How crude. The reason we protect whistle blowers is that we want them to inform us without fear of exposure. The Trump world is the opposite. He works little like the former KGB agent Putin in that all should live in fear to expose the truth regarding Trump's constant corrupt practices. .
Sure you can impeach..... but if you do..... you lose ! Trump will laugh at you and Schiff on election night 2020. I hope they do..... but I know they won’t. You don’t really think your going to get 67 votes in the senate, do you?
This is the most investigated corrupted president in history with 6 collogues and/or campaign members going to jail. So Trump stating he wants no quid pro quo is like Jack The Ripper stating "I never want to kill anyone".
I don't think they'll get 67 votes on the abuse of power over Ukraine. But I will feel truly sad for the future of Congress if they approve absolute immunity, virtually guaranteeing neither the House or the Senate will ever get another Executive Branch witness from the opposing party in an investigative hearing ever again.. Think about that!
Congress ? Pelosi Schiff Nadler Maxine Waters I already feel sad about Congress. What a sad bunch of sad sacks
What even is this information other than a summary of what they 'thought' went down. They can't even prove it went down that way, but they can breathlessly claim it as such. Wouldn't you rather have stronger evidence than what we've got?
It doesn't work for me. I want clear and concise evidence. Impeachment is not a 'political process', it is a judiciary one where there's a freaking Senate Trial. I'm not interested in the Kavanaugh saga again. Just like with Brett Kavanaugh, we have an accusation and just like with Kavanaugh, we have no physical proof that the crime occurred. These witnesses are slightly better in that they can testify that they think this occurred, but we're not Salem witch hunting here. There's got to be some physical evidence for or against.
"Sometime in May, as you recall" doesn't work. Either you know when the disbursements were approved or you don't. If you know, that's great. If you don't know, don't guess. If you also know when the disbursements were scheduled, that is also helpful as well. We've also already been over the fact that the Ukrainians wasn't even aware of anything delay in the transaction until at most a month after, so this is false.
Okay, so we don't know when the funds were authorized for disbursement. We also don't know when any rounds of disbursement were scheduled to be disbursed. All we do know is that the funds were disbursed after this scandal broke. Based on what we do know (or rather, what we do not know), we can't use this to determine that the funds were "missing." This is either coincidental (the disbursements occur after the scandal and internal investigation started) or based on the necessary timeline before the disbursement of the funds had to be released (as anyone who works in Finance can understand). If we don't have an idea of when these transactions should occur, we can't say that we know something is "missing."
The Transcript of what Trump characterized as the " perfect call' Shows Trump asking for a favor immediately after Zelensky requested the need for Javelin missiles that were held back. The favors were 1. to look into the crowdstrike information and 2. to look into the Bidens. Hunter Biden left Ukraine in 2015. Since then almost all of Ukraine's institutions faced the further growth of corruption. Trump never asked about all the forms of corruption that had grown since 2015. He targeted the Biden's only. Others who listened to the call say they heard the same thing and almost everyone in the state department and the Ukraine embassy knew of this policy of dirt for missiles.. Trump hung himself on his own transcript. The witnesses merely confirmed what was on the transcript. Trying to demand anything more than the witnesses who already testified and Trump's self incriminating transcript is pure B.S.
I'm only going to be your lookup once because you don't pay. So next time look for yourself first. The $391 million in military aid to Ukraine had already been approved in the 2019 federal budget. It was meant to bolster Ukrainian forces in their ongoing conflict against Russian invaders in the country’s east and included money for arms and radar systems as well as funding for naval forces and NATO aid. The Trump administration initially told Congress it was releasing the aid to Ukraine on February 28. It repeated that assertion to Congress again on May 23, but failed to explain to lawmakers but struggled to explain — both publicly and to the lawmakers who approved the aid — exactly why the funds were withheld. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper told the House Intelligence Committee during an impeachment hearing on Wednesday that Ukraine had contacted the State Department about promised security interest on July 25, the same day that President Donald Trump allegedly asked for quid pro quo from Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Two separate emails were received by Cooper's staff, one stating that the Ukrainian Embassy and House Foreign Affairs Committee were asking about security assistance. The second email said, "The Hill knows about the FMF [Foreign Military Financing] situation to an extent, as so does the Ukranian embassy." These emails were unclassified, but provided additional information to Cooper's testimony that was not included in her previous deposition. "What was going on with Ukrainian security assistance?" Cooper said one of the emails read.
They are just trying to tie everything together. It all started way before the phone call. It may have even started before the Ukraine election.
First and foremost, I can only assume that you're new to the idea of "evidence,", but if you state a claim, it is up to you to substantiate it and no one else. Secondly, I think my initial question is confusing you: "When was the first around of payments authorized and when were any round of payments scheduled for disbursement?" Your source just outlines that it Trump was informing congress that it was releasing aid to Ukraine, but that is not what I asked. When were the first round of payments scheduled to be disbursed?
. And by the way I know it was misspelled but the fact is all of your responses to my original post are fear laden non sequiturs.
@MolonLabe2009 said: ↑ Where is the fricking evidence that Trump demanded anything from anybody???? THERE IS NO FRICKING EVIDENCE!!!!!! Ambassador Volker testified that the language reflected what Mr. Giuliani deemed necessary for the statement to be “credible.”805 Ambassador Sondland noted the language was “proposed by Giuliani.”806 Ambassador Sondland explained that the language was a clear quid pro quo that expressed “the desire of the President of the United States”: Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.807
Wow! It's worse than I thought. You really took the bull by the tail and looked the problem straight in the eye.
I surmise this is a smart investor since his comment came 1 day prior to the 280 point loss in the Dow Jones Average yesterday What's really interesting about today is this giant jump we've had in the yield of the 10-year Treasury. The pattern has been when stocks do poorly the flight to safety lowers yeilds. This deviation could signal a complete market shift should it continue to hold out. Remember rising rates is very negative for stocks whether it be caused by the Federal reserve or just normal market supply vs demand. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^DJI/community?p=^DJI
