15 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Repubs could call any witness relevant they wanted.

Yes, but as soon as the would call a witness relevant, Adam Schiff would call them irrelevant, and disallow them from testifying. 
 

I thought you knew that. 
 

So would you please explain why the House refused to wait to hear Barr and Pompeo testimony? 

43 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

not only the Bidens, he accuses anybody and everybody who doesn't agree with him, and always without any evidence to back up his comments. He keeps saying he didn't do anything wrong, again without evidence, he's anything but humble, not a single time the word ' I am sorry' came out of his mouth

How does one provide evidence that they’ve done nothing wrong? 
 

He is an egotistical blow-hard, but claiming he has never apologized is a lie. 
 

 

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

What testimonies have confirmed Trumps intent?

 

I thought the whole thing was about Trump wanting to start an investigation, no?

If I remember well, Sondland and Taylor.

37 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, but as soon as the would call a witness relevant, Adam Schiff would call them irrelevant, and disallow them from testifying. 
 

I thought you knew that. 
 

So would you please explain why the House refused to wait to hear Barr and Pompeo testimony? 

Point 1: it's just a lame speculation. All relevant witnesses have been accepted.

Point 2: do you mean they did not want to wait because they did not want them to testify? Me stupid! I thought it was Trump who did not want them to testify.

24 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, but as soon as the would call a witness relevant, Adam Schiff would call them irrelevant, and disallow them from testifying. 
 

I thought you knew that. 
 

So would you please explain why the House refused to wait to hear Barr and Pompeo testimony? 

Volker was supposed to be the republicans star witness. That worked well for them.

 

How long should congress have waited for these republicans to come forward.... to allow these republicans to block the investigation? There was enough testimony presented to impeach without these guys, so no need to wait anyway.

 

Besides, just because the house has impeached the trump, the investigation continues, much like if a murderer is arrested on incomplete evidence, to get him off the street and into custody, whilst the murder investigation is ongoing.... so too will the dems keep digging, to gather yet more evidence to further solidify the case against #3... and hearing from Barr and pompeo would be help that greatly.... or exonerate #3 if that perfect call was so perfect.

 

Your question should be more along the line of why didn’t republicans with first hand knowledge come forward.... logic dictates guilt

17 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

How does one provide evidence that they’ve done nothing wrong? 
 

He is an egotistical blow-hard, but claiming he has never apologized is a lie. 
 

 

instructing his cohorts to cooperate with an investigation would be a good start.... not obstructing congressional oversight would help as well.

 

come on man... innocent people go before the courts everyday and manage to prove their innocence. To suggest its impossible to prove ones innocence is rare ignorance.

 

Edited December 22, 20196 yr by jany123

3 minutes ago, jany123 said:

instructing his cohorts to cooperate with an investigation would be a good start.... not obstructing congressional oversight would help as well.

 

come on man... innocent people go before the courts everyday and manage to prove their innocence. To suggest its impossible to prove ones innocence is rare ignorance.

 

Speaking of courts, Pelosi had every opportunity to challenge Trump's executive privilege claim in the courts, but she refused to do so.  She knew she would lose.

17 minutes ago, candide said:

If I remember well, Sondland and Taylor.

Tayler’s first, second

or last? 
 

Seems they’re having some trouble confirming the infamous “private meeting”. Apparently he was the ony one there...

1 minute ago, RideJocky said:

Tayler’s first, second

or last? 
 

Seems they’re having some trouble confirming the infamous “private meeting”. Apparently he was the ony one there...

Both said it, not only Taylor.

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Point 1: it's just a lame speculation. All relevant witnesses have been accepted.

 

All witnesses Adam Schiff saw as revenant for the purpose of impeaching Trump, which was his job.

 

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Point 2: do you mean they did not want to wait because they did not want them to testify? Me stupid! I thought it was Trump who did not want them to testify.

 

I don’t mean anything. I am asking your why you think the left could not wait for them to testify. I can think of a couple reasons, but I want to know what YOU think. 
 

If their testimony was not needed to impeach, why is it so important their testimony be heard in the Senate?

 

The House was supposed to have completed their case, Senate is not supposed to complete the investigation. 
 

 

17 minutes ago, candide said:

Both said it, not only Taylor.

Okay, but at least one out of two has proven to be a liar, yes?

22 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Speaking of courts, Pelosi had every opportunity to challenge Trump's executive privilege claim in the courts, but she refused to do so.  She knew she would lose.

