i saw in her opening statement, she claimed that republicans deny ukrainian meddling in the election. It’s not true, they waved a gop
report in her face that confirmed election meddling. so what else is she lying about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep the faith, your liar and chief will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t get it. i’m the opposite of
an ideologue, i’m not
blinded by what i’m rooting for. Just watching what happens. Look at Trumps fundraising. if you’re comfortable that the progressive candidates ( and other then biden, that’s all that’s left) will resonate in middle America, that’s your right.

last week, another right wing trumplican warned that the field
of democratic candidates would
do well to come back to the middle, that they were too far to the left for most americans. His name was Barack Obama. But you know
better.

from where i sit, the democrats look like they’re trying to get him re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you didn't post the part where I said not that I believe you are a pedophile. Wow that is scummy of you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t suggest the Democrats don’t need to put somebody who can win, I suggested even with who probably will win run against Trump, he can’t afford to lose a single vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure he can, if the democrat nominee gets fewer votes, at least in swing states, than hilary did. a few of them may be less attractive than she was. No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So biden makes money it a crime. Trump makes money been bankrupt fake university.. hes legit

Both having fathers of influence..

PS Coincidence isnt evidence. Try harder
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2016 was influenced by Russia, by our own FBI announcement just ahead of the elections and then there is the hated Hillary; that perfect storm isn’t likely to happen again. Keep the faith, yes he will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

russia had a meaningful
impact? the evidence if that, is...??

2016 was also impacted by the people being fed up
with the media being in the tank for the democrats. that feeling is more pervasive now, for good reason.

I think there’s a good chance the nominee is less like able than Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree he’s divisive in certain circles. he’s also beloved in other circles.

i’m not saying i’m
certain he’s going to win. but i think there’s a good chance the democrats and the media are helping him, by completely failing to understand what happened in 2016.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i respect your opinion. but i disagree.

i don’t think non stop attacks
of trump ( some of which, not all of which, were baseless), non stop insults of his base, and nominating someone way to the left of
obama ( embracing 9th month abortions, open borders, reparations, green new deals) is the correct response to their loss in 2016. the positions these candidates are embracing, lead me
to conclude they have no idea what happened in 2016, that they have no idea that not everyone is exactly like those in Hollywood or
the Upper West Side. 9th month abortions won't play well in NC.

remember, increasing democrat turnout in CA, NY, and IL, does
nothing, because trump can’t win there anyway. winning those states by a larger margin, has no electoral benefit to democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Politics aside the fate of our planet can be dramatically impacted with short sighted vision, our children’s children deserve a better future and IT IS NOT tied to how good our economy or stock market is doing. This clown doesn’t even believe in science, for him it’s all about fame and fortune, he will set us back in ways we can’t even imagine. Vote the Trump brand if that is what you believe works for our collective future, I believe he is a cancer and needs to be removed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) i completely disagree that the quality ilife my kids can lead, isnt at all impacted by the stock market. my kids will inherit a lot of
money someday thanks to the market, will have more choices about what colleges to go
to.

(2) there’s a lot more to the economy than the stock
market. unemployment is way down. it doesn’t help
kids when their parents are working and wages are rising?

(3) i’m on board with ensuring healthy ecosystems. but it needs to be studied more before we ask developing countries to stop buying cars and heated homes, things that americans have enjoyed for decades.

(4) there’s more to science than being a climate fanatic. Trump is totally on board with the science of
ultrasounds, and what’s
there. another thing that helps
kids have a better future, is not being slaughtered in the womb. can’t have much if
you arent allowed to be born.

i would never have voted for
trump in a republican primary. i’m convinced he’s a million times
better than anyone currently running as a democrat. i care about economic growth, protecting the unborn, killing terrorists, securing the borders, advocating for less government and more individual liberty. Looking though that lense he is far from perfect, but far superior to the democratic freak show.

The Bill Clinton presidency taught me ( democrat’s taught me this, kind of ironic) that a president’s personal moral compass isn’t as important as the policies he implements. That’s what liberals
said from 1993-2000. They may have all changed their tune since then, but i agree with them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seem like you are on the verge of tears. Get a hold of yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The left sees zero connection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Hunter corruption. A few weeks after Hunter joined Rosemont Capital in 2009, Rosemont got a $130 million federal bailout loan. Hunter's father, of course, was VP when the loan was made. Just a coincidence...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...e-biden-was-vp

But we're the ones with our heads in the sand.

