Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Dumbfuck, I didn't say you could. I said he's needs to prove his claims. Such as if there's audio or video of their conversation. If there are other witnesses. If there's a transcript. Evidence comes in all sorts of ways. And that's what I wondered, which you obviously aren't bright enough to understand .... can Murphy prove that conversation?Dumbfuck, that's why I said he needs proof.The Washington Post just released an article showing a Democrat Senator is claiming he met personally with Zelensky, and that the new Ukrainian president felt Trump was using the money over his head to get him to investigate Biden...
Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say
Trump on Monday repeated his denial of doing anything improper and insisted that his July 25 conversation with Zelensky was “a perfect phone call.” He also hinted that he may release a transcript of it.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley rejected claims that Trump was engaged in a quid pro quo. “But because the media wants this story to be true so badly, they’ll once again manufacture a frenzy and drive ignorant, fake stories to attack this president,” Gidley said.
It appears the Ukrainian leader came away from the discussion with a different impression. Murphy, who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said Monday that the Ukrainian president “directly” expressed concerns at their meeting that “the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence” of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens.
... now the question is -- can Murphy prove that conversation.
That's called "hearsay", dumbass!
Try harder next time.
You cannot prove hearsay, dumbass!
Dumbfuck, I didn't say you could. I said he's needs to prove his claims. Such as if there's audio or video of their conversation. If there are other witnesses. If there's a transcript. Evidence comes in all sorts of ways. And that's what I wondered, which you obviously aren't bright enough to understand .... can Murphy prove that conversation?Dumbfuck, that's why I said he needs proof.The Washington Post just released an article showing a Democrat Senator is claiming he met personally with Zelensky, and that the new Ukrainian president felt Trump was using the money over his head to get him to investigate Biden...
Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say
Trump on Monday repeated his denial of doing anything improper and insisted that his July 25 conversation with Zelensky was “a perfect phone call.” He also hinted that he may release a transcript of it.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley rejected claims that Trump was engaged in a quid pro quo. “But because the media wants this story to be true so badly, they’ll once again manufacture a frenzy and drive ignorant, fake stories to attack this president,” Gidley said.
It appears the Ukrainian leader came away from the discussion with a different impression. Murphy, who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said Monday that the Ukrainian president “directly” expressed concerns at their meeting that “the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence” of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens.
... now the question is -- can Murphy prove that conversation.
That's called "hearsay", dumbass!
Try harder next time.
You cannot prove hearsay, dumbass!
You have a serious brain malfunction.
LOLDumbfuck, I didn't say you could. I said he's needs to prove his claims. Such as if there's audio or video of their conversation. If there are other witnesses. If there's a transcript. Evidence comes in all sorts of ways. And that's what I wondered, which you obviously aren't bright enough to understand .... can Murphy prove that conversation?Dumbfuck, that's why I said he needs proof.The Washington Post just released an article showing a Democrat Senator is claiming he met personally with Zelensky, and that the new Ukrainian president felt Trump was using the money over his head to get him to investigate Biden...
Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say
Trump on Monday repeated his denial of doing anything improper and insisted that his July 25 conversation with Zelensky was “a perfect phone call.” He also hinted that he may release a transcript of it.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley rejected claims that Trump was engaged in a quid pro quo. “But because the media wants this story to be true so badly, they’ll once again manufacture a frenzy and drive ignorant, fake stories to attack this president,” Gidley said.
It appears the Ukrainian leader came away from the discussion with a different impression. Murphy, who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said Monday that the Ukrainian president “directly” expressed concerns at their meeting that “the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence” of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens.
... now the question is -- can Murphy prove that conversation.
That's called "hearsay", dumbass!
Try harder next time.
You cannot prove hearsay, dumbass!
You have a serious brain malfunction.
You simply do not understand the terms you are using. You cannot force someone who is a suspect to incriminate themselves either. Do you think they will subpoena testimony based on hearsay evidence? It doesn't happen because there is no legal way to do so without sanctioning the fishing expedition that is the Democrats only apparent forte.
Somebody told me that this guy said something.
An example: I could claim I heard your boyfriend tell someone that you like to let gerbils run loose in your bowels. Do you think a judge would issue a subpoena for your boyfriend to verify it was true or false, so we could charge you with animal cruelty?
