Pro Trump NSC official Testifies there was quid pro quo

  
By:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  179 comments

Pro Trump NSC official Testifies there was quid pro quo

Tim Morrison, a conservative White House official with no ax to grind against Trump, has verified the version of events given last week by Ambassador William Taylor, a US diplomat to Ukraine who says there was a scheme afoot by Americans , working for Trump's interests, to withhold aid to Ukraine until the Ukrainian  government  agreed to publicly announce an investigation of Joe Biden. 

Where is any evidence that Trump is innocent? 


Tags

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

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/10/31/former-white-house-adviser-backs-up-diplomats-account-of-trumps-ukraine-demands/

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council, on Thursday corroborated the testimony of a senior U.S. diplomat who last week offered House impeachment investigators the most detailed account to date for how Trump tried to use his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, according to people familiar with his deposition. Morrison told impeachment investigators that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate. He said that he alerted Taylor to a push by Trump and his deputies to withhold both security aid and a White House visit for the Ukrainian president until Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens and interference in the 2016 presidential election, said one person, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
Morrison, who told colleagues Wednesday that he plans to leave the Trump administration, said he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic for U.S. policy in supporting an ally in the region.
 
 
 
lady in black
1.1  lady in black  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Now comes the condemnation of Tim Morrison for telling THE TRUTH

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  lady in black @1.1    2 weeks ago

Now comes the condemnation of Tim Morrison for telling THE TRUTH

They'll just label him a RINO.  It's happened before, it will happen again.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
Morrison, who told colleagues Wednesday that he plans to leave the Trump administration, said he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic for U.S. policy in supporting an ally in the region.

Wise choice to leave, albeit a little late.  

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.1  JBB  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2    2 weeks ago

Good timing! "Anonymous" has a book coming out...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
corroborated the testimony

Did he say "I heard the President say investigate Joe Biden to help me win the 2020 Election" did he hear the President say "I will withhold $4000 million unless you investigate Joe Biden".  Has anyone said they heard these statements?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.1  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3    2 weeks ago

Do you have these questions after your extensive review of the evidence or did you just pull them out of you nether regions? 

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.2  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

So you have nothing as usual, did he say fire the investigators or no money for you? Like Gropy joe? High crimes and misdemeanors is the standard, did you see where he said nothing illegal happened? 

Im sure the retarded left had him this time, not like those 50 other times. 

Also, Dear Mr. Kotter,

My son didn’t commit suicide.

signed,

Epsteins’ Mother.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.3  It Is ME  replied to  loki12 @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
did he say fire the investigators or no money for you?

Apparently....he should have. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  loki12 @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

Did you say gropy Joe?

wait for it.....

wait.....

384

 
 
 
JBB
1.3.5  JBB  replied to  loki12 @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

If nothing is adding up for you then subtract yourself and any partisan notions from the equation to come up with correct answers...

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.6  loki12  replied to  JBB @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

Physician heal thyself. Show me the crime, not like those 50 other crimes the left bleated endlessly about, that turned out to be partisan bullshit. The crime that you really, really, really have this time. And Epstein didn’t kill himself.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.7  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

Math has been deemed racist and oppressive by the left education think tank. Good News, it's getting easier and woke.

https://reason.com/2019/10/22/seattle-math-oppressive-cultural-woke/

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.8  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
So you have nothing as usual, did he say fire the investigators or no money for you? Like Gropy joe?

It amazes me just how many conservatives here are gaslighted. 

High crimes and misdemeanors is the standard, did you see where he said nothing illegal happened? 

Yes, that's his opinion and as a lawyer he should know that Impeachment doesn't require anything 'illegal' to occur. 

Im sure the retarded left had him this time, not like those 50 other times. 

Also, Dear Mr. Kotter,

My son didn’t commit suicide.

signed,

Epsteins’ Mother.

WTF are you blathering about? 

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.9  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.3.8    2 weeks ago

So you have no sense of humor, noted, hey, did you ever figure out how wrong you were on the betreaus bullshit you tried to float like a turd in the punch bowl?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.10  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.3.9    2 weeks ago

Do you or your cheerleaders have anything other than deflections? 

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.11  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.3.10    2 weeks ago

Still offering nothing, do you know what high crimes and misdemeanors are? You know the grounds laid out in the constitution for impeachment.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.12  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.3.11    2 weeks ago
Still offering nothing, do you know what high crimes and misdemeanors are? You know the grounds laid out in the constitution for impeachment.

Why yes, YES I do. 

Why don't you share your knowledge about what the founders meant by 'high crimes' loki.

I'm sure that your review of the Federalist Papers and the debates of the Constitutional convention will be revelatory. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.13  Jack_TX  replied to  loki12 @1.3.11    2 weeks ago
Still offering nothing, do you know what high crimes and misdemeanors are? You know the grounds laid out in the constitution for impeachment.

Good luck with this.  Dulay really, really, really wants Trump impeached and is firmly committed to pretending the Constitution means something other than what it says in order to justify that.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.14  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.13    2 weeks ago

Oh you're back again. Still can't prove that an Article of Impeachment MUST include a crime I see. 

