More truth into this hack of an impeachment hearing

[ludin]

Jason Chaffetz: Why Schiff'''s whistleblower claims at Trump impeachment hearing are impossible to believe | Fox News

Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.

More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower, whose second-hand allegations so deeply concerned House Democrats that they opened an official impeachment inquiry – a process they had three times explicitly rejected in previous House votes.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff went to great lengths to suppress any reference to the witness during the first day of testimony, even going so far as to claim (laughably) that he doesn't know who the witness is.

Let’s think about that for a moment. We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?

If no one is above the law, we have a right to learn how the whistleblower came to be in possession of classified information he or she was unauthorized to possess.

We deserve to know when and how that information came to be in the hands of House Democrats, the extent to which the impeachment effort has been coordinated, and the names of anyone else in the White House actively working with Democrats to take down the duly elected President of the United States.

This is the lowest of the low of america people when 1 party thinks they have a right to undo an election because
they lost it.

time to wake up people and see the leftists for what they are.

 

[Acadia]

No way, no how, is Schiff unaware of the name/identity of the "WB". Schiff knows he can't be compelled to testify, so he's gone ***** to the wall with this lie.

 

[Slavister]

If no one is above the law, we have a right to learn how the whistleblower came to be in possession of classified information he or she was unauthorized to possess.

How do you know WB had classified information that he or she was unauthorized to possess?

We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?

That makes no sense. Who exactly claimed that Shiff never met or knows who WB is?

 

[ludin]

How do you know WB had classified information that he or she was unauthorized to possess?

need to investigate. find out where he got his information from and who gave it to him.
don't you think it is important to find that out?

 

[Slavister]

need to investigate. find out where he got his information from and who gave it to him.
don't you think it is important to find that out?

You did not answer the question. You claimed that (a) WB had classified information and (b) that he or she was unauthorized to possess it. Now, prove it.

 

[Excast]

A man beats his wife to within an inch of her life in their home. A neighbor sees the incident taking place and contacts authorities. According to Republicans, we now need to investigate the person who called to find out their motivations and whether or not they liked the man, because that is more of an issue than the crime taking place inside of the home.

It's the same thing time after time with you people. You seem less concerned about the damning actions of Trump and those around him than you do the fact we know about them. So anyone who tries to do the right thing, who steps forward and tells investigators they might want to shine a light onto this madness, well they can look forward to conservative pundits and politicians trying to destroy their lives.

 

[Slyfox696]

Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information

This is a flat out lie. They testified numerous times to what they personally witnessed and dealt with.

I swear Trump defenders are the worst liars.

and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.

Because they answered the questions they were asked truthfully?

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower

They are witnesses...why would they be talking about the whistleblower?

I swear, this may be one of the stupidest posts on this topic I've seen on this forum.

We deserve to know when and how that information came to be in the hands of House Democrats

Is it your position it will somehow make the facts, as reported by the whistleblower and deemed by the ICIG as credible and now confirmed by multiple witnesses in Congressional hearings untrue? Will it change the fact the White House themselves confirmed the worst parts of the whistleblower complaint?

What exactly is your point, beyond partisan ranting?

the names of anyone else in the White House actively working with Democrats to take down the duly elected President of the United States.

These are duly elected members of Congress, who are following a Constitutionally outlined process to deal with potential wrongdoing.

Is it your position that the President is not beholden to the Constitution?

This is the lowest of the low of america people

Says the person who apparently thinks the President shouldn't be held responsible to the Constitution by duly elected members of Congress.

I swear Trump defenders say the absolute stupidest things.

 

[Mach]

Republicans attacking the whistle-blower, while Trump's impeachment inquiry public testimony continues, and every single witness has (and will again) testifies to Trumps impeachable, wrong, behavior.

It's so ridiculous, I almost feel sorry for them. They are loosing their moorings...maybe go back to "but Hillary!!", that probably felt better right?

