Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode X: Purple Raining to Impeachment

[Salodin]

Per Sandland's testimony it was sometime in august.

"AMBASSADOR SONDLAND: I don't think the Ukrainians knew jt was being withheld back in July.
HILL: 0nly in August.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND: Yeah."

Great. When was the aid released?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

K. You're going the semantics route. Gotcha.

Well your quoting me from before the testimony transcripts were released. Funny thing, after staying up 'til 3 reading them, those facts still stand.

You can ..for instance try to disprove one of those facts, instead of accusing me of trying to trick you somehow.
"
Fact: Ukraine president and Trump both claimed no quid quo pro.
Fact: Transcript doesn't show any quid quo pro. (despite theatrics from the dems)
Fact: Ukrainians did not know at the time of the call that their funding was on hold.
Fact: Ukrainians got their aid, took no action to date to investigate Bidens."

Just one, gimmie something. I wanna know if I was wrong. But you won't, instead you'll link CNN's article or claim those facts are irrelevant and then again accuse me of being retarded trump supporter. You won't admit house's case isn't as strong as MSM is leading you to believe.

[kuronosan]

K.

[guartz]

Great. When was the aid released?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

released sept. 10th...

Ukraine knew the aid was held up before it was released. We knew that before testimonies were public.
We also knew best ever new york detective and mayor and personal trump lawyer was digging dirt in Ukraine before whistle blower said anything.

[archibaldcrane]

The House's case is that Trump withheld congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine to pressure them to open an investigation into his political opponent.

What part of this isn't true?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[guartz]

The House's case is that Trump withheld congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine to pressure them to open an investigation into his political opponent.

What part of this isn't true?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The part where the aid was released and Biden isn't being investigated by Ukraine.

[Salodin]

released sept. 10th...

Ukraine knew the aid was held up before it was released. We knew that before testimonies were public.
We also knew best ever new york detective and mayor and personal trump lawyer was digging dirt in Ukraine before whistle blower said anything.

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/5/209142...rump-explained

Here's the long version of what I'm about to explain to you. Nevermind the testimonies that say behind the scenes the ambassadors all knew, and relayed it to ukranians, that aid was being held up for an investigation, but the call un question happened in July. We now know the transcript was altered to not include burisma by name, even though IRC it does include bidens name directly already. Trump asks for a favor, the favor is the investigation, and everyone knew unofficially the aid was on hold because this was all unofficial and done thru back channels with rudy. When officials were onto them, and the money was about to be reappropriated, trump relented and gave up. That doesnt make it any less of a crime, even though ukraine did get around to announcing that investigation. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...audit-n1062311

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

The part where the aid was released and Biden isn't being investigated by Ukraine.

It's funny cause I hadn't seen this post yet but i gave a link that proved it false lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

He withheld the aid, its later release doesn't make that false.

And the fact that the pressure failed to induce an investigation doesn't mean that he wasn't withholding the aid to pressure them into investigating.

So, thank you for confirming the basic facts of the matter.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

He withheld the aid, its later release doesn't make that false.

And the fact that the pressure failed to induce an investigation doesn't mean that he wasn't withholding the aid to pressure them into investigating.

So, thank you for confirming the basic facts of the matter.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It produced an "audit" of previous cases tho

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

It wasn't that Trump wanted an investigation, specifically the word has been that he wanted Zelensky to get in front of a microphone and say there was an investigation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/5/209142...rump-explained

Here's the long version of what I'm about to explain to you. Nevermind the testimonies that say behind the scenes the ambassadors all knew, and relayed it to ukranians, that aid was being held up for an investigation, but the call un question happened in July. We now know the transcript was altered to not include burisma by name, even though IRC it does include bidens name directly already. Trump asks for a favor, the favor is the investigation, and everyone knew unofficially the aid was on hold because this was all unofficial and done thru back channels with rudy. When officials were onto them, and the money was about to be reappropriated, trump relented and gave up. That doesnt make it any less of a crime, even though ukraine did get around to announcing that investigation. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...audit-n1062311

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

oh juicy, gimmie some time to read through that.

[Salodin]

I'm sure he lobbied to get as overt an announcement as he could get, but if he didnt get caught I'm sure he would have settled for an audit of the investigation.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

It wasn't that Trump wanted an investigation, specifically the word has been that he wanted Zelensky to get in front of a microphone and say there was an investigation.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

That's correct, Trump didn't trust Ukraine and wanted Zelensky to publicly commit to it.

[Zealot]

Well the counterpoint to that is that Trump didn't care about the investigation itself, just the public announcement and the potential damage to the Biden campaign.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

He withheld the aid, its later release doesn't make that false.

And the fact that the pressure failed to induce an investigation doesn't mean that he wasn't withholding the aid to pressure them into investigating.

So, thank you for confirming the basic facts of the matter.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What if they get Perry or Guili on the stand and they say that it was just a bluff. Is that illegal?
Also I'll remind you DoJ has a criminal investigation going regarding what they learned in Ukraine.
edit: I mispoke, I don't know if it's a DoJ investigation officially, but its with Durham and he was appointed by DoJ.

[archibaldcrane]

It wasn't just a bluff because they did in fact withhold the aid.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

What if they get Perry or Guili on the stand and they say that it was just a bluff. Is that illegal?
Also I'll remind you DoJ has a criminal investigation going regarding what they learned in Ukraine.
edit: I mispoke, I don't know if it's a DoJ investigation officially, but its with Durham and he was appointed by DoJ.

...they did withhold the aid.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Kaslo]

Regardless, the bluff would still have been an abuse of power.

[Salodin]

What if they get Perry or Guili on the stand and they say that it was just a bluff. Is that illegal?
Also I'll remind you DoJ has a criminal investigation going regarding what they learned in Ukraine.
edit: I mispoke, I don't know if it's a DoJ investigation officially, but its with Durham and he was appointed by DoJ.

Before you retort, do try and remember the bar here is high crimes and misdemeanors, not felonies or some criminal statute. He tried to use his power for his personal, political gain, and that's the impeachable offense here.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk