Pretty funny. Need more Trump-Pelosi meetings for entertainment.

I do wonder who setup the meeting if Trump did not? That person probably got an earful.

Pelosi gives play-by-play of ‘meltdown’ meeting with Trump over Syria

President* Big Brain, ladies and gentlemen! We could have replaced Obama with a stick that had a piece of gum attached to it and would have been better off than with this clown car show of an administration.

Rick Perry out?

Question #1


Why does he keep hosting them then?

Question #2


Of course he did. Is this supposed to make him look good?

Reports are that the Turks have resumed bombing.

Solid work Mr. VP.

Trump is winning at everything. Awards such as...



Most inept administration ever.
Most cruel administration ever.
Most corrupt administration ever.

Somewhere in a grave the dust that was once Chamberlain is laughing maniacally.

Completely unsurprising, but what a complete clown show.

#BREAKING French President Macron says learned of US Syria withdrawal 'by tweet' pic.twitter.com/8lEP2uyjIx

— AFP news agency (@AFP) October 18, 2019

Exactly! I mean, I'm sure it's a complete COINCIDENCE that the struggling property would be used for the summit. And knowing how 'charitable' the Grifter in Chief is, everyone that is staying there and using the struggling properties facilities for free and not at all paying to help the struggling property.

The mayor of Doral learned about the G7 by tweet. Sure, there was a process and vetting of possible locations.

Sad that this country was a superpower. Now taking orders from Turkey and the Saudis.

This seems like a potentially big crack in Trump's wall of defenders.

Wow. GOP @RepRooney says he thinks Pelosi "has a point" when she said that with Trump, all roads lead to Russia.

"I was skeptical of it like most Republicans were, but I gotta say this business about the Ukraine server ... tells me, what, are we trying to exculpate Russia?" pic.twitter.com/CGXKxTO3m9

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 18, 2019

Kasich calling for impeachment now?

I'm sure this will all go away now.

He's always been a never trumper

I am sort of shocked. It just goes to prove how stupid this whole thing was. If there was even the tiniest bit of anything they could find, they would have made a mountain out of it. Instead, they couldn't even come up with a crumb.

Didn't we just get a story that Ivanka also had potential classified emails on her own personal server? I may be off on the specifics but I believe that was the case. If I am right then it seems inevitable that in order to clear Ivanka they would have to clear HRC.

Then again, I have no idea what the "have to's" are for this and future administrations.

Well I wouldn't say nothing-38 people cited in violations for their handling of classified information-does not appear to be anything significant enough to get arrested though-some may get fired/not be able to get security clearances in the future. But yeah mostly nothing.


https://www.apnews.com/14b14afc5d8647858489a2cf5385c28d

The rest of that story: they where almost all classified after (in most cases years after) they where sent. It is being used by this administration to keep left-leaning state department officials from ever being able to return to their jobs.

And he announces he's retiring after this term.

....Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David, immediately. Thank you!

Can't they just go to the second place finisher from the process they claim to have had?

You mean another Trump property?

Pelosi is currently with a bipartisan group in Jordan working with King Abdullah on the Turkey/Kurdish issue.

Well no, according to Mulvaney, Doral was so Far and Away better then everything else they literally have no other choices now from what they saw. The only options now are Trump Tower Moscow and Burning Man.

I would love to see the g7 at Burning Man. There's you a great combination.

A victory for Trump. I do think this is a pretty good model (e.g. threaten, payoff etc. Mexico and let them get serious about doing the policing of their own borders).

Unfortunately this news is overwhelmed by all the other careless controversy that Trump & Co. has caused.

Trump's border wall: Why some say Mexico already built it -- and paid for it - CNN

Edward, that's mostly moving the goalposts and Mexico's president answering calls from his own people in their drug war.



It's also a win for the president for how he has saved 'thousands if not, tens of thousands of lives', with his Syria peace plan.



Same difference, afaic.

Oh I agree that its not the same as Mexico will pay for the Wall. The win here is Trump has reduced illegal immigration south of the border (at least for now).

