Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

You constantly offer up this little gem as justification for just about everything imaginable but I'm convinced you don't have any idea what you are saying, nor the implications. 

And you've certainly given the rest of us no reason to believe that you have a clue about the implications. Assertions aren't explanations.

[Thainesss]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t offer it as justification for anything.

 

Quite the contrary actually.

 

Just about every civil liberties organization in the United States fights hard against that very statement that you constantly make. It goes against everything western democracy has created. You should probably look up and educate yourself a little about what you're actually saying. 

[roobaa01]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pelosi’s observation is backed by evidence produced and statements by Trump himself and by statements made by his chief of staff.

 

The Leader of the House is correct in her use of the term ‘Bribery’ a term that gets very specific mention in The Constitution, check it out.

 

 

yarn spinning is a romantic term for idiocy as nervous nancy raves on with hearsay nonsense, its the presidents constitutional obligation to look at corruption like in ukraine.

the case is already dead on arrival.

wbr

roobaa01

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Hahaha, nancy owns trump yet again. Talking to him like a 5 year old.

 

trump wont care about impeachment. He will tweet that he is totally innocent and rely on people being too dumb to look at the facts. Sadly, for a small percentage of people he will be correct.

He'll care as much about impeachment as Clinton did.

Impeachment without conviction is meaningless, except to historians. If cleared by the senate, he carries on to win 2020 BECAUSE of the impeachment, IMO.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, roobaa01 said:

yarn spinning is a romantic term for idiocy as nervous nancy raves on with hearsay nonsense, its the presidents constitutional obligation to look at corruption like in ukraine.

the case is already dead on arrival.

wbr

roobaa01

So it says somewhere in the Constitution that it's the President's obligation to look at corruption in Ukraine? Does the constitution specify only in Ukraine? (Which would be kind of odd since Ukraine wasn't a nation when the Constitution was composed.) Or does it specify that the President's obligation is to look into corruption in any nation receiving aid from the USA? If so, the President is clearly in violation of the Constitution and should be impeached and removed from office on that count alone.

Anyway, I guess the versions of the constitution I've read must have the relevant passage written in invisible ink since I can't find it anywhere.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So in a grand jury proceding, which impeachment is directly comparable to, all a prosecutor has to do is say she has the evidence, not present it, and ask for an indictment?

??????????????????

If she has actual evidence, which she claims to have- present it and ask for an indictment.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Just about every civil liberties organization in the United States fights hard against that very statement that you constantly make. It goes against everything western democracy has created. You should probably look up and educate yourself a little about what you're actually saying. 

You should educate yourself on the rights of Congress to subpoena witnesses, evidence and hold the President in check.

 

You might also look into the differences between an Impeachment and criminal justice.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

??????????????????

If she has actual evidence, which she claims to have- present it and ask for an indictment.

Once again, the Impeachment is in process.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

??????????????????

If she has actual evidence, which she claims to have- present it and ask for an indictment.

They are presenting it, in the form of testimony. Testimony is evidence. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi should just present her version of what the witnesses claim? That would be your idea of justice?

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should educate yourself on the rights of Congress to subpoena witnesses, evidence and hold the President in check.

 

You might also look into the differences between an Impeachment and criminal justice.

I might actually care about your opinions/suggestions if I thought they weren't completely partisan, smarmy little swipes.  

 

I just hope that you guys are prepared for the precedent you're setting here with these highly partisan impeachment hearings. I mean this is what, the third impeachment attempt? 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They are presenting it, in the form of testimony. Testimony is evidence. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi should just present her version of what the witnesses claim? That would be your idea of justice?

As predicted Trump’s supporters don’t actually want an open transparent Impeachment hearings, they want it over and done with before the American public have chance to digest the extent of Trump’s criminality in office.

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They are presenting it, in the form of testimony. Testimony is evidence. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi should just present her version of what the witnesses claim? That would be your idea of justice?

 

Thats exactly what they are doing already. Pelosi/Schiff decide what witnesses take the seat and what questions can be asked. This isn't justice, its politics. 

