New Impeachment Transcripts Released Today

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Oraculi

Unless you investigate these people I want you to investigate, I am not giving you any money. (Money that is not mine to give.) That is extortion.

Sounds like an apt description of Joe Biden's actions.

This is how it gets into the twilight zone with the liberal Democrats.

Do they know that normal people see what Biden did and said on tape about withholding money if his son is not cleared is extremely sketchy.

Trump brings up this sketchy deal and is the bad guy?

You don’t seem to have even a basic grasp of the facts of the matter.

Best not to throw stones from your glass porch.

originally posted by: Oraculi
Associated Press

The preponderance of evidence is becoming overwhelming. So far we are seeing evidence of extortion, abuse of power and obstruction of justice from the witnesses. Extortion would fall under Bribery as an article of impeachment and the other two would be as named. There is also, of course, the possibility that the president will give testimony himself, or be asked to give written replies to inquiries, although with all the evidence so far I think that will be completely unnecessary. However, any such development would also create the possibility of lying under oath.

Here are some excerpts from today's transcripts, from Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill, a White House Russia adviser.

“He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma,” Vindman said. “The Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens.”

Into the Bidens? the investigators pressed.

“To the best of my recollection, yes,” he said. “My visceral reaction to what was being called for suggested that it was explicit. There was no ambiguity.”

Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, sought to portray Trump’s request for a favor in his phone call with the Ukrainian president as falling short of a demand.

But Vindman disagreed.

“When the president of the United States makes a request for a favor, it certainly seems, I would take it as a demand,” he retorted.

Vindman, a veteran of the Iraq War, then added: “Congressman, as a military officer if my superiors tell me to do something, I take that not as a request , I take that as a demand.”

Unless you investigate these people I want you to investigate, I am not giving you any money. (Money that is not mine to give.)

That is extortion.

The Constitution calls it Bribery.

So this is the mans opinion of the phone call, not what actually was said or done?

He said when the president makes a response that's like a demand? That's opinion and sounds like spin.

So trump never demanded it, but because he is president it's like a demand...ha ha ha ha.

And people will buy that as an excuse?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Oraculi

Unless you investigate these people I want you to investigate, I am not giving you any money. (Money that is not mine to give.) That is extortion.

Sounds like an apt description of Joe Biden's actions.

This is how it gets into the twilight zone with the liberal Democrats.

Do they know that normal people see what Biden did and said on tape about withholding money if his son is not cleared is extremely sketchy.

Trump brings up this sketchy deal and is the bad guy?

You don’t seem to have even a basic grasp of the facts of the matter.

Best not to throw stones from your glass porch.

Enlighten me.

Biden a few years ago is on tape boasting how he has the power to withhold money if his son was not cleared of prosecution .

Trump call the Ukrainian president and asks what the story with biden was about and wants to make sure it wasnt illegal?

The Democrats said trump demanded it. But that's not the words trump used.
But Democrats said because he is the president, thats like a demand...ha ha ha

Democrats live in a strange place and it's called la la land.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is no doubt that Mr. Trump made it clear to the Ukrainians that he was making a deal. You guys act like the process between the US and the Ukraine began and ended with this telephone call. Maybe you are that ignorant and maybe not, but the phone call itself is an afterthought. All the terms had already been worked out. The Ukrainians needed the Javelins and Trump needed investigations. THAT backdoor process is the meat and potatoes of the impeachment inquiry.

Maybe you didn’t know that, and maybe you did.

So for goddsake drop all the nuanced BSing about levels of culpability and the sanctity of evidence. The Trump Administration PLAINLY used political pressure on the Ukraine to do the President’s bidding NOT for the security of the United States but for his own personal advantage.