Mexico putting troops on the border to slow down illegal immigration is not a result of Mexico wanting to stop the drug war/violence, it was a result of Trump strong arming Mexico with threats to stop the illegal inflow. In retrospect, this is a pretty good alternate solution if he is not able to get wall funding (from the US). Its actually a better solution assuming Mexico keeps it up and the US enables Mexico to continue doing so (e.g. economic funds vs plain threats).

We send about $200 million a year to help pay for those troops. So, we paid for this as well.

Which is money well spent, in reality. We benefit from a strong, healthy, Mexican government and economy. That is good foreign policy, imo.

Lucky for him, there's no way to prove him wrong...

The President of the United States Just Called the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution ‘Phony’

Netanyahu fails to form a unity govt in Israel-now it looks like the largest party in the Knosset-Kahol Lavan and its leader Benny Gantz may now have 28 days to form one:


Netanyahu announces he can't establish government | TheHill

I dont want to get into the religious discussion that tarcone did earlier, but the fact that traditional world superpower allies are being eaten alive from within is starting to get worrisome. US, UK, and Israel. I am sure there are others. All you have to do to find the root cause is to ask who is/would benefit from instability.

The Pentagon is now actively preparing contingencies to deal with the President's whims.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/militar...sides-n1069611


If officials are admitting this, then surely there has been--at least informal--talk of ignoring an order to fire off nukes, no?

House voted not to censure Adam Schiff 218-185


House rejects GOP measure censuring Schiff | TheHill

Unless the threat is very clear (e.g. tracking of inbound missiles), I would hope our military generals would refuse such an order. I think Trump knows this.

The greater threat is Trump starting some sort of shooting conflict to distract, solidify base, gain undecideds etc. during election year.

Interesting article. Not sure that Turkey was ever a good fit for NATO and hasn't been accepted into the EU. Its been frenemies under Erdogan.

He wants a return of an "Ottoman Empire". Not sure how it would play out but sure is fascinating to contemplate what could happen with all the different Muslim world dynamics.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/middl...ntl/index.html

The latest CNN poll has the number for impeachment and removal going up again: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/polit...ine/index.html

Of course, what it actually says is there is no way removal is going to take place. The numbers are trending up, but only on non-Republicans. 6% of Republicans are for, and 90% still approve of his job. Those numbers aren't moving, and the senate is never going to remove with those numbers.


I really don't see this changing, either. There is nothing in these charges that Trumps base would be mad about. Withholding aid? They hate foreign aid. Withholding aid as a quid pro quo? He should, because all the Demo-rats are crooks. Sometimes you have to be a crook to catch a crook. As long he does thing to further expose the evil that is the Democratic party, why should they care? "LOCK HER UP!" Right?

I agree. Not much has changed. Enough support from Dems/Moderates to impeach. Not enough support from the GOP to remove.

Trump gonna Trump, and Ben gonna write.


Without Due Process – Uncomfortable Places

Soooo it's not ok to discuss similarities that trump and his handlers have with the Third Reich, but it's ok for trump himself to say that the D's are lynching him? Not just "lynching", but the full lynching? How's that for some white supremacy dog whistling? Maybe the R's are the only ones who remember what lynchings look like.....'cause they were the ones who were there and all?

If anything, conservatives & republicans know how to feed their base & are well versed in the art of dog whistling. Can't wait to hear all of the, "But the republican party is the party of Lincoln!!" shrill cries from people who support the racist, rapist, moron.

Just when you think you’re at the bottom of the pit, Trump and his cronies go lower.

Trump dangles the keys once more.

I've been thinking about this. On the one hand, he is TOTALLY dangling the keys here (and it's a shout-out to the white supremacist part of his base as a bonus). And there's a part of me that wants to keep the focus on other stuff.

But I come down on the side of right-minded people speaking out against the dilution of lynching as a concept whenever we can. I mean, they just had to replace the Emmett Till memorial again because people keep vandalizing and shooting it. This is the country in which we are living. A 14 year old kid (my oldest son is 11, so I'm starting to get a sense of what that means) was lynched, and people are still attacking the memorial we put up saying that was wrong. This happened in 1955, and there are still Americans offended by the idea that murdering a black child is wrong.