You should pull them out

Imagine a preeminent White House official who is unqualified, incompetent, and contemptuous of the law. Or who conceals his contacts with foreign officials, is targeted for exploitation by foreign intelligence services because of his naïveté and lack of ethics, and is deemed a security risk by his own government.

https://thebulwark.com/the-crown-prince-of-trumpistan/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After you get your wits about you again you should look at the ties between
Deripaska
Firtash
DiGenova
Toensing
Parnas
Fruman
Giuliani
Nunes
Sessions
Floridaman
They all are tied together with Ukraine gas
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🙀🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scorching testimony today. When do you think SD will realize his nothing burgers are really love letters to Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yawn...still nothing impeachable here...deranged democrats and butt-hurt bureaucrats sharing office gossip.....are they going to vote to impeach with no republican support and a couple of democrats defecting?....that will be impressive :hihi:

VDH had some great points...

"In that context, it is baffling that a parade of civil servants now expresses their disenchantment with the White House policies of delaying lethal military aid that was fully delivered. Yet many of these critics were in government service between 2009–17.

The natural question arises, then: Where was their outrage at resetting with the Russians and leaving the Ukrainians to fend for themselves when it came to stopping Russian armor?

We can understand Fiona Hill’s apparent anguish at a temporary administrative delay in sending lethal aid, but she said nothing about not arming them in the past in extremis, and even wrote an incoherent Washington Post op-ed supporting the Obama administration’s failure to arm them.

When Hill states that Ukrainian officials had no involvement in the 2016 election to harm the Trump campaign, her opinions are in stark contrast to the testimonies of Ukrainian officials themselves, who cited Ukrainian efforts to discredit the Trump campaign.

And when she adds that Russians were seeding chaos without preferences in 2016, she again engages in selective memory. She must know that we spent 22 months and $35 million to show that there was no Russian–Trump election collusion, and we are soon going to learn from the Horowitz and Durham investigations whether U.S. officials trafficked with a British subject, hired by the Clinton campaign, to seed a spurious “dossier” that drew on all too willing Russian-seeded smears and libels that did a great deal of damage to the integrity to the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and the FISA courts, as many in these agencies used such unverified Russian dirt to harm a presidential campaign and transition.

Many of the witnesses are fine public servants, but their current and frequently expressed discontent over Trump’s Ukraine policy would find a more credible audience had they shown the prior courage to disagree with a past president popular within the ranks of the Washington bureaucracy who nonetheless did a lot of damage to Ukraine, by empowering Vladimir Putin and failing to adopt the measures that Trump rather quickly embraced and implemented.

There are two constants in these entire hearings: presumptions, assumptions, and conjectures from civil servant A about what civil servant B said or thought, and outrage at a temporary delay in lethal military juxtaposed by past silence over its prior nonexistence — which explains why what was born with a bang is ending with a whimper."

I'm sure their pictures are all on the wall of your bunker :shocked:

Oh my yes. I loved Schiff saying that the reason people aren't swayed by hearsay and presumption, is that our intellect isn't as sophisticated as that of lawyers.

Lots of flip-flopping. I'm sure it has nothing to do with TDS.

Yesterday on CNN, Don Lemon (who they call an 'anchor'), said anyone not on their side of impeachment, is "mental".

That suggests to me, that some very high profile people on the left, have absolutely no idea what happened in 2016. It's very difficult to say 'we blew it'. It's much easier on the ego, to play the victim, and say you lost an election because of racism, sexism, angry white males, ignorance, oh and let's not forget Russia. But not because of anything you did.

Does Hilary's book suggest to you, she has any understanding of why she lost?

it's pretty obvious that schif is possessed by satan:devil2:

Will Israel be Floridaman’s next target

Bibi Netanyahu has been indicted for corruption...

The EU gives almost no aid to Israel...

Israel was not “with us at Normandy”...

So when is Floridaman cutting off aid and ending White House meetings???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of you need to watch both fox and Cnn i have in real time..

One station has calm rational round table conversation with up to 6 people , And one has host and maybe 3 people all animated using very colorful words and lots of pictures with flashly headlines..

Then you have FB

Had a friend post how Jordon destroyed some one in his Trumplican form. A few other supported his view
I said he was a tool. Nothing more
A day later and several pro jordon posts from others His response was he was just posting his opinion ! and if you came here to argue go else where.. i guess i dont get an opinion on any post he starts unless i agree ..

