This is the FIRST witness who must be called before any others. No Ciaramella, no other witnesses!

I regret I have but one upvote to give.
3lrmy7.gif (click to show)

LOL the identity of the whistleblower is apparently catnip to you guys but is a total non-issue at this point

The transcript proves he/she was right to do so

But sure, call him/her, whatever

Keep grasping at straws

LOL... you cite the proof that Trump did nothing wrong as proof he did something wrong... You guys are just a laugh riot.

Asking another leader to look into an alleged (but confessed to and known) crime by Biden was not illegal, unethical, or anything. Biden is NOT Trump's opponent until the DNC makes him such. But even then, the nomination of president is not sanctuary for illegal activities. And yes, I've see your spin that it was ordered by Obama, blah blah, blah, but then the investigation would bear that out. What are you libbies and Biden afraid of?

The reality is that Biden needed to be investigated. Trump didn't ask for anything to be fabricated. Just to cooperate.

The President of Ukraine was clear there was no coercion. This whole coup is a fantasy of the left and the country is getting tired of it.

https://imgflip.com/i/3c68wt

https://imgflip.com/i/3mzrnw

He might pull up his meme showing how much he reads into the call to reach that conclusion.

How much do you have to “read into” a call where the President is asking for Hunter Biden to be investigated in order to conclude that the President wanted Hunter Biden investigated?

Not much

The only way I can see you getting Trump off the hook for this is if you can *actually* prove Hunter Biden was corrupt, or if you can prove Joe Biden *actually* stopped any sort of prosecution

At this point there are naturally tons of rumors on both subjects but nothing solid. Hunter Biden has a paternity suit in Arkansas. The Joe Biden firing the old prosecutor thing is especially weak — the U.S. had a problem filing out billions to a country with an old prosecutor who *wasn’t* doing his job fighting corruption, and yes Biden was assigned to make that threat

You have to "read in" quite a bit to make anything he did criminal or an abuse of power. Quite a bit. He didn't make up the allegation against Hunter and Joe... Joe boasted about it. The motive for Joe's crimes was clear -- Hunter being on the board of the company he had no business being on, receiving a hefty salary...

Yes, when an alleged criminal is known, naming them is not an issue at all. And asking another country to look into the allegations is not wrong either. No more than a officer in one state asking the police department of another state to look into a suspect.

You're imagining (or more likely pretending to imagine) there is a hidden meaning in "look into" when on a plain reading there is not. No crime. No harm. No foul.

EVERYONE involved with the call had no issues. John Bolton had no issues and said so in the past. Now some fake hearsay whistleblower (named Eric Ciaramella) colluded with Schiff to try to bring down a sitting president. Shame on the left for their blind hatred on this country.

Where'd he specifically ask Hunter to be investigated?

The circled part of the transcript

Point it out. All I see is him mentioning JOE's corruption. Hence saying 'Biden was bragging'. Hunter never bragged about stopping an investigation. Seems like Trump wanted to point out why Joe wanted to interfere.

Oh the circle you drew on the transcript that looks like a dick 😆
What you circled pretty much means dick aswell

Litigating anything having to do with the whistleblower at this time is like litigating what happened on move one of a chess match when the game is already in the endgame stages and you should be looking to queen pawns and blocking your opponent from doing so

Which would be equivalent to calling the firsthand witnesses

We are so far past the whistleblower it’s not even funny

The only "evidence" (which is fake) of a crime is the whistleblower's opinion of something he heard about. It's the first domino is a string of lies. No truth, no evidence of any wrongdoing here by the president. Period.

And he was not a firsthand witness.

Yet they actually were.

They were because they say they were. You cannot prove they were not and all evidence is they were. So straw man argument defeated as usual.

Nope... lame examples as expected. We can proved Manson was not Jesus. You cannot prove the disciples did not write their books. Yes, the burden of proof was shifted to where it properly belongs. Innocent until proven guilty is common sense, not just a motto of our court system.

You're making a claim that cannot be proven. So the status quo remains as is.

Just "clicked" on your posts to see how silly you were being and I was right. You are.

Back to being blocked.

Blocked? What a sad little snowflake you are.

Lol no one in the House ever said “case closed,” they were following the leads where they led and ran straight into Republican stonewalling

Republicans are naturally Monday-morning quarterbacking the House Dems’ decision not to fight these subpoenas in court over the next months, but I think it was better to give it to the Senate so they could own the mess they’ve made

There is no basis to the executive privilege claims other than sheer political muscle

https://youtu.be/FEr7g4Uf03c

Political muscle BEGETS political muscle.

This is another memers summary of it for those that don't do links.