So, yeah, he dangling the keys. But I think that we need to keep jumping at them. Because if we ever become the kinds of people who can just brush off lynching, then we've become him.

Which is what he hopes his constant stream of inane banter will accomplish. Accepting the fringe as the norm.

Meanwhile....

Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch said after leaving the SCIF that Bill Taylor’s testimony “is a sea change.”

“This testimony is a sea change. I think it could accelerate matters,” he said. “This will, I think, answer more questions than it raises. Let’s put it that way.”

— Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) October 22, 2019

“All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress … it’s my most disturbing day in Congress so far,” said Rep. Andy Levin, a freshman Democrat from Michigan.

— Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) October 22, 2019




Would be nice if there was corroborating testimony by a couple others (doubt there is a smoking gun email e.g. from Trump).

William Taylor testifies about deep-seated push for Ukraine quid pro quo - POLITICO

So remember last year when there that column in the NYT about an organized resistance in the White House, and then we heard almost nothing more? Well whoever it was is writing a book about it due next month:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5ce_story.html

He's not playing 8 dimensional chess. He's playing chicken shit bingo.

If we were in the Prime Timeline, there would be no question trump would have been impeached and removed from office by now, but, since we are clearly not...I highly doubt there will be enough republican senators that can be counted on to do the right thing.

Diplomat says he was told U.S. aid for Ukraine tied to request for probes

After reading Taylor's opening statement... holy (expletive). Sondlund looks like he'll be jailed for perjury IMO and though I'm sure the Trumpistas will deny it, it's even more clear that there was quid pro quo and everyone involved knew it.

"I'm not ordering you to kill Mr. So and So, I'm just saying it would be nice if, perhaps there's an accident or something that makes Mr. So and So no longer alive and if you happen to help with that...wellll, sucks to be him."

...President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo." But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself...

...if President Zelenskyy did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood a "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.

Just finished reading it. I mean, in a court of law, that evidence and testimony is completely damning. What detail and incredible documentation. I'm not sure what 'smoking gun' Edward is still looking for. When you stack all that up, along with what we know about trump's decision making and the history of what has already been laid bare the picture is pretty clear.

Not a legal scholar so here's my 2c

1) Quid pro quo is nothing new and I am sure is used in all the past administrations. Quid pro quo to investigate DNC server hack, don't have a problem there but gets close to the line. Quid pro quo to investigate a political rival does cross the line

2) Taylor very clearly believes (a) Ukraine aid was tied to investigating Biden & Son and (b) it came at Trump's direction. Sondland said it was not (albeit giving himself wiggle room).

3) There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to believe this was US policy. We can hypothesize this came at the direction of Trump. I don't think there is evidence for this yet.

4) In any other administration, I can believe it may have been an over zealous private Presidential attorney, brown nosing EU ambassador etc. that over/mis interpreted what was asked (e.g. Reagan and Iran-Contra)

5) Do I believe quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Co came from Trump? Yes

6) Do I believe we have enough evidence to convict in a court of law? No. Let's find other testimonies to corroborate or some additional evidence (e.g. wonder what Sondland has from Guiliani/Trump). I think it is easy enough for the committee to follow-up on those that Taylor named and bring them in for questioning or, in Sondland's case, requestioning

7) Do we have enough to impeach in House? Yes. Do we have enough to convince the Senate to confirm? No. If we did have a smoking gun email/text (e.g. Trump to Guiliani to Sondland) that would probably be enough for Senate to confirm the impeachment.

8) So my prediction is Trump survives through all this. To get rid of him, its going to be done at the polls in 2020

It honestly makes me wonder if Trump doesn't actually know what Quid Pro Quo is.

I have no idea why the White House photoshopped Bolton out of this May 2018 photo and replaced him with AG Barr. But they sure did.

