53 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, you clearly don't know what "under duress" means, and you don't know the situation Ukraine is in.

Actually, pretty much everyone knows the situation Ukraine is in. Since Trump took office, they have been getting their lethal aid that was refused by the Obama administration. They no longer have to beg for lethal aid with statements like, "we can't win a war with blankets".

 

 

 

Yes, we are fully aware of the situation Ukraine is in.

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Explosive enough to warrant the senators to stop him from being a witness. What you think? 

I think the House made its case and didn't think John Bolton testifying was important enough to include. Why should the Senate feel any differently?

17 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I think it's a bit late to say Cohen is singing like a bird. He's old news. He's shot his wad. And what has happened to Trump as a result? Nothing.

 

As for Bolton- who cares? Mueller was supposed to be the end of Trump. The walls have been closing in on Trump for over three years. Trump is still president, on the verge of acquittal and the incumbent in an election year with a strong economy.

 

Trump can only be on the verge of removal from office for so long before people's eyes simply glaze over they get bored.

Therein lies the problem that popularity is much more important than rule of law. Jesus weep. 

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

And Trump cut off all discussion of military aid with "I want you to do us a favor".  Fact!

From the transcript:

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.”

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Actually, pretty much everyone knows the situation Ukraine is in. Since Trump took office, they have been getting their lethal aid that was refused by the Obama administration. They no longer have to beg for lethal aid with statements like, "we can't win a war with blankets".

 

 

 

Yes, we are fully aware of the situation Ukraine is in.

True, Obama was not providing lethal aid, but he was providing much more than blankets:

 

By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html

 

Obama also made it clear that the US supported Ukraine in its war for survival against Russia.  Trump, not so much:

 

" And I really hope that Russia — because I really believe that President Putin would like to do something.  I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your problem.  That would be a tremendous achievement.  "  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-zelensky-ukraine-bilateral-meeting-new-york-ny/

 

Zelensky looked sick after Trump said that.

6 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I think the House made its case and didn't think John Bolton testifying was important enough to include. Why should the Senate feel any differently?

The House made its case to impeach. The senate then will have the trial to rule on the impeachment articles. None of that as the Reps more interested in covering up and refuse to do their constitutional duty and oath they took. 

3 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

From the transcript:

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.”

And then he started talking about discredited conspiracy theories and asked for investigations that should have been started in the US, if at all.

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump has already held up essential aid once, and he has shown he has the spineless Senate Republicans cowed into submission.  If Zelensky confirmed that was was being blackmailed Trump could seriously damage Ukraine and leave it in a state such that Russia could easily dominate it.  That is what under duress is, and anyone who is informed knows it is a fact.

 

Do you have any actual evidence that Trump would do nothing bad to Zelensky or Ukraine if Zelensky did confirm the pressure?

 

If not, I can't prove Zelensky didn't mean what he said, and you can't prove he did mean what he said.  Therefore what he said is irrelevant.

More conjecture !  Fact: no push ,no blackmail and normal 3 times .What is it with you! Oh, by the way he is the undisputed key witness

1 minute ago, riclag said:

More conjecture !  Fact: no push ,no blackmail and normal 3 times .What is it with you!

Surely a trial with those first hand witnesses would have exonerated him. 

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Surely a trial with those first hand witnesses would have exonerated him. 

I have no idea what your talking about ! Z said what he said 3 times

 

"More conjecture !  Fact: no push ,no blackmail and normal 3 times .What is it with you"!

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

I have no idea what your talking about ! Z said what he said 3 times

 

"More conjecture !  Fact: no push ,no blackmail and normal 3 times .What is it with you"!

We are more interested in accomplices speaking under oath. Don’t you get it? You have been decrying about conjectures and hearsay. 

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

We are more interested in accomplices speaking under oath. Don’t you get it? You have been decrying about conjectures and hearsay. 

