Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Strike 5,607]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why weren't you calling it extortion the whole time? What changed? 

Rachel hadn't pivoted yet.

[5-Points 3,581]

2 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Speaking of goalposts moving, now we aren't even talking about the Ukranians promising to conduct an investigation into the Biden's but rather simply making a statement that they intend to investigate Burisma.

Seems pretty focking benign to me. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s not accurate

 

24 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Another VERY interesting facet of Sondland’s testimony: Trump only wanted the Ukrainians to ANNOUNCE an investigation into Burisma/the Bidens — he didn’t care if they actually DID the investigation.

Again, it was all political, designed solely to damage Biden. Not to actually get to the bottom of same insane conspiracy theory but simply to undercut a domestic political rival.

 

[avoiding injuries 1,595]

Throw in the towel. Ring the bell. This thing is over. TKO

 

[vuduchile 1,945]

55 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s a very generous rephrasing of the issue and totally leaving out extortion via withholding vital military aid for Ukraine’s ongoing war with RUSSIA, but otherwise, yeah you’re close.

So did the US withhold the aid?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

9 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

Throw in the towel. Ring the bell. This thing is over. TKO

 

Wow. Just take the vote. I'm starting to feel sorry for these stooges Schiff is running out there. It's a jailbreak. 

[Mike Honcho 5,302]

1 minute ago, vuduchile said:

So did the US withhold the aid?

Yes they did, for months.   

[DonS 3,292]

12 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

Throw in the towel. Ring the bell. This thing is over. TKO

 

That's gonna leave a mark.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

11 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes they did, for months.   

Oh. Removing a sitting president seems reasonable then. Good grief. 

[5-Points 3,581]

4 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

So did the US withhold the aid?

It was delayed but ultimately it was released without any statement or investigation having taken place. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

22 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes they did, for months.   

"I want nothing.....no quid pro quo. I want nothing"

[Casual Observer 597]

One of things you hope happens as lawyer is when an adverse witness contradicts his prior testimony/statements.  That said, this guy contradicted himself so many times in his own testimony as to be worthless.  It's still striking how these career bureaucrats actually feel as though they get to dictate foreign policy over the President's wishes.  As I said before, these people are covering for themselves and their fellow travelers.  More will come out about skimming aid intended for the Ukraine and lining their own pockets or NGO's.  Nice grift if you can get it.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Rachel hadn't pivoted yet.

It was Nicole Wallace that threw out the extortion farce.  Lemmings quickly followed. 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why weren't you calling it extortion the whole time? What changed? 

I have been. I don’t know who you’re referring to, maybe Nancy Pelosi or someone else, but I have said it’s extortion for pretty much the whole time

[Strike 5,607]

Another good clip:

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 hour ago, avoiding injuries said:

Throw in the towel. Ring the bell. This thing is over. TKO

 

Oh okay so the fact that the extortion was ultimately unsuccessful after things got too hot for Trump absolves him. That’s really your defense now?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I'll just leave this here.

https://tass.com/world/1090971/amp?__twitter_impression=true

KIEV, November 20. /TASS/. The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the owner of the Burisma Holdings energy company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter, as a Burisma board member along with his partners received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation’s materials. According to him, the money came from duplicitous criminal activity.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Oh okay so the fact that the extortion was ultimately unsuccessful after things got too hot for Trump absolves him. That’s really your defense now?

So, you're of the mindset that Trump should be removed from office? You have seen enough at this point to draw a conclusion.  Throw him out or not? 

[Intense Observer 344]

Here is Kanil's "hero":

 

Anyone who has ever out on a uniform knows douchebags like this.

Disgrace is what he is.

1. Broke chain of command

2. Lied under oath

3. Leaked confidential phone calls

4. Expects civilians to address him by his rank

 

And there are idiots defending this. 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So, you're of the mindset that Trump should be removed from office? You have seen enough at this point to draw a conclusion.  Throw him out or not? 