Now you've got a buddy that bails on 'illuminating' me with the vast knowledge you pretend to have. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.15  loki12  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.13    2 weeks ago

It’s hysterical, claim you said something you never said, demand proof, and then spike the football because they beat themselves in an argument that never happened. That’s pathetic, but expected.

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.16  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.3.14    2 weeks ago

Betrayus? Talk about bailing!

prove it doesn’t require a crime! Go!

 
 
 
loki12
1.3.17  loki12  replied to  Jack_TX @1.3.13    2 weeks ago

I’m absolutely certain that some liberal fucktard who hates trump said High crimes and misdemeanors doesn’t mean what is says and high crimes means because he beat the senile bitch Hillary, just wait, either AP or CNN found a “legal Scholar” who said something that ignorant.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  loki12 @1.3.16    2 weeks ago

Yes that’s true there is an interpretation that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily require an actual crime so basically if someone is a douche bag like obummer you could make a case for his impeachment.

That would be my interpretation however and really comes down to politicizing the matter and how far you want to go with it and that’s the the basis for the lunacy exhibited by the Democrats

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.19  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.3.16    2 weeks ago
Betrayus? Talk about bailing!

Chip.

prove it doesn’t require a crime! Go!

I already HAVE, multiple times.

YOU made the assertion, you have the burden of proof. GO!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.20  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.3.18    2 weeks ago
That would be my interpretation however and really comes down to politicizing the matter and how far you want to go with it and that’s the the basis for the lunacy exhibited by the Democrats

I suggest that you read Federalist 65 and see if Hamilton can alter your interpretation.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3.22  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    one week ago

There is no evidence........ that's why I made up the question.  Now if he has said in a public form that he was withholding funds until someone was fired maybe I would agree with you.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.23  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3.22    one week ago
There is no evidence........ that's why I made up the question. 

So you haven't review anything and just pulled that out of your nether regions. Got ya. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3.24  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.3.23    one week ago
So you haven't review anything and just pulled that out of your nether regions

The transcript of the call. Tell me what "Evidence" you have reviewed other than anonymous sources.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.25  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3.24    one week ago
The transcript of the call. Tell me what "Evidence" you have reviewed other than anonymous sources.

You can't be talking about the TELCOM summary of the call because it CLEARLY states it is NOT a transcript. 

Besides the summary, I have read ALL of the opening statements from the witnesses, the text messages, the two TRANSCRIPTS of the witnesses that were released yesterday [I spent the morning doing so], the Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification in multiple states, certain chapters of Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England", the basic rules of the House and Senate and the additional provisions on Impeachment, too many essays on the subject to list including the bullshit that Dershowitz wrote. 

I invite you to follow suit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.26  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @1.3.25    one week ago

Oh I almost forgot, ALL 85 of the Federalist papers.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3.27  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.3.25    one week ago
witnesses that were released yesterday

So prior to that you where just relying on Rachel.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.28  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3.27    one week ago
So prior to that you where just relying on Rachel.

Do you think that supercilious bullshit impresses? 

How's the reading coming? Are you ready to talk about what Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" says about the meaning of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.29  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3.27    one week ago

You'll have to add Taylor's deposition to the list. Just finished those 324 pages. Chop chip goose. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3.30  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.3.29    6 days ago
Taylor made it clear in the deposition that his suspicions about a possible quid pro quo were based on information in an Aug. 28 news report in Politico, as well as a second-hand summary of a conversation that Sondland had on Sept. 1 with a top adviser to Zelensky.

That riveting testimony that was the equivalent overhearing something at Starbucks.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.31  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3.30    6 days ago
That riveting testimony that was the equivalent overhearing something at Starbucks.

Gee goose, I much prefer to reach my opinions by reading the evidence for myself but hey, if you'd rather reach yours by reading what others tell you to think, so be it. 

BTW, if you're going to quote someone verbatim you NEED to post a link. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2  jungkonservativ111    2 weeks ago

Where is any evidence that Trump is innocent? 

A window into the mind of liberals. If they were American, they would know that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. More proof of a Russian asset.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2    2 weeks ago
More proof of a Russian asset.

WTF?

Yes, I agree that Trump is a Russian asset.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1    2 weeks ago
Yes, I agree that Trump is a Russian asset.

 Boom shaka-laka! 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.1.2  jungkonservativ111  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

lol. I hope this strand of nonsense is not the pinnacle of your abilities. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.4  Dulay  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

That is the most cogent defense of Trump posted today. /s

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.5  lady in black  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1    2 weeks ago

74209841_1201978083336270_26300140324755

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

Out fucking standing!

This is a "being deported by Trump" costume.

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Now that's clever!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.8  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

that's cute as is this....

384

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

800

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

384384

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2    2 weeks ago
If they were American, they would know that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

That's in a court of law.  Trump hasn't reached that point yet.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2    2 weeks ago
That's in a court of law.

Predicted on your OPINION;

That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.

Source:  https://blog.lawinfo.com/2017/12/12/is-the-presumption-of-innocence-in-the-constitution/

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.2  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
Predicted on your OPINION;

Did you READ the rest of that 'essay'? The prefix and summary BOTH cite being accused of a CRIME and speak of the legal system. Impeachment isn't a "legal' process, it is a political process. 

