Trump attacks impeachment witness on Twitter, Democrats see intimidation

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Opl said:

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  etc September 11 etc  

  

Zelensky has every motivation to not <deleted> off 45 and indeed to lie for him and indeed to suck up to him with flattery as leaders all over the world have learned to do to soften up the American leader. He wouldn't be doing his job as the leader of Ukraine to risk critical American aid if he did otherwise.

 

There is really no downside for Zelensky to lie about this.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

 

 

Before the hearings kicked off I posted comment that the impeachment would focus on ‘Bribery’ and I explained why ‘Bribery’ was the term chosen with reference to the Constitution.

 

The use of the term ‘Bribery’ is not good news for trump.

 

Rather than Democrats needing to change their ‘talking points’ Trump and his supporters need to come up with a defense nce against the charge of ‘Bribery’.

 

Focus now!

Edited November 16, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[TopDeadSenter]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Rather than Democrats needing to change their ‘talking points’ Trump and his supporters need to come up with a defense nce against the charge of ‘Bribery’.

You know that is not how it works. Trump does not need to prove his innocence. We are not in Mao's China now. In western democracies people are innocent until proven guilty. So far, the unhinged democrats have shown not a scintilla of evidence to suggest any Trump "bribery". Although the Biden video is 100% conclusive proof of Biden as Obama's VP engaging in bribery in the Ukraine to the tune of one billion dollars until the prosecutor got fired. And son of a bleep, he got fired!

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

You know that is not how it works. Trump does not need to prove his innocence. We are not in Mao's China now. In western democracies people are innocent until proven guilty. So far, the unhinged democrats have shown not a scintilla of evidence to suggest any Trump "bribery". Although the Biden video is 100% conclusive proof of Biden as Obama's VP engaging in bribery in the Ukraine to the tune of one billion dollars until the prosecutor got fired. And son of a bleep, he got fired!

 

As has been explained to you more than once, this is an impeachment, it is not a criminal trial.

 

The presumption of innocence is not applicable to an impeachment.

 

And even if it where a criminal trial, why do the accused have ‘defense lawyers’?

 

Like I say, focus now, Trump and his supporters need to come up with a defense against the charge of ‘bribery’.

 

(I’m assuming for now there will be only one charge of one Bribery, that might not turn out to be the case).

Edited November 16, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[jany123]

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

As far as I know she wasn't aware of the tweet until it was read to her today.

You also know that she said that it was intimidating. What you do not know is how this type of presidential malfeasance will effect future testimony by civil servants and others.

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Because it is a sham trial. None of the vital witnesses the Republicans needed were allowed to appear by Schiff. Had it been an honest and fair trial, we would have the CIA deep state activist/whistleblower, and both Bidens as witnesses to clear up what the heck was going on, the timelines involved, when Schiff was involved, and why Joe bragged about withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine unless some prosecutor was fired(bribery).

 But then there is nothing fair and honest about this coup attempt by bitter losers that can't run a fair election campaign and resort to these dirty tricks.

Does everyone here understand why the Dems needed to forego impeachment proceeding rules precedents?  For one, they needed to fully control the witness list.  Why?  Because they cannot allow witnesses which would be detrimental to their inquisition.

[jany123]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There is really no downside for Zelensky to lie about this

Neither is there a way of compelling him to be truthful. 

[jany123]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Does everyone here understand why the Dems needed to forego impeachment proceeding rules precedents?  For one, they needed to fully control the witness list.  Why?  Because they cannot allow witnesses which would be detrimental to their inquisition.

Why? Because the republicans changed the rules... ergo there is no relevant precedent. Under the new republican model, this will set precedent.

your rubbish argument about witnesses fails, as this is a step toward a trial, where the (republican) senate gets to choose witnesses. 

I fully expect that you will then cheer on republicans suppression of evidence at the self proclaimed “grim reapers” hand, even though, given your criticism of this phase, it will be hypocritical

[jany123]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Neither is there a way of compelling libs to be truthful.

Sure.... you must have missed the other post about Stone being found guilty of lying and facing sentencing of as much as 20 years

 

that, old son, is compelling.... coupled with no discussion of a presidential pardon by the trump, even more so.

 

this compulsion cannot be used on a foreign diplomat, unlike the situation that exists for citizens.

[Thainesss]

Stone is not looking at 20 years lmao. Non violent first offense is a wrist slap. 

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Why? Because the republicans changed the rules... ergo there is no relevant precedent. Under the new republican model, this will set precedent.

your rubbish argument about witnesses fails, as this is a step toward a trial, where the (republican) senate gets to choose witnesses. 

I fully expect that you will then cheer on republicans suppression of evidence at the self proclaimed “grim reapers” hand, even though, given your criticism of this phase, it will be hypocritical

The impeachment sham should be about getting to the truth.  At least that would be a noble intention.  It is anything but.  You know it.  I know it.  Everyone knows it.

