House Impeachment Hearings

[RobDownSouth]

It doesn't matter what Schiff says, there is no supporting testimony the President committed "bribery." The only time the word was used by witnesses in their testimony was one time in reference to a description of what Joe Biden did in Ukraine.

Better sharpen those spinning skillz, NotVetteman. The witnesses up to today are laying groundwork for EU ambassador's testimony tomorrow.

It will NOT be a good day for either you or Trump.

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's not true. Bribery under the federal statute requires proof of "corrupt intent," a quid pro quo (something for something) can exist without corrupt intent. Trump had no personal gain whatsoever.

I told you yesterday that "federal statutes" don't apply here. This is a Congressional impeachment investigation, not a federal trial. The founding fathers allow Congress to make their own rules here.

 

[Rightguide]

Better sharpen those spinning skillz, NotVetteman. The witnesses up to today are laying groundwork for EU ambassador's testimony tomorrow.

It will NOT be a good day for either you or Trump.

Bullshit

Sondland? He has already testified in closed session, he isn't going to deviate in any way from his existing sworn testimony. Opinions mean nothing. It is the President who determines what our foreign policy and issues of national security are. The NSC and the State Department do not dictate national security goals and foreign policy to the President.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Bullshit

Sondland? He has already testified in closed session, he isn't going to deviate in any way from his existing sworn testimony. Opinions mean nothing. It is the President who determines what our foreign policy and issues of national security are. The NSC and the State Department do not dictate national security goals and foreign policy to the President.

He's already been permitted to "amend" his prior private testimony when a number of first-hand witnesses contradicted him while under oath. Can you say "Perjury?"

Now he gets to testify publicly about Trump's bribery tomorrow.

Again, not gonna be a good day for you OR Trump.

 

[icanhelp1]

"bribery" and "quid pro quo" are synonymous in this instance, because Trump stood to personally profit from the "favor" he was asking.

No amount of your spin or BotanyBoomer's selective dictionary interpretation can change this underlying fact.

So, can you give me some sort of definition or description of how Trump profits by investigating Barisma and/or the Bidens. What does Trump gain, getting dirt on Joe through the corruption investigation of Barisma? Joe's public statement incriminated himself, not Trump. It's public knowledge that Hunter was riding his father's coattails. Joe was peddling influence and it was questioned as such.

 

[Rightguide]

I told you yesterday that "federal statutes" don't apply here. This is a Congressional impeachment investigation, not a federal trial. The founding fathers allow Congress to make their own rules here.

When the Speaker of the House declares the President has committed "bribery" Americans understand that Bribery is described in the Constitution as a high "crime." She doesn't get to apply some other meaning to the word. So in the eyes of ordinary Americans such an accusation of criminal activity requires evidence that proves bribery does in fact exist.

Americans aren't going to accept novel political definitions of legal terms in order to remove a duly elected President, especially in a process supported by the votes of only one party.

 

[Rightguide]

He's already been permitted to "amend" his prior private testimony when a number of first-hand witnesses contradicted him while under oath. Can you say "Perjury?"

Now he gets to testify publicly about Trump's bribery tomorrow.

Again, not gonna be a good day for you OR Trump.

Until tomorrow then.

 

[icanhelp1]

Adrina relies on the mentally challenged remarks of Nancy Pelosi who ignorantly used the word "bribery" because their original meme of "quid pro quo" wasn't polling well and people didn't think it was impeachable. I used the word "ignorantly" because the dufus Speaker has no knowledge of what Democrats will have to prove in order to support the new charge.

Looks like the house Dems took acting classes this past weekend, quite a performance! Oscars for all dems YEAHHHH!!!!!

 

[adrina]

Bribery and Extortion are shithouse lawyer type talking points and used as well by Nancy Pelosi and her democratic cronies. I have a very acute understanding of article II powers and what is in the purview of presidential power when ensuring taxpayers money is not being influenced by corruption. Spending DOD money on the wall is legal by definition of the statute and authorization granted legally to him by congress. The term bribery as it relates to impeachment is ambiguous at best since no Quid Pro Quo existed per statement by president Zelensky himself. Aid was released and no investigation ensued on the Bidens, so now we move on to attempted bribery. Let me assure you, in the senate trial phase, hunter will be subpoenaed to testify.

A presidential candidate is not above or immune from being investigated for alleged corruption. Biden's pressure on the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating corruption within Barisma, a company his son was employed by, is suspect, and contrary to popular belief, has not been thoroughly investigated. 2016 Obama admin interference, steele dossier, is election interference.

Who mentioned the wall and what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Multi level deflection?

The money was released only after it became public. Timing is important.

Biden's call for the prosecutor's removal was an agreed upon action by the US and Europe. Because he wasn't investigating corruption. You don't get to rewrite history to suit your desires.

I had really hoped you would take a moment to think about what you are defending. Apparently it is okay for a sitting US president to bribe/extort a foreign country to investigate their political rival.

Think very carefully about what that means.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Until tomorrow then.

See ya then. Make sure you stop by CVS for the big bottle of Tums tonight.
You're gonna need 'em.

 

[jomar]

It doesn't matter what Schiff says, there is no supporting testimony the President committed "bribery." The only time the word was used by witnesses in their testimony was one time in reference to a description of what Joe Biden did in Ukraine.

You went to the bathroom and missed the explanation for proper context. Got it.

 

[KeithD]

The word "bribery" has crept in because it's the term explicitly cited in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. I like the term "extortion for personal gain" for this particular instance--and, in terms of votes for impeachment, they are already are there and in terms of conviction, they aren't, and probably never would be before the next election even though every U.S. senator knows Trump is up to his eyeballs in guilt and should be removed.