After Trump is impeached, THEN the legal process starts...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.2    2 weeks ago
After Trump is impeached, THEN the legal process starts...

So, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS only come into play when one is either impeached or indicted.  Got it.

I don't know what fucking country you live in, but in America due process, while not specifically noted in the Constitution is considered fundamental to our freedom.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.4  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.3    2 weeks ago
So, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS only come into play when one is either impeached or indicted.  Got it.

You obviously don't 'got it'. 

It's due process of LAW, not due process of POLITICS. 

The right to due process lies within the JUDICIAL SYSTEM after you've been accused of a crime. PERIOD full stop. Hell, a Grand Jury investigation includes ZERO due process, NONE. 

 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.2.4    2 weeks ago

The trial in the senate will have due process then you will complain about the senate process and I will not care..

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.6  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.2.5    2 weeks ago

That's going to keep me up at night MUVA. /s

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.2.6    2 weeks ago

I'm sorry I will tone it down.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.4    2 weeks ago
It's due process of LAW, not due process of POLITICS.

So, per you the Democrats bullshit cry of protecting the Constitution is immaterial as they're simply playing politics.

Got it.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
So, per you the Democrats bullshit cry of protecting the Constitution is immaterial as they're simply playing politics. Got it.

Again, you obviously don't 'got it' and the fact that you posted a strawman proves it. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.2.10  bbl-1  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.8    2 weeks ago

Uh no.  If the impeachment proceedings are presented by the House the trial will be in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court.

If that happens then the prosecution and the defense will be obliged to present their witnesses for statements, evidence and cross examination.  All of this will be under oath.  All of this will be in public and most likely on the televisions in the World.

Most importantly, an impeachment is a Constitutional matter.  At this point I am unsure what your complaint is.  Unless you know the president through evidence, testimony and witnesses is unable to defend himself against the charges brought.

This too.  The president has the right, should he choose to exercise it, to testify under oath on his own behalf in the Senate trial.  Question is, will he, should he and how well can he present himself?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @2.2.10    2 weeks ago
fense will be obliged to present their witnesses for statements, evidence and cross examination.

The defense doesn't have to do anything and almost certainly won't.  There's almost zero chance of a removal at this point. As soon as the prosecution is done, they will ask for a vote and Trump will be acquitted with somewhere around 50 votes.

It's partisan all down the line, just like the Clinton impeachment.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.11    2 weeks ago

Actually, Trump's is much more partisan. 31 Democrats voted to open an Impeachment Inquiry against Clinton in 1998

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.11    2 weeks ago
There's almost zero chance of a removal at this point.

Correct.  Trump could shoot a person, in the street while in the middle of a video interview, and Republicans would still not remove him from office.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.12    2 weeks ago
Trump's is much more partisan

Exactly. This will be the most partisan impeachment ever. Thanks for making that explicit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.14    2 weeks ago
Exactly. This will be the most partisan impeachment ever.

Yes and it's the GOP who are making it the most partisan. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.14    2 weeks ago
This will be the most partisan impeachment ever.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.15    2 weeks ago
es and it's the GOP who are making it the most partisan

No, it the Democrats who are making it partisan  for pressing forward with an impeachment with zero bipartisan support.  They started the process with no bipartisan support, thus it's their fault.  If the Republicans had gone ahead and impeached Obama with no Democratic support, it would have been the Republicans fault it was partisan, not the Democrats. Even though you  would have blamed the Democrats for making the impeachment of Obama partisan. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.16    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.19  r.t..b...  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.17    2 weeks ago
If the Republicans had gone ahead and impeached Obama

...what?

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.20  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.13    2 weeks ago

And your point? Odickhead Obama murdered Americans without due process and you said shit, so excuse me if I don’t care about the lefts opinion of what trump might do, when the shithead left was silent when Odickhead was happily murdering Americans without due process.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.11    2 weeks ago
The defense doesn't have to do anything and almost certainly won't.

Trump can't STFU about the even a perceived slight.

Are you actually making the ridiculous posit that Trump will allow GOP Senators and his lawyers to idly stand by while the House Managers [prosecutors] lay out the evidence against him? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.22  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @2.2.20    2 weeks ago
Odickhead Obama

m3h5vw362ec11.jpg

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @2.2.20    2 weeks ago
Obama murdered Americans without due process and you said shit

If the person Trump shot on 5th Ave was a known Islamic terrorist, even if they were an American citizen, I'm pretty sure he would get away with it if not even called a hero by his followers.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.24  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.2.20    2 weeks ago
Odickhead

...as another partisan dinghy beaches itself on the shallows. Rudderless, captainless, and driven by the winds of inevitability. The fear aboardship is palpable. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.17    2 weeks ago
No, it the Democrats who are making it partisan  for pressing forward with an impeachment with zero bipartisan support.  They started the process with no bipartisan support, thus it's their fault.  

Nope. The WH DEMANDED the very process that the House passed yesterday yet not one of the Republican Congressman supported what the WH DEMANDED. 

Actually the Resolution passed by the Democrats give Trump MORE representation than the WH counsel DEMANDED in his letter. 

It's an example of the saying: Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. 

