Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

federal rule 802 hearsay is not admissible......

6 th amendmend everyone has the right to encounter his accuser

 

thus given shifty schiff sham show dead on arrival

 

wbr

roobaa01

Here we go again'

  First the above statement is incorrect. 

"Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. ... "

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

  Second, this is not a court it is an inquiry. 

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Sounds like the shoe fits in the case of Trump the briber.

 

He was aiming to give (instead of withhold) something of value (U.S. military aid to Ukraine) in exchange for some kind of action (the Ukraine investigation of the Bidens) that the recipient would not otherwise offer.

 

Though extortion also sounds applicable:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion#United_States

 

That's nice try Mr. Constitutional Lawyer but let's wait and see if your stellar analysis proves correct ????

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:

Read it again it's pretty clear. Clear to all except those who wish to hide the truth in word play. I can find you about one hundred more sources if you would like. But I am tired of your game. As I said wait and see.

It's pretty clear that Zelensky is a politician and has to act in in such a way as not to alienate the leader of a country supplying him with advanced weapons. As the above quote demonstrates, honest isn't, and shouldn't, be the highest priority for the President of a beleaguered nation. 

[WalkingOrders]

Just now, sirineou said:

Here we go again'

  First the above statement is incorrect. 

"Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court unless a statue or rule provides otherwise. Therefore, even if a statement is really hearsay, it may still be admissible if an exception applies. ... "

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

  Second, this is not a court it is an inquiry. 

 

 

You have a point but then again using a case based ENTIRELY on hearsay to impeach a U.S. President, and the hearsay is even to the 3rd and 4th degree, well now that's a long shot don't ya think? But hey let's let time take its course, maybe I am just so wrong on this . ????

[Eric Loh]

46 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Haha. Mueller gave the most convoluted gobbledygook I ever heard for his reasoning. You could see the pain on his own face while he said it. He turned out to be nothing more then an old man who was a front for Democrat operative prosecutors who tried their best with no case available to them to prosecute. Mueller looked ashamed....of course who knows, but he oughta be ashamed!

Haha indeed. Muller may have the last laugh. They are criminal acts that will indict citizen Trump in the Muller investigation. That is if the tax dodge,  campaign funds violation among many charges and those still under investigation waiting for him. 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/06/how-trump-could-be-prosecuted-after-the-white-house-227050

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Read again, it had to do with allegations of DNC in Ukraine. The requesting of interference by Ukraine by the DNC. Do you want to dispute with me that the DNC had someone in Ukraine? The Democrat National Committee? Do you want to dispute that? I am getting tired of repeatedly pulling up sources.

So tired, in fact, that when I challenged your claims about that and other assertions of yours, you were just too tired to answer. Despite previously claiming that your points were being ignored.

[WalkingOrders]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's pretty clear that Zelensky is a politician and has to act in in such a way as not to alienate the leader of a country supplying him with advanced weapons. As the above quote demonstrates, honest isn't, and shouldn't, be the highest priority for the President of a beleaguered nation. 

Quick send this to Nancy Pelosi. All they have to do is prove that Zelensky is er ...uh whatever man I am not sure what you are even trying to say here...send it = great evidence with what they already have... let's let the clock run a couple of weeks and we can get back on this. Great job Sherlock ????

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

That's nice try Mr. Constitutional Lawyer but let's wait and see if your stellar analysis proves correct ????

Is this the same party who claimed that in post # 162 that "This is going to be the END of the Democrat party. As in seriously over." I guess the future isn't what it used to be.
 

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

You have a point but then again using a case based ENTIRELY on hearsay to impeach a U.S. President, and the hearsay is even to the 3rd and 4th degree, well now that's a long shot don't ya think? But hey let's let time take its course, maybe I am just so wrong on this . ????

When the inquiry is complete we will know what we have and not before. Ask me again then.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, WalkingOrders said:

That's nice try Mr. Constitutional Lawyer but let's wait and see if your stellar analysis proves correct ????