LOLDumbfuck, I didn't say you could. I said he's needs to prove his claims. Such as if there's audio or video of their conversation. If there are other witnesses. If there's a transcript. Evidence comes in all sorts of ways. And that's what I wondered, which you obviously aren't bright enough to understand .... can Murphy prove that conversation?Dumbfuck, that's why I said he needs proof.That's called "hearsay", dumbass!
Try harder next time.
You cannot prove hearsay, dumbass!
You have a serious brain malfunction.
You simply do not understand the terms you are using. You cannot force someone who is a suspect to incriminate themselves either. Do you think they will subpoena testimony based on hearsay evidence? It doesn't happen because there is no legal way to do so without sanctioning the fishing expedition that is the Democrats only apparent forte.
Somebody told me that this guy said something.
An example: I could claim I heard your boyfriend tell someone that you like to let gerbils run loose in your bowels. Do you think a judge would issue a subpoena for your boyfriend to verify it was true or false, so we could charge you with animal cruelty?
Fucking moron, we're talking Ukraine, not the U.S..
But your sick, perverted imagination is noted as is your serious brain malfunction.
Dumbfuck, I addressed your point. You're just too retarded to get that.LOLDumbfuck, I didn't say you could. I said he's needs to prove his claims. Such as if there's audio or video of their conversation. If there are other witnesses. If there's a transcript. Evidence comes in all sorts of ways. And that's what I wondered, which you obviously aren't bright enough to understand .... can Murphy prove that conversation?Dumbfuck, that's why I said he needs proof.
Try harder next time.
You cannot prove hearsay, dumbass!
You have a serious brain malfunction.
You simply do not understand the terms you are using. You cannot force someone who is a suspect to incriminate themselves either. Do you think they will subpoena testimony based on hearsay evidence? It doesn't happen because there is no legal way to do so without sanctioning the fishing expedition that is the Democrats only apparent forte.
Somebody told me that this guy said something.
An example: I could claim I heard your boyfriend tell someone that you like to let gerbils run loose in your bowels. Do you think a judge would issue a subpoena for your boyfriend to verify it was true or false, so we could charge you with animal cruelty?
Fucking moron, we're talking Ukraine, not the U.S..
But your sick, perverted imagination is noted as is your serious brain malfunction.
I was simply trying to put it terms with which you are obviously familiar.
I nore with glee that you attempted to deflect and not address any of my post. Typical air headed liberal tactic. Are you sure you and Angelo are both not 9/11 conspiracy nuts? That takes an incredible level of stupid I did not expect from you.
Dumbfuck, I addressed your point. You're just too retarded to get that.LOLDumbfuck, I didn't say you could. I said he's needs to prove his claims. Such as if there's audio or video of their conversation. If there are other witnesses. If there's a transcript. Evidence comes in all sorts of ways. And that's what I wondered, which you obviously aren't bright enough to understand .... can Murphy prove that conversation?You cannot prove hearsay, dumbass!
You have a serious brain malfunction.
You simply do not understand the terms you are using. You cannot force someone who is a suspect to incriminate themselves either. Do you think they will subpoena testimony based on hearsay evidence? It doesn't happen because there is no legal way to do so without sanctioning the fishing expedition that is the Democrats only apparent forte.
Somebody told me that this guy said something.
An example: I could claim I heard your boyfriend tell someone that you like to let gerbils run loose in your bowels. Do you think a judge would issue a subpoena for your boyfriend to verify it was true or false, so we could charge you with animal cruelty?
Fucking moron, we're talking Ukraine, not the U.S..
But your sick, perverted imagination is noted as is your serious brain malfunction.
I was simply trying to put it terms with which you are obviously familiar.
I nore with glee that you attempted to deflect and not address any of my post. Typical air headed liberal tactic. Are you sure you and Angelo are both not 9/11 conspiracy nuts? That takes an incredible level of stupid I did not expect from you.
I never said anything about obtaining evidence from a suspect. I also gave some examples of evidence. Such as if there were other witnesses in the room with Murphy. None of them would be suspects who would be asked to incriminate themselves. Or if there's video or audio or transcripts of the meeting. That would come from Ukraine which doesn't have a 5th Amendment to protect them from self-incrimination; which such evidence wouldn't be anyway.
