And revealing his identity purposefully and unncessarily, without his permission, is a form of retaliation. That's why none of the GOP congressmen, senators, or white house officials are saying his name.
Translation: It was uncovered that Schiff coordinated with the WB. Of course the WB complaint was all third hand and the testimony was all hearsay and assumptions but hey, this is the dem clown show.
The upper/lower limit is irrelevant. It doesn't matter for how long they were unaware; the only thing that is relevant is that they were unaware. Ukraine was not aware that the aid was being withheld to begin with. All they knew was that the aid was "missing," which is inconsistent with the idea that the aid was contingent upon something, or "a favor."
And the sources I've provided shows they haven't known for at most month. There are also sources that reports Zalensky is already on the record stating that he was unaware that held aid was being withheld. In addition, The Ukraine Prime Minister also on the record stating that he never talked to Trump about exchanging military aid for any favors, so he doesn't even understand what this Impeachment Inquiry is about.
Wrong again. There is no law against releasing the WB identity. This is an impeachment investigation and the dem clown show won't even let the accused face the accuser. Don't worry, that will change in the Senate.
The same unoriginal fear crap over an over. Instead of showing how my post is irrelevant or wrong you simply write it off. Really how lazy how gutless. You never even attempted to read the transcript!!! The crude Trump mentality prevails. .
The term "irrelevant" implies or suggest that specific statements or premises lack a coherent connection. Therefore, if a point is "irrelevant," it is usually not a good use of time to go off on a tangent to point out why your 15 sentence statement lacks a connection with my statements. If you wish to address a point with relevant issues, why not just address what people are saying? That is something that adults should already know how to do. Isn't that what you think you are?
Trump has a 6th amendment right to face his accuser, no more "Source D's" here. If he was unwilling to come forward, his complaint should not have been deemed credible. That's why other whistleblowers criticized this guy, they at least stuck their necks out.
Once again crudely stated. You've shown nothing but fear and still haven't provided a shred of evidence as why my very effective post is irrelevant. Another wasted post with an attempt legitimize your fear, laziness ignorance. This is the 2nd time you have run away from my cogent post. You have treated the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump conversation as irrelevant also. Pure Trumpian reasoning.
Will do... Do you have an advent calendar for December? Trump will be impeached before you finish it... Adam Schiff is the most presidential figure I've seen in this country since 2016... on either side... I know he confuses your team because he uses complete sentences...
I've already explained why it is unnecessary for me to do that, yet you're still here demanding that I should. If you respond to my post (remember, I didn't respond to you) without addressing a single point in my post, it is neither my concern, nor my obligation, to steer you in the right direction. I don't know what you're talking about. You're the one complaining, not me.
The right to face your accuser only extends to accusers though. If someone provides information to the police during an investigation, but that information is never used in court or it is provided by other eyewitnesses, then the person is not an accuser. Here, the information originally supplied by the WB is now being provided by other witnesses. Those are trump's accusers. And more importantly, that right only applies to a criminal proceeding where he could lose his life, liberty, or property. Trump cant even lose his job yet.
Maybe Schiff should get in the race..... lol Love to see that fool in a plaid shirt in Iowa. Adam Schiff is as complete pompous ass. If they don’t impeach, it will be because he was afraid of taking the stand. Let’s wait & see what happens. I wish I could place a bet. My prediction..... no vote.,,,, they won’t impeach to protect Schiff, not the whistleblower.
Do you deny that Ukrainian officials were aware of the money being missing at the same time that the request for the announced investigation was being made and before the aid was released?
When was the first around of payments authorized and when were any round of payments scheduled for disbursement?
LOL, you really have no idea what coming through the tunnel, do ya?? There is nothing you can do to stop impeachment... only the D's can stop it (or screw it up, which is always a possibility), but there is literally no reason not to go forward. I'd feel sad for some of you, if it wasn't deserved...
The transcript of what Trump called "the perfect call" simply showed Trump asking for favors immediately after Zelinsky requested more Javelin missiles. If they hadn't been held back he would not have needed to make a request for them at that particular time. Everyone from the State Department to the U.S embassy in Ukraine admitted they were held back. . And the Transcript shows Trump asking for favors immediately after Zelensky requested the Javelins. One of those favors was to look into the Biden's. But Hunter Biden left Ukraine in 2015. Trump illegally attempted to bribe a foreign President for dirt on the Bidens,.
His accuser is going to be the Congress of the United States. Are you at all aware of how impeachment works? You throw around constitutional amendments yet you seem to ignore the fact that congress is exercising its constitutional mandated duty thru the powers it possesses thru the constitution itself. That American patriots are perverting the constitution and ignoring the intent of the founders in order to protect a corrupt, venal, lying crooked president while he attempts to assume supreme power by flouting the law, ignoring ethics, obstructing justice and threatening national security for a personal political errand.
They were approved sometime in May as I recall. The Ukrainians knew something was wrong on the morning of the 25th of June. It was probably before that, but the 25th is the first testimony.
I'm not aware of any rounds. Trump released the money on September 11th and he placed the hold on the money 55 days prior.
