Just now, Tippaporn said:

Points to the "unfairness" claim the Republicans have rebelled against.  Only Schiff, a guy who hates Trump perhaps more than anyone, gets to decide who is and who is not relevant.  Kind of one-sided, isn't it?  But I know that it's perfectly fair in your eyes as you agree with Schiff's opinion as to what constitutes relevancy.

 

Explain why only one side gets to decide relevancy and how that can possibly be fair.  You won't though, because you'd be led to understand that it is not fair.

 

To slightly rephrase an Upton Sinclair quote:  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary bias and political leanings depends upon his not understanding it."

You mean like quid pro quo? As Nick Mulvaney confirmed.

11 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Opposition lawyers discredit hostile witnesses all the time.

DJT isn't an opposition lawyer though... whatever that is.

 

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Trump just pointed out her unimpressive record...how's this intimidation?

Apart from her career record NOT being in any shape or form unimpressive, his previous actions are undeniably the target of this investigation and his craving to feel relevant and wanted, beyond talking all over the visiting Finnish President when all this was beginning to kick off, well I guess yesterday morning it just got the better of him.

 

17 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

If anything it should cause her to be more determined to get him.

Where has it been stated anywhere that the former US Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch has been 'determined to get him' in the first place?

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean like quid pro quo? As Nick Mulvaney confirmed.

Why is it that no one is taking the word of the Ukrainian President Zelensky?

Yovanowitch was asked under oath yesterday:

 

1. Do you have information that Trump accepted a bribe?

 

2. Do you have any information of any criminal activity that Trump has been involved with at all?

 

Answer to both was 'NO'

 

So basically, just a loss of employment complaint. Please see HR for this. LOL. 

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

Yovanowitch was asked under oath yesterday:

 

1. Do you have information that Trump accepted a bribe?

 

2. Do you have any information of any criminal activity that Trump has been involved with at all?

 

Answer to both was 'NO'

 

So basically, just a loss of employment complaint. Please see HR for this. LOL. 

And if she were the sole source of evidence you might have a point.

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You're deliberately spinning the facts.  You know damn well that the Republicans submitted their list of witnesses and Schiff refused them.  But don't let me stop you from lying.

The list less those who are directly complicit to the impeachment inquiry. How convenient. It’s like allowing criminal to select their jury. Surely you can’t be that naive. 

Just now, bristolboy said:

And if she were the sole source of evidence you might have a point.

 

I can see it causes you much pain to see that there is nothing criminal or impeachable here.

Still, hope and Adam Schiff spring eternal. Enjoy the next 5 years under Trump. Even if you're from Bristol ????

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

The list less those who are directly complicit to the impeachment inquiry. How convenient. It’s like allowing criminal to select their jury. Surely you can’t be that naive. 

 

First of all, there's no crime. Secondly an impeachment hearing isn't a criminal process.

Back to the drawing board.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why is it that no one is taking the word of the Ukrainian President Zelensky?

Because maybe, just maybe, he's a total political neophyte and despite being elected by a population sick and fed up of political nepotism, their nation being raped by Russian-leaning oligarchs and craving a more equable and democratic society totally free of being just another Russian satellite, he hasn't been in the job long enough to suss out who is corrupt or otherwise. There's been a revolving door on the Ukraine's anti-corruption czar's position that predates all of this. If you are going to accept Zelensky's word as gospel, you may as well accept Guiliani's... oh, wait.

Why is it that no one is taking the word of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko?

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

First of all, there's no crime. Secondly an impeachment hearing isn't a criminal process.

Back to the drawing board.

You're right. According to the creators of the constitution, high crimes and misdemeanours aren't confined to acts that would be judged criminal under laws that have been legislated. Here's what James Madison, widely credited as being the Father of the Constitution thought:

"Moreover, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison and Wilson Nicholas said abuse of the pardon power would be impeachable... During the first Congress of 1789, Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/

 

14 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Yovanowitch was asked under oath yesterday:

 

1. Do you have information that Trump accepted a bribe?

 

2. Do you have any information of any criminal activity that Trump has been involved with at all?

 

Answer to both was 'NO'

 

So basically, just a loss of employment complaint. Please see HR for this. LOL. 

