Offical Impeachment Thread

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Quote where in the call Trump said he was withholding anything.

Silly question, for two reasons:

1) trump had already witheld the aid. So that was the existing state of affairs. He also did not have to state, in the phone call, that the sun rises in the east.

2) the phone call is only a small part of the body of evidence, which includes, in no small part, the cover up of the phone call

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence, opinions aren't evidence.

Wrong again. Yes, in fact, opinions of witnesses can be evidence.

 

[Nostra]

Republicans ---GET OVER IT

Get over what? The Schifferbrains clusterfuck he gave the American public today?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ame®icano]

If that was the case why wait TWO DAYS...WHY NOT IMMEDIATELY???

What's the rush? He had 20 more days,

Well, he could have always send BLANKETS INSTEAD OF MILITARY AID LIKE THE SURRENDER MONKEY DID...LOOK IT UP. ASSWIPE!

The problem is what Trump was asking for in exchange for releasing the aid - whether weapon or wampum doesn't matter. You fellas have a knack for irrelevance.

He asked for NOTHING as the transcript proves....but low IQ liberals will follow lying talkingvpoints to their deaths!

He asked for a favor. As the transcript proves. You may want to try a different line of bullshit.

What is the favor he asked about? Quote the transcript.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

sondland will be front & center to testify as a first person witness next week - on wednesday i believe; so there goes your little happy place thought bubble popping.

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

 

[Baz Ares]

That's ok, all Sondland can testify to is a "thought crime" since no crime was committed, let alone an impeachable crime.
Ukraine got the money and didn't investigate the Bidens, QED, no crime, period, full stop.

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited,

YEP, Above you can see. More weak USMB DOPer Mod editing of our factual posts.

 

[Defiant1]

Republicans ---GET OVER IT

Exactly.
Trump is President.
He's in charge.
Get over it.

 

[bripat9643]

So far it is just one massive hearsay slander while the people in question are kept tied and gagged in another room without so much as the chance to defend themselves much less air their side!

Wow, try reading the transcripts. These are people that were involved & know first hand about Trump's extortion demands.

Bullshit. Neither was there. All they had to offer was their opinions and feelings of what they claim others told them.

There is no hearsay evidence. This is not a criminal trial. It's an impeachment inquiry, and is absolutely allowed to be entered into the record.

Ambassador Sondland, who was on the phone call will be corroborating Ambassador Taylors Testimony next week.

Sondland donated $1 million to Trumps campaign, and for that reason was made an Ambassador.

With that information entered into the record, Ol' Gym Jordan is going to look really fucking stupid when he tries to paint Sondland as a never trumper huh?

And anyone that tries to imply he's a DNC witness will come off looking even more stupid than that huh?

See you at the next hearing.

What's he going to "corroborate?" We have the transcript of the phone call.

What's the guy who was actually on the call going to corroborate?

That's your question?

We have the transcript of the call, moron. What needs to be corroborated?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Will the DOPer mods move the thread to the Badlands to hide real facts now?

Another opinion. First off, you can't show evidence where military aid or supplies were ever threatened based on an investigation. Secondly, even if they were (which they were not) you are trying to say you leftists are mind readers, in that you knew "why" Trump withheld the aid in the first place.

You might get a legal impeachment if you show us the crystal ball Democrats are using to read minds.

 

[OKTexas]

Quote where in the call Trump said he was withholding anything.

Silly question, for two reasons:

1) trump had already witheld the aid. So that was the existing state of affairs. He also did not have to state, in the phone call, that the sun rises in the east.

2) the phone call is only a small part of the body of evidence, which includes, in no small part, the cover up of the phone call

First thing you need to do is turn on your spellcheck so you can know how to spell withhold/withheld. You're making yourself look stupid.

Second, the call was in July, Ukraine wasn't even aware of aid being delayed till the end of August. And how could you claim a cover up of the call, when the president released the contents of the call?

Maybe you are stupid.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evidence, opinions aren't evidence.

Wrong again. Yes, in fact, opinions of witnesses can be evidence.

Wrong again moron...

 

[bripat9643]

sondalnd admitted that there was a shake down.

A shakedown with no quid, no pro, and no quo?

How does that work?

It wouldn't matter if there was. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out, there is no law against quid pro quo's in the statute. He looked up, down and sideways. Couldn't find one.

So extortion is legal. Who knew?

If you call that extortion, then what Biden did was worse, since what he did is what the commies are accusing Trump of doing.

What Biden said was fully approved by Obama and both House and Congress. It was not to get them to spew BS so Clinton could win. Just so we know more facts here.
Discussion of mod actions edited

Really? When did Obama approve it? When did both houses of Congress approve it?

 

[Lesh]

So now we know that Sondham didn't tell everything he knew.

He apparently took a call from Trump in front of witnesses in which he discussed Ukraine and all the crap he was trying to pull

Rut Roh

 

[Olde Europe]

Silly question, for two reasons:

1) trump had already witheld the aid. So that was the existing state of affairs. He also did not have to state, in the phone call, that the sun rises in the east.

2) the phone call is only a small part of the body of evidence, which includes, in no small part, the cover up of the phone call

3) Zelensky and his aides either were already aware the aid was withheld, and/or had it confirmed a few days later. After all, they knew that the aid was approved, but didn't arrive at the time of the call. The goofs are telling us Zelensky and his staff would fail to connect the dots: "a favor, though". Hence no extortion. Because it isn't extortion if the target doesn't realize he has his fingernails pulled out to cough up the "deliverable".

Trump loves his marks, the "uneducated". On this thread, you can behold, in great detail, why that is.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

Unbelievable!

WOW! Top Democrat on Schiff's Show Trial Committee Tells Audience: "Hearsay Can Be Better Evidence than Direct" (VIDEO)

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

This is how well he'll sleep tonight.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unbelievable!

WOW! Top Democrat on Schiff's Show Trial Committee Tells Audience: "Hearsay Can Be Better Evidence than Direct" (VIDEO)

I'd sure like to see a prosecutor convict somebody on robbery or murder based on hearsay.

 

[beautress]

A veteran of foreign wars addresses this impeachment farce well:
​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Quote the transcript.

We don't have the transcript. Come on man, keep up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Unbelievable!

WOW! Top Democrat on Schiff's Show Trial Committee Tells Audience: "Hearsay Can Be Better Evidence than Direct" (VIDEO)

Wow.... talk about stupidity in highlight... He cant be this stupid, can he?