I think all this talk about the whistleblower is moot.  Irrelevant.  What the whistleblower reported is backed up by the transcript that the White House released.  

The Republican strategy will be to confuse, obstruct, delay, find various people on the other side they can attack, and generally just throw as much [BLEEP] against the wall as they can and see what sticks.  

What the Democrats need to do is point to the transcript and say, "There it is.  He used taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign country."

Please, quoye the relevant passages.

---

Not sure why some of you are okay with a VP taking money from a foreign power illegally.... is it because he was Obama's pet?

Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Prosecuting or investigating a single person, rather than a whole group of people, is not a valid foreign policy objective. 
Using foreign policy tools to further a personal or partisan interest is a naked abuse of power.
Trump's cabinet have plenty of tools at their disposal to try to investigate Biden - but only if probable cause for a violation of US law exists.
But they have skipped over using the tools they legitimately have, and have tried to use illegitimate tools. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not there is probable cause the Joe Biden or Hunter Biden broke US law.

What part of "i want u to speak to the attorney general" didnt u people understand?  My gosh.  

It is common diplomatic process for the chief executive to introduce members of his cabinet to incoming foreign leaders to facilitate cooperation.

---

And just a refresher to all those that have not been paying attention, it has now been demonstrated that the Ukrainian officials did not know that defense Aid was put on hold until a month after the July 25th phone call. It has also been revealed that in fact the ukrainians had been investigating Hunter Biden's company for more than 4 months before the July 25th phone call. Any hopes of preserving the theory of a quid pro quo or in fact at this very moment dead.

The only person that we know engaged in any illicit quid pro quo with Ukrainian government for a potentially corrupt motive is Joe Biden.

Into anyone in the peanut gallery hanging by a fig Leaf to the idea of "why would you single out Joe Biden" after the annexation of Crimea Joe Biden was singularly in charge of Ukraine policy with the new Administration. He oversaw among other things the appropriation and depositing of billions upon billions of dollars into that country. Including 1.8 billion dollars that went to, wait for it, the corrupt Ukrainian who employed his son to the tune of what we now believe to be over $80,000 a month. It is the duty and responsibility of the chief executive to find out where the taxpayers money has gone.

---

Trump withheld $250 million of said taxpayers' aid to Ukraine pending investigation into the Bidens.
BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

‘I would like you to do us a favor though’

It is the responsibility of Congress to investigate the holdup of the taxpayers' money in exchange for political favors. (Allegedly).
Though no quid pro quo is necessary, it appears as though one exists.

Now Gordon Sondland will not testify.
Which is obstruction of justice. (Allegedly).

Please try to understand that this is not a left vs. right thing.
What Trump is doing is Un-American. (Allegedly).

Get it?

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Prosecuting or investigating a single person, rather than a whole group of people, is not a valid foreign policy objective. 
Using foreign policy tools to further a personal or partisan interest is a naked abuse of power.
Trump's cabinet have plenty of tools at their disposal to try to investigate Biden - but only if probable cause for a violation of US law exists.
But they have skipped over using the tools they legitimately have, and have tried to use illegitimate tools. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not there is probable cause the Joe Biden or Hunter Biden broke US law.

What part of "i want u to speak to the attorney general" didnt u people understand?  My gosh.  

It is common diplomatic process for the chief executive to introduce members of his cabinet to incoming foreign leaders to facilitate cooperation.

Barr has said he was not aware of the call, but Giuliani was aware of the call.

Mentioning Barr was a fig leaf.

Yes, it would be appropriate to say, "there are a few thing we want your AG to speak to our AG about..". Is appropriate so long as it is vague.

But involving Giuliani, who was a personal lawyer, not a sworn state department official, was not appropriate

You can't cancel out an inappropriate act with an appropriate one.  If your friend walks into the bar with no shirt on, "at least he's wearing shoes" is not a valid defense.  If you rub your junk against a strange female then ask her, "could I please have the next dance?" She's not going to say, "oh you're so polite to say please!". She's going to say "why in the world do you think it's ok to rub your junk on me?"

