Natto, can give you point to one witness that said Trump told them to do the QPC? Just one that didn't feel, presume or thought it was? Once the impeachment starts for real you can subpoena those and Republican's can get the ones they want on stand, it's very damn simple. The Dems want them on stand get it official articles of impeachment going and we'll all get who we want on stand.
As an initial matter, you are basically quoting the memo from House Republicans on their four main points of defense. So let's address the four points. 1) Money Released is not a good defense because even attempted efforts at abuse of power should be held accountable. 2) The statement from the Ukrainian President of no pressure (he did not say there was no quid pro quo) is not a good defense because Zelensky was talking solely about the phone call and not the months long campaign to exert pressure, he was standing next to Trump when he made the statement, and he was not under oath. 3) The Transcript comes incredibly close to saying if you do this, I'll do that. Here it is again with highlights and labeling. 4) Those individuals have a great deal more credibility than Trump.
Mulvaney and Bolton are both filing lawsuits (well, technically Bolton is waiting for his associate's lawsuit) asking for a judge's ruling given that they have conflicting orders from the Congress to testify and from the White House to not testify.
Did you know that the new Ukrainian Prosecutor announced in May of this year that he found zero evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens? Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens
This guy did follow protocol though, at the guidance of Schiff's staff. That's why the ICIG, after conducting his own investigation, found the report credible and urgent. And now you have first hand testimony from multiple individuals involved who have all confirmed - with first hand information - the allegations in the whistleblower complaint. If a guy calls the cops and says there is a house full of drugs across the street, and police find a house full of drugs across the street, what does it matter if the caller had a previous policy dispute? You keep calling it a potential political hatchet job, but what does that mean?
Of course he did Biden is responsible for hom having a job.. As we know. This new prosecutor is " cut from the same cloth" as the old one. Getting rif of the old prosecutor had absolutely nothing to do with getting rid of corruption.
Just be patient. In the public phase about to commence, you will hear several expert witnesses testify under oath. If Trump doesn't persist in trying to hide what others intimately aware of the caper - Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. - have to contribute, you will hear from them as well. The objective of the depositions is to expose the truth, and some are understandably outraged by that.
Trump's vast apparatus of investigative resources and law enforcement, as well as that of Ukraine and China, have yet to contrive any evidence of Biden's criminality - unless you suspect a nefarious conspiracy within the inner sanctum of Trumpery concealing and refusing to act upon such evidence for inexplicable reasons. Trump bum kisser can screech, for years if they are so disposed, "Lock him up! Lock him up!" as they crap on the American principle of due process in cases of political opponents, but we do have a system of jurisprudence that must be respected.
What does it matter? What if the house full of drugs is only a house full of drugs because the person that called put the drugs in that house while the people that live there were not there? Why do you think that people that report things are never questioned? Did you know that about 10% or so of people that call in about fires set the fires themselves? For that reason even those that call 911 are investigated wherever possible. How many people call in to report a murder commit the murder thinking that by doing so it will make them appear innocent and therefore the police won't investigate them? Here's a question for you. Before the whistleblowers name was outed Schiff was talking about getting the whistleblowers testimony in a closed door hearing. Now? Now its "not needed". Why? Wanted it one moment and then not the next? That's not suspicious? As for the first hand witnesses? What evidence have they provided? Texts? Recordings? Files? Anything other than their own opinions? Because that is all that I have seen so far. Opinions. Hell, they haven't even said that Trump stated out right that he was just trying to get dirt on Biden. It's always "I think" or "I believe" or "it can be viewed" or some variation thereof. The closest that they've come to is a few other diplomats that were worried after it was public knowledge that the funds were being withheld, long after Trump asked for his favor. And even then it was always in reference to Zelensky giving a public statement about investigating corruption in general. Not specific cases.
I have no Bias against Biden. I am very biased against a Democrat in the white house. You see bribery where non exists because you are biased against Trump in the White House ..
