When/If Impeachment goes to the Senate...

Actually bringing up a persons character is standard for any lawyer. And Jim Jordan is definitely a lawyer. A persons integrity is essential to determining whether or not the info they give is credible. You won't find a single court case that doesn't question a witnesses credibility.

Let me guess...you'll bring up that this isn't a court case? Well, you're right. Two reasons make this very self evident. 1: These witnesses never would have been called to begin with as none of them have first hand information. The only time hearsay is really allowed in a courtroom is when the hearsay is relayed by someone from a dead person. The rest of the time it is shot down. 2: All this political grandstanding wouldn't be allowed in a real court room.

 

By your logic women not being allowed to vote was legal when the nation was founded

 

Know what else each and every single witness so far has said? Each and every time they were asked if Trump pressured, offered a quid pro quo, or bribed, or committed any crime...they ALL said "No". They all thought that the call was "inappropriate"...but being "inappropriate" is not illegal.

 

Please provide the page, paragraph, and sentence from the Mueller report where Mueller made a factual determination of corrupt intent.

 

Allow me to clarify the difference between what is a RIGHT and what is LEGAL.

Rights CANNOT be legal or illegal whereas ACTIONS can be either legal or illegal.

The 9th Amendment protected BOTH the RIGHT to an abortion and the right to vote for WOMEN and the RIGHT to vote for Blacks.

Abortion was legal at that time and voting was illegal at that point in time for women and voting illegal for blacks even though BOTH were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

The Founding Fathers INCLUDED the FUNCTIONALITY to AMEND the Constitution because they KNEW that it would CHANGE in the FUTURE. They even included an EXPIRY DATE for when SLAVERY could be made ILLEGAL in the Constitution.

The ACTION of ENSLAVEMENT Blacks was a VIOLATION of their RIGHTS. Slavery was made ILLEGAL in order to UPHOLD their rights as CITIZENS.

The DENIAL of VOTING RIGHTS for Women was deemed to be ILLEGAL and thus the RIGHTS of Women to vote was UPHELD by the Constitution.

The RIGHT to an Abortion ALWAYS existed under the 9th Amendment. The legislation that made abortion ILLEGAL was a VIOLATION of Women's RIGHTS. The RvW ruling UPHELD the RIGHTS of women to obtain abortions.

 

Your word salad is not fooling anyone.

 

And Mueller testified that by the time it came to interview Trump the interview was no longer necessary as other testimony and evidence had satisfied the investigation.

 

That is not what Trump and on any other forum would assert a dishonest editing of what he said on the call.

 

BOTH of those statements are in the TEXT of the transcript released by the Whitehouse.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

Nothing at all dishonest about excluding the parts that are NOT relevant to the point being made!

 

And you misquoted it not even including "......." to indicate the missing text and taking the last part our of context to create a false impression. As I said on other forums I would call that the classic "lie of omission" in debating.

"A lie of omission is a lie in which someone deliberately withholds pertinent details about something in order to skew someone else's idea of the truth or engender a misconception. Although a lie of omission is not technically a lie because it contains no false information, it is still referred to as one colloquially because it is deliberately misleading."
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/lie-omission-c9740e1f75e5556c

Par for the course for the left.

 

Flamebaiting disingenuous ad hom VIOLATIONS of PF Rules ignored for DEROGATORY reasons.

 

Speak for yourself....

 

Did you or did you not remove a HUGE chunk of the phone call text to misrepresent what was actually said and not even indicate that text had been removed?

 

I did NOTHING REMOTELY like what you are FALLACIOUSLY ALLEGING about me!

All I did in #134 above was to QUOTE DIRECTLY from the TEXT showing where BOTH of those quotes were located.

NOWHERE was there any MISREPRESENTATION of the text in post #134!

You will be reported if you persist with BLATANT FALSEHOODS about what I actually posted in #134 above.

 

I see now you jumped into the middle of the conversation with Sandy where the "lie of omission" occurred, you do admit that did occur.

 

Of course, but I was pointing out that Jordan, Nunes, and the rest did not challenge the testimony of the witnesses.

Impeachment Hearings Live Updates:

Ken Starr on Gordon Sondland's impeachment hearing testimony

Fox News reports, "Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr said that the testimony of Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland all but guarantees articles of impeachment will be drawn up by House Democrats."

“What they [Taylor and Morrison] related was, although President Trump claimed to you there was no quid pro quo, he also made it clear to you in that call that President Zelensky had to, quote, ‘clear things up and do it in public.’ You have a reason to dispute that?”

Sondland said he didn’t “have any reason to dispute” that, but “what I’m trying to be very clear about was President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement,” he said, referring to previous testimony describing a Sept. 9 conversation where Trump told him he wanted “no quid pro quo.”

By Sept. 9, the whistleblower had already submitted his complaint to the I.G. and Congress was investigating the phone call and the holdup of the military aid approved by Congress.

“Did you also get from President Trump, as reflected by Ambassador Taylor, that he said he was adamant that President Zelensky had to, quote, ‘clear things up and do it in public’?”

“That part I can agree to, yes,” Sondland said.

 

I don't think it can get any clearer than this part of the testimony. No one has been able to tie direct evidence of Trump tying aid to Zelensky investigating Burisma/Biden. LOTS of suppositions from each and every single one of the witnesses. But NOT ONE of them can state anything other than their own presumptions.

