I think the Ukraine stuff is going to get him impeached.   But of course the Senate will not convict him.

He's no longer VP.

---

Apparently everyone is ok with Trump using the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government into helping him get dirt on a political opponent.

Please don't claim fake news, the moron admits it.

Fake News

All The President "admitted to" was talking on the phone with Ukraine's President and specifically mentioning corruption.

The left is all frothed up over an unnamed whistle-blower saying that allegedly an "unspecified promise" was made.  The thing is the unnamed whistle-blower didn't have first hand knowledge of what the phone conversation was about or what was said.

There is no evidence that President Trump used the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government about anything.

---

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

Apparently everyone is ok with Trump using the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government into helping him get dirt on a political opponent.

Please don't claim fake news, the moron admits it.

Fake News

All The President "admitted to" was talking on the phone with Ukraine's President and specifically mentioning corruption.

The left is all frothed up over an unnamed whistle-blower saying that allegedly an "unspecified promise" was made.  The thing is the unnamed whistle-blower didn't have first hand knowledge of what the phone conversation was about or what was said.

There is no evidence that President Trump used the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government about anything.

This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

---

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

Just more of the typical Dem projectionism. Polls are showing unfavorable towards the Socialist gang trying to grab the POTUS seat, so let's stir up some "controversy." Tom's mom's boyfriend said that she thought Mr. Rodgers overheard someone's conversation in one of the executive offices of the White House.

Let's take a step back in time...https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html

---

Fake News

All The President "admitted to" was talking on the phone with Ukraine's President and specifically mentioning corruption.

The left is all frothed up over an unnamed whistle-blower saying that allegedly an "unspecified promise" was made.  The thing is the unnamed whistle-blower didn't have first hand knowledge of what the phone conversation was about or what was said.

There is no evidence that President Trump used the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government about anything.

This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

---

This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

---

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

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

Funds being withheld from a corrupt government and the POTUS talking with the "unfreely" elected President of Ukraine versus a VP and his citizen, lawyer son getting a board position in their largest natural gas company with zero experience are not the same situation.

This makes no since when you research and have knowledge of the situation. Is there any wonder you constantly get called out on your claimed party affiliation versus political stances. All parties aside, you make a huge leap of, um, faith in this comment for lack of a better description.

I see you keep going to coke head Hunter and don't acknowledge that Daddy is the main topical law breaker. Of course, there are deeper corruptions at hand that involve not only Joe but Obama as well. Was/is Hunter, a registered agent of Ukraine?
It seems that got Paul Manafort a few years in prison for not being registered, yet no body else was touched. Manafort’s Ukrainian work had been going on for over a dozen years. Manafort worked for the Party of Regions, led by Yanukovych. The Obama consultants worked for Yanukovych’s rival, Yulia Tymoshenko who was known to collude with Putin and other times posed as his opponent. The Clinton consultants lined up with Viktor Yuschenko.

---

Fake News

All The President "admitted to" was talking on the phone with Ukraine's President and specifically mentioning corruption.

The left is all frothed up over an unnamed whistle-blower saying that allegedly an "unspecified promise" was made.  The thing is the unnamed whistle-blower didn't have first hand knowledge of what the phone conversation was about or what was said.

There is no evidence that President Trump used the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government about anything.

This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

Care to cite a credible source that shows that?  I mean other than an unnamed whistle-blower that wasn't privy to the phone conversation?

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

1.  The money was being held back yes, but it was paid out.  The reasoning for holding money back was to get other nations, specifically EU nations to also contribute.  It had nothing to do with "blackmail".  The two are not the same.

2.  The "highly unlikely" motive thing is opinion and speculation.  There is no credible evidence to support your claim.

3.  That situation is the problem of the left, more specifically Joe Biden.  What Joe Biden allegedly did was far more serious than what President Trump allegedly did.

---

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

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

There you go again...  

Funds beong held up in and of themselves isnt unusual or illicit especially with a new government coming in.  In order to establish a quid pro quo relationship you have to demonstrate the funds were being held soley in connection with this alleged incident.  The decision to hold the funds happened before the call and the decision to release the funds happened after the call without a corresponding investogayion by the ukranians.  

Moreover, joe biden was the point person shifting 1.8 billion dollars in tax payer money to the bank owned by his sons employer for the benefit of the economic sector his son worked in.  Trump shouldnt have to ask for an investigation.  He shpuld have been disqualified from participating in the transaction in anyway let alone extorting the prosecutor to be fired shortly before his son was to be interviewed!!!

