These are the two Democrats who voted 'no' on the impeachment inquiry resolution

there is a ton more evidence that just that one phone call, where Trump asks for a "favor" from Zelensky.

 

Right. bwahahaha

 

Oh! DEMANDING!

Where do you see the demanding?

Is it in the room with us now?

Go ahead and quote the demand for us.

 

asking a foreign President for a favor, to help him with his election campaign and to help him with his bullshit wild goose chase over the DNC server, was a Quid Pro Quo and official corruption.

and to condition foreign aid on said assistance, was a crime

 

Yet you can't seem to come up with anything besides a wikipedia article.

 

No quote of Trump doing this? Lol

 

Except he never asked for campaign help, there was no quid pro quo, and it was never conditional.

I mean other than that, sure.

 

did u read the article?

or just reject it as a "lynching"?

LOLOLOL!!!!

 

bla...bla...bla..

yada...yada...yada.

pathetic Trump talking points.

sad, so sad.

 

Yes, I've read it all.

I don't see any of the claims you've made in it, that is in any way substantiated.

That's why we ask you to show us, and you continue to fail to be able to do so.

 

Mulvaney said he did it

 

I think that's a direct copy/paste of what you responded to me with during the Russia investigation.

 

having trouble staying on topic ay bro?

 

Wow! Honesty!

That's what this is all about.

Protect Democrat corruptocrats - OK!

Disenfranchise the electorate's votes - OK!

The real reason for support for the neverending clown shows? Whiners didn't get their way.

 

In other words: it's yet another hoax.

 

Let's check.

This is a hard one for reading comprehension, so let me give you an example of what I'VE been asking YOU to do:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-acting-chief-staff-mick-mulvaney/

Here's why your narrative crumbles, and it's in this transript:

Trump could not engage in a "quid pro quo" with the foreign aid.

Once it is approved by Congress, it MUST be spent.

MR. MULVANEY: Sure. I’ll — let’s deal with the second one first, which is — look, it should come as no surprise to anybody — the last time I was up here — I haven’t done this since I was Chief of Staff, right? The last time I was up here, some of you folks remember, it was for the budget briefings, right?


And one of the questions y’all always asked me about the budget is, “What are you all doing to the foreign aid budget?” Because we absolutely gutted it, right? President Trump is not a big fan of foreign aid. Never has been; still isn’t. Doesn’t like spending money overseas, especially when it’s poorly spent. And that is exactly what drove this decision.

I’ve been in the office a couple times with him, talking about this. And he said, “Look, Mick, this is a corrupt place.” Everybody knows it’s a corrupt place. By the way, put this in context: This is on the heels of what happened in Puerto Rico, when we took a lot of heat for not wanting to give a bunch of aid to Puerto Rico because we thought that place was corrupt. And, by the way, it turns out we were right. All right? So put that as your context.

He’s like, “Look, this is a corrupt place. I don’t want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it, have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets. Plus, I’m not sure that the other European countries are helping them out either.”

So we actually looked at that, during that time, before — when we cut the money off, before the money actually flowed, because the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year — we actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing in terms of supporting Ukraine. And what we found out was that — and I can’t remember if it’s zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid. And you’ve heard the President say this: that we give them tanks and other countries give them pillows. That’s absolutely right, that the — as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren’t helping Ukraine, and then still to this day are not. And the President did not like that. I know it’s a long answer to your question, but I’m still going.


So that was — those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in pass the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money.


Now, there was a report —

Q So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MR. MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 —

Q The investigation into Democrats.

MR. MULVANEY: — certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Q And withholding the funding?

MR. MULVANEY: Yeah. Which ultimately, then, flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — that if we didn’t pay out the money, it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful. That is one of those things that has the little shred of truth in it, that makes it look a lot worse than it really is.

We were concerned, over at OMB, about an impoundment. And I know I just put half of you folks to bed, but there’s — the Budget Control Act — Budget Control Impoundment Act of 1974 says that if Congress appropriates money, you have to spend it. Okay? At least that’s how it’s interpreted by some folks. And we knew that that money either had to go out the door by the end of September or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it. And that was the legality of the issue.

Q But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well.

MR. MULVANEY: We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration.

 

Your 'self talk' isn't all that interesting, but do go on convincing yourself with unfounded assumptions.

 

I am on topic.

You're the one repeating yourself.

 

Sure leftist in the sense of FDR Truman and JFK and believes in what trump ran on in foreign policy. As well as investing in our grade D infrastructure.

She isnt open borders . This means she is unacceptable to the DP who is owned by special interests and have no plan to represent the working middle class as they once did.

Thing is, I did not vote for trump but what has been done to him set a dangerous precedent and the DP and msm have damaged our failing republic as American Idiots cheer them on as if they were watching a damned football game.

 

Worse. They're cheering on the banana republic.

 

That is, apparently, no longer the case.

 

More foolishness.

I don't see anything different than what the Republicans were doing while Obama was in office. And I don't mean that as a "well they did it too" but rather that the American people aren't really seeing anything now that they haven't seen different versions of for the last 20 years or so, from both sides.

I don't trust the Democrats for the most part, any more than I trust the Republicans, but what I can count on is that they will go after the dirt with the same tenacity that the party not in the White House always does against the one that is. This doesn't usually play out the way it has with Trump, but then we've never had a president take office so obviously and publicly corrupt and dishonest, for decades. Of course Democrats are going to go after him, because it's not and has never been a matter of if he's dirty, only when it would be discovered.

That's what happens when obviously corrupt people get elected, and why we should avoid it.

 

No, just your inability to debate the points.

Oh wait, that IS foolishness.

Nevermind.

 

The allegation is just another in the string of hoaxes. How many times will you push the cries of wolf?

It's retarded that a single moment is being expended over this.

 

What, AGAIN!