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As predicted Trump’s supporters don’t actually want an open transparent Impeachment hearings, they want it over and done with before the American public have chance to digest the extent of Trump’s criminality in office.

 

They aren't open and transparent when one side gets to call the witnesses and decides what questioning is appropriate. 

[Mavideol]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The witnesses are still giving their testimony and we have yet to hear the court ruling on Trump’s efforts to withhold witnesses from the inquiry.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

it sure looks funny from an outsider point of view.... he and his gang claimed the call was normal polite and legal call and yet he/they withhold witnesses,  ignore subpoenas, hide reports, provide fake reports (misleading redacted versions) and none denying the bribery phone exchange, their main complain it's about the way the impeachment inquiry is being conducted....

[roobaa01]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So it says somewhere in the Constitution that it's the President's obligation to look at corruption in Ukraine? Does the constitution specify only in Ukraine? (Which would be kind of odd since Ukraine wasn't a nation when the Constitution was composed.) Or does it specify that the President's obligation is to look into corruption in any nation receiving aid from the USA? If so, the President is clearly in violation of the Constitution and should be impeached and removed from office on that count alone.

Anyway, I guess the versions of the constitution I've read must have the relevant passage written in invisible ink since I can't find it anywhere.

the whole sham process is based on hearsay like jim jordan pointed out to taylor, kent for the bribery sits were board members w.o. knowledge kept receiving thousands monthly based on important family names next to political position.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Eric Loh]

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

They aren't open and transparent when one side gets to call the witnesses and decides what questioning is appropriate. 

The Dems are just following the rules approved by the Reps in 2015.

 

 “if they find the process unfair, they have only themselves to blame. The House rules that govern this process were adopted in 2015, by the then-Republican majority. And the same Republican leaders leading this criticism helped establish those majority-centric rules at that time”.

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, Mavideol said:

it sure looks funny from an outsider point of view.... he and his gang claimed the call was normal polite and legal call and yet he/they withhold witnesses,  ignore subpoenas, hide reports, provide fake reports (misleading redacted versions) and none denying the bribery phone exchange, their main complain it's about the way the impeachment inquiry is being conducted....

 

This is the lefts 3rd attempt at impeachment. Just about 1 a year since he took office. The Democrats do not have anything in mind other than to make the opposition look as bad as possible because this is their 2020 strategy. 

 

Why would anyone in their right mind give anything to the people who want ruin you unless you absolutely have to. 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Wrong. The idea that Trump is guilty of Bribery is nothing but more leftist semantics. This entire Dog N Pony show is nothing more then the last ditch effort of a Democrat party about to be crushed under the weight of indictments. In this particular instance of the conspiracy to remove the President its cover for the Joe Biden crime family. The VP made $210k a year, but his son Hunter was paid about $1.5 million to sit on a board of Ukranian Burisma simply to be the bagman for the money. The same son who repeated this game with Chinese money. The same son who less then one year before Burisma was booted out of the United States Naval Reserve Officer program for testing positive for Cocaine. The biggest scandal in US history - and they want to impeach a President? The same Dem party that accused the Pres of being a Russian spy? Anyone who thinks that Trump will be Impeached by these crooked clowns is nuts!  I'll take All bets!

Quote "The VP made $210k a year, but his son Hunter was paid about $1.5 million to sit on a board of Ukranian Burisma simply to be the bagman for the money. The same son who repeated this game with Chinese money."

 

I am sure that you must have proof of these allegations with links, statements etc and that you will make them public as a matter of great urgency.

 

OTOH if you don't have the proof, then I call your post bovine excretia.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

This is the lefts 3rd attempt at impeachment. Just about 1 a year since he took office. The Democrats do not have anything in mind other than to make the opposition look as bad as possible because this is their 2020 strategy. 

 

Why would anyone in their right mind give anything to the people who want ruin you unless you absolutely have to. 

Maybe because if the evidence is as Trump claims, then the complete presentation of it would be exculpatory and out there for all Americans to see and hear.

