72% want witnesses

Teflon Don said:
1) Trump gave the money to Ukraine.
2) He gave it within the time assigned to dispense it.
3) He gave it even though Ukraine did not investigate the Biden Burisma scandal.
4) He gave it even though Ukraine did not announce an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens
5) Ukraine did not even perceive that Trump had held up any money until Politico wrote it a month later.
Click to expand...

It was not Trump's to give or not give. He inserted himself into the aid money to try and get an election advantage. He did not give it to them. He quit blocking it.
Ther aid had nothing to do with Burisma. It was to help them fight off Russia.
There were plenty of Ukraines asking the US about where the aid was. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
 
Gonzomin said:
It was not Trump's to give or not give. He inserted himself into the aid money to try and get an election advantage. He did not give it to them. He quit blocking it.
Ther aid had nothing to do with Burisma. It was to help them fight off Russia.
There were plenty of Ukraines asking the US about where the aid was. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
Click to expand...

do you have proof he wanted Biden investigated because he was his political opponent,
besides the FACT that he wasn't, and still isn't his political opponent

I'll understand if you don't

:rofl2:
 
A Bolton for Biden trade would be catastrophic for the Democrats.

The president is always justified in investigating corruption, no matter the party of the corrupted party.

Seventeen witnesses is sufficient. If the House wanted more witnesses, they should have called them.

Perhaps the video of el Sapo (Nadler) saying that a partisan impeachment is too divisive should be shown again.
 
Last edited:
Gonzomin said:
It was not Trump's to give or not give. He inserted himself into the aid money to try and get an election advantage. He did not give it to them. He quit blocking it.
Ther aid had nothing to do with Burisma. It was to help them fight off Russia.
There were plenty of Ukraines asking the US about where the aid was. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
Click to expand...
Well, no, he could have blocked the aid for the rest of his term. The president determines foreign policy.

The aid was given but not by Obama who did not give it.
 
I'm anxious to hear from Hunter and Joe, and Schiff and the whistleblower,

the other side is anxious to hear from Bolton

very important to remember the power group the trump defense team is, very important.
The Democrats have assembled bumbling idiots on their team, some of which will actually be witnesses

this is going to be good theater
 
what about Trumps crime will you find out by harrassing for political reasons a private citizen with the last name of Biden?


Ivanka Trump is far more likely to know about trumps crimes


why not call her to testify


why not start a congressional investigation into Hunter Biden?


CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE ALREADY STARTED ONE if they claim he committed crimes huh


why is the republican congress helping hunter biden cover up those crimes you said he committed?


why is trump calling for China , Ukraine and Russia to investigate things


WHY DIDNT HE TELL A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO DO IT??
 
see how flimsy your demands for political harrassment of people you don't like are


a republican run congress wouldn't even start an investigation into this dumb assed Russian lie


they new it would kill the party with what they found


that Biden actually helped Ukraine get the perp by outing the company dirt they found after coming on the board



why did the Ukraine praise Biden and deny these fucking russian concocted lies you swallow whole
 
A Bolton for Biden trade would be catastrophic for the Democrats.

The president is always justified in investigating corruption, no matter the party of the corrupted party.

Seventeen witnesses is sufficient. If the House wanted more witnesses, they should have called them.

Perhaps the video of el Sapo (Nadler) saying that a partisan impeachment is too divisive should be shown again.
Last edited by Earl; Today at 08:20 AM.
 
“Hope to have a final vote on impeachment on Friday.”

Senator Barrasso.

Put a fork in this abomination.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then Congress should have called them, when they had the chance.

If it's important now, then it should have been important at that time.
Click to expand...

I thought Congress called witnesses during their inquiry? Why do Democrats now consider something as needing to be done they didn't think was a good idea when they had a chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top