I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

There u go again...

U can't have an extortive act if the alleged target of said act was unaware of it.  This whole "well they wanted to but they're incompetent" idea is word salad for the #orangemanbad crowd.  Either they pressured the ukrainians or they didnt.  

Moreover, the key to an extortive act is the pressure or lack thereof interpreted by the target.  Zollensky already stated publicly he felt no pressure.  Case closed.  Moreover the aid was released without any of the alleged preconditions being met.  

Most alarming Bill Taylor, as the ambassador to the Ukraine, had DIRECT ACCESS to the Ukrainian president including three face to face meetings during the 55 day hold on the aid.  Not ONE TIME did the president mention any linkage or pressure in correlation to aid, investigations or anything of the sort.  Instead Mr. Taylor based his "clear uneerstanding" on what someone told someone who told someone else that President Trump might have been thinking (not making this up.  The clip Is spectacular.

The phone call does not mention Burisma.  It mentions a.)  Election interference in 2016.  B.) Alleged obstruction of justice.  Any potential crime or corrupt act by an Americam citizen in public office meets the definition of the national interest.  There is no such requirement that it must be part of a broader or general investigative package. The only question is whether the request or suspicion is properly predicated.

---

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

Bahahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!!!!

The Mikesez Clown Show continues apace. Such true Republicanism on display as always.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

Bahahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!!!!

The Mikesez Clown Show continues apace. Such true Republicanism on display as always.

The left couldn't be campaigning better for Trump 2020 if they tried.  Anyone remaining who are objective and open minded will be repulsed by this clown show.  Completely devoid of fact and logic.  Impeachment is for crime, which there was none.  It's not meant for political disagreement.  But here we are, the new normal of dysfunction.

Meanwhile, as a government shutdown looms due to an inactive Congress... the same clowns will blame it on, who else... Trump, of course... when it's their job they aren't doing while wasting their time and our dollars on just another in a long line of lies and deceptions that are nothing more than empty, partisan rhetoric.

I'd be really angry if I were on the left.  Angry at all the lies being fed, expecting me to be stupid enough to buy into without question.  They really have been duped, taken for a ride, and treated like imbeciles by those who have truly betrayed their trust to the American people.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

  Zollensky already stated publicly he felt no pressure.  Case closed. 

Everything you said is oversimplified. You were either not thinking critically or trying to deceive us.
I will take it one sentence at a time. I have deleted everything except the one sentence that I will address.
zelinsky has also said that he does not want to be involved in our domestic politics. He also would like to look strong in front of his own people. Both of those things point to telling a white lie about whether or not he felt pressure.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

  Zollensky already stated publicly he felt no pressure.  Case closed. 

Everything you said is oversimplified. You were either not thinking critically or trying to deceive us.
I will take it one sentence at a time. I have deleted everything except the one sentence that I will address.
zelinsky has also said that he does not want to be involved in our domestic politics. He also would like to look strong in front of his own people. Both of those things point to telling a white lie about whether or not he felt pressure.

So you have a victim who refuses to testify truthfully about the crime, that's your story... Lol.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

There u go again...

 Moreover the aid was released without any of the alleged preconditions being met.  

The aid was released after the whistleblower report became public. Plausible explanation: they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Everything you said is oversimplified. You were either not thinking critically or trying to deceive us.
I will take it one sentence at a time. I have deleted everything except the one sentence that I will address.
zelinsky has also said that he does not want to be involved in our domestic politics. He also would like to look strong in front of his own people. Both of those things point to telling a white lie about whether or not he felt pressure.

So you have a victim who refuses to testify truthfully about the crime, that's your story... Lol.

Hey if the Trump defenders want to serve the president of Ukraine with a subpoena, they can certainly try. 
Even if he chose to entertain the thing, his testimony may not be credible because he may view defending his reputation as an independent tough guy as more important than telling the truth.  We don't just listen to testimony. We decide whose testimony is credible based on their motivations.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

There u go again...

 Bill Taylor, as the ambassador to the Ukraine, had DIRECT ACCESS to the Ukrainian president including three face to face meetings during the 55 day hold on the aid.  Not ONE TIME did the president mention any linkage or pressure in correlation to aid, investigations or anything of the sort.  