[roobaa01]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They are presenting it, in the form of testimony. Testimony is evidence. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi should just present her version of what the witnesses claim? That would be your idea of justice?

exactly like yovanowitch gave false testimony or shifty schiff lying .

 

wbr

roobaa01

[NanLaew]

42 minutes ago, muzley said:

I think the Ukranians would have the best idea if they were being extorted.

Seriously? With the Ukrainian almost two decades-long litany of successive elected parties hoodwinking their partners, peers and the people who voted for them just for personal gain and aggrandizement as well as appeasing Moscow, you reckon they can be trusted to give an honest appraisal of how squeaky clean they think they are?

 

IMHO, there's never been a nation quite like it for throwing their own people under the bus which is why the suddenly invisible Rudy Giuliani should be a bit worried, especially after waiving his personal phones and tablets full of exoneration all over the media.

[Thainesss]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe because if the evidence is as Trump claims, then the complete presentation of it would be exculpatory and out there for all Americans to see and hear.

You say this like any information given or provided will be portrayed honestly. You and I both know that the objective is to make things look and sound as bad as possible. 
 

I repeat, this is the 3rd impeachment attempt - all of which were glaringly partisan failures. 

[NanLaew]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So in a grand jury proceding, which impeachment is directly comparable to, all a prosecutor has to do is say she has the evidence, not present it, and ask for an indictment?

That's just one of several reasons why House Impeachment procedure is NOT directly comparable to a Grand Jury procedure.

[Thainesss]

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Seriously? With the Ukrainian almost two decades-long litany of successive elected parties hoodwinking their partners, peers and the people who voted for them just for personal gain and aggrandizement as well as appeasing Moscow, you reckon they can be trusted to give an honest appraisal of how squeaky clean they think they are?

 

IMHO, there's never been a nation quite like it for throwing their own people under the bus which is why the suddenly invisible Rudy Giuliani should be a bit worried, especially after waiving his personal phones and tablets full of exoneration all over the media.

Appeasing Moscow? Someone over here need to do a little research (you) on the situation over the last few years and who left Ukraine high and dry. 

[Jingthing]

38 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Hahaha, nancy owns trump yet again. Talking to him like a 5 year old.

 

trump wont care about impeachment. He will tweet that he is totally innocent and rely on people being too dumb to look at the facts. Sadly, for a small percentage of people he will be correct.

Sadly not a small enough percentage. About 30 to. 35 percent of the population are hard core 45 fans that would as 45 himself bragged about even if he went out on the street and murdered someone. That's what we're dealing with here. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

You say this like any information given or provided will be portrayed honestly. You and I both know that the objective is to make things look and sound as bad as possible. 
 

I repeat, this is the 3rd impeachment attempt - all of which were glaringly partisan failures. 

4th.

[Sujo]

23 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Thats exactly what they are doing already. Pelosi/Schiff decide what witnesses take the seat and what questions can be asked. This isn't justice, its politics. 

I understand you dont like them playing by the rules. Nothing to stop repubs calling bolton, mulvaney, giuliano. But thats if you want the facts known.

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sadly not a small enough percentage. About 30 to. 35 percent of the population are hard core 45 fans that would as 45 himself bragged about even if he went out on the street and murdered someone. That's what we're dealing with here. 

It’s funny because the more I watch the lefts antics, the more I would do anything to keep them out of power. 

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

4th.

Yep totally not partisan at all. 

 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

I understand you dont like them playing by the rules. Nothing to stop repubs calling bolton, mulvaney, giuliano. But thats if you want the facts known.

Nothing to stop republicans except for Schiff stopping republicans. 

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

You say this like any information given or provided will be portrayed honestly. You and I both know that the objective is to make things look and sound as bad as possible. 
 

I repeat, this is the 3rd impeachment attempt - all of which were glaringly partisan failures. 

And there will probably be more if trump keeps doing things like this. Congress must do its job, even though trump is obstructing.