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?
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.
Wise choice to leave, albeit a little late.
Good timing! "Anonymous" has a book coming out...
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.
WTF?
Yes, I agree that Trump is a Russian asset.
Boom shaka-laka!
[Deleted]
lol. I hope this strand of nonsense is not the pinnacle of your abilities.
That is the most cogent defense of Trump posted today. /s
Out fucking standing!
This is a "being deported by Trump" costume.
Now that's clever!
That's in a court of law. Trump hasn't reached that point yet.
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...
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.
That's going to keep me up at night MUVA. /s
Again, you obviously don't 'got it' and the fact that you posted a strawman proves it.
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?
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.
Actually, Trump's is much more partisan. 31 Democrats voted to open an Impeachment Inquiry against Clinton in 1998
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.
Exactly. This will be the most partisan impeachment ever. Thanks for making that explicit.
Yes 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.
[deleted]
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?
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.
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.
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.
Please do not endeavor to pretend that you have the slightest clue about what I would do.
How can you tone down not caring?
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.
Please cite the number of the Resolution that includes an Article of Impeachment against Obama for murder.
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
I guess I should have included a sarcasm note.
Really? Then who were you referring to when you asked the question?
Then I'm wrong.
I admit I pulled that one from my nether regions
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."
What the fuck?
thank-you
Trout is the source for that QUESTION.
I don't need to read anything again.
I asked you two relevant questions. Answer, don't answer but FFS, STOP boring me.
You didn't ASK her for anything. You EXCLAIMED and STATED.
Does THIS help?
Am I to answer your question based on your machinations?
Do you have a citation or NOT?
Which connects to THIS TOPIC how exactly?
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.
You've got nothing. Got ya.
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.
Sure I did what?
Why would I continue to answer YOUR questions when you refuse to answer mine?
Oh BTFW, I thought you didn't have time?
Do you think that pretending to speak for others besides yourself makes you more important?
Deflection.
What he meant was..................
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
always cracks me up when brainless boneheads claim that due process is valid outside the boundaries of the US and it's territories.
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.
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?
I'm right here.
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.
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.
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'.
Sure it was loki.
Sure it is loki. No one would believe that the founders had any opinion on the meaning of 'high crimes' in the Constitution.
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.
I was prescient:
You proved my point spectacularly.
Proof of WHAT?
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:
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Maybe ask Morrison?
did you miss the part where he said there was nothing improper?
That's exactly what the House Intelligence Committee did.
Yes, and he said nothing improper occurred.
Do you get how that answers John's question? Or do you need pictures?
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?
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.
His ellipses-ridden transcript was 'perfect' he said (ad nauseam).
Which is proper thanks to Republican rule changes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would put mine on, but it is now 6 sizes too big. Thank you for your service and MUVA also.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you for admitting that Trump and the rest of the GOP are utterly partisan.
What 3 GOP Senators will vote to impeach?
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.
It isn't just about the 'conversation'.
Save the dry cleaning bill. They don't care about opinions, they are looking for facts. Something the right has no use for.
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.
I suggest that you review the UCMJ before you do so.
I suggest that you review the UCMJ before you do so.
Actually, testimony as to what transpired is supposed to be TRUTHFUL. It will ALWAYS be based on the perspective of the witness.
And you, as well.
When one of Trump's supporters acknowledges his wrong doing, Trump has to know he is so busted.
"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.
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!
Ah, that explains it. I had been wondering what Biden was being accused of, now you've made the Republican position abundantly clear... /s
LOL. Still scratching my head over that 'splanation.
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.
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...
I love me some there news.
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.
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.
10 clear counts spelled out in the Mueller report.
Doublethink.
All pigs are equal but Trumpigs are more equal!
"he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal "
That's all that really matters ....... to NORMAL FOLKS !
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.
Democrat United States President Obama to Russian President ....."Give me some rope" before you respond !
"No Missiles for U.S. Allies" !
That was GREAT !
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.
You shouldn't "ASSUME". [Deleted]
The Article.....is about what "The Adam Schiff" required Witness Tim Morrison, actually said !
[Deleted]
Locking this seed until Perrie can review.
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.