The original photo is from May 2018, and credited to the DoD. pic.twitter.com/uRzqREfKpx

— Strictly �� �� (@christoq) October 22, 2019

Can we please get past the whole " all politicians do this?" If you can't tell Trump is different and an outlier you are willfully ignorant.


I read the whole thing, and maybe I missed it, but Sondland actually said TRUMP says it isn't. I do not see where his own opinion is interjected bu admittedly I may have missed it. Regardless, I could point at a dog, and tell you it is a cat, doesn't make it a cat just because I say so.


So you are completely discounting not only this testimony, but Trump actually admitting to it?


I don't understand this statement. Are you saying Rudy was trying to impress Trump or something? Go above and beyond?


Doesn't this kind of invalidate your earlier statements?


I'm not really sure what else we need. We have testimony, proof aid was withheld, Trump admitting to why, the phone call showing he did it.


The Senate is NEVER going to confirm, which is why Pelosi was so against it. The party is the party of Trump. Do you honestly think the average Trump supporter will ready that statement? Do you think they would honestly care?


See above. He survives not because there isn't enough evidence, but because the Republican party would rather be concerned with reelection than rule of law.

and this folks is how someone gets shot on 5th ave and he still gets elected. If this were any other president in any other times there's no way this would fly. I mean shit, they wanted to hang HRC over the server which panned out to be some crappy decisions but nothing of ill intent AND his frickin' daughter did the same dang thing. It's unreal the pretzels the RNC are twisting themselves into along with the die-hard faithful that'll never see that a non-politician slimy real Estate guy ACTS like a non-politician slimy real estate guy and might break the law when he literally admits it and/or says the law is phony. Forget it, there's no way the Senate confirms impeachment... I mean Lindsay Graham defended the use of the word lynching today. It's an easy out for him to say what any of the other R's said and be done with it but Trump calls him and he whistles dixie to defend it. Crazy.

So yeah, Senate lets it go. I just pray that all the Evangelicals and RNC die-hards remember what they turned a blind eye to when the pendulum swings the other way. They won't but I have hope.

I saw this tweet (which now has been taken down?) and someone in the comments was saying that they did a Photostop on the pic and it wasn't real. I don't know how accurate that comment was though. I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump though to do something like this. I think we will find that a lot of evidence of Trump's Presidency has been destroyed, altered, and/or hidden away

My quote is below. Are you disagreeing that past administrations have done quid pro quos before with other governments? I can tell that Trump is different hence my last sentence.

Quote:

Quid pro quo is nothing new and I am sure is used in all the past administrations. Quid pro quo to investigate DNC server hack, don't have a problem there but gets close to the line. Quid pro quo to investigate a political rival does cross the line

Don't understand your point? I agree that Sondland said it wasn't quid pro quo because Trump told him it wasn't. He gave himself some wiggle room by saying this is what Trump told him but he did not know if it was for real.


I actually have not seen this. Quote please on where Trump "actually admitted to" quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son?


I started that point by saying "In any other administration, I can believe ..." which implies I do not think that is the case here. However, I toss out Iran-Contra as an example of where some folks because over zealous and overly creative in getting things done.


No. I am clearly stating that I believe Trump did do quid pro quo for investigation into Biden & Son. However, i do not believe there is enough evidence that links him to it yet


Again, quote on Trump "admitting to why" re: investigation on Biden & Son. I may have missed this.


I do think if there was clear evidence that directly tied Trump to a quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son that there will be a chance GOP will turn on him. Our debate confusion right now is because you think Trump has already admitted to this whereas I have not seen this admission.


Won't disagree

You're giving way too much credence to the server investigation. There is no Ukrainian server. There never has been. Everybody in our intelligence agencies have told Trump this. Asking for an investigation into it is another form of holding aid for political purposes.

All of it is about smearing the Dems and helping Trump win in 2020.

And to that, Trump admits it. Mulvaney admits it. Giuliani admits it. The transcript confirms it. Sondland confirms it. Taylor confirms it. Yovanovitch confirms it.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Trump again basically cops to asking Ukraine about Biden: "We're supporting a country. We want to make sure that country is honest...it's very important to talk about corruption. if you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?"… https://t.co/DhrZ5EwI0i"

He admitted to pressuring Ukraine about the Biden’s. The aid being held back was proven to happen. Mulvaney admitted it was Quid pro quo. We now have testimony from a very credible source. I mean m, seriously, what more could you want.

