New Explosive Emails Democrats Call for Witnesses

[Persistence Of Memory]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

^^^^^The moment when someone speaks and totally obliterates a thread out of the water^^^^^^^^^^

 

[OldLady]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

^^^^^The moment when someone speaks and totally obliterates a thread out of the water^^^^^^^^^^

My question was only how it moved the impeachment argument forward. It certainly doesn't disprove what Trump did.

 

[Maxdeath]

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

No, "I" didn't presuppose anything before he took office. He soon showed me what type of President he would be. That's on him.
I absolutely hate it when posters tell me what I think.
No, I don't think Zelensky is corrupt. Why would I think that?

So you weren't cheering the marches and the riots? Could have sworn you were on here talking up how the woman's March was great. Guess that was someone else useing your screen name.

The Woman's March was great. It certainly wasn't a riot. I was proud of the women who came together and reminded D.C. that they are also a power to be reckoned with. I didn't see it so much a criticism of Trump as an affirmation of who we are.

Really? Funny not one of the boneheads even thought of marching during either of 44 elections. Part of the stated reason for the march was that they felt Trump would take away women's rights. I see that happened, all women have become second class citizens, NOT.
By the way I never meant to even hint that it was a riot. There were other riots.

I am not exactly sure why anyone would be proud to run around in that type of costume. Especially with children in tow and some even dressed in the same costume.

'boneheads?' They had nothing to worry about with supporters like you around, huh?

You really think that people running around wearing vagina costumes dragging young children around with them, sometimes dressed in the same costume for no more reason then an unfounded fear is not slightly off?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I love how these "explosive 'emails suddenly fizzled when exposed to the light of day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

If he isn't guilty then there should be no fear of testifying.

You forgot to quote your source. Wasn't that Stalin? Marx? Alinsky?

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Thanks to the freedom of information act, we now have more documents and emails from the trump administration that is not good for trump.

Looks like the paper trail is finally coming out and it's not good for trump.


Dems ramp up call for impeachment witnesses following 'explosive' emails

Wait, Dana--I thought the aid had been stopped PRIOR to the Phone Call. Haven't we been arguing over whether Zelensky knew about the delay when he spoke to Pres. Trump?
Now the hold happened hours AFTER the Phone Call?

How does that help the Dems' theory?

^^^^^The moment when someone speaks and totally obliterates a thread out of the water^^^^^^^^^^

My question was only how it moved the impeachment argument forward. It certainly doesn't disprove what Trump did.

What did Trump do? Be specific.

 

[debbiedowner]

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

If he isn't guilty then there should be no fear of testifying.

You forgot to quote your source. Wasn't that Stalin? Marx? Alinsky?

I didn't forget I figured you dipshits knew it all.

 

[jc456]

Wow I don't remember ever agreeing with you on anything but I do on this.

So suddenly all the witnesses that claimed that the aid had been held up before the phone call and that the president of Ukraine knew that it had been held up, even though he claimed he did not know, were either lieing or did not know what they were talking about.
And this helps their impeachment by showing that all the so called witnesses either had no idea what they were testifying to or were outright lying how?

I didn't imply that at all. The witnesses weren't all lying, those that even testified about it--I don't remember many going there. It is simply very confusing. I will wait for Dana to explain.

I see well I guess if you can't stand to take a stand then it would be best to wait for the DNC to tell you what you should believe.
Sorry I suggested I might agree with you. Obviously that was a mistake.

I'm not taking a stand until I know what is up. To me it sounds as if the Dems jumped the gun in bringing forth their evidence and maybe should have waited for a bit more of that stuff to become available before postulating their theories. Because now it raises some suspicions about the accuracy of their evidence generally. If one piece is wrong, how much of the rest is wrong?

Zelensky will NEVER admit he felt pressured to comply with the President's "favor." He needs the US's support and our aid way too much for that. I don't believe the Dems have a strong argument for obstruction either since they didn't take the people who refused their subpoenas to court. So that is two strong strikes against either Article from prevailing.

When you look, overall, at what the President did and continues to do in regard to this whole situation, he's guilty as hell. When you start looking at the details necessary to legally prove it, though, things are weak.

Lol lets face it you and others have considered him quilty before he even spent one minute in the Oval Office.
So you think that Zelensky is corrupt?
At the very least your blinders are beginning to slip a little.

If he isn't guilty then there should be no fear of testifying.

If he’s guilty then you don’t need him to