Or.... she saw it for what it was, a stalling tactic by #3, and after committing to a speedy investigation (as the only dissenting constitutional lawyer complained about, causing that 3:1 split), she didn’t want to allow this further obstruction of congress.

 

the constitution isn’t fulsome on a lot of things (ergo stop cleaving to it like a Bible)... executive privilege is one of those things. Given that, it’s rather obvious a challenge, win or lose, would be extremely time consuming, and congress has other issues to deal with, such as all those bills waiting for senatorial consideration, by the do nothing senate.

 

yall are lucky to have Nancy... and in 2020 when chuck is in charge of the senate, y’all will be even luckier, especially if #3 is re-elected by those americans who enjoy existence as a mushroom... you know... kept in the dark and fed BS.

 

 

4 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

All witnesses Adam Schiff saw as revenant for the purpose of impeaching Trump, which was his job.

 

 

I don’t mean anything. I am asking your why you think the left could not wait for them to testify. I can think of a couple reasons, but I want to know what YOU think. 
 

If their testimony was not needed to impeach, why is it so important their testimony be heard in the Senate?

 

The House was supposed to have completed their case, Senate is not supposed to complete the investigation. 
 

 

Point 1: no witness who could possibly clear Trump was rejected, right? The witnesses who were rejected had no knowledge of what Trump did.

Point 2: tactical move. Here is my personal interpretation (I have no intimate knowledge of their decision-making process). They had basically two options:

- wait for the court decision, at a date which may not be convenient.

- impeach now and try to take advantage of the lame Republican argument (the same you used in one of your posts) that Trump has not allowed his aides to testify because the impeachment investigation was allegedly subject to unfair rules. They cannot use this argument again as they control the Senate.

Best case: Republicans accept to call such witnesses and the Dems have won precious time.

2nd best case: they reject it and are openly shown as the bunch of hypocrites they are. An additional benefit of this 2nd best case is that the Dems can send the article at a time which is most convenient for them (I.e. after the Giuliani time bomb explodes).

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.  This is not about the democrat candidates running for the election. 

39 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Okay, but at least one out of two has proven to be a liar, yes?

When? Nobody has contradicted under oath that Trump wanted a public announcement on TV (only).

Edited December 22, 20196 yr by candide

An off topic post has been removed.  This is not about China being a dominant exporter. 

40 minutes ago, candide said:

Point 1: no witness who could possibly clear Trump was rejected, right? The witnesses who were rejected had no knowledge of what Trump did.

 

I don’t know, and I am not clear how you know. 
 

 

40 minutes ago, candide said:

Point 2: tactical move. Here is my personal interpretation (I have no intimate knowledge of their decision-making process). They had basically two options:

- wait for the court decision, at a date which may not be convenient.

- impeach now and try to take advantage of the lame Republican argument (the same you used in one of your posts) that Trump has not allowed his aides to testify because the impeachment investigation was allegedly subject to unfair rules. They cannot use this argument again as they control the Senate.

Best case: Republicans accept to call such witnesses and the Dems have won precious time.

2nd best case: they reject it and are openly shown as the bunch of hypocrites they are. An additional benefit of this 2nd best case is that the Dems can send the article at a time which is most convenient for them (I.e. after the Giuliani time bomb explodes).

 

They used the claim that he was a threat to national security as an excuse to rush it, then take a three week break? Guess time is not that precious.
 

The left rejected all attempts to negotiate rules with the right, and when the Senate does the same they’re going to be hypocrites? I know you guys have the press, but they’re only singing to the choir.

 

Again, the house is supposed to be finished with the case. Clinton has committed eleven (11) felonies, Trump asked for for cooperation with an investigation. 
 

Plenty of people (most everyone not on the left) believe this is partisan politics. I believe the Republican Senators believe this as well. I don’t think they’re hypocrites. 
 

I believe Nancy knows she can blame the Republicans regardless of how it pans out, but has no interest in seeing it go to trial because:

1. Even if Trump is proven guilty, it’s not that big a deal to most anyone not on the left, and all kinds of stuff could come up that hurts them more than it helps.
2. Trump could be exonerated in a bipartisan hearing, AND a bunch of negative stuff could come out.

 

If the left had a strong case they would move ahead it, they don’t. They convinced no one during the impeachment hearing that was not already convinced three years ago. Everyone that has been chomping at the bit to impeach is convinced. Everyone else? Not so much. 
 

I heard she might know something about RBG and wants avoid Trump another nomination...

 

1 hour ago, candide said:

When? Nobody has contradicted under oath that Trump wanted a public announcement on TV (only).