So maybe that is where the confusion is.

I am not giving much thought on the server connection (assuming you mean Trump quid pro quo on investigating the DNC hack). Trump doing quid pro quo by asking Ukraine investigate DNC hack doesn't rise to level of impeachment for me (regardless if it existed or not).

Its the Trump quid pro quo on investigating Biden & Son (a political rival) that IMO is the crux of this impeachment case. Other than for Taylor today, if there have been admissions that Trump did do quid pro quo for Biden & Son investigation, please provide the links.

Sorry, I didn't see anything on the twitter post that indicated Trump admitted to pressuring Ukraine about the Biden's. The twitter post referenced a quote which doesn't say anything much other than his own opinion.

Can you provide a quote/link from a news article?

Two paragraphs:




then you get this:




You don't withhold previously appropriated funds for an ally for SIX WEEKS that they need for military and economic support and say it's because you need the pres to publicly say what you want them to say as in:


During the CNN interview Pres Zel was to respond to announce the investigations and respond to the question about them with "we will leave no stone unturned." Those were the key words that would signal to trump that they were playing so they could get paid.



I'm not sure how else you're supposed to say that there was anything other than a QPQ here.

Assume your quotes are from Taylor's opening statement.

In my post above which started this discussion I said the below quote.

I don't disagree Taylor said there was quid pro quo for investigation into Biden & Son. I'm saying there needs to be some other corroborating evidence/testimony that ties Trump to this. Then Lathum indicated that Trump fessed up to this (which would definitely be the corroborating evidence/testimony) and I asked for a link.

The Whistleblower statement isn't enough to corroborate? It's right in line with everything else that has been said already. Or are they part of the lynching?

I personally believe the Republican Party should never hold power in Washington again, and if possible, be disbanded.

This is coming from someone who is technically still a registered Republican. I'm lazy.

Maybe but I lean towards not enough "right now". Some quotes are below.

The whistleblower complaint, annotated

My caution is the whistle blower is reporting what others have told him/her (and who knows the degree of separation) and none of them are named (for obvious reasons).

I assume the investigative committee already has (or soon will have) the names of officials that the whistle blower references? Let's see how that plays out, sounds as if there are many people that can corroborate Taylor's testimony.

Do you believe Edward, that the detail with which everything was laid out, with names, dates, quotes, and that he is essentially putting his career on the line as a servant of the State, who is trying to help a foreign ally against an aggressor, that he just made this stuff up, and he should not be counted as a reliable witness?

What bothers me most is how important the Ukraine is to.our interests in an area so close to Russia.

For the President to withhold seriously needed military aid from an ally whose country is currently split between themselves and a Russian occupying force tells me everything I need to know about the man. As in his life, so in this adminsitration: Trump is only interested in his own personal gain. He does not care about the interests of this country.

Of course, Syria. This is nothing new.

Assume you are talking about Taylor. Sure I find him credible.

However, when we are talking about impeaching and confirming the impeachment of the President, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for corroborating evidence.

Re: the whistle blower ... I don't view "I heard from X who heard from Y" as sufficient corroborating evidence. Ideally it would be "I was in the room when I heard Z" or "I got this email from Trump/Chief of Staff/Guiliani". If persons X and Y exist (and they should based on Taylor's and whistle blower statements), lets have the committee talk to them and see what we have.

So if there was a murder trial, and there was one eyewitness who was standing there and watched the knife go up and down but didn't see it enter the body. Then there was a policeman that came 5 minutes later and took a bloody body out from behind the obstruction. If that witness came to trial, you would say "sure, it's nice that you saw all that, but we need somebody who was actually THERE."

He literally says it in the transcript of the phone call we all saw. As others have also pointed out there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. By your standards there would be almost zero convictions in court. If I am ever on trial I hope you are in the jury.


