On your first point, what you are saying is that you have no evidence. What transcript there is exonerates Trump, what there isn't cannot be evidence.

On your second point, you always try to make things more complicated than they are, only by confusion and obfuscation can you get any kind of traction for your narrative.

Nah, the incomplete transcript we have includes, "I would like you to do us a favor though" which is probably bribery, depending on the context.  All of the testimony lays out the context, and shows that it was bribery.

Not only are you convinced by evidence not presented, now you've moved on to connecting dots that don't exist. You should be proud, you've completely immersed yourself in wishful thinking.

---

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

Nah, the incomplete transcript we have includes, "I would like you to do us a favor though" which is probably bribery, depending on the context.  All of the testimony lays out the context, and shows that it was bribery.

I see you're leftist handlers have converted you to the "bribery" word. I hope they are, er, bribing you to use it.

In what reality is asking for a favor bribery? The favor was not forthcoming. The aid was still sent.

Suppose you work for SeaWorld, and you turn in some drawings for a new expansion to the building department. Suppose they help you fill out all the forms, and get you an appointment for a phone call with the city's engineer. When you meet with the city's engineer, he doesn't ask you anything about what's on your drawings. All he wants to talk about is if you're going to give his family some annual passes. Is that bribery?
What if he doesn't look at your drawings for a couple of months? Is that bribery?
Eventually, after he looks at the drawings of people who applied after you, he issues a permit your drawings without comment. Is everything forgiven now?

---

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

I see you're leftist handlers have converted you to the "bribery" word. I hope they are, er, bribing you to use it.

In what reality is asking for a favor bribery? The favor was not forthcoming. The aid was still sent.

Suppose you work for SeaWorld, and you turn in some drawings for a new expansion to the building department. Suppose they help you fill out all the forms, and get you an appointment for a phone call with the city's engineer. When you meet with the city's engineer, he doesn't ask you anything about what's on your drawings. All he wants to talk about is if you're going to give his family some annual passes. Is that bribery?
What if he doesn't look at your drawings for a couple of months? Is that bribery?
Eventually, after he looks at the drawings of people who applied after you, he issues a permit your drawings without comment. Is everything forgiven now?

Mike is officially Out To Sea

---

On your first point, what you are saying is that you have no evidence. What transcript there is exonerates Trump, what there isn't cannot be evidence.

On your second point, you always try to make things more complicated than they are, only by confusion and obfuscation can you get any kind of traction for your narrative.

Nah, the incomplete transcript we have includes, "I would like you to do us a favor though" which is probably bribery, depending on the context.  All of the testimony lays out the context, and shows that it was bribery.

Another lie.  

1.) Vindman testified the transcript was accurate.  

2.) Neither of the alleged transactions are mentioned in the call.

3.) Most importantly, everyone agreed that little bidens involvement could reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest.

Thanks for playing.

---

Nah, the incomplete transcript we have includes, "I would like you to do us a favor though" which is probably bribery, depending on the context.  All of the testimony lays out the context, and shows that it was bribery.

Another lie.  

1.) Vindman testified the transcript was accurate.  

2.) Neither of the alleged transactions are mentioned in the call.

3.) Most importantly, everyone agreed that little bidens involvement could reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest.

Thanks for playing.

Point remains that they asked for a favor that they weren't supposed to ask for.  As a public official, Joe Biden should have disclosed a possible conflict of interest. But he wasn't a public official anymore. And even an undisclosed conflict of interest does not necessarily mean a corrupt act occurred. And even a corrupt act in the context of another country's government is not necessarily against US law. as I've said there's a lot more that you have to show other than "look the guy's son collected a paycheck!" Before you even have probable cause to start an investigation, let alone making it a foreign policy priority.

---

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

Here's the part that no one disputes.
Donald Trump pressured the President of the Ukraine to open an investigation into Hunter Biden.
He did not do this in the interest of shareholders in the Ukrainian company, or ordinary Ukrainian citizens, or ordinary American citizens. He only did this to hurt a political rival.

Yeh a lot of people including the president of ukraine, and their entire diplomatic core dispute that.

If there was probable cause that Hunter Biden had violated US code, our DOJ would be investigating, and it would be appropriate for our people to reach out to the Ukrainians and get them to share evidence.

