Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
oh come on man
really
because rushia

Still not getting the relation. To suggest that because the Mueller report didn't leak anything early for '(not enough hyper damning evidence)' reason, that Schiff hasn't leaked anything early because he also has nothing is a classic red herring fallacy.

a reply to: Wayfarer

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CONVINCE TRUMP VOTERS THAT HE IS A CRIMINAL.

that is simply not true
all that has been presented so far is hearsay

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

when actual evidence is presented I will be happy to evaluate such

at least that is what joe said jim told fred

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
oh come on man
really
because rushia

Still not getting the relation. To suggest that because the Mueller report didn't leak anything early for '(not enough hyper damning evidence)' reason, that Schiff hasn't leaked anything early because he also has nothing is a classic red herring fallacy.

oh there were plenty of muller leaks
www.rollingstone.com...

What We’re Learning From the Mueller Investigation Leaks

After nearly two years of tight-lipped silence, the investigative team of Special Counsel Robert Mueller is leaking to reporters, and suggesting that there is far more to Mueller’s final report than Trump’s hand-picked attorney general has let on.

it is a simple attempt to smear people

same bat time
same bat channel

a reply to: Sillyolme

The "number" of "testimonies" isn't relevant until actual proof is established. 😃

Many people "testified" against Kavanaugh and no proof was ever established even after numerous FBI investigations.

Similar example is the O.J. Simpson Trial 😃

a reply to: shooterbrody

Which is why Pelosi and Schiff and Schumer always run out of meetings mid meeting in order to hit the media first.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CONVINCE TRUMP VOTERS THAT HE IS A CRIMINAL.

that is simply not true
all that has been presented so far is hearsay

And a phone transcript/memo? Witness testimony? Text Records? And a chief of staff saying it happened and to get over it?

Hmmm..

Not sure the "hearsay" defense will hold up for long.

a reply to: Extorris

It doesn't matter because quid quo pro is not impeachable. Happens to frequently across too many Administrations.

a reply to: ketsuko

There were actions before and after the phone call. There is a timeline of events that is easily followed even if we dont have all the answers for why certain things were done. And the order to withhold the money until Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens was made was traced right to trump.
Of course then the whistleblower showed up on the scene and he had to release the money before he got what he wanted.
But he asked and that is the impeachable action. No quo pro necessary.
He put William Barr in the line of fire too. Giuliani is already under investigation.
There is nothing to be gained by hitching your wagon to trump. If you have a good reputation kiss is goodbye.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Extorris

It doesn't matter because quid quo pro is not impeachable.

Blowjobs are impeachable.

And a US President using US Military Aid to extort a Foreign Country for help with his political campaign is as great a cause for removal from office as this country has ever seen.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Testimony is proof.

Rotflmao!

Testimony is evidence. It isn't proof of anything other than that person swore to it under penalty of perjury.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Testimony is proof.

Testimony is evidence. It isn't proof of anything other than that person swore to it under penalty of perjury.

Speaking of...

Wouldn't it be to the WHs advantage to let people testify, provide the facts and dispute what has been said under oath?

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CONVINCE TRUMP VOTERS THAT HE IS A CRIMINAL.

that is simply not true
all that has been presented so far is hearsay

And a phone transcript/memo? Witness testimony? Text Records? And a chief of staff saying it happened and to get over it?

Hmmm..

Not sure the "hearsay" defense will hold up for long.

interesting you left out the president of ukraine telling people he was not pressured
he is the only actual 'WITNESS' at this point, but because his recollection does not fit the dems narrative his answers are left out
please quote what in the phone call constitutes a crime
i will wait
asking some one to "look into" something is no where near what it has been made out to be
the "text record" that I have seen shows no quid quo pro

all of which is deserving of impeachment
lol
if you say so bub

a reply to: Extorris

Blowjobs are impeachable.

wow
you will have to explain that one to me

i understand perjury is, i hadn't heard oral sex was.....

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CONVINCE TRUMP VOTERS THAT HE IS A CRIMINAL.

that is simply not true
all that has been presented so far is hearsay

And a phone transcript/memo? Witness testimony? Text Records? And a chief of staff saying it happened and to get over it?

Hmmm..

Not sure the "hearsay" defense will hold up for long.

interesting you left out the president of ukraine telling people he was not pressured

Careful on facts and spin there..

The President of Ukraine was careful in his answer.

He said he "Felt no pressure" NOT that he wasn't pressured.
It was a smart "tough guy" response.

And that GOP spin is crumbling and not just because Taylor testified they felt pressure....

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I read it. Its a big freaking nothing burger. Written by a guy who seems to have spent quite a long period of time dealing with matter of foreign aid. Which never seem to help solve anything

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

Blowjobs are impeachable.

wow
you will have to explain that one to me

Sure.

What was the Special Prosecutor Whitewater investigation about?
What did Lindsay Graham and the GOP impeach President Clinton for?

a reply to: Extorris

"Felt no pressure"

fair enough

so if he felt no pressure who knows better than him?
or is he lying?

the one actual first hand witness.....

a reply to: shooterbrody

But then Fred released his written plan of the crime that matched what Jim told you and what Joe told Jim and then Larry who saw Fred commit the crime comes forward and describes what Fred had in his planner and what Joe told Jim and what Jim told you and all sources are saying exactly the same thing and then another guy, Gus comes forward and in separate testimony repeats exactly what Larry said which matches what Joe told Jim and matches what Jim told you which matches what Fred had in his planner then what?

a reply to: Extorris
perjury?
obstruction?

i missed the whole blowjob article

can you link that for me?
or were you mistaken?