That’s not the way the process works. There are articles of impeachment drafted and voted on. I haven’t even seen those yet and they probably don’t fully exist yet. So that’s step one. At that time I could tell you whether I think they should be approved by the house. Then it goes to the senate for trial. None of that has occurred yet. The Trump Administration would be able to put on its own evidence, that hasn’t happened yet. After all that happens I can tell you whether I think he should be convicted and removed from office.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s not the way the process works. There are articles of impeachment drafted and voted on. I haven’t even seen those yet and they probably don’t fully exist yet. So that’s step one. At that time I could tell you whether I think they should be approved by the house. Then it goes to the senate for trial. None of that has occurred yet. The Trump Administration would be able to put on its own evidence, that hasn’t happened yet. After all that happens I can tell you whether I think he should be convicted and removed from office.

Based on what you have seen so far, out or not? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

4 minutes ago, Intense Observer said:

Here is Kanil's "hero":

 

Anyone who has ever out on a uniform knows douchebags like this.

Disgrace is what he is.

1. Broke chain of command

2. Lied under oath

3. Leaked confidential phone calls

4. Expects civilians to address him by his rank

 

And there are idiots defending this. 

Civilians are under no obligation to acknowledge military rank. Nunes is a civilian. 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Based on what you have seen so far, out or not? 

I really couldn’t tell you until it’s all brought together in articles of impeachment. We’ve heard from all these different witnesses but I need to see how it ties together and how convincing that is. Right now after today’s testimony I’d be leaning towards out but the dust needs to settle a bit and I’ve really got to see those articles. You’re basically asking me to say whether I should think he should be removed on the basis of something that hasn’t even been drafted yet, or at least not released.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Civilians are under no obligation to acknowledge military rank. Nunes is a civilian. 

Come on, he had a suit made for this.

Put him on the lib military mount rushmore with Bowe Bergdahl and Chelsea Manning. 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Based on what you have seen so far, out or not? 

No sh1t. But it’s a title that’s customarily used to convey respect. I can call justice Roberts “J-dog” if I want to but I doubt most people would think it appropriate

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://t.co/gxoBThNHHc?amp=1

Hunter Biden needs another board appointment to take of all his baby mamas.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

As I sit here running through it in my head, the one thing we still don’t have is someone saying “Trump told me (or anyone) X”

 Sondland got very close but not quite. I talked to trump, after I talked to trump I believe X. Intentionally you can get there but it’s still not direct.

 This is really the only VALID defense republicans have at this point, at least in my opinion, but I agree it’s something. Is the circumstantial evidence enough to overcome direct evidence? When coupled with efforts to stonewall and withhold the investigation? That’s what I’d need to see to get to a definitive “yes” on throwing him out

[TBayXXXVII 2,559]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

As I sit here running through it in my head, the one thing we still don’t have is someone saying “Trump told me (or anyone) X”

 Sondland got very close but not quite. I talked to trump, after I talked to trump I believe X. Intentionally you can get there but it’s still not direct.

 This is really the only VALID defense republicans have at this point, at least in my opinion, but I agree it’s something. Is the circumstantial evidence enough to overcome direct evidence? When coupled with efforts to stonewall and withhold the investigation? That’s what I’d need to see to get to a definitive “yes” on throwing him out

You do realize that everything the Democrats have as far as "evidence" is concerned is either hearsay or circumstantial?  To that, if this ever gets to the Senate, none of that "evidence" is admissible.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Maybe the July 25 summary is enough to get it there, now that I think about it. I mean trump references investigating the Bidens straight to Zelensky. So how or why would one now believe that trump had nothing to do with it?

Answer me that, fellas. No sideshows, just that question in connection with my previous post.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You do realize that everything the Democrats have as far as "evidence" is concerned is either hearsay or circumstantial?  To that, if this ever gets to the Senate, none of that "evidence" is admissible.

That’s where you’re wrong. In law juries are told that there often won’t be direct evidence and that circumstantial is there just as good as direct. That’s a real statement of the law, Look it up if you don’t believe me. And it makes sense. In a murder trial you usually aren’t going to have a video of the killing or the defendant standing over the dead body with a bloody knife. Rather it’s we knew you were there, we knew you had a reason to kill the person, and when we dug the knife out of a dumpster near your house it had your prints on it. That’s all circumstantial but who wouldn’t convict in that case, absent some extremely compelling defense?

And most of this stuff isn’t hearsay for reasons I’ve discussed before plus there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. There may be a couple bits kept out here and there but probably not a lot.