There is no denying I have been decrying conjecture, heresay ,opinions of people on the left trying to interpret  what  Z the key witness said! Fact ,no push ,no blackmail and normal. Get over it

 

28 minutes ago, riclag said:

More conjecture !  Fact: no push ,no blackmail and normal 3 times .What is it with you! Oh, by the way he is the undisputed key witness

The situation he is operating in is not conjecture.  Only a fool would say he is free to speak without fear of retribution.  Therefore what he said is not credible.

 

Most people understand this.  Obviously not all.

6 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Burisma didn't get anything from Biden? Are you sure about that... You did not watch the 3 part Ukrainegate video series documentary posted by Tippaporn did you? I think you should.

 

The description there , presented through interviews with Ukrainians is that the 3 million+ dollars paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden Companies can best be viewed as a bribe to Joe Biden.

 

In other words, as I have been saying since this began, Hunter Biden served as a bagman. He provided the place for the money to flow...his Companies took a bribe on Joe Bidens behalf. The purpose? To prevent a shutdown of Burisma.

Videos from a French pro-Russia blogger suspect of being part of the  Russian desinformation network. Lol.

26 minutes ago, riclag said:

There is no denying I have been decrying conjecture, heresay ,opinions of people on the left trying to interpret  what  Z the key witness said! Fact ,no push ,no blackmail and normal. Get over it

 

He was in need of US aids and will not offend POTUS. Remember Trump held off aid for a favour. That’s a fact too. 

59 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

I think the House made its case and didn't think John Bolton testifying was important enough to include. Why should the Senate feel any differently?

because they swore an oath to conduct a fair trial.

30 minutes ago, riclag said:

There is no denying I have been decrying conjecture, heresay ,opinions of people on the left trying to interpret  what  Z the key witness said! Fact ,no push ,no blackmail and normal. Get over it

 

You dont seem to have a problem with conjecture etc against bidens though. Despite actual evidence showing he did nothing wrong.

 

I also see trump is acting like a dpoilt 6 year old again and wants bolton in jail.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-hoping-lock-john-041020861.html

 

47 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You dont seem to have a problem with conjecture etc against bidens though. Despite actual evidence showing he did nothing wrong.

 

I also see trump is acting like a dpoilt 6 year old again and wants bolton in jail.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-hoping-lock-john-041020861.html

 

No sources listed in the article for any of what the article contends.  Are you serious?  You're willing to believe an article with not a scintilla of evidence or facts provided and no sources named?  Hey, I can be a reporter and make up any damn thing I want and point to "a lawmaker said" and "he said" and "a number of people heard."  That's not news.  That's propaganda leaving a brown skid mark a mile long.  What a joke.

 

 

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

No sources listed in the article for any of what the article contends.  Are you serious?  You're willing to believe an article with not a scintilla of evidence or facts provided and no sources named?  Hey, I can be a reporter and make up any damn thing I want and point to "a lawmaker said" and "he said" and "a number of people heard."  That's not news.  That's propaganda leaving a brown skid mark a mile long.  What a joke.

That should not surprise anyone.  Those out to get Trump believe all of the gossipblowers and bureaucrats with hurt feelings -- and no evidence.

 

It's called being too emotionally invested in GET TRUMP BECAUSE TRUMP.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Surely a trial with those first hand witnesses would have exonerated him. 

First, it's not a courtroom trial.

 

Second, it is never up to the accused to prove innocence in the US.  It was up to the House to make their case.

30 minutes ago, Sujo said:

because they swore an oath to conduct a fair trial.

The trial was fair and the Republican senators upheld their oath to the Constitution.  The Constitution does not allow for the removal of a President on baseless grounds.  You guys lost.  End of story.

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No sources listed in the article for any of what the article contends.  Are you serious?  You're willing to believe an article with not a scintilla of evidence or facts provided and no sources named?  Hey, I can be a reporter and make up any damn thing I want and point to "a lawmaker said" and "he said" and "a number of people heard."  That's not news.  That's propaganda leaving a brown skid mark a mile long.  What a joke.