 

Justify it to yourself all you want.  Just the single fact of the suppression of the whistle blower testimony is all one needs to know.  The answers as to why are not the answers given by Schiff.

 

A sham is a sham by any other name.

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Sure.... you must have missed the other post about Stone being found guilty of lying and facing sentencing of as much as 20 years

 

that, old son, is compelling.... coupled with no discussion of a presidential pardon by the trump, even more so.

 

this compulsion cannot be used on a foreign diplomat, unlike the situation that exists for citizens.

Are you following the Flynn case at all?  Tells you all you need to know about the government's methods.  Not surprised about Stone.

[mike787]

Trump knows what he is doing, not perfect but at least he has guts and balls.

[Sujo]

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Does everyone here understand why the Dems needed to forego impeachment proceeding rules precedents?  For one, they needed to fully control the witness list.  Why?  Because they cannot allow witnesses which would be detrimental to their inquisition.

And what evidence could they give relating to trump bribing ukraine.

[Sujo]

57 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Neither is there a way of compelling libs to be truthful.

Sondland is a lib? Well thats a new one.

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, mike787 said:

Trump knows what he is doing, not perfect but at least he has guts and balls.

But not big enough balls to give evidence.

[Sujo]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The impeachment sham should be about getting to the truth.  At least that would be a noble intention.  It is anything but.  You know it.  I know it.  Everyone knows it.

 

Justify it to yourself all you want.  Just the single fact of the suppression of the whistle blower testimony is all one needs to know.  The answers as to why are not the answers given by Schiff.

 

A sham is a sham by any other name.

Yes it should be about getting the truth.

 

Glad you agree that bolton, mulvaney, giuliano and trump should give evidence.

[jany123]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The impeachment sham should be about getting to the truth.  At least that would be a noble intention.  It is anything but.  You know it.  I know it.  Everyone knows it.

 

Justify it to yourself all you want.  Just the single fact of the suppression of the whistle blower testimony is all one needs to know.  The answers as to why are not the answers given by Schiff.

 

A sham is a sham by any other name.

The impeachment enquiry is about determining if the trumps actions rise to the level of a prosecution by the senate. If this is determined to warrant progression to the senate, any exculpatory evidence can be considered to a level that republicans set.

 

meanwhile... that truth you mention is hard to achieve when the trump is tampering with witnesses, either by intimidation or obstruction... etc

 

as to the whistleblower blah blah.... his testimony has not been suppressed. If your talking about him not appearing, then your not considering his safety, which the government, unlike you, is bound to protect. 

 

Anyway... beyond another opportunity for the trump et al to intimidate the man, what other reason is there for a verbal account from the whistleblower, which has been verified by first hand accounts... and when you come up with an answer, will that really satisfy offsetting his safety.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And what evidence could they give relating to trump bribing ukraine.

Before I comment I'd like to recognize you for using the new, proper term, bribery, rather than the old quid pro quo language.

 

Did it ever occur to you that the evidence they could contribute would be relating to Trump not bribing Ukraine?

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yes it should be about getting the truth.

 

Glad you agree that bolton, mulvaney, giuliano and trump should give evidence.

I don't have an issue with any witness giving testimony.  But you do.

 

You did say in a recent post: "And what evidence could they give relating to trump bribing ukraine."

 

That statement is proof that you are not interested in getting at the truth but only interested in getting Trump.  You have already convicted him.  So please don't pander.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Before I comment I'd like to recognize you for using the new, proper term, bribery, rather than the old quid pro quo language.

 

Did it ever occur to you that the evidence they could contribute would be relating to Trump not bribing Ukraine?

How would they know. You think trump called them and said what he was doing? Any reports of this?

 

Oh yes. Sondland.

[jany123]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Are you following the Flynn case at all?  Tells you all you need to know about the government's methods.  Not surprised about Stone.

Are we still discussing compelling witnesses to testify truthfully, by invoking the shade of a felon convicted for telling lies?

 

when discussing methods used by the government, are you referencing the methods used by the head of the government, or by his agencies?

 

 

[Sujo]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't have an issue with any witness giving testimony.  But you do.

 

You did say in a recent post: "And what evidence could they give relating to trump bribing ukraine."

 

That statement is proof that you are not interested in getting at the truth but only interested in getting Trump.  You have already convicted him.  So please don't pander.

 

Bidens and wb are not relevant. How could they be. But bolton mulvaney giuliano and trump himself certainly are as they are the inner circle who were in on discussions. Mulvaney even admitted it. Giuliano admitted it. Trump admitted it. Bolton was disgusted by it.

 

Bidens have said sweet fa about knowing anything.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, jany123 said:

The impeachment enquiry is about determining if the trumps actions rise to the level of a prosecution by the senate. If this is determined to warrant progression to the senate, any exculpatory evidence can be considered to a level that republicans set.

 

meanwhile... that truth you mention is hard to achieve when the trump is tampering with witnesses, either by intimidation or obstruction... etc

 

as to the whistleblower blah blah.... his testimony has not been suppressed. If your talking about him not appearing, then your not considering his safety, which the government, unlike you, is bound to protect. 

