A historian shows how the real neo-Nazis are the DEMOCRATS

You mean a corrupt prosecutor and judge claimed it was false?? Ok. Everyone needs to watch this then:

The judge determined it was false after reviewing the evidence. The basis of the appeal is that the false documents shouldn't matter.
 
Sonland confirmed there was a quid pro quo with regard to a presidential meeting.
Uh huh... sure.. and the testimony before congress? You are ignoring that.
Do you think Trump paused the aid at the exact same time for some other unrelated reason? That would defy logic.
Quote from the summary of the call where Trump threatened to withold aid if Zelensky didn't do what Trump asked. I'll wait.
 
While Kamala Harris likens Trump to Hitler and the Left accuses his supporters of being Nazis, a historian shows why it is the Democrats’ actions that make them the ones who resemble Nazis. Their strategies and tactics are right out of Nazi Germany.

The linked article, by a historian, examines how Hitler took control of Germany and the similarities to the Democrats of today. These include: 1) throwing out election laws, 2) censoring the media, 3) lawfare, 4) a false claim of insurrection, and 5) thugs allowed to commit violence while police ordered to stand down.

I was going to post something very similar from an article which breaks down Harris and Democrats calling Trump a Fascist and a historian breaking down what a Fascist really is and how it applies more to the left than it does to Trump.
 
Uh huh... sure.. and the testimony before congress? You are ignoring that.
That was Sonland's testimony. There was a quid pro quo for the presidential visit.

Quote from the summary of the call where Trump threatened to withold aid if Zelensky didn't do what Trump asked. I'll wait.
It wasn't stated, but it certainly would have been understood as such. There was no other rational explanation for the hold on the aid, which wasn't even legal.
 
That was Sonland's testimony. There was a quid pro quo for the presidential visit.
Yes, that IS what he said.. until he was questioned about his knowledge of the call and admitted he had NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of what was said on the call. He was NOT an eyewitness.
It wasn't stated
Thank you.
but it certainly would have been understood as such
That's the Leftist narrative.. however as I showed in a previous post, President Zelensky said that Trump did NOT pressure him to investigate Biden's son:
and.. Zelensky got the weapons he needed:
.. which is part of the reason Russia did NOT invade Ukraine when Trump was President.
 
Yes, that IS what he said.. until he was questioned about his knowledge of the call and admitted he had NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of what was said on the call. He was NOT an eyewitness.
He had first hand knowledge from Giuliani. You're conflating two different issues.
Thank you.
Of course. I never stated otherwise.
That's the Leftist narrative.. however as I showed in a previous post, President Zelensky said that Trump did NOT pressure him to investigate Biden's son:
Zelensky would be foolish to contradict Trump at a time when he was completely dependent on him. His statement should be treated with suspicion, especially in light of the contradictory evidence.

There remains no credible explanation for why the aid was held up at the exact same time that we know Trump was looking for a quid pro quo with regard to a white house meeting.
and.. Zelensky got the weapons he needed:
This article from years earlier is irrelevant to the issue of weapons in 2019. Clearly Zelensky felt like he needed more than what was contained in that deal from 2017, as he stated in the call.
 
He had first hand knowledge from Giuliani. You're conflating two different issues.
What did he testify to under questioning by rep Turner?

at 2:35 Amb Sonland says Guliani did NOT tie aid to the investigation. What is it you think Amb. Sonland is claiming?
 
What did he testify to under questioning by rep Turner?

at 2:35 Amb Sonland says Guliani did NOT tie aid to the investigation. What is it you think Amb. Sonland is claiming?

As I stated repeatedly, Sonland said that the presidential visit was contingent on the investigation. This alone accounts for an impeachable quid pro quo. A presidential visit, as part of his official duties, being used to coerce a foreign power to damage his political opponent is clearly an abuse of power and abuse of office. That's what impeachment is for.

But when we extend this to include our knowledge that Trump also held up aid, it becomes clear this was also part of the scheme.
 
We KNOW that Trump kept a copy of Hitler's speeches on his nightstand, according to the Ex-wife he buried at the Golf Course.
I have a copy of the Communist manifesto. What does that say about me?
 
As I stated repeatedly, Sonland said that the presidential visit was contingent on the investigation. This alone accounts for an impeachable quid pro quo
No it doesn't because under questioning he admits that NO ONE told him aid to Ukraine was tied to investigating Hunter Biden. He's PRESUMING. Please tell me you think that when a Republican makes a presumption about wrong doing by Joe Biden, you think that makes him guilty of influence peddling.
 

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom