Republicans Admit They Have No Fact Witnesses. Trump Did It

[SweetSue92]

House Republicans acknowledged that they have no witnesses and no documents to dispute the main facts concerning President Trump’s impeachable conduct: a demand from Ukraine for dirt on a political rival; withholding of aid vital to Ukraine’s defense against Russia; concealing evidence of the scheme by moving a transcript to a secret server; and threatening the tipster who alerted Congress to gross malfeasance. They admitted all that? Well, in a manner of speaking they did.

The Post reports:

House Republicans sent Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) a list of witnesses they want to testify in the impeachment inquiry, including former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower who filed the initial complaint against President Trump. ...
Schiff is likely to reject many, if not all, of the witnesses from the Republicans’ wish list.

Hunter Biden lacks any direct knowledge of anything that occurred in the Trump White House, and hence he cannot rebut evidence of Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere with our election. By Republicans’ own admission, the whistleblower lacks first-hand knowledge of events.

(“Witnesses who testified out of public view have corroborated the crux of the case against Trump — that he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals — so the Democrats see no need for the whistleblower, who heard the story secondhand, to testify. Three career State Department officials are returning next week for the public hearings.”)

All Republicans have are distractions, stunts to generate claims of unfairness, and gimmicks to threaten the life and career of the whistleblower. It’s remarkable, really, that they could stipulate to every fact about which the witnesses testified under oath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...mit-they-have-no-fact-witnesses-trump-did-it/

How can you have a witness to a crime that never happened?

The phone call to Zelensky happened.
The suspension of aid to Ukraine happened.
Call those who witnessed these.

And neither one of those things is illegal.

yes, but both of them together become bribery.
(extortion is between two people)

because its using money allocated by congress for personal gain.

Look at how their mindless minions move away from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" as one

It's not going to sell, folks. Not especially on the back of Kavanaugh and Mueller

 

[2aguy]

House Republicans acknowledged that they have no witnesses and no documents to dispute the main facts concerning President Trump’s impeachable conduct: a demand from Ukraine for dirt on a political rival; withholding of aid vital to Ukraine’s defense against Russia; concealing evidence of the scheme by moving a transcript to a secret server; and threatening the tipster who alerted Congress to gross malfeasance. They admitted all that? Well, in a manner of speaking they did.

The Post reports:

House Republicans sent Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) a list of witnesses they want to testify in the impeachment inquiry, including former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower who filed the initial complaint against President Trump. ...
Schiff is likely to reject many, if not all, of the witnesses from the Republicans’ wish list.

Hunter Biden lacks any direct knowledge of anything that occurred in the Trump White House, and hence he cannot rebut evidence of Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere with our election. By Republicans’ own admission, the whistleblower lacks first-hand knowledge of events.

(“Witnesses who testified out of public view have corroborated the crux of the case against Trump — that he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals — so the Democrats see no need for the whistleblower, who heard the story secondhand, to testify. Three career State Department officials are returning next week for the public hearings.”)

All Republicans have are distractions, stunts to generate claims of unfairness, and gimmicks to threaten the life and career of the whistleblower. It’s remarkable, really, that they could stipulate to every fact about which the witnesses testified under oath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...mit-they-have-no-fact-witnesses-trump-did-it/

Moron....the democrats have no fact witnesses.....all of their alleged witnesses either weren't on the call or admit they got their information from the news.........or sit there and bitch about Trump not liking them enough.....you moron.

 

[Care4all]

House Republicans acknowledged that they have no witnesses and no documents to dispute the main facts concerning President Trump’s impeachable conduct: a demand from Ukraine for dirt on a political rival; withholding of aid vital to Ukraine’s defense against Russia; concealing evidence of the scheme by moving a transcript to a secret server; and threatening the tipster who alerted Congress to gross malfeasance. They admitted all that? Well, in a manner of speaking they did.

The Post reports:

House Republicans sent Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) a list of witnesses they want to testify in the impeachment inquiry, including former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower who filed the initial complaint against President Trump. ...
Schiff is likely to reject many, if not all, of the witnesses from the Republicans’ wish list.

