I wish I share your optimism, turtle man Mitch has already said the Senate will go for Trump. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Senate Dem in red states vote against impeachment. TBH I want Trump defeated at the polls.

babaearly1:


Even if their politics is polarized, people can really see what crimes are, bribery in this case was so clear. The senate will go into secret ballot and 33 senate republicans will vote with Democrats to remove trump. Mark it down

babaearly1:


He called you out for putting out fake news, and you deflect like classic trump. So clear to see that narcist trait

Have you seen this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULop9yb5Jr0

doitforyou:
I wish I share your optimism, turtle man Mitch has already said the Senate will go for Trump. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Senate Dem in red states vote against impeachment. TBH I want Trump defeated at the polls.

Well that is if Turtle mans polls goes down to the low 20s as its tanking then he will view his senate future away from trump. They don't like trump, they just fear his illiterate and ignorant base but they are not the popular vote to begin with

Thegamingorca:




Have you seen this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULop9yb5Jr0

Be serious bro, trump talks in codes. That's why Sondland was always saying put 2+2=4. Can you remember trumps long time fixer Cohen now in jail? Remember his testimony under oath that trump doesn't explicitly tell you to do things but has a way to show you to do it.
And between the conversation where trump said 'no quid pro quo' with Sondland came after the whistle-blower already raised alarm and Congress were already aware. How perfect timing trumps language went straight to 'no quid pro' when asked what did he want from Ukraine by sondland, so funny

babaearly1:


Be serious bro, trump talks in codes. That's why Sondland was always saying put 2+2=4. Can you remember trumps long time fixer Cohen now in jail? Remember his testimony under oath that trump doesn't explicitly tell you to do things but has a way to show you to do it.
And between the conversation where trump said 'no quid pro quo' with Sondland came after the whistle-blower already raised alarm and Congress were already aware. How perfect timing trumps language went straight to 'no quid pro' when asked what did he want from Ukraine by sondland, so funny

This is a testimony from sondland he has completely exonerated himself from the issue by saying his side of the story. He called trump after the whistleblower released smoke and trump told him exactly what he said today.
This isn't about what trump might have been trying to cover up presumably from the whistleblower complaint rather its about what trump said.

Not once in previous calls with trump did he tie aids to the investigations
Or tie the Biden's into the aids. For over 5months lol

Thegamingorca:



This is a testimony from sondland he has completely exonerated himself from the issue by saying his side of the story. He called trump after the whistleblower released smoke and trump told him exactly what he said today.
This isn't about what trump might have been trying to cover up presumably from the whistleblower complaint rather its about what trump said.

Not once in previous calls with trump did he tie aids to the investigations
Or tie the Biden's into the aids. For over 5months lol

every time you guys always shoot yourself in the foot. After the trump presidency, people will wonder what kind of dumb government America really had.

Now this is going to be the new headlines in the next few days. I imagine how you will come back and defend this. I will wait for your spin on this when trump eventually starts projecting this....which he will eventually do as a tin pot dictator wannabe

With ‘No Quid Pro Quo’ Defense Shredded, Trump Left With ‘I Can Do Whatever I Want’
His fallback argument will be that presidents have full authority to shape foreign policy, even to help their own campaigns.

Even Sondland wasn't buying trump's spin. Remember he gave $1m to trump and is currently an Ambassador due to that "gift"!

The Republicans’ impeachment lawyer made 2 huge mistakes in questioning Gordon Sondland

Ambassador Gordon Sondland delivered complex and convoluted impeachment testimony on Wednesday about his involvement in President Donald Trump’s Ukraine scandal. He gave detailed evidence recounting the president and the rest of the administration’s involvement in his effort to get Ukraine to launch investigations of Trump’s political opponents — including by leveraging a potential White House meeting and a hold on military aid.


But he also, to the Republicans’ delight, left some ambiguity about how much Trump had been involved in the effort to leverage the aid, saying that he had “presumed” Ukraine’s announcement of the investigations would release the hold. And he noted that, in one phone call the president — as the scheme was slowly being uncovered — Trump angrily denied there was a quid pro quo.

Republican counsel Stephen Castor, serving for the minority party on the House Intelligence Committee, tried to exploit this apparent distance between Sondland’s push and the president as a defense against impeachment. But at two points in his questioning, he made a key cross-examination error: he asked questions he didn’t know the answer to.


The answers he got were not good for Trump’s case.

First, he tried to suggest that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer who worked with Sondland and others in the State Department on the Ukraine pressure campaign, may not have actually been representing the president’s interests. If this were true, it might have placed greater distance between Trump and the apparent bribery scheme.

“You testified that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president, correct?” Castor asked.