The president is the head of both the DOJ and foreign policy.  He determines probable cause, and he coordinates cooperation between executive department officials and their foreign counterparts.

Similarly, if a Ukrainian prosecutor was trying to investigate him, it may be appropriate for us to share evidence that we have access to.

It is wrong to try to get another country's prosecutor fired just to protect one's own children.

Thank u for disproving your own argument.

It is also wrong to try to force another country's prosecutors to investigate something that is more a matter of US politics than world trade or human rights.

7 billion dollars in aid money missing.  

Both of these things are equally wrong. And they're independently wrong. That is, the first cannot justify the second, nor can the second justify the first.

Lolz.  That made me spit out my coffee.  The ethicacy and legality of the first incident is directly correlated to both the probable cause and national interest of requesting an investigation about said incident.  

#ishouldbecharging4this

---

Another lie.  

1.) Vindman testified the transcript was accurate.  

2.) Neither of the alleged transactions are mentioned in the call.

3.) Most importantly, everyone agreed that little bidens involvement could reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest.

Thanks for playing.

Point remains that they asked for a favor that they weren't supposed to ask for.  

Thats not so, the foundation of your whole argument is this flawed and incorrect statement.

---

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

Another lie.  

1.) Vindman testified the transcript was accurate.  

2.) Neither of the alleged transactions are mentioned in the call.

3.) Most importantly, everyone agreed that little bidens involvement could reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest.

Thanks for playing.

Point remains that they asked for a favor that they weren't supposed to ask for.  As a public official, Joe Biden should have disclosed a possible conflict of interest. But he wasn't a public official anymore. And even an undisclosed conflict of interest does not necessarily mean a corrupt act occurred. And even a corrupt act in the context of another country's government is not necessarily against US law. as I've said there's a lot more that you have to show other than "look the guy's son collected a paycheck!" Before you even have probable cause to start an investigation, let alone making it a foreign policy priority.

Like demonstrating through court documents that on 2/2/2016 the companies owner had his assets seized by the prosecutor in question?  What about sworn testimony from the prosecutor that was fired?  What about from his successor that biden himself vouched for?  What about billions of dollars in loan guarantees not getting repaid?  What about the younger biden admitting that he neither had expertise in natural gas nor spoke ukrainian?  What about documents showing that shortly after the invasion of crimea hunter bidens college roommate met with then vp before he demanded ukraine hire "experts" to help with natural gas production that would see archer and biden jr. Paid 6 million dollars?  

Naaaaaaaaaaah.  Biden wanted Shokin to do more than reopen the case, seize the guys assets and set up an interview with his son.  Remember that lie?  Lolz.

---

Point remains that they asked for a favor that they weren't supposed to ask for.  

Thats not so, the foundation of your whole argument is this flawed and incorrect statement.

#whathesaid

---

Point remains that they asked for a favor that they weren't supposed to ask for.  As a public official, Joe Biden should have disclosed a possible conflict of interest. But he wasn't a public official anymore. And even an undisclosed conflict of interest does not necessarily mean a corrupt act occurred. And even a corrupt act in the context of another country's government is not necessarily against US law. as I've said there's a lot more that you have to show other than "look the guy's son collected a paycheck!" Before you even have probable cause to start an investigation, let alone making it a foreign policy priority.

Like demonstrating through court documents that on 2/2/2016 the companies owner had his assets seized by the prosecutor in question?  What about sworn testimony from the prosecutor that was fired?  What about from his successor that biden himself vouched for?  What about billions of dollars in loan guarantees not getting repaid?  What about the younger biden admitting that he neither had expertise in natural gas nor spoke ukrainian?  What about documents showing that shortly after the invasion of crimea hunter bidens college roommate met with then vp before he demanded ukraine hire "experts" to help with natural gas production that would see archer and biden jr. Paid 6 million dollars?  

Naaaaaaaaaaah.  Biden wanted Shokin to do more than reopen the case, seize the guys assets and set up an interview with his son.  Remember that lie?  Lolz.
#whathesaid

I can't follow the story you're trying to tell.
You're either on a higher plane of intelligence and knowledge than me, or a much lower one. There is no need to continue in either case

---

Point remains that they asked for a favor that they weren't supposed to ask for.  