---

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

Trump withheld $250 million of said taxpayers' aid to Ukraine pending investigation into the Bidens.
BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

(Special envoy to the ukraine already testified that at the time of the call the UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW that the aid was being withheld and at NO TIME did Trump mention it.  They didnt find out about it until a month later.  KEEP UP)

‘I would like you to do us a favor though’

Do me a favor is a term used in general conversation.  Thats a far cry from DO IT OR ELSE!

Moreover THEY WERE ALREADY INVESTIGATING!!!

It is the responsibility of Congress to investigate the holdup of the taxpayers' money in exchange for political favors. (Allegedly).
Though no quid pro quo is necessary, it appears as though one exists.

Now Gordon Sondland will not testify.
Which is obstruction of justice. (Allegedly).

Childish & ignorant.  The assertion of privilage isnt an obstructive act.  

Please try to understand that this is not a left vs. right thing.
What Trump is doing is Un-American. (Allegedly).

Get it?

Please understand your two major premises have no basis in fact.  You allege an extortive act that never occured based on a transaction that was not known to the potential target of said extortion at the time of the alleged act.  If the president of the ukraine didnt know that the aid was being withheld case closed period.  Part of the predicate to demonstrate extortion is that the potential target has to feel pressure. The president of Ukraine has already stated time and time again along with other high-ranking Ukrainian officials that there was no pressure brought to bear on the administration.

Second you allege that the president solicited a foreign government to basically investigate his political opponent for personal gain. It has been demonstrated that Biden had a clear conflict of insurance when he himself admitted clearly and plainly that he extorted the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor that he says wasn't investigating his son. Documents have already been shown to demonstrate that there was an active investigation against his son's company at the time that the prosecutor was forced to be fired. More over their documents stating that his son's legal team immediately solicited the replacement for the prosecutor that Joe Biden had fired to apologize for this smear campaign against its predecessor. That is demonstrable probable cause to believe that there was a corrupt abuse of power by the former vice president acting as the point person for all of Ukraine policy post the annexation of Crimea. Any suggestion that merely bringing this up in conference with another foreign leader to coordinate our joint anti-corruption efforts represents corrupt intent is asinine on its face.

Further proof of how devoid this narrative is, the chairman of the intelligence committee that is currently running this inquiry had to falsely read in elements of the transcript that do not exist. That in and of itself should have disqualified him from having anything to do with this inquiry if not expelled from Congress. If you were a prosecutor and he lied like that to a grand jury he would be disbarred and himself charged with obstruction of justice.

---

Obfuscate.

What part of allegedly do you not understand?

I myself prefer to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.
And you?

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Obfuscate.

What part of allegedly do you not understand?

I myself prefer to withhold judgment until all the facts are in.
And you?

If you accuse me of murdering my wife, and my wife is alive to tell u i didnt do it, then taking the position "ill wait till the facts come in" is the obfuscation.  

I have repeatedly given you the exculpatory information they completely disprove both of your major premises. At this point clinging to I'll wait till the fax come in is burying your head in the sand.

---

What part of "i want u to speak to the attorney general" didnt u people understand?  My gosh.  

It is common diplomatic process for the chief executive to introduce members of his cabinet to incoming foreign leaders to facilitate cooperation.

Barr has said he was not aware of the call, but Giuliani was aware of the call.

Mentioning Barr was a fig leaf.

Yes, it would be appropriate to say, "there are a few thing we want your AG to speak to our AG about..". Is appropriate so long as it is vague.

But involving Giuliani, who was a personal lawyer, not a sworn state department official, was not appropriate

You can't cancel out an inappropriate act with an appropriate one.  If your friend walks into the bar with no shirt on, "at least he's wearing shoes" is not a valid defense.  If you rub your junk against a strange female then ask her, "could I please have the next dance?" She's not going to say, "oh you're so polite to say please!". She's going to say "why in the world do you think it's ok to rub your junk on me?"

