Will you watch the impeachment hearings on television?

[wing2000]

So Lt Col Vindman heard President Trump state he would not render aid IF an action did not occur?

Can you link that or point it out for me?

"I need you to do us a favor though."

 

[Speedwell]

Subpoenas for what? We have another circle thing going on here.

What accuser of President Trump witnessed, first hand, the quid pro quo he is accused of?

These are witnesses we are talking about, not "accusers." Some of these witness are Trump insiders who he does not want to be testifying under oath.

 

[LostMarbels]

"I need you to do us a favor though."

Ok... so Trump asked for a favor... where was the threat to withhold aid?

 

[LostMarbels]

You know what. Im bowing out. Just remember I told you so. Have fun with your impeachment. Im looking forward to my trials up an coming.

I wish you the best.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This entire thing is over quid pro quo. Who has presented first hand evidence of this quid pro quo?

The person who printed the transcript summary. The quid pro quo is very easy to see in it.

 

[Bobber]

The person who printed the transcript summary. The quid pro quo is very easy to see in it.

Not really. Certainly not clear enough to impeach a President.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not really. Certainly not clear enough to impeach a President.

I assume you are looking for the exact phrase "quid pro quo." It does not have to be there for you to see the context: "If you don't do this, we won't do that."

 

[Tigger45]

I can think of one person I’m sure will be watching.

 

[Sparagmos]

View attachment 266657

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf


"the information provided herein was provided to me"

hearsay
[ˈhirˌsā]
NOUN

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   • law
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Then we have a sworn testimony where: Gorden Solomann (known as 'I' in the following) testifies ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr Morrison told ambassador Taylor that I told Mr Morrison that I conveyed this message to.....

What kind of testimony is that? @4:38

Why look, still talking about the whistleblower like the other witnesses don’t exist. You claim you read the testimony transcripts, so you know they completely corroborate the whistleblower report. So why are you trashing the whistleblower?

 

[KCfromNC]

I tuned in to find out how Wolf Blitzer on CNN wants me to think about them. Right away, he announced the breaking news--

In testimony, Taylor delivered a "bombshell" when he claimed that he had heard someone say X about the Ukrainian situation.

Well, X could just testify and clear up exactly what he said. Too bad Donald doesn't seem to want to. Weird, Hillary had no problem doing so.

 

[KCfromNC]

I doesn't matter. Who was a witness to Trump's alleged crime?

It's right there in the memo the White House released. Donald even called it "perfect" :
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf (bolding mine)

A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.​

 

[Bobber]

Well, X could just testify and clear up exactly what he said. Too bad Donald doesn't seem to want to. Weird, Hillary had no problem doing so.

True KC but tell me where's X? Look they've already been around this track once in their secret meetings. Wouldn't they have known they would have needed X to substantiate when they go to the public hearings?

And if they don't produce X are you willing to say enough is enough? That they should drop this impeachment scam, if that's truly what it is?

 

[KCfromNC]

True KC but tell me where's X?

In this case, in a memo released by the White House. And backed up by a number of Donald's employees.

Look, if you're still posting that the testimony from the hearings last week is "secret", it might help to do a bit of research on your own.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

I tuned in to find out how Wolf Blitzer on CNN wants me to think about them. Right away, he announced the breaking news--

In testimony, Taylor delivered a "bombshell" when he claimed that he had heard someone say X about the Ukrainian situation.

Some testimony!

Can't Congress do something more important...like rename a post office in Dubuque, for instance?

You think renaming post office is more important than safeguard our democracy!
No wonder our democracy is at risk!

 

[whatbogsends]

2nd hand info is still hearsay. Always has been. There is not a court in america that will prosecute over hearsay. Yet alone allow it in court.

They have testified about first hand information. They testified about calls they were on, and what other administration officials have said. The implication for Trump may be 2nd hand, but they were relating first hand testimony.

Those who they have reported speaking to which would have first hand testimony, have been blocked by Trump from testifying. They may not have accused the President of a crime, but, with the exception of Sondland (who's testimony was replete with "I don't remember/I don't recall", except when he added an addendum to later say that oh, I did actually remember there was a quid pro quo") they haven't said anything under oath, either.

 

[whatbogsends]

Subpoenas for what? We have another circle thing going on here.

What accuser of President Trump witnessed, first hand, the quid pro quo he is accused of?

You appear to think that preventing people with first hand information from testifying is a valid defense.

Defense attorney: "Your honor, no one with first hand testimony has testified about a quid pro quo".
Judge: "Everyone with first hand information has defied subpoenas and is refusing to testify"

Defense attorney: "I rest my case."​

 

[LostMarbels]

You appear to think that preventing people with first hand information from testifying is a valid defense.

Defense attorney: "Your honor, no one with first hand testimony has testified about a quid pro quo".
Judge: "Everyone with first hand information has defied subpoenas and is refusing to testify"

Defense attorney: "I rest my case."​

I think the premise is ridiculous. Subpoena people so they can defend themselves against something no one accusing them has any first hand knowledge of? They're fishing. Looking to incriminate someone.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think the premise is ridiculous. Subpoena people so they can defend themselves against something no one accusing them has any first hand knowledge of? They're fishing. Looking to incriminate someone.

Defend themselves? They're being asked to confirm facts. No one at these hearings is on trial.

 

[LostMarbels]

This is the entire reason I attempted to leave this conversation. We are at an impasse. I see nothing worth even validating, or explaining. If you cannot wrap your head around the position that this is a staged proceeding, as part of an attempted coup, there is no way of proving anything.

The WB has no first hand knowledge, and never had contact with the President during the incident, nor was he present for the incident in question. The two star witness yesterday have no first hand knowledge, and never had contact with the President during the incident, nor were they present for the incident in question.

You keep talking about subpoenas, but no one that raised an alarm had any first hand evidence to raise an alarm.

This is a complete sham proceeding. You cannot move to impeach a president off of hearsay. Even worse, unsubstantiated hearsay you expect others to validate for you by subpoena.

 

[Speedwell]

This is the entire reason I attempted to leave this conversation. We are at an impasse. I see nothing worth even validating, or explaining. If you cannot wrap your head around the position that this is a staged proceeding, as part of an attempted coup, there is no way of proving anything.

The WB has no first hand knowledge, and never had contact with the President during the incident, nor was he present for the incident in question. The two star witness yesterday have no first hand knowledge, and never had contact with the President during the incident, nor were they present for the incident in question.

You keep talking about subpoenas, but no one that raised an alarm had any first hand evidence to raise an alarm.

This is a complete sham proceeding. You cannot move to impeach a president off of hearsay. Even worse, unsubstantiated hearsay you expect others to validate for you by subpoena.

Still, it's interesting that the President will not let those who do have first-hand knowledge testify.