Oh, I thought it was so Trump could tell the truth and clear himself... I must have misunderstood his question....
Professor Feldman is now explaining why Bonespurs committed bribery within the meaning of the Constitution. You trumpers should listen so that you can make real arguments instead of the cartoonish ones you're now making.
"Where is the evidence?" "It's right here (quoting)" "That's not evidence! That's "hearsay/opinion!" *facepalm*
Open this up and find the little search box towards the upper left. type in demand. As I recall there were about 39 of them. Click thru until you see Sondland's. In early September, Ambassador Gordon Sondland conveyed President Trump’s demands to both U.S. and Ukrainian officials. On September 1, he informed a senior Ukrainian official that the military aid would be released if the “prosecutor general would to go the mike [sic]” and announce the investigations. Later, on September 7, President Trump informed Ambassador Sondland that he wanted President Zelensky—not the Prosecutor General—in a “public box” and demanded that the Ukrainian president personally announce the investigations to “clear things up.” Only then would Ukraine end the “stalemate” with the White House related to security assistance. President Zelensky proceeded to schedule an interview on CNN in order to announce the investigations and satisfy President Trump. https://intelligence.house.gov/uplo...rt___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf If that doesn't do it for you, you can then do the same thing with the transcripts of the testomony.
He would tell the truth. A process crime has nothing to do about telling the truth and all about getting someone on a little fact that is irrelevant to the case, like a date or time.
He would tell the truth. A process crime has nothing to do about telling the truth and all about getting someone for a little technicality like a date or time.
And I’m pointing out it isn’t opinion. It’s sworn witness testimony. Saying “Nuh uh” in response to the testimony is meaningless.
The claim is of course executive privilege. The recourse for the Dems would be to take it to the courts and have it determined whether the executive privilege was valid. I saw one legal expert state the courts would probably have them show up with their lawyer but not answer any questions. The end result would be the same but the Dems could try to get some mileage out of the optics. The Dems chose not to take it to the courts so they are left without any valid argument just political posturing.
Dude! It's sworn testimony to their opinions. They all testified to that, under oath. They all testified, under oath, that their testimony was their opinions.
Obviously. But all you guys have done is say “Nuh uh”. You actually have to prove they are wrong or lying.