 

Anyway... beyond another opportunity for the trump et al to intimidate the man, what other reason is there for a verbal account from the whistleblower, which has been verified by first hand accounts... and when you come up with an answer, will that really satisfy offsetting his safety.

So many flaws in what you wrote.

 

The impeachment sham regarding Trump's actions should be about getting to the truth rather than being driven by the presumption of guilt.  But again, you folks aren't interested in truth, only getting Trump.

 

Tampering with witnessess and, as you say, blah, blah, blah, is all contrived.  Remember, Schiff hates Trump.  He's out to get him.  And he'll use any hook or crook he can to do it.

 

Now in your own words, "as to the whistleblower blah blah.... his testimony has not been suppressed." that is a flat out lie.  He was on the Republicans witness list and Schiff denied their request.  That's suppression.  Of course the libs, lying and twisting reality to suit their pursuit of ousting Trump, will call it something else or invent some other twisted explanation to try and convince us of the "truth."

 

Regarding the whistle blower's safety that is a false concern endlessly amplified by Schiff and used in lieu of a truly valid reason.  No one truly believes he would be physically harmed, do they?  He would no doubt have an escort.

 

And lastly, the reason given, again by Schiff, that we no longer need the whistle blower's testimony because we now have the transcript and a star studded cast of witnesses obfuscates the real reason they will not allow him to testify.  He would be fatally damaging.  If it is indeed Eric Ciaramella then his background alone would be enough to sink the Schiff.

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, Sujo said:

How would they know. You think trump called them and said what he was doing? Any reports of this?

 

Oh yes. Sondland.

Don't be so clueless.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Because it is a sham trial. None of the vital witnesses the Republicans needed were allowed to appear by Schiff. Had it been an honest and fair trial, we would have the CIA deep state activist/whistleblower, and both Bidens as witnesses to clear up what the heck was going on, the timelines involved, when Schiff was involved, and why Joe bragged about withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine unless some prosecutor was fired(bribery).

 But then there is nothing fair and honest about this coup attempt by bitter losers that can't run a fair election campaign and resort to these dirty tricks.

I am not sure if you understand but this is an inquiry and NOT a trial. In normal trials, before it goes to court any case has to be questioned by the prosecution to see if there is enough evidence to proceed. If and when there is enough evidence then the person who is being investigated is notified and his lawyers are then given the evidence that has been gathered.

 

There are Republicans on the committee and I am sure that they faithfully report back to the party what happened at the inquiry that day.

 

Now if you have solid reliable information about the Biden's then you should be duty bound to report that information to the inquiry.

 

If however you are merely following the inquiry and making your own assessment about what YOU think is the problem, then nobody will be interested in what you say.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Don't be so clueless.

Please educate me.

 

If bidens did anything wrong how is that relevant to what trump is being investigated for doing?

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Bidens and wb are not relevant. How could they be. But bolton mulvaney giuliano and trump himself certainly are as they are the inner circle who were in on discussions. Mulvaney even admitted it. Giuliano admitted it. Trump admitted it. Bolton was disgusted by it.

 

Bidens have said sweet fa about knowing anything.

Again, why would it be strictly up to the Dems to decide the question of relevancy?  Or do you mean to argue that a one-sided process is fair and equitable?

 

"Bidens have said sweet fa about knowing anything."

 

LMAO.  Regarding Biden's threat to withhold a billion smackers and Hunter's sweet gig would you seriously expect them to?  How naïve are you?

[Skallywag]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The impeachment sham regarding Trump's actions should be about getting to the truth rather than being driven by the presumption of guilt.  But again, you folks aren't interested in truth, only getting Trump.

 "You cant handle the truth" .  POTUS sees nothing wrong in having personal favors given to him by foreign governments.  Just the fact that POTUS had Giuliani "helping" him, shows his disregard of government procedure and ethics.  Giuliani is a "personal" lawyer, not a government employee

The truth is: Our Joint Chiefs of Staff certified military aide to the Ukraine and POTUS "held" up that aide for personal gain which is a bribe. The bribe? POTUS, "Hey, you want anti-tank missiles?  Give me dirt on Joe Biden first."  am summarizing here  

This is what the impeachment proceedings is about, nothing more, nothing less.

The idea that Schiff or any Dem congressman is out to get him is moot.  They are not testifying, they did not work with the Ukraine or work for POTUS in any dealings with the Ukraine...so moot points.  

Edited November 16, 2019 by Skallywag

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

<snip>

 

Now if you have solid reliable information about the Biden's then you should be duty bound to report that information to the inquiry.

 

<snip>

They don't want to go there.  Remember, the idea is to get Trump.  You can't have Biden corruption messing that up.  Are you crazy!

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/breaking-leaked-documents-show-tens-millions-ukraine-paid-kerry-biden-jr-fund