So this plays out on bothside a lot ( if you Dont agree with me dont add to MY public post..

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy because the avg age on FB is 40.5 years old and the vast majority believe every meme or QUOTE over what the hear on the news or read in a. Paper. And they Vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i watch CNN regularly. this week Don Lemon said people who disagree with him are “mental”.
and chris chino tried to prove trump was wrong ( when he said you can’t hear both sides of a phone conversation unless the call is on speakerphone) by calling his
mother live, and as usual, made a fool of himself.

Hannity is as big a partisan hack as CNNs entire prime time
lineup. Tucker Carlson, while
conservative, is better than the rest in prime time. he regularly criticized conservatives, he regularly tells liberals they have a good point. i don’t see that a lot at CNN.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ban FB...

wait i thought trump was the biggest danger to our democracy?

An attorney from DC, has an interesting theory that connects all the dots.

I just realized that, for whatever reason, Sondland got his testimony about his "no quid pro quo" call with President Trump wrong. He testified that the call took place on September 9th, but that can't possibly be true.
Sondland's testimony was that, on Sept. 9, he got a "shocking" text from Bill Taylor in which he linked the hold on military assistance to the Biden investigations. That prompted Sondland to call Trump, who told him "no quid pro quo," which Sondland then parroted back to Taylor.



But Sondland wasn't telling the truth about why he called Trump. The "no quid pro quo" call was on Sept 7, and he told Tim Morrison about it, not Bill Taylor. It was Morrison who told Taylor about the call.

And Sondland wasn't telling the truth about what Trump said on the call.
The call Sondland testified about at his hearing yesterday didn't happen. But the Republicans and the WH loved his story – Trump even wrote out Sondland's testimony about what Trump had said on the call and gave a dramatic reenactment of it on the WH lawn.

POLITICO
✔
@politico
Donald Trump seized upon one particular bit of testimony from Gordon Sondland's hearing today. The EU envoy testified that the president told him "I want nothing" from Ukraine, and "I want no quid pro quo."

“That means it’s all over," Trump told reportershttps://politi.co/335Phsc

Embedded video
3,724
1:58 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,788 people are talking about this
"I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo."

But that's not what Trump told Sondland in that call. What Trump actually said, according to Morrison and Taylor, was that *Trump wanted Zelensky to personally announce on camera that he was opening investigations into Burisma and 2016.*

Bill Taylor's testimony about this is clear and corresponds to recorded dates. On Sept. 7, a Saturday, he had to make a special trip to the embassy to make a secured call to Tim Morrison.

And in this call, Morrison updated him on Sondland's "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.


So Bill Taylor had nothing whatsoever to do with the call. Sondland's testimony that it was Taylor's text that prompted him to make the call was not truthful.
Instead, on Sept 7th, Sondland called Trump, and Trump claimed he "was not asking for a quid pro quo," but then immediately insisted that Zelensky "go to a microphone" and announce he was opening investigations into "Biden and 2016."

Sondland then told Morrison about the call.

Morrison was so disturbed by what Sondland had told him about his call with Trump that he immediately ran to the NSC lawyers to report it.

So Eisenberg has detailed reports about this call, and knows that Sondland's testimony about it yesterday was false.

The entire Republican defense of Trump yesterday was based on Sondland's false testimony about Trump "I want nothing."

But that's not what Trump said! Morrison documented with NSC lawyers that Trump said *he wanted Zelensky to announce that he was investigating Biden.*
Yesterday, Sondland kept playing the victim of his poor memory and the State Dept, claiming that because State had refused to give him access to his records and call logs, he couldn't verify his recollection of his calls with Trump.

But I don't think that's what happened at all. What Sondland actually testified is that the White House and State Department told him they "cannot locate" records of his Sept. 9th "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.

But of course they couldn't. That call doesn't exist!

The other lesson from all this is that when you make incriminating phone calls, don't be a #^&#^&#^&#^& about it. Because that helps witnesses remember it better when they testify.

Sondland needed to call and update Morrison on Sept. 7th because Trump had changed his request.

In the Sept 7 call, Trump told Sondland that it wasn't enough for the chief prosecutor to announce the investigations – Zelensky himself would need to do it.

Timothy Hayes
@ty2433
Replying to @TheViewFromLL2
Why did Sondland call Morrison?