If the Republicans had gone ahead and impeached Obama with no Democratic support, it would have been the Republicans fault it was partisan, not the Democrats.

Other than the FACT that Obama never did anything worthy of Impeachment, the reason that the GOP couldn't Impeach Obama is that they were so divided. Most of the GOP just let the 'Freedom Caucus' howl at the moon. 

Even though you  would have blamed the Democrats for making the impeachment of Obama partisan.

Please do not endeavor to pretend that you have the slightest clue about what I would do. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.26  loki12  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.23    2 weeks ago

Holy fuck, never thought the left would sanction state sponsored murder, good thing you support the killing of that thug dickhead Michael Brown! Now all we need is an accusation. The left has completely forfeited the moral high ground.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.27  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.24    2 weeks ago

Awe....just returning the lefts bullshit we read daily, at least you had the decency to not try to defend Obama’s actions and put all your effort concentrating on the important part and not on the murdering of Americans.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.28  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.25    2 weeks ago

Murdering Americans is not worthy of impeachment?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.29  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.2.7    2 weeks ago

How can you tone down not caring? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @2.2.28    2 weeks ago
Murdering Americans is not worthy of impeachment?

I think when it's a known terrorist over seas working with other extremists to kill American soldiers and civilians and the options are: A. Send troops into harms way to attempt capture so we can try and convict a traitorous American terrorist; or B. Send targeted drone to attack known terrorist and terrorist allies without risking American soldier lives:, I can understand why some chose to go with option "B". Even though I don't completely agree with it, I understand why some in the Bush and then in the Obama administration felt using secret white house lawyer approved anti-terrorist tactics were necessary.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.31  loki12  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.30    2 weeks ago

In Yemen? Eating a sandwich?

lets start with the basics, who convicted him of terrorism? 

A known terrorist? Who told you that? What if trump decides X is a known terrorist? You good with droning when he decides it’s okay? If not, that is the definition of hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.32  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.28    2 weeks ago

Please cite the number of the Resolution that includes an Article of Impeachment against Obama for murder. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.30    2 weeks ago

I'm no lawyer but aren't American citizens who go join ISIS and other terrorist groups called "enemy combatants"?

And from what I understand enemy combatants can be summarily executed

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.34  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.2.29    2 weeks ago

I just don’t want you to lose sleep.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.35  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.32    2 weeks ago

Deflection fail, read it again.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.37  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.33    2 weeks ago

Show me a source for that! Where has constitutional rights been forfeited under law, FFS we try traitors in war time, even the Rosenbergs got a trial. Please post a source for that complete bullshit please.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.38  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.33    2 weeks ago

One other flaw in your logic, Obama, the President who killed Americans without due process stopped using Enemy combatant, so that won’t work either.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.39  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.2.34    2 weeks ago

I guess I should have included a sarcasm note. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.40  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.35    2 weeks ago

Really? Then who were you referring to when you asked the question? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.41  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.2.26    2 weeks ago
good thing you support the killing of that thug dickhead Michael Brown!

...time travelling into the 'way back' machine does not make a cogent argument for the entirely separate issue at hand. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.42  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @2.2.37    2 weeks ago

Then I'm wrong.

I admit I pulled that one from my nether regions

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.43  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.33    2 weeks ago
American citizens who go join ISIS and other terrorist groups called "enemy combatants"?

Both the Bush administration and Obama administration used top secret legal opinions to claim both the gathering of vast amounts of internet data, torture and extra-judicial drone killings were "legal", but they haven't really seen the light of day, though some details have been leaked by Snowden and others. Even the current Trump administration is using the same secret legal rulings as guidelines for their military actions and continued use of drones. In fact the current administration repealed an Obama era rule that required the administration to report the civilian drone deaths so now they are still happening, Trump just doesn't have to tell anyone about them.

"President Donald Trump has revoked a policy set by his predecessor requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.44  Tessylo  replied to  loki12 @2.2.26    2 weeks ago
'Holy fuck, never thought the left would sanction state sponsored murder, good thing you support the killing of that thug dickhead Michael Brown! Now all we need is an accusation. The left has completely forfeited the moral high ground.'

What the fuck?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.2.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.43    2 weeks ago

thank-you

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.46  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.40    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.47  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.37    2 weeks ago
Show me a source for that! 

Trout is the source for that QUESTION. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.48  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.41    2 weeks ago

Sigh...........It's called precedent, or are you trying to make the argument that some state sponsored killing is good and others are bad?   Or did Obama want to be the only one one to give thumbs up or thumbs down at the coliseum?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.49  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.46    2 weeks ago

I don't need to read anything again.

I asked you two relevant questions. Answer, don't answer but FFS, STOP boring me. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.50  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.47    2 weeks ago

I guess that's why I asked her.   You should quit now.jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.51  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.50    2 weeks ago
I guess that's why I asked her.   You should quit now.

You didn't ASK her for anything. You EXCLAIMED and STATED. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.52  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.49    2 weeks ago

I can't help it if you can't follow your own comments, Shit you are complaining about comments I asked trout as if it was you.  Maybe you are bored because you can't keep up?

I will do this just this once, lets see if you can follow shall we? 

you wrote this, 

Obama never did anything worthy of Impeachment, 

You do remember writing that, right?

My response was this,

Murdering Americans is not worthy of impeachment?

Does this help? or are you still lost? I never said there were articles of impeachment, but killing Americans is way worse than the bullshit the left has been pulling out of their ass to accuse trump of doing. And it is definitely worthy of impeachment. if trump had done it you would have lost your mind, and rightfully so!  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.53  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.52    2 weeks ago

Does THIS help? 

Please cite the number of the Resolution that includes an Article of Impeachment against Obama for murder. 

Am I to answer your question based on your machinations? 

Do you have a citation or NOT?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.54  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.48    2 weeks ago
Sigh...........It's called precedent

Which connects to THIS TOPIC how exactly? 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.55  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.53    2 weeks ago
Do you have a citation or NOT?

For something i never claimed happened? Seriously, now i'm no longer bored just amused. Try harder!

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.56  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.54    2 weeks ago

I don't have the time to explain everything to you, you can't even follow the conversations that you are allegedly a part of. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.57  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.55    2 weeks ago
For something i never claimed happened? Seriously, now i'm no longer bored just amused. Try harder!

You asked me whether it was an Impeachable offense.

Rather than just accept your innuendo, I asked for a citation of the offense to make an evaluation in context to Impeachment. 

That's how this shit works. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.58  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.56    2 weeks ago

You've got nothing. Got ya. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.59  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.57    2 weeks ago

Sigh.....sure you did. So are you claiming that Obama didn’t order the execution of Americans? 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.60  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.58    2 weeks ago

We will accept your expert opinion on having nothing.

betrayus? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.61  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @2.2.52    2 weeks ago
And it is definitely worthy of impeachment. if trump had done it you would have lost your mind, and rightfully so!  

Nope. This is your hangup and one which I would venture to say, not too many Americans give a damn about. 

Americans who go off to join the terrorists and are killed overseas  in any of the SHole ME countries get no sympathy from

me, and in fact Trump made his case very clear by revoking Muthansan's (sic) US passport for joining ISIS. 

The UK & Danes have done the same.

As long as we are at war with ISIS, Al Queda, et.al., the deaths of American jihadists at the direction of the

Commander in Chief will never be a war crime or impeachable.

I encourage Mr Trump to go kill as many as possible because we don't want them coming back here at all.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.62  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.59    2 weeks ago
Sigh.....sure you did.

Sure I did what? 

So are you claiming that Obama didn’t order the execution of Americans? 

Why would I continue to answer YOUR questions when you refuse to answer mine? 

Oh BTFW, I thought you didn't have time? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.63  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.60    2 weeks ago
We will accept your expert opinion on having nothing.

Do you think that pretending to speak for others besides yourself makes you more important? 


betrayus? 

Deflection. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.64  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.2.62    2 weeks ago
Oh BTFW, I thought you didn't have time?

What he meant was..................

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.65  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.64    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2.66  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.61    2 weeks ago

always cracks me up when brainless boneheads claim that due process is valid outside the boundaries of the US and it's territories.

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.67  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.61    2 weeks ago

Schitt is now terrorist. Boom

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.68  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.62    2 weeks ago

What question? The link to something that doesn’t exist?

is murder an impeachable offense? Amazing how some on the left are to cowardly to answer. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.69  loki12  replied to  devangelical @2.2.66    2 weeks ago

It is to US citizens being murdered by the US government

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2.70  devangelical  replied to  loki12 @2.2.69    2 weeks ago

no, but if she joins a terrorist organization in the ME and happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, all bets are off.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.71  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.68    2 weeks ago
What question? The link to something that doesn’t exist?

Well thanks for finally admitting it. So NO Resolution has ever included a charge of murder against Obama. Yet you insist he committed murder. Why? 

BTFW, IF a POTUS committed murder while in office, IMHO, it would be Impeachable. 

Now how about an answer to my question about your precedent comment. 

Oh and the one on the meaning of 'high crimes" too? 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.72  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.71    2 weeks ago

How about something besides a disappearing act? Betrayus? When was it first used again?

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.73  loki12  replied to  devangelical @2.2.70    2 weeks ago

You do realize who decides who is a terrorist organization and who isn’t?  So you think the state should be able to execute it’s citizens, not in self defense, not as a result of a arrest. But just kill them, as long as they are outside of our borders?  

This wasn’t collateral damage, he fucking targeted him. PERIOD! 

Now when he murdered his 15 year old son while he was sitting eating a sandwich in a deli. That was an “accident”. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.74  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.71    2 weeks ago

Admitting what? Your bullshit claim to something I never said?  FFS really? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.75  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.72    2 weeks ago
How about something besides a disappearing act?

I'm right here. 

Betrayus? When was it first used again?

No answers, more deflection. Every time you dredge up old shit to deflect from you ability to be cogent, it merely chips away at what little credibility you retain. 

You've had a couple of hours to formulate your answer. Do you know what the founders meant by 'high crimes' yet? Enlighten me. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.76  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.75    2 weeks ago

Crimes greater than a misdemeanor? Let me guess, you have a low functioning liberal douchebag who has a different opinion, which is nothing but an opinion.

but since it fits your need to impeach you are backing the douchebag.

trumps here until Jan 2021 minimum, sooner or later even the most dense will figure that out.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.77  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.76    2 weeks ago
Crimes greater than a misdemeanor?

