When/If Impeachment goes to the Senate...

Hate to break it to you but each of the witnesses have only given their opinions. Not one single one of them has given actual evidence. Each and every single one of them admit that they have not personally witnessed any crime, bribery, extortion or anything else the Dems have claimed of Trump. Each and every single one of them have admitted this.

You say that I pretend? I don't have to pretend when they all say those things straight out. The only ones pretending here are Dems and Trump haters. Taking OPINION as fact and evidence.

 

It was spot on to Sandy's misrepresentation and my sincere heartfelt apology for not catching you were jumping into the middle of it responding to my statement to him.

 

You can continue to try and hide behind PRETENDING that there is no evidence but it exists and even Republicans like Ken Starr are agreeing that your BLOTUS deserves to be impeached for his crimes.

 

No he doesn't and he was just on the FOX morning showing stating just the opposite. He said the morning session yesterday was bad until after the afternoon session but as it stood now they aren't even close to impeachable offenses.

 

No need to pretend anything. So far all the dems have are assumptions, a witness stating Trump wanted nothing, Ron Johnson stating the same predating the WB complaint, and a lot of bombshells that turn out to be duds.

 

Actually its called Executive Privilege. And every single President in our Entire History has used it against Congress to block communications about foreign talks and policy. Even George Washington. Unless the Courts order Trump to release them to Congress he can keep refusing to provide any email, transcript, documentation, or anything else related to foreign policy. You all keep referring to Separation of Powers and yet you conveniently keep forgetting that the Executive Branch has its own separation also.

But that aside, where is this email? Why hasn't it leaked by now? If everyone in the Administration knew and received this email as the Hill reports and which you outline in red text...how is it that it hasn't been leaked by now? Everyone knows that this administration has had more leaks than any other Administration.

And what does Sondland say in that video that I provided? He admits that he "presumed" that the aide was tied to the investigations. He admits that Trump never told him that it was. In fact, part of that video that I provided has a question in there about a CNN title that says "Sondland ties Trump to withholding aide" and that question was if Sondland agreed with that title and guess what...he didn't. Because he didn't testify to what you and so many others are claiming he did. Sondland states this out right. "I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was presuming." And then the next question "No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to these investigations, is that correct?" And Sondlands reply? "Yes". Sondland ADMITS that he has no evidence that Trump withheld aid to get the investigations done. Volker admits this. Vindman admits this. Yovanovitch admits this. THEY ALL admit this.

Coincidently, if that email that you mention above is so damning then why does Sondland admit that he just "presumed"? Hmm? Perhaps its because the email isn't damning? Isn't the smoking gun that you hope it to be?

Actually a letter from Congress doesn't do squat unless it was voted on by the entire body.

Except of course it doesn't. You just assume that it does based on your opinion. I see nothing in that transcript that shows Trump withholding aid in return for the investigations. If it actually did then the HoR wouldn't need to hold these hearings as that would be enough evidence by itself. You know that, I know that.

More than presumptions and opinions that's for sure. As I have already stated.

 

Link?

 

Sondland would have PROVIDED the email but the BLOTUS is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE by withholding it.

Sondland said that EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP about what your BLOTUS wanted as far as extorting Ukraine to provide a phony investigation of the Bidens.

That is ON THE RECORD UNDER OATH in front of Congress.

No amount of denialism is going to alter what transpired yesterday.

 

Ken Starr is more than welcome to his opinion. Just as you are. But so far all you've got is opinions. And each and every single witness that has been seen testifying in these impeachment proceedings has admitted out right that they have no evidence that Trump tied the aid to the investigations. Every. Single. One. Of. Them. In addition they have all admitted that either it was their opinions or that they presumed that it was. Last I checked we don't impeach any President, or convict a person in a court of law, based on "opinions" and "presumptions".

 

You just keep repeating yourself and denying that Sondland admits that it was nothing more than a presumption on his part, if it makes yourself feel better. Keep repeating those words "extortion" and "obstruction of justice" all that you want. It won't make them true.