 

[Slyfox696]

Republicans attacking the whistle-blower, while Trump's impeachment inquiry public testimony continues, and every single witness has (and will again) testifies to Trumps impeachable, wrong, behavior.

It's so ridiculous, I almost feel sorry for them. They are loosing their moorings...maybe go back to "but Hillary!!", that probably felt better right?

It really is astounding just how ignorant or dishonest so many of those defending Trump are. There is such a dearth of truthfulness in what they are saying it is amazing some of these people even possess the ability to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

 

[Mach]

It really is astounding just how ignorant or dishonest so many of those defending Trump are. There is such a dearth of truthfulness in what they are saying it is amazing some of these people even possess the ability to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

No bottom has been reached. In the not too distant past, southerners were willing to kill Americans so they could keep human slaves. I mean, we're nowhere near rock bottom, we're just aiming there and greasing the skids.

 

[americanwoman]

Jason Chaffetz: Why Schiff'''s whistleblower claims at Trump impeachment hearing are impossible to believe | Fox News

Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.

More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower, whose second-hand allegations so deeply concerned House Democrats that they opened an official impeachment inquiry – a process they had three times explicitly rejected in previous House votes.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff went to great lengths to suppress any reference to the witness during the first day of testimony, even going so far as to claim (laughably) that he doesn't know who the witness is.

Let’s think about that for a moment. We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?

If no one is above the law, we have a right to learn how the whistleblower came to be in possession of classified information he or she was unauthorized to possess.

We deserve to know when and how that information came to be in the hands of House Democrats, the extent to which the impeachment effort has been coordinated, and the names of anyone else in the White House actively working with Democrats to take down the duly elected President of the United States.

This is the lowest of the low of america people when 1 party thinks they have a right to undo an election because
they lost it.

time to wake up people and see the leftists for what they are.

How exactly would they "undo" the election?

 

[Slyfox696]

No bottom has been reached. In the not too distant past, southerners were willing to kill Americans so they could keep human slaves. I mean, we're nowhere near rock bottom, we're just aiming there and greasing the skids.

The thing which truly boggles the mind is that these people are constantly scraping the bottom to defend a man who...does not give a rat's rear end about them. He never has. He never will. The man literally stole money from a charity, depriving US veterans charitable donations. The man has lived a life of extreme privilege and would not have the first clue as to what it is like to be a normal American.

 

[Slyfox696]

How exactly would they "undo" the election?

I'm hoping this question is rhetorical for those who will understand it and I'm hoping you're not expecting a logical response.

 

[swing_voter]

How exactly would they "undo" the election?

62,984,828 voters voted for Trump. This impeachment if successful is cancelling all those votes.

If zero republicans sign on to the impeachment, it means the impeachment is a fraud and 100% partisan. The republicans will be free to impeach the next democrat president with fabricated charges. It's called payback.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Jason Chaffetz: Why Schiff'''s whistleblower claims at Trump impeachment hearing are impossible to believe | Fox News

Neither George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe nor William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev had firsthand information and both clearly had an ax to grind over their differences with the president on foreign policy.

More interesting than their testimony was the complete whitewashing of any reference to the original whistleblower, whose second-hand allegations so deeply concerned House Democrats that they opened an official impeachment inquiry – a process they had three times explicitly rejected in previous House votes.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff went to great lengths to suppress any reference to the witness during the first day of testimony, even going so far as to claim (laughably) that he doesn't know who the witness is.

Let’s think about that for a moment. We know that the whistleblower met with Schiff’s STAFF. Are we supposed to believe that the Congressman stepped out of the office when he arrived or hid in another room when the whistleblower meeting took place?

If no one is above the law, we have a right to learn how the whistleblower came to be in possession of classified information he or she was unauthorized to possess.

We deserve to know when and how that information came to be in the hands of House Democrats, the extent to which the impeachment effort has been coordinated, and the names of anyone else in the White House actively working with Democrats to take down the duly elected President of the United States.

