if all that is true, and that’s still
an if, where is the crime?

Again, there is
no evidence that it’s true, except hearsay and presumption. As of
now, that’s all there is. The only direct testimony has come
from two guys on the call, and one who had a subsequent conversation with Trump, all denying any direction of a quid pro quo.

if that’s where the bar is set for proving something, will
you keep the bar that low
when the IG report and
the Durham reports come
out about DOJ abuse during the obama administration? will you be his easily persuaded by accusations no evidence? we shall see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to pay attention...there was a meeting, aid and movement without trump getting a public statement on investigation

what evidence are we denying? who “confirmed” anything?

two guys on the call, said the aid wasn’t contingent on an investigation.

Yesterday, we heard from a guy who trump specifically told he didn’t want a quid pro quo.

all claims trump directed the quid pro quo, are hearsay and presumption. that is fact.

as i said, if i had to bet, i’d bet trump did it. but do we overturn a fair presidential election based on jersey and presumption? and again, even if he did it, biden did the same thing. no one cared. biden bragged about it on tv. why is it so awful for the executive branch to use leverage to get a foreign power to discover the truth about what americans might be doing there?

you guys are very dedicated to get facts related to trumps corruption, but have zero interest in finding out the truth about what biden may have done. if that’s not based on partisanship, what is it?

he’ll probably be impeached in the house, no way he gets convicted in the senate. it may hurt his chances of re election, it may be a big boost. for sure it’s helping his fund raising.

republican questions show desperation? ok. it’s an act of desperation to ask, “what evidence do you have, that the alleged act ever took place?”.

if say that’s a fair, obvious question. one that democrats are avoiding asking. why do you suppose that is?

“ a failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.”

To incarcerate the robber, you need
a whole lot more than someone saying, that he heard from someone else, that the suspect robbed the bank.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers and certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally and NOT when the end game is interference in our elections, that is what this is about. If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels, but in true Trump fashion, he knows better and of course he eats conspiracy theories for breakfast.

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats are just like the woman screaming at the white cat

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i keep saying there’s no direct evidence, because there is none.

and if what trump allegedly did is bribery, why isn’t biden also accused of bribery?

the shoe bomber was caught with the bomb in his shoe. he wasn’t convicted because someone testified that they overheard someone else say he was a shoe bomber.

Is that going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there’s also that...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floridaman said it in the memo and admitted it in public
Mulvaney admitted it in public
Colludy texted it and said it in an interview
Floridaman exhibited it in his call to Sondland by saying no quid pro quo, unsolicited, that’s not part of his limited vocabulary and it’s admissible
Do me a favor and think about it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes to enter the country is illegal it is also a misdemeanor. oh the horror

Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government. He can say there was no quid pro quo..on a phone call days after the whistleblowers complaint . (convenient ) After all the info and his own white House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that Mr. Trump was indeed offering a quid pro quo during that July 25 call, but dismissed the controversy and said people needed to “get over it.”

From Trumps mouth
I would like you to do us a favor and

Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son

Or Giuliani’s public comments — like when he acknowledged in May that some might find his efforts to make Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals “improper” —
To see one only needs to open ones EYES
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers"

The hell they aren't, if the citizen is doing something fishy in another country. You're saying Ukraine has no sovereign authority to see if American citizens are breaking Ukraine laws while in Ukraine? Remember when Bill Clinton was president, some spoiled brat American teenager was living in Saudi Arabia (?), got caught vandalizing cars with spray paint. Saudi law calls for caning as punishment. Clinton looked into it, a lot of people wanted Clinton to intervene, he didn't (good for him), the kid was caned. But Clinton absolutely asked the Saudi government to let him know exactly what they discovered that this kid was doing.

"certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally"

Nonsense, much of what Presidents (all politicians ) do, is done to help them get re elected.

"If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels"

Please, please cite the rule or law which says that Trump asking the Ukranian president, isn't the proper way to do it.

"Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government"

How do you know, without an investigation, that there wasn't actual wrongdoing? If an investigation uncovered actual corruption, is that "dirt"? Or is it "truth"? You are awfully afraid of seeking the truth on this issue.

"He can say there was no quid pro quo"

It's not just him saying it. Every single witness who has firsthand knowledge, denied it. Every. Single. One. Zero exceptions.