Let me guess here, those two questions were asked by GOP counsel?

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why is it that no one is taking the word of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko?

For the same reason that they're not taking the word of someone who has to pay protection to the mafia to do business and denies it. Being honest could be really bad for your health. And in the current case, not just for your health but for the health of your nation. 

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why is it that no one is taking the word of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko?

Same reason as Zelensky. A new kid on the block with zip experience of working with the Verkhovna Rada snake pit.

 

Maybe ask Rudy again?

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And if she were the sole source of evidence you might have a point.

Acting ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and senior State Department official George Kent could not say an impeachable offense was committed by Trump when asked.

 

Skip to the 3:45 mark to watch their blank faces.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Acting ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and senior State Department official George Kent could not say an impeachable offense was committed by Trump when asked.

 

Skip to the 3:45 mark to watch their blank faces.

 

 

They were asked that based on their personal experience. Not as prosecutors nor as theorists of the case. Their evidence is a piece of the puzzle.

14 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Yovanowitch was asked under oath yesterday:

 

1. Do you have information that Trump accepted a bribe?

 

2. Do you have any information of any criminal activity that Trump has been involved with at all?

 

Answer to both was 'NO'

 

So basically, just a loss of employment complaint. Please see HR for this. LOL. 

She was heard for the context and her testimony helps to understand what happened after she was removed.

She did not provide évidences of what she could not not witness -  it does not automatically means nothing happened after she left.   

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

For the same reason that they're not taking the word of someone who has to pay protection to the mafia to do business and denies it. Being honest could be really bad for your health. And in the current case, not just for your health but for the health of your nation. 

 

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Same reason as Zelensky. A new kid on the block with zip experience of working with the Verkhovna Rada snake pit.

 

Maybe ask Rudy again?

So they must be lying.  That would be the only other explanation.  Is that what your intimating?

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

When the news broke, Republicans responded by saying Trump had done nothing wrong. Then we learned that Trump had pushed the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Then Republicans claimed there was no quid pro quo. Nick Mulvaney disagreed.

Then the Republicans claimed that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. It turns out the only "corruption" he was concerned about was the alleged corruption of the Bidens.

Then Republicans complained about secret testimony under Schiff. Now the testimony isn't secret and they're still complaining.

Then Republicans claimed that because Trump ultimately released the aid, he had done nothing wrong. You know, like a someone who tries to rob a bank but fails.

And, of course, all along there's been this red herring about the identity of the whistleblower, even though pretty much everything he claimed has been independently confirmed.

And they also complain that witnesses are never-Trumpers but never require 'always-Trumpers' to testify. Pathetic.

 

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

So they must be lying.  That would be the only other explanation.  Is that what your intimating?

That's what people in government should do when their nation's welfare is at stake. Given the circumstances and Trump's past behavior, why wouldn't they lie? What would they have to gain by telling the truth? This is a nation under siege by Trump's buddy, V. Putin.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/13/goodwin-adam-schiffs-dull-impeachment-hearings-are-a-flop/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

 

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/heres-a-witness-schiff-doesnt-dare-call-in-impeachment-hearings/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

 

These two items may help you put the hearings in proper perspective.

 

 

9 minutes ago, candide said:

And they also complain that witnesses are never-Trumpers but never require 'always-Trumpers' to testify. Pathetic.

 

Those close to Trump who happened to testify end up invicted - so the others refrain to or are told not to. What a cornelian dilemma. 

What's pathetic is that they feel they have no other choice than to lie to protect Trump. To lie or not to lie.. that is the question. lol

  

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

They were asked that based on their personal experience. Not as prosecutors nor as theorists of the case. Their evidence is a piece of the puzzle.