---

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

Funds being withheld from a corrupt government and the POTUS talking with the "unfreely" elected President of Ukraine versus a VP and his citizen, lawyer son getting a board position in their largest natural gas company with zero experience are not the same situation.

This makes no since when you research and have knowledge of the situation. Is there any wonder you constantly get called out on your claimed party affiliation versus political stances. All parties aside, you make a huge leap of, um, faith in this comment for lack of a better description.

I see you keep going to coke head Hunter and don't acknowledge that Daddy is the main topical law breaker. Of course, there are deeper corruptions at hand that involve not only Joe but Obama as well. Was/is Hunter, a registered agent of Ukraine?
It seems that got Paul Manafort a few years in prison for not being registered, yet no body else was touched. Manafort’s Ukrainian work had been going on for over a dozen years. Manafort worked for the Party of Regions, led by Yanukovych. The Obama consultants worked for Yanukovych’s rival, Yulia Tymoshenko who was known to collude with Putin and other times posed as his opponent. The Clinton consultants lined up with Viktor Yuschenko.

If Hunter Biden or Joe Biden broke US laws, that is something to be discussed by attorney general barr and his subordinates.
that is not an appropriate topic of discussion between the president of the United States and the president of the Ukraine.

---

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

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

Funds being withheld from a corrupt government and the POTUS talking with the "unfreely" elected President of Ukraine versus a VP and his citizen, lawyer son getting a board position in their largest natural gas company with zero experience are not the same situation.

This makes no since when you research and have knowledge of the situation. Is there any wonder you constantly get called out on your claimed party affiliation versus political stances. All parties aside, you make a huge leap of, um, faith in this comment for lack of a better description.

I see you keep going to coke head Hunter and don't acknowledge that Daddy is the main topical law breaker. Of course, there are deeper corruptions at hand that involve not only Joe but Obama as well. Was/is Hunter, a registered agent of Ukraine?
It seems that got Paul Manafort a few years in prison for not being registered, yet no body else was touched. Manafort’s Ukrainian work had been going on for over a dozen years. Manafort worked for the Party of Regions, led by Yanukovych. The Obama consultants worked for Yanukovych’s rival, Yulia Tymoshenko who was known to collude with Putin and other times posed as his opponent. The Clinton consultants lined up with Viktor Yuschenko.

I have not heard any complaints that current president of Ukraine zalinski or previous president of Ukraine petroshiko were elected and rigged or unfree elections.

---

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

Funds being withheld from a corrupt government and the POTUS talking with the "unfreely" elected President of Ukraine versus a VP and his citizen, lawyer son getting a board position in their largest natural gas company with zero experience are not the same situation.

This makes no since when you research and have knowledge of the situation. Is there any wonder you constantly get called out on your claimed party affiliation versus political stances. All parties aside, you make a huge leap of, um, faith in this comment for lack of a better description.

I see you keep going to coke head Hunter and don't acknowledge that Daddy is the main topical law breaker. Of course, there are deeper corruptions at hand that involve not only Joe but Obama as well. Was/is Hunter, a registered agent of Ukraine?
It seems that got Paul Manafort a few years in prison for not being registered, yet no body else was touched. Manafort’s Ukrainian work had been going on for over a dozen years. Manafort worked for the Party of Regions, led by Yanukovych. The Obama consultants worked for Yanukovych’s rival, Yulia Tymoshenko who was known to collude with Putin and other times posed as his opponent. The Clinton consultants lined up with Viktor Yuschenko.

If Hunter Biden or Joe Biden broke US laws, that is something to be discussed by attorney general barr and his subordinates.
that is not an appropriate topic of discussion between the president of the United States and the president of the Ukraine.

Says you. The Executive has discretion and authority to do so if he chooses, it's his Administration.

---

Funds being withheld from a corrupt government and the POTUS talking with the "unfreely" elected President of Ukraine versus a VP and his citizen, lawyer son getting a board position in their largest natural gas company with zero experience are not the same situation.

This makes no since when you research and have knowledge of the situation. Is there any wonder you constantly get called out on your claimed party affiliation versus political stances. All parties aside, you make a huge leap of, um, faith in this comment for lack of a better description.

I see you keep going to coke head Hunter and don't acknowledge that Daddy is the main topical law breaker. Of course, there are deeper corruptions at hand that involve not only Joe but Obama as well. Was/is Hunter, a registered agent of Ukraine?
It seems that got Paul Manafort a few years in prison for not being registered, yet no body else was touched. Manafort’s Ukrainian work had been going on for over a dozen years. Manafort worked for the Party of Regions, led by Yanukovych. The Obama consultants worked for Yanukovych’s rival, Yulia Tymoshenko who was known to collude with Putin and other times posed as his opponent. The Clinton consultants lined up with Viktor Yuschenko.