Sure, those are all legitimate concerns, but do you see any reason to think that an analogous situation happened here? Wouldn't the whistleblower have to place the pressure on Ukraine and then claim he was doing it on behalf of Trump? Or somehow force the other officials, like Sondland, to do it? I mean those concerns are legitimate, but I just don't see any reason to believe that such would not have been discovered by this point. We have first hand testimony and documents that largely confirm every aspect of the whistleblower complaint. The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated. Here's How. So if you are not seeking the whistleblower to establish guilt or innocence of Trump, aren't you merely trying to oust the whistleblower in an effort to distract or find some wrongdoing on behalf of the whistleblower or someone unrelated to the alleged wrongdoing by Trump? The public statement sought Zelensky to specifically reference the 2016 election and Burisma Oil - both are specific cases and not "corruption in general." And yes, those witnesses have supplied a whole host of hard facts and data which are not reliant on opinion. For example, the timeline of events is not in dispute. Trump officials placing the transcript in a highly secret server after complaints were raised as to its content is not in dispute. Trump releasing the money two days after Congress was notified about the existence of the whistleblower complaint is not in dispute. Sondland telling the Ukrainian official that they would likely not get their requested meeting unless they issued the statement is not in dispute. Indeed, the only aspect - as near as I can tell - which is still "subjective" is an evaluation of Trump's intent and whether he really wanted a quid pro quo and whether he really wanted dirt on his domestic political opponent. And that - evaluating intent - is something that we ask Juries to do every single day and they routinely reach a verdict that the defendant did have the requisite intent even when that person has chosen to plead the 5th or even when they have testified under oath that they did not have the requisite intent.
This ... https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-anonymous-intelligence-official Violates this ... https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.203 The leaker now has a real legal problem.
See post #451 for the reasons. Also now corroborated by someone directly involved https://www.salon.com/2019/11/11/gi...ned-ukraine-to-investigate-biden-or-lose-aid/
That is exactly what is the argument and without the cooperation of the government of the country in which the corrupt acts occurred there can be no investigation.
It doesn't appear as though he did, at least if you can take what's written there as the truth: "We’re working with the whistleblower and launched a crowdfunding effort to support the whistleblower’s lawyers." That would suggest that it was set up by a third party...
It's not analogous. It was an example of what really happens all the time and why those that report crimes are also questioned and investigated whenever possible. The Steele Dossier was "largely corroborated".....until it wasn't. Trump conspiring with Russia was "largely corroborated"...until it wasn't. Hell, you even had Schiff claiming he had definitive evidence of it and yet the Mueller report concluded that there was none. Assumption much? Or should I just call this a strawman? Evidence? Please provide these "hard facts and data". The things that you have stated here are either unproven opinions or connecting dots towards a predetermined goal instead of connecting dots to lead towards the truth. For instance you assume that "the transcript was placed on that secret server due to the complaints that were raised" based off the whistle blowers report. Was it ever verified that it was actually placed on that server? If it was then was it verified that they put it on that server due to "complaints that were raised as to its content"? None of those questions have actually been answered afaik. Oh no, there's a lot more subjectivity to be had. But for the moment lets assume that you are right. That what you say in this paragraph is all that there really is. Don't you think that its an important one? Don't you think that it would be a MAJOR MAJOR thing to determine? One could lead to a rightful conviction. The other would be a vindication on Trumps behalf. After all, the whole thing is about whether or not Trump abused his power for political gain. As others have rightly pointed out, even if there was quid pro quo that in and of itself is not impeachable...in fact its an every day occurrence by every single nation on this Earth and is considered acceptable politicking. What matters is whether Trump did a quid pro quo for personal political gain of election interference by getting dirt on Biden using his Presidential Powers. THAT is what this whole thing is about. Simply determining that he did a quid pro quo to investigate Biden is not enough. Determining whether Trump did it for political gain is what matters. And that has yet to be determined by ANYONE. Opinions yes. Assumptions yes. But there are no facts that Trump abused his power for political gain. And that right there is a Fact.
No it isn't. It is the duty of the DOJ. Can you identify any other time in the last 50 years when any president has asked to start an investigation of an American citizen? Of a political opponent? Can't you see how absolutely corrupt it is for him to ask anyone - foreign or domestic - to start an investigation into a political opponent?
Uh huh, and where is that in the "transcript"? https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplomats-gordon-sondland-quid-pro-quo/ "The U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, not only revised his testimony to describe an explicit quid pro quo but acknowledged that he had been the messenger of it. In a three-page update of his original 10-hour testimony, Sondland admitted that he had told one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisers that continuing to receive the U.S. aid was tied to their public announcement of two investigations sought by Trump: a probe into a company with ties to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, and another into alleged Ukrainian collusion in the 2016 election." Have you seriously not been paying attention?
Oh yeah, which part was devastating? The part where Sondland admitted that there was a quid pro quo and that he was the messenger for it?
