Trump calls on Adam Schiff to resign immediately!

[KCfromNC]

I wrote in response to your post. The only question I have is, "Why are you not understanding when you could just go back and see for yourself what you wrote and then read my response?"

If all you can write is a personal attack like this, it is going to be very hard for me to take your posts seriously.

 

[A_Thinker]

Classic!
BTW, can you show me in the transcript (as opposed to Schiff's parody) where he said anything about holding back congressional funds?

He was ALREADY holding them back. I'm sure Zelensky was politically astute enough to understand the significance of that ...

 

[cow451]

He was ALREADY holding them back. I'm sure Zelensky was politically astute enough to understand the significance of that ...

No favor, no Javelins.

 

[A_Thinker]

Did you notice how obsequious the Ukrainian President is on that transcript?

Unlike the Finnish president Trump shared a stage with ...

 

[Aldebaran]

If all you can write is a personal attack like this, it is going to be very hard for me to take your posts seriously.

It's time for you to stop referring to everything as a personal attack. You're not going to have people agreeing with everything you say, but there's no need to take everything as being personally against you.

 

[Aldebaran]

You understand that Trump is STILL the only guy standing between Ukraine and Russian takeover, and that he has a long track record of taking vengeance on those he feels slight him right?

Did you notice how obsequious the Ukrainian President is on that transcript?

You're giving him too much credit. It's the United States that is standing between Ukraine and a Russian takeover.

 

[Aldebaran]

Of course, now we know that Donald didn't call him until he had done as he had been asked in secret by Giuliani and others (Sonderland).

You missed the point that those were Schiff's words, not Trump's. Many people seem to miss that point, which is why they continue attributing Schiff's words to what Trump said.
Let's see how well that holds up during the impeachment hearings.

 

[DaisyDay]

You missed the point that those were Schiff's words, not Trump's.

And you're missing the point that it is Donald's actions more than his words that is going to get him impeached.

Many people seem to miss that point, which is why they continue attributing Schiff's words to what Trump said.

I wasn't attributing anything, just quoting you.

Let's see how well that holds up during the impeachment hearings.

But we do know that Giuliani and Sonderland had been working behind the scenes for months to delay the conversation until Zelenskiy agreed to the investigation. At the time of the transcript, we didn't know that.

 

[Aldebaran]

And you're missing the point that it is Donald's actions more than his words that is going to get him impeached.

That remains to be seen.

I wasn't attributing anything, just quoting you.

You quoted a portion of my post, which quoted Schiff when he was doing his "parody" that people are actually taking as Trump's actual words.

But we do know that Giuliani and Sonderland had been working behind the scenes for months to delay the conversation until Zelenskiy agreed to the investigation. At the time of the transcript, we didn't know that.

That conspiracy theory has already been debunked.

 

[Aldebaran]

Of course, now we know that Donald didn't call him until he had done as he had been asked in secret by Giuliani and others (Sonderland).

Sounds like the narrative is starting to change. I'll be interested in seeing how it further transforms.

 

[Kentonio]

That conspiracy theory has already been debunked.

Debunked by all the people referencing it happening and warning others at the time that it could be a problem? I assume famous liberal John Bolton was just imagining things when he told his aide to go warn the NSC lawyers about Gulliani’s activities?

 

[Aldebaran]

Debunked by all the people referencing it happening and warning others at the time that it could be a problem? I assume famous liberal John Bolton was just imagining things when he told his aide to go warn the NSC lawyers about Gulliani’s activities?

What you are claiming is based on second and third-hand information. Here's part of a NewYork Times article that illustrates it quite well:
Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’

"The aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Mr. Bolton told her to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council about a rogue effort by Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the people familiar with the testimony."

One person testifies that someone told her about someone else saying something, and that's according to some other unnamed people. Then we get this information from a news source not exactly friendly to the administration. Not to mention that this testimony was done behind closed doors, which means we have to rely on someone else to tell us what the testimony was in the first place.

I'll wait until such testimony is televised so we can see for ourselves.

 

[Kentonio]

What you are claiming is based on second and third-hand information. Here's part of a NewYork Times article that illustrates it quite well:
Bolton Objected to Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Calling Giuliani ‘a Hand Grenade’

"The aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Mr. Bolton told her to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council about a rogue effort by Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the people familiar with the testimony."