Maddeningly, I don’t think that’s illegal ... but it’s sure as hell not RIGHT.

again you provide AN OPINION ... NOT PROOF

you may think there was something "implied" and "All the terms had already been worked out"
but where is THE PROOF?

heck there is PROOF that they got all the aid they were promised .

we have PROOF of the phone call by transcript (funny you dismiss that) .

but you DONT HAVE PROOF of any quip pro quo

So unless you have hard evidence (sorry a bunch of people saying the same unsubstantiated claims isnt proof) then your just propagating propaganda

despite what expert propaganda experts say (does Joseph Goebbels ring a bell) , telling the same lie over and over (be one person or many) does not make it the truth/fact.

scrounger

A multitude of witnesses have come forward regarding the PROCESS behind the scenes that CULMINATED in the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Do any of you realize that the process took place over months?

It is quite obvious that Zelensky knew all the agreed-upon responses to Trump in the phone call, there’s a reason it reads like a very carefully worded script.

For goddsake this is probably not going to end with the President’s removal, but stop denying reality.

a reply to: scrounger

What are you providing? An opinion?

See, that’s the problem with reducing EVERYTHING to opinion which is then always dismissible when you don’t want to know the truth.

Every issue you’ve raised here is JUST YOUR OPINION. You didn’t hear the call, you don’t know what was said. You don’t know what was arranged in advance over months. Nothing.

So by your own logic, you have nothing, only an OPINION.

And apparently, everyone has those and they all stink, right?

You guys with your self-defeating arguments.

a reply to: Gryphon66

nice deflection and rant

now that you got that off your chest care to provide PROOF that counters what THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT STATES and the WORDS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE?

because in your claims i can find the very people testifying using the word OPINION.


still waiting

btw my "opinion" is backed up by the transcript (btw you also can read ) and president of ukraine.


yours is OPINION of witnesses.

scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: Gryphon66

nice deflection and rant

now that you got that off your chest care to provide PROOF that counters what THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT STATES and the WORDS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE?

because in your claims i can find the very people testifying using the word OPINION.


still waiting

btw my "opinion" is backed up by the transcript (btw you also can read ) and president of ukraine.


yours is OPINION of witnesses.

scrounger

So ... wait, you’re changing your argument.

Opinion has merit if it’s backed up by evidence then? Like all the negotiations behind the scenes prior to “the call”?

Well, then, you can find that by typing “witness testimony in Trump impeachment” to Google.

You should have said that, you’ve been crying about opinions.

a reply to: Bloodworth

Do they know that normal people see what Biden did and said on tape about withholding money if his son is not cleared is extremely sketchy.

Except that no one ever saw or heard Biden say anything like this.
Come on at least fight fair with real stuff. Biden never said he was going to withhold money if his son is not cleared. Cleared of what? He was never accused of doing anything. Please look it all up.
The BIden story is just a story. Made up.
BIden saying he would walk with his million dollars was not the same as telling a president that you will withhold aid if they do not put out fake dirt on your opposition or anything even remotely like it.
It's a complete and total false equivalent.

a reply to: Bloodworth

Its not opinion. These people were part of the whole thing. They were there.
And yes when the president tells a military officer to do something it is not arguable. You do it.
Would you please get real.
Its not spin.
The truth is proving to be very hard to absorb for some.
The next few weeks are going to be torture.

a reply to: Bloodworth

Biden a few years ago is on tape boasting how he has the power to withhold money if his son was not cleared of prosecution .

This is exactly where you go wrong. Biden never said anything like that.
His son was not part of anything. It had nothing to do with his son.
He and the international money fund and the erupean union all wanted that prosecutor gone because he was NOT investigating corruption. Not because he was investigating his son. His son was never under any kind of investigation of any kind. The company he worked for was... years before Hunter worked for them.
These are inarguable facts that are easily checked.
This story is dead gone goodbye.

a reply to: scrounger

but where is THE PROOF?

Its all over the testimony that we have been hearing.
If you choose not to listen thats on you but the proof is there.
Next week is going to be trumps worst week yet when they start testimony on live TV.
He better have his little fingers all warmed up because he is going to be tweeting more than robins in the spring.

a reply to: scrounger

lol
Yeah just read the testimony of everyone else. Those who were present during the call, and the arrangements made in the months ahead of the call.
The information is out there. The real information.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Trump never once said to put fake dirt on Biden.