He was either lying when he said Trump was innocent or when he said Trump was guilty or both, but not neither, yes? The old: “...were you lying then, or are you lying now or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual LIAR!!!”
 

Who testified that Trump told them to arrange a public announcement on TV? Again, were they going to announce Ukraine was cooperating with the US Justice Department to clear up the Crowdstike/Biden issue? 
 

Yeah, everyone that has been chomping at the bit for three years to impeach would be outraged. Everyone else? Not so much. 
 

 

5 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

I think you should read-read it. Trump talked about “Crowdsrike” (apparently owned by a Ukraine national)  and the Bidens in separate paragraphs. 
 

What “aid” are you referring to? Buying the Javelins? That was in the paragraph before the “Crowdstrike” request.

 

 

Well, I just read it again, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is just asking Zelenskyy to cooperate with the Attorney General and his lower.

 

 

Crowdstrike is a US company in california owned by a US citizen of russian heritage. not anything to do with ukraine.

 

No he didnt just ask ukraine to cooperate wth the AG. There was no formal investigation. The evidence presented and uncontested is trump simply wanted ukraine to announce an investigation. He didnt care if they actually investigated.

20 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

I don’t know, and I am not clear how you know.

It's very easy, I explain you how. You just need to stop making general and vague statements and consider facts one by one.

 

The whole QPQ story happened between March/April and September this year. Consider each person rejected (except the whistleblower who wanted to remain anonymous) and the following questions (1) did they have some knowledge of what Trump did in relation to Ukraine during this period (between March/April and September 2019)? and (2) were there able to clear or incriminate Trump about doing or not a QPQ? (in case answering the first question is not enough)

 

Biden: No. No

Chalupa: No.No.

Etc...

(In case you have a doubt about one of them, don't hesitate to mention the name to me for further discussion)

On the other hand, for the accepted witnesses:

Sondland: Yes. Yes

Etc...

15 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Crowdstrike is a US company in california owned by a US citizen of russian heritage. not anything to do with ukraine.

 

No he didnt just ask ukraine to cooperate wth the AG. There was no formal investigation. The evidence presented and uncontested is trump simply wanted ukraine to announce an investigation. He didnt care if they actually investigated.

Trumpers like him have been told many times. I even linked once the SEC report about Crowdstrike.

One of the most ridiculous lie by Trump:

- there is not 'one' server and none of the 140 servers has misteriously disappeared 

- Crowdstrike is listed on the Nasdaq and has no link to Ukraine

- the co-founder is born in Russia, not Ukraine, as you mentioned,

- when their system was hacked in 2017, the Republicans followed exactly the same m.o. and Crowdstrike was the first to be called, before the FBI.

Just blatant and ridiculous lies, repeated several times by Trump.

 

36 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

He was either lying when he said Trump was innocent or when he said Trump was guilty or both, but not neither, yes? The old: “...were you lying then, or are you lying now or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual LIAR!!!”
 

Who testified that Trump told them to arrange a public announcement on TV? Again, were they going to announce Ukraine was cooperating with the US Justice Department to clear up the Crowdstike/Biden issue? 
 

Yeah, everyone that has been chomping at the bit for three years to impeach would be outraged. Everyone else? Not so much. 
 

 

Glad to know you think Trump is a liar!

From what I remember, when Trum allegedly said no QPQ,  it was after he was informed that there was a whistleblower report. It is also possible that both lied and that Sondland's lawyer convinced him later that it was better to complement his testimony in order to avoid risking long years in prison for perjury.

Anyway, all testimonies and documents collected are converging and remain undisputed under oath.

11 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

I think you should read-read it. Trump talked about “Crowdsrike” (apparently owned by a Ukraine national)  and the Bidens in separate paragraphs. 
 

What “aid” are you referring to? Buying the Javelins? That was in the paragraph before the “Crowdstrike” request.

 

 

Well, I just read it again, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is just asking Zelenskyy to cooperate with the Attorney General and his lower.

 

 

Are you sure you aren’t confusing the (not a) transcript  with Adam Schiff’s monologue? That would explain it. To be clear, Adam Schiff was not actually  reading the (not a) transcript. 

 

I can’t speak to the recording, but there may be any number of reasons it should not be made public.

Trump would have been a fool to allow his staff to provide testimony under the rules Schiff imposed. 
 

The House could have gone through the process of having them testify but refused. Why is that? 
 