All I ask for...all that I have EVER asked for was evidence. Not rumors. Not opinions. Not hearsay. Not presumptions. Just EVIDENCE. I don't care if impeachment is a political process. And neither should anyone else. Evidence is what would get me to support impeachment. I have yet to see that. What I have seen is witness after witness admit that they have no evidence that Trump has done anything illegal and that everything that they have said is their own opinions.

Give. Me. Evidence. Real Evidence.

 

Fox News reports, "Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr said that the testimony of Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland all but guarantees articles of impeachment will be drawn up by House Democrats."

The Republicans are struggling to defend Trump. Basically, their defense is three-pronged.

They attack the Democrats, call the impeachment inquiry a sideshow, and attack the media for reporting the developments of the inquiry.

They say that President Zelensky never felt the pressure of extortion. American assistance and Trump's good graces are existential for Ukraine, and the very last thing Zelensky would do is impugn the American President's intentions. It would be suicidal, and that goes for his ministers as well.

They would ask if Trump ever told the witnesses directly that he was extorting the Ukrainian leader to get what he wanted. This last defense indicates they think that Trump is an idiot. The idea that Trump didn't tell Sondland that he was bribing Zelensky to get the investigations of the Bidens and the debunked Crowdstrike is no defense. Trump did tell Sondland, Volker, and Perry, "Talk to Rudy." Giuliani was working to get the investigations, and the "Three Amigos" did as they were told and worked with Giuliani who was in turn working for his client, Trump.

The other weakness of the third defense is that it exposes the obvious. Who did have personal knowledge of the Trump's wishes and the quid pro quo? Why, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, and Giuliani, of course. Who is preventing those four to testify? Why, Trump, of course.

 

E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland is a political appointee, not a career foreign service advisor, having contributed one million dollars to the Trump campaign. Whenever he wants, he can dial up the President. That may change after today.

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’,” Sondland’s statement reads. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

Specifically, “a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelensky,” which Zelensky felt was essential to his country's survival against Russian aggression.

In addition, Sondland summarized Giuliani’s role in his testimony.

Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.

Burisma is code for Biden. Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma.

For Trump, Sondland's testimony was devastating. There is much more, far too much for this venue.

 

Trump campaign sources say EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland's allegation of a quid pro quo implicating Trump and top administration officials "blindsided" aides inside the White House, the re-election campaign as well as some Republican lawmakers.

A separate Trump campaign adviser was furious with Sondland's testimony, calling it "aggravating." The adviser said it came as a complete surprise that the EU Ambassador would implicate senior members of the administration. "It was really bizarre," the adviser said, adding Sondland appeared to be throwing top administration officials under the bus in real time.

Another campaign source in touch with the White House team handling impeachment today said at the outset of the Sondland hearing, those aides seemed to be distressed – seemed to be “freaking out.” The source acknowledged Sondland’s testimony undermined the White House’s central argument that there was “no quid pro quo,” noting there are some Trump allies who have wanted to shift from that to arguing the appearance of quid pro quo was really just the President executing his legitimate foreign policy goals.

Then, of course, came the usual denial of reality.

A third campaign source said enough questions were raised about Sondland's testimony by GOP members to protect Trump from sustaining serious damage. "No direct hit," the Trump adviser said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...g-11-20-19/h_3ab96a833fe6cad36af65a69daf9b320

 

That's because the Dems put country above party.

 

Funny how all you did was repeat yourself. Can't dispute what was said?

Like I said.

All I ask for...all that I have EVER asked for was evidence. Not rumors. Not opinions. Not hearsay. Not presumptions. Just EVIDENCE. I don't care if impeachment is a political process. And neither should anyone else. Evidence is what would get me to support impeachment. I have yet to see that. What I have seen is witness after witness admit that they have no evidence that Trump has done anything illegal and that everything that they have said is their own opinions.

Give. Me. Evidence. Real Evidence

Until you got that....you have nothing.

 

Evidence was on display last week, yesterday, and today, but you are unaware of that evidence.

Of course, Trump's fans are avoiding the evidence just you did here. Like you, they pretend the evidence doesn't exist, and that feeling is based entirely on their ignorance of the evidence. Like you, they don't want to know.

That's a Trump fan.

 

I merely EXPOSED your egregiously fallacious allegations.

That you have not apologized for your falsehoods about me says volumes!

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...-pro-quo-in-ukraine-was-real-and-widely-known

The EVIDENCE is in the emails!

Those emails are the smoking gun that your BLOTUS refuses to release just as he refuses to allow those people to testify. Note that Mulvaney is already on video as ADMITTING to QPQ albeit not under oath.

Refusal to provide those emails and allow those people to testify is OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.

Sondland was AT THE CENTER of the QPQ since he as dealing DIRECTLY with your BLOTUS and his COMMUNICATIONS with the BLOTUS have been OVERHEARD by two other people which CORROBORATES what Sondland had said UNDER OATH.

On top of that we have the EVIDENCE of the LETTER sent to your BLOTUS from Congress demanding that he release the Military Aid funds to Ukraine immediately which is what COMPELLED him to hand it over.

Then there is the TRANSCRIPT of the call that CORROBORATES everything that Sondland testified about.

How much MORE evidence do you need?