No matter what the deflection attempts are, Donald Trump is corrupt, criminal, and a delivering asset of the Russians and there's no end of grounds to impeach, remove, and imprison him--hopefully before he croaks on his own, because we need the example of expunging with prejudice for someone who has attempted to do what he is attempting to do.

 

[Rightguide]

Betsy McCaughey takes Vindman apart:

Vindman's Claims Don't Hold Up
By Betsy McCaughey

November 18, 2019

For Tuesday's impeachment show, House Democrats are trotting out their star witness, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. He listened in on the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that is central to the Dems' case. They allege that Trump demanded Zelenskiy dig up dirt on the Bidens in exchange for military aid.

At first glance, Vindman looks like the ideal witness, wearing U.S. Army dress blues with medals. The press portrays him as a hero reluctantly stepping forward to disclose the president's misconduct. But Vindman will wither under cross-examination, the same way he did during his closed-door testimony on Oct. 29. You haven't heard about that because the media's lying about what's in Vindman's testimony.

Vindman's job at the National Security Council is to write policy memos, schedule meetings and keep minutes of conversations with foreign diplomats. That's why he was on the July 25 call.

On page 316, Vindman claims that Trump "demanded" investigations from Zelenskiy in return for military aid, but that's Vindman's opinion, not fact. He admitted that the actual words spoken during the call don't support that claim: "I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions." Vindman's damning admission is found on page 256 of the transcript.

Where did Vindman get his preconceived notion? He points to media stories accusing Trump and Rudy Giuliani of seeking investigations to damage Joe Biden. See pages 176-177 and 251-252.

More here:
https://www.creators.com/read/betsy-mccaughey

 

[icanhelp1]

Who mentioned the wall and what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Multi level deflection?

The money was released only after it became public. Timing is important.

Biden's call for the prosecutor's removal was an agreed upon action by the US and Europe. Because he wasn't investigating corruption. You don't get to rewrite history to suit your desires.

I had really hoped you would take a moment to think about what you are defending. Apparently it is okay for a sitting US president to bribe/extort a foreign country to investigate their political rival.

Think very carefully about what that means.

You jumped into my conversation.

Biden threatened to hold back 1 billion dollars if he didn't get his way, that's extortion, remove a prosecutor who was investigating the company his son was working for!!!!! BLIND TDS!!!!! THAT'S EXTORTION!!! PROTECTING HIS SON!!!! THAT'S EXTORTION!!!!!!

 

[Rightguide]

The word "bribery" has crept in because it's the term explicitly cited in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. I like the term "extortion for personal gain" for this particular instance--and, in terms of votes for impeachment, they are already are there and in terms of conviction, they aren't, and probably never would be before the next election even though every U.S. senator knows Trump is up to his eyeballs in guilt and should be removed.

No matter what the deflection attempts are, Donald Trump is corrupt, criminal, and a delivering asset of the Russians and there's no end of grounds to impeach, remove, and imprison him--hopefully before he croaks on his own, because we need the example of expunging with prejudice for someone who has attempted to do what he is attempting to do.

What's the personal gain?

 

[jomar]

You jumped into my conversation.

Biden threatened to hold back 1 billion dollars if he didn't get his way, that's extortion, remove a prosecutor who was investigating the company his son was working for!!!!! BLIND TDS!!!!! THAT'S EXTORTION!!! PROTECTING HIS SON!!!! THAT'S EXTORTION!!!!!!

I suggest you educate yourself on the matter so you don’t further embarrass yourself.

 

[icanhelp1]

I suggest you educate yourself on the matter so you don’t further embarrass yourself.

Why don't you educate me, you're really good at useless one liners.

 

[Rightguide]

I suggest you educate yourself on the matter so you don’t further embarrass yourself.

The only people being embarrassed by this spectacle are the Democrats who can't find a way out of this debacle. It's you who needs to be educated.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Betsy McCaughey takes Vindman apart:

Vindman's Claims Don't Hold Up
By Betsy McCaughey

<snip>

Oh look, NotVetteman found a Creators Syndicate editorial to validate his preconceived political notions.

Such a smart boy, that NotVetteman.

 

[heathergives]

If Schiff & Co. continue with this charade, people are actually going to begin feeling sorry for the president.

Watch and see.

 

[coati]

If Schiff & Co. continue with this charade, people are actually going to begin feeling sorry for the president.

Watch and see.

OK, I'll stand by and wait for that to happen, along with the long-awaited "proof" that the Ukrainians and the American Deep State set up Putin for election meddling.

Setting up Putin like that was so unfair, so unfair!

 

[heathergives]

OK, I'll stand by and wait for that to happen, along with the long-awaited "proof" that the Ukrainians and the American Deep State set up Putin for election meddling.

Setting up Putin like that was so unfair, so unfair!

https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.4ShHW5_ucevp57HvZUpwugHaHR&pid=Api&rs=1

 

[Adre]

If Schiff & Co. continue with this charade, people are actually going to begin feeling sorry for the president.

Watch and see.

Then perhaps you’ll explain why two polls this morning that show 70% of Americans believe Trump’s actions were unacceptable or wrong. That doesn’t sound like they feel sorry for him.

 

[heathergives]

Then perhaps you’ll explain why two polls this morning that show 70% of Americans believe Trump’s actions were unacceptable or wrong. That doesn’t sound like they feel sorry for him.

What part of "if this continues" do you not understand?

 

[Rightguide]

Oh look, NotVetteman found a Creators Syndicate editorial to validate his preconceived political notions.

Such a smart boy, that NotVetteman.

Not vetteman is right, and smarter than you as well.

The article contains the simple truth.

Vindman is the leaker, he lied under oath, and could be prosecuted.