"I think you should read-read it. Trump talked about “Crowdsrike” (apparently owned by a Ukraine national)  and the Bidens in separate paragraphs."

 

Crowdstrike is a US company owned by US citizens, one of them Russian born.  There is no Ukrainian owner.  That has been widely reported in the legitimate press, but obviously not in the conspiracy theory press.  The fact that the summary of the narrative chose to separate the Biden and Crowdstrike discussion into separate paragraphs is irrelevant.

 

Yes, the aid specifically mentioned was the Javellin antitank missiles.  So?

 

"Well, I just read it again, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is just asking Zelenskyy to cooperate with the Attorney General and his lower."

 

But he did not ask Barr to investigate.  In fact Barr didn't learn about the phone call until weeks later.

 

"The Department of Justice said Barr found out about the call several weeks after it was made. ..."

"The DOJ said Trump has not spoken with Barr about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to Biden or his son. And the department said the president has not asked Barr to contact Ukraine on this or any other matter; nor has Barr has communicated with Ukraine about this or any other subject, or has he discussed this matter, or anything related to Ukraine, with Giuliani.   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-asked-ukraine-leader-phone-call-look-why-investigation-biden-n1058551

 

No, I haven't confused the government released summary with whatever Schiff said.  I haven't read what Schiff said.

 

The most likely reason to release a transcript that represents the best recollections of witnesses to the call and not the actual recording is the recording is more damning to the President than the summary put together by administration officials.

 

Yes, asking Trump people to testify under oath and either tell the truth or perjure themselves would be very bad for Trump, he would be a fool to allow that.

 

The House had to choose between legal challenges to legitimate subpoena's that could have dragged out the investigation indefinitely (Trump's favorite legal tactic) of concluding the obvious; that Trump's withholding of documents and witnesses constituted obstruction.  They chose the latter.

 

 

8 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Speaking of courts, Pelosi had every opportunity to challenge Trump's executive privilege claim in the courts, but she refused to do so.  She knew she would lose.

No, Pelosi would have won, Trump would have appealed, Pelosi would win again, Trump would appeal again, it would go to the Supreme Court, which would put it on hold for months, and the entire proceedings would have dragged on indefinitely. 

 

Trump saw indefinite delay as being in his favor.  However the House was more interested in what was best for the country.

Excellent article from 'The Slate'..  'Who is Really in Charge of the Impeachment Trial?'.... never mind Pelosi & McConnell... Roberts is the one to watch..

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/senate-impeachment-trial-john-roberts-mitch-mcconnell.html?fbclid=IwAR0nktRxMveMUITDyA3MnsbpB423gClXQA9KY1bW92ObtScfsf0QyCeDAFk

 

 

20 minutes ago, Laza 45 said:

Excellent article from 'The Slate'..  'Who is Really in Charge of the Impeachment Trial?'.... never mind Pelosi & McConnell... Roberts is the one to watch..

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/senate-impeachment-trial-john-roberts-mitch-mcconnell.html?fbclid=IwAR0nktRxMveMUITDyA3MnsbpB423gClXQA9KY1bW92ObtScfsf0QyCeDAFk

 

 

Very interesting article. Thanks!

1 hour ago, candide said:

Very interesting article. Thanks!

Here is another one that a friend just sent me.. interesting as well.. I think..

https://qz.com/1720748/john-roberts-and-donald-trump-the-chief-justices-role-in-impeachment/?fbclid=IwAR0372EMBpiU3L5KjWbadjRKiqH2R0aLgm49I_T7L16hrJglK0ST_AudFxw

 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, Pelosi would have won, Trump would have appealed, Pelosi would win again, Trump would appeal again, it would go to the Supreme Court, which would put it on hold for months, and the entire proceedings would have dragged on indefinitely. 

 

Trump saw indefinite delay as being in his favor.  However the House was more interested in what was best for the country.

So what's the rush?  Pelosi is sitting on the articles of impeachment indefinitely.  (This after saying Trump must be removed "immediately").  ????????????

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

So what's the rush?  Pelosi is sitting on the articles of impeachment indefinitely.  (This after saying Trump must be removed "immediately").  ????????????

Do you understand the difference between Pelosi controlling the timing of events and Trump using the courts to control the timing of events?

30 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Do you understand the difference between Pelosi controlling the timing of events and Trump using the courts to control the timing of events?

Yes, apparently once the impeachment is complete, Nancy arguably has no Constitutional control over the timing. 
 

Trump in the other hand is within his Constitutional right to use Executive Privilege. 
 

What did I win?