Again, you're saying the offense was the quid pro quo. Right? How did Biden not engage in quid pro quo? Yes, Trump wanted a political opponent looked at, and Biden wanted a crook fired. But both times (assuming Trump demanded quid pro quo), Biden/Trump used the leverage of a quid pro quo to get what they wanted. But it's only an issue when Orange Man does it. If he did it, an allegation for which there is precisely zero evidence.

Will it be acceptable for the democratic candidate to say Russia/Turkey/Saudi Arabia announce an investigation of Trump, you will be rewarded
Is that how our elections will work now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with a good faith investigation of Trump, and I can live with the results either way. My existence doesn't depend on securing one outcome. You guys cannot handle anything which doesn't serve your agenda.

Pete, there's evidence of fishy nepotism on the part of the Bidens. I'd like to find out the truth, none of you have any interest in learning the truth. What does that tell you?

Your side started working on impeachment, literally, on day one. Is that how elections work now?

Just to be clear, I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989.
And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected.
You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt, but Floridaman repeatedly lied to the American people about having no business interests in Russia, again and again.
Nothing to see there?
You should go watch Fiona rip Nunes and Gym new #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989."

Good for you.

"And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected."

And he deserves criticism for that. He also stopped the birther baloney as soon as Obama released the most official birth certificate. But it was all garbage, the entire birther movement, embarassing garbage.

'You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt'

I repeatedly said let's do the investigation, and abide by the results (no indictment, no chargeable crime). Your side wanted the investigation, refused to accept the conclusions.

Pete, if I said that all you do is defend liberals and criticize Republicans, can you offer anything to dispute that?

You are wrong
I defend people Floridaman and Trumplicans attack falsely and respond in kind.

Here's the big tell that the Hunter Biden stuff is bs. The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have. They certainly didn't shy away from stoking scandals. And yet they didn't. But now they do, silly boys
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any recent examples of you saying a Republican was on the right side and a democrat was on the wrong side?

"The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have"

Trump wasn't POTUS. Just because he was the first to ask for the investigation, doesn't necessarily mean the request fir the investigation wasn't legitimate. Maybe the Republicans in Congress are to blame for not asking.

You are assuming (proving my earlier point of bias), that the fact that Trump was the first one to ask for an investigation, means it was a sham.

That makes zero sense. Do the investigation. If it shows that Biden did nothing wrong, then Trump deserves blame for wasting our time. So what are you afraid of? How is that unfair? It's not unfair. But it doesn't serve your narrative, which is all that matters. Nothing else matters. Your every post shows that.

so you would have no problem if tonight you police chief announces an investigation into your pedophilia?

John Solomon’s writing on the Biden’s has been amply disproved and there is no predicate for the investigation.
Here’s a few big questions about Solomon and his involvement with Russian oligarchs and their underlings.
1. Did you ever take money or benefit, directly or indirectly, from Dmitry Firtash? Did DiGenova and Toensing introduce you to Firtash to serve as your source? Was it before they formally became his attorneys? To whom and how much did Firtash pay to generate and circulate the disinformation that you published?

2. How much did you pay Parnas? Was it your own money? Whose money was it? Was your employment or use of Parnas arranged by DiGenova and Toensing? Explain the involvement of your attorneys in the full range of your transactions with Parnas.

3. When did you hire DiGenova and Toensing as your attorneys and for what matters? How much have you paid them, over how long a period of time and for which specific services?

4. How many articles have you written that included information provided from sources you knew to be clients of your lawyers, DiGenova and Toensing? On what topics?

You probably should worry about this, it’s pretty closely tied to a number of Trumplicans.
Lev Parnas set up meetings and calls for Nunes and his aide Derek Harvey to help with their investigative work, per Parnas's lawyer
The Russian ties run deep into Trumplicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not true.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...bout-journali/

Who is John Solomon? Here’s what we know about the journalist whose stories shaped the Ukraine saga

By Bill McCarthy on Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 at 6:39 p.m.
Top diplomats have repeatedly linked President Donald Trump’s posture toward Ukraine to John Solomon, the journalist whose reports gave false credence to a number of Ukraine-related conspiracies that have found a receptive audience in Trump and some of his closest allies.

Solomon, 52, had been working until recently as an opinion writer at The Hill and is now a Fox News contributor. His columns were cited three times in the whistleblower complaint that helped spur House Democrats to open their impeachment investigation into Trump.

