4 Key Pieces of Evidence Undermining Arguments For Impeachment

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not saying you're wrong but would you kindly tell me which witnesses claimed first hand knowledge of a Guiliani quid pro quo and, if you don't mind the extra few seconds, will you post the quotes where they say that?

The deposition transcript of Former National Security Council senior director Fiona Hill offers a detailed account of the effects of the campaign undertaken by Rudy Giuliani and his colleagues on the official U.S.-Ukraine relationship, the role of Gordon Sondland in coopting the Ukraine portfolio, and the sequence of events surrounding a July 10 White House meeting between administration officials and representatives of President Zelensky’s new government.

At the NSC, Hill had been the senior director overseeing the European Union and NATO, as well as Russia and Ukraine. Hill was on paid leave from July 19 until her official retirement from the administration on September 3, so her testimony includes no details about the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky

Lawfare

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not saying you're wrong but would you kindly tell me which witnesses claimed first hand knowledge of a Guiliani quid pro quo and, if you don't mind the extra few seconds, will you post the quotes where they say that?

Pretty common knowledge ... just Google “testimony Guiliani Ukraine” ... you’ll get everything you need.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who? Fiona hill? Vindman?

I read their testimony and didn’t seem any proof of direct claims of trump making a quid pro quo

Perhaps you will post it

The only facts I see in this investigation has to do with the Biden family and Ukraine. 🤦‍♂️ That is where the investigation to me goes off the rails. That is where and when nothing is making sense. That is also how and why I believe the republicans are in on this also, so the why? How? And where? Questions start coming up. Best case scenario for the democrats during this circus act really nothing, they will appease their base and vote to impeach the potus for whatever dumb reason they have, division and continued distraction senate will throw it out potus will play victim of lies will add to divide and distract. Hate to ask but what is the next circus act after this one in a year? This bullcrap, has taking the attention away from something else hell, what happened with Epstein tsk tsk.. last I heard the coroner investigation their was evidence of foul play 🤷‍♂️ Not saying conspiracy here but their is other things happening in the world. It’s concerning to more how much effort is being put into this circus act. It almost proves to me at least something else is happening they don’t want us to notice.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you post from her transcript where she says there was a quid pro quo?

Thanks

a reply to: Gryphon66

If it's common knowledge, surely you can just tell me who testified to that. For good measure, you could provide the quotes that support your claim.

Trump Witness To Testify Bolton Cautioned Him About Giuliani And Ukraine

A State Department Foreign Service officer is telling House impeachment investigators that former national security adviser John Bolton cautioned him that Rudy Giuliani “was a key voice with the president on Ukraine” and could complicate U.S. goals in the Eastern European country. The testimony on Wednesday from Christopher Anderson makes clear that administration officials were concerned about Giuliani’s back-channel involvement in Ukraine policy and his push for investigations of Democrats, even before the July phone call between President Donald Trump and his Ukraine counterpart that’s now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry[/b]

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: Gryphon66

If it's common knowledge, surely you can just tell me who testified to that. For good measure, you could provide the quotes that support your claim.

Already provided.

So many here keep trying to understand impeachment as a judicial process, which it is not. The Founders intended the process of impeachment to be a political redress available to the House because of all government bodies, the House most directly represents the will of the American people.

All the complaining about Trump being treated unfairly points to a fundamental misapprehension of what the Constitution was meant to do, provide a direct check on the powers of an incompetent and immoral Executive.

Mr. Trump has publicly demonstrated his lack of temperament for the gravity of the Office of President on multiple occasions. He has zero respect on the world stage except from dictators and toadies. He has damaged the standing of the USA by shredding our long-standing alliances both political and economic. He has sponsored a tax plan that is bankrupting future generations of Americans in order to give his billionaire buddies more tax breaks.

In short, if the Republican Senate continues to stonewall their Constitutional duties, that fact will be made clear for all Americans to see. We should all thank God Almighty for the wisdom he bestowed upon our Framers.

God Bless the USA!!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you post to me m his transcript where he says there was a quid pro quo?

Thanks

a reply to: Gryphon66

Translation

Trump is a meanie bully who word leaders don’t like and he acts rude, so he should be impeached

a reply to: Grambler

I'm sure those whataboutism arguments are going to go well during the impeachment trial in the Senate.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

I'm sure those whataboutism arguments are going to go well during the impeachment trial in the Senate.

I’m not discussing the impeachment hearing, I’m discussing you feigning outrage over deaths of Ukrainians because trump threatened to withhold aid, and not giving two hoot about their deaths when Obama and Biden did it

If democrats in the hearings try to use these Ukrainians deaths in this way, them yes, I’m sure calling them out for it will he just fine

a reply to: Grambler

I’m not discussing the impeachment hearing,
I’m discussing you feigning outrage over deaths of Ukrainians because trump threatened to withhold aid, and not giving two hoot about their deaths when Obama and Biden did it

Typical hysterical deflection. I'm not the topic. Trump's impending impeachment and the 4 talking points that Republican put out are.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You made an outrageous claim and used dead Ukrainians in an off topic way, i responded to it

I understand you have no defense of this hypocrisy, but begging me to not address it will not work

Were you on topic when you asked a poster this?

Are you mocking the deaths of soldiers who died on their own soil, defending their country from Russian aggression?

Or is it just ok for you to be “off topic” and address other posters,

a reply to: Gryphon66

"Already provided"

I'm sorry, unless I missed another post, I only see an article citing an opening statement, not the actual testimony mind you, of Andersen saying that Bolton cautioned him about Giuliani being a "key voice" with the president on Ukraine.
Then it goes on to say that his testimony "makes clear" "administration officials" were concerned by Giuliani's role in Ukraine policy and his push for investigations.

Yeah, this doesn't really feel like first hand witness testimony that Giuliani had a quid pro quo in place.

a reply to: Grambler

You made an outrageous claim and used dead Ukrainians in an off topic way, i responded to it

Not a claim, not outrageous. Whataboutism? Perhaps.

Thirteen Ukrainian Soldiers Died During Trump-Ordered Freeze on Militatary Aid www.newsweek.com...

Are you waving away the seriousness their deaths too? Do you understand how those deaths could effect President Zelenskiy and his concern to placate Trump's extortion demands?

I understand you have no defense of this hypocrisy, but begging me to not address it will not work

Trump did not secure the aid to Ukraine, Congress did.
Obama did not secure the $1billion loan guarantee for the Ukraine, the International Monetary Fund did.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Still desperately trying to associate Trump with fake MSM fairy tales 😃

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Show us all where any law or legislative action prohibits a President from "holding up" appropriations 😎

a reply to: elDooberino

How much research have you done on your own? I’ve provided several sources that clearly reference Guiliani as well as the Administration's “deal” with the Ukrainians.

I’m not sure how much what you “feel” is pertinent honestly. Multiple witnesses (and I’ve only cited a few) have stated under oath what they have directly experienced. I’ve supported my understanding with facts.

The talking point that each witness has to have more than direct knowledge is illogical.