“That’s our understanding,” Sondland replied.

“But how did you know that?” pressed Castor. “Who told you?”

“Well,” began Sondland, “when the president says, ‘Talk to my personal attorney,’ and then Mr. Giuliani — as his personal attorney — makes certain requests or demands, we assume it’s coming from the president.”



CASTOR: You testified that Giuliani was expressing the desires of POTUS, correct?

SONDLAND: Yup

CASTOR: But how did you know that?

SONDLAND: Well, when POTUS says, 'talk to my personal attorney,' we assume it's coming from the president

Then, when Sondland was discussing his conversation with Trump, he recounted the president saying: “‘I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo! I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on,’ or words to that effect.”

“And you believed, the president, correct?” Castor asked.

Then Sondland, who wasn’t hesitant to speculate or draw conclusions when it suited him, replied: “You know what? I’m not going to characterize whether I believed or didn’t believe. I was just trying to characterize what he said on the phone.”

This one that fake news didn't televise the republican 45mins is this some kinda ploy to censor gops?

Aljazeera aired the whole thing despite on going rantings by Benjamin Netanyahu who is being indicted by his attorney

Ahhh i'm not arguing with any ignorant person again
After hearing from Hill, it's clear Russia needed trump to withhold that aid
so they can finish off Ukraine
It plays so nicely in all this game.
The Senate will remove trump. Bye people.

Thegamingorca:



This is a testimony from sondland he has completely exonerated himself from the issue by saying his side of the story. He called trump after the whistleblower released smoke and trump told him exactly what he said today.
This isn't about what trump might have been trying to cover up presumably from the whistleblower complaint rather its about what trump said.

Not once in previous calls with trump did he tie aids to the investigations
Or tie the Biden's into the aids. For over 5months lol

It is very obvious Trump knew he is about to be caught and the house has opened investigations as a result of the whistleblower.
Sondland never asked about a quid pro quo. Sondland asked what do you want from Ukraine, and Trump said "I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo! I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on"
First Trump answers were off, Sondland never mentioned quid pro quo. He simply wanted instructions from Trump. Secondly, he contradicted himself in the same sentence. He said I want nothing, then immediately said I want him to do what he ran on. That itself is a want. Zelensky obviously ran on hundreds of promises as politicians do. It's the Ukrainian that should demand Zelensky do what he ran on and not Trump.
Finally, Trump had only two calls with Zelensky, the first one was a congratulatory call immediately after he won the elections, and the second one was when he asked for a favour.

Trump did tie the investigations of Burisma Biden to the aids, not directly, but through Rudy Gulianni. When he tells Zelensky to talk to Gulianni, it means Gulianni will tell you my demands.

wirinet:

It is very obvious Trump knew he is about to be caught and the house has opened investigations as a result of the whistleblower.
Sondland never asked about a quid pro quo. Sondland asked what do you want from Ukraine, and Trump said "I want nothing! I want no quid pro quo! I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on"
First Trump answers were off, Sondland never mentioned quid pro quo. He simply wanted instructions from Trump. Secondly, he contradicted himself in the same sentence. He said I want nothing, then immediately said I want him to do what he ran on. That itself is a want. Zelensky obviously ran on hundreds of promises as politicians do. It's the Ukrainian that should demand Zelensky do what he ran on and not Trump.
Finally, Trump had only two calls with Zelensky, the first one was a congratulatory call immediately after he won the elections, and the second one was when he asked for a favour.

Trump did tie the investigations of Burisma Biden to the aids, not directly, but through Rudy Gulianni. When he tells Zelensky to talk to Gulianni, it means Guli will tell you my demands.

Ag4ee the democrats were too eager. The whistleblower was a dumbass.


If Giuliani carried the will of the president and didn't communicate that to sondland and crew and still couldn't communicate that to the ukrañians then it didn't happen as no evidence can materialize that fact.

We at not in the minds of trump or guiliani to say what dey meant to discuss or tie the aids with. This is what the gops are saying. There are no facts to point fingers at trump that a crime was committed or was in the process of being committed. No evidence mentioning Biden whatsoever. That's why this fart is a witchhunt

So also giving credence to the fact that the hearing is a hoax. Had it been that Giuliani conveyed the message(which we think trump may have told him) then we may have to consider the impeachment hearing.

babaearly1:
Ahhh i'm not arguing with any ignorant person again
After hearing from Hill, it's clear Russia needed trump to withhold that aid
so they can finish off Ukraine
It plays so nicely in all this game.
The Senate will remove trump. Bye people.

Senate abi congress. When did you hear Russia needed trump to do anything lol.

