Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[Xzi]

A Ukrainian gas company's CEO now appears willing to testify against Rudy Giuliani, while one of Giuliani's associates is prepared to implicate Devin Nunes in the scandal. Rather than abandon the sinking ship that is Donald Trump, it seems as though all the rats are beginning to cannibalize each other.

 

[Taleweaver]

A Ukrainian gas company's CEO now appears willing to testify against Rudy Giuliani, while one of Giuliani's associates is prepared to implicate Devin Nunes in the scandal. Rather than abandon the sinking ship that is Donald Trump, it seems as though all the rats are beginning to cannibalize each other.

Nunes' case seems one of sheer stupidity to me. While reading, I initially thought it was fairly logical that he met Shokin. I mean... Republicans go with the narrative that Joe Biden helped firing a (by them presumed non - corrupt) Ukrainian official. It's only a matter of decency that you don't go on blind faith on that but check with the guy himself.

... But instead of just admitting that and explaining why they met, Nunes wants to sue cnn and daily beast for breaking that story.

Giuliani is also being fun. Of course all sorts of speculation gets going when he says live on air that he has insurance should Trump decides to distantiate himself from him. Jeez... Apparently Sondland 's testimony wasn't damning enough?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I am re-posting a portion of something I stated in another thread as it was off-topic there and it actually is pertinent in this topic.

I am in complete agreement with Dr. Fiona hill in one aspect that republicans refuse to address due to cowardice or due to an effort to influence domestic politics. We have a president that still believes a Russian birthed narrative that Ukraine was solely behind election interference not the Russian government, that Ukraine gave the dnc server to crowdstrike. I find that a travesty, but no one speaks of it because doing so would show how little judgement is being exercised by the President regarding this matter. Just watch his latest fox -n- friends interview. It is appalling.

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

Donald Trump: (06:02)
It’s very interesting. They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee-

Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
Who has the server?

Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-

Steve Doocy: (06:31)
Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption. And I also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money? All the European nations, why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union, and they’re benefited a lot more by the Ukraine than we are.

TLDR: Our president is either a fool or a liar. You pick. July 25th call nor the first call on April 12th have the word corruption in it. His own words Trump is looking for 'corruption' of a political opponent and he's asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden on the south lawn in front of reporters. It is the only corruption he is looking for per his own words to Zelensky and is the reason he resisted giving the aid. He is his own worst enemy, trailing closely by only his own lawyer. Ah the best people.

Further explanation of my logic: I will note for clarity that he is discussing corruption in his interview of the DNC server and both the DNC server and Biden were his topics raised in the july 25th call. To dissociate the two would require to say that both weren't topics of corruption which would be equally damning as it would say the Biden investigation is for pure political purposes. If both are under the topics of corruption as Trump asserts then they are in fact the reason he held up the aid by his own admission.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

A federal judge on Monday ordered Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the Trump WH's top lawyer, a ruling that will add pressure on other Trump officials tied to the impeachment probe. Decision here: http://ow.ly/g7TL50xkrnj

I'm not sure if he is going to seek an appeal or not. If all he was wanting to do is cover his ass and not obstruct then I wouldn't see the need to pursue an appeal.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

In part of that decision, rational was given in the quote below:
“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires," Judge says

Other news of FOIA working to give public transparency on this issue:
Judge orders release of documents of communications between the Pentagon’s comptroller, DOD and White House OMB over the delay in stalled Ukraine aid. Must turn over 106 pages to Center for Public Integrity by Dec. 12. Another 100 by Dec. 20 in FOIA suit https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv3265-17 …

In addition to the above, on Friday:
https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

*disclaimer: left leaning source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/* However, I believe the documents that are produced from FOIA can be independently verified and read for own interpretation.

"On Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.

American Oversight is reviewing the production to assess whether the State Department has fully complied with the court’s order."

----
TLDR: This is strong evidence that Trump's administration is abusing executive privilege and is blocking a formalized congressional impeachment inquiry. If normal citizens through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) can have the courts force the Executive branch to produce documents then congress is certainly entitled to them via an impeachment inquiry.

