Not a good day for America

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

That's not how this works. You don't let the accused set the manner in which light of their crimes are made known

That's how due process works.

How the impeachment has been conducted is pretty much how the jews ended up in gas chambers.

You are mistaken. This is not a trial, and there is no requirement for the checks and balances expected in a fair trial. These are preliminary hearings serving as fact finding endeavors to collect the totality of evidence to present for an actual impeachment trial.

You are correct
Just expect treatment in kind in the senate

Sure, and a trial should absolutely be fair and allow all extravagances available to both sides.

That being said, this is never going to trial, so the furor over this as if its an actual trial is misplaced and rather silly.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

Spin me another fairy tale.

You are mistaken. This is not a trial, and there is no requirement for the checks and balances expected in a fair trial

There's a legal term for that.

Criminal and civil cases that lack sufficient evidence usually aren't pursued.

However, occasionally criminal charges or civil lawsuits are maliciously filed in order to intimidate, harass, defame, or otherwise injure the other party. Such actions are referred to as malicious prosecution, whether it's an unscrupulous prosecutor filing false charges against a political rival or a corporation suing a small business in order to put the competition out of business.

Since prosecutors have considerable discretion over which cases are pursued and private citizens are free to file lawsuits, this tort provides an essential check on potential abuses.

Thanks for making my point.

I'm failing to see how I've made you're point.

There's a preponderance of evidence. Just because you and yours decry all of it as fake news doesn't change that fact, it just means you and yours will refuse to view any evidence as evidence because it doesn't support your paradigm.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Blarneystoner

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

Well, he did need to go to the Dr. with an unscheduled visit....Setting the stage for a bail out claiming health issues.

Don't get your hopes up guys....

Because much like the past 3 yrs, you will again be disappointed.

Do yourselves a favor and prepare yourselves because you are about to be let down again and again.

Death is the easiest way out for Trump at this point so I genuinely want him to live.

Get over yourself. Even Sondlan was just saying "wtf are you talking about" when that idiot Democrat was trying to lead him to say something incriminating against Trump.

I find it offensive that you think this is okay.

One day if you are accused of a crime, I hope you are prepared for the same treatment by our legal system....

That is exactly what you are supporting and it's pretty alarming.

a reply to: Wayfarer
Oh the senate will get to set the rules
Or would you not see that in the constitution?

Just read through the document... here are two most important snippets. He claims there was a quid pro quo but then later he proceeds to explain that he was unaware of why the White House was withholding aid to Ukraine. He says that it was his "belief" that the hold would be lifted if Ukraine opened investigations into matters of corruption. I get the impression he's upset with Trump due to Trump's reluctance to meet with the President of Ukraine despite his many attempts to make it happen.

I any case I'm not seeing proof of a Quid Pro Quo with relation to the aid, however I don't doubt that Trump would only meet with President Zelensky if Ukraine made an effort to fight it's "well-known corruption problems", to quote Sondland. I also see no clear evidence that Trump was demanding an investigation into a specific instance of corruption, it seems to me he was hesitant to build a relationship with Ukraine until they could show they were working to solve the corruption problem.

Quid Pro Quo

I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these pre-requisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.

Security Aid

I was first informed that the White House was withholding security aid to Ukraine during conversations with Ambassador Taylor on July 18, 2019. However, as I testified before, I was never able to obtain a clear answer regarding the specific reason for the hold, whether it was bureaucratic in nature -- which often happens -- or reflected some other concern in the interagency process. I never participated in any of the subsequent DOD or DOS review meetings that others have described, so I cannot speak to what was discussed in those settings. Nonetheless, before the September 1 Warsaw meeting, the Ukrainians had become aware that the security funds had yet to be disbursed. In the absence of any credible explanation for the hold, I came to the conclusion that the aid, like the White House visit, was jeopardized. In preparation for the September 1 Warsaw meeting, I asked Secretary Pompeo whether a face-to-face conversation between Trump with Zelensky could help break the logjam.
---
Moreover, given my concerns about the security aid, I have no reason to dispute that portion of Senator Johnson’s recent letter, in which he recalls conversations he and I had on August 30. By the end of the August, my belief was that if Ukraine did something to demonstrate a serious intention to fight corruption, specifically addressing Burisma and 2016 server, then the hold on military aid would be lifted.

a reply to: Wayfarer

There's a preponderance of evidence.

There sure is.

The left trying to maliciously prosecute Trump.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Blarneystoner

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

Well, he did need to go to the Dr. with an unscheduled visit....Setting the stage for a bail out claiming health issues.

Don't get your hopes up guys....

