Let's put to rest another pervasive, false, right wing talking point.

What evidence?

 

You should do some reading.

 

The House never brought enough proof that he did that though.

That is the problem with your OP.

The House is supposed to investigate then give it to the senate to prosecute but rather they want the senate to investigate it for them.

 

*LOL*

 

Read thru the transcripts from the testimony given during the House inquiry.

 

Gosh, you folks are like a broken record with these falsehoods. The House proved its case unequivocally by way of the consistent, corroborated testimony of the 17 witnesses who testified.
However, the House was prevented from gaining access to all the available evidence due to Trump's obstruction. How many times must you be reminded of this indisputable fact? If new evidence, or witness testimony (Bolton has agreed to testify) is now available on what earthly basis should it not be included in the Senate proceeding?

 

But, no direct ear witness of threatening to withhold aid.

The house had the option to go court to compel witnesses and other evidence. They chose no t do that That blows the obstruction charge.

The senate will listen to the house's weak case so far and then decide whether to allow more.

 

The Zelensky call summary backs up the fact that Trump asked for both an investigation in to the infamous server (based on a batshyte crazy conspiracy theory) and one in to Biden. The fact that we know Trump was seeking an announcement of a Biden investigation, but not an actual investigation, tells us his motivation was not Ukraine corruption but rather gaining an advantage over Biden in the 2020 election.
I understand you must rely on muddying the waters in trying to make a point here but the truth is very simple to understand once you look past the spin of Trump and right wing media. Something you clearly are incapable of doing.

 

But that isnt the topic in the post of yours to which I responded. The topic of your post at that point was whether releasing the aid was contingent upon them ANNOUNCING investigations and you claiming that proof of such was contained in the transcript. Should I take your not addressing that topic now as confirmation that you are withdrawing the allegation that it is contained in the transcript? If not, I invite you to cut and paste what part of the transcript backs up that claim of yours. I even provided you a link to that transcript.

As I had already said before the response that you gave about it being contained in the transcript......Even if we accept this disputed notion as absolute fact, asking for an announcement could just as easily be interpreted as wanting a good faith show that they are beginning the investigation. It does not automatically and unquestionably mean that he doesnt care about the investigation and only wants the announcement which is ultimately what you are claiming. My company currently does that with customers on credit hold. Since they owe money, we will not release product because their account is past due, but if they tell us they are sending a check, we take their word at good faith and ship the product. That interpretation is ABSOLUTELY a realistic interpretation of that set of facts (even if we accept that disputed assertion as fact). Your interpretation is a suspicion, but FAR from proven.

 

I have. Plenty.

You should present some evidence.

 

I have.

It's all personal opinions, presumptions and second hand hearsay.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part.

Stop peddling extreme left-wing lies.

 

That is demonstrably false. Get back to me when you have something truthful to say.

 

It's not false.

It's all personal opinions, presumptions and second hand hearsay.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part.

 

Listen to yourself here.

If they proved it unequivocally then why do they need more proof?

That makes zero sense.

 

Actually, it makes perfect sense as proven by the posts of virtually every Trumper on the board................and the comments of virtually every Repub senator. Why? Because they even though every shred of evidence in the form of documents, first hand testimony, second hand testimony, the Zelensky call transcript, the WB complaint, the documents and comments recently released by Parnas, the testimony of Sondland, Vindman, Yovanovitch, Taylor, Cooper, Hale, Volker, Hill, Kent, Croft, Anderson, etc., EVERYTHING WE KNOW is proof Trump did what the AoI accuse him of doing.
But, loyal Trumpette's cling to their denial. Consequently, the more evidence to be revealed corroborating what we know the more pressure on Senate Repubs to stop pretending it doesn't exist, or isn't sufficient, or doesn't prove anything. The record needs to be added to until Repubs are forced in to the position of admitting Trump is guilty.............but vote to acquit anyway..........because they don't care if the POTUS is a criminal along as supporting him means they get re-elected.

 

So you believe a trial is simply a formality and that there is no way a fair trial could ever acquit Trump.

Hmmmm, how many innocent people have been released from prison because people thought like you do.

You have convicted him without even allowing him to present a defense.

That is scary.

 

You can't do anything because you don't know anything. If impeachment is legitimate nothing you say well effect it.

 

Or, in short, both the DOJ and Mueller said that neither Donald J nor president Trump committed any crime. Also, for the record, Donald Jr. did not solicit anything from the Russians and received nothing from the Russians.

 

No. But basic common sense would suggest that should be a minimum requirement for a drastic an action as impeachment and removal from office.

 

Sondland’s revelation rips away the last of the pretense that Trump cared about corruption in Ukraine. He wanted a televised announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden that he could use to cast a pall on the Biden campaign, just as the email morass damaged Hillary Clinton in 2016. All he ever asked for was a sort of political show trial that would allow him to run the same playbook he ran against “Crooked Hillary.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...mpeachment-hearing-testimony-biden-show-trump

 

Not according to the standard set up by the founders.

 

Even if we accept this as absolute fact, asking for an announcement and not requiring completion, could just as easily be interpreted as wanting a good faith show that they are beginning the investigation. It does not automatically and unquestionably mean that he doesnt care about the investigation and only wants the announcement which is ultimately what you are claiming. My company currently does that with customers on credit hold. Since they owe money, we will not release product because their account is past due, but if they tell us they are sending a check, we take their word at good faith and ship the product. That interpretation is ABSOLUTELY a realistic interpretation of that set of facts (even if we accept that disputed assertion as fact). Your interpretation is a suspicion, but FAR from proven.

BTW....you added the part about it had to be on Television. Even your VOX link didnt make that claim, but apparently you thought it sounded good so decided to add it.

 

These Peach Mints are not serious. It's just more Orange Man Bad whining and crying by Leftists.

 

I don't give a rats ass about what "the founders" thought.

 

The is video evidence that Biden specifically stated that he shook down the Ukrainian government to stop an investigation. Now, we are learning all about Burisma and a money laundering connection to Hunter Biden.

But the Democrats don't want to deal with any REAL evidence because it is not important to their political stance.

We all know that Barr and Durham have already been talking with several foreign governments and that before Yovanovitch was pulled, she was protecting the Bidens and others.