House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe

[SLC]

OK I’ll play the so what game. So what the ambassador serves at Trump’s pleasure. When she did not support Trump’s pleasure. Trump fired her just as he should have. So so what.

 

[apdst]

Republicans were in all of the depositions. If any facts weren't released they should be able to make that case.

But you are already aware that these are the facts. You are interested in diverting because you elected an inept and corrupt man president and are hell bent on defending him no matter how many lies and falsehoods are required.

Um no, actually the Republicans are under a gag order.

 

[apdst]

What argument?

I don't know if President Trump did anything illegal. Don't have all the info. imo, he has not conducted himself well in being President. I dislike his tweets , name calling, etc.

The argument that there isn't a bomnshell admission. (Us, not you)

 

[Obscurity]

I have read about 50 pages so far. What I find interesting is your reluctance to quote the transcript in which is troubling to you. At least then those who may not agree with you have a common ground to start with.

So provide the page number and quote.

If you think I am a Trump supporter you would be wrong. I personally don't like the way he talks or does things with other countries.

I haven't said a word about this transcript. I will read it later. I am simply saying; stop acting like he is exculpated when you haven't even read the damn thing.

 

[roughdraft274]

Um no, actually the Republicans are under a gag order.

The transcripts have been released publically. If there are things that were kept out of the transcripts in order to hide them then they can say so. There is no gag order to prevent that. Quit making **** up.

 

[apdst]

The transcripts have been released publically. If there are things that were kept out of the transcripts in order to hide them then they can say so. There is no gag order to prevent that. Quit making **** up.

If anything was omitted, we'll never know.

 

[SLC]

What argument?

I don't know if President Trump did anything illegal. Don't have all the info. imo, he has not conducted himself well in being President. I dislike his tweets , name calling, etc.

So do you think he should be impeached because you don’t like his tweets??? His tweets are his way of communicating with the public without his message being filtered through some liberal reporter.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The argument that there isn't a bomnshell admission. (Us, not you)

"Im going to create a totally subjective premise ("bombshell"), then I'll deny it is "bombshell".....then I "win", cuz I'm sooo smart!"

 

[Gimmesometruth]

If anything was omitted, we'll never know.

 

[OscarLevant]

YOU read the ****ing thing. Then, show us the bombshell. :lamo

What the transcripts reveal, that the narrative Trump abused his power as president while in office, betrayed an office of public trust, and demonstrated, by his egregious behaviour, epic incompetence to a degree which constitutes a threat to US national security.

The transcripts, taken as a whole, paint this clear and inescapable picture.

But, not everyone can see, particularly those blinded by the cult of personality called Donald J. Trump

Here's a tiny example: I've heard the argument by many on the right that Trump did not specifically say "quid pro quo" or "I'll trade you this for that' or some kind of explicit quid pro quo language, therefore no such thing occurred, that is the gist of their argument.


If that were true, then all the murderers in the US should be exonerated and released, because how many of them say to their victims, "I'm going to murder you" before they pull the trigger?


See, it's an example of the right wing collectively thrusting their heads right up the president's ass so far that they cannot see, and they have learned to love the smell of Trump's ****.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Time for the "so what?" phase.

So?....

What about it?

Surely this isn't the big enchilada? :lamo

OK I’ll play the so what game. So what the ambassador serves at Trump’s pleasure. When she did not support Trump’s pleasure. Trump fired her just as he should have. So so what.

the bleat goes on...

 

[mike2810]

I haven't said a word about this transcript. I will read it later. I am simply saying; stop acting like he is exculpated when you haven't even read the damn thing.

Never have said that. now have I.

 

[mike2810]

So do you think he should be impeached because you don’t like his tweets??? His tweets are his way of communicating with the public without his message being filtered through some liberal reporter.

Nope. Just would like him to loose in the next election.

Do you like the way he communicates with the public? imo, it is more rant than substance.

 

[TomFitz]

View attachment 67267561

See all those numbers on the side? This transcript was created by a certified court reporter.

Oh, that doesn’t matter!

The Clown Prince tweeted that Schiff many have made it up, and that therefore we have to get the “real” alternative transcript from some Republicans.

Presumably these are NOT the Republicans who were busy breaking into a hearing that they were supposed to be attending.

And, as you can see, the lemmings are parroting Trump’s idiotic tweet on cue.