I have not heard any complaints that current president of Ukraine zalinski or previous president of Ukraine petroshiko were elected and rigged or unfree elections.

So give that all the credence you've given a phone call you also haven't heard.

---

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

This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

Care to cite a credible source that shows that?  I mean other than an unnamed whistle-blower that wasn't privy to the phone conversation?

We already know that the money Congress wanted to give the Ukraine was being held up by POTUS.  Literally the exact situation described by Biden years earlier.
Either both situations are quid pro quo, or neither is.

The next question is one of motives.  Both Trump and Biden may have done what they did with pure motives, but it's highly unlikely Trump did, and only slightly less unlikely that Biden did.

Then the next question is of harm.  A prosecutor was harmed by what Biden did, and perhaps the Ukraine's justice system as a whole.  No Americans were harmed.  But Hunter Biden, an American who by all accounts did not break American laws, could have been harmed by what Trump did.

1.  The money was being held back yes, but it was paid out.  The reasoning for holding money back was to get other nations, specifically EU nations to also contribute.  It had nothing to do with "blackmail".  The two are not the same.

2.  The "highly unlikely" motive thing is opinion and speculation.  There is no credible evidence to support your claim.

3.  That situation is the problem of the left, more specifically Joe Biden.  What Joe Biden allegedly did was far more serious than what President Trump allegedly did.

So no response from our resident republican democrat Mikey regarding my comment?

---

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

I think the "whistleblower" is a fellow named Donald John Trump.

---

Apparently everyone is ok with Trump using the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government into helping him get dirt on a political opponent.

Please don't claim fake news, the moron admits it.

Fake News

All The President "admitted to" was talking on the phone with Ukraine's President and specifically mentioning corruption.

The left is all frothed up over an unnamed whistle-blower saying that allegedly an "unspecified promise" was made.  The thing is the unnamed whistle-blower didn't have first hand knowledge of what the phone conversation was about or what was said.

There is no evidence that President Trump used the power of the Presidency to blackmail a foreign government about anything.

How do you know this? The whistle blower and his exact complaint haven't been identified.

---

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


 

This is an interesting oxymoron.
Corruption is a broad category.
You can't "specifically mention corruption" any more than you can describe America in a single photograph.
What you can do is specifically mention an instance of corruption.  And Trump chose to highlight something that would make one of his domestic political rivals look bad.
Would you have been ok with a President Hillary doing that? Or a President Jimmy Carter doing it?

What is that specific instance of corruption?

Quote from POTUS a few minutes ago:

"I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!"

Oh, well if the President, who lies when the truth will do, says it, you buy into whatever he says.

Pathetic.

---

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


 

If Hunter Biden or Joe Biden broke US laws, that is something to be discussed by attorney general barr and his subordinates.
that is not an appropriate topic of discussion between the president of the United States and the president of the Ukraine.

Says you. The Executive has discretion and authority to do so if he chooses, it's his Administration.

---

I have not heard any complaints that current president of Ukraine zalinski or previous president of Ukraine petroshiko were elected and rigged or unfree elections.

So give that all the credence you've given a phone call you also haven't heard.

JIB is the one who made the accusation that one or both of the two most recent presidents of Ukraine rigged their election. The burden of proof is on him not me.

---

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

The spineless democrats don't have the testicular fortitude to put this to a floor vote. All show and a guaranteed reelection. Thanks for playing!

---

Has anyone seen the transcript of the phone call or the whistleblower complaint?

Asking for a friend.

Of course not, that would put an end to all this nonsense without the two year, multi-million dollar, waste of time Special Counsel.

For one who expresses skepticism for anything a politician says, you sure do lap up Trump's [BLEEP] like a HOF sycophant.

Trump's campaign clearly cooperated with Russians and he said he would listen to any foreign government's offer of dirt on a political opponent. What makes the current accusations against him so hard to believe?

---

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


 

Of course not, that would put an end to all this nonsense without the two year, multi-million dollar, waste of time Special Counsel.

For one who expresses skepticism for anything a politician says, you sure do lap up Trump's [BLEEP] like a HOF sycophant.

Trump's campaign clearly cooperated with Russians and he said he would listen to any foreign government's offer of dirt on a political opponent. What makes the current accusations against him so hard to believe?

I have no reason to believe the "whistleblower", Democrats, or the media about even the sky being blue. Trump is too moderate for me, but the opposition to him is buffoonish.

---

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