Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

9 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

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”

And they make fun of the goobers down south, the "uneducated " ones that voted for Trump. Anyway, congratulations to the Bidens. Just in time for the holidays! It's a Christmas miracle! 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,533]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

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.

You can't use facts and/or logic with Worms.  You're fighting a losing battle.  He likes to be spoon fed his talking points.  No thinking needed on his part.

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

33 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

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.

After reading some of this stuff, I understand your confusion.  You seem to think there's actually real evidence.  That's my fault for thinking you actually knew what was going on.

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And they make fun of the goobers down south, the "uneducated " ones that voted for Trump. Anyway, congratulations to the Bidens. Just in time for the holidays! It's a Christmas miracle! 

Is the media allowed to ask Joe about his new Grandchild? Isn’t that what Hillary basically ran on, being a grandmother?

[lickin_starfish 1,483]

Worms tried to peek under the stall at my young son in a public restroom. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

Is the media allowed to ask Joe about his new Grandchild? Isn’t that what Hillary basically ran on, being a grandmother?

Joe's first question about the grand kid, "Was it a female? And if so, when will she be 8 years old? I get first dibs on babysitting duties."

[IGotWorms 3,319]

13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

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. 

Well now you’re going to “but the other side did it too!” which is very lame and also fairly off the mark. No matter what conspiracy theory you may believe I don’t think it included a president extorting a foreign government to investigate Trump. And even if it did, or even if Biden did something untoward with Ukraine, then fine, do PROPER investigations of all of it but in no way would that absolve Trump

[IGotWorms 3,319]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

After reading some of this stuff, I understand your confusion.  You seem to think there's actually real evidence.  That's my fault for thinking you actually knew what was going on.

Non responsive. HT is the only one man enough to actually engage me, it seems

[IGotWorms 3,319]

15 minutes ago, Strike said:

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.

He presumed so AFTER TALKING TO TRUMP and we know the presumption was CORRECT based on Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in the July 25 phone call, no?

[Cdub100 3,384]

You have to be a special kind of stupid to buy anything the democrats are selling. "Witness" after "witness" when asked what do you have of the president's wrongdoing they say, they have NOTHING!

[Strike 3,982]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

He presumed so AFTER TALKING TO TRUMP and we know the presumption was CORRECT based on Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in the July 25 phone call, no?

No.  You clearly have no understanding of the situation.  But what's new?   Have you considered changing your username to IGotIgnorance?

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

18 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Non responsive. HT is the only one man enough to actually engage me, it seems

I did, you just apparently missed it.  You seem to think there's actual evidence.  Hearsay is admissible ONLY when there's evidence.  See, there isn't any.  The only "evidence" is someone's opinion.  Hearsay based on an opinion... not fact, is not admissible.  Sondland flat out said it was his opinion.  The train of hearsay started with an opinion.

[Strike 3,982]

You libs keep your eye on the shiny coin that is "impeachment".  Meanwhile, Trump is making progress in areas that will impact us all for decades:
 

Quote

The 11th Circuit is the third court that Trump has flipped, following the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 3rd Circuits. Seven of the nation’s federal courts of appeals are now controlled by Republican appointees, six by Democratic appointees. Trump has appointed 48 judges to the courts of appeals in less than three years; by contrast, President Barack Obama appointed 48 judges to these courts total during his eight years in office. (That excludes the Federal Circuit, which can only hear a narrow range of claims, most notably patent law.) A quarter of all active appellate judges on the federal bench today were nominated by Trump.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/trump-flips-11th-circuit-lagoa-luck.html

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

46 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

He presumed so AFTER TALKING TO TRUMP and we know the presumption was CORRECT based on Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Bidens in the July 25 phone call, no?

 

[Intense Observer 344]

Sondland admits Trump said directly to him that he wanted "no quid pro quo".

Sondland admits nobody told him that aid was tied to anything, it was merely his assumption.

 

 

Meanwhile, at CNN and FBG:

https://imgoat.com/uploads/c4b761a28b/156554.gif

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,533]

3 minutes ago, Intense Observer said:

Sondland admits Trump said directly to him that he wanted "no quid pro quo".

Sondland admits nobody told him that aid was tied to anything, it was merely his assumption.

 

 

Meanwhile, at CNN and FBG:

https://imgoat.com/uploads/c4b761a28b/156554.gif

Yeah, I don't see how the lefties get around this one.  Front page of my local paper says NOTHING about these two exchanges.  The headline says "Sondland affirms quid pro quo". Fockin' lying sh#tbags.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

No.  You clearly have no understanding of the situation.  But what's new?   Have you considered changing your username to IGotIgnorance?

