultaneously misunderstand simple language and create straw men is what strains credulity. And yet, there it is.

Here is the simple language:

Yet it was based false innuendo. A lot of things are. That's why you conduct the investigation: to see if it's true or if it's false. If it's false, then investigation will exonerate Biden and he will march triumphantly into the White House in January 2021. 

Of course, your statement utterly ignores the timeline of events. 

The phone call happened on July 25, 2019. 

The deadline for disseminating the military aid was Sept. 30, 2019. 

Which gives Ukraine just over 2 MONTHS to conduct an investigation that Trump and his sycophants have been working on for YEARS. 

Secondly, you don't address the cognitive dissonance of insisting that Ukraine is steeped in corruption yet Trump thinks they can conduct a fair and transparent investigation into American citizens. 

My question, based on your 'a lot of things are' comment :

Is your posit that innuendo is a reason why you withhold a WH meeting and military aid to a desperate country?

I didn't 'misunderstand simple language' OR post a strawman. 

I note that instead of answering my question, you tried to pretend that is was baseless. It isn't. 

You're advocating that right now (like many people). 

What I am advocating for is for the US to make it clear to Ukraine and the rest of the world that we will NOT base military aid on whether they investigate Biden or any other American.

That in the future, if and when the US desires assistance in legal investigations, we will FOLLOW THE LAW and DOCUMENT the allegations we want them to investigate rather than throwing out innuendo created in a Trump fever dream. 

That in the future, the US will NOT remove a eminently qualified and effective Ambassador based on the testimony of private partisan hacks. 

Or will you now support the investigation?

No, I do NOT support an investigation without a cogent predicate. Why do you? 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.45  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.42    2 weeks ago
How fascinating. You measure what you should do based on what I am doing. There's hope for you after all.

How fascinating that you don't recognize the difference between critique and embracing. 

Argumentum ad populum is a common logical fallacy. I am not surprised to see you try it.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it

Or don't believe it, like this:

What's "clear" to you is not clear to very many other people.

Well done. 

BTW, are you going to address my questions or just post comments about me? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.46  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.44    2 weeks ago
make it clear to Ukraine and the rest of the world that we will NOT base military aid on whether they investigate Biden or any other American.

That is already clear to Ukraine. Their president has said so.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters Thursday his controversial July call with President Trump involved no bribe, blackmail or quid pro quo, as impeachment-minded Democrats claim.

The only people who think differently are those who are foaming at the mouth to impeach the president - and have been since before he was even sworn in. You know, these people:

inauguration_scream.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.46    2 weeks ago
That is already clear to Ukraine. Their president has said so.

From your link: 

"There was no blackmail," Zelensky said. "They blocked this money and nobody asked us [for] anything,"

Yet we now KNOW, that is false. The text messages document that Trump was DEMANDING that Zelensky state PUBLICLY that Ukraine would investigate Burisma [Hunter Biden] AGAIN. 

I can't help but wonder how Zelensky feels now that he's had the chance to review the evidence of the US conspiracy. 

The only people who think differently are those who are foaming at the mouth to impeach the president - and have been since before he was even sworn in.

Actually, the people that KNOW that are those that have READ and acknowledge the facts in evidence released by witnesses. You're obviously not among them. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.48  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.47    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

How bout SHOWING us, in the "Transcript", where Trump DEMANDED that Zelensky state PUBLICLY  that Ukraine to investigate ANYTHING - Biden, taxes, coffee, cost of rice in China - ANYTHING.

I and thousands of other folks, I'm sure, have read and re-read the "Transcript" numerous times and nowhere in the document are there any demands placed on Zelensky other than ?????????  Even with the "Expert" who so diligently "filled in the gaps" in the conversation.

Gonna show us or blow it off?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.49  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.48    2 weeks ago
removed for context

You really need to refrain from making personal comments about members. It is a CoC violation and uncalled for. 