Why the question mark loki? You've had hours to invest some time to do some research and make a cogent comment yet THAT'S what you come up with. It's pretty fucking sad but not a surprise. 

Let me guess, you have a low functioning liberal douchebag who has a different opinion, which is nothing but an opinion.
but since it fits your need to impeach you are backing the douchebag.

The 'low functioning liberal douchebags' whose opinions I rely on include Alexander Hamilton's, Benjamin Franklin's, James Madison's and George Mason's.

That's just for starters. Remember that concept of precedent that you don't understand? The precedent of prior Articles of Impeachment that have been passed by the House Judiciary committee and in many cases affirmed by the whole House PROVE that Articles of Impeachment do NOT have to include CRIMES. 

Now, if you gave a fuck about the actual history of this issue, you'd STOP posting snarky bullshit and go get educated about it. 

Yet I have little doubt that instead, your reply will be something compelling like 'nu uh'. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.78  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.77    2 weeks ago

The question mark was to allow you to hang yourself on bullshit! You did spectacularly!  Your post is complete bullshit and you show how clueless you are in precedent! Zero chance trump is removed and zero chance a retarded liberal douchebag democrat is elected, another failure post on your part! Betrayus!

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.79  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.77    2 weeks ago

And yet you have posted nothing to support your bullshit opinion, Hamilton said so? Then fucking site where he claimed a high crime wasn’t a crime! Go!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.80  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.78    2 weeks ago
The question mark was to allow you to hang yourself on bullshit!

Sure it was loki. 

You did spectacularly! Your post is complete bullshit and you show how clueless you are in precedent!

Sure it is loki. No one would believe that the founders had any opinion on the meaning of 'high crimes' in the Constitution. 

Zero chance trump is removed and zero chance a retarded liberal douchebag democrat is elected, another failure post on your part! Betrayus!

Rant and deflect all you want. You have ZERO knowledge about this Constitution issue and you should stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to hammer that home. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.81  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.80    2 weeks ago

And still you offer zero proof, another failure. High crimes, key word crime!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.82  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.79    2 weeks ago
And yet you have posted nothing to support your bullshit opinion, Hamilton said so? Then fucking site where he claimed a high crime wasn’t a crime! Go!

I was prescient:

Now, if you gave a fuck about the actual history of this issue, you'd STOP posting snarky bullshit and go get educated about it.  Yet I have little doubt that instead, your reply will be something compelling like 'nu uh'. 

You proved my point spectacularly. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.83  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.82    2 weeks ago

Still nothing but bullshit, Hamilton never said it! Failure!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.84  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @2.2.81    2 weeks ago
And still you offer zero proof, another failure.

Proof of WHAT? 

High crimes, key word crime!

But you asked me if I know what it MEANS and I said yes and asked you to share your vast knowledge about it and all you've is ask another question:

Crimes greater than a misdemeanor?

After hours, you STILL can't say what it means to the modern Congress or what it meant to the founders. 

I have no burden to hold your hand and act as your tutor. 

If you were actually curious about the topic, I'd accommodate you, as I have many other members who were sincere. Since you've proven that you aren't, I choose not to waste my time. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.85  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.84    2 weeks ago

Still failing and flaying away I see, prove a crime isn’t necessary. And not some liberal douchebags opinion!

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.86  loki12  replied to  Dulay @2.2.84    2 weeks ago

You have proven yourself not able to tutor me! [Deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.2.87  bbl-1  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.11    2 weeks ago

"The defense doesn't have to do anything and most certainly won't."  ? ? ?

Wow.  A defense that won't provide exculpatory evidence or witnesses on behalf of their client?  Yeah.  That usually works out well.  Laugh Out Loud with a snort of Windsor Canadian through the nose.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.88  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @2.2.67    2 weeks ago

Trump is now a terrorist in Yemen.  Boom.

Anwar al-Awlaki met all of the criteria for the CIA and military Kill Lists,  taken out by a drone strike authorized by Obama.

Anwar's son  was taken out as collateral damage in an unrelated drone strike a year later during the Obama Administration.

January 30, 2017 president Donald Trump gives the OK for a raid into Yemen to capture prisoners and computer intel which was originally described as "perfect", a resounding success.

Turns out that Anwars's 8 year old daughter was among the 30 civilian casualties that day.

So, boom to you too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA32CsL-7dHqb78lY3c69XcRLUoReS3iO2EaaW9RRDhR_fKT5XsRDovlVyN1tAKq9D1ZBjKXRNBg4ZuRvuWjdoAeiyQ0ZlVyHE4xluH98JIc0VW18lA0zVdXxt2Qjr1AFUR6w91hi7AHHMN-_kxiXHt2qSNJb2GwWqX4G_Y4efwi

This (Trump) administration has not only surpassed the previous one’s drone strike volume overseas, it has made the drone wars even more secretive, if that’s possible.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-admin-ups-drone-strikes-tolerates-more-civilian-deaths-n733336

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2    2 weeks ago
A window into the mind of liberals. If they were American, they would know that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. More proof of a Russian asset.