[Utilit99 4,099]

9 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You do realize that everything the Democrats have as far as "evidence" is concerned is either hearsay or circumstantial?  To that, if this ever gets to the Senate, none of that "evidence" is admissible.

worms doesn't understand that. He thinks hearsay is more damning than facts.

And worms was already found guilty, in this thread alone, of being a pedophile. The hearsay was overwhelming from the group here.  I heard it myself and can provide links if necessary.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

worms doesn't understand that. He thinks hearsay is more damning than facts.

And worms was already found guilty, in this thread alone, of being a pedophile. The hearsay was overwhelming from the group here.  

You failed the challenge. 

Anyone else?

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You failed the challenge. 

Anyone else?

You are right. I did fail. You were proven a pedo in the Roger Stone thread:

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Maybe the July 25 summary is enough to get it there, now that I think about it. I mean trump references investigating the Bidens straight to Zelensky. So how or why would one now believe that trump had nothing to do with it?

Answer me that, fellas. No sideshows, just that question in connection with my previous post.

I have no issue with investigating corruption.  And the Bidens are obviously corrupt. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

You failed the challenge. 

Anyone else?

When is the only time you're supposed to use Presumed in legal proceedings?

Presumed Innocent. 

Sondland 'presumed' i.e. made up the quid pro quo. He tried getting Trump to say it but Trump said "I want nothing. No quid pro quo".

It's focking over.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I have no issue with investigating corruption.  And the Bidens are obviously corrupt. 

So that’s it? We come down to “yes trump withheld a White House meeting and military aid to the Ukraine, yes he did it hoping to strong arm the Ukrainian President into announcing an investigation into a domestic political rival, and I’m okay with that”

Is that right?

[avoiding injuries 1,595]

36 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

https://t.co/gxoBThNHHc?amp=1

Hunter Biden needs another board appointment to take of all his baby mamas.

Congratulations Joe!! Another Grandchild. God is good. 

“A DNA test revealed Hunter Biden fathered a baby with another woman while he was dating his brother's widow”

[IGotWorms 4,059]

10 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

When is the only time you're supposed to use Presumed in legal proceedings?

Presumed Innocent. 

Sondland 'presumed' i.e. made up the quid pro quo. He tried getting Trump to say it but Trump said "I want nothing. No quid pro quo".

It's focking over.

Trump said that after the thing had already blown up on him. The whistleblower report had been filed and lots of people were asking why the aid had been held up. Of course he was going to say that then.

 You didn’t answer the question—isn’t the July 25 summary enough to tie Trump to this? He asks Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. Now we’re supposed to believe the direction to pressure Zelensky into doing so didn’t come from him?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

So that’s it? We come down to “yes trump withheld a White House meeting and military aid to the Ukraine, yes he did it hoping to strong arm the Ukrainian President into announcing an investigation into a domestic political rival, and I’m okay with that”

Is that right?

He happened to be a "rival". Doesn't mean he can't be looked into. Just like Trump was. Where were you when that was going down? The FISA stuff is going to expose the lot of you. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,163]

26 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

worms doesn't understand that. He thinks hearsay is more damning than facts.

And worms was already found guilty, in this thread alone, of being a pedophile. The hearsay was overwhelming from the group here.  I heard it myself and can provide links if necessary.

I saw your post and can confirm your hearsay which, incidentally, now points back to me since I'm the one that first "heard" about Worms being a pedophile.  It's like a circular reference of hearsay - it just get's bigger and bigger and more factual every time someone hears it from someone else!

It's a new legal term: Factual Hearsay.

[Strike 5,607]

34 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

As I sit here running through it in my head, the one thing we still don’t have is someone saying “Trump told me (or anyone) X”

 Sondland got very close but not quite. I talked to trump, after I talked to trump I believe X. Intentionally you can get there but it’s still not direct.

 This is really the only VALID defense republicans have at this point, at least in my opinion, but I agree it’s something. Is the circumstantial evidence enough to overcome direct evidence? When coupled with efforts to stonewall and withhold the investigation? That’s what I’d need to see to get to a definitive “yes” on throwing him out

No he didn't.  Go watch the video I posted a little while ago.  He was specifically asked that and he said "I've been saying I presumed all day".  He has NO direct knowledge of any quid pro extortion bribery.