Hunter Biden lacks any direct knowledge of anything that occurred in the Trump White House, and hence he cannot rebut evidence of Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere with our election. By Republicans’ own admission, the whistleblower lacks first-hand knowledge of events.

(“Witnesses who testified out of public view have corroborated the crux of the case against Trump — that he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals — so the Democrats see no need for the whistleblower, who heard the story secondhand, to testify. Three career State Department officials are returning next week for the public hearings.”)

All Republicans have are distractions, stunts to generate claims of unfairness, and gimmicks to threaten the life and career of the whistleblower. It’s remarkable, really, that they could stipulate to every fact about which the witnesses testified under oath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...mit-they-have-no-fact-witnesses-trump-did-it/

How can you have a witness to a crime that never happened?

The phone call to Zelensky happened.
The suspension of aid to Ukraine happened.
Call those who witnessed these.

And neither one of those things is illegal.

yes, but both of them together become bribery.
(extortion is between two people)

because its using money allocated by congress for personal gain.

Look at how their mindless minions move away from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" as one

It's not going to sell, folks. Not especially on the back of Kavanaugh and Mueller

There is no law on quid pro quo, that is why TRUMP has been using the term like he did with the term collusion, there is no law on collusion.

Bribery could have occurred I suppose, but the proper term for the law he allegedly broke is extortion., or government corruption.

But remember, high crimes and misdemeanors, is a term that means abuse of power by losing the public trust... federalist papers #65....

The word "high" stands for a person in a high position, like a president, a judge, a Senator etc.....

A high crime or misdemeanor does not have to be a crime, BUT it can be a crime.....

 

[SweetSue92]

How can you have a witness to a crime that never happened?

The phone call to Zelensky happened.
The suspension of aid to Ukraine happened.
Call those who witnessed these.

And neither one of those things is illegal.

yes, but both of them together become bribery.
(extortion is between two people)

because its using money allocated by congress for personal gain.

Look at how their mindless minions move away from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" as one

It's not going to sell, folks. Not especially on the back of Kavanaugh and Mueller

There is no law on quid pro quo, that is why TRUMP has been using the term like he did with the term collusion, there is no law on collusion.

Bribery could have occurred I suppose, but the proper term for the law he allegedly broke is extortion., or government corruption.

But remember, high crimes and misdemeanors, is a term that means abuse of power by losing the public trust... federalist papers #65....

The word "high" stands for a person in a high position, like a president, a judge, a Senator etc.....

A high crime or misdemeanor does not have to be a crime, BUT it can be a crime.....

Sweetheart Trump never used the term "collusion" that was YOUR failed term when you cried about COLLUSION with the failed RUSSIAN COLLUSION for an entire year and then had the whole thing blow up in your faces with Mueller.

Question. Do you think there's no accumulating effect here? Do you really think Americans can't see what you're doing?

 

[Care4all]

The phone call to Zelensky happened.
The suspension of aid to Ukraine happened.
Call those who witnessed these.

And neither one of those things is illegal.

yes, but both of them together become bribery.
(extortion is between two people)

because its using money allocated by congress for personal gain.

Look at how their mindless minions move away from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" as one

It's not going to sell, folks. Not especially on the back of Kavanaugh and Mueller

There is no law on quid pro quo, that is why TRUMP has been using the term like he did with the term collusion, there is no law on collusion.

Bribery could have occurred I suppose, but the proper term for the law he allegedly broke is extortion., or government corruption.

But remember, high crimes and misdemeanors, is a term that means abuse of power by losing the public trust... federalist papers #65....

The word "high" stands for a person in a high position, like a president, a judge, a Senator etc.....

A high crime or misdemeanor does not have to be a crime, BUT it can be a crime.....

Sweetheart Trump never used the term "collusion" that was YOUR failed term when you cried about COLLUSION with the failed RUSSIAN COLLUSION for an entire year and then had the whole thing blow up in your faces with Mueller.