Doesn't even make any sense

I won't dignify any idiotic response any longer. If you can't accept whats happening right in front of you
i think you dont really have a grasp with whats reality and thats a problem


Impeachment witness knocks GOP over 'fictional narrative'

Fiona Hill, a former top Russia analyst for the White House, fiercely disputed Republican claims that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election and warned that Russia is benefiting from the spread of this “fictional narrative” during a Thursday impeachment hearing examining President Trump's contacts with Ukraine.

Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, directly addressed members of the House Intelligence Committee who she says appear to believe that Ukraine, not Russia, carried out a campaign to sow discord during the 2016 election.

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did,” Hill said in her opening statement.


“This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves,” she added.

Hill offered a sharp warning that while Republicans and Democrats battle over such claims, Russia is exploiting these differences to continue to undermine the U.S. political system.

“The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined,” Hill warned.

“The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016,” she said, pointing to the bipartisan congressional and intelligence community reports that concluded Russia was the 2016 aggravator.

Hill’s public appearance on the Hill comes after 10 other witnesses publicly testified about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine, including whether he sought to use nearly $400 million in U.S. aid as leverage to press Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open two investigations that would benefit him politically.

A career foreign officer, Hill said in her opening statement that she takes “great pride in the fact that I am a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three different Republican and Democratic presidents.”


But the Russia expert said it is Congress’s own prerogative to investigate whether the president is putting U.S. national security at risk for his own possible benefit.

“If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention,” she added.

But in the process, Hill said, U.S. support of Ukraine is being tested.

“U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized,” she warned.

Her remarks come after GOP lawmakers like Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly raised the issue of Ukrainian interference.

In particular, some of the president’s defenders have embraced claims that Ukraine sought to dig up damaging information about Trump campaign officials by reaching out to Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractor.

A Politico article in 2017 claimed that Chalupa, who left the DNC in 2016, continued to research ties between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, during which she is said to have asked Ukrainian Embassy officials for help. She then, the story says, turned over some of her findings to officials at the DNC and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.

But Chalupa denied how her work was framed in the story, and it also remains unclear what role the embassy officials played. Additionally, both DNC and former Clinton campaign officials have denied receiving information from Chalupa, CNN reported in 2017.

Hill has also batted down this narrative.

“In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests,” she said on Thursday, warning that the “Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country.

“And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016.”

Thegamingorca:


Ag4ee the democrats were too eager. The whistleblower was a dumbass.


If Giuliani carried the will of the president and didn't communicate that to sondland and crew and still couldn't communicate that to the ukrañians then it didn't happen as no evidence can materialize that fact.

We at not in the minds of trump or guiliani to say what dey meant to discuss or tie the aids with. This is what the gops are saying. There are no facts to point fingers at trump that a crime was committed or was in the process of being committed. No evidence mentioning Biden whatsoever. That's why this fart is a witchhunt

So also giving credence to the fact that the hearing is a hoax. Had it been that Giuliani conveyed the message(which we think trump may have told him) then we may have to consider the impeachment hearing.

If you have been following Gulianni's interviews, all his focus was the investigation of Burisma Biden's and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections in support of Hillary. Trump told everyone involved with Ukraine to talk to Gulianni in relation to his dealings with Ukraine.

Sondland also said Gulianni made it clear to them (the 3 amigos) that everything (white house visit and the release of aids) is dependent on the investigations. Infact sondland and his colleagues wrote out a draft of the speech promising the investigations into Burisma Bidens and election interference with Zelensky's staff. Sondland also told Zelensky to look Trump in the eye and assured him he will announce the investigations when the meet in Warsaw (Trump never made it to Warsaw)

All the diplomats involved with Ukraine knew aids were tied to announcement of investigations, all the staff of the state department knew that aids were tied to announcement of investigations. The only people that could not and can never see that aids were tied to announcement of investigations are Trump's worshippers and the Republicans.
Same thing with Russian interference in the 2016 elections, all the 17 intelligence organisations, all the diplomats involved with Russian and Ukraine, all the state department officers, all agreed it was Russia that interfered with the 2016 elections. But somehow Trump was able to get his worshippers to believe it was Ukraine.

The Republicans today

The whistleblower was impatient

feedthenation:
The Republicans today

The three amigos

trump Corruption Breaking news

babaearly1:
trump Corruption Breaking news

Did someone say 'swamp'?

babaearly1:
trump Corruption Breaking news

Why do you hate Trump so much that you want him impeach? Trump has about 94% approval ratings among Republicans in the latest polls and is going to win next year election.

Other headlines...

---

US Democrats lay impeachment case against Trump
https://speakersden2..com/2020/01/us-democrats-lay-impeachment-case.html