Because much like the past 3 yrs, you will again be disappointed.

Do yourselves a favor and prepare yourselves because you are about to be let down again and again.

Death is the easiest way out for Trump at this point so I genuinely want him to live.

Get over yourself. Even Sondlan was just saying "wtf are you talking about" when that idiot Democrat was trying to lead him to say something incriminating against Trump.

I find it offensive that you think this is okay.

One day if you are accused of a crime, I hope you are prepared for the same treatment by our legal system....

That is exactly what you are supporting and it's pretty alarming.

Why is what I've said so upsetting to you?

a reply to: Auth3nt1k

``Not a good day for America``

It's a Great Day for America !!!!

No QpQ
No Bribery
No Blackmail

😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃

originally posted by: Lucky109
Can't they just wrap this # up already? I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for these idiots to do nothing.

The dems are trying to force out Trump to make way for Mike Pence to become president and then they hope that their socialist candidates could win agaisnt Pence.

Its easy to see what they are trying to achieve with this impeachment nonsense.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
Oh the senate will get to set the rules
Or would you not see that in the constitution?

I don't understand what you're asking. The Senate will not vote to impeach so regardless of whatever is brought to light in these hearings everyone knows this isn't making it past the senate.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

There's a preponderance of evidence.

There sure is.

The left trying to maliciously prosecute Trump.

Hey I get that you're viewing me and my position the same way I'm viewing you and yours.

I take some small measure of camaraderie in that we're effectively pretty similar and just find ourselves circumstantially on opposite sides of an argument.

The ONE GUY with direct evidence says there is none

That is far from some bs preponderance

And that is only in civil trials not criminal
The constitution lays ut CRIMINAL reasons

Fail

originally posted by: ChefFox

originally posted by: Lucky109
Can't they just wrap this # up already? I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for these idiots to do nothing.

The dems are trying to force out Trump to make way for Mike Pence to become president and then they hope that their socialist candidates could win agaisnt Pence.

Its easy to see what they are trying to achieve with this impeachment nonsense.

Pence has a target on his back too.

They're setting up President Pelosi.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The ONE GUY with direct evidence says there is none

That is far from some bs preponderance

And that is only in civil trials not criminal
The constitution lays ut CRIMINAL reasons

Fail

The criminality in this case is to be determined by senators and not legal experts (though some senators are ex-lawyers/judges I believe).

Its not even surprising to think the Senate is going to come to a determination thats totally isolated from what a purely legal entity might determine.

Case in point, Trump himself said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not suffer any consequences, and the majority Republican Senate agree's with him, ergo although not officially codified given this situation the president is immune to any criminal prosecution.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I can't help but think something telling such as Secretary of State announcing he's jumping ship would be exceptionally well timed (or ill timed if you love Trump), for how the optics and internal dynamics portend in this situation.

HAHAHA you fell for fake news 😂😂

Expected of course, leftist users actually reading a source? Might as well lead me to BIGFOOT while you're at it.

Time magazine reports that 3 Republican sources claim that Pompeo is considering a run for Kansas Senator. I guess we'll see. Vegas odds-makers are giving +1000 that he'll be the next cabinet member to be fired or resign.... If I was a betting man I would probably take that bet.... that's a pretty good payout but their also giving +1000 on Chao as well and she's under investigation by the House Oversight Committee.

The odds that Trump won't finish his 1st term have doubled in the last few days...

Then that's called spin on Yahoos part. But we all know what the effect desired was with regards to resigning, right? Adds to the flames, the whole point.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Hey I get that you're viewing me and my position the same way I'm viewing you and yours.

Nope.

I view anyone that supports this coup d'etat called impeachment hearings with nothing but contempt.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

Hey I get that you're viewing me and my position the same way I'm viewing you and yours.

Nope.

I view anyone that supports this coup d'etat called impeachment hearings with nothing but contempt.

Case in point

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This is not a trial,

No, it isn't. But it is a sham.

and there is no requirement for the checks and balances expected in a fair trial.

Actually, long standing precedent says otherwise.

These are preliminary hearings serving as fact finding endeavors to collect the totality of evidence to present for an actual impeachment trial.

By all means, explain just how limiting the ability of those charged with finding the facts from calling witnesses and asking hard questions furthers the goal of 'finding the facts'.

The ONE GUY with direct evidence says there is none

a reply to: shooterbrody


I expect they will be putting the squeeze on Rudy soon enough. He knows what went on and with the WH throwing him under the bus, I wouldn't expect loyalty to trump.

Schiff and his band of Pirates fell hard for what they "thought" Sondland "Knew" and didn't "know".
😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