Their evidence was that they could not find an impeachable offense in Trump's call.  Just before that Kent was asked directly if he had any evidence that Zelensky was lying to the world when Zelensky gave testimony to the press that there was no pressure, no conditions imposed, no blackmail, and stated about the call that, "This was not corruption, this is not corruption, this was just a call."

 

All that counts for nothing?  Right?

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Their evidence was that they could not find an impeachable offense in Trump's call.  Just before that Kent was asked directly if he had any evidence that Zelensky was lying to the world when Zelensky gave testimony to the press that there was no pressure, no conditions imposed, no blackmail, and stated about the call that, "This was not corruption, this is not corruption, this was just a call."

 

All that counts for nothing?  Right?

I did read this in Kent's opening statement:

"In mid-August, it became clear to me that Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically- motivated investigations were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine, leveraging President Zelenskyy’s desire for a White House meeting."

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/george-kent-opening-statement-today-impeachment-hearings-070451

Did you miss that one?

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Their evidence was that they could not find an impeachable offense in Trump's call.  Just before that Kent was asked directly if he had any evidence that Zelensky was lying to the world when Zelensky gave testimony to the press that there was no pressure, no conditions imposed, no blackmail, and stated about the call that, "This was not corruption, this is not corruption, this was just a call."

 

All that counts for nothing?  Right?

Zelensky was a comedian before he got elected President. 

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That's what people in government should do when their nation's welfare is at stake. Given the circumstances and Trump's past behavior, why wouldn't they lie? What would they have to gain by telling the truth? This is a nation under siege by Trump's buddy, V. Putin.

Well then, you're admitting that you believe President Zelensky was lying.  You won't believe he spoke the truth in all of the interviews he gave to all of the press agencies.

 

Well, to put it another way, since it's not a question that you want to see Trump impeached and removed from office then you cannot, cannot believe President Zelensky spoke the truth.  Because to do so you would then no longer be able to argue for impeachment.  Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively?

 

This is why I posted earlier:

 

To slightly rephrase an Upton Sinclair quote:  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary bias and political leanings depends upon his not understanding it."

 

Do you understand the truth of that statement, bristolboy?  I sure do.  And so do a whole lot of other people on these threads.

 

And since the truth is opposite your desire then by hook or crook you will lie, cheat or steal or do anything else that is required to squash the truth.  This is how deranged the left is.  They are willing to destroy America as long as they can get Trump.

 

Everyone knows it, bristolboy.  It's not a secret.  It's all out in the open.

 

 

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You mean like quid pro quo? <snip>

BTW, boys, you need to update your talking points.  It is no longer quid pro quo.  Per your leader, Pelosi has changed it to bribery so that the language conveniently squares up with the language in the Constitution.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Opl said:

Zelensky was a comedian before he got elected President. 

And what bearing does that have?  Go ahead and explain . . . if you can.

 

Just a tripe response.  Get this:  they don't work.

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Acting ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and senior State Department official George Kent could not say an impeachable offense was committed by Trump when asked.

 

Skip to the 3:45 mark to watch their blank faces.

 

 

It’s not the job of the witnesses to decide if an impeachable offense has been committed, that’s the job of Congress.

 

The witnesses provide testimony upon which Congress will make a determination.

 

Had the witnesses been foolish enough to answer the question then you’d be amongst those claiming they are biased for holding the opinion they expressed.

 

Nunes failed to get the witnesses to walk into the trap he set.

 

Get over it already.

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And what bearing does that have?  Go ahead and explain . . . if you can.

 

Just a tripe response.  Get this:  they don't work.

Don't you get it as simple as it is.. he too, knows how to lie on a stage in front of the world - no pressure, 555 , so did Trump regarding Russia meddling.

As for the rest, if you're interested on how the facts speak, as I do … if you can too, help yourself 

May 16 May 23 July10 25 26 &nbsp;etc September 11 etc