Meh...but in 2019 America, people are presumed innocent as long as they are in your political tribe, while those in the opposite tribe are presumed guilty as fuck from the minute they're born.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Maybe ask Morrison?

did you miss the part where he said there was nothing improper?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago
Maybe ask Morrison?

That's exactly what the House Intelligence Committee did.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, and he said nothing improper occurred. 

Do you get how that answers John's question? Or do you need pictures?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.1.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
NSC official Tim Morrison told impeachment investigators today that Gordon Sondland told an aide to the Ukrainian president that U.S. aid would be released if Ukraine committed to investigating Burisma Group, corroborating Bill Taylor’s testimony.

@ rebeccaballhaus

@ WSJ White House reporter
 
 
 
JBB
3.1.3  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

No, that is not true! What Morrison actually said was that he was not qualified to determine if what Trump had done was illegal butt that he knew it was so "problematic" he was "honor bound" to discuss it with The White House Council's Office to let them determine if what was said was illegal. Subsequently The White House Council's Office had the call classified as Top Secret to try and keep the call's contents secret to protect Trump and thereby obstructed justice. Why do you mislead people?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago

All the more proof he has no bias against Trump. 

All Morrison did was look at it from the perspective of relations with Ukraine. If he looked at it from the perspective of Biden or the DNC he would have had a different opinion. 

The fact is he seems to have verified that something happened that Trump has been endlessly bleating didnt happen. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
3.2.1  cobaltblue  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 weeks ago
Trump has been endlessly bleating didnt happen

His ellipses-ridden transcript was 'perfect' he said (ad nauseam). 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 weeks ago
would have had a different opinion.

Ah....   the operative and universal word oh so common among the Never Trump and Trump haters of America....   OPINION.

Essentially everything any have purportedly 'testified' to, behind closed doors, per several of the Republicans present in that inquisition chamber has been OPINION.  And now, even the NT Trump hater-in-chief JohnRussele apparently has acknowledged that with his very own post.

THANKS!!!!!!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
Essentially everything any have purportedly 'testified' to, behind closed doors

Which is proper thanks to Republican rule changes.  

per several of the Republicans present in that inquisition chamber has been OPINION.

That's because it is "testimony", which by its very nature is somebody's "opinion" of what went on.  If you want facts, tell Trump to release the actual phone transcript.

And now, even the NT Trump hater-in-chief JohnRussele apparently has acknowledged that with his very own post.

Every comment post ever posted is an "opinion", including yours.  So if you are going to berate JR for stating his opinion, you must also berate yourself for stating yours.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    2 weeks ago

You know what perspective he was using? Can you show that in the transcript?  

You know Trump is going to use the Clinton "so what" defense, and pretty much every Republican will vote the same.  This is the Clinton impeachment redux.  Impeachment along partisan lines, and about 50 votes in the Senate (along partisan lines) for removal. 

When experts who were on the call said nothing improper happened, it makes removal impossible.  20 Republican Senators aren't going to vote for his removal over this conversation. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
That's because it is "testimony", which by its very nature is somebody's "opinion" of what went on.

Testimony as to what transpired is supposed to be FACTUAL...   not bullshit opinions.

I can posit the opinion that many on the left are intelligent.  Simply because I said it, does not in fact make it correct.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.6  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

I going to put my uniform on and make my opinion known this impeachment is bullshit.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.7  bugsy  replied to  MUVA @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

Me too. And liberals better damn well believe me because I am a member of the Armed Forces. I can never lie, especially when I speak to their narrative.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bugsy @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

I would put mine on, but it is now 6 sizes too big.  Thank you for your service and MUVA also.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.2.9  bbl-1  replied to  cobaltblue @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

And allegedly, Trump wants to read the transcript, televised, in a 'fire side chat' setting.

This is interesting.  Teleprompter better be well oiled, ya think?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
Testimony as to what transpired is supposed to be FACTUAL...

Testimony is their opinion as to what happened.  Interview 5 witnesses to a crime and you will get 5 different testimonies as to what happened, they're not trying to deceive, they just see things slightly different.

Again, if you want "facts", get the real transcript out of Trump's secure server.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
You know what perspective he was using? Can you show that in the transcript?  

Have you read Morrison's opening statement? If not, go review it and if you still can't find it come back and I will hold your hand through it. 

You know Trump is going to use the Clinton "so what" defense, and pretty much every Republican will vote the same.  

Thank  you for admitting that Trump and the rest of the GOP are utterly partisan. 

This is the Clinton impeachment redux.  Impeachment along partisan lines, and about 50 votes in the Senate (along partisan lines) for removal. 

What 3 GOP Senators will vote to impeach? 

When experts who were on the call said nothing improper happened, it makes removal impossible.  

Morrison's expertise is in pushing Nuclear expansion, which doesn't give him one iota of insight on what is and isn't 'improper', especially in abuse of power and election law.

