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.

More childish ignorance.  

For the 1000th time, the validity of a request for cooperation with or to open an investigation is based solely on whether there is EVIDENCE to support reasonable suspicion.  This malarkey about "he didnt really care" is nursery rhyme stuff.  

Sir your under arrest for killing your wife.  
"Well I did it," but how many other people on my block did u arrest for murder today.  

Just childish.  

Worse still this is the crowd that pretended to care about a Russian hoax with NO EVIDENCE just a few months ago #isholudbecharging4this.

---

"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.

That's your biased opinion unsubstantiated by the evidence contained in the transcript.

---

"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?

There is only disagreement from those who suffer from TDS. The rest of us sit here and laugh at you and the kindergarten clown show led by Sweaty the Schiff.

---

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

Trump has committed an impeachable act 

The irony is that no one could actually state what exactly is the impeachable act you keep rambling on about. We have a verdict before a trial before a charge, nothing more.

---

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

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.

More childish ignorance.  

For the 1000th time, the validity of a request for cooperation with or to open an investigation is based solely on whether there is EVIDENCE to support reasonable suspicion.  This malarkey about "he didnt really care" is nursery rhyme stuff.  

Sir your under arrest for killing your wife.  
"Well I did it," but how many other people on my block did u arrest for murder today.  

Just childish.  

Worse still this is the crowd that pretended to care about a Russian hoax with NO EVIDENCE just a few months ago #isholudbecharging4this.

Evidence leading to reasonable suspicion is the domain of prosecutors and the police.
It is not appropriate for the President to be personally considering these things.. especially not concerning political enemies. It looks like petty, vengeful, banana republic stuff. Because it is.
And the evidence on record so far indicates that Joe Biden wanted Burisma investigated more thoroughly, not less.  It does not lead to a reasonable suspicion that he or his son accepted a bribe.

---

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

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

blah, blah, blah
blah, blah, blah
Trump has committed an impeachable act that wouldn't have helped him even if it was never reported.
rabble, rabble, rabble

What exactly is the said act?  Where is the evidence that proves that?

---

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.

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.

Regarding the part in bold, that's pure speculation/opinion.

---

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

More childish ignorance.  

For the 1000th time, the validity of a request for cooperation with or to open an investigation is based solely on whether there is EVIDENCE to support reasonable suspicion.  This malarkey about "he didnt really care" is nursery rhyme stuff.  

Sir your under arrest for killing your wife.  
"Well I did it," but how many other people on my block did u arrest for murder today.  

Just childish.  

Worse still this is the crowd that pretended to care about a Russian hoax with NO EVIDENCE just a few months ago #isholudbecharging4this.

Evidence leading to reasonable suspicion is the domain of prosecutors and the police.
It is not appropriate for the President to be personally considering these things.. especially not concerning political enemies. It looks like petty, vengeful, banana republic stuff. Because it is.

This is a lie.  The president is the chief law enforcement officer and is the head of the department of justice.  Universal power to order an investigation close an investigation & pardon.  This is part of his constitutional duty to ensure that the laws of the united states are faithfully executed.

And the evidence on record so far indicates that Joe Biden wanted Burisma investigated more thoroughly, not less.  It does not lead to a reasonable suspicion that he or his son accepted a bribe.

This is a lie.  The fact pattern is based on a false narrative.  Biden asserted the case was closed.  It was open.  2/2/16 court filing advancing the case.  Home of the founder raised.  Hunter Biden scheduled for deposition but then in march...  son of a ....

The former prosecutor general has given sworn testimony that you're wrong.  

Again joe Biden was so concerned about Barisma that he let his son and his sons college roommate go work for them making 83k a pie per month, deposited 1 billion in a bank owned by the owner, fired the prosecutor that raided his house and made sure he could enter this country....  son of a .....

---

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.

Regarding the part in bold, that's pure speculation/opinion.

Sure.  Judicial decisions are opinions supported by facts.  The redacted transcript we have, and the testimony read on Monday, are the facts.  Some of the testimony is more credible than other testimony.  We form an opinion from all of that. Rollerjag formed his.  But your finding will be opinion too.  The members of Congress / Senators will form theirs.

---

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

Evidence leading to reasonable suspicion is the domain of prosecutors and the police.
It is not appropriate for the President to be personally considering these things.. especially not concerning political enemies. It looks like petty, vengeful, banana republic stuff. Because it is.

This is a lie.  The president is the chief law enforcement officer and is the head of the department of justice.  Universal power to order an investigation close an investigation & pardon.  This is part of his constitutional duty to ensure that the laws of the united states are faithfully executed.

And the evidence on record so far indicates that Joe Biden wanted Burisma investigated more thoroughly, not less.  It does not lead to a reasonable suspicion that he or his son accepted a bribe.

This is a lie.  The fact pattern is based on a false narrative.  Biden asserted the case was closed.  It was open.  2/2/19 court filing advancing the case.  Home of the founder raised.  Hunter Biden scheduled for deposition but then in march...  son of a ....

The former prosecutor general has given sworn testimony that you're wrong.  

