Distracting from yesterday's nail in the coffin testimony...
Now, about that testimony.
BINGO! It's certainly grabbed the headlines for now. Hopefully this will change quickly.
Also, they're in disarray because they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. They can't defend the souleater because he's so obviously guilty as we hear the testimony of his misdeeds.
Someone just suggested how it's possible that McConnell turns on souleater to try to save the senate for GOP and himself. All kinds of people will be trying to save themselves. This is historical and it just has to end up on the right side...we're a nation of laws.
It is just maddening to see/hear all the folks still sticking by his side. Be it 38%, 35% or 31% it is so crazy to think there are that many people that are "ride or die" with the angry orange man. It truly is mind boggling. People we all know, love and respect. It's just weird.
It's not "ride or die". I personally was caught up w the Collusion investigation and felt "pants" when nothing came of it. Dems better have a smoking gun or their credibility goes further down the shitter.
I don't think you pay attention to the news. There are many smoking guns. His base just doesn't give a fuck. It's not the democrats credibility taking a hit here.
Again, if you follow the news from the collusion investigation there were supposedly a bunch of smoking guns too.
I hope I'm wrong.
Are you looking for a confession? Because they have already confessed. What more do you want?
And I don't remember the news from the last scandal claiming "smoking guns". There sure was a lot of evidence.
Isn't the confession from Mulvaney though and not Trump or did I miss something else?
He asked for China's help to investigate Joe Biden in front of everybody.
He said exactly what he wanted Zelinsky to do in relation to the Bidens. out loud, on the WH lawn, WEEKS ago.
Distracting from yesterday's nail in the coffin testimony...
Now, about that testimony.
BINGO! It's certainly grabbed the headlines for now. Hopefully this will change quickly.
Also, they're in disarray because they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. They can't defend the souleater because he's so obviously guilty as we hear the testimony of his misdeeds.
Someone just suggested how it's possible that McConnell turns on souleater to try to save the senate for GOP and himself. All kinds of people will be trying to save themselves. This is historical and it just has to end up on the right side...we're a nation of laws.
It is just maddening to see/hear all the folks still sticking by his side. Be it 38%, 35% or 31% it is so crazy to think there are that many people that are "ride or die" with the angry orange man. It truly is mind boggling. People we all know, love and respect. It's just weird.
It's not "ride or die". I personally was caught up w the Collusion investigation and felt "pants" when nothing came of it. Dems better have a smoking gun or their credibility goes further down the shitter.
I don't think you pay attention to the news. There are many smoking guns. His base just doesn't give a fuck. It's not the democrats credibility taking a hit here.
Again, if you follow the news from the collusion investigation there were supposedly a bunch of smoking guns too.
I hope I'm wrong.
Are you looking for a confession? Because they have already confessed. What more do you want?
And I don't remember the news from the last scandal claiming "smoking guns". There sure was a lot of evidence.
Isn't the confession from Mulvaney though and not Trump or did I miss something else?
He asked for China's help to investigate Joe Biden in front of everybody.
He said exactly what he wanted Zelinsky to do in relation to the Bidens. out loud, on the WH lawn, WEEKS ago.
China doesn't even matter.
It all matters.
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,772
Oh wow, you mean there are actually Republicans in the hearings? :P (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
"Forty-seven Republican lawmakers from three House committees — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight — have been allowed to attend and participate in all of the depositions of the eight diplomats and government officials brought in to testify so far. The 57 Democrats from those three committees also may attend, but no other lawmakers from either party may enter."
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.
Promise to investigate Biden
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.
Foreign policy undercut
Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.
That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
Actually it is. The public statement would have been damaging to Biden. That's something.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Why does everyone keep acting like "quid pro quo" is some kind of legal requirement for any of this? I'm not talking just here... but in general. It's really weird to me. And every time I hear it I think of that scene from The Silence of the Lambs.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Why does everyone keep acting like "quid pro quo" is some kind of legal requirement for any of this? I'm not talking just here... but in general. It's really weird to me. And every time I hear it I think of that scene from The Silence of the Lambs.
It's not. But it still happened, which makes it worse.
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.
Promise to investigate Biden
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.
Foreign policy undercut
Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.
That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Oh wow, you mean there are actually Republicans in the hearings? :P (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
"Forty-seven Republican lawmakers from three House committees — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight — have been allowed to attend and participate in all of the depositions of the eight diplomats and government officials brought in to testify so far. The 57 Democrats from those three committees also may attend, but no other lawmakers from either party may enter."
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.
Promise to investigate Biden
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.
Foreign policy undercut
Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.
That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Then I suggest you read his full opening statement. It's all there, pretty clear slam dunk.
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.
Promise to investigate Biden
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.
Foreign policy undercut
Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.
That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released.
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released.
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released.
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.
Promise to investigate Biden
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.
Foreign policy undercut
Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.
That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Then I suggest you read his full opening statement. It's all there, pretty clear slam dunk.
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released.
My pleasure, I'm looking forward to hearing your insights (and I'm not being facetious, though even that statement sounds facetious).
So, reading the opening statement as a whole would definitely seem condemning. The one statement that stood out to me from Taylor was this one:
Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
The only mention of a QPQ was actually from Taylor and not Trump nor Sondland. “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”
The problem I am having may be in the wording of things. It says Trump wants Zelensky to say publicly that he is investigating but NOT "to investigate".
Viewing the timeline one could conclude that aid was withheld from Ukraine because there was a lack of an investigation if you use Taylor's "opinion". But that is all this recount is, an opinion from someone who is involved but doesn't have all the facts and is offering conclusions derived from them.
I'm still not sold on this, sorry. This is not a slam dunk at all to me.
