So what the money was released, why are you ignoring the testimony that actually has supporting evidence? The one guy that spoke with Trump said he was told NO QPQ of any kind, then that was relayed via text to one of your star witnesses that felt there was a QPC, way before the whistleblower filed a complaint?
What really undermines what little credibility the Dems have left is not allowing Hunter Biden to testify, when he and his father are at the center of this entire controversy.
However Adam Schiff is clearly allowing witnesses with no first hand information and disallowing those who do. The public can see that.
Did he first claim he would testify? Whistleblower reaches agreement to testify, will appear 'very soon,' Rep. Adam Schiff says https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ne-whistleblower-testify-congress/3811971002/
"No harm, No Foul" is No Defense. As an initial point, the names of those folks are Sondland, Trump, and Taylor. Sondland amended his testimony to explicitly note that he personally delivered a QPQ on behalf of Trump. Trump has not testified under oath and is notorious for lying and flip flopping, so I place almost zero stock in his statement, whether made publicly or dictated to Sondland. Especially in light of the fact that Trump is a ****ing moron who probably believes that saying "no quid pro quo" is a magic get out of jail free phase even though he simultaneously held up hundreds of millions in military aid and demanded that they investigate his personal political opponents.
If that testimony is blocked by the person who is accused of wrongdoing, then a presumption that the testimony will be negative is appropriate.
My "moronic theory" is based on an undisputed timeline of events. Congress was notified about a whistleblower complaint two days before Trump released the money.
So Biden is guilty of corruption in Ukraine? And the whole impeachment is just a coup attempts by congress and the US diplomatic staff?
Do you feel Obama kept Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch at arm's length? There was never any request for a political rival to be investigated.
Yes, he did in the same interview where he lied by implying that neither he nor his staff had any contact with the Whistleblower. But I thought you guys all bitched about the whistleblower having 2nd hand and hearsay information in his complaint. Why not respect his request to remain anonymous given that you have the first hand testimony and documents from which you can draw your own conclusions.
Fun Fact: Trump didn't release the money. The State Dept did because they found he had no legal reason to withhold it. That's why it got released so suddenly, so Trump had to announce it was released to save face https://www.axios.com/trump-impeach...aid-a9be7c06-3ea5-4d9b-801a-1cdf6877cc31.html
Including crimes committed by political allies, right? Allies that work for close associates, like Giuliani? And who committed crimes in Ukraine?
Yea, that's a really interesting twist, isn't it? The State Department realized that Trump had no legal authority to place the hold on the money.
Not that I have seen. But I see what you think you are doing and let me just close it for you - Biden is not the one preventing Hunter Biden from testifying. No.
Multiple attestations, under oath, to Trump's "quid pro quo" by dedicated public servants, insiders familiar with the machinations of the caper, speak for themselves. Even Trump's man in Europe who had contributed a million dollars to his campaign has admitted to it. If Trump fails to gag Mulvaney, Bolton, et al, their testimony could add to the expert consensus. George Conway is an avowed conservative Republican, adamantly not a RINO of Trumpery.
Parnas and Fruman were arrested and charged with funneling foreign money into a Trump Super PAC and for working with a Ukrainian official and a US Congressman to get a Ukrainian Ambassador dismissed from her position. That Ukrainian Ambassador was dismissed by Trump.
Because it's real simple, instead of following protocol this guy went to the number 1 trump hater, met with them, got hooked up with the law firm that's been pushing impeachment since 2017, then a month later writes a legal document/whistleblower complaint. The optics are beyond partisan so if you want to take away 50million votes we should feel comfortable it's not a political hatchet job. This whistleblower also has a history he needs to answer for to at least make his 2nd hand complaint seem plausible and not a political stunt to change the will of the people. His name is out there, he hasn't been attacked like your original claim, let's get it all out there.
That's a great letter sent to Schiff etal. but neither Mulvaney or Bolton is mentioned and they were advised by their own lawyers. As well Bolton is no longer on staff.
No. He is the one who axed the investigation into his sons corruption. With threats of withholding aid.