 

[cots]

A federal judge on Monday ordered Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the Trump WH's top lawyer, a ruling that will add pressure on other Trump officials tied to the impeachment probe. Decision here: http://ow.ly/g7TL50xkrnj

I'm not sure if he is going to seek an appeal or not. If all he was wanting to do is cover his ass and not obstruct then I wouldn't see the need to pursue an appeal.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

In part of that decision, rational was given in the quote below:
“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires," Judge says

Other news of FOIA working to give public transparency on this issue:
Judge orders release of documents of communications between the Pentagon’s comptroller, DOD and White House OMB over the delay in stalled Ukraine aid. Must turn over 106 pages to Center for Public Integrity by Dec. 12. Another 100 by Dec. 20 in FOIA suit https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv3265-17 …

In addition to the above, on Friday:
https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

"On Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.

American Oversight is reviewing the production to assess whether the State Department has fully complied with the court’s order."

----
TLDR: This is strong evidence that Trump's administration is abusing executive privilege and is blocking a formalized congressional impeachment inquiry. If normal citizens through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) can have the courts force the Executive branch to produce documents then congress is certainly entitled to them via an impeachment inquiry.

The first part of your post is interesting because as far I as know there's only 1 court in this entire country that can force The White House to comply with this lower courts order. However, no one is forcing these witnesses not to testify. They are doing so on their own. Sonland chose to break from the group and testified. It's just too bad for the Democrats all he had to present was his personal assumptions. Don McGahn can now chose to comply with the order or not. I wonder if the White House would defend him if he continues to refuse? If so, like I said, there's only 1 court that can actually tell The White House what to do. I'd understand if Don McGahn does comply, but I'd support him if he doesn't. Either way it's not like anything he says is going to be fairly by the Democrats, which is why I support him refusing to testify. Anything he says is going to be used to attack the President by it being taken out of context or misrepresented. You know, the same thing the Democrats did with a majority of Sonland's testimony that wasn't pure "I assume this happened, but don't have any proof".

The second part of what you posted doesn't even sound like news to me "Someone turned over 100 pages of records that show some various people met with each other". Yeah, well, until someone goes through those 100 pages and finds any actual evidence of any crimes there is no news. However, since the Democrats are running a political trial that doesn't require any actual evidence, but only the "impression of guilt" combined with how they've been handling this shit show I'm sure they'll find something to use to smear Trump with. That's the goal. Smear and ruin him at all costs. It's not about fairness or what's right, it's about destroying his life and removing him from office, regardless of guilt.

Edit:

About this witness. He's been in the White House for less than a year. He wasn't there for the Ukraine call and he also testified in the Mueller investigation (you know the conspiracy that turned up jack shit). Another "bombshell" testimony, right? Like the "Sonland" testimony that produced "I assume he's guilty, but have no proof". Plus, if you read the ruling he has to show up in person, but he can still refuse to answer any questions he doesn't want to. So this "hype" is another Democratic "bunch of nothing" loss for them. I do however expect the Democrats to twist whatever he has to say. Just like "Pence is guilty of quid pro quo because he nodded to Sonland" when Pence never spoke directly to Sonland before, during or after the meeting they both happened to end up in. So this guy shows up and can refuse to answer any questions Congress asks him and yet this is some "big win" for the Democrats. Well, that's if he does show up. The DOJ filed an appeal hours after the Judge's ruling. So as of right now it's looking like he's not going to show up nor is legally required to at this point in time. Seems to have worked out just fine. I wonder if any Liberals were outraged in the process. Liberal outrage makes me smile.

 

[cots]

A Ukrainian gas company's CEO now appears willing to testify against Rudy Giuliani, while one of Giuliani's associates is prepared to implicate Devin Nunes in the scandal. Rather than abandon the sinking ship that is Donald Trump, it seems as though all the rats are beginning to cannibalize each other.

Giuliani's dealing (the ones you're specifically referring to) have nothing to do with this quid pro quo nonsense. If you read between the lines Nunes has also been falsely accused (for simply wanting to investigate some things on his own) and it's been blown up by the slanted Liberal media. Yawn, nothing of substance in either of your links. The only thing that is sinking is your IQ level.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Nunes' case seems one of sheer stupidity to me. While reading, I initially thought it was fairly logical that he met Shokin. I mean... Republicans go with the narrative that Joe Biden helped firing a (by them presumed non - corrupt) Ukrainian official. It's only a matter of decency that you don't go on blind faith on that but check with the guy himself.

... But instead of just admitting that and explaining why they met, Nunes wants to sue cnn and daily beast for breaking that story.

