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.
There is nothing fallacious about it. Since the only legitimate purpose of a trial to to convict or acquit and we all know the President will be acquitted, no legitimate purpose would be served by calling witnesses.Here you are with that fallacious argument again? At least have the decency to wait until your sure I'm AFKSince we all know that the President will be acquitted regardless of what Bolton may have said in his book, having him testify serves no legitimate purpose; in fact calling any witnesses serves no legitimate purpose.And if it gets contested in court -- Trump will lose....In fact the article does not say the President formally waived executive privilege on Bolton but argues that he "effectively" waived executive privilege and that is an argument a court would have to rule on.Trump waived any executive privilege on Bolton....In fact, Trump did assert executive privilege regarding testimony and documents the Democrats wanted and the proper way for the Democrats to have proceeded would have been to go to court and demand the documents and testimony and not to level the made up charge of obstructing Congress. While you may believe Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, no evidence has been presented to support that belief, which means no evidence has been presented to support the charge of abuse of power.
Legal Experts: Trump Reaction to Bolton Effectively Waived Executive Privilege Claim, Was ‘Another Unforced Error’
OR....
If it is so obvious that Bolton is lying -- let him testify under oath and convict on perjury.....if he is lying...
but Trump knows Bolton isn't lying....which is why he is so triggered
Even Trump's former chief of Staff believes Bolton more than Trump....why? Is Kelly a deep state plant controlled by Obama too?
John Kelly, ex-WH chief of staff, says he believes Bolton's account of Ukraine allegation - CNNPolitics
They have a summary of the call where the president flat out asks to investigate his political rival and some conspiracy theory long since debunked. We have multiple administration officials attesting that the aid to Ukraine was withheld. We have Trump on camera admitting he asked he Ukrainians and China to investigate the Bidens. we have Mullvany confirming the aid was withheld. We have the ambassador to Europe saying under oath he communicated to the Ukrainians that the aid and a meeting with Trump were conditional on the investigations. Probably forgot a fewYou think? In trails, it is not uncommon that the prosecution chooses to indict without knowing ALL the facts. Or for that matter even present all the facts they do know during the trial. If the facts they do have warrant indictment they will.There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.
Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.
Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.
But you must present sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. They do not. It is very simple. They have no FACTS, just speculation.
When you say no facts, what facts are missing in your opinion?
I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?What other conceivable reason can he have to ask an investigation into crowdstrike? What reason to investigate the Biden's? Nepotism is not a crime however questionable, lucky for Trump. To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.Oh, so you don't think to have reports come out that Ukraine has opened an investigation into the Biden's and crowdstrike helps Trump's reelection chances?
Also, the manner how this was handled does NOT in any way look like an actual investigation into corruption. None at all. There are procedures in place that handle that sort of thing, none of which involves the President of the United States initiating it.
What by the way does Crowdstrike have to do with corruption? As I said there is not a prosecutor into the world that would not be able to make the case for abuse of power in any actual legal setting. Just by what is known now.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
Oh, another fake ass "I voted 3rd party" guySo Trump is engaging in political theater by not "locking her up" like he had all you morons chanting??Shouldn't you also want Trump's DOJ to indict Hunter and Joe Biden?? If it is so obvious they are corrupt -- why haven't they been indicted??/——/ Actually I do want Biden to testify. I voted for Trump to drain the swamp, Democrats and Republicans alike. And yes, the stench of corruption hangs on Biden and his crackhead son like a wet blanket.
Same reason why Hillary was not... Political Theater!
Cool.
Could he at least gotten an indictment or 2?? At least get her personal lawyer indicted or something
Another lie by you!
Please feel free to show where I ever said Hillary Clinton should be locked up and if not note I have caught you in two lies now!
Hillary Clinton just like Joe Biden will never see a day in Prison and neither will Hunter Biden or Donald Trump.
Now get busy linking where I want to be like Trump and I wanted Hillary locked up and I voted for Gary Johnson back in 2016 and if Bloomberg is not the Democratic Nominee I will vote third party again!
Yet you spend your whole time on here deepthroating for Trump.....
I see these trumpers are getting those life boats ready early.....
Let me guess....back in 2007, 2008 -- you pretended you never supported Bush -- and put on a funny little hat and called yourself an independent -- while supporting every bullshit republican policy you saw....