There is another part of the story that I may be lost on. Was there an ongoing investigation? If so asking to mention that publicly doesn't seem like abusing power if it was going on all along.
If there was no investigation then I have huge concern as to why Trump would want that mentioned. This I would have an immense problem with.
So I may be missing part of the puzzle and timeline about if or when an investigation was taking place or one was wanting to start or pressure to reopen one?
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released.
My pleasure, I'm looking forward to hearing your insights (and I'm not being facetious, though even that statement sounds facetious).
So, reading the opening statement as a whole would definitely seem condemning. The one statement that stood out to me from Taylor was this one:
Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
The only mention of a QPQ was actually from Taylor and not Trump nor Sondland. “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”
The problem I am having may be in the wording of things. It says Trump wants Zelensky to say publicly that he is investigating but NOT "to investigate".
Viewing the timeline one could conclude that aid was withheld from Ukraine because there was a lack of an investigation if you use Taylor's "opinion". But that is all this recount is, an opinion from someone who is involved but doesn't have all the facts and is offering conclusions derived from them.
I'm still not sold on this, sorry. This is not a slam dunk at all to me.
There is another part of the story that I may be lost on. Was there an ongoing investigation? If so asking to mention that publicly doesn't seem like abusing power if it was going on all along.
If there was no investigation then I have huge concern as to why Trump would want that mentioned. This I would have an immense problem with.
So I may be missing part of the puzzle and timeline about if or when an investigation was taking place or one was wanting to start or pressure to reopen one?
The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.
No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.
I need my Trump smoking gun.
Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing. Are you still trying to prove you are right? Not sure.
Next question. Open to everyone.
The Sondland thing. Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further. There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.
I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".
Sorry I'm skeptical.
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.
Neither of those are a quid pro quo though. Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.
Promise to investigate Biden
Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.
Foreign policy undercut
Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.
That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Then I suggest you read his full opening statement. It's all there, pretty clear slam dunk.
Was you there?
Ah shit, you got me.
Game, set, match.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,298
2019
Republican sources on Capitol Hill told CNN there's a "growing unease that there is no defense" of the President's actions.
"How do you defend the indefensible?" one source told CNN. "We can't defend the substance, all we can do is talk about process."
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Fun facts are like dots! You like dots, right? 107 closed door hearings during the Benghazi investigation. 107. Remember those chickens? Bok bok bok. Trey “three times” Gowdy looks like a rooster, or a woosta, as Wob might say. Any defenders?
Now we know what all the ruckus is about. The walls are closing in. I'm sure it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court and we'll see if Roberts wants to protect the Team Trump Treason or let the House have their evidence.
A federal judge on Friday said that the U.S. Justice Department must turn over to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee normally secret grand jury material collected as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Judge Beryl Howard, in her ruling, repeatedly noted that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which could be assisted with the material assembled by Mueller’s probe.
Howard brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters in and outside of Congress that the House’s impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote to authorize such a probe.
Judge Beryl Howard, in her ruling, repeatedly noted that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which could be assisted with the material assembled by Mueller’s probe.
“The need for continued secrecy is minimal and thus easily outweighed by [the Judiciary Committee’s] HJC’s compelling need for the material,” Howard wrote in the decision issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where she is chief judge.
“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the President described in the Mueller Report.”
Howard brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters in and outside of Congress that the House’s impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote to authorize such a probe.
“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” Howard wrote.
Comments
China doesn't even matter.
There's a reason Don Trump arranged that little stormy the gates shitshow yesterday.
He trying to hyp-mo-tize you.
www.headstonesband.com
Something for something is the definition.
I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.
Here is some context.
Allegation of a quid pro quo
Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.
Promise to investigate Biden
Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.
Foreign policy undercut
Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-statement-5-explosive-lines/index.html
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote? The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.
So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.
The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.
I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The conspiracy is the crime. #ITMFA
You cannot act like that. There are repercussions for poor decision making.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm reading it now, TY for that clarification.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message
asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are
conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to
call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that
President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly
that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. election.
The only mention of a QPQ was actually from Taylor and not Trump nor Sondland. “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”
The problem I am having may be in the wording of things. It says Trump wants Zelensky to say publicly that he is investigating but NOT "to investigate".
Viewing the timeline one could conclude that aid was withheld from Ukraine because there was a lack of an investigation if you use Taylor's "opinion". But that is all this recount is, an opinion from someone who is involved but doesn't have all the facts and is offering conclusions derived from them.
I'm still not sold on this, sorry. This is not a slam dunk at all to me.
There is another part of the story that I may be lost on. Was there an ongoing investigation? If so asking to mention that publicly doesn't seem like abusing power if it was going on all along.
If there was no investigation then I have huge concern as to why Trump would want that mentioned. This I would have an immense problem with.
So I may be missing part of the puzzle and timeline about if or when an investigation was taking place or one was wanting to start or pressure to reopen one?
I'm open to the discussion, thanks @benjs
Game, set, match.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Judge Beryl Howard, in her ruling, repeatedly noted that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which could be assisted with the material assembled by Mueller’s probe.
“The need for continued secrecy is minimal and thus easily outweighed by [the Judiciary Committee’s] HJC’s compelling need for the material,” Howard wrote in the decision issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where she is chief judge.
“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the President described in the Mueller Report.”
Howard brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters in and outside of Congress that the House’s impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote to authorize such a probe.
“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” Howard wrote.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/judge-orders-release-of-mueller-material-citing-impeachment-chance.html
Storm the secure hearing room in chicken costumes!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://apple.news/AD94VKOrRTsW5KhDcvDH_vA
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©