Question. Do you think there's no accumulating effect here? Do you really think Americans can't see what you're doing?

"There is no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, but even if there was collusion, collusion is not a crime"

"No collusion, no obstruction"

Donald Trump

He's doing the same thing now

"There is no quid pro quo"

"There is no quid pro quo. And even if there was, quid pro quo is not a crime and done all the time"

I'm sorry Sue, but he's using the same ole same ole playbook, because it works on his followers...

HE GOT the media to use that term because HE wanted them to.... And he knows the media well....too.

 

[mikegriffith1]

House Republicans acknowledged that they have no witnesses and no documents to dispute the main facts concerning President Trump’s impeachable conduct: a demand from Ukraine for dirt on a political rival;

False. Trump merely asked that Ukraine investigate their end of the Burisma affair, especially the firing of the chief prosecutor, who was fired after then-VP Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he was not fired.

Why won't you guys answer the question: Why did Burisma hire the totally unqualified Hunter Biden, of all people, after Shokin began to investigate the company?

withholding of aid vital to Ukraine’s defense against Russia;

I guess you missed the news that at the time of the phone call, Zelensky did not even know the aid was being held up.

So it was ok for Biden to threaten Ukraine with losing $1 billion in loan guarantees if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the same company that had "just happened" to have recently hired Biden's son for a job and salary for which he had zero qualifications, but it was not ok for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the hiring of Hunter Biden and the previous government's decision to fire the prosecutor in response to Joe Biden's extortion?

concealing evidence of the scheme by moving a transcript to a secret server;

Uh, conversations with foreign leaders have historically been confidential and recognized as such by both parties--until now. There is no law that requires a president to release such transcripts.

and threatening the tipster who alerted Congress to gross malfeasance.

Oh, please. Seriously? You mean the CIA-Obama-holdover hack who had worked with Biden on his Ukraine extortion?! That's your "whistleblower."

But you don't think Hunter Biden should have to testify because he had "nothing to do with Trump's phone call." Actually, yes, he did. The corruption that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate involved Hunter Biden and his dad. If Joe Biden had not taken the unprecedented step of threatening a foreign country with losing $1 billion in loan guarantees if it didn't fire a prosecutor, Trump would have had no reason to ask Zelensky to investigate the shady affair in the first place.

It is becoming clear that this whole bogus impeachment effort is to distract attention away from Joe Biden's extortion of Ukraine to protect the company that had just hired his loser son, in addition to the outright coup attempt by some officials in the CIA and the FBI.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

House Republicans acknowledged that they have no witnesses and no documents to dispute the main facts concerning President Trump’s impeachable conduct: a demand from Ukraine for dirt on a political rival; withholding of aid vital to Ukraine’s defense against Russia; concealing evidence of the scheme by moving a transcript to a secret server; and threatening the tipster who alerted Congress to gross malfeasance. They admitted all that? Well, in a manner of speaking they did.

The Post reports:

House Republicans sent Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) a list of witnesses they want to testify in the impeachment inquiry, including former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower who filed the initial complaint against President Trump. ...
Schiff is likely to reject many, if not all, of the witnesses from the Republicans’ wish list.

Hunter Biden lacks any direct knowledge of anything that occurred in the Trump White House, and hence he cannot rebut evidence of Trump’s demand that Ukraine interfere with our election. By Republicans’ own admission, the whistleblower lacks first-hand knowledge of events.

(“Witnesses who testified out of public view have corroborated the crux of the case against Trump — that he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals — so the Democrats see no need for the whistleblower, who heard the story secondhand, to testify. Three career State Department officials are returning next week for the public hearings.”)

All Republicans have are distractions, stunts to generate claims of unfairness, and gimmicks to threaten the life and career of the whistleblower. It’s remarkable, really, that they could stipulate to every fact about which the witnesses testified under oath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...mit-they-have-no-fact-witnesses-trump-did-it/

The Senate says Impeachment is DOA

 

[JoeB131]

Regardless of his motive, saying that nothing happened, invalidates the entire Democrat Impeachment scam. ..