Where is that written? You may not like it you may not find it to your personal taste but there's nothing inappropriate about the president bring up a specific instance of a potentially corrupt or illegal act as long as it's predicated on evidence. In this particular instance as we keep telling you it was predicated on evidence.

As for the Attorney General being a big lie that's childish the Attorney General of the United States is currently conducting a massive investigation across at least four countries to determine the legality of the origins of the Mueller investigation. That includes if not centered around the Ukraine. As evidenced by the fact that the first thing the president brought up was the DNC server that was given as a reason for investigating the Trump campaign.

And rudygiuliani was brought up by the president of the Ukraine because he had been in contact with the incoming Administration and his team as a liaison on behalf of the state department to establish relations. That's nothing inappropriate. Also he has provided information the he uncovered in his perfectly appropriate perfectly mandated role as the president's defense attorney in said Mueller probe to help guide potential areas of Investigation into potential ukrainian-american corruption during the 2016 election. An election that the Ukrainian government has already determined that they interfered in.

---

Wow, just Wow.
Hannity is that you?

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Wow, just Wow.
Hannity is that you?

Howd u guess rachel?

---

I do indeed listen to Rachel Martin on NPR's Morning Edition.
The show is one of many excellent news sources that I consider while making my own mind up on the issues facing America.

No, I am not her, but thank you for the complement, my friend.

---

Oh, how about that...House Rules changed Aug. 12th!

https://www.everycrsreport.com/changes/2...ab96b.html

Debunked.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hea...leblowers/

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Wow, just Wow.
Hannity is that you?

Howd u guess rachel?

It was only a matter of time before his leftist bubble popped and he'd resort to the canned responses. Hannity, Trumpster, Trumpet, etc. They hate facts and live/die by what-if-ism and impeachment fantasy.

---

I do indeed listen to Rachel Martin on NPR's Morning Edition.
The show is one of many excellent news sources that I consider while making my own mind up on the issues facing America.

No, I am not her, but thank you for the complement, my friend.

---

Oh, how about that...House Rules changed Aug. 12th!

https://www.everycrsreport.com/changes/2...ab96b.html

Debunked.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hea...leblowers/

Keep up, I spoke about impeachment rules/procedure. Like this...

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/...45769.pdf/

---

Our posts crossed, somehow.
Read #352.

Thank you.

PS

Liberal is a label.
Hannity is a name.

People who know me do not confuse me with either.

---

I do indeed listen to Rachel Martin on NPR's Morning Edition.
The show is one of many excellent news sources that I consider while making my own mind up on the issues facing America.

No, I am not her, but thank you for the complement, my friend.

---

Debunked.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/no-hea...leblowers/

Keep up, I spoke about impeachment rules/procedure. Like this...

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/...45769.pdf/

Debunked.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Barr has said he was not aware of the call, but Giuliani was aware of the call.

Mentioning Barr was a fig leaf.

Yes, it would be appropriate to say, "there are a few thing we want your AG to speak to our AG about..". Is appropriate so long as it is vague.

But involving Giuliani, who was a personal lawyer, not a sworn state department official, was not appropriate

You can't cancel out an inappropriate act with an appropriate one.  If your friend walks into the bar with no shirt on, "at least he's wearing shoes" is not a valid defense.  If you rub your junk against a strange female then ask her, "could I please have the next dance?" She's not going to say, "oh you're so polite to say please!". She's going to say "why in the world do you think it's ok to rub your junk on me?"

Where is that written? 

Campaign finance law, for one.
The reason I say these asks are not appropriate is because they look like attempts to gain a thing of value for a political campaign and nothing more.

---

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

Where is that written? 

Campaign finance law, for one.
The reason I say these asks are not appropriate is because they look like attempts to gain a thing of value for a political campaign and nothing more.

Childish.  How many times do we have to go over this?  A criminal investigation, predicated on evidence, is neither a "thing of value" or an "in kind campaign contribution".  This has been painstakingly established.  

Biden is appointed point person in ukraine

Ukrainian oligarch is under international investigation & barred from entering the united states.  