Thats not so, the foundation of your whole argument is this flawed and incorrect statement.

Suppose Obama, at some point while he was president, called up Saudi Arabia and said, "I need you to make a statement that you're investigating Dick Cheney.  I need one of your princes to do a hit on CNN saying so."

Would that be OK?

---

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

Like demonstrating through court documents that on 2/2/2016 the companies owner had his assets seized by the prosecutor in question?  What about sworn testimony from the prosecutor that was fired?  What about from his successor that biden himself vouched for?  What about billions of dollars in loan guarantees not getting repaid?  What about the younger biden admitting that he neither had expertise in natural gas nor spoke ukrainian?  What about documents showing that shortly after the invasion of crimea hunter bidens college roommate met with then vp before he demanded ukraine hire "experts" to help with natural gas production that would see archer and biden jr. Paid 6 million dollars?  

Naaaaaaaaaaah.  Biden wanted Shokin to do more than reopen the case, seize the guys assets and set up an interview with his son.  Remember that lie?  Lolz.
#whathesaid

I can't follow the story you're trying to tell.
You're either on a higher plane of intelligence and knowledge than me, or a much lower one. There is no need to continue in either case

---

Thats not so, the foundation of your whole argument is this flawed and incorrect statement.

Suppose Obama, at some point while he was president, called up Saudi Arabia and said, "I need you to make a statement that you're investigating Dick Cheney.  I need one of your princes to do a hit on CNN saying so."

Would that be OK?

That's not what happened and you know it. You are so deep down the rabbit hole that you have no out but to make [BLEEP] up, just like the Schiffhead. And everyone who isn't a lefty kool aid drinker can see it plain as day.

---

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

I can't follow the story you're trying to tell.
You're either on a higher plane of intelligence and knowledge than me, or a much lower one. There is no need to continue in either case

---

Suppose Obama, at some point while he was president, called up Saudi Arabia and said, "I need you to make a statement that you're investigating Dick Cheney.  I need one of your princes to do a hit on CNN saying so."

Would that be OK?

That's not what happened and you know it. You are so deep down the rabbit hole that you have no out but to make [BLEEP] up, just like the Schiffhead. And everyone who isn't a lefty kool aid drinker can see it plain as day.

That's exactly what happened.
Obama's allowed to have a personal grudge against Cheney, right? He'd be allowed to bring up personal grudges on phone calls with other heads of state, right? And in any case he would have some reason to suspect that Cheney had some dirty financial dealings somewhere in the middle East, right?
What difference to you see?
Or are you saying that you would indeed have been totally fine with Obama demanding that the Saudis investigate the Cheneys?

---

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

Like demonstrating through court documents that on 2/2/2016 the companies owner had his assets seized by the prosecutor in question?  What about sworn testimony from the prosecutor that was fired?  What about from his successor that biden himself vouched for?  What about billions of dollars in loan guarantees not getting repaid?  What about the younger biden admitting that he neither had expertise in natural gas nor spoke ukrainian?  What about documents showing that shortly after the invasion of crimea hunter bidens college roommate met with then vp before he demanded ukraine hire "experts" to help with natural gas production that would see archer and biden jr. Paid 6 million dollars?  

Naaaaaaaaaaah.  Biden wanted Shokin to do more than reopen the case, seize the guys assets and set up an interview with his son.  Remember that lie?  Lolz.
#whathesaid

I can't follow the story you're trying to tell.
You're either on a higher plane of intelligence and knowledge than me, or a much lower one. There is no need to continue in either case

---

Thats not so, the foundation of your whole argument is this flawed and incorrect statement.

Suppose Obama, at some point while he was president, called up Saudi Arabia and said, "I need you to make a statement that you're investigating Dick Cheney.  I need one of your princes to do a hit on CNN saying so."

Would that be OK?

It's ok.  U just dont know what's going on or why.  Poor thing.  It's okay.  Were here for u.

---

I see you're leftist handlers have converted you to the "bribery" word. I hope they are, er, bribing you to use it.

In what reality is asking for a favor bribery? The favor was not forthcoming. The aid was still sent.