Not really. It just means a co-conspirator isn't cooperating.

What you have is a dozen people in that room that all heard him shake down the President of the Ukraine, and reported it.

If Trump did nothing wrong, he should testify under oath and tell all his minions to do so as well.

 

[JoeB131]

Look at how their mindless minions move away from "quid pro quo" to "bribery" as one

It's not going to sell, folks. Not especially on the back of Kavanaugh and Mueller

Most sane people are horrified that Kavanaugh is on the court, and Mueller outright said Trump obstructed justice...

But you keep drinking your Koolaid for Orange Jesus....

 

[JoeB131]

False. Trump merely asked that Ukraine investigate their end of the Burisma affair, especially the firing of the chief prosecutor, who was fired after then-VP Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he was not fired.

Why won't you guys answer the question: Why did Burisma hire the totally unqualified Hunter Biden, of all people, after Shokin began to investigate the company?

1) Hunter Biden has a much more impressive resume than you do, Axis-hugger.
2) Skokin wasn't investigating Bursima, he was probably on their payroll...
3) The EU, G7, IMF and even Republicans in Congress called for Shokin's removal, because his office was so corrupt.

Uh, conversations with foreign leaders have historically been confidential and recognized as such by both parties--until now. There is no law that requires a president to release such transcripts.

No, but there is congressional oversite... in case you weren't paying attention during the whole Iran-Contra thing.

People went to jail for a lot less than what Trump did.

The Senate says Impeachment is DOA

Senate Republicans said the same thing at the beginning of Nixon's impeachment... but then they walked over to the White House and told Nixon it was time to leave.

 

[mikegriffith1]

What you have is a dozen people in that room that all heard him shake down the President of the Ukraine, and reported it.

Except that both Zelensky and his attorney general insist that this did not happen. Except that Zelensky did not even know that any aid was being withheld as of the time of the phone call, so there could have been no "shakedown" anyway. Except that asking a foreign government to investigate its end of an apparent case of corruption that involved a high American official is not a "shakedown" and is perfectly legal.

If Trump did nothing wrong, he should testify under oath and tell all his minions to do so as well.

And if Joe and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, then they should testify under oath as well, hey? If Joe Biden did nothing wrong, why has he been caught lying, on tape, about discussing Hunter's Burisma dealings with him? Humm?

Your standard seems to be this: It was okay for Joe Biden to threaten to withhold aid to compel Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who controlled the Burisma investigation, never mind that Burisma "just happened" to have hired Biden's loser son after the investigation had begun and was paying him an exorbitant salary for a job he had zero qualifications to hold, but it was not okay for Trump to *ask*--he never demanded anything: he asked--that Zelensky determine exactly what had happened in this apparent case of corruption and quid pro quo.

You really should change your signature block so that people don't get the false impression that you're some kind of conservative. You clearly are not. Most of the time you parrot liberal arguments.

 

[JoeB131]

Except that both Zelensky and his attorney general insist that this did not happen. Except that Zelensky did not even know that any aid was being withheld as of the time of the phone call, so there could have been no "shakedown" anyway. Except that asking a foreign government to investigate its end of an apparent case of corruption that involved a high American official is not a "shakedown" and is perfectly legal.

If it was perfectly legal, then why has Trump gone through so much trouble to cover it up? That's not what you do with "perfectly legal" things.

Now, mind you, Trump isn't half the man your Hero, Hirohito was.

And if Joe and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, then they should testify under oath as well, hey? If Joe Biden did nothing wrong, why has he been caught lying, on tape, about discussing Hunter's Burisma dealings with him? Humm?

Because it's not relevent to anything Trump did. Hey, if Biden gets elected and THEN you want to impeach him over Bursima, have at it...