Plenty of evidence exists that shows abuse of power.Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.Oh, so you don't think to have reports come out that Ukraine has opened an investigation into the Biden's and crowdstrike helps Trump's reelection chances?No evidence was presented to show that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate various things that occured around the 2016 election, including what Joe Biden did, only to improve his chances for reelection, so there was no basis for charging abuse of power, and since the assertion of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense, there was not basis for charging obstruction of Congress. The whole thing was fraudulent from the start.The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt in any court. It's not if we can conceivably come up with an alternative explanation no matter how farfetched you can not convict. It is extremely farfetched to claim that the reason you asked Ukraine to investigate your political rival and some conspiracy theory and ONLY those things and are prepared to punish you if you don't is that we are concerned with corruption.None of this constitutes an abuse of power unless it can be shown that the President did these things only for the purpose of improving his chances for reelection, and no evidence has been presented to support this claim. The articles of impeachment simply have no legitimacy.
By the way, it's also moving the goalposts. You were claiming the Democrats have no reason to impeach, now you are stating the reason wasn't good enough.
But we know that Joe Biden and Hunter are guilty of something.....The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?What other conceivable reason can he have to ask an investigation into crowdstrike? What reason to investigate the Biden's? Nepotism is not a crime however questionable, lucky for Trump. To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.
Also, the manner how this was handled does NOT in any way look like an actual investigation into corruption. None at all. There are procedures in place that handle that sort of thing, none of which involves the President of the United States initiating it.
What by the way does Crowdstrike have to do with corruption? As I said there is not a prosecutor into the world that would not be able to make the case for abuse of power in any actual legal setting. Just by what is known now.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
And its up to them to come testify and prove their innocence, right?
To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.
You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?What other conceivable reason can he have to ask an investigation into crowdstrike? What reason to investigate the Biden's? Nepotism is not a crime however questionable, lucky for Trump. To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.
Also, the manner how this was handled does NOT in any way look like an actual investigation into corruption. None at all. There are procedures in place that handle that sort of thing, none of which involves the President of the United States initiating it.
What by the way does Crowdstrike have to do with corruption? As I said there is not a prosecutor into the world that would not be able to make the case for abuse of power in any actual legal setting. Just by what is known now.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?What other conceivable reason can he have to ask an investigation into crowdstrike? What reason to investigate the Biden's? Nepotism is not a crime however questionable, lucky for Trump. To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.Whether or not it helps Trump is irrelevant to the impeachment. It is only abuse of power if Trump's reason for doing it was only to benefit himself, and no evidence has been provided to show that. Concluding a trade deal with China would also help Trump's chances for reelection, so does that mean concluding such a trade deal is an abuse of power? It has to be shown that the action was taken only to benefit Trump for it to be an abuse of power.
Also, the manner how this was handled does NOT in any way look like an actual investigation into corruption. None at all. There are procedures in place that handle that sort of thing, none of which involves the President of the United States initiating it.
What by the way does Crowdstrike have to do with corruption? As I said there is not a prosecutor into the world that would not be able to make the case for abuse of power in any actual legal setting. Just by what is known now.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
They have a summary of the call where the president flat out asks to investigate his political rival and some conspiracy theory long since debunked. We have multiple administration officials attesting that the aid to Ukraine was withheld. We have Trump on camera admitting he asked he Ukrainians and China to investigate the Bidens. we have Mullvany confirming the aid was withheld. We have the ambassador to Europe saying under oath he communicated to the Ukrainians that the aid and a meeting with Trump were conditional on the investigations. Probably forgot a fewYou think? In trails, it is not uncommon that the prosecution chooses to indict without knowing ALL the facts. Or for that matter even present all the facts they do know during the trial. If the facts they do have warrant indictment they will.Actually there is. We need to know the facts. Then when trump is acquitted those acquitting a guilty man and the guilty man himself will be held to account in November.
Exactly. The House impeached a President without knowing the facts. That is all a thinking person should need to know with regards to this case.
But you must present sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. They do not. It is very simple. They have no FACTS, just speculation.
When you say no facts, what facts are missing in your opinion?
You are mis-representing things.
First, the president did ask for the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country. Biden very well may be tied into this corruption. Biden running for President doesn't preclude him from being investigated. It is the current President's duty to look out for the best interest of the US.