2
7:01 PM - Nov 21, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Timothy Hayes's other Tweets
Sequence is:

Sept 1: In Warsaw, Sondland tells Yermak that to get aid released, the Prosecutor General must announce the Burisma investigation.

Sept 7: Trump & Sondland speak on phone, and Trump tells Sondland that the PG isn't good enough, announcement must come from Zelensky.


Later on Sept 7: Sondland calls Morrison and says, "Hey, I just talked to Trump, and there's been a change. Trump says there is no quid pro quo, but in order to get the aid money released, he now wants Pres. Zelensky personally to make the Burisma investigation announcement."
Still later on Sept 7: Morrison goes to NSC lawyers and Bolton to report on the Sondland and Trump call.

Which means there's contemporaneous documentation (or there should be) of Morrison's report on the "no quid pro quo" call, in which Trump actually describes his quid pro quo.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...834109952.html

Theory?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As opposed to the current Trumplican theory that Trump did not do, just what was it he did not do?

Ask for an investigation of Biden, he did
Ask for an investigation of the 2016 election, he did

Threaten Ukraine to get these things by

Withholding a meeting, he did
Withholding aid, he did

Oh, he did not say it on any record and won't release any
Oh, nobody heard him directly and the belief that was what he wanted is obviously mass hysteria

Somebody is not paying attention. We call this a one trick pony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is always a coverup, this is Susan Simpson's stuff after she cleaned it up. If you go to her twitter feed she has the transcripts linked in her thread and this is a very tight line she has defined.
https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2

The impeachment inquiry has been crippled from the beginning by the Exec Branch's obstruction, and its refusal to produce any records to the House.

But detailed, contemporaneous documentation showing Sondland lied in his testimony does exist. Because the NSC lawyers have it.

To see why, here's a quick recap of how the Ukraine matter unfolded, from the viewpoint of the National Security Council's top lawyer, John Eisenberg.

Thanks to Ambassador John Bolton, who made sure his subordinates went in to document every step along the way, Eisenberg knows a lot.

July 10: Sondland attends the Ward Room meeting with the Ukrainian delegation, and tells the Ukrainians that he and Chief of Staff Mulvaney have an agreement – if the Ukrainians go forward with their investigations, Zelensky will get his White House meeting with the president.
Later on July 10: After the Ward Room meeting, Fiona Hill goes to Eisenberg's office. She tells him Bolton sent her to report what had happened during the meeting with the Ukrainians, and Sondland's agreement to give Zelensky a WH visit in exchange for opening the investigations.
Also on July 10: Vindman separately goes to NSC legal to report the meeting, and gives the whole backstory to Eisenberg. He explains that for months Giuliani has been pushing the Ukrainians for an investigation into Biden/2016, and that now Sondland was asking for the same thing.

July 25: Per Eisenberg's instructions to "come back to me" if there were more concerns, Vindman return to NSC legal to report the phone call he had just heard between Pres. Trump and Pres. Zelensky.
Vindman tells Eisenberg that in the call with Zelensky, Trump had made the same request for investigations that both Giuliani and Sondland had previously been pressuring the Ukrainians for. Trump had specifically requested that Zelensky investigate both Biden and the DNC.
Also on July 25: Vindman's new boss, Tim Morrison, was on the Zelensky call as well. That same day, independent of Vindman, he goes to NSC legal to report what had happened on the July 25th call.
Even later on July 25: Morrison and Eisenberg have additional meetings about the Trump-Zelensky call. They make the decision to restrict access to the call, to prevent leaks about it from getting out.
Morrison is not involved in the subsequent decision about *how* to restrict access. Unbeknownst to Morrison, the July 25th call ultimately ends up locked away on the highly classified system – even though the call definitely does not belong there.

August 14: CIA lawyer Elwood receives the whistleblower's initial complaint, which was done outside of the ICIG WB process. She calls top NSC lawyer Eisenberg to discuss the issue, and they alert the DOJ. Elwood believes she is making a criminal referral. https://nbcnews.com/politics/trump-i...laint-n1062481

Late August: While preparing for the Warsaw meeting, Morrison tries to access the July 25 call and realizes it's not there. He tracks it down on the highly classified system, and when he asks Eisenberg how that happened, Eisenberg says it ended up there due to a miscommunication.