This is a lie adma schiff said with no evidence.

Show me anyone other than schiff saying trump demanded Ukrainians place fake dirt on Biden.

Even if we assume trump offered quid pro quo (he didnt), Trump asked for an investigation into corruption, including with bidens actions, not for them to make up dirt on Biden.

Biden we know offered a quid pro quo, to fire a prosecutor leading an investigation, which his sons company was the target of.

Bidens qpq worked, the prosecutor was fired, and the investigation into his sons company and its owner (which Biden and obama claimed was a corrupt oligarch) was let go with small fines, by the Obama allied NABU.

That warrants an invetsigiation

a reply to: Sillyolme

That is another lie.

Burisma was being investigated while Hunter was there; in fact even when Shokin was fired, the Obama allied NABU picked up the investigation and ultimately in 2017 (while Hunter was still there) settled the case for small fines.

Whether those crimes that were being investigated occured while Hunter was there or not is irrelevant; it was being invetsigated while hunter was there.

ANd for it to be improper to have joe biden intervene in the prosecution of this company, we dont even need evedence Hunter committed a crime or was being investigated for it.

Had Burisma or its owner Zlochevsky been found guilty, Hunter Biden stood to lose over $80,000 a month.

Of trump intervened to fir e a proscutor looking into his sons business, you would not say it was fine so long as his son wasnt personally being investigated for a crime. You would say this should be investigated because Trump intervened to stop his son from losing millions of dollars.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bloodworth

Biden a few years ago is on tape boasting how he has the power to withhold money if his son was not cleared of prosecution .

This is exactly where you go wrong. Biden never said anything like that.
His son was not part of anything. It had nothing to do with his son.
He and the international money fund and the erupean union all wanted that prosecutor gone because he was NOT investigating corruption. Not because he was investigating his son. His son was never under any kind of investigation of any kind. The company he worked for was... years before Hunter worked for them.
These are inarguable facts that are easily checked.
This story is dead gone goodbye.

Bidens words were you ain't getting the money unless that prosecutor is fired....
How is that not pay for play?

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bloodworth

Biden a few years ago is on tape boasting how he has the power to withhold money if his son was not cleared of prosecution .

This is exactly where you go wrong. Biden never said anything like that.
His son was not part of anything. It had nothing to do with his son.
He and the international money fund and the erupean union all wanted that prosecutor gone because he was NOT investigating corruption. Not because he was investigating his son. His son was never under any kind of investigation of any kind. The company he worked for was... years before Hunter worked for them.
These are inarguable facts that are easily checked.
This story is dead gone goodbye.

Bidens words were you ain't getting the money unless that prosecutor is fired....
How is that not pay for play?

And didint bidens son during an interview said he would have never gotten the job if it were not for his last name?

So since the euros wanted the prosecutor gone as well biden Is well in his rights to say you ain't getting the money unless that prosecutor is fired.

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bloodworth

Biden a few years ago is on tape boasting how he has the power to withhold money if his son was not cleared of prosecution .

This is exactly where you go wrong. Biden never said anything like that.
His son was not part of anything. It had nothing to do with his son.
He and the international money fund and the erupean union all wanted that prosecutor gone because he was NOT investigating corruption. Not because he was investigating his son. His son was never under any kind of investigation of any kind. The company he worked for was... years before Hunter worked for them.
These are inarguable facts that are easily checked.
This story is dead gone goodbye.

Bidens words were you ain't getting the money unless that prosecutor is fired....
How is that not pay for play?

Maybe ask the guy calling the shots, you know, Barack Obama?

The guy with the extraordinary diplomatic powers to make such decisions?

Kinda like your guy, Mr. Trump?

Yep.

a reply to: Grambler

Was the investigation into Burisma regarding actions during the years that Hunter Biden was there?

Or was the investigation into matters between 2010-2012 before Biden joined the Board in 2014?