Secondly, aid was withheld. Aid is routinely withheld for a variety of reasons, in fact, Biden is on tape saying point blank the Ukrainians will not get the money if they don't do what the US wants(firing Shoken). Funny nobody thought that was a problem, and unlike Trump's conversation, Biden's comment was a clear Quid Pro Quo. Biden also had a vested interest since his son was employed in a high profile, high paying position by a company being investigated for tax evasion. The fact that his son even had the job should have raised some eyebrows in the first place, but that was under Obama where the intelligence agencies looked to be just a tad partisan.
The Ukrainians didn't even know that there was a condition attached to the aid. This is a prerequisite for a Quid Pro Quo. The Ukrainian president himself, the supposed victim, has stated that he did not feel pressure to do anything in particular in order to get the aid. Ignoring the victim of the supposed bribe is foolish at best.
Thirdly, Sondland also said "I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations".
Fourthly, even if the aid was contingent upon investigations, it is completely within the rights of the President to condition aid if it is to the benefit to the security of the US. The Democrats must prove his intent was something more nefarious. I can assure you that no matter how many witnesses are called, there will not be one that will testify that Trump told them that he was withholding aid until they investigate his Biden, as a political rival. Based on the fact that Ukraine had already been under investigation for corruption by the US for years, it is completely plausible that corruption would still exist and that all the past corruption had not been cleaned up.
Lastly, I truly don't care if they call witnesses as long as that witness list includes the Bidens, Schiff, the whistle-blower and perhaps some other Democratic operatives. To prove intent, the Democrats must prove there was no need for investigations. The claims made by Trump would need to be thoroughly vetted. The Democrats want absolutely no part of that.
He didn't say corruption. He said Biden's, Crowdstrike.First, the president did ask for the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in their country.
True, none of those reasons can ever legitimately be to damage political rivals. You are right running doesn't protect from investigations,habeas corpus does. Unless you can show legitimate reason a person is protected from arbitrary investigation. That's why as I said a legitimate investigation has procedures that have to be followed to secure a conviction. None of these procedures start with Potus calling the Ukranian president. Even if the Ukranians had the Biden's dead to rights the courts wouldn't allow extradition.Aid is routinely withheld for a variety of reasons
Untrue They knew plenty of evidence has stated that.The Ukrainians didn't even know that there was a condition attached to the aid.
Technically no. The president can not withhold funds appropriated by congress. And even if he could. Withholding it for his own gain is the definition of abuse of power.Fourthly, even if the aid was contingent upon investigations, it is completely within the rights of the President to condition aid if it is to the benefit to the security of the US.
We need to know the facts.
Untrue They knew plenty of evidence has stated that.
Technically no. The president can not withhold funds appropriated by congress. And even if he could. Withholding it for his own gain is the definition of abuse of power.
My argument was that nobody can give another explanation, At least not one that reaches the threshold reasonable. For this to be an appeal to ignorance my explanation should not be provable in this context beyond a reasonable doubt.Plus I have a witness.You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?What other conceivable reason can he have to ask an investigation into crowdstrike? What reason to investigate the Biden's? Nepotism is not a crime however questionable, lucky for Trump. To this day I have yet to see any believable charge of malfeasance by either Hunter or Joe Biden. And don't give me that Joe asked that prosecutor to be fired. Go on any fact-checking site and you will see that the timetable doesn't work nor does Joe have the authority to even ask that on his own.
Also, the manner how this was handled does NOT in any way look like an actual investigation into corruption. None at all. There are procedures in place that handle that sort of thing, none of which involves the President of the United States initiating it.
What by the way does Crowdstrike have to do with corruption? As I said there is not a prosecutor into the world that would not be able to make the case for abuse of power in any actual legal setting. Just by what is known now.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
My argument was that nobody can give another explanation, At least not one that reaches the threshold reasonable. For this to be an appeal to ignorance my explanation should not be provable in this context beyond a reasonable doubt.Plus I have a witness.You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
No, they should not but if the left like you want Bolton then you know the right will want Hunter and Joe, so why play this game?
![ja08c88[1].jpg](https://www.usmessageboard.com/data/attachments/295/295168-ec892b80cbe911c33a8c73d12996ea26.jpg "ja08c88[1].jpg")
Bolton is making my side look like fools?? My side didn't hire Bolton and involve him in some Ukrainian shakedown scheme -- that was Trump's side....or your side (even tho you like to pretend otherwise)…What this highlights is the fact Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler ran with the Impeachment without making sure they got everything they needed ...