They’ve remained a focal point as the House investigates whether the Trump administration withheld military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly commit to an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

On Nov. 19, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., opened the second week of public impeachment hearings by citing Solomon’s scoops and findings as fact.

"Solomon’s reporting on Burisma, Hunter Biden and Ukraine election meddling has become inconvenient for the Democratic narrative," Nunes said in his statement, which came just one day after The Hill announced it would be reviewing, annotating and correcting Solomon’s columns.

So, who is John Solomon? The veteran Washington, D.C., reporter has become a regular on Fox News and a go-to source of information for Trump. A series of springtime articles he published about Ukraine helped kickstart the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

His columns alleged corruption by Biden and a former ambassador and accused Democrats of working with Ukraine to hurt Trump’s chances in 2016. They gained traction as Trump, his allies and various Fox News hosts talked about them on TV and social media.

Solomon did not respond to requests for comment sent to his Facebook page and personal lawyer. Fox News also did not respond to requests for comment.

Solomon worked for years at the Associated Press and briefly at the Washington Post before moving to the Washington Times, where he was editor in chief. He later spent time at Circa and the Center for Public Integrity before joining The Hill in 2017.

Solomon won an award in 2002 for a series on what law enforcement knew ahead of the Sept. 11 attacks. But media critics also questioned his early work, saying he had a "history of bending the truth to his storyline" and "massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."

Solomon’s commentary for The Hill has generated the most buzz. In 2017, he played a major role in pushing the inaccurate Uranium One conspiracy, alleging that Hillary Clinton sold a share of America’s uranium to Russia in exchange for a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

RELATED FACT-CHECK: Exaggerated post connects Clintons, Russia, uranium deal

In 2018, The Hill began labeling Solomon’s articles as opinion. Then, in March and April 2019, Solomon published a series of columns alleging conspiracies involving Democrats and Ukraine.

One of his key sources, apparently, was former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer.

According to the New York Times, Giuliani, whose activities were central to the administration’s efforts to get an investigation launched into Trump’s political rivals, gave Solomon a cache of information on Biden, his son Hunter and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

"I really turned my stuff over to John Solomon," Giuliani told the New York Times.

When Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia expert, was asked during private testimony how she first learned about Giuliani’s "interest" in Ukraine, she mentioned Solomon, whose columns outlined the same conspiracies that Giuliani was actively pushing on Twitter and TV.

Senior State Department official George Kent later testified that what he had described as the "campaign of slander" against former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch began with one of Solomon’s articles and ended with Yovanovitch’s removal.

And Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, said he became concerned about Giuliani and the narratives he was pushing in part because of Solomon’s columns. State Department official Catherine Croft said the same.

Solomon’s methods have been further scrutinized since the impeachment inquiry began. In March, he shared an advance copy of a column with Giuliani’s associates, including recently indicted Ukrainian businessman Lev Parnas, who has reportedly helped connect him to sources.

Solomon left The Hill in September for undisclosed reasons, and Fox News soon hired him. He has stood by his work as "completely accurate and transparent," even as one impeachment witness after another has questioned his findings.

Solomon’s allegations on Yovanovitch, Biden

Solomon’s opinion articles on Ukraine have advanced a number of unsupported allegations about Yovanovitch, the Bidens and supposed Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.

He has had an assist from Fox News host Sean Hannity, Giuliani and Trump, who tweeted about Solomon’s work four times and recently suggested he should win a Pulitzer Prize.

Solomon has appeared on Hannity’s primetime TV show at least 55 times since March 20, according to our search via Nexis. He has been mentioned many more times, as well.

On March 20, Solomon went on Hannity’s show to promote a column he had published that day based on an interview he conducted with Yuriy Lutsenko, then the top prosecutor in Ukraine.

The column quoted Lutsenko falsely claiming that Yovanovitch gave him a list of people he should not prosecute, a charge the State Department denied and Lutsenko has since retracted. The column also claimed Yovanovitch had privately bad-mouthed Trump, citing a letter from former Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican, to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Yovanovitch denied both allegations during her testimony.

But the allegations had already left their mark, having been promoted on Hannity and other Fox News programs, circulated within right-wing media and tweeted out by Trump and his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr. Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled from her post in May.