 

Bribery and extortion are crimes. But in the case of a president, a president does not have to have committed or be proven to have committed a legal crime in order to be impeached (though committing a crime certainly could be an impeachable offense).

 

Quote

 

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[3] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[4][1]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Impeachable_offenses:_"Treason,_Bribery,_or_other_high_Crimes_and_Misdemeanors"

 

[WalkingOrders]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Haha indeed. Muller may have the last laugh. They are criminal acts that will indict citizen Trump in the Muller investigation. That is if the tax dodge,  campaign funds violation among many charges and those still under investigation waiting for him. 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/06/how-trump-could-be-prosecuted-after-the-white-house-227050

Sure, it's all coming there gonna get him one day, and the Democrats are on the right path for sure. ???? That can be impeachment try number 3. ???? Time ticks. Barr is coming! Oh but hey, it's got plenty of bi-partisan support just like past impeachment attempts. Right? 75 votes in the Senate No worries ???? Let's wait and see, oh and one more time Barr is coming!

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:

Quick send this to Nancy Pelosi. All they have to do is prove that Zelensky is er ...uh whatever man I am not sure what you are even trying to say here...send it = great evidence with what they already have... let's let the clock run a couple of weeks and we can get back on this. Great job Sherlock ????

What don't you understand about Zelensky not wanting to anger Trump? If he did feel threatened by Trump why would he say it? What good would that do the Ukraine? 

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Sure, it's all coming there gonna get him one day, and the Democrats are on the right path for sure. ???? That can be impeachment try number 3. ???? Time ticks. Barr is coming! Oh but hey, it's got plenty of bi-partisan support just like past impeachment attempts. Right? 75 votes in the Senate No worries ???? Let's wait and see, oh and one more time Barr is coming!

Tax fraud will most probably get him like Al Capone. 

[candide]

8 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Read again, it had to do with allegations of DNC in Ukraine. The requesting of interference by Ukraine by the DNC. Do you want to dispute with me that the DNC had someone in Ukraine? The Democrat National Committee? Do you want to dispute that? I am getting tired of repeatedly pulling up sources.

I think it's other posters who get tired of repeatedly pulling sources to counter your continuous flow of unproven and distorted facts.

Quote from call memo:

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

 

Is it not clear enough?

[WalkingOrders]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Is this the same tentative party who claimed that in post # 162 that "This is going to be the END of the Democrat party. As in seriously over." I guess the future isn't what it used to be.
 

Yeah I do mean that. Over. They will never be able to withstand the indictments that come down. This is something horrible. I guess you are young, but in my life - over 61, I have never seen a political party that takes this amount of corruption as normal. The whole Biden thing? Sorry but I have nothing to compare it to. Seriously. The calling of a President a Russian stooge a spy? The commander in chief of US armed forces with finger on the Nuclear trigger? Nope never - if He was they should have tackled him and killed him on the spot. But alas, that proved to just be a horrible Democrat nightmare that proved false and sorry, never saw a party try something like that in all my years. never. OH and now this? a set up using a whistleblower law? Oh man wait until the supreme court gets ahold of that one. And accusing a SCOTUS nominee of gangrape? No evidence presented but they did it anyway...how bout that? Never saw that in my life. How about openly socialist Candidate for POTUS a whole stream of them...wow nothing comes close since the 1920s how about their calling for the elimination of the electoral college? Stacking or removing Justices from the SCOTUS? how about their calling for a 16 year old vote? Or for illegal aliens to vote? How about their call to decriminalize illegal border crossing? None of this bothers you? Are you American? This is all new to me? I am scared man. Scared for the free world. Not kidding one bit. This is a new show. Nothing like it to compare in my entire life. They need to be finished. We need two parties so something can rise out of the ashes , and will soon, but the embarrassment of this will never be able to be washed off of them. People are going to go to jail. For sure! 

[WalkingOrders]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What don't you understand about Zelensky not wanting to anger Trump? If he did feel threatened by Trump why would he say it? What good would that do the Ukraine? 