Mr Taylor had three meetings with the Ukrainian president but zero with the US president. 
the plausible story is that the US president had other people he was relying on to convey his corrupt message. Two separate channels of communication. within the story it makes sense that Mr Taylor would only be able to understand the President's true motive through secondhand information. This doesn't mean that the story is true, but it does mean that the lack of firsthand information is not a plot hole as you suggest it is.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

There u go again...

 Alleged obstruction of justice.  Any potential crime or corrupt act by an Americam citizen in public office meets the definition of the national interest.  There is no such requirement that it must be part of a broader or general investigative package. The only question is whether the request or suspicion is properly predicated.

The president cannot simply start investigations.
He appoints prosecutors.
The prosecutors look at facts and form reasonable suspicion that crimes or corrupt acts may have taken place. Then they start issuing subpoenas and warrants. If the person or thing was in another country, at that point and only at that point would it be appropriate to approach their counterparts in that country to obtain that information.
All that said, the witnesses we have heard from so far have indicated that Biden wanted Ukraine's prosecutor fired because that prosecutor was being too soft on Burisma's founder. Not that he was being too tough. If that's true it would be a case of promoting justice not obstructing it. If probable cause exists that Biden was actually trying to stymie a prosecution, the Republicans should be able to find a willing witness with credible knowledge of this.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you have a victim who refuses to testify truthfully about the crime, that's your story... Lol.

Hey if the Trump defenders want to serve the president of Ukraine with a subpoena, they can certainly try. 
Even if he chose to entertain the thing, his testimony may not be credible because he may view defending his reputation as an independent tough guy as more important than telling the truth.  We don't just listen to testimony. We decide whose testimony is credible based on their motivations.

You're on the side of Adam Schiff and really trying to talk credible. What a joke.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Hey if the Trump defenders want to serve the president of Ukraine with a subpoena, they can certainly try. 
Even if he chose to entertain the thing, his testimony may not be credible because he may view defending his reputation as an independent tough guy as more important than telling the truth.  We don't just listen to testimony. We decide whose testimony is credible based on their motivations.

You're on the side of Adam Schiff and really trying to talk credible. What a joke.

That guy is such a clown.

---

  Zollensky already stated publicly he felt no pressure.  Case closed. 

Everything you said is oversimplified. You were either not thinking critically or trying to deceive us.
I will take it one sentence at a time. I have deleted everything except the one sentence that I will address.
zelinsky has also said that he does not want to be involved in our domestic politics. He also would like to look strong in front of his own people. Both of those things point to telling a white lie about whether or not he felt pressure.

I'm "Oversimplifying"?  You know what you're right.  Who needs direct verifiable evidence when you have rumor, hearsay, and conspiracy theories.  We're only talking about the removal of a president for the first time in the history of the country and nullifying the votes of 63 million people.  

Ambassador Taylor was asked if he had ANY EVIDENCE that the president of the Ukraine was lying in his public statement about feeling no pressure during the July 25th Call and Mr. Taylor Said No.  If you want to B.S. me, try harder.

---

There u go again...

 Moreover the aid was released without any of the alleged preconditions being met.  

The aid was released after the whistleblower report became public. Plausible explanation: they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Hands in what cookie Jar?  By Federal statute, the President of the United States is tasked with determining if the recipient of Foreign aid is a corrupt entity or will grossly misuse the funds.  The initial hold was placed on the funds because a.) the incoming Ukrainian administration was an unknown quantity and we wanted to make an assessment of their legitimate commitment to Reform b.) We didn't want to be unduly burdened in relation to our European Allies in subsidizing our mutual security interest of protecting Ukraine and opposing Russian Aggression.  

Ambassador Taylor TESTIFIED that the Aid was ALWAYS expected to be released, Mulvaney stated publicly that the hold was inherently temporary because by statute there was a time limit on any administrative hold before they would have to show cause before congress.  

Moreover, the Whistleblower complaint was filed on 8/12/2019.  That's a full 16 days before anyone even alleges that they Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on the aid.  Also, the allegation that the aid was discussed on the call was patently false.  The idea of 8 specific instances was patently false.  (Goes to show how great third hand evidence is.)  And we now know based on the identity of the whistleblower that he would have been a FACT WITNESS OR TARGET OF ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIA PROBE.  

Oversimplifying....  Lol.  #ISHOULDBECHARGINGFORTHIS

---

There u go again...

