Democrats Repeat Quid Pro Quo Even Though There Was No Quid Pro Quo

[2aguy]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed

When asked direct questions each witness said there was no quid pro quo...you have nothing.

 

[Dragonlady]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.

If you shoot someone and they live, you still get arrested for attempting to kill them. You can't use the defence, that "You lived, so I can't be arrested".

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why shouldn’t Republicans be allowed to call witnesses?

 

[depotoo]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.

If you shoot someone and they live, you still get arrested for attempting to kill them. You can't use the defence, that "You lived, so I can't be arrested".

Crazy Canadians can’t see the forest for the trees...

 

[idb]

Why shouldn’t Republicans be allowed to call witnesses?

They have done.

 

[bripat9643]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed

As always, you are wrong and idiotic.

 

[idb]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

Maybe the WH Chief of Staff will convince ypu?

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney responded when ABC News reporter Jon Karl pointed out that withholding funding from Ukraine “unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens” is a “quid pro quo.”
“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

 

[bripat9643]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

Maybe the WH Chief of Staff will convince ypu?

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney responded when ABC News reporter Jon Karl pointed out that withholding funding from Ukraine “unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens” is a “quid pro quo.”
“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

Thanks for showing everyone that you're too stupid to understand what Mulvaney was talking about.

 

[idb]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

Maybe the WH Chief of Staff will convince ypu?

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney responded when ABC News reporter Jon Karl pointed out that withholding funding from Ukraine “unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens” is a “quid pro quo.”
“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

Thanks for showing everyone that you're too stupid to understand what Mulvaney was talking about.

So...you have no defence then except the usual shitty response.

 

[texas103]

Why shouldn’t Republicans be allowed to call witnesses?

and Trump said there he doesn't want anything from Ukraine and there was no quid-pro-quid, and Johnson said the president said he did nothing wrong. Give me a break. who would believe a pathological liar and/or someone who only cares about their political future...as opposed to doing the right thing i.e. spineless gop congressmen (and wo) As one dem said "WOMAN UP"

 

[Dragonlady]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

Vindman and Jennifer Williams were on the call. Ambassador Sondland said there was quid pro quo - the White House meeting and the aid for the investigations. And the two State Department reps in the restaurant heard Trump asking if they were going to announce the investigations.

Sondland WANTED those State Department guys to overhear President Trump. He was showing off how much access he had to the President. Unless his phone was turned up loud enough for the others to hear Trump's voice and know what was said, they wouldn't be as impressed.

Sondland should remember that everybody else who has done Trump's dirty work, and carried out his illegal schemes, is either in jail, or awaiting sentencing.

 

[lennypartiv]

Why shouldn’t Republicans be allowed to call witnesses?

Republicans should demand Rudy take the stand. After Rudy tells them there was no quid pro quo, the Senate will vote that Trump is innocent.

 

[lennypartiv]

Democrats like idb still don't know what Mulvaney actually said.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

Maybe the WH Chief of Staff will convince ypu?

“We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney responded when ABC News reporter Jon Karl pointed out that withholding funding from Ukraine “unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens” is a “quid pro quo.”
“Get over it,” Mulvaney added later. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. ... That is going to happen. Elections have consequences.”

 

[Lesh]

After Rudy tells them there was no quid pro quo,

Yea that'd carry a lot of weight huh?

Rudy the Ghoul lies more than Trump...and that's saying something

 

[lennypartiv]

After Rudy tells them there was no quid pro quo,

Yea that'd carry a lot of weight huh?
Rudy the Ghoul lies more than Trump...and that's saying something

So we are supposed to trust Democrat loyalists like Yovanavitch, Volker, Sondland, Hill, and Vindman?

 

[Lesh]

So we are supposed to trust Democrat loyalists like Yovanavitch, Volker, Sondland, Hill, and Vindman?

Gee Trump hired an awful lot of "Democratic loyalists" huh?

The fact is they are non partisan officials who have served numerous administrations....most have decades of experience serving administrations of both parties...

So yea

 

[bripat9643]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

Vindman and Jennifer Williams were on the call. Ambassador Sondland said there was quid pro quo - the White House meeting and the aid for the investigations. And the two State Department reps in the restaurant heard Trump asking if they were going to announce the investigations.

Sondland WANTED those State Department guys to overhear President Trump. He was showing off how much access he had to the President. Unless his phone was turned up loud enough for the others to hear Trump's voice and know what was said, they wouldn't be as impressed.

Sondland should remember that everybody else who has done Trump's dirty work, and carried out his illegal schemes, is either in jail, or awaiting sentencing.

It doesn't matter what Sondland's opinion is, he admitted there was nothing criminal on the call. We have the transcript of the call.

The claim that anyone could overhear a call that wasn't on speaker doesn't pass the laugh test. Andrew Cuomo proved live on air.

There is no evidence of any crime, period.

 

[2aguy]

<< There is no escaping the Latin phrase, "quid pro quo", in the US right now. >>

'Quid pro quo' phrase dominates US impeachment process

<< The Indiana Republican said because there is “no quid in the quid pro quo,” he couldn’t identify “the high crime or misdemeanor or what the impeachable offense is at this point.” >>

GOP lawmaker: 'There is no quid in the quid pro quo if Ukraine ultimately got the aid'

Dems keep repeating the phrase hoping it sticks.[/QU
Except that of course there is quid pro quo. Or what we like to refer to as- attempted bribery and extortion.

As the witnesses have shown this started with the President sending his private attorney into Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden's.
The President instructed various people at the State Department to work with his personal attorney, and they conveyed to the Ukrainians that Giuliani represented the President.
Even before the infamous phone call, the Ukrainians were already being pressured to investigate Burisma and the Biden's by Giuliani's team.
Then came the infamous call- where the President of the United States, acting in his official capacity- asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.
After that came negotiations by Sondland and Giuliani with the Ukrainians- to get them to commit to a public declaration of an investigation into his political rival.
What was the President using to pay off the Ukrainians? Military aid money and a very coveted meeting with Trump in the White House.

The quid pro quo.

That Trump failed is because of the whistleblower- pure and simple. After Trump found out about the whistleblower report, the aid(not all of it) was released.

Trump's secret attempt to get Ukraine to investigate his political rival failed.

Except that of course there is quid pro quo.

Please list your points of evidence.

You can skip the assumptions, presumptions, musings and speculations given by the "witnesses" under Schiff's direction. They do not constitute evidence.

That you don't think that they constitute evidence really doesn't matter to me.
I will just put you down as pretending like there were no witnesses.

Just pointing out- not even Trump denied what the witnesses said- he just instead argued that no one could of heard his booming voice.

Judges don't believe it constitutes evidence, dumbass. They so-called "witnesses" witnessed nothing. They vented their spleens, and nobody cares about their worthless opinions.

Vindman and Jennifer Williams were on the call. Ambassador Sondland said there was quid pro quo - the White House meeting and the aid for the investigations. And the two State Department reps in the restaurant heard Trump asking if they were going to announce the investigations.

Sondland WANTED those State Department guys to overhear President Trump. He was showing off how much access he had to the President. Unless his phone was turned up loud enough for the others to hear Trump's voice and know what was said, they wouldn't be as impressed.

Sondland should remember that everybody else who has done Trump's dirty work, and carried out his illegal schemes, is either in jail, or awaiting sentencing.

What part of Sondland stating to a direct question that Trump told him he didn't want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo....do you not fucking understand?

And in a busy restaraunt he couldn't hear anything as fredo cuomo showed when he used his cell phone on a quiet set and the anchor next to him couldn't hear anything....