Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.Which evidence proves intent?
Great.The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.Which evidence proves intent?
Thanks for the softball question!
Simply point out which cases found people guilty for circumstantial evidence.Court cases where this happened please.Name the cases.It’s not easy but motive is proven all the time with circumstantial evidence.So how do you prove he used it for personal benefits?
Trey Gowdy:
Intent is awfully hard to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ahead of time, “I intend to commit this crime on this date, go ahead and check the code section — I’m going to do it.” That rarely happens. So you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence, such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department. Such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information. Whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices.
political trial
criminal trial
explain the difference
which one pertains to an impeachment ?
Stop being a cultish freak. All of that easily proves intent, in any court of law.Great.The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.Which evidence proves intent?
Thanks for the softball question!
When are you going to answer it?
I'm asking you to follow the law. Not get cute around it.Stop being a cultish freak. All of that easily proves intent, in any court of law.Great.The timing, the fact that he used back door channels instead of the justice department, the fact that he demonstrated consciousness of guilt through his obstruction and attempts to hide the evidence, and the fact that he relented on the delay the moment he was exposed.Which evidence proves intent?
Thanks for the softball question!
When are you going to answer it?
Which is embarrassing, peak Trump cultism on your part. Let's demonstrate:Then it's supported by nothing because there is no evidence.
Name some examples of evidence that would have compelled you. Three will do.
And I answered. And all of that demonstrates intent. Put it all together and it's a slam dunk.I'm asking you to follow the law.
Don’t you get tired of showing how stupid stupid you are? Bolton fought the subpoena in court. His LEGAL right. You idiots had the same option. You CHOSE not to take it. That is NOT obstruction. That is YOUR side showing their sheer idiocy to rush this through. By the way, is this the same Bolton Schitt for brains claimed was a liar and shouldn’t be believed anyway?
Bolton didn’t fight any subpoena in court. His subpoena was withdrawn after he threatened to take it to court.
You know, usually Congress doesn’t have to subpoena anything. The Executive usually acknowledges that Congress has oversight and when requested, they just show up.
Not this administration though.
Sorry dimbulb. Executive privilege. You CHOSE not to take the legal remedy of the courts. Also, the idiots didn’t realize they can’t subpoena ANYBODY without an official vote to open an inquiry. After they took the vote, these brain surgeons forgot to retroactively include their illegal subpoenas Andy then declined to reissue them because it would “take too long”. Bu the way Obozo refused a LOT of demands for documents and such, so your crying is hilarious.
so you want to drag this out in the courts
and then bitch about the dems dragging their feet.
got it.
STFU you illiterate moron. Using the legal method of the courts to settle disputes between the other two branches is NOT obstruction and likely would have been expedited due to the circumstances. Try to understand the topic before showing your usual idiocy.
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight - obozo did it so why shouldnt trump ?
weak ass argument ya got there dumbass.
still waiting for some intellectual rw'r to show me where the constitution mandates the house go through courts to file impeachment articles and pass them --
you have the "illiterate moron floor"
i'm waiting
Not a single one of the "witnesses" in the impeachment hearing supplied any first hand information. They gave suppositions, opinions and feels.
Yea maybe now he'll start spying on congress, falsifying evidence, spying on the press...Know what is really bad about this? Now Trump will think that he can act with impunity and do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of what the rules or the Constitution says. Not only that, but even if he does do something that is impeachable again, his supporters and he will just say that this is another failed attempt to remove him from office, or another attempt at the first impeachment.
Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.
Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.
Heh, what a maroon.And I answered. And all of that demonstrates intent. Put it all together and it's a slam dunk.I'm asking you to follow the law.
And you know I am right, which is why you aren't attempting any actual counterargument, despite begging for that information. Suddenly all you have is whining.
Sure. The reason is government oversight. Knowing how taxpayer dollars are spent. This is a matter about a congressional appropriation. It’s really easy.Who says it’s been settled?No, there is nothing stopping them, but what real court would order subpoenas for a matter that was already settled? Anybody request those subpoenas would have to do so with the claim it's purely for politics and to interfere with the next election only.
The court isn’t ordering a subpoena. They are just deciding if the executive has a legal reason to refuse to honor them. Congress has clear oversight authority. It’s up to the Trump team to give a reason why they can refuse.
Like I said, good luck asking for the courts to side with them about a matter that's already been settled, and yes, the impeachment settled it. You have to submit a reason for wanting anything from the White House. Doing it to smear their opponent won't fly with the courts. The commie courts might allow it, but not if it's fought to the Supreme Court.
Congress just has to supply a rational basis. It’s the lowest legal standard there is.
Moving the goal posts again? I thought they were going to fight this to prove Trump had something to do with a quid pro quo. Congress knows how every dollar is spent because they pass the spending.
Congress passes the laws. The executive executes them. Therefore Congress has a pretty unquestionable authority to know if the laws they passed were executed. That’s more than enough reason to get a subpoena. Now, what’s Trump’s argument for stopping it?
Sorry, presidential conversations are not recorded. Try to stay grounded in reality, thanksm But Trump obstructed the evidence, incliding the first hand testimony of this. So you have just announced your support of the obstruction charge.A recording of Trump issuing a quid pro quo.
Ha, another rigged game. Zelensky would never testify to this and get involved on our politics. But every account we have from Ukrainian who will speak on the matter says they knew what was happening.A testimony from Zelensky that stated Trump threatened aid to his country unless he cooperated.
Interesting. This may come as a shock to you: criminals don't operate that way. Your standards are contrived nonsense, and our jails would be empty, if your ridiculous, cultish rigged game were the standard of guilt.A written statement to any member of the Ukraine government that threatened US aid unless cooperation was met.
That's what I thought. You asked your question, and oops, you actually got an answer. Now all you can do is whine .Heh, what a maroon.
No, the dems did not do everything they could to get the truth out. They cut corners and tried to getI'm not sure I understand. It seems that the democrats helped Trump out by not going throughThen you're pissed at the democrats for sprinting through their side of the impeachment hearings.
Not slowing down to get the subpoenas correctly, and getting the witnesses they needed. I fully understand your position....I do.
Im pissed that no Republican has any spine and is helping Trump cover this up.
Nothing was lost. The truth will eventually come out and you’ll all look complicit.
the process of subpoenaing the witnesses they needed to make their case. Instead, they buttoned
it up too early and demanded that the repubs do their work for them. The dems have nobody to blame
but themselves. You need to work on focusing your anger at the right group of people.
Nothing they did helped Trump. They wore his legal team down to the “so what” defense. Alexander doesn’t want Bolton to testify because what he is going to say has already been proven.
I have no anger for anyone that did everything they could to get the truth out.
the Senate to do the work they should have done. I'm not sure why you are defending them
as you are. The dems feet are the ones who's feet should be held to the fire.
Trump stonewalling witnesses had nothing to do that - nah, nothing whatsoever.
yawnnnnnnnnnnn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
You are correct.Not a single one of the "witnesses" in the impeachment hearing supplied any first hand information. They gave suppositions, opinions and feels.
Actually one actually did. It was Ambassador Sondland. In his testimony, when he asked Trump what he wanted, Trump replied he wanted nothing from Zelensky. He only wanted him to do the right thing.
Knowing that the Senate Republicans would not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans voting to not allow any documents or witnesses is the BEST possible outcome for Democrats. I am extremely HAPPY.
Democrats may end up with all three branches of government in November.
Glad you're happy, because so are we.
I am happy! Extremely happy! We'll see how happy you are in November. Gloat while you can...
Right, because the documents and testimony would have reinforced his guilt.Yup, Trump told them to pound sand