 

[roughdraft274]

If anything was omitted, we'll never know.

Only if republicans are too stupid to say "hey, you omitted something". And if that's the case, then it's the republican voters fault for electing a bunch of ****ing morons.

 

[apdst]

the bleat goes on...

That's your argument? :lamo

 

[apdst]

What the transcripts reveal, that the narrative Trump abused his power as president while in office, betrayed an office of public trust, and demonstrated, by his egregious behaviour, epic incompetence to a degree which constitutes a threat to US national security.

The transcripts, taken as a whole, paint this clear and inescapable picture.

But, not everyone can see, particularly those blinded by the cult of personality called Donald J. Trump

Here's a tiny example: I've heard the argument by many on the right that Trump did not specifically say "quid pro quo" or "I'll trade you this for that' or some kind of explicit quid pro quo language, therefore no such thing occurred, that is the gist of their argument.


If that were true, then all the murderers in the US should be exonerated and released, because how many of them say to their victims, "I'm going to murder you" before they pull the trigger?


See, it's an example of the right wing collectively thrusting their heads right up the president's ass so far that they cannot see, and they have learned to love the smell of Trump's ****.

Show us where in the transcript it proves that.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

That's your argument? :lamo

No, it is an observation on the stupidity on display.

You know where my argument is, you left it with a simple, stupid negation. You can't form a rational fact based counter-argument.

 

[Athanasius68]

What the transcripts reveal, that the narrative Trump abused his power as president while in office, betrayed an office of public trust, and demonstrated, by his egregious behaviour, epic incompetence to a degree which constitutes a threat to US national security.

The transcripts, taken as a whole, paint this clear and inescapable picture.

But, not everyone can see, particularly those blinded by the cult of personality called Donald J. Trump

Here's a tiny example: I've heard the argument by many on the right that Trump did not specifically say "quid pro quo" or "I'll trade you this for that' or some kind of explicit quid pro quo language, therefore no such thing occurred, that is the gist of their argument.


If that were true, then all the murderers in the US should be exonerated and released, because how many of them say to their victims, "I'm going to murder you" before they pull the trigger?


See, it's an example of the right wing collectively thrusting their heads right up the president's ass so far that they cannot see, and they have learned to love the smell of Trump's ****.

The funds were released.
It should also be pointed out that the Democrats had opposed sending lethal aid to Ukraine during the previous administration.

 

[Cardinal]

The funds were released.

Because he was caught.

 

[mrjurrs]

So, how do we know ALL the facts have been released? Are we supposed to just take Schiff's word for it?

As opposed to the Presidents? Absolutely.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Let us know. M'kay?

Yeah, I will put that on the top of my to-do list.

 

[Pound4abrown]

Only if republicans are too stupid to say "hey, you omitted something". And if that's the case, then it's the republican voters fault for electing a bunch of ****ing morons.

Surely you aren't asking Apdst to rely on Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows to know whether anything was omitted, right?
I mean aside from being there and asking questions, and interrupting the process, how would they know?

 

[Athanasius68]

Because he was caught.

They were released when Congress stated they would withhold defense spending.
And no doubt to opposition within the White House.

 

[marke]

House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe | TheHill



"House Democrats on Monday released the first set of transcripts from their closed-door depositions as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

The interview transcripts with former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and top State Department official Michael McKinley offer the first look at what witnesses told investigators about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine. The release marks a new phase for the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into whether the president pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

“As we move towards this new public phase of the impeachment inquiry, the American public will begin to see for themselves the evidence that the committees have collected. With each new interview, we learn more about the President’s attempt to manipulate the levers of power to his personal political benefit," the chairs of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees wrote in a joint statement.

“The transcripts of interviews with Ambassadors Yovanovitch and McKinley demonstrate clearly how President Trump approved the removal of a highly respected and effective diplomat based on public falsehoods and smears against Ambassador Yovanovitch’s character and her work in support of long-held U.S. foreign policy anticorruption goals," they added."




Oh man... This does not look good at all for Trump. The Republicans can't attract the process anymore. They are going to have to answer to stone cold facts

What a treasure trove of leftist Trump-hating public official's disgruntled rants of politically-driven hate speech against Trump. You can sure count on Schiftt 'bringing home the democrat bacon,' as Detroit councilwoman JoAnn Watson once described it.