 Bill Taylor, as the ambassador to the Ukraine, had DIRECT ACCESS to the Ukrainian president including three face to face meetings during the 55 day hold on the aid.  Not ONE TIME did the president mention any linkage or pressure in correlation to aid, investigations or anything of the sort.  

Mr Taylor had three meetings with the Ukrainian president but zero with the US president. 
the plausible story is that the US president had other people he was relying on to convey his corrupt message. Two separate channels of communication. within the story it makes sense that Mr Taylor would only be able to understand the President's true motive through secondhand information. This doesn't mean that the story is true, but it does mean that the lack of firsthand information is not a plot hole as you suggest it is.

Mr. Taylor's own testimony says that to the best of his knowledge the Ukrainians didn't even know about the hold on the Aid until it was revealed in Politico.  So there was a separate channel to deliver a corrupt message that the Ukrainians never received about investigations they never started to get aid that was released anyway?  #TDS

The funny thing is that in the admitted game of telephone that lead to the CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ambassador Taylor keeps referring to a September utterance by Sondland.  Sondland testified that the only direct conversation he had with the president on the matter included the president telling him "There is Quid pro Quo, I only want the Ukrainians to do the right thing" and Sondland contradicted Taylor's concern about pressure being applied to the Ukrainians.

---

There u go again...

 Alleged obstruction of justice.  Any potential crime or corrupt act by an Americam citizen in public office meets the definition of the national interest.  There is no such requirement that it must be part of a broader or general investigative package. The only question is whether the request or suspicion is properly predicated.

The president cannot simply start investigations.
He appoints prosecutors.
The prosecutors look at facts and form reasonable suspicion that crimes or corrupt acts may have taken place. Then they start issuing subpoenas and warrants. If the person or thing was in another country, at that point and only at that point would it be appropriate to approach their counterparts in that country to obtain that information.
All that said, the witnesses we have heard from so far have indicated that Biden wanted Ukraine's prosecutor fired because that prosecutor was being too soft on Burisma's founder. Not that he was being too tough. If that's true it would be a case of promoting justice not obstructing it. If probable cause exists that Biden was actually trying to stymie a prosecution, the Republicans should be able to find a willing witness with credible knowledge of this.

Yes, The PRESIDENT appoints The attorney general and every principal officer at the department of justice.  That's because, as a unitary executive, he is the head of the entire executive branch, including the department of justice.  The President most certainly has the power to order any investigation that he deems in the national interest, with proper evidence, and the full prosecutorial discretion to discontinue any investigation he sees fit, and universal pardon authority for federal prosecution.  Your continued insistence that the president is an inferior entity to the AG is childish.

As the sole arbiter of Foreign policy the president takes on the diplomatic role of facilitating cooperation with other countries.  The AG doesn't usurp the president and just get on the phone with a foreign counterpart.  Those meetings and interactions are facilitated as a diplomatic function of the executive.  

As for "Not being tough enough" The cover story Biden has been using for 3 years is that the investigation into his son's business was closed before the prosecutor was fired.  We now know that to be a lie.  In February Shokin filed motions in court to advance the investigation into Burisma, 3 weeks before he was fired the home of the owner was raided and hunter Biden was schedueled to testify.  We also have documents showing that the day after Shokin was fired lawyers from Burisma a.) apologized for the LIES that were told about Shokin and b.) wanted to arrange a meeting with the new prosecutor Lutsenko to smooth things over and work on the dismissal of cases pending against Burisma.  What you and your ilk would have us believe is that Lunch pale Joe was sitting in bed every night so concerned about corruption at Burisma that he let his son and his sons college roommate go to work for them (paid a reported 6 million dollars), deposit over a billion dollars in a bank owned by the founder, normalize the founder and allow him a Visa to return to the United States, and Fire the prosecutor that just raided the founders home....  Son of a …..

As for the Republican being able to produce witnesses, the State Department IG already disclosed the informal Dossier that was prepared by Giuliani with sworn testimony from Shokin and Lutsenko about the true reasons that the prosecutor was fired along with accompanying documents and court filings to debunk the idea that the investigation was idle at the time he was fired.  Why haven't you heard about it at these proceedings?  Because Adam Shift specifically forbid any investigation as to the actual validity of the two probes the president requested!

---

"Oversimplifying" = The act of refusing to twist and torture the clear meaning of words and actions in order to create an impeachable offense.

But "Son of a [BLEEP]", we can damn sure ignore real corruption and act like the President had no valid reason to investigate it.

