Televised Impeachment Inquiry Nov. 13th. I invite ATS members to utilize this thread

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

a reply to: Guyfriday

That’s we can afford all the free stuff. Take it out of foreign aid.

a reply to: Grambler

Biden didn't just state it in public, he bragged about it. He was proud of what he did, and that Obama was "cool with it".

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

Who went over the President's head and released the funds before the October 31st deadline?

I'm just surprised that Schiff doesn't just "read off" the republican questions. . . .

Dear liberals....
This is what a quid pro quo actually is...this is what extortion is...
Also, I can provide links to a dictionary for sale on amazon if the video doesn’t do it for u...
I will even buy the dictionary and have it sent to your parents basement thru amazon prime...



-Chris

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

Who went over the President's head and released the funds before the October 31st deadline?

Seems pretty obvious to me once Trump and co. realized how this was exploding they quickly authorized the funds to get out ahead of it. It smacks of a desperate move to belatedly get out ahead of the problem. It doesn't remove the fact that the money wasn't released until the whistleblower blew this whole situation up in the public arena.

a reply to: Christosterone

Christosterone, ESQ ?

Which law-school did you study at?

I have not followed all this Impeachment nonsense and Ukraine stuff so excuse my ignorance:

I just turned on the Impeachment hearing, where Taylor got a question about how Taylor think the Ukrainian president would interpret if what Trump said would mean that the aid would be withheld if Ukraine did not investigate Biden?

But even Taylor said he had no idea how the Ukrainian president would interpret the call (and everyone also seem to agree that he didn't even know the US aid was withheld/delayed during the phonecall)

So the impeachment hearing hangs on what people think someone else might interpret what someone else might would think? How on earth would that even come close to "without reasonable doubt" to base something of an interpretation of what someone else might think?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Without talking to someone in the President's inner-circle, the real motivation will remain unknown.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wayfarer

Without talking to someone in the President's inner-circle, the real motivation will remain unknown.

You mean like Sondland?

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I have a lot more letters after my name than that...but it’s none of your business

-Chris

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

We don't need Trump on record saying, "I am withholding this money until you investigate Biden", just as we didn't need Al Capone admitting tax evasion to throw his ass in jail.......

A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.

originally posted by: Christosterone
a reply to: Wayfarer

I have a lot more letters after my name than that...but it’s none of your business

-Chris

I'm not trying to be mean man, more just a playful jibe. Are you actually a lawyer?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

We don't need Trump on record saying, "I am withholding this money until you investigate Biden", just as we didn't need Al Capone admitting tax evasion to throw his ass in jail.......

A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.

what?
hearsay is in no way evidence of tax evasion
you understand hearsay is not admissible?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.

Just about spit my covfeve all over my keyboard! What "evidence"? Not hearsay, not feelings, not assumptions.

All this he said she said she heard it from....

Pure poppycock.


I heard it from a friend ,,..who heard it from a friend who heard from another you been messing around comes to mind...

Good for a song, absolutely pure 100% pure unadulterated BS in an official Congressional setting.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Donald Trump, by clearly intimating that US funds to Ukraine were contingent on Ukraine investigating the Bidens.

Pretty simple.

It was hearsay with talk of vagueries like “intimated”, “indicated” and such. Where is the statement of Trump actual words to Ukraine ?

We don't need Trump on record saying, "I am withholding this money until you investigate Biden", just as we didn't need Al Capone admitting tax evasion to throw his ass in jail.......

A preponderance of evidence is plenty to convict with in a normal scenario even without an admission of guilt from the person on trial.

of course you don’t, because it’s more comforting to listen to some diplomat who served under Bush and Obama say someone intimated to another person such and such and that’s clearly of course! Hahaha what a circus.

a reply to: shooterbrody

No you're mixing my analogies. I used Al Capone's tax evasion example because its something everyone is familiar with.

Heresay is admissible evidence in this case with Trump. I'm really scratching my head as to where it's said it isn't......