How bout SHOWING us, in the "Transcript", where Trump DEMANDED that Zelensky state PUBLICLY  that Ukraine to investigate ANYTHING - Biden, taxes, coffee, cost of rice in China - ANYTHING. I and thousands of other folks, I'm sure, have read and re-read the "Transcript" numerous times and nowhere in the document are there any demands placed on Zelensky other than ?????????  Even with the "Expert" who so diligently "filled in the gaps" in the conversation.

How about you READ MORE CAREFULLY. I said that proof is in the TEXT MESSAGES. Go READ them for yourself. 

Gonna show us or blow it off?

Here 1st, I'll hold your hand and give you a link to the TEXT MESSAGES I cited;

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

For a chronological context, READ Ambassador Taylor's opening statement. Start on page 5. Here is what Taylor said on page 6:

By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.

This is on page 10/11:

During this same [Sept. 1] phone call had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw .Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation .
I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland -Yermak conversation . This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance not just the White House meeting — was conditioned on the investigations.

After MONTHS of trying to force Zelensky to make a PUBLIC statement, this is what he wrote on page 12:

The following day, on September 8 , Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “ clear things up and do it in public .” President Trump said it was not a " quid pro quo." Ambassador Sondland said that had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not clear things up public, we would be at a stalemate. I understood a stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview with CNN

Hand holding OVER, or do you need to spoon feed you the link to Taylor's statement TOO? 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.50  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.48    2 weeks ago

Oh and BTFW, pretty damn cogent comment for someone you claim is under the influence don't you think 1st? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.51  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.47    2 weeks ago
Yet we now KNOW, that is false.

Uhhhh . . . noooo. We don't know any such thing. What a ridiculous and absurd claim with zero support offered.

The text messages document that Trump was DEMANDING that Zelensky state PUBLICLY that Ukraine would investigate Burisma [Hunter Biden] AGAIN.

Even if that was true or relevant (it is neither ), that would tell us nothing about what was "clear to Ukraine" - your words.

I can't help but wonder

Yeah, that's obvious. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.52  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.51    2 weeks ago
Uhhhh . . . noooo. We don't know any such thing. What a ridiculous and absurd claim with zero support offered.

READ my comment to 1st 4.1.49 for evidence that they DID ask Zelensky FOR something for MONTHS. 

The only 'WE' that don't know any such thing are those that refuse to educate themselves on the issue. ALL of the evidence is readily available online. 

Even if that was true or relevant (it is neither ), that would tell us nothing about what was "clear to Ukraine" - your words.

Oh butt it IS true AND relevant Tacos! and the text messages INCLUDE texts to and from Ukrainians.

You see, unlike you, I have actually invested the TIME it takes to know the FACTS provided by the existing evidence.  All you've done is sit here and offer ZERO support for YOUR posits and spew snark.  

Yeah, that's obvious. 

Why do you and your fellow travelers make snarky replies to truncated block quotes? Do you think it makes you look cool or sound intelligent or even funny?

Hint: It doesn't. 

Why not try some adulting instead?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.53  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.52    2 weeks ago
ALL of the evidence is readily available online. 

De Nile is not a river in Egypt, I guess. The single best source for what was "clear to Ukraine" is the president of that country saying it for himself. That evidence you want to ignore. I mean, WOW!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.54  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.53    2 weeks ago
De Nile is not a river in Egypt, I guess. The single best source for what was "clear to Ukraine" is the president of that country saying it for himself. 

Right Tacos!.

Trump has Zelensky's nuts in a vice but he should tell the truth and admit that Trump was extorting him. No reason to worry about how that will look to his own people that he's under Trump's thumb. That's a hell of an example of authority and strength. Ya, that's the ticket...

Hell, Zelensky couldn't even call Trump out for releasing the call summary without his permission. He just had to sit there with the prick and let him babble and suck it up. It's amazing what kind of crap one will take when faced with loosing 400 million in military aid. 

That evidence you want to ignore. I mean, WOW!

You're desperate to ignore the testimony of 14 people that refute what Trump and Zelensky said. So much so that you don't even bother to READ it. Wow!