Sept 1: Pence and Zelensky have a bilat in Warsaw. After the meeting, Zelensky and Pence depart, but Gordon Sondland, Tim Morrison, and senior Zelensky-adviser Andriy Yermak are among those left. Morrison, per his testimony, saw Yermak and Sondland speaking.
Immediately after his conversation with Yermak, Sondland walks over to Morrison to give him an update. Sondland says he told Yermak that "the security assistance money will not come until Pres. Zelensky commits to pursuing the Burisma investigation."
Morrison's memory of this is distinct, and he recalls a detail that will become important later: in Sondland's discussion with Yermak, they agreed that it would be "sufficient" for the Prosecutor General – and not Pres. Zelensky – to make the public investigation announcement.
After Sondland's update, Morrison immediately calls Taylor to update him on what had happened w/ Yermak. Taylor in turn texts Sondland: "Are we now saying that security assistance and a WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"
"Call me," Sondland response, so Taylor does.
In that Sept 1 phone call between Sondland and Taylor, Sondland says he spoke to Trump, and Trump told him Zelensky needs to publicly announce the Biden/2016 investigations, and that Trump would not agree to the WH meeting or security assistance until Zelensky did so.
This is the call where Sondland tells Taylor he made a mistake back on July 10, at the WH meeting with the Ukrainains. Sondland had told them that a WH meeting was dependent on a public announcement of investigations, but in fact the security assistance was also dependent on it.
In their Sept 1 call, Taylor and Sondland also discuss the same possible compromise that Sondland + Morrison had discussed: rather than have Zelensky make the announcement about investigating Biden/2016, perhaps the Prosecutor General could do it instead? Sondland says he'll try.

September 2 or 3: after returning from Warsaw, Morrison goes to the NSC lawyers for the second time, to report on Sondland's Sept. 1 discussion with Yermak, and the quid pro quo arrangement that Sondland had conveyed to the Ukrainians.

Sept 7: Trump and Sondland have a phone call. As discussed in an earlier thread, this is the call where Trump tells Sondland, "no quid pro quo."
But that's not all that Trump says. And we know this because Sondland immediately calls Morrison to tell him.
Later Sept 7: Sondland calls Morrison and tells him he just spoke with Trump, and that Trump had said "that he was not asking for a quid pro quo, but that he insisted that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 interference."
What's important here is Sondland wasn't just calling Morrison to say, "oh btw, Trump called."
Sondland's call had a specific purpose: to update Morrison on a change of plans from what was agreed to in Warsaw. Trump rejected the Prosecutor General compromise, he wanted Zelensky.
As Sondland conveyed to Morrison on Sept 7, "it wouldn't be enough for the Prosecutor General" to publicly announce the 2016/Burisma investigations. Trump told Sondland that he still wanted "Zelensky personally" to make the announcement.

Sept 8: Sondland calls Taylor to update him on the Sept 7 call with Trump (which Taylor already knew about, from Morrison).
Sondland tells Taylor that he and Trump had discussed the compromise that Taylor had pushed for the week before, but that Trump had rejected it.
In this Sept. 8th call, Sondland explicitly told Taylor that he had "talked to President Trump … and that Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself" make the announcement of the Burisma/2016 investigations.
What Sondland was describing is the "no quid pro quo" call.

Sept 9: The ICIG notifies House Committees about the whistleblower's report. The WH is likely informed of this by letter, and at 10:00am it's discussed in the Senior Directors Meeting.

Why all this matters:
1. In the "no QPQ" call, Trump told Sondland about the specific quid pro quo that he required from Ukraine
2. Morrison immediately informed NSC legal about the call
3. NSC legal has contemporaneous records showing Sondland's testimony about the call is false

The White House is sitting on proof that Sondland's testimony about the "no quid pro quo" call was wrong.

Because the same day the call happened, Morrison ran to NSC to report it. And the NSC's Sept. 7th records are far more reliable than whatever Sondland said.
We do have the statements from both Morrison and Taylor, however, both of whom Sondland called to update on the "no quid pro quo" call.

And both agree: Trump did say "no quid pro quo," but he also described the precise quid pro quo he was requiring.

Sondland was wrong.

This also means that on August 14, John Eisenberg participated in making a criminal referral to DOJ based on Trump's July 25th call.

And then, in Sept, when given proof that Trump had escalated the conduct that had resulted in the criminal referral, Eisenberg kept it hidden.