House GOP Release List of Witnesses For Impeachment Hearings

a reply to: andy06shake

That list is a joke and most of those people will never be called.
So questions about whether they will appear or not are irrelevant.

The only people who are going to be called are the people who can answer to this Ukraine phone call and the attempt to extort the Ukrainian president. The trying to get the dirt. Not the fake dirt he was trying to get.

a reply to: Edumakated

They wont be called.
They are not going to make a joke out of this impeachment hearing.
They are not going to be entertaining any already debunked conspiracy theories or waste time and money on matters that do not pertain to this.
The questions are going to be about what trump did and about what he had other people do for him.
Nothing else.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for giving me your opinion

and thanks for giving us yours and presenting witnesses opinions VS transcripts of the call

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheRedneck

None of which has anything to do with the impeachment hearings.
None.

Not even the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella?

Putting it in quotes doesn’t change the fact that the individual in question filed a valid complaint, the ICIG found it credible and passed it on to the House Intelligence Committee ... all as required by Federal law.

That complaint has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, and sustained by the President’s own words and the words of the White House Staff.

Funny people try to rewrite history. The reality was his complaint was dismissed. This is why our whistleblower contacts congress in the first place. Also how this was leaked to the press. the more you look at this the more it looks like this was because the Mueller report failed. There is tons of details the press are just leaving out .

For example, the funds were released do to senator rob portman calling the president. He is the one that told the president we need to release the funds. He is also the one that stated Trump held those funds in an attempt to get support from Europe.

Really, who dismissed the complaint? Because there are copies of letters from the ICIG that very clearly states that the Director of National Intelligence had three days before he released the credible complaint to the Congress.

So please, show us that the matter was dismissed.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for giving me your opinion

and thanks for giving us yours and presenting witnesses opinions VS transcripts of the call

You’re welcome.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The only people who are going to be called are the people who can answer to this Ukraine phone call and the attempt to extort the Ukrainian president

there was no extortion in the transcript, read the transcript for Gods sake its wishful thinking, be real for once

a reply to: CrazyFox

trump didn't care about corruption. He cared about getting dirt on Biden, the strongest opponent on the dem line up at the time. Don't try to gloss over it with nonsense about primaries. Everybody knew that Biden was the biggest threat.
trump was trying to arm himself for campaign season and the person most likely to be the dem candidate.
All he talked about was a stupid conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike and the Bidens.
Thats not exactly battling corruption and no one is buying that either.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Sillyolme

The only people who are going to be called are the people who can answer to this Ukraine phone call and the attempt to extort the Ukrainian president

there was no extortion in the transcript, read the transcript for Gods sake its wishful thinking, be real for once

READ the transcript is such an easy thing to say.

I fully admit - - many times when I read LEGAL transcripts - - I find them confusing. I do not understand legalize. Sometimes they sound like they mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

But, it sure is easy to read into them what you want them to mean.

a reply to: Dr UAE

There is no transcript of the phone call just a ten minute summary which has already been shown to be incomplete by someone who witnessed the call.

NEXT...

and I DID read it so I could time how much was actually captured on that summary. It took less than ten minutes and someone came into the room and asked me a question while I was reading it. The record for the call said it was from
9:01 AM to 9:34 AM so it seems there is a lot that is missing even considering translators and pauses in the conversation.
Less than ten minutes out of 33 minutes.

So that ends the argument of read the transcript. Read the transcripts of the witnesses, not the watered down record that trump wanted preserved.

Remember when we where having the exact same conversation a year ago over Russian collusion?

a reply to: Annee

READ the transcript is such an easy thing to say.

and a logical thing to say, dont you think?

I do not understand legalize. Sometimes they sound like they mean the opposite of what they actually mean.

only to those whom are confused

But, it sure is easy to read into them what you want them to mean.

thats why the Americans have Adam Schiff from the other side

a reply to: Dr UAE

Reading the source and source material of any OP is logical.

If you have legal training and can accurately comprehend legalize - - good for you.

a reply to: Dr UAE

It’s not “wishful thinking” to see a clear quid pro quo even in the heavily edited transcript released by the White House.

Have you read the transcript??? Whitehouse.gov

Bottom of page 2 to top of page 3: Trump very clearly answers Zelensky’s statement that they are ready to buy more Javelins with his request that Ukraine investigate the “Cloudstrike server” and then at the bottom of pg 3 and top of pg 4 Trump asks for Hunter Biden to be investigated.

Now, is that illegal? Nope, not in light of the President’s incredibly broad powers in dealing with other heads of state.

Is it impeachable? Well, that combined with the background provided by multiple witnesses with direct knowledge of the situation (including White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney) that Trump made the sale of Javelins contingent on Ukraine’s investigation.

Is that impeachable? We will see.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The record for the call said it was from 9:01 AM to 9:34 AM so it seems there is a lot that is missing even considering translators and pauses in the conversation. Less than ten minutes out of 33 minutes.

transcripts are not made up by Trump FYI, he doesn't write them

Read the transcripts of the witnesses

the second hand witnesses you mean?

a reply to: Dr UAE

It is amazing that so many completely disregard the public statement from two of the actual and only first hand witnesses on that call. Trump and Zelensky.

Everyone else is just hearsay, assumptions, and gossip mongering. Those are the facts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Is that impeachable? We will see.

you know very well it does not, but wishful thinking

a reply to: Gryphon66

quid pro quo
[ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō]

NOUN
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

Honest question, how is this not the core of diplomacy, darn few countries in history have ever done something just because its the right thing to do...

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

quid pro quo
[ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō]

NOUN
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

Honest question, how is this not the core of diplomacy, darn few countries in history have ever done something just because its the right thing to do...

It is.

That’s what Mulvaney said.

It’s what I’ve said.

I’m not sure about your question.