Maybe because the CNN story included 1 fact "That he met with Shokin" and then fabricated the rest of the story? A story that's being used to smear him. Seeings as a trans person can sue you for accidentally misgendering them on a single occasion I think he's more than in his right to sue those bastards into oblivion. I hope he uses the money he's going to win to put a stop to something the Liberals value.

 

[Taleweaver]

Maybe because the CNN story included 1 fact "That he met with Shokin" and then fabricated the rest of the story? A story that's being used to smear him. Seeings as a trans person can sue you for accidentally misgendering them on a single occasion I think he's more than in his right to sue those bastards into oblivion. I hope he uses the money he's going to win to put a stop to something the Liberals value.

Wrong. Have you even read the article? It claims that Parnas is accusing Nunes, that's all. Nunes could simply deny this to CNN and daily beast, or, like I said, illustrate the reason for that meeting (if it took place). He did neither. That's the entire point: your 'one fact' is just wishful thinking on a hypothetical explanation I brought up.

Get your fucking facts straight, man. Your 'it' s all a conspiracy by liberal media' paranoia is getting out of hand.

 

[Xzi]

We now have e-mails available which show the extent to which White House staff were fully aware that Trump was using military aid to extort Ukraine, and also what efforts they made to justify it after the fact. Apologies if this was already covered as part of RationalityIsLost101's post.

And oh lordy, there are video and audio recordings which have been given to Congress by Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who now appears to be fully cooperating with the impeachment inquiry. It's unclear at this time what exactly these recordings depict, but we can probably rule out discussions over where to hold the next Boy Scouts meeting.

By the end of all this it seems likely these will go down in history as the most well-documented crimes ever. Not that it will change the minds of anyone in the Faux News bubble, of course.

 

[cots]

Wrong. Have you even read the article? It claims that Parnas is accusing Nunes, that's all. Nunes could simply deny this to CNN and daily beast, or, like I said, illustrate the reason for that meeting (if it took place). He did neither. That's the entire point: your 'one fact' is just wishful thinking on a hypothetical explanation I brought up.

Get your fucking facts straight, man. Your 'it' s all a conspiracy by liberal media' paranoia is getting out of hand.

LOL. Have I ever read the article? You want to distract me by playing Liberal games like "let's discuss these lies in detail". Sorry bud, I don't have time to dissect fantasies published by delusional madmen. Let's see, this is the same CNN that just attacked Tom Hank's new Mr. Roger's film because Mr. Roger's was a Christian? The same CNN that posts weekly articles on how it's okay and perfectly healthy to be obese? The same CNN attacking private schools for trying to prevent their school children from becoming addicted to deadly drugs? The same CNN that spent 2 years spouting the Russian Collusion Hoax posting hundreds of articles with no factual basis? The same CNN owned by an old rich white socialism supporting billionaire named George Soros? Yeah, unless I want to laugh my ass off with some late night fictional tabloid reading I don't care what those fucking idiots made up this time. For all I know these corrupt Ukraine officials got paid off for whatever lies they're selling, but I'm not going to do what the Liberals want and be distracted by a bunch of gibberish they're trying to pass as news.

What I am willing to do is when Nunes wins the lawsuit is to write him a letter suggesting he uses parts of the funds to defund and put Planned Parenthood out of business. Oh, and before you say "We'll if you don't read it then (blah) (blah) (blah)" I've got too much time on my hands involving myself in watching this current premeditated shit show take place. With all of the lies and bullshit coming from the Democrats and watching the nonsense being spewed out on various forums I've got no more time to make to entertain myself (as reading how you fools here go about your support for this nonsense has me ROFL every time you morons post).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

We now have e-mails available which show the extent to which White House staff were fully aware that Trump was using military aid to extort Ukraine, and also what efforts they made to justify it after the fact. Apologies if this was already covered as part of RationalityIsLost101's post.

And oh lordy, there are video and audio recordings which have been given to Congress by Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, who now appears to be fully cooperating with the impeachment inquiry. It's unclear at this time what exactly these recordings depict, but we can probably rule out discussions over where to hold the next Boy Scouts meeting.

By the end of all this it seems likely these will go down in history as the most well-documented crimes ever. Not that it will change the minds of anyone in the Faux News bubble, of course.