Other impeachment witnesses have criticized Solomon’s writing on Yovanovitch. Kent testified that Solomon’s article "was, if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs." He later said he had "every reason to believe it was not true."

Vindman said all the "key elements were false," noting that Solomon’s columns "smelled really rotten" before joking, "His grammar might have been right."

Similar objections have been raised in testimony about two articles Solomon published about Biden in April, which were also referenced in the whistleblower’s complaint.

Solomon’s April columns asserted that then-Vice President Biden forced Ukraine to fire former prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a gas company for which Hunter Biden served on the board. Solomon wrote that Biden withheld aid dollars from Ukraine as leverage to get Shokin removed.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden, as we’ve noted before. It’s not clear that the long-dormant investigation into Burisma had been reopened, as Solomon claimed, and Western leaders and institutions were united in wanting Shokin removed.

RELATED FACT-CHECK: Donald Trump ad misleads about Joe Biden, Ukraine and the prosecutor

In his closed-door deposition, Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, said he believed Lutsenko — a key but questionable source in many of Solomon’s columns — was "making things up." He said Biden "was representing U.S. policy at the time."

"The allegations themselves, including those against Ambassador Yovanovitch, did not appear to me to be credible at all," Volker said during public testimony Nov. 19. "I’ve known Vice President Biden for a long time. Those accusations were not credible."

Solomon’s columns also alleged misconduct in Ukraine by Democratic donor George

Soros and claimed, without much evidence, that Democrats coordinated with Ukrainian officials to interfere in the 2016 election by sharing dirt on Trump and reviving a 2014 investigation into former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who had ties to the country’s old, pro-Russia regime.

These claims are unproven, and the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that it was Russia — not Ukraine — that interfered in the 2016 election, with the intent of helping Trump.

If there's some evidence? Heck no. If a revolving door of little kids had been seen leaving my home crying, then hell no.

You really have me on the ropes...

I don't know who John Solomon is. I know that Hunter Biden, while his dad was THE administration's point person on Ukraine, got a very lucrative job in Ukraine. There's a lot of countries out there, but it had to be Ukraine where Hunter got on the board?

Again, if they did nothing wrong, no one has any reason to fear an investigation.

So Americas should allow anyone to conduct an investigation if they have nothing to fear...

Wow to bad you dont apply that to Trump Bolton rudy mulvaney perry ... shocking

if there’s evidence that something occurred. that’s how it works.

huh? i’ve always said let’s investigate trump. i also say, let’s live with the results. you and your ilk want the investigations, but can’t bear to live with the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously you then just recite talking points as assigned and do not look under the hood

Meanwhile Fiona is ripping Nunes and Castor apart and exposing them as the puppets they are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe. There are plenty of Republican puppets. Just as you're a liberal puppet.

Sondland read a 23-page opening statement. 23 pages. And nowhere did he bother to include the fact that the only direct evidence he had, was Trump explicitly saying he didn't want a quid pro quo. That wasn't worth mention, ANYWHERE, in a 23-page statement? That doesn't show what a circus this is?

Just have the vote. 95% of the house has their minds made up.

Hill told Sondland she was frustrated he wasn’t looping in the NSC on his Ukraine efforts.

He replied: “But I’m briefing the president. I’m briefing chief of staff Mulvaney. I'm briefing Secretary Pompeo. And I’ve talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who else do I have to deal with?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wheres the evidence of Biden wrong doing

you’re right, sheep. there’s none. it’s a coincidence that of all the countries in the world, Hunter made a fortune in the country when his dad was the oval offices point man on that country. purely coincidental.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So then tell me why J. Biden should be investigated since multiple govern. dept. have said that there is no evidence he did anything corrupt?

So you have no evidence other than J. Biden's son made a fortune and yet you think it is ok for the Pres. of the US to ask a foreign country to make a public announcement there are investigating J. Biden.

Sounds sleazy as hell.

Sheep? - you should look in the mirror instead of insulting people.

still nothing impeachable...what a joke

yes sheep. i disagree with republicans and trump
all the time. what’s the biggest issue in which you disagree with liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were you watching Sesame Street and not Hill’s testimony, you keep those talking points going, he will be impeached.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's what the muppets keep saying

Originally Posted by PaulS View Post ..... you should look in the mirror instead of insulting people.