Again joe Biden was so concerned about Barisma that he let his son and his sons college roommate go work for them making 83k a pie per month, deposited 1 billion in a bank owned by the owner, fired the prosecutor that raided his house and made sure he could enter this country....  son of a .....

Joe Biden helped persuade Ukraine to dismiss their prosecutor in 2015.  
A filing in Ukraine courts in 2019 is unlikely to help inform us regarding Biden's motive.
The former prosecutor may be lying.  He was fired by pressure from Biden and the IMF.  Wants to restore his reputation.  That's a strong motive to lie, right there.

---

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

Regarding the part in bold, that's pure speculation/opinion.

Sure.  Judicial decisions are opinions supported by facts.  The redacted transcript we have, and the testimony read on Monday, are the facts.  Some of the testimony is more credible than other testimony.  We form an opinion from all of that. Rollerjag formed his.  But your finding will be opinion too.  The members of Congress / Senators will form theirs.

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

So what exactly is the "impeachable offense" that The President committed and where is the evidence?  After all, that's what you claim as well as all of the other leftists and MSM.

For a self-proclaimed "registered republican" you sound an awful lot like the socialist AOC.

---

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

This is a lie.  The fact pattern is based on a false narrative.  Biden asserted the case was closed.  It was open.  2/2/19 court filing advancing the case.  Home of the founder raised.  Hunter Biden scheduled for deposition but then in march...  son of a ....

The former prosecutor general has given sworn testimony that you're wrong.  

Again joe Biden was so concerned about Barisma that he let his son and his sons college roommate go work for them making 83k a pie per month, deposited 1 billion in a bank owned by the owner, fired the prosecutor that raided his house and made sure he could enter this country....  son of a .....

Joe Biden helped persuade Ukraine to dismiss their prosecutor in 2015.  
A filing in Ukraine courts in 2019 is unlikely to help inform us regarding Biden's motive.
The former prosecutor may be lying.  He was fired by pressure from Biden and the IMF.  Wants to restore his reputation.  That's a strong motive to lie, right there.

Joe Biden used the power of the United States to benefit his son's company. Trump should've had the Justice Department throw him in prison, but he's magnanimous that way.

---

Sure.  Judicial decisions are opinions supported by facts.  The redacted transcript we have, and the testimony read on Monday, are the facts.  Some of the testimony is more credible than other testimony.  We form an opinion from all of that. Rollerjag formed his.  But your finding will be opinion too.  The members of Congress / Senators will form theirs.

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

So what exactly is the "impeachable offense" that The President committed and where is the evidence?  After all, that's what you claim as well as all of the other leftists and MSM.

For a self-proclaimed "registered republican" you sound an awful lot like the socialist AOC.

it's not even an opinion, it's creative writing worthy of a Bantam Book.

---

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

Sure.  Judicial decisions are opinions supported by facts.  The redacted transcript we have, and the testimony read on Monday, are the facts.  Some of the testimony is more credible than other testimony.  We form an opinion from all of that. Rollerjag formed his.  But your finding will be opinion too.  The members of Congress / Senators will form theirs.

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

So what exactly is the "impeachable offense" that The President committed and where is the evidence?  After all, that's what you claim as well as all of the other leftists and MSM.

For a self-proclaimed "registered republican" you sound an awful lot like the socialist AOC.

What is impeachable and what is not is opinion.  
Criminal law is mostly facts, but this is not criminal law.  It can't be criminal law, as a sitting president can not be prosecuted.
We are discussing "high crimes" here, not mere crimes.  And yes, "high crimes" are a matter of opinion.

Like the Marquis de Lafayette, I didn't change.  Y'all changed.  I differ from AOC in many ways, but I'm not surprised if I agree with her on some stuff.  The whole political world got turned upside down after Trump became the Republican nominee.

---

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

This is a lie.  The fact pattern is based on a false narrative.  Biden asserted the case was closed.  It was open.  2/2/19 court filing advancing the case.  Home of the founder raised.  Hunter Biden scheduled for deposition but then in march...  son of a ....

The former prosecutor general has given sworn testimony that you're wrong.  

Again joe Biden was so concerned about Barisma that he let his son and his sons college roommate go work for them making 83k a pie per month, deposited 1 billion in a bank owned by the owner, fired the prosecutor that raided his house and made sure he could enter this country....  son of a .....

Joe Biden helped persuade Ukraine to dismiss their prosecutor in 2015.  
A filing in Ukraine courts in 2019 is unlikely to help inform us regarding Biden's motive.
The former prosecutor may be lying.  He was fired by pressure from Biden and the IMF.  Wants to restore his reputation.  That's a strong motive to lie, right there.

2/2/16 court filing advancing the investigation.  Owners home is raided 

March of 2016 joe biden...  son of a....

---

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

So what exactly is the "impeachable offense" that The President committed and where is the evidence?  After all, that's what you claim as well as all of the other leftists and MSM.

For a self-proclaimed "registered republican" you sound an awful lot like the socialist AOC.

What is impeachable and what is not is opinion.  
Criminal law is mostly facts, but this is not criminal law.  It can't be criminal law, as a sitting president can not be prosecuted.
We are discussing "high crimes" here, not mere crimes.  And yes, "high crimes" are a matter of opinion.