You're getting dumber. If you weren't this stupid, you would stop digging your hole.
And, it wasn’t until Trump was taken as a serious contenderTrump waited until Biden was a serious contender in an upcoming election to [possibly] find dirt on him.
I never said anything about obtaining evidence from a suspect. I also gave some examples of evidence. Such as if there were other witnesses in the room with Murphy. None of them would be suspects who would be asked to incriminate themselves. Or if there's video or audio or transcripts of the meeting. That would come from Ukraine which doesn't have a 5th Amendment to protect them from self-incrimination; which such evidence wouldn't be anyway.
LOLAnd, it wasn’t until Trump was taken as a serious contenderTrump waited until Biden was a serious contender in an upcoming election to [possibly] find dirt on him.
that all his dirt was suddenly coming out
On what planet should the methods of digging up dirt
be the problem instead of the dirt that was dug up
There is corruption in our own government
so why is the corruption in another country our concern
to the point that we pick and chose who has to go
USAid
Ukraine
2008(2007 under Bush) $141 Million
2009(2008 under Obama) $195 Million
2010(2009 under Obama) $315 Million
2011(2010 under Obama) $291 Million
2012(2011 under Obama) $283 Million
2013(2012 under Obama) $254 Million
2014(2013 under Obama) $308 Million
2015(2014 under Obama) $272 Million
2016(2015 under Obama) $513 Million
2017(2016 under Obama) $511 Million
2018(2017 under Trump) $359 Million
2019(2018 under Trump) $131 Million
I can't really argue anything you said.I never said anything about obtaining evidence from a suspect. I also gave some examples of evidence. Such as if there were other witnesses in the room with Murphy. None of them would be suspects who would be asked to incriminate themselves. Or if there's video or audio or transcripts of the meeting. That would come from Ukraine which doesn't have a 5th Amendment to protect them from self-incrimination; which such evidence wouldn't be anyway.
There will be no proof to be had on this issue, Faun. Murphy most assuredly did not tape the conversation, secretly or otherwise.
For one, the Ukrainians realized to their surprise only weeks after the call that the military aid was not arriving.
Moreover, the only real proof would be a confirmation by Zelensky, and that's almost certainly not going to happen. Being heavily dependent on U.S. aid, they won't enter into an intra-party fight in the U.S., at almost any cost. You can see the clear signs here:
“I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure,” Prystaiko said. “This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers.”
I would expect Ukrainian officials to stick to that line. On the other hand, you have Trump fashioning himself into an anti-corruption crusader - how's that for a joke that makes you cry? - interested in exactly one alleged case of corruption. One, when, actually, Ukraine is a cesspool of corruption that makes the U.S. of A. under Trump pale by comparison. Of course, the smear campaign against Biden has nothing factual to advance, and suffers a fatal defect in that the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, Shokin, made a corruption investigation against the company employing Hunter Biden, Burisma, more likely, rather than less, because Shokin refused to investigate anyone of the oligarch class. That's why practically everyone called for his firing.
So, the case is pretty clear, Giuliani and cohorts out in a frenzy to muddy the waters notwithstanding. Just incontrovertible "proof" is rather unlikely to be had.
We gave them more money in 2015 and 2016LOLAnd, it wasn’t until Trump was taken as a serious contenderTrump waited until Biden was a serious contender in an upcoming election to [possibly] find dirt on him.
that all his dirt was suddenly coming out
On what planet should the methods of digging up dirt
be the problem instead of the dirt that was dug up
There is corruption in our own government
so why is the corruption in another country our concern
to the point that we pick and chose who has to go
USAid
Ukraine
2008(2007 under Bush) $141 Million
2009(2008 under Obama) $195 Million
2010(2009 under Obama) $315 Million
2011(2010 under Obama) $291 Million
2012(2011 under Obama) $283 Million
2013(2012 under Obama) $254 Million
2014(2013 under Obama) $308 Million
2015(2014 under Obama) $272 Million
2016(2015 under Obama) $513 Million
2017(2016 under Obama) $511 Million
2018(2017 under Trump) $359 Million
2019(2018 under Trump) $131 Million
Trump just said .... "why would you give money to a country you think is corrupt?"
That's where the U.S. stood in 2015 and 2016.