We have the call log showing he said it, we have the testimony from Taylor, we have proof aid was withheld, Trumps own words "I want [Zelensky] to do whatever he can. Biden's son walks out of Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars. I think it's a horrible thing." We have Mulvany saying it was quid pro quo.

It is blatantly obvious you don't want to admit he is guilty as sin short of Trump coming out and saying " I am guilty of Quid Pro Quo" which will not happen. There really is no further point to discussing it, and sadly millions of Americans think the same way.

The server investigation is the same story. Both Biden and the server requests are about fabricating evidence to damage political opponents. There can't be an investigation because the Ukraine server literally doesn't exist.

Honestly, as a public defender, I feel stupid for not realizing that this was a defense for my clients:

"I will give you these drugs in exchange for money. But I am not going to use the words 'drug deal,' so I cannot be found guilty of drug dealing."

And as for the DNC server not being an impeachable offense, exactly how is it not? The FBI and intelligence services have already investigated and said this didn't happen. Common sense will tell you it did not happen (The DNC emails where on a cloud base system. There is no such thing as a single DNC server). Trump and his goons knows there is not a server. He wants the president of Ukraine to lie about this server and say Ukraine was the ones that meddled with the last election. This is to further the President's political prospects, nothing else. How exactly is that not impeachable?

In other news, Matt Whitaker went on tv last night to let us know that abuse of power is not a crime. Yes, a former acting Attorney General says that President has every right to abuse his power of office.

Yes I agree. It is on moderate R’s and right leaning conservatives like him that after Trump gets reelected the expected atrocities he causes are on them. Like they say “when there is blood on the street, buy property.”

Yep, saying there was no quid pro quo doesn’t make it so. Just like some people saying they don’t support Trump but then twist themselves into a pretzel defending 99% of what he does, doesn't mean they don’t support Trump.

I have never heard that before.

I wouldn't be surprised. He's shown in the past that when a specific word or term has been thrown at him, next thing you know, he's using it like when a little kid learns a new swear word. On the other hand, I'm sure he has practiced Quid Pro Quo for decades, but, didn't know the term for what he was actually doing.

For example, from a tweet of his yesterday, "Since day one, the left has been on a mission to dispute, deny, and re-litigate the results of the 2016 election. They aren't just trying to penalize a political outsider for taking office. They’re trying to penalize the American people for choosing President @realDonaldTrump." 22 Oct 2019

I HIGHLY doubt he knows about the word re-litigate and to how to properly use it in a sentence. This tweet appears to be written by someone else, plus it doesn't even follow his normal cadence and I highly doubt he would now how to properly use a comma before the word 'and', like it was in the tweet.

So wait...are you saying that all these people that work for trump are doing this while keeping trump completely in the dark about it? Like they have no orders from trump to withhold the aid from Ukraine until they investigate the Bidens (aka Quid Pro Quo). Like trump was sitting on the toilet, lamenting about how much he hates the Bidens and his people (trumps) got together and said, "Hey, we should really do something to cheer up the boss. I know! Let's withhold financial aid to Ukraine in exchange for some dirt on the Biden's!! But don't tell him, we want it to be a surprise."

Per my quote below, this isn't "I heard from X who heard from Y". This is "I was in the room when I heard (or saw) Z". So yeah, that is a pretty good witness.

Quote:

Re: the whistle blower ... I don't view "I heard from X who heard from Y" as sufficient corroborating evidence. Ideally it would be "I was in the room when I heard Z" or "I got this email from Trump/Chief of Staff/Guiliani". If persons X and Y exist (and they should based on Taylor's and whistle blower statements), lets have the committee talk to them and see what we have.

Was the whistle blower in the room? No.

Was Taylor in the room? or did he hear from X who heard from Y (in this case Y is Trump/Guiliani/Chief of Staff)? From what I've read, he heard it from X.


In the call log, Trump did ask Ukraine to investigate Biden & Son, no doubt. Was there quid pro quo for that is what I am questioning.

We do have Taylor's testimony which says he believes it was quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son.