 

nonsense

the witnesses have presented plenty of evidence and her YOU are asking for OPINION

which most if not all have declined to give.

somehow you see that as exoneration

it’s not... not even close

 

Starr's impeachment assessment: Evidence conflicting & ambiguous
Nov. 21, 2019 - 1:13 - Ken Starr, former Independent Counsel, says we are nowhere close to impeachment. "You cannot convict a sitting president on the basis of conflicting and ambiguous evidence"

Interview video in link
"No where close"
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6107071006001/#sp=show-clips

 

You may want to check what Sonderland was “presuming”
He was told by Trump repeatedly to “talk to Rudy” so he “presumed” that what Rudy was telling him came from Trump

 

Starr is a partisan. Always had been. He’s either setting the groundwork for a soft landing following resignation or trying to prevent that resignation

 

Sorry but each and everyone of them has admitted that they have no direct evidence of Trump tying aid to the investigations. They have all admitted this. Even Vindman admitted this. Sondland admitted it also. And they were the only ones out of all the witnesses so far that have had any sort of contact with Trump. The rest haven't met or even talked to Trump.

 

I don't know if they could drag it on that long, but there is no doubt they want to. In part, they are relying on the image damage they can do by that as opposed to the loss they would take when the final step rejects them. It is another part of the dirty-tricks strategy, done by people whose character chooses dirty trick over honest and impartial review. Why? Because they know they lose with any impartial review, and that makes being fair impractical. I think they have lost sight of any trace or moral value at this point. Too late for rabies shots.

 

And in the same video of Sondlands testimony that I have provided in this very thread Sondland admits that Rudy never once told him that the aid was connected to the investigations.

 

Nope. Not true. There were numerous references to getting Zelensky to do various things and that aid and WH meetings were tied to it.

 

And let's not forget...we all SAW it in the phone memo.

I have a favor to ask you THOUGH...after Zelensky mentioned that aid

 

All if it based on their own opinions and presumptions. They have all admitted that. Want an example? Watch the video I have provided in this thread.

 

What...gonna point to Sondland repeating Trump's claim that he wanted no QPQ while at the same time demanding one?

 

Each instance of alleged obstruction was investigated under a legal framework specific to obstruction of justice. These criteria are descried beginning on page 232 in my copy, the section titled I. Background Legal and Evidentiary Principles, subtitled A. Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice. Start there.

These criteria were evaluated for each of the possible OofJ instances. At least 8 of those instances met all criteria.

Also, on page 221, in the Introduction to Volume II, is the following:

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts ad the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

I'm not going to go through the entirety of Volume II for you. There were, I think, 11 instances investigated, each is detailed, and there is a conclusion for each that includes which of the "applicable legal standards" -- the criteria described beginning on page 232 -- applied to that instance. Only a few did not meet these standards for indictment.

 

I predict that if a trial takes place in the Senate that Mitch McConnell will follow through on his threat to conduct the trial 6 days a week with no Senator being allowed to skip it and that the Republicans prolong the trial 3 or 4 months at least to make it impossible for all the Senate democrats running for president to campaign.

Should that happen I predict that Senator Bernie Sanders (at minimal) will resign their Senate seat in order to continue their presidential campaigns. After all, Sanders is old and doesn't have much beyond the presidential campaign to look forward to anyway.

 

It seems to me that "impeachment was weaponized" when it was used against Bill Clinton. No?
So are you saying it's only being "weaponized" when Democrats use it?
Are there any circumstances under which you would consider impeachment for Mr. Trump?
Probably not.
Does it really bother you that this country is divided?
Probably not...after all...you are part of the division.

 

I will tell you why, we don't think women are stupid yet democrats do so we respect her smarts and her service. She is the only one on the stages that is not just dumb as rocks, go ahead and dispute that, impossible for a democrat to do that. She is everything democrats hate about women, she will not be told what to do, when to do it, she can think for herself, who else running for President on the dem side is not just a tool?