Impeachment Inquiry

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey, horses4courses, no POLITICAL AVATARS allowed if you post on the horse side of things. And since you posted in the horse racing section within the last month, I'm going to have to delete your avatar.

Sorry brah.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Burls View Post
Suppose that is true.
I doubt it is, but I can still suppose it is.
The question is:
How does that supposition bear on the question of whether or not there is evidence that Dumpy orchestrated a bribery/extortion scheme?

There is no evidence that he threatened or asked for quid pro quo.
Nothing in the transcript, nothing in any of the testimony, nothing in the statements from the Ukrainian president.

So far, there is NBO.

Opinions from petty little bureaucrats in the State Department who do not like trump, do not like being told what to do and how to do it. Little bastards of overhead that think they know it all and think they know more than the duly elected POTUS. the vert people Trump is draining from the swamp, and the very foreign policies he promise to change.

We call this treason.
We have a death penalty for it.
We should use it.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

The financial aid for Ukraine was released to them 48 hours after
the complaint from the whistleblower was filed in Congress.

Imagine that......

And 3 weeks before the dealine.
Imagine that.

And btw, that aid was far and away more than Obama denied them for 8 years.
Yadda yadda yadda, as usual, you have nothing.

Bottom line, OBama aided RUSSIANS, Trump aided UKRAINIANS.
No amount of spin can change that FACT.

Who was Putin's bitch?
Obviously it was Obama.

[davew]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

The financial aid for Ukraine was released to them 48 hours after
the complaint from the whistleblower was filed in Congress.

Imagine that......

Is that what 'whistleblowers' do? file with Congress? and then start a GoFundMe page?

[Wabash]

I didn’t read any transcripts, so the only thing I have to go on is the testimony yesterday. I believe both witnesses are very credible and their testimony definitely raises concerns. I’m still neutral and want to hear all the facts before making any decisions.

My guess is we won’t actually hear all the facts until it gets to the Senate and a trial actually begins. Until we hear testimony from the ones who actually had contact with Trump, it’s all hearsay. But the hearsay I heard yesterday definitely raise questions that need to be answered.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Wabash

I didn’t read any transcripts, so the only thing I have to go on is the testimony yesterday. I believe both witnesses are very credible and their testimony definitely raises concerns. I’m still neutral and want to hear all the facts before making any decisions.

My guess is we won’t actually hear all the facts until it gets to the Senate and a trial actually begins. Until we hear testimony from the ones who actually had contact with Trump, it’s all hearsay. But the hearsay I heard yesterday definitely raise questions that need to be answered.

uh, nope. The transcript has been out there.

[ElKabong]

Originally Posted by Wabash

I didn’t read any transcripts, so the only thing I have to go on is the testimony yesterday. I believe both witnesses are very credible and their testimony definitely raises concerns. I’m still neutral and want to hear all the facts before making any decisions.

My guess is we won’t actually hear all the facts until it gets to the Senate and a trial actually begins. Until we hear testimony from the ones who actually had contact with Trump, it’s all hearsay. But the hearsay I heard yesterday definitely raise questions that need to be answered.

Here was my concern


Ratcliff asked something like -- "Can either one of you two witnesses state what the impeachable offense was here?"

Neither said a word

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

uh, nope. The transcript has been out there.

I know it’s been out there. But I prefer to hear actual testimony than read a transcript that probably is not complete.

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by ElKabong

Here was my concern


Ratcliff asked something like -- "Can either one of you two witnesses state what the impeachable offense was here?"

Neither said a word

Why should they? They are witnesses, not the accusers. It’s not up to them to determine what is impeachable and what isn’t. It’s up to Ratcliff and all the other Representatives.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by ElKabong

Here was my concern


Ratcliff asked something like -- "Can either one of you two witnesses state what the impeachable offense was here?"

Neither said a word

i got a similar problem with these witnesses. they were both asked not to testify and both defied the orders of the President. guys like this always follow orders from their superior's. leads me to believe that they are either NEVER TRUMPERS or they have a book deal down the road. the fact that they didn't answer the impeachable question leads to sway over to the book deal, leaving possible readers in suspense.

[Wabash]

I actually thought that was the best part of their testimony. When Republicans asked them those types of questions as if they were ones accusing Trump, and they said nothing. Some Republicans treated them both as accusers rather than witnesses.

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i got a similar problem with these witnesses. they were both asked not to testify and both defied the orders of the President. guys like this always follow orders from their superior's. leads me to believe that they are either NEVER TRUMPERS or they have a book deal down the road. the fact that they didn't answer the impeachable question leads to sway over to the book deal, leaving possible readers in suspense.

They obeyed the law of a supeona instead of being a puppet to Trump. Is that a crime?

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Wabash

They obeyed the law of a supeona instead of being a puppet to Trump. Is that a crime?

i am not that sure how to interpret that one.

this whole Presidency is unusual, something none of us have witnessed ever before in our lives. i am not passing judgment one way or the other on it though.

its like this, Presidents before have been disingenuous to the public plenty of times but not as open as this guy.. he lies almost every time he opens his mouth. yet the support for him according to polls has risen. and that support comes from a mixture of people including religious evangelicals..

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Wabash

I know it’s been out there. But I prefer to hear actual testimony than read a transcript that probably is not complete.

So you'd rather listen to asses pass gas then get it straight from the horse's mouth. Third... fifth hand feelings over facts.

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

So you'd rather listen to asses pass gas then get it straight from the horse's mouth. Third... fifth hand feelings over facts.

Lol, I want to hear all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. If you think that’s unreasonable then don’t bother responding.