Here's the money quote from yesterday:

“There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anti-corruption reforms, as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The International Monetary Fund does the same thing. Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.”

So game over dip [BLEEP], there's no "there" there as we've been saying since the Democrats lost their minds in November of 2016. Your Day 1 Star Witness admitted the truth for all to hear.

You lost, you're throwing a temper tantrum, and you're digging your own graves, especially in light of the pending release of the IG report of how this crapfest really started. Good day.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I thought Schiff and Jordan both made their cases pretty well.  Nunes was pretty ineffective.
I wonder if the Democrats can show that Ukraine knew aid was being withheld prior to the July 25th call.  I think the Democrats' accusations become less serious, but still very serious, if Ukraine did not know.  It would show Trump's people to be corrupt but incompetent, which I suppose is less serious than corrupt and competent.
For their part, Republicans could show that Trump was pursuing "corruption in general" in Ukraine as they allege.  The transcript that we have, which is not complete, only mentions crowdstrike and Burisma.  And it only mentions Burisma in connection with Biden - not in general.  If they can show that Trump's interests were actually broad, they could justify that more easily as being "national interest".  But I doubt they have the evidence for that.  We would have seen it by now.

Umm....

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

"Oversimplifying" = The act of refusing to twist and torture the clear meaning of words and actions in order to create an impeachable offense.

But "Son of a [BLEEP]", we can damn sure ignore real corruption and act like the President had no valid reason to investigate it.

Here's the money quote from yesterday:

“There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anti-corruption reforms, as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The International Monetary Fund does the same thing. Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.”

So game over dip [BLEEP], there's no "there" there as we've been saying since the Democrats lost their minds in November of 2016. Your Day 1 Star Witness admitted the truth for all to hear.

You lost, you're throwing a temper tantrum, and you're digging your own graves, especially in light of the pending release of the IG report of how this crapfest really started. Good day.

That is indeed an important quote.  The disagreement is whether "open an investigation specifically into the Bidens and Crowdstrike" is an appropriate condition.  Have we imposed conditions specifically like that before?  If not, who has the authority to change priorities this way?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"Oversimplifying" = The act of refusing to twist and torture the clear meaning of words and actions in order to create an impeachable offense.

But "Son of a [BLEEP]", we can damn sure ignore real corruption and act like the President had no valid reason to investigate it.

Here's the money quote from yesterday:

“There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anti-corruption reforms, as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The International Monetary Fund does the same thing. Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.”

So game over dip [BLEEP], there's no "there" there as we've been saying since the Democrats lost their minds in November of 2016. Your Day 1 Star Witness admitted the truth for all to hear.

You lost, you're throwing a temper tantrum, and you're digging your own graves, especially in light of the pending release of the IG report of how this crapfest really started. Good day.

You totally missed the point. Aid has been given conditionally in the past, the conditions based on U.S. policy. Trump wasn't concerned about Ukraine corruption in general, he wanted dirt on what he perceived to be his main political rival.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

"Oversimplifying" = The act of refusing to twist and torture the clear meaning of words and actions in order to create an impeachable offense.

But "Son of a [BLEEP]", we can damn sure ignore real corruption and act like the President had no valid reason to investigate it.

Here's the money quote from yesterday:

“There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anti-corruption reforms, as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The International Monetary Fund does the same thing. Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.”

So game over dip [BLEEP], there's no "there" there as we've been saying since the Democrats lost their minds in November of 2016. Your Day 1 Star Witness admitted the truth for all to hear.

You lost, you're throwing a temper tantrum, and you're digging your own graves, especially in light of the pending release of the IG report of how this crapfest really started. Good day.

You totally missed the point. Aid has been given conditionally in the past, the conditions based on U.S. policy. Trump wasn't concerned about Ukraine corruption in general, he wanted dirt on what he perceived to be his main political rival.

Creepy Uncle Joe provides enough of his own dirt. Trump doesn't need it.

---

You totally missed the point. Aid has been given conditionally in the past, the conditions based on U.S. policy. Trump wasn't concerned about Ukraine corruption in general, he wanted dirt on what he perceived to be his main political rival.

Creepy Uncle Joe provides enough of his own dirt. Trump doesn't need it.

I actually agree!
That's the irony here.  
Trump has committed an impeachable act that wouldn't have helped him even if it was never reported.
Like a guy going to jail for stealing even though he didn't need the money.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.