He said he was NOT threatened by Trump

[bristolboy]

Second U.S. embassy official reportedly heard Trump call with Sondland

"A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.

The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/trump-sondland-ukraine-phone-call-070913

[WalkingOrders]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So tired, in fact, that when I challenged your claims about that and other assertions of yours, you were just too tired to answer. Despite previously claiming that your points were being ignored.

Time will tell. ????

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:

Time will tell. ????

"Time will tell" is about the future. I'm referring to the past. 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Sure, it's all coming there gonna get him one day, and the Democrats are on the right path for sure. ???? That can be impeachment try number 3. ???? Time ticks. Barr is coming! Oh but hey, it's got plenty of bi-partisan support just like past impeachment attempts. Right? 75 votes in the Senate No worries ???? Let's wait and see, oh and one more time Barr is coming!

Once again this is not impeachment it is an impeachment inquiry and the first one against trump

We are all waiting for Barr with great anticipation

[candide]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's pretty clear that Zelensky is a politician and has to act in in such a way as not to alienate the leader of a country supplying him with advanced weapons. As the above quote demonstrates, honest isn't, and shouldn't, be the highest priority for the President of a beleaguered nation. 

The other reason is that the transcript of his boot-licking call with Trump has surely not inproved his reputation in Ukraine. As your quote clearly shows, he does not want to lose face again and will never acknowledge the obvious inferiority and dependence of Ukraine re USA.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Once again this is not impeachment it is an impeachment inquiry and the first one against trump

We are all waiting for Barr with great anticipation

Yes it's in the inquiry phase but in this case there is very little doubt that it's headed rather quickly to articles of impeachment being drafted and likely passed by the house. 

[roobaa01]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Second U.S. embassy official reportedly heard Trump call with Sondland

"A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.

The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/trump-sondland-ukraine-phone-call-070913

another not admissible hearsayer federal rule 802.

only the president sets foreign policy rules and not any carreer public servant, they only have to carry out.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[WalkingOrders]

56 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And if you have evidence of him plotting anything illegal to carry out his coup, it should be reported to the appropriate authorites. And ya gotta love that wonderfully vague "he may have a connection to Biden".

He may... wait and see ???? Maybe I am very wrong. Maybe not. I will revisit this post and we can talk again on the subject in a couple of weeks ????

[WalkingOrders]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"Time will tell" is about the future. I'm referring to the past. 

This is an unfolding sequence of events and many of the assertions made are going to be fought over - and made more or less obvious. So this is really not about you are or I winning an argument against one another, its about whose assertion are going to prove correct or incorrect. You are going to argue with any fact I give you, so wait let's see how others argue those facts. So in that sense this all about the future. The future of a U.S. President and the future of the United States of America for that matter. it's not about the past. So time will tell who is right and who is wrong. 

[Becker]

25 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Yeah I do mean that. Over. They will never be able to withstand the indictments that come down. This is something horrible. I guess you are young, but in my life - over 61, I have never seen a political party that takes this amount of corruption as normal. 

Yes, your posts are positively saturated with the wisdom of age....

[roobaa01]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes it's in the inquiry phase but in this case there is very little doubt that it's headed rather quickly to articles of impeachment being drafted and likely passed by the house. 

based on what quid pro quo then extortion then to bribery then to 0.

we president have done nothing wrong, democrats have done nothing.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

another not admissible hearsayer federal rule 802.

only the president sets foreign policy rules and not any carreer public servant, they only have to carry out.

 

wbr

roobaa01

What part of political trial where rules of evidence in normal circumstances dont apply dont you understand.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, roobaa01 said:

based on what quid pro quo then extortion then to bribery then to 0.

we president have done nothing wrong, democrats have done nothing.

 

wbr

roobaa01

History is being made now. Gobbledygook won't stop it. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

What part of political trial where rules of evidence in normal circumstances dont apply dont you understand.

May as well try to argue with a brick wall. The hard core 45 loyalists aren't interested in logic or facts. Indeed, they don't really care that 45 is culpable. It's like with any authoritarian cult of personality.