... and which crime are we now on? Do you need to hire another focus group to come up with some more popular verbage to sell your lies with? The original charge was quid pro quo due to requesting dirt on Biden who you claim is his political opponent. You've still got no proof that happened. Hell, Biden is still not his opponent nor ever was. So you might have proof Trump was withholding aid for various reasons, but that's perfectly legal and fine. The White House openly admits they were doing so. It happens all of the time and there's many valid reasons on why it happens. It's actually part of his job to negotiate with foreign Governments. So, what's the latest impeachment reason? Are you guys going to change it again?

inb4 - "Trump sneezed. Impeach!!!!"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Get your fucking facts straight, man. Your 'it' s all a conspiracy by liberal media' paranoia is getting out of hand.

Well, it's technically not a conspiracy because they openly admit to wanting to get rid of the President at all costs no matter the circumstance regardless of guilt, which has been their public plan since before he took office. It would be a conspiracy if this was a hidden agenda with shadow players, but it's simply all out in the open for anyone to look up. I'm not paranoid about the Liberal media. They openly admit their agenda is to push socialism on the country and they openly have supported this premeditated shit show since before it happened and openly support it now. What's funny is that even though you've got the entire main stream Liberal media against Trump and the fact the Democrats have planned this from the start they're still going to fail. It's just what happens when you can't accept you loss and let blind hatred motivate you. Evil always loses in the end. The Democrats have historically embraced evil and have always been on the losing side of things. I don't see that changing anytime soon (now or in the future). Racism and hatred runs deep in their party and they openly embrace everything that is wrong in society. The strong will prevail and the weak shall die (as it should be).

@Xzi is that you? TDS is more contagious then HIV (and in this case will probably lead to catching a STD)!

 

[Taleweaver]

LOL. Have I ever read the article? You want to distract me by playing Liberal games like "let's discuss these lies in detail". Sorry bud, I don't have time to dissect fantasies published by delusional madmen.

Yeah... I don't have time to dissect fantasies published by one either...

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

@cots I noticed you had nothing to say about Trump's own words I provided yesterday in post #223

Also, the information I listed today is to inform those on this thread of additional developments related to impeachment. If you think something is not a valid source please explain in detail to me so that I may ensure I bring information that is appropriate.

https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

To my understanding Americanoversight is a non-partisan, nonprofit ethics watchdog group who filed requests for documents from the Trump Administration under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).

*disclaimer: left leaning source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/* However, I believe the documents that are produced from FOIA can be independently verified and read for own interpretation.

 

[cots]

@cots I noticed you had nothing to say about Trump's own words I provided yesterday in post #223

Also, the information I listed today is to inform those on this thread of additional developments related to impeachment. If you think something is not a valid source please explain in detail to me so that I may ensure I bring information that is appropriate.

https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

To my understanding Americanoversight is a non-partisan, nonprofit ethics watchdog group who filed requests for documents from the Trump Administration under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act).

If Trump was withholding the funds due to corruption then that not only proves there was no quid pro quo over Biden, but only cements that nothing illegal was done. Though, he only asked "why should we give them funds" and never stated "I'm going to withhold these funds because". So is the latest impeachment reasoning now "He threatened to withhold funds that he ended up giving them?". Seeings as he's doing his job by negotiating with foreign governments and doing so to make sure there was no corruption involved it seems to me you're all making a fuss about nothing. How do you think foreign aid works? Do we just hand out aid without any conditions applied to it? Rofl ....

 

[Joe88]

It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Let's see, this is the same CNN that just attacked Tom Hank's new Mr. Roger's film because Mr. Roger's was a Christian?

I've personally met Mr. Rogers with my kids decades ago. I know this will get off topic but I want something to be clear:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/23/entertainment/mister-rogers-faith-religion/index.html

This is not an attack on Mr. Rogers. If you knew the man you would know he was previously an ordained minister. To say he was a televangelist for toddlers isn't a negative thing to him if you knew him because he wanted to emulate Christ that he followed in the best manner he saw fit in an inclusive manner.

I'm not saying anything else but let's not disrespect a very respectable man to try to prove some point of 'media bias'. I'm sure there are some shabby cnn opinion pieces out there you could point at, and I could do the same with fox. This is just uncouth behavior.

Don't bother responding on this as I won't continue to derail this thread further.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/

I'll note that in my post then and edit it appropriately. Thanks.