Like the Marquis de Lafayette, I didn't change.  Y'all changed.  I differ from AOC in many ways, but I'm not surprised if I agree with her on some stuff.  The whole political world got turned upside down after Trump became the Republican nominee.

We know that you agree with her that this whole sham is nothing more than a ploy to attempt to prevent Trump's reelection next year. It's doomed to fail of course, but you lefties are gonna pull out all your stops before then.

---

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

Sure.  Judicial decisions are opinions supported by facts.  The redacted transcript we have, and the testimony read on Monday, are the facts.  Some of the testimony is more credible than other testimony.  We form an opinion from all of that. Rollerjag formed his.  But your finding will be opinion too.  The members of Congress / Senators will form theirs.

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

So what exactly is the "impeachable offense" that The President committed and where is the evidence?  After all, that's what you claim as well as all of the other leftists and MSM.

For a self-proclaimed "registered republican" you sound an awful lot like the socialist AOC.

In Mike's defense, there were a few articles last year alleging that Trump takes 2 scoops of ice cream with his chocolate pie and everyone else gets 1.  Next week, I'm hearing the dems have a witness that heard from a waiters sister's boyfriend that there were sprinkles involved!

---

Sure.  Judicial decisions are opinions supported by facts.  The redacted transcript we have, and the testimony read on Monday, are the facts.  Some of the testimony is more credible than other testimony.  We form an opinion from all of that. Rollerjag formed his.  But your finding will be opinion too.  The members of Congress / Senators will form theirs.

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct (evidence)"
– Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley

There! A Democrat has completely validated Mikeys opinion. That settles it!

---

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

So what exactly is the "impeachable offense" that The President committed and where is the evidence?  After all, that's what you claim as well as all of the other leftists and MSM.

For a self-proclaimed "registered republican" you sound an awful lot like the socialist AOC.

In Mike's defense, there were a few articles last year alleging that Trump takes 2 scoops of ice cream with his chocolate pie and everyone else gets 1.  Next week, I'm hearing the dems have a witness that heard from a waiters sister's boyfriend that there were sprinkles involved!

I knew this would all come back to Gus Bradley.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

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

 
Trump has committed an impeachable act that wouldn't have helped him even if it was never reported.

What was the impeachable act?
A top Ukrainian diplomat is saying U.S military aid was never tied to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s corruption. On Thursday, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said U.S. envoy to the EU Gordon Sondland never linked aid to probes into the Bidens.

The minister said the Bidens were mentioned during U.S.-Ukrainian talks, but emphasized there was no conditionality attached to the investigation.

---

So your whole "President Trump committed an impeachable offense" is based on opinion rather than fact?  The testimony that we've heard so far is nothing more than hearsay and opinion... not "fact".  The "star witness" was supposedly told by a staffer that he overheard a one-way phone conversation.  That's not "fact" it's hearsay and second hand testimony.

"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct (evidence)"
– Democrat Rep. Mike Quigley

There! A Democrat has completely validated Mikeys opinion. That settles it!

---

In Mike's defense, there were a few articles last year alleging that Trump takes 2 scoops of ice cream with his chocolate pie and everyone else gets 1.  Next week, I'm hearing the dems have a witness that heard from a waiters sister's boyfriend that there were sprinkles involved!

I knew this would all come back to Gus Bradley.

---

 
Trump has committed an impeachable act that wouldn't have helped him even if it was never reported.

What was the impeachable act?

He won the election, duh.

---

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

There! A Democrat has completely validated Mikeys opinion. That settles it!

---

I knew this would all come back to Gus Bradley.

---

What was the impeachable act?

He won the election, duh.

Ahhh yes... and they have no one worthy to even challenge in 2020...

So the plan was get him for collusion oops no collusion
impeach him for abuse of power oops no real evidence of abuse of power

You'd think they'd put more effort into finding and nominating a candidate that could maybe just win an election.
Instead they give Trump 2020 more ammo every day this drivel continues

---

---

He won the election, duh.

Ahhh yes... and they have no one worthy to even challenge in 2020...

So the plan was get him for collusion oops no collusion
impeach him for abuse of power oops no real evidence of abuse of power

You'd think they'd put more effort into finding and nominating a candidate that could maybe just win an election.
Instead they give Trump 2020 more ammo every day this drivel continues

I don't know about "worthy" but most of the candidates they've lined up for 2020 could beat Trump easily. 
He's pretty unpopular and the fact that a lot of these opponents are not very well known yet could work in their favor.  Still a lot of first impressions to make.

---

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

Ahhh yes... and they have no one worthy to even challenge in 2020...

So the plan was get him for collusion oops no collusion
impeach him for abuse of power oops no real evidence of abuse of power

You'd think they'd put more effort into finding and nominating a candidate that could maybe just win an election.
Instead they give Trump 2020 more ammo every day this drivel continues

I don't know about "worthy" but most of the candidates they've lined up for 2020 could beat Trump easily. 
He's pretty unpopular and the fact that a lot of these opponents are not very well known yet could work in their favor.  Still a lot of first impressions to make.

Lolz

---