Suppose you work for SeaWorld, and you turn in some drawings for a new expansion to the building department. Suppose they help you fill out all the forms, and get you an appointment for a phone call with the city's engineer. When you meet with the city's engineer, he doesn't ask you anything about what's on your drawings. All he wants to talk about is if you're going to give his family some annual passes. Is that bribery?
What if he doesn't look at your drawings for a couple of months? Is that bribery?
Eventually, after he looks at the drawings of people who applied after you, he issues a permit your drawings without comment. Is everything forgiven now?

This makes absolutely no sense. It's a poor analogy, and in any case there is no "bribery" in your narrative.

---

                                                                          

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

Suppose you work for SeaWorld, and you turn in some drawings for a new expansion to the building department. Suppose they help you fill out all the forms, and get you an appointment for a phone call with the city's engineer. When you meet with the city's engineer, he doesn't ask you anything about what's on your drawings. All he wants to talk about is if you're going to give his family some annual passes. Is that bribery?
What if he doesn't look at your drawings for a couple of months? Is that bribery?
Eventually, after he looks at the drawings of people who applied after you, he issues a permit your drawings without comment. Is everything forgiven now?

This makes absolutely no sense. It's a poor analogy, and in any case there is no "bribery" in your narrative.

maybe it would help you see the analogy if I added that the guy in charge of the building department is a Democratic party activist, while the contracting firm you work for is led by a candidate for office with the Republican Party?

---

Here's the part that no one disputes.
Donald Trump pressured the President of the Ukraine to open an investigation into Hunter Biden.
He did not do this in the interest of shareholders in the Ukrainian company, or ordinary Ukrainian citizens, or ordinary American citizens. He only did this to hurt a political rival.

Yeh a lot of people including the president of ukraine, and their entire diplomatic core dispute that.

If there was probable cause that Hunter Biden had violated US code, our DOJ would be investigating, and it would be appropriate for our people to reach out to the Ukrainians and get them to share evidence.

The president is the head of both the DOJ and foreign policy.  He determines probable cause, and he coordinates cooperation between executive department officials and their foreign counterparts.

Similarly, if a Ukrainian prosecutor was trying to investigate him, it may be appropriate for us to share evidence that we have access to.

It is wrong to try to get another country's prosecutor fired just to protect one's own children.

Thank u for disproving your own argument.

It is also wrong to try to force another country's prosecutors to investigate something that is more a matter of US politics than world trade or human rights.

7 billion dollars in aid money missing.  

Both of these things are equally wrong. And they're independently wrong. That is, the first cannot justify the second, nor can the second justify the first.

Lolz.  That made me spit out my coffee.  The ethicacy and legality of the first incident is directly correlated to both the probable cause and national interest of requesting an investigation about said incident.  

#ishouldbecharging4this

Republicans were in charge of both the Senate and the House when VP Biden did what he did.  No investigation.  No comment.  Why not? How is this probable cause that is so obvious to you today not obvious last year? Or the year before, or the year before?

---

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

This makes absolutely no sense. It's a poor analogy, and in any case there is no "bribery" in your narrative.

maybe it would help you see the analogy if I added that the guy in charge of the building department is a Democratic party activist, while the contracting firm you work for is led by a candidate for office with the Republican Party?

---

Lolz.  That made me spit out my coffee.  The ethicacy and legality of the first incident is directly correlated to both the probable cause and national interest of requesting an investigation about said incident.  

#ishouldbecharging4this

Republicans were in charge of both the Senate and the House when VP Biden did what he did.  No investigation.  No comment.  Why not? How is this probable cause that is so obvious to you today not obvious last year? Or the year before, or the year before?

Because Trump, not the Republican Party, is interested in rooting out the corruption that flows through Ukraine. You aren't this dense, you just can't admit that what he's doing is the right thing and necessary for the good of our country. Just remember, the harder they fight to stop him the deeper is their guilt. And this point is quite obvious as you clearly have taken the same position as Schiff, Pelosi, and Romney and willfully refuse to see the truth.

---

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

This makes absolutely no sense. It's a poor analogy, and in any case there is no "bribery" in your narrative.

maybe it would help you see the analogy if I added that the guy in charge of the building department is a Democratic party activist, while the contracting firm you work for is led by a candidate for office with the Republican Party?

That makes no difference. It's still a poor analogy. That fact that you think otherwise is evidence of how deep you've waded into the Marxist Left.