Your standard seems to be this: It was okay for Joe Biden to threaten to withhold aid to compel Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who controlled the Burisma investigation, never mind that Burisma "just happened" to have hired Biden's loser son after the investigation had begun and was paying him an exorbitant salary for a job he had zero qualifications to hold, but it was not okay for Trump to *ask*--he never demanded anything: he asked--that Zelensky determine exactly what had happened in this apparent case of corruption and quid pro quo.

Except, as I point out in another thread, you fascist piece of shit, Hunter Biden was HIGHLY qualified for the role he was being hired for. The guy had something like 20 years of experience in these sorts of matters, which was to get Bursima foreign investment.

After graduating from law school, Biden took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father's political campaigns. By 1998, he had risen to the rank of executive vice president.[2][16] From 1998 to 2001, he served in the United States Department of Commerce, focusing on ecommerce policy.[17] Biden became a lobbyist in 2001, co-founding the firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair.[18] According to Adam Entous of The New Yorker, Biden and his father established a relationship in which "Biden wouldn't ask Hunter about his lobbying clients, and Hunter wouldn't tell his father about them."[2] In 2006, Biden and his uncle, James Biden, attempted to buy Paradigm, a hedge-fund group, but the deal fell apart before completion.[2] That same year, Biden was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of Amtrak; he was on the board of Amtrak from 2006 to 2009.[17]

Later career, 2009–present
After his father was elected as vice president in 2008, Biden resigned from his position on the Amtrak board of directors and left his career as a lobbyist.[2] Along with Christopher Heinz, stepson of John Kerry, and Devon Archer, Biden founded the investment firm Rosemont Seneca.[18]

He also became an attorney with the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,[2] and founded Eudora Global, a venture capital firm.[15]

That's a pretty fucking impressive resume... the kind that actually DOES pull down a six figure salary.

You really should change your signature block so that people don't get the false impression that you're some kind of conservative. You clearly are not. Most of the time you parrot liberal arguments.

Dude, where do you get "Conservative" out of "Impeach Trump"?

Here's the thing. There are no more "conservatives", there are just Trump cultists.

Christians are now defending fucking porn stars.
Libertarians are defending Concentration Camps
Security Conservatives are defending selling out Europe to Russia.

Where are the conservatives... its seems like the only thing you guys are about is excusing Trump's increasingly erratic behavior....

You know, kind of like the Nazis did with Hitler as he got crazier and more drug addled..

Oh, did I hurt your feelings attacking your hero, Hitler?

 

[Andylusion]

I have not yet seen any real concrete evidence, beyond the telephone call transcript. That transcript was basically a massive nothing burger.

If there is more.... then I'm ready and willing to consider your additional evidence. Where is it?

Now unfortunately, the left-wing media has blown themselves to bits already. The faked video of Kurds being slaughtered, which turned out to be an intentionally modified version of a video from a firing range in Kentucky. The Jessie Smollett story. The evil Covington kids that was faked. The black Georgia law maker told to go back to where she came from, except the guy was a life long democrat, and never said it. You have the Epstein rape ring that was intentionally ignored by the Media, claiming they didn't run it because they didn't have enough evidence, and yet never stopped them from running all these other fake stories. And lets not forget the utterly fabricated crimes supposedly by Brett Kavanough, where now we find out that the supposed victims were threatened that their reputation would be tarnished if they didn't support the accusations.

You people have lied.... fabricated... made up... faked.... and even blackmailed.... to destroy those you don't like.

And here you are saying "Believe us! Trump did bad!".

This is why you need to get some morals back in your life, because honestly.... if Trump really did do it... I don't know if I'd believe you. You guys are total scum... all of you. Why would anyone believe you people?

You lie non-stop for the last 4 to 5 years, and then act shocked we don't trust you when you say Trump did something wrong.... really? Crazy how that works. Lie all the time, and people don't believe you, and you act shocked by it! Holy crap! People don't listen to the evidence given by total liars! Who would have thunk it.

So, if you want to convince us that Trump really broke some laws, you need more than a little bit of evidence. You are going to have to lay out so much evidence, that the NSA data capture center would have a hard time storing it all. And that's your fault for having zero credibility.