Now Bolton is making your side look like fools and it also make Trump look like a fool!
Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze in July, Says Ex-Top Official in KyivUntrue They knew plenty of evidence has stated that.
No, they didn't know. The Ukranian president said so himself. You seem to want to ignore that minor detail.
Technically no. The president can not withhold funds appropriated by congress. And even if he could. Withholding it for his own gain is the definition of abuse of power.
So Obama's Quid Pro Quo at the direction of Biden was illegal? Intent must be proven, which it was not, and it should have been done in the House BEFORE impeachment.
My argument was that nobody can give another explanation, At least not one that reaches the threshold reasonable. For this to be an appeal to ignorance my explanation should not be provable in this context beyond a reasonable doubt.Plus I have a witness.You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
Sure there is. There is an active DOJ investigation into origins of Robert Mueller's probe. That very well could link back to the Ukraine or Russia.
And yet the administration who has EVERY reason to say that but has not. Also Crowdstrike, the Biden's are somehow involved in the Mueller probe? That sounds reasonable to you?My argument was that nobody can give another explanation, At least not one that reaches the threshold reasonable. For this to be an appeal to ignorance my explanation should not be provable in this context beyond a reasonable doubt.Plus I have a witness.You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
Sure there is. There is an active DOJ investigation into origins of Robert Mueller's probe. That very well could link back to the Ukraine or Russia.
Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.
View attachment 303155
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
“We recognize that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”
Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman
This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.
There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.
There is no witness to Trump's reason for asking for the investigation. The simple explanation of why he wanted the investigation is that the President believed the Obama administration was rife with corruption, and that some of the evidence of it was in Ukraine. We have testimony from Obama's ambassador to Ukraine that on the eve of the 2016 election, the Obama administration was very worried about the Hunter Biden scandal breaking out during the election, and Joe Biden was likely sent to Ukraine to bribe or threaten the Ukrainian government into ending the investigation into Burisma. In addition some believed that Crowdstrike, the company that claimed it had found evidence that the Russians had hacked the DNC server, had a facility in Ukraine in which evidence existed that would contradict that claim. Since this claim of Russian hacking was the basis for the whole anti Russian nonsense promoted by the Obama WH in collusion with the DNC and the Clinton campaign and has severely restricted the ability of the US to deal constructively with Russia, it is important to get to the truth about what went on in 2016 and that could only be done by enlisting the aid of the Ukrainian government. Since no specific crimes were being investigated the investigation did not fall within the purview of any law enforcement agency, so it was up to the President or his representatives to ask the newly elected president of Ukraine for assistance in the investigation.My argument was that nobody can give another explanation, At least not one that reaches the threshold reasonable. For this to be an appeal to ignorance my explanation should not be provable in this context beyond a reasonable doubt.Plus I have a witness.You presented no clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself. Your argument was that since you can't think of any other reason why he asked for the investigation, that must have been the reason.I gave you the evidence. Sondlands testimony. plus the way this whole thing was conducted. See if I have direct evidence... usually the defense, that's you atm. Needs to find a way to counter it. Not acknowledging that I presented anything is not a defence that actually works in the real world.The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, so if no clear evidence can be found that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself, then there is no basis for the charge of abuse of power.Lol just because someone insists something isn't clear doesn't mean it isn't. It is clear that the US has certain procedures in place to investigate corruption and how to enlist cooperation with other countries. I'll make it as simple as I can.And yet no clear evidence that Trump asked for the investigation only to benefit himself has been presented. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, how is it that no one has been able to find any clear evidence that the President asked for the investigation only to benefit himself?
The president is not a law enforcement officer. So it would most likely somewhere in the justice department. There would be a suspicion of something and they would open an investigation. If it is deemed necessary to enlist the Ukrainians they would contact the state department who would use the legal attachees in-country to ask for it. Those procedures are important if you ever want to secure a conviction.
None of that happened, in fact pains were taken to not use regular channels. We have the testimony under oath from Sondland that he was ordered and understood that he needed to deliver the message to Ukraine that Trump wanted an announcement from the Ukrainians that mentioned the Biden's and Hillary this is on record. This is not hearsay but direct evidence from the man in place. Now if you don't find that convincing by itself I can only say that you are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse and for the record, I don't think you are stupid.
Unless you can give a believable explanation of why it was done of the books so to speak and was targeted at those specific individuals that doesn't involve political benefit to Trump that is and only that