Considering the sources you link too i wouldnt be casting stones.

 

If it wasnt for unnamed sources you wouldnt have many investigations at all.

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The trial was fair and the Republican senators upheld their oath to the Constitution.  The Constitution does not allow for the removal of a President on baseless grounds.  You guys lost.  End of story.

A trial with no witnesses is not a trial, ergo not fair.

 

The constitution says no such thing. Removal from office is for anything the senate decides it is.

 

Though there is a fair and easy way to find out if its baseless. Witnesses, like all trials have.

 

You cannot refuse witnesses then claim no evidence. 

 

Dems didnt lose. US lost. You must really hate your country.

10 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

First, it's not a courtroom trial.

 

Second, it is never up to the accused to prove innocence in the US.  It was up to the House to make their case.

No, it was up to the senate to consider, upholding their oath.

 

Never has an impeachment trial had no witnesses. No trial without witnesses.

 

The truth will come out then you will say its not under oath so doesnt count.

22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

48 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You dont seem to have a problem with conjecture etc against bidens though. Despite actual evidence showing he did nothing wrong.

 

I also see trump is acting like a dpoilt 6 year old again and wants bolton in jail.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-hoping-lock-john-041020861.html

 

No sources listed in the article for any of what the article contends.  Are you serious?  You're willing to believe an article with not a scintilla of evidence or facts provided and no sources named?  Hey, I can be a reporter and make up any damn thing I want and point to "a lawmaker said" and "he said" and "a number of people heard."  That's not news.  That's propaganda leaving a brown skid mark a mile long.  What a joke.

 

I've gotta pile on this one.  The article you provided is so baseless that I've just gotta go thru the entirety and pick out every instance of the article's "facts."

 

" . . . several Republicans who say . . . "

"Multiple Republicans told . . . "

"One person told . . . "

"Another Republican said . . . "

" . . . and a third said . . . "

"A person close to Bolton scoffed at this . . . "

 

That's it!!!!!!!!  Those are the fact witnesses.  What do you think we are?  Idiots?  How many here are going to be repeating this story ad nauseam claiming it's true.

 

People forget their damn history:  McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.  The Dems have brought McCarthyism back.  Falsely accuse without evidence.  Welcome to the America the Dems would love to create.

 

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Considering the sources you link too i wouldnt be casting stones.

 

If it wasnt for unnamed sources you wouldnt have many investigations at all.

So you demand no evidence in order to believe?  Because there's no evidence in that article . . . 

24 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

That should not surprise anyone.  Those out to get Trump believe all of the gossipblowers and bureaucrats with hurt feelings -- and no evidence.

 

It's called being too emotionally invested in GET TRUMP BECAUSE TRUMP.

There were many facts. you just refuse to hear them.

 

Hows the biden investigation going.

10 minutes ago, Sujo said:

A trial with no witnesses is not a trial, ergo not fair.

 

The constitution says no such thing. Removal from office is for anything the senate decides it is.

 

Though there is a fair and easy way to find out if its baseless. Witnesses, like all trials have.

 

You cannot refuse witnesses then claim no evidence. 

 

Dems didnt lose. US lost. You must really hate your country.

I ain't American for one.

 

While the Clinton trial did call witnesses all witnesses called were either witnesses from the House impeachment investigation or the Special Counsel's inquiry.  They were called to clear up some points of question.  No new witnesses were called in the Senate.

 

The Dems were not allowed to desecrate the Constitution through a power grab.  The President does not serve at the pleasure of the House.  The U.S. did in fact win.

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There were many facts. you just refuse to hear them.

 

<snip>

State one fact from that article.  Just one.

17 minutes ago, Sujo said:

<snip>

 

Never has an impeachment trial had no witnesses. No trial without witnesses.

 

<snip>

Again . . . 

 

While the Clinton trial did call witnesses all witnesses called were either witnesses from the House impeachment investigation or the Special Counsel's inquiry.  They were called to clear up some points of question.  No new witnesses were called in the Senate.