McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which evidence proves intent?

The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.

Thanks for the softball question!

 

[iceberg]

Which evidence proves intent?

The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.

Thanks for the softball question!

Great.

When are you going to answer it?

 

[iceberg]

So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?

It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.

Name the cases.

Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.

Court cases where this happened please.

political trial

criminal trial

explain the difference

which one pertains to an impeachment ?

Simply point out which cases found people guilty for circumstantial evidence.

Yall are avoiding this about as much as you avoid intelligence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which evidence proves intent?

The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.

Thanks for the softball question!

Great.

When are you going to answer it?

Stop being a cultish freak. All of that easily proves intent, in any court of law.

 

[iceberg]

Which evidence proves intent?

The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.

Thanks for the softball question!

Great.

When are you going to answer it?

Stop being a cultish freak. All of that easily proves intent, in any court of law.

I'm asking you to follow the law. Not get cute around it.

Who's being the cultist freak?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then it's supported by nothing because there is no evidence.

Which is embarrassing, peak Trump cultism on your part. Let's demonstrate:

Name some examples of evidence that would have compelled you. Three will do.

A recording of Trump issuing a quid pro quo.
A testimony from Zelensky that stated Trump threatened aid to his country unless he cooperated.
A written statement to any member of the Ukraine government that threatened US aid unless cooperation was met.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm asking you to follow the law.

And I answered. And all of that demonstrates intent. Put it all together and it's a slam dunk.

And you know I am right, which is why you aren't attempting any actual counterargument, despite begging for that information. Suddenly all you have is whining.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Know what is really bad about this? Now Trump will think that he can act with impunity and do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of what the rules or the Constitution says. Not only that, but even if he does do something that is impeachable again, his supporters and he will just say that this is another failed attempt to remove him from office, or another attempt at the first impeachment.

 

[lantern2814]

Don’t you get tired of showing how stupid stupid you are? Bolton fought the subpoena in court. His LEGAL right. You idiots had the same option. You CHOSE not to take it. That is NOT obstruction. That is YOUR side showing their sheer idiocy to rush this through. By the way, is this the same Bolton Schitt for brains claimed was a liar and shouldn’t be believed anyway?

Bolton didn’t fight any subpoena in court. His subpoena was withdrawn after he threatened to take it to court.

You know, usually Congress doesn’t have to subpoena anything. The Executive usually acknowledges that Congress has oversight and when requested, they just show up.

Not this administration though.

Sorry dimbulb. Executive privilege. You CHOSE not to take the legal remedy of the courts. Also, the idiots didn’t realize they can’t subpoena ANYBODY without an official vote to open an inquiry. After they took the vote, these brain surgeons forgot to retroactively include their illegal subpoenas Andy then declined to reissue them because it would “take too long”. Bu the way Obozo refused a LOT of demands for documents and such, so your crying is hilarious.

so you want to drag this out in the courts

and then bitch about the dems dragging their feet.


got it.

STFU you illiterate moron. Using the legal method of the courts to settle disputes between the other two branches is NOT obstruction and likely would have been expedited due to the circumstances. Try to understand the topic before showing your usual idiocy.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight - obozo did it so why shouldnt trump ?

weak ass argument ya got there dumbass.

still waiting for some intellectual rw'r to show me where the constitution mandates the house go through courts to file impeachment articles and pass them --

you have the "illiterate moron floor"

i'm waiting

God damn you are an illiterate moron. Nobody has said the house needs go through the courts you flaming idiot. The courts are the LEGAL remedy when there is a dispute between the executive and legislative branches. Trump asking them to rule on executive privilege is NOT obstruction. You morons had the SAME option and CHOSE not to use its. Your fault. Period. Second grade called, you’ve missed too many classes. Now put on your dunce cap and get in the corner.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not a single one of the "witnesses" in the impeachment hearing supplied any first hand information. They gave suppositions, opinions and feels.

Actually one actually did. It was Ambassador Sondland. In his testimony, when he asked Trump what he wanted, Trump replied he wanted nothing from Zelensky. He only wanted him to do the right thing.

