first hand witnesses deny quid pro quo, bribery, extortion

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Volker and Morrison who were actually on the call, deny there was any bribery, extortion, or quid pro quo.

contrast that to those who say they “heard from others” that those things took place.

Any evidence these guys were lying under oath?

"We now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery...

I think articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up." —Ken Starr

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"We now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery...

I think articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up." —Ken Starr

shocker. you believe everyone who says he did it, and dismiss everyone who says he didn’t.

if the impeach trump, i hope they also file perjury charges against the guys who testified yesterday.

the articles of impeachment were drawn up before Hilary’s concession speech was drawn up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"We now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery...

I think articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up." —Ken Starr

You left out that Starr is talking about Trumps obstruction into this impeachment inquiry, that's the impeachable offense Starr sees.

If Trump broke the law by obstructing the impeachement inquiry, prove it and kick him out. The accusation of quid pro quo, extortion, bribery, whatever other name du jeur the libs want to assign, is as of now, baseless.

Sondland said under oath, that Trump told him he didn't want anything from Ukraine.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You left out that Starr is talking about Trumps obstruction into this impeachment inquiry, that's the impeachable offense Starr sees.

If Trump broke the law by obstructing the impeachement inquiry, prove it and kick him out. The accusation of quid pro quo, extortion, bribery, whatever other name du jeur the libs want to assign, is as of now, baseless.

Sondland said under oath, that Trump told him he didn't want anything from Ukraine.

It's important to note the timing of Trump's "I want nothing..I want no quid pro quo" statement to Sondland: It occurred on September 9, the exact same day the House Intel Committee received the whistleblower's complaint....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's important to note the timing of Trump's "I want nothing..I want no quid pro quo" statement to Sondland: It occurred on September 9, the exact same day the House Intel Committee received the whistleblower's complaint....

But that’s when Sondland asked the question of what Trump
wanted.

See Pete, the way human conversations work is, someone asks you a question, and then you answer it. It’s not easy to answer a question before it’s asked, even if that would be politically preferable.

So to you, the fact that Trump didn’t answer the question until
it was asked, is evidence of guilt. Trump should have preemptively told him that he didn’t want anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But that’s when Sondland asked the question of what Trump
wanted.

See Pete, the way human conversations work is, someone asks you a question, and then you answer it. It’s not easy to answer a question before it’s asked, even if that would be politically preferable.

So to you, the fact that Trump didn’t answer the question until
it was asked, is evidence of guilt. Trump should have preemptively told him that he didn’t want anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See Jim, the way conspiracies work is the boss gets the people who work for him to do the dirty work, they never know all the parts of the conspiracy and the boss knows it all. It does make it harder to investigate, but it can and has been done under RICO many times.
That's why the hearsay rules for a conspiracy differ from typical.

Obstructing the investigation by withholding testimony and documents will make it harder to obtain the truth.

Has the WH let anyone testify?

Has the WH released any of the subpoenaed documentation?

Did Zelensky go to the White House already?

Was the money released before the White House learned of the whistleblower?

Did Ukraine's new government get all the Trump and Pence meetings it was first promised?

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

See Jim, the way conspiracies work is the boss gets the people who work for him to do the dirty work, they never know all the parts of the conspiracy and the boss knows it all. It does make it harder to investigate, but it can and has been done under RICO many times.
That's why the hearsay rules for a conspiracy differ from typical.

Obstructing the investigation by withholding testimony and documents will make it harder to obtain the truth.

Has the WH let anyone testify?

Has the WH released any of the subpoenaed documentation?

Did Zelensky go to the White House already?

Was the money released before the White House learned of the whistleblower?

Did Ukraine's new government get all the Trump and Pence meetings it was first promised?

I heard they were going to let the whistleblower testify
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I heard they were going to let the whistleblower testify
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why not the Intelligence IG then to explain why he did not follow the law and provide the whistleblowers complaint that was deemed urgent and credible on to Congress as it should have been?

The Whistleblower BS is like calling 911 to report you heard of a crime and never having the Police investigate.
You want to blame the guy who called 911 for the failure to investigate or find out why nothing happened with the call.
It's pretty obvious at this point that something happened to the aid to Ukraine and it involved the administration.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"We now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery...

" —Ken Starr

what you very conveniently left from this quote, is that Starr was speculating what Schiff was thinking. How deceptive is that? One needn’t resort to that dishonesty, when one has the facts on their side.

Starr also said it was “shocking” that Saldmans opening statement didn’t include the fact that he heard Trump say he didn’t want a quod pro Quo.

cherry picking and slight of hand. it’s all you got.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

pretty sure pete just committed a crime

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what you very conveniently left from this quote, is that Starr was speculating what Schiff was thinking. How deceptive is that? One needn’t resort to that dishonesty, when one has the facts on their side.

Starr also said it was “shocking” that Saldmans opening statement didn’t include the fact that he heard Trump say he didn’t want a quod pro Quo.

cherry picking and slight of hand. it’s all you got.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cherrypicking and slight of hand is all Nunes, Castor, Jordan and Ratcliffe did today.
You’re just easily led
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Cherrypicking and slight of hand is all Nunes, Castor, Jordan and Ratcliffe did today.
You’re just easily led
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you lied blatantly about what Starr said. true or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you lied blatantly about what Starr said. true or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor boy
Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be given equal weight in a court of law.
If you get up in the morning and there’s snow on the ground is that evidence that it snowed?
Is it fake news?
Do you think Sondland is stupid and can’t figure out what is wanted, who wants it and why they want it?
Apparently some people are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Poor boy
Both direct and circumstantial evidence can be given equal weight in a court of law.
If you get up in the morning and there’s snow on the ground is that evidence that it snowed?
Is it fake news?
Do you think Sondland is stupid and can’t figure out what is wanted, who wants it and why they want it?
Apparently some people are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

any chance you can answer the question? were you dishonest about starr’s comment, or
not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

any chance you can answer the question? were you dishonest about starr’s comment, or
not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, i’ll give you this...if i had to bet, i’d bet that trump
ordered the quid pro quo. but i can’t come close to proving it, nor do i think it’s a high crime or
misdemeanor for a
president to use any leverage at his disposal, to get a foreign
power to get to the truth about what americans, even democrats, are doing abroad.

but we need to be willing to present facts honestly, let americans
decide, and live with the decision. the gop got absolutely annihilated in 2008. The RNC didn’t resort to
anarchy, they formed the tea party which appealed
to huge numbers of voters, and which catapulted them
to a huge comeback until
2018. The DNC is responding to
Trump by nominating the most unpopular candidates imaginable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device