20 Republican Senators aren't going to vote for his removal over this conversation. 

It isn't just about the 'conversation'.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.2.12  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

Save the dry cleaning bill.  They don't care about opinions, they are looking for facts.  Something the right has no use for.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.2.13  FLYNAVY1  replied to  bugsy @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

Again, don't bother...... I'll just send them a list of your posts here on NT, and they'll know that you're an unreliable source.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.14  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

I suggest that you review the UCMJ before you do so. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.15  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

I suggest that you review the UCMJ before you do so.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.16  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
Testimony as to what transpired is supposed to be FACTUAL...   not bullshit opinions.

Actually, testimony as to what transpired is supposed to be TRUTHFUL. It will ALWAYS be based on the perspective of the witness. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.2.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.2.8    2 weeks ago
Thank you for your service and MUVA also.

And you, as well.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

When one of Trump's supporters acknowledges his wrong doing, Trump has to know he is so busted.

 
 
 
arkpdx
5  arkpdx    2 weeks ago

"There Was Quid Pro Quo"

I think he was talking about when a certain vice president made the ending the investigation if his son and the during if a prosecutor  condition of getting aid. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1  Ronin2  replied to  arkpdx @5    2 weeks ago

But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!

That is the response to everything from the left.

They are ignoring that Biden boasted about it, and even claimed that Obama "backed him fully". Biden admits it and the left ignores it!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  arkpdx @5    2 weeks ago
made the ending the investigation if his son and the during if a prosecutor  condition of getting aid. 

Ah, that explains it. I had been wondering what Biden was being accused of, now you've made the Republican position abundantly clear... /s

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.2    2 weeks ago

LOL.  Still scratching my head over that 'splanation.  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.2    2 weeks ago

The list of gaslighted conservatives here grows every day.

I'm not counting the ones that I think know better, they go on the accessories list.  

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.3  JBB  replied to  Dulay @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

Willful ignorance surely abounds around here...

I am with you though. Those who know better and are still willfully spreading lies into the face of truth thus knowingly misleading their fellow Americans must eventually be exposed, shamed and condemned. It can't happen soon enough...

 
 
 
loki12
5.2.4  loki12  replied to  JBB @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
Willful ignorance abounds around here...

Don't be so hard on your fellow democrats, they seem to get there news from MSNBC, remember when trump didn't pay taxes, well except for the 38 million she somehow missed when she lied to you.

Or when the tTimes lied about the 17 intelligence agnecies,

Or Russian Collusion, 

Or Obstruction,

Or emoluments,

Maybe it is willful ignorance, the rest of us have figured out it's all bullshit, the rest will catch up. if they ever figure out the popular vote means nothing that is.  Some dumbasses keep saying Hillary won. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  loki12 @5.2.4    2 weeks ago
they seem to get there news from MSNBC

I love me some there news.

Or when the tTimes lied about the 17 intelligence agnecies,

All US intelligence agencies, whether 7 or 17 agreed that it was Russia who hacked US email servers and used social media to try and manipulate Americans voters in the 2016 election.

Or Russian Collusion, 

The only thing not proven was "criminal conspiracy" which is a high bar. Did Trump tell Russia that if he was President he would drop sanctions? Yes. Did Russia believe him and decide to help Trump get elected using illegal and illicit means? Yes.

Or Obstruction,

10 clear counts spelled out in the Mueller report.

Or emoluments

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-facing-emoluments-lawsuits-heres/story?id=65217053

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/politics/trump-emoluments-lawsuit.html

 
 
 
Dulay
5.3  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @5    2 weeks ago

Doublethink.

 
 
 
JBB
5.3.1  JBB  replied to  Dulay @5.3    2 weeks ago

All pigs are equal but Trumpigs are more equal!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

"he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal "

That's all that really matters ....... to NORMAL FOLKS ! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Ender
6.1  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @6    2 weeks ago

Yep. Now the next Dem president can extort other countries as well.

Hell all politicians can do it. Next we can block all visas and travel to and from a country until they investigate a political rival.

Close the borders crossings with Mexico until they start going after rivals.

Stop selling weapons to Israel until the go after some rivals.

With some of the middle eastern countries all we have to do is threaten to go after them as terrorists, or maybe simply let them get away with killing journalists.

It is all legal and on the level.

Of course the most simple of actions is to purge voters rolls and sit back and let China, Russia and Iran use their cyber warfare.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @6.1    2 weeks ago
Yep. Now the next Dem president can extort other countries as well.

Democrat United States President Obama to Russian President ....."Give me some rope" before you respond ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

"No Missiles for U.S. Allies" ! 

That was GREAT ! jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.2  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @6    2 weeks ago
"he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal "

I can only assume the "he" you are speaking of is either a Constitution scholar or head justice of the Supreme Court.  Otherwise, what "he" thinks is meaningless.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @6.2    2 weeks ago
I can only assume

You shouldn't "ASSUME". [Deleted]

The Article.....is about what "The Adam Schiff" required Witness Tim Morrison, actually said !

 
 
 
arkpdx
6.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

Locking this seed until Perrie can review.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8    2 weeks ago

I have reviewed the article and both Dualy and Loki are to not engage with each other since the discussion seems to have become personal in nature. Any further engagement between you both will result in a 2 point violation. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

gooseisgone
Ender
Tacos!
GaJenn78
CB
Dean Moriarty
bugsy
loki12
JohnRussell
Dulay




46 visitors