One person testifies that someone told her about someone else saying something, and that's according to some other unnamed people. Then we get this information from a news source not exactly friendly to the administration. Not to mention that this testimony was done behind closed doors, which means we have to rely on someone else to tell us what the testimony was in the first place.

I'll wait until such testimony is televised so we can see for ourselves.

Huh? A government official is testifying that she was ordered by the National Security Advisor to inform lawyers about a ‘rogue’ action by a non-government employee (Gulliani) and several government employees.

Now sure you could claim that Hill is lying to congress and Bolton never said that to her. Although it would make absolutely no sense to do that knowing that Bolton could call her out on it in an instant. You could also claim that Bolton was lying to her, and the rogue effort never happened. Which again would make very little sense.

Other than those bizarre alternatives, I’m not sure what you’re basing your scepticism on.

 

[Aldebaran]

Huh? A government official is testifying that she was ordered by the National Security Advisor to inform lawyers about a ‘rogue’ action by a non-government employee (Gulliani) and several government employees.

Now sure you could claim that Hill is lying to congress and Bolton never said that to her. Although it would make absolutely no sense to do that knowing that Bolton could call her out on it in an instant. You could also claim that Bolton was lying to her, and the rogue effort never happened. Which again would make very little sense.

Other than those bizarre alternatives, I’m not sure what you’re basing your scepticism on.

As I said, I'll believe a lot more about what's being claimed if we could at least see these hearings for ourselves rather than having to rely on left-leaning news sources telling us what is being claimed behind closed doors.

 

[Kentonio]

As I said, I'll believe a lot more about what's being claimed if we could at least see these hearings for ourselves rather than having to rely on left-leaning news sources telling us what is being claimed behind closed doors.

I don’t blame you for that. Closed hearings are always going to make people suspicious. I think it’s reasonable though that this stuff that could well have national security implications are first heard in closed session and then later in open session in a slightly more limited format. If there really is important information relevant to impeachment being heard, it’ll be heard publicly too before long.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don’t blame you for that. Closed hearings are always going to make people suspicious. I think it’s reasonable though that this stuff that could well have national security implications are first heard in closed session and then later in open session in a slightly more limited format. If there really is important information relevant to impeachment being heard, it’ll be heard publicly too before long.

It's one reason why I wish they'd just get on with it, whatever the outcome. I don't see Trump being removed from office no matter what, even if impeached, so it won't really matter in the end.

 

[Kentonio]

It's one reason why I wish they'd just get on with it, whatever the outcome. I don't see Trump being removed from office no matter what, even if impeached, so it won't really matter in the end.

It’ll depend on what’s being revealed I guess.

Re the timing though, it’s really not taking that long so far. The first Trump-Ukraine article was in the Post on Sept 5th and then another 2 weeks went by before it exploded. It seems like a long time in our 24 hour news world, but compared to Watergate it’s the blink of an eye.

 

[wing2000]

It's one reason why I wish they'd just get on with it, whatever the outcome. I don't see Trump being removed from office no matter what, even if impeached, so it won't really matter in the end.

Congress is "getting on with it". Impeachment inquiries have taken months to conduct in the past.

 

[Speedwell]

You quoted a portion of my post, which quoted Schiff when he was doing his "parody" that people are actually taking as Trump's actual words.

Who is doing that?

 

[DaisyDay]

That remains to be seen.

What, you think it will be his words rather than his actions?

You quoted a portion of my post, which quoted Schiff when he was doing his "parody" that people are actually taking as Trump's actual words.

Yes, I know I quoted your post with your outraged quoting of Schiff. Honestly, the point I was making would have been obscured if I had sought out Donald's rambling speech to compare.

That conspiracy theory has already been debunked.

What part do you think was debunked? That Giuliani had been working in Ukraine behind the scenes for months or that Zelenskiy got his call after he agreed to open an investigation?

Sounds like the narrative is starting to change. I'll be interested in seeing how it further transforms.

Well, of course, as we learn more, what we learn gets incorporated into the narrative. It's just been uncovered that Giuliani got paid more than $500,000 last year by Fraud Guarantee, the company co-founded by that recently indicted Ukrainian-American, Lev Parnas.

Exclusive: Trump lawyer Giuliani was paid $500,000 to consult on indicted associate's firm