We know aid was withheld.

We do not have Mulvany saying it was quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son. If I am wrong here, please provide link or quote.


I'm all for impeachment (see prior posts). I do believe Trump withheld aid as quid pro quo for Ukraine to investigate Biden & Son. I do believe as the committee further investigates and talks to X and Y persons there will be corroborating testimony. I just don't think we are there yet.

Then why was the aid withheld? You think it is a coincidence? All you have to do is connect the dots. Trump asks them to investigate, aid withheld, Taylors testimony states aid was withheld for that reason. I mean FFS what else do you need. For real? what would be good enough for you?

I don't understand this point. An investigation to DNC hack can still occur regardless of whether the server/cloud exists or not? Your point may be it didn't happen because there was no server. Sure I get this. Don't see why an investigation still can't happen to confirm this or come out with details.


Again not a legal scholar but will try to provide my reasoning why asking Ukraine for quid pro quo to investigate DNC hack is not on the same level as asking quid pro quo to investigate Biden & Son.

The ask for DNC hack is in the past and doubtful to impact 2020 elections. It is to help Trump rationalize his 2016 tainted win (e.g. Trump can say it wasn't the Russians that help him win).

The ask for Biden & Son is much more egregious because it can impact the 2020 elections.

It's pretty clear Mulvaney said quid pro quo with Ukraine for Democratic hack investigation.

He didn't say Biden & Son.

Mick Mulvaney Briefing Transcript: "Get Over It" Regarding Ukraine Quid Pro Quo - Rev

No, I am saying Trump very likely did tell his team quid pro quo for Biden & Son. Taylor said it directly (but he did not hear it first hand from Trump/Guiliani/Chief of Staff ... or at least we don't know that right now) but lets have the corroborating testimonies from X and Y (up the food chain).

I am not saying this is the same example or level but there is at least one significant example of not keeping President entirely in the loop and things got out of hand. See Iran-Contra.

Any investigation by Ukraine into the DNC hack is by default a quest to fabricate evidence to blame Dems. How do I know this? Because there is no Ukraine server. There's nothing to investigate in Ukraine. It's literally the same thing as demanding a Japanese investigation into the origins of 9/11. It's inherently corrupt.

Trump in the phone call specifically mentioned Biden. Are we to believe the quid pro quo was just for the DNC server but investigating Biden wasn't attached?

Give me a break.

Ah ok, I think I see what you are saying, but, it seems like you are nittin' picks though. I admit, I could be wrong and we are actually agreeing, but, just coming from different angles.

A couple of things to keep in mind:
1. This isn't a court of law (when talking about impeachment) so to expect the same scrutiny of evidence as in a real criminal trial, is misguided for the lack of a better word. It's also the same conservative talking point they used for Kavanaugh after he perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.

2. Were talking about a person (trump) who has decades of documented proof of him being a cheat and liar, so any benefit of the doubt, just does not exist here.

3. I agree that the minutia of the Iran-Contra stuff were probably not something that Reagan was kept up to date on. He was still no less culpable in his guilt though as with trump in this case.

Keeping score: Whistleblower complaint, memo of phone call, trump admitting to quid pro quo, President Zelensky confirming it, and now yesterday's testimony. I'm not sure what more you would need here.

In a perfect world, I want Mulvaney or Guiliani to turn and say yes, Trump told me to communicate quid pro quo for Biden & Son investigation (or some sort of email/text exchange from Trump). That would be fantastic and do believe that will turn a lot of Republicans where a Senate confirmation of impeachment is a real possibility.

Question to you:

1) Do you believe quid pro quo for DNC hack investigation by itself rises to level of impeachment? I don't think so and would like your thoughts?

Both already have I think before walking it back

Specific to quid pro quo on Biden & Son ...

Re: Mulvaney, agree or disagree, see my above posts.

On Guiliani, I honestly don't remember this happening?

Are you OK with the President working with foreign governments to undermine the agencies he's sworn to defend?

I've been answering a lot of questions lately (not from you). How about you answer mine and then I'll answer yours?