That's okay, you'll be HEARING all about it quite soon so you'll have to wear your blinders AND ear plugs. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.55  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.50    2 weeks ago

Ya know, when you put a smiley face behind a comment, most - no - the vast majority of people who have a sense of humor would recognize it as a joke or a statement meant to have humor involved.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.56  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @4.1.49    2 weeks ago

Terribly sorry 'bout your misunderstanding Dulay.  The only transcript I have seen or read was the one, supposedly, transcribed by completely professional transcribers/recorders of President Trump's call with Zelensky.  And that's the only transcript that I have or will make regarding this matter.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.57  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.56    2 weeks ago

First of all, that isn't a 'transcript', it's a summary of the conversation. Is says so right on the document. It also states that it may NOT be accurate. Lt. Col. Vindman's statement says that he was on the call and the summary is NOT accurate. 

Second of all, I haven't misunderstood a fucking thing. 

I didn't cite a transcript, I cited the TEXTS that Volker submitted to the Committees. Ignore them if you must. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.58  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.56    2 weeks ago

QUICK, cover your eyes.

State Department Officials Discuss White House Visit and Ukraine Statement: On
August 9, 2019, Ambassador Volker had the following exchange with Ambassador
Sondland about arranging a White House meeting after the Ukrainian President makes a
public statement:

19, 5: 35:53 Gordon Sondland: Morrison ready to get dates as soon as
Yermak confirms.

[8/9/19, 5: 46:21 Kurt Volker: Excellent! How did you sway him? 

[8/9/19, 5: 47:34 Gordon Sondland: Not sure i did. I think potus really wants
the deliverable

[8/9/19, 5: 48:00 Kurt Volker: But does he know that?
[8/9/19, 5: 48:09 Gordon Sondland: Yep
[8/9/19, 5: 48:37 Gordon Sondland: Clearly lots of convos going on

[8/9/19, 5:48:38 Kurt Volker: Ok then that's good it's coming from two
separate sources

[8/9/19, 5: 51:18 Gordon Sondland: To avoid misundestandings, might be
helpful to ask Andrey for a draft statememt (embargoed) so that we can see
exactly what they propose to cover. Even though Ze does a live presser they can
still summarize in a brief statement. Thoughts?

[8/9/19, 5: 51:42 Kurt Volker: Agree!

Ukrainian Aide Seeks White House Date First: On August 10, 2019, President
Zelensky's aide,  Andrey Yermak,  pressed Ambassador Volker for a date for the White House visit before committing to a statement announcing an investigation explicitly referencing the 2016 election and Burisma:

[8/10/19, 4:56:15 Andrey Yermak: Hi Kurt. Please let me know when you
can talk. I think it's possible to make this declaration and mention all these things.
Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a
confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations
and our guarantees for future visit. Let discuss it

[8/10/19, 5:01 :32 Kurt Volker: Ok! It?s late for you?why don?t we talk in
my morning, your afternoon tomorrow? Say lOam/5pm?

[8/10/19, 5:02:18 Kurt Volker: I agree with your approach. Let?s iron out
statement and use that to get date and then PreZ can go forward with it?

[8/10/19, 5:26:17 Andrey Yennak: Ok
[8/10/19, 5:38:43 Kurt Volker: Great. Gordon is available tojoin as well
[8/10/ 19, 5:41:45 Andrey Yerrnak: Excellent

[8/10/ 19, 5:42:10 Andrey Yermak: Once we have a date, will call for a press
brie?ng, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-
UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election
meddling in investigations

10/ 19, 5:42:30 Kurt Volker: Sounds great!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.59  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @4.1.58    2 weeks ago

Thanx!

That exchange of text messages is very incriminating.

The wingers will have to ignore them.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.60  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.55    2 weeks ago

Well someone other than I didn't think that your smiley face excused your slanderous  comment. Looks like a mod agreed. If you have an issue with that, contact the RA. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.61  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.59    2 weeks ago

Oh butt there's much more.

