Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we are learning is Trump set a US Policy to support Ukraine. Then he decided to go after dirt on his opponent without informing his staff the policy was changing. So they have the US Policy and Trump decided to use it to attack an opponent.
That is what is being said.
The thing that is obviously missing is any proof !!! Facts matter so they say !!!
The more Vindman speaks, the less credible he sounds.
He is in over his head, and sinking. Something's fishy with his testimony.
this is the worst thing that could happen to the Dems impeachment, a bumbling, stumbling, con man, testifying. This impeachment futility may end today. Now he's admitting he was in over his head.
The President leveraging of strategic (taxpayer) funds to advance personal political interests and not national interests is about as "inappropriate" as it comes.
Why would investigating Biden's act of corruption in 2016 be contrary to national interests?
If he doesn't know, then he's got no grounds to specifically not name anyone. The fact that he named one person and refused to name one specific person suggests he knows or had reason to believe they are the whistleblower.... this he perjured himself when he said he didn't know.
He still would be guessing. That's not perjury. Vindman did not deny he spoke to someone. But he has no independent knowledge what the person did with the information.
I've never gotten around to reading the WB Complaint so offhand I don't know how it was structured - how many individuals the WB spoke with but I believe was several. And numerous individuals appears to have found the call inappropriate - albeit with only one filing a Complaint.
Again, this isn't to deny that Vindman contact may well be the whistleblower. Rather going down the "perjury" road using nonsensical reasoning for every single witness becomes tiresome.
But both witnesses just now said there wasn't any pressure indicated by the Ukrainians.
None.
That's clear.
Yep. This is all just another taxpayer money-wasting hoax. Dems are circling the drain. Pursuing these hoaxes instead of legislating to benefit Americans for whom they work. Idiots. The lot of them.
Why would investigating Biden's act of corruption in 2016 be contrary to national interests?
Withholding strategic aid earmarked to help an strategic ally fend off military incursion by a geopolitical foe is contrary to our national interests. Encouraging a foreign nation to conjure up a baseless investigation in order to influence the outcome our Presidential election is contrary to our national interest. I would have thought those facts to be fairly self-evident.
If he was just guessing then he had no grounds to not mention Eric Ciaramella. It's only if he knew that gave him grounds to omit the name.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