This is the lowest of the low of america people when 1 party thinks they have a right to undo an election because
they lost it.

time to wake up people and see the leftists for what they are.

That’s all you got? **** talk about a whistleblower who, at this point, isn’t needed, and lying about motives of two apolitical State Department official’s. That is so friggin weak that even calling it weak is a compliment.

Where’s your argument on the substance of the accusations? How about arguing Trump’s “perfect call” in the light of all the coordination and back channel dealings and strong arming? What’s your defense for a president, up for re-election, muscling a weaker allied nation to begin a fraudulent investigation? Requiring Zelensky to go on tv and publicly announce an investigation of a political opponent and revive a thoroughly debunked conspiracy, all in an effort to smear a political opponent, thereby improving his chances of re-election?

Face it, there’s way more than enough first hand and corroborative circumstantial evidence to make any attempt at denial laughable.

Trump is a crooked son of a bitch, and he always has been. Maybe, just maybe, for once in his overindulged, undeserving catered/pampered life, Donald J. Trump will finally be held accountable and his dirty deeds laid bare to the world. I only wish I could be around in 100 years to read about the “worst president in America’s history, Donald Trump” in school history books.

 

[americanwoman]

62,984,828 voters voted for Trump. This impeachment if successful is cancelling all those votes.

If zero republicans sign on to the impeachment, it means the impeachment is a fraud and 100% partisan. The republicans will be free to impeach the next democrat president with fabricated charges. It's called payback.

1. It cancels nothing. The election still happened.

2. :lol: You are arguing about 100% partisans while giving a 100% partisan example of 0 Republicans signing on.

 

[americanwoman]

I'm hoping this question is rhetorical for those who will understand it and I'm hoping you're not expecting a logical response.

I got a bite but it's what I expected which is not logical.

 

[Helix]

A man beats his wife to within an inch of her life in their home. A neighbor sees the incident taking place and contacts authorities. According to Republicans, we now need to investigate the person who called to find out their motivations and whether or not they liked the man, because that is more of an issue than the crime taking place inside of the home.

It's the same thing time after time with you people. You seem less concerned about the damning actions of Trump and those around him than you do the fact we know about them. So anyone who tries to do the right thing, who steps forward and tells investigators they might want to shine a light onto this madness, well they can look forward to conservative pundits and politicians trying to destroy their lives.

It's because when your guy is as dirty as **** and everyone knows it, deflections, fallacies, and alternate reality are the tools that you have.

 

[Mr Person]

The claims are impossible to believe because everybody who is not stonewalling at the Orange Corruption's command has backed them up!

 

[Mr Person]

[blah blah blah, finally formatted like a normal post]

Everything the whistleblower said has been backed up, in most cases multiple times over. That includes by the edited memo that you lot dishonestly call a "transcript" (because Trump ordered you to). You've got nothing but lies, and those lies get dumber by the minute.







PS: "More truth into [subject]" is a hopelessly stupid title. Englash betterer.

 

[Excast]

62,984,828 voters voted for Trump. This impeachment if successful is cancelling all those votes.

If zero republicans sign on to the impeachment, it means the impeachment is a fraud and 100% partisan. The republicans will be free to impeach the next democrat president with fabricated charges. It's called payback.

Well, we certainly know that Republicans have never tried to destroy political figures with made up scandals, right?

The plethora of investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's 11 hours of public testimony never actually happened.

 

[Mr Person]

62,984,828 voters voted for Trump. This impeachment if successful is cancelling all those votes.

Amazingly, the founders specifically included impeachment in the constitution. Calling it "undoing an election" or "cancelling an election" is a hopelessly dishonest and stupid way to attempt to make a constitutional process sound illegitimate.

It's utter hypocrisy as well, since not one single person who is presently defending Trump had any problem with the GOP impeachment Clinton for lying about a private matter. Or for all the attempts to manufacture something to after Obama for. Or the 7+ hearings they claimed were into how the Benghazi attack unfolded but were designed solely to smear Hillary about an email server....

