And keep in mind Allandavid he stated he merely assumed something.
The accusation is that Donald withheld foreign aid that was approved by Congress on the condition that a foreign government act against his political rival.
Assume for the moment that Donald did this (and let's admit, it's well within his character to have done so), then yes, it most definitely rises to the level of impeachable.
Did he actually say you're not getting the money unless you do A,B OR C? No. So it remains a speculative notion that the central comments of his statements had to do with Biden.
He has talked in the transcript of all the COUNTRY had gone through the last couple of years. Plus it is well documented now that Trump has always been talking about behind the scenes of his concern that Europe wasn't paying their fair share when it comes to aid.
And that's just it. You're talking about impeaching a President on assuming something INSTEAD of KNOWING something.
You attempted this excuse before. Allow me to repeat the refutation I used the last time:
"When a Mob boss is caught talking to one of his button men on the phone, how do you think the conversation sounds?
"Listen, George -- I want you to go to 377 Hamilton Street, home of Vincent Lupo, aka "Vinnie the Pin," and shoot him twice in the back of the head. You head me correctly, George... I am hereby ordering you to murder Vincent Lupo."
Anything less would be speculation, and we certainly shouldn't waste our time investigating the unfortunate death of Mr. Lupo, now should we?"
And digging up dirt on Hunter Biden is the Ukraine's "Fair Share"?
Well, that's what a trial is for, isn't it? Laying out the facts and letting the jury judge them.
Of course, in this case, the jury has already made up its mind and will acquit based on devotion and loyalty, but we must at least go through the motions of justice...
You're comparing Trump's words to someone who orders another to take a gun and shoot someone?
Actually, I don't wonder it at all. "Many" will think whatever their leader wants them to think.And you wonder why many question your side's way of reasoning as beyond extreme?
Even with this you're assuming the worst of another. Why not the possibility that he'd sure not hope the gentlemen and his son truly weren't engaged in questionable dealings?
Not everyone has motives that when they investigate that they want to find something wrong....
But the question is that a great many have is how can it possibly be considered not questionable to have a son of a Vice President be sitting on a board with no experience in the field and have the Vice President the point man to be talking policy to that country.
That's quite funny actually. Will the facts even be allowed to come out? Will CNN even cover the Senate hearings?
They wouldn't even telecast the LIVE opening statement of the Horowizt report with Senator Graham. Or will they have it on their screen but have their commentators have the screens muted while they dish out their own assertions of what they want people to believe.
And of course that's merely your own biased opinion that their rejection is based ONLY on loyalty to the President.
...and reject the evidence of 17 witnesses, many of whom have no connection with either political party. Take Sondland, for example...someone who donated $1million to Trump, yet offered damning testimony about his actions...
Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”
very true from his own words.
And he was the ONLY fact witness presented everyone else was hearsay witnesses.
False, as shown by the quote in post 25.
I'm confident the greater numbers will consider these present Dems have been less-than-noble in their motives for putting this forth.
Most likely, people are making too much of this possibility. Pelosi will not allow enough non-conformity in her delegation to prevent the impeachment resolution from being approved.
If three or five or even a dozen Democrats who fear defeat in 2020 want to vote "no," she will probably allow it and then claim that it shows how everyone in her delegation so carefully studied all the facts before voting, as though it were not a foregone conclusion even a year ago.
But there is actually no need for that many to bolt. Some can get by with just remaining uncommitted until the last minute and then representing that as showing how difficult the decision was to make, even though they then voted "yes."
Most likely, people are making too much of this possibility. Pelosi will not allow enough non-conformity in her delegation to prevent the impeachment resolution from being approved.
"
But there is actually no need for that many to bolt. Some can get by with just remaining uncommitted until the last minute and then representing that as showing how difficult the decision was to make, even though they then voted "yes."
I appreciate how the claims about what he said keep changing. Kinda makes it hard to take them seriously.True by his own admission during cross examination. All he had was his presumption.
I appreciate how the claims about what he said keep changing. Kinda makes it hard to take them seriously.
And seems like a common tactic, I wonder if there's a common source of this sort of rhetoric?
yup, Sondland on national tv.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?