That's just the part about them demanding a PUBLIC declaration that Ukraine would open an investigation into Burisma and the server. Later Yermak reads the Politico article about Trump withholding the military aid. They were NOT happy. By mid August, the Ukrainians KNEW that it was a public announcement or no aid and no meeting. It's all in the TEXTS. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.62  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @4.1.61    2 weeks ago
It's all in the TEXTS. 

I love it when they put it in writing.

It's undeniable.

I hope we get to hear from John Bolton. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.63  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.62    2 weeks ago

Bolton's lawyer said that he 'invited' a subpoena. I told my mom that Bolton would never testify. I think I jumped the gun. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.64  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @4.1.63    2 weeks ago

Bolton's testimony along with Lt. Col. Vindman's will fry The Donald.

They were both appalled by hotel owner, oops I mean Ambassador Gordon Sondland's insistence that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens if they wanted the $391 million aid package.

I get the impression that Bolton will enjoy throwing Trump under the bus.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.65  Dulay  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.64    2 weeks ago

Don't forget Morrison. Morrison is a key player in Taylor's opening statement. He just quite the WH and will be deposed tomorrow. I hope he releases an opening statement. 

From Taylor's statement:

During this same phone call had with Mr Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw . Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland -Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance not just the White House meeting — was conditioned on the investigations.

Sondland LIED to Congress and is in deep shit.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.66  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dulay @4.1.65    2 weeks ago
Sondland LIED to Congress and is in deep shit.

Maybe Michael Cohen will get a new roommate. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.67  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.53    2 weeks ago

The Ukrainians were QUITE clear about the WH demands for a PUBLIC statement about an investigation into Burisma and the server: 

Ukrainian Aide Seeks White House Date First: On August 10, 2019, President Zelensky's aide,  Andrey Yermak,  pressed Ambassador Volker for a date for the White House visit before committing to a statement announcing an investigation explicitly referencing the 2016 election and Burisma:

[8/10/19, 4:56:15 Andrey Yermak: Hi Kurt. Please let me know when you can talk. I think it's possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations and our guarantees for future visit. Let discuss it

[8/10/19, 5:01 :32 Kurt Volker: Ok! It's late for you? why don't we talk in my morning, your afternoon tomorrow? Say lOam/5pm?

[8/10/19, 5:02:18 Kurt Volker: I agree with your approach. Let's iron out statement and use that to get date and then PreZ can go forward with it?

[8/10/19, 5:26:17 Andrey Yennak: Ok

[8/10/19, 5:38:43 Kurt Volker: Great. Gordon is available to join as well

[8/10/ 19, 5:41:45 Andrey Yerrnak: Excellent

[8/10/ 19, 5:42:10 Andrey Yermak: Once we have a date, will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US- UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations

[8/10/ 19, 5:42:30 Kurt Volker: Sounds great!

And they were clear about the military aid was also being withheld once the Politico article came out:

Ukrainian Official Shares Press Report of US. Withholding Military Assistance: On August 28, President Zelensky's aide, Andrey Yermak, texted Ambassador Volker a news story entitled, Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia?:

[8/29/ 19, 2:28: 19 Andrey Yermak: Need to talk with you

[8/29/19, 3:06:14 Andrey Yermak: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531

[8/29/19, 6:55:04 Kurt Volker: Hi Andrey absolutely. When is good for
you?

The Ukrainians were QUITE clear about what Trump wanted and what he was withholding to get it.

The texts go one and get worse but I think that's enough 'substance' for you tonight. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.68  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @4.1.67    2 weeks ago

Still think that it wasn't clear to Ukraine EXACTLY what Trump wanted Tacos!? 

Where is your argument based on the ACTUAL substance? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.69  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @4.1.68    2 weeks ago
Where is your argument based on the ACTUAL substance? 

Simply put, in the words of Morrison himself;

I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation (“MemCont’) of the July 25 phone call that was released by the White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.

It's pretty obvious that what the WH released is what was spoken during the conversation, regardless of what parody Shitty Schiff read to congress.

I also recall that I did not see anyone from the NSC Legal Advisor’s Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon : first, how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.

Please not the words in bold above.  Morrison obviously knows that there is a mole in the WH illegally disclosing classified information to like minded scumbags in congress and the media.