Hires biden son for untold millions of dollars

He gets $1800000000 deposited in the bank he owns, an investigation into his company gets squashed (prosecutor fired by bidens admitted extortion) and magically gets readmitted to this country.  

Thats all a coincidence nothing to see here.  

Trump mentions investigating it on a PHONE CALL.  

"High Crimes" "impeachment" "treason"

The world has hone stark raving mad.

---

Campaign finance law, for one.
The reason I say these asks are not appropriate is because they look like attempts to gain a thing of value for a political campaign and nothing more.

Childish.  How many times do we have to go over this?  A criminal investigation, predicated on evidence, is neither a "thing of value" or an "in kind campaign contribution".  This has been painstakingly established.  

Biden is appointed point person in ukraine

Ukrainian oligarch is under international investigation & barred from entering the united states.  

Hires biden son for untold millions of dollars

He gets $1800000000 deposited in the bank he owns, an investigation into his company gets squashed (prosecutor fired by bidens admitted extortion) and magically gets readmitted to this country.  

Thats all a coincidence nothing to see here.  

Trump mentions investigating it on a PHONE CALL.  

"High Crimes" "impeachment" "treason"

The world has hone stark raving mad.

Criminal investigations are initiated by attorneys generals and their officers.
They are not initiated by presidents or personal lawyers of presidents.
These are the fundamental errors of fact in your reply.
but there are other, less consequential, errors of fact there too.

---

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

Childish.  How many times do we have to go over this?  A criminal investigation, predicated on evidence, is neither a "thing of value" or an "in kind campaign contribution".  This has been painstakingly established.  

Biden is appointed point person in ukraine

Ukrainian oligarch is under international investigation & barred from entering the united states.  

Hires biden son for untold millions of dollars

He gets $1800000000 deposited in the bank he owns, an investigation into his company gets squashed (prosecutor fired by bidens admitted extortion) and magically gets readmitted to this country.  

Thats all a coincidence nothing to see here.  

Trump mentions investigating it on a PHONE CALL.  

"High Crimes" "impeachment" "treason"

The world has hone stark raving mad.

Criminal investigations are initiated by attorneys generals and their officers.
They are not initiated by presidents or personal lawyers of presidents.
These are the fundamental errors of fact in your reply.
but there are other, less consequential, errors of fact there too.

So you're saying that the AG's boss doesn't have to authority to do so? Is that your position?

---

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

Childish.  How many times do we have to go over this?  A criminal investigation, predicated on evidence, is neither a "thing of value" or an "in kind campaign contribution".  This has been painstakingly established.  

Biden is appointed point person in ukraine

Ukrainian oligarch is under international investigation & barred from entering the united states.  

Hires biden son for untold millions of dollars

He gets $1800000000 deposited in the bank he owns, an investigation into his company gets squashed (prosecutor fired by bidens admitted extortion) and magically gets readmitted to this country.  

Thats all a coincidence nothing to see here.  

Trump mentions investigating it on a PHONE CALL.  

"High Crimes" "impeachment" "treason"

The world has hone stark raving mad.

Criminal investigations are initiated by attorneys generals and their officers.
They are not initiated by presidents or personal lawyers of presidents.
These are the fundamental errors of fact in your reply.
but there are other, less consequential, errors of fact there too.

Ill say it again....  what part of contact the attorney general do u not understand?  What part of the investigation WAS ALREADYNINITIATED by the ukrainian ag equivelant do u not understand?  What part of evidentiary findings during a seperate legal proceeding do u not understand?  Am i talking too fast for u?  I have time.  I wanna help!

Oh and btw, the ag is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of POTUS.  if the presiswnt has reason to believe a crime was committed by an american citizen he can direct the ag to initiate an investigation.  If that investigation encompassrs activity with or in foreign countries theb he can solicit the cooperation of foreign heads of state.  

U wanna claim corrupt intent?  Have at it.  Its incumbent on u to demonstratw that there was no such reasonable suspicion.  Thats based on the fact pattern and the underlying evidence.   But u dont wanna deal with that, u want to talk about "well he should have said it nicer... he should have been more vague" and other platitudes.

---