That’s not an explanation. Not even an attempt at one

[IGotWorms 3,319]

57 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I did, you just apparently missed it.  You seem to think there's actual evidence.  Hearsay is admissible ONLY when there's evidence.  See, there isn't any.  The only "evidence" is someone's opinion.  Hearsay based on an opinion... not fact, is not admissible.  Sondland flat out said it was his opinion.  The train of hearsay started with an opinion.

Well we seem to be talking about a few different things here. When someone testifies about what trump said that’s probably not hearsay. It’s probably also not hearsay when it’s something trumps attorney, Rudy Giuliani, said.

As far as lay opinion, you’re wrong, that can be admissible. Look at federal rule of evidence 701. Now it does have to be based on something, so that’s maybe where there starts to be a fight as to what the basis is. We know the basis is statements from Giuliani and a conversation with trump even if Sondland can’t recall exactly what trump said. Giuliani is probably sufficient basis while trump alone would be much more tenuous.

 My point here is most of this is going to be admissible. Maybe it shouldn’t be given a lot of weight but that’s a different question.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s not an explanation. Not even an attempt at one

You keep asking for an explanation to your lunacy. Chill out. You are such a weird dude. Grab a 40oz and sit outside and look at the moon. Something.

[Strike 3,982]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s not an explanation. Not even an attempt at one

You're right.  I've tried to have decent back and forth's with you but it's useless.  TorridMuhammad made better cases than you.  And you ignore posts that are exculpatory in nature.  Until you start responding to those I don't feel compelled to bang my head against the wall using LOGIC and FACTS to have a discussion with you when you just come back with responses that aren't accurate based upon the facts. 

[IGotWorms 3,319]

8 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yeah, I don't see how the lefties get around this one.  Front page of my local paper says NOTHING about these two exchanges.  The headline says "Sondland affirms quid pro quo". Fockin' lying sh#tbags.

Well Sondland said right there in the opening statement that there was wood pro quo and everyone knew it. I think maybe your beef is where cnn said Sondland said it was tied directly to trump which probably requires connecting a few more dots.

[IGotWorms 3,319]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

You keep asking for an explanation to your lunacy. Chill out. You are such a weird dude. Grab a 40oz and sit outside and look at the moon. Something.

I’m not forcing you to respond to me. If you’ve got some zen retreat or something to get to, don’t let me stop you

[Cdub100 3,384]

 

 

 

1

Just now, Strike said:

You're right.  I've tried to have decent back and forth's with you but it's useless.  TorridMuhammad made better cases than you.  And you ignore posts that are exculpatory in nature.  Until you start responding to those I don't feel compelled to bang my head against the wall using LOGIC and FACTS to have a discussion with you when you just come back with responses that aren't accurate based upon the facts. 

member being illegal isn't a crime? 

[IGotWorms 3,319]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

You're right.  I've tried to have decent back and forth's with you but it's useless.  TorridMuhammad made better cases than you.  And you ignore posts that are exculpatory in nature.  Until you start responding to those I don't feel compelled to bang my head against the wall using LOGIC and FACTS to have a discussion with you when you just come back with responses that aren't accurate based upon the facts. 

I think this gun is yours. In fact I’m pretty sure it is some you just threw it at me

[Cdub100 3,384]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

Well Sondland said right there in the opening statement that there was wood pro quo and everyone knew it. I think maybe your beef is where cnn said Sondland said it was tied directly to trump which probably requires connecting a few more dots.

You're taking the word of a moron.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

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.

Hopefully he gets caught before he ruins other kid's lives.

[Strike 3,982]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well Sondland said right there in the opening statement that there was wood pro quo and everyone knew it. I think maybe your beef is where cnn said Sondland said it was tied directly to trump which probably requires connecting a few more dots.

1)  By your own admission Sondland is a perjurer.  Nothing coming out of his mouth is credible.

2)  He said there was quid pro quo re: a meeting at the White House, not withholding aid, which is the assertion by the Dems.   There is no focking way telling a country to investigate corruption in order to be given a meeting at the WH would EVER by considered quid pro quo.  If you think that you're a  bigger idiot than I already know you are.  Sondland even said it was normal for their to be stipulations for those types of meetings. 

[DuckStupid 40]

21 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

You're talking the word of a moron.

Did Dr. Obeski win this thread yet?

[IGotWorms 3,319]

14 minutes ago, Strike said:

1)  By your own admission Sondland is a perjurer.  Nothing coming out of his mouth is credible.