I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.

I'll submit that Morrison is pretty clear about that.  Regardless of what you want to believe.

Source:  https://abc17news.com/news/politics/national-politics/2019/10/31/read-tim-morrisons-opening-statement-before-house-impeachment-investigators/

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.70  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.69    2 weeks ago
It's pretty obvious that what the WH released is what was spoken during the conversation, regardless of what parody Shitty Schiff read to congress.

You know that in Morrison's sentence 'substance' means "the most important part of what someone has said or written" right XD? 

You know what's actually pretty obvious? That red lights went off in Morrison's head when he heard the call. 

After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed. 

I find it utterly disingenuous that Morrison pretends to have 3 political concerns but the first fucking thing he did was to ask the NSC LEGAL Advisor and his Deputy review the call. 

In short, his slip is showing. 

Please not the words in bold above.  Morrison obviously knows that there is a mole in the WH illegally disclosing classified information to like minded scumbags in congress and the media.

Wow, talk about conspiracy theories. 

One would think that when giving testimony in the House SCIF it would be the PERFECT time to out a WH mole. I mean, Trump's lap dogs are in the SCIF too. Nunes and Jordan would kiss Morrison square on the lips for information like that. 

Yet NADA, nothing, NOT A WORD that would support your conservative wet dream. 

Fail. 

I'll submit that Morrison is pretty clear about that.  Regardless of what you want to believe.

Oh I believe that is what Morrison believes. Yet it doesn't matter whether anything 'illegal' was discussed. Most abuse of power isn't 'illegal'. 

From Federalist 65, Hamilton:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. 

So the sooner you and your fellow travelers get it into your heads that Articles of  Impeachment need NOT include illegal activity or crimes, the less silly it will look. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 weeks ago
really don't have any experience in government

Bingo!

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

How long before trump testifies under oath? Never. He couldn't be honest if he tried. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 weeks ago

Well we know that Obama and Clinton never were.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    2 weeks ago

Well we know that Obama and Clinton never were.  

Trump....that's who I was talking about, lies over 80% of the time. Obama? 25%, Clinton? 40%, (which is the average for politicians). When it comes to lying, they are amateurs compared to trump. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
g about, lies over 80% of the time. Obama? 25%, Clinton? 40%, (which is the average for politicians)

Wow! You are the person who falls for that grift.

I knew someone had to be. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
Wow! You are the person who falls for that grift.

Hey, when you're right your right, I was way off, trump  actually lies 85% of the time. 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

You support the biggest grifter out there.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

You know how these work right? Even if you are gullible enough to take a subjective analysis by a pundit as an objective arbiter of truth, it should be obvious that  "Fact checkers" pick and choose what statements they subjectively offer their opinion on.  So merely by picking what statements they evaluate, the fact checker determines the percentage someone "lies".  Using poltifacts  methodology an ignorant reader can be manipulated into believing Obama lies 100% of the time, simply by only publishing evaluations of the times Obama "lied."

How any graduate of eighth grade can claim these subjectively cultivated compilations   measure how often a person lies, when the authors  don't even pretend to assess every statement,  is beyond me.  Sad. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of basic statistical methodology  is embarrassing to see. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.4    2 weeks ago
ort the biggest grifter out there

Nah. I just won't lie and make things up like others here. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
5.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    2 weeks ago

False. 

Obama did not do anything that required it.

Clinton lied under oath about a sexual escapade.  He was also ordered under subpoena to have his penis photographed as evidence because of second hand information provided to Kenneth Starr by Linda Tripp.

Could anyone imagine the Trump having to endure a prosecutor as tenacious and determined as a Kenneth Starr?  I am confident that the 'Stormy Who' would have long left the Ionosphere.  And that would just be the starters. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

Yet you support a POTUS who does.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @5    2 weeks ago

He will refuse and head for the golf course.

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.2    2 weeks ago

You should be happy when Trump is golfing. He isn't tweeting, giving press conferences, or setting leftists' hair on fire.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

You should be happy when Trump is golfing. He isn't tweeting, giving press conferences, or setting leftists' hair on fire.