....(nevermind that Trump and his team are a bare minimum of ten times more careless with classified info - even with the Ukraine issue, the idiot was talking to staff overseas on an unsecured private cellphone loud enough so people around could hear what he was saying).

If zero republicans sign on to the impeachment, it means the impeachment is a fraud and 100% partisan.

Ah, man. That is just too stupid for words. As in painfully stupid.

The republicans will be free to impeach the next democrat president with fabricated charges. It's called payback.

You did with Clinton: the whitewater smear failed, but you found something you knew he'd likely lie about (adultery) and pressed him until he lied under oath.

You tried to do it with Obama, but the trouble is that all your manufactured scandals never had anything directly to do with Obama even if they hadn't manufactured.

You'll be doing it to the next Dem anyway. That's been the GOP way ever since Gingrich and his push for a permanent Republican majority.

 

[ludin]

This is a flat out lie. They testified numerous times to what they personally witnessed and dealt with.
I swear Trump defenders are the worst liars.

So you are saying that Taylor lied? the only person lying here is you.
he was asked if he was on the phone call he said no
he was asked multilple questions regarding the phone call that he couldn't answer
Taylor was asked in his 3 meetings that he was in if he ever heard anything about linkage or that linkage was brought up
he testified no. SO why are YOU LYING?

Because they answered the questions they were asked truthfully?

They didn't like the president foreign policy that is not illegal.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

So far the only liar is schiff. nothing i have stated is a lie. Unless you want to call taylor a liar and that he perjured himself.

They are witnesses...why would they be talking about the whistleblower?

Well if you don't know the WB has the same issue these people have. hearsay, and conjecture.
they can ask any questions they want to and find out who these people talked to.

I swear, this may be one of the stupidest posts on this topic I've seen on this forum.

no yours is since well so far i have proven you wrong all over the place unless you want to call taylor the liar.

Is it your position it will somehow make the facts, as reported by the whistleblower and deemed by the ICIG as credible and now confirmed by multiple witnesses in Congressional hearings untrue? Will it change the fact the White House themselves confirmed the worst parts of the whistleblower complaint?

It hasn't been confirmed by anyone. no one that was on the phone call has confirmed anything and in fact all the people that were on the phone call have denied it including
the president of Ukraine. so all of those people are lying but the bias WB who doesn't like the president has expressed bias against the president and worked for a political opponent is telling the truth?
lmao.

No one has confirmed anything and all your lying and distorting of what was said doesn't change facts.

What exactly is your point, beyond partisan ranting?

Let me know when you actually have point instead of posting distortions in your own partisan ranting.

These are duly elected members of Congress, who are following a Constitutionally outlined process to deal with potential wrongdoing.

Then you would agree they should drop this and punish schiff for lying misinformation and flat out filing a false report.

Is it your position that the President is not beholden to the Constitution?

Quote me where i said that.

Says the person who apparently thinks the President shouldn't be held responsible to the Constitution by duly elected members of Congress.

See the president works for the people not the congress. He is not responsible to congress at all.

I swear Trump defenders say the absolute stupidest things.

Which is why you posted a whole lot of ad hominems and no substance.
you couldn't even deal with the facts in the article which is typical of most leftist
all blather no substance and full of it.

thanks for proving my point.

 

[ludin]

Republicans attacking the whistle-blower, while Trump's impeachment inquiry public testimony continues, and every single witness has (and will again) testifies to Trumps impeachable, wrong, behavior.

It's so ridiculous, I almost feel sorry for them. They are loosing their moorings...maybe go back to "but Hillary!!", that probably felt better right?

that would be a first because so far they haven't testified to anything but exonerating trump.

 

[ludin]

How exactly would they "undo" the election?

last time i checked it was the people that decided who the president was not congress.
if congress can now decide who the president should be then that undoes the election.

they have been trying to undo the 2016 election since before trump won it legally and fairly.