2)  He said there was quid pro quo re: a meeting at the White House, not withholding aid, which is the assertion by the Dems.   There is no focking way telling a country to investigate corruption in order to be given a meeting at the WH would EVER by considered quid pro quo.  If you think that you're a  bigger idiot than I already know you are.  Sondland even said it was normal for their to be stipulations for those types of meetings. 

#1 I’ve already discussed. He’s part of the trump administration. Trump appointed him ambassador after he gave a million bucks. Saying your own guy is a liar rarely goes well for folks.

 

#2 you are wrong. Telling a country that desperately needs an official White House visit that you won’t give them one until they announce an investigation into a political opponent IS extortion aka quid pro quo. There’s been lots of testimony on how those visits send critical messages to people like Russia that they United States continues to stand behind Ukraine. But also Sondland said he believed quid pro quo included the vital military aid as well which is far worse. Now this is where you say well he didn’t say trump directly told him and that’s where I say well he did talk to trump and was left with that impression and Giuliani, aka trumps lawyer who speaks on Trump’s behalf, DID specifically tell him

[DonS 3,067]

57 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yeah, I don't see how the lefties get around this one.  Front page of my local paper says NOTHING about these two exchanges.  The headline says "Sondland affirms quid pro quo". Fockin' lying sh#tbags.

Seattle Times has a similar not at all surprising headine:  "Trump directed Ukraine quid pro quo, key witness says" 

[IGotWorms 3,319]

Yikes more holes in the defense, not that they were needed. Deputy assistant secretary of defense Cooper said the Ukrainians indicated concern about the military assistance ON JULY 25, the same day as the phone call. And again theater in August.

Remember how there couldn’t be any quid pro quo because the Ukrainians didn’t even know the assistance was being held up?

[Reality 2,710]

The defense? 

This guy...

 

[IGotWorms 3,319]

3 minutes ago, Reality said:

The defense? 

This guy...

 

I know, right? There’s really nothing left at this point. Read some analysis saying Giuliani as fall guy is all that’s possibly left. Have to claim he went rogue. But that makes no sense with July 25 summary

[shorepatrol 1,737]

2 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

Worms tried to peek under the stall at my young son in a public restroom. 

Worms is literally swinging at air screaming in his basement. 2020 is going to be glorious 

[Cdub100 3,384]

34 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I know, right? There’s really nothing left at this point. Read some analysis saying Giuliani as fall guy is all that’s possibly left. Have to claim he went rogue. But that makes no sense with July 25 summary

You should stop reading fake news.

[vuduchile 1,941]

5 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes they did, for months.   

Did Ukraine get their meeting with Trump before funds were released? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,667]

Lots of money from Ukraine donors flowed into the Clinton foundation. Things that make you go hmmmmm

[Strike 3,982]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

#1 I’ve already discussed. He’s part of the trump administration. Trump appointed him ambassador after he gave a million bucks. Saying your own guy is a liar rarely goes well for folks.

 

#2 you are wrong. Telling a country that desperately needs an official White House visit that you won’t give them one until they announce an investigation into a political opponent IS extortion aka quid pro quo. There’s been lots of testimony on how those visits send critical messages to people like Russia that they United States continues to stand behind Ukraine. But also Sondland said he believed quid pro quo included the vital military aid as well which is far worse. Now this is where you say well he didn’t say trump directly told him and that’s where I say well he did talk to trump and was left with that impression and Giuliani, aka trumps lawyer who speaks on Trump’s behalf, DID specifically tell him

He PRESUMED this.  He made that very clear today.  Since when is presumption considered evidence?  And I'm not sure I believe you that he even believes that.  EVERY witness was asked if Trump had ever predicated aid on an investigation and not one, AFAIK, has said he did.  In fact, Sondland asked him what he wanted from Ukraine and Trump specifically said "Nothing.  No Quid Pro Quo."  He literally said no Quid Pro Quo.  So you can keep saying one thing but the EVIDENCE says something entirely different.  Which is why you'll have to excuse me if I pick and choose when to respond to your idiocy.  I'm not going to waste valuable time doing so.  If I'm in a downtime, like now waiting for the Nuggets game to start, I may choose to just to see what other idiocy you come up with. 

[Casual Observer 597]

Is there some kind of wheel system where one bored lib is chosen to be the point man to constantly advance this bullshiot?  Last time it was Slo Nuts with the Russian interference garbage.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,533]

1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

Is there some kind of wheel system where one bored lib is chosen to be the point man to constantly advance this bullshiot?  Last time it was Slo Nuts with the Russian interference garbage.

Yeah, apparently Trump directly telling Sondland "THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO" - literally - is not evidence.  Sondland's "feelings" were the real evidence.