---

                                                                          

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

This makes absolutely no sense. It's a poor analogy, and in any case there is no "bribery" in your narrative.

maybe it would help you see the analogy if I added that the guy in charge of the building department is a Democratic party activist, while the contracting firm you work for is led by a candidate for office with the Republican Party?

---

Lolz.  That made me spit out my coffee.  The ethicacy and legality of the first incident is directly correlated to both the probable cause and national interest of requesting an investigation about said incident.  

#ishouldbecharging4this

Republicans were in charge of both the Senate and the House when VP Biden did what he did.  No investigation.  No comment.  Why not? How is this probable cause that is so obvious to you today not obvious last year? Or the year before, or the year before?

Because a lot of the evidence that brought the scheme into focus was developed on late 18 early 19 in response to the mueller probe.  

Moreover if u find a DNA match to a murder weapon it foesnt matter if the person was your initial suspect.

---

maybe it would help you see the analogy if I added that the guy in charge of the building department is a Democratic party activist, while the contracting firm you work for is led by a candidate for office with the Republican Party?

---

Republicans were in charge of both the Senate and the House when VP Biden did what he did.  No investigation.  No comment.  Why not? How is this probable cause that is so obvious to you today not obvious last year? Or the year before, or the year before?

Because a lot of the evidence that brought the scheme into focus was developed on late 18 early 19 in response to the mueller probe.  

Moreover if u find a DNA match to a murder weapon it foesnt matter if the person was your initial suspect.

"Evidence"
I ain't seen none.

---

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

maybe it would help you see the analogy if I added that the guy in charge of the building department is a Democratic party activist, while the contracting firm you work for is led by a candidate for office with the Republican Party?

---

Republicans were in charge of both the Senate and the House when VP Biden did what he did.  No investigation.  No comment.  Why not? How is this probable cause that is so obvious to you today not obvious last year? Or the year before, or the year before?

Because Trump, not the Republican Party, is interested in rooting out the corruption that flows through Ukraine. You aren't this dense, you just can't admit that what he's doing is the right thing and necessary for the good of our country. Just remember, the harder they fight to stop him the deeper is their guilt. And this point is quite obvious as you clearly have taken the same position as Schiff, Pelosi, and Romney and willfully refuse to see the truth.

Alternate explanation: The other Republicans understood what Biden was doing and agreed with it. They were all deeply involved enough with Ukraine to have a strong opinion about who their prosecutor should be. Why be that deeply involved if you're not trying to root out corruption?
If Pelosi and Romney are on the same side of something, that says something more than partisanship supports that side. A cynic would say that it's dollars from the corruption gravy train. But DOJ should find receipts for something like that in short order. So the only other explanation is that the truth is on that side. That patriotism and the national interest are on that side.

---

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

Because Trump, not the Republican Party, is interested in rooting out the corruption that flows through Ukraine. You aren't this dense, you just can't admit that what he's doing is the right thing and necessary for the good of our country. Just remember, the harder they fight to stop him the deeper is their guilt. And this point is quite obvious as you clearly have taken the same position as Schiff, Pelosi, and Romney and willfully refuse to see the truth.

Alternate explanation: The other Republicans understood what Biden was doing and agreed with it. They were all deeply involved enough with Ukraine to have a strong opinion about who their prosecutor should be. Why be that deeply involved if you're not trying to root out corruption?
If Pelosi and Romney are on the same side of something, that says something more than partisanship supports that side. A cynic would say that it's dollars from the corruption gravy train. But DOJ should find receipts for something like that in short order. So the only other explanation is that the truth is on that side. That patriotism and the national interest are on that side.

I'm a cynic, it's the only realistic approach to our government. Romney, Biden, Clinton, the Candidate Clown Show...scum, all of them. If they are all involved in something then its corrupt. Like you about Never Trump, I'm the guy about Never Swamp.

---

Because a lot of the evidence that brought the scheme into focus was developed on late 18 early 19 in response to the mueller probe.  

Moreover if u find a DNA match to a murder weapon it foesnt matter if the person was your initial suspect.

"Evidence"
I ain't seen none.

So you did watch the hearings! Glad you finally see the light. Welcome to the team!

---

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