Don't complain that the required evidence to convince people is too high, because you are the ones who caused everyone to question your truthfulness.

Every time I see a thread with "Trump lied...." I just LAUGH... The biggest group of non-stop lying trash, is calling Trump a liar! It's almost like your are annoyed because someone else can lie almost as much as you people, and that's infuriating to you?

 

[tyroneweaver]

The President of Ukraine backs up Trump's story that there wasn't any quid pro quo involving aid to his country.

The rest is just smoke and mirrors from the Democrats to Impeach because they know they can't defeat Trump in the 2020 election. ...

The President of the Ukraine isn't going to admit he got bullied by POTUS. No foreign leader would admit that.

You guys are running out of excuses...

That's your opinion. To bad the facts say otherwise

 

[bigrebnc1775]

False. Trump merely asked that Ukraine investigate their end of the Burisma affair, especially the firing of the chief prosecutor, who was fired after then-VP Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he was not fired.

Why won't you guys answer the question: Why did Burisma hire the totally unqualified Hunter Biden, of all people, after Shokin began to investigate the company?

1) Hunter Biden has a much more impressive resume than you do, Axis-hugger.
2) Skokin wasn't investigating Bursima, he was probably on their payroll...
3) The EU, G7, IMF and even Republicans in Congress called for Shokin's removal, because his office was so corrupt.

Uh, conversations with foreign leaders have historically been confidential and recognized as such by both parties--until now. There is no law that requires a president to release such transcripts.

No, but there is congressional oversite... in case you weren't paying attention during the whole Iran-Contra thing.

People went to jail for a lot less than what Trump did.

The Senate says Impeachment is DOA

Senate Republicans said the same thing at the beginning of Nixon's impeachment... but then they walked over to the White House and told Nixon it was time to leave.

Just don't cry when it arrives DOA

 

[JoeB131]

Just don't cry when it arrives DOA

At some point, Republicans are going to have to do a gut check and ask themselves if they want to establish the presidency is a license to break the law...

I'm guessing... they won't.

 

[Lesh]

What?! The Steele Dossier was illegal...who would of guessed.

A. It did not breech campaign finance laws in that it was a reported expense .

B. The contract was with an AMERICAN company. THEY took it over seas

C. Dems did not use it and it was turned over to the relevant authorities (the FBI)

So bullshit...

 

[Lesh]

It is? And you can prove he did it vs a political rival instead of someone he thought helped spread the lie of Russia collusion.

There was no lie about Russian collusion. Biden had no input in any of that in any case

WTF do you think you are talking about

 

[wamose]

Republicans are pushing an impeachment based on Schiff's fairy tale that he made up then read on the floor of congress. So in reality, there has never been any truth about this whole process. This is just a bunch of rabid Trump haters trying to justify their pre determined guilty verdict by any means necessary.

 

[Wyatt earp]

False. Trump merely asked that Ukraine investigate their end of the Burisma affair, especially the firing of the chief prosecutor, who was fired after then-VP Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if he was not fired.

Why won't you guys answer the question: Why did Burisma hire the totally unqualified Hunter Biden, of all people, after Shokin began to investigate the company?

1) Hunter Biden has a much more impressive resume than you do, Axis-hugger.
2) Skokin wasn't investigating Bursima, he was probably on their payroll...
3) The EU, G7, IMF and even Republicans in Congress called for Shokin's removal, because his office was so corrupt.

Uh, conversations with foreign leaders have historically been confidential and recognized as such by both parties--until now. There is no law that requires a president to release such transcripts.

No, but there is congressional oversite... in case you weren't paying attention during the whole Iran-Contra thing.

People went to jail for a lot less than what Trump did.

The Senate says Impeachment is DOA

Senate Republicans said the same thing at the beginning of Nixon's impeachment... but then they walked over to the White House and told Nixon it was time to leave.

A drunk cocaine addict?

You falling off the wagon again..


.