 

[cots]

I've personally met Mr. Rogers with my kids decades ago. I know this will get off topic but I want something to be clear:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/23/entertainment/mister-rogers-faith-religion/index.html

This is not an attack on Mr. Rogers. If you knew the man you would know he was previously an ordained minister. To say he was a televangelist for toddlers isn't a negative thing to him if you knew him because he wanted to emulate Christ that he followed in the best manner he saw fit in an inclusive manner.

I'm not saying anything else but let's not disrespect a very respectable man to try to prove some point of 'media bias'. I'm sure there are some shabby cnn opinion pieces out there you could point at, and I could do the same with fox. This is just uncouth behavior.

Don't bother responding on this as I won't continue to derail this thread further.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I'll note that in my post then and edit it appropriately. Thanks.

Don't reply, but the CNN was attacking Christians in the article, have a user base that hates Christians and the entire article is about how Mr. Roger's is a Christian. Seeings as you like to take things out of context I could possibly understand your defense, but it's the reasoning behind the article is apparent. CNN and Liberals hate Christians. I think you'd understand more if you would have read the responses to this article from Liberals on various forums (you won't find any on CNN because they don't allow comments). Liberals openly admit to hating Christians and will discriminate against them, which is totally acceptable in their eyes. I mean, bringing up about how his last words before he died on how he questioned his faith was enjoyable to the Liberals. They ended the article off with a bang that justifies slandering the man based on his last words while he was on his death bed. Yeah, totally supportive of him they were. I wasn't disrespecting him you tool. I was slandering CNN for disrespecting him. You have to be a real man to attack someone that's dead solely based on their faith that spent their entire life trying to make the world a better place for children. Fucking pathetic beta males.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Let's see, this is the same CNN that just attacked Tom Hank's new Mr. Roger's film because Mr. Roger's was a Christian?

Don't reply, but the CNN was attacking Christians in the article, have a user base that hates Christians and the entire article is about how Mr. Roger's is a Christian. Seeings as you like to take things out of context I could possibly understand your defense, but it's the reasoning behind the article is apparent. CNN and Liberals hate Christians. I think you'd understand more if you would have read the responses to this article from Liberals on various forums (you won't find any on CNN because they don't allow comments). I mean, bringing up about how his last words before he died on how he questioned his faith was enjoyable to the Liberals. They ended the article off with a bang that justifies slandering the man on his death bed. Yeah, totally supportive of him they were.

Wrong, make a thread and ill discuss it there. It was showing his humanity. You can continue your innane ranting in efforts to warp reality but it is apparent for any non partisan that understood his history to know the article wasn't disrespectful. CNN BAD is not valid logic on this one, sorry.

 

[cots]

CNN BAD is not valid logic on this one, sorry.

* CNN mostly bad.
** Given article attacking Mr. Roger's over his faith prime example.
*** Me smash Libtards

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

If Trump was withholding the funds due to corruption then that not only proves there was no quid pro quo over Biden, but only cements that nothing illegal was done. Though, he only asked "why should we give them funds" and never stated "I'm going to withhold these funds because". So is the latest impeachment reasoning now "He threatened to withhold funds that he ended up giving them?". Seeings as he's doing his job by negotiating with foreign governments and doing so to make sure there was no corruption involved it seems to me you're all making a fuss about nothing. How do you think foreign aid works? Do we just hand out aid without any conditions applied to it? Rofl ....

Let's start off with the easy stuff before jumping into something that you might struggle with. Answer this, did Trump lie and mislead the american public on Fox? Specifically, did Trump say the word corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? YES OR NO?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

---
Brian Kilmeade: (17:07)
So Mr. President [crosstalk 00:17:08] … the accusation is this, that you’re using aid, taxpayer dollars, to attack a political opponent in Joe Biden. And you do say, I wanted to hold up that aid because of corruption, but you also in that phone call-

Donald Trump: (17:25)
[crosstalk 00:17:25] No, no. Two reasons. For corruption, because it’s known. I want to make sure the money is going to be spent properly, but there’s another reason that is maybe to me the most important.

Brian Kilmeade: (17:35)
Which is?

Donald Trump: (17:36)
Why isn’t Germany, France, the European union, why aren’t all those countries in Europe, why aren’t they paying?
---
Ignore this part for now. I'm putting this here for reference for later. Its more important to address the question I posed above before we begin discussing this interview further.

 

[Hanafuda]

It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.