Thin-skinned Joe Biden calls voter "fat" and "damn liar" after question about Ukrainian dealings.

This whole farce was small. The concrete facts remain that there was no quid pro quo, not that it would have been impeachable even if there was. Aid flowed. Meetings happened. Without the much cried over statement or investigations announced. You clearly don’t, but I and millions of other Americans still want to get to the full truth about Ukrainian interference in our election, their collusion with the Democratic Party (which, unlike the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory, actually happened), and why Biden allowed his son to receive and hold an exorbitantly paid job with a corrupt Ukrainian energy outfit he wasn’t remotely qualified for while the VP was tasked with leading US energy policy in Ukraine and used a billion dollars of tax payer money to extort the firing of the chief Ukrainian prosecutor.

But what sparked this thread tangent was me correcting your false claim that Trump demanded Ukraine investigate his political opponents under “threat” of withholding military aid. You have ZERO proof of that. Not one fact witness testified that.

"Not one witness testified that they directly heard from Trump tying aid to investigations."

Irrelevant since every individual outside Sondland who interacted directly with Trump was blocked from testifying. Again, why do you think he would block their testimony if they could have cleared him? Your refusal to answer this question speaks for itself.

I even had to explain to you what a quid pro quo was because you insisted leveraging a WH meeting for Biden investigations was not a quid pro quo.

You’re finished, BreakbeatSavant. You’ve been demolished and owned. You can go now.

But if you want to hang around, at least answer my question you dodged:

They were only talking about it at all because Politico broke the story.

So you believe Trump was just sitting around waiting for news of the aid pause to go public before making any demands of Ukraine for it? What if the story hadn’t broken? Either the fiscal year would have ended in a few weeks and the aid would have been withdrawn, in which case it would have been too late to make any demands, or the aid would have been released when it was following the internal review without the Ukrainians ever knowing it had been paused. Either way there’s no room for any quid pro quo.

If a quid pro quo demand for aid had been Trump’s plan, why didn’t Trump ever make that demand to Ukraine?

Isn’t it more likely that the aid pause was actually just for an internal review, not something the Ukrainians were supposed to know about, just as Trump and everyone else involved says it was, and is overwhelmingly more realistic given the evidence?

PS -

"In fact Taylor wasn’t even at the Sep. 1st Warsaw meeting and only heard about the Sondland/Yermak discussion third hand from Morrison."

Which is what I told you the first time a few posts up that you wrongly called "hearsay".

we know Zelensky got the message loud and clear since he was scheduled to go on Fareed Zakaria's CNN show on Sep 13th to announce the Biden investigations and was saved from Trump's extortion scheme in the nick of time by the heroic whistleblower report going public on the 9th. This forced Trump's hand to release the aid on the 11th and allowed Zelensky to cancel his appearance announcing bogus investigations into the Bidens. Zakaria explained all of this himself as was widely reported at the time.

So you're saying is this was all a Deep State plot to frame the president by Taylor? And how did he manage to get Fareed Zakaria to play along again? New York Times would have to be in your conspiracy too since they were the ones to first break the story on Zelensky's CNN scheduled appearance to announce Biden investigations. You'd know that if you were familiar with the story instead of learning about it for the first time when I just told you. Your conspiracy just gets more complex and implausible every time you post!

But that's not what you said originally when you said Sondland made it all up. So which one is it? When you keep contradicting yourself and can't keep your own story straight, why would you expect anyone else to take you seriously?

And again, why did Trump refuse to hand over Taylor's notes? Your new conspiracy theory still fails to make sense.

It's not even clear who you think you're kidding trying to insist Morrison didn't inform Taylor of the quid pro quo when Sondland already revised his testimony and admitted to it. All you're doing is engaging in ritual self delusion that invites mockery. I stopped reading after that since you're retreading ground that's already been covered. Meanwhile you're so insulated from the real world and verbally and logically impaired you can't even seem to get the timeline and basic legal terminology right. Hearsay is a rule of evidence that applies to testimony made by witnesses who are unable to appear in court to offer their testimony. Taylor testifying to his firsthand conversation with Sondland telling him what conditions need to be met for releasing aid is not hearsay. Same goes for Morrison. Nor would any discussion of what Sondland says Trump told him be inadmissible as "hearsay" in a judicial trial because there's a "co-conspirator" exception for when statements are made "during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy." [Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence] I can tell you're not very bright when you reflexively parrot Solomon talking points without checking to see it's actually true.

Bottom line Morrison grew so alarmed of the quid pro quo after being briefed again by Sondland on the 7th where Sondland affirmed the quid pro quo after Trump rejected the proposed modification suggested by Taylor that Morrison reported what he heard to NSC lawyers "I wanted to make sure, in going to the lawyers," Morrison said, “that there was a record of what Ambassador Sondland was doing, to protect the President.” Morrison said he felt the need to document Sondland's September 7th call with the NSC lawyers because Sondland had represented to him that President Trump was behind the quid pro quo scheme: "[P]art of what I’m trying to do here in talking to the lawyers is making sure they’re aware of what Mr. Sondland is doing. And he's saying the President is aware, but I’m still not entirely certain that he is." (Morrison Depo. at 224) Morrison later acknowledged it was also possible that Sondland was telling the truth about his conversations with Trump.

So was Morrison in on the Deep State conspiracy with Taylor to lie about Sondland to take out Trump in a coup? Or did Sondland make it all up based on nothing to get his boss impeached? You need to make up your mind and try to make sense of your conspiratorial babble.

Has anyone ever told you that you ramble excessively while not saying much of anything? You really need to work on being more concise, because you really can't expect anyone's going to bother to read a convoluted four reply diatribe while you never get around to making a coherent point. I made that mistake earlier reading your unbearably long cut and paste of Kent, who was never name checked by Sondland as in the loop so irrelevant, and Morrison prior to being informed by Sondland of the quid pro quo so also irrelevant. I won't make the mistake of reading your meandering and irrelevant drivel again. But just so you know, babbling pointlessly does make you come across as unhinged. If you desire legitimacy you must be more concise.

Meanwhile, you should study up on the meaning of hearsay. It doesn't mean in court what John Solomon told you it means.