Oh Donnie, You're invited

[Pete F.]

If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a presumption, not direct evidence.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^

You should learn to pay attention, instead of reciting baloney.
We spent years and millions training and equipping Ukrainian forces and they are now able to use the Javelin systems.
They are missiles, not magic spells

Fiona Hill: (13:54)
I was not initially in 2015 before I joined the government. And I’m sure that many people on the committee have seen that I wrote an opinion piece with a colleague at the Brookings Institution in that juncture. Because I was very worried at that particular point in time that the Ukrainian military was not in a fit state to really take on board sophisticated weapons, be they defensive or offensive weapons. And I worried that there was not a longterm sustainable plan given the overwhelming force that the Russians could apply against the Ukrainians. However, when I came into government in 2017 and started to interact with all of my colleagues in the Pentagon and you had Laura Cooper here yesterday, I realized in fact that there’d been an awful lot of work done on this. And that there was a clear and consistent plan for the sustainability long term of the Ukrainian military so I changed my mind.

Steve Castor: (14:45)
Okay. And you’re in fact, one of the, I believe the only witness that we’ve spoken to that has been able to articulate the opposition to providing the javelins. And as we understand it during the Obama administration, the interagency consensus was in fact to provide the javelins but they were not provided. Are you aware of the decision back then?

Fiona Hill: (15:05)
I was, and I think it was very much made on a political basis about concerns that this would provoke the Russians depending on how this was presented. And we were very mindful of that also when there were the discussions internally about the lethal defensive weapons inside of the administration.

Steve Castor: (15:22)
And Mr. Holmes, you’re on the ground in Kiev and the javelins have now been authorized, provided. What’s the view from the field, the U.S. embassy as to the effectiveness of the javelins?

David Holmes: (15:39)
They’re an important strategic deterrent. They’re not actively employed in combat operations right now, but the mere idea that were the Russians to advance substantially using certain kinds of armor that the Ukrainians would have this capability deters them from doing so. And it also thereby sends a very important symbolic message to the Ukrainian military that they have access to these high end technology and that we trust them to do it. I would only add also they’ve offered to buy some using their own funds. The initial traunch was provided through basically a program to do that, but they’ve now offered to spend their own money to buy more, so I think they think they’re important

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

they are clearly insane...just enjoy the spectacle

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT;1180879

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
[size=1

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device