 

[iceberg]

Know what is really bad about this? Now Trump will think that he can act with impunity and do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of what the rules or the Constitution says. Not only that, but even if he does do something that is impeachable again, his supporters and he will just say that this is another failed attempt to remove him from office, or another attempt at the first impeachment.

Yea maybe now he'll start spying on congress, falsifying evidence, spying on the press...

I mean shit, who's gonna stop him?

 

[lantern2814]

Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.

Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.

The phony Indian has been hitting the firewater early tonight.

 

[iceberg]

I'm asking you to follow the law.

And I answered. And all of that demonstrates intent. Put it all together and it's a slam dunk.

And you know I am right, which is why you aren't attempting any actual counterargument, despite begging for that information. Suddenly all you have is whining.

Heh, what a maroon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.

Who says it’s been settled?

The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.

Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.

Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.

Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.

Moving the goal posts again? I thought they were going to fight this to prove Trump had something to do with a quid pro quo. Congress knows how every dollar is spent because they pass the spending.

Congress passes the laws. The executive executes them. Therefore Congress has a pretty unquestionable authority to know if the laws they passed were executed. That’s more than enough reason to get a subpoena. Now, what’s Trump’s argument for stopping it?

If Congress doesn't know what laws they passed are being executed, or where money they allocated went to, then they have no business being in Congress.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A recording of Trump issuing a quid pro quo.

Sorry, presidential conversations are not recorded. Try to stay grounded in reality, thanksm But Trump obstructed the evidence, incliding the first hand testimony of this. So you have just announced your support of the obstruction charge.

A testimony from Zelensky that stated Trump threatened aid to his country unless he cooperated.

Ha, another rigged game. Zelensky would never testify to this and get involved on our politics. But every account we have from Ukrainian who will speak on the matter says they knew what was happening.

A written statement to any member of the Ukraine government that threatened US aid unless cooperation was met.

Interesting. This may come as a shock to you: criminals don't operate that way. Your standards are contrived nonsense, and our jails would be empty, if your ridiculous, cultish rigged game were the standard of guilt.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Heh, what a maroon.

That's what I thought. You asked your question, and oops, you actually got an answer. Now all you can do is whine .

 

[hadit]

Then you're pissed at the democrats for sprinting through their side of the impeachment hearings.
Not slowing down to get the subpoenas correctly, and getting the witnesses they needed. I fully understand your position....I do.

Im pissed that no Republican has any spine and is helping Trump cover this up.

Nothing was lost. The truth will eventually come out and you’ll all look complicit.

I'm not sure I understand. It seems that the democrats helped Trump out by not going through
the process of subpoenaing the witnesses they needed to make their case. Instead, they buttoned
it up too early and demanded that the repubs do their work for them. The dems have nobody to blame
but themselves. You need to work on focusing your anger at the right group of people.

Nothing they did helped Trump. They wore his legal team down to the “so what” defense. Alexander doesn’t want Bolton to testify because what he is going to say has already been proven.

I have no anger for anyone that did everything they could to get the truth out.

No, the dems did not do everything they could to get the truth out. They cut corners and tried to get
the Senate to do the work they should have done. I'm not sure why you are defending them
as you are. The dems feet are the ones who's feet should be held to the fire.

Trump stonewalling witnesses had nothing to do that - nah, nothing whatsoever.

yawnnnnnnnnnnn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yup, Trump told them to pound sand and they said, "yes sir, where and for how long?".

 

[DamnDude]

Not a single one of the "witnesses" in the impeachment hearing supplied any first hand information. They gave suppositions, opinions and feels.

Actually one actually did. It was Ambassador Sondland. In his testimony, when he asked Trump what he wanted, Trump replied he wanted nothing from Zelensky. He only wanted him to do the right thing.

You are correct.
I stand corrected.
Thank you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.

Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.

Glad you're happy, because so are we.

I am happy! Extremely happy! We'll see how happy you are in November. Gloat while you can...

Oh come on. Look at the Trump rallies. Look at the attendance at many of these presidential candidates on the Democrats side. It's clear who would win if the election were held today. That's not to say a lot won't change between now and then, but this charade the Democrats put us through won't have any negative ramifications on the Republican side.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yup, Trump told them to pound sand

Right, because the documents and testimony would have reinforced his guilt.

You know this. Your cultism dictates that, instead, you put on this dog and pony show.