But he said he would be too busy working to golf. He complained that Obama golfed too much for 8 years. He gets elected and golfs 4x as much as Obama did and the right wing? Completely silent, not one complaint at all. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

Maybe, but his handicap in golf is a helluva lower than Obama's.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.2.4  r.t..b...  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
Maybe, but his handicap in golf is a helluva lower than Obama's.

Golf handicaps are self-regulated, so take that for what it's worth. If you've enjoyed the game, you immediately know the poseurs. His self-inflicted handicaps in displaying any semblance of decency, diplomacy, and discretion are apparent for anyone willing to see.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

Maybe, but his handicap in golf is a helluva lower than Obama's.

Sure if you subtract all the shots into the weeds. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.2.6  1stwarrior  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.5    2 weeks ago

Nothing wrong with weeds - helping the grounds keeper.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Why are Democrats engaged in a neo-con revival?  The intelligence agencies and military are 'leaking' their concerns about Ukraine and Russia.  Yet no one has made the case for Ukraine being pivotal to the national security of the United States.  However, the intelligence agencies and military are expending a lot of political capital to protect their relationship with Ukraine.  Why?

The neo-cons are engaged in gaslighting the public again.  The attempt made by intelligence agencies to take down Trump with allegations of conspiracy with Russia failed.  Now the intelligence agencies and military are directly involved in overt activities to manipulate political Washington into accepting the importance of Ukraine for the national security of the United States.  Why?

The big unanswered question if 'why'?  The intelligence agencies and military are showing greater concern over Russia than over foreign terrorism, Chinese economic domination, or destabilization of Europe.  Why?

The intelligence agencies engage in investigation of citizens of other countries all the time.  That was a core activity of the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  And Mueller's investigation utilized intelligence obtained from foreign governments.  The claimed concern by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are disingenuous.  Surely Vindman is aware that the United States frequently seeks intelligence from foreign governments concerning people living in the United States.  Attempting to obtain intelligence from foreign governments concerning US residents and citizens is just business as usual.

Would there have been such overt public concern by the intelligence agencies and military if Trump had sought an investigation of Tony Podesta's activities in Ukraine (or, even, the activities of Paul Manafort in Ukraine)?  The apparent concern centers around the involvement of Joe Biden following a policy towards Ukraine that was obviously built upon manipulation by the intelligence agencies.  Biden actually did more than Trump and Biden has publicly boasted about it.  Are we to believe that Biden was anything other than a tool used by the intelligence agencies?

The intelligence agencies appear to be very concerned about changing the relationship with Ukraine.  Why?

 
 
 
It Is ME
7  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen"

Hahahahahaha ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Who the Heck "Doesn't" have some "Concern" about one politician or another.

Maybe he (The Real #I'LLWhistleblowanyone?) shoulda said …….. "I knew it was against the law" …… instead ?

That woulda made him (The real #I'llWhistleblowanyone?), more relevant, at the "Most" !

" CONCERN " ?

Are you fucking kidding me ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @7    2 weeks ago
Maybe he (The Real #I'LLWhistleblowanyone?) shoulda said …….. "I knew it was against the law" …… instead ?

Because he isn't a lawyer? 

Are you fucking kidding me? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @7.1    2 weeks ago
Because he isn't a lawyer? 

At least he was able to think he was …… "CONCERNED". jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Has he ALWAYS been so ……. so ……. "wishywashy"...…. as a "Lieutenant Colonel" in the Military? jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
At least he was able to think he was …… "CONCERNED".

So, you know what he was thinking? Do tell, how do you know what he was thinking? 

Has he ALWAYS been so ……. so ……. "wishywashy"...…. as a "Lieutenant Colonel" in the Military?

At least he served, unlike your coward messiah with the bone spurs!!! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.2    2 weeks ago
So, you know what he was thinking?

The "Reporting" says it all....doesn't it ?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Telo
Kathleen
FLYNAVY1


30 visitors