WHISLEBLOWER: Trump manipulating intelligance

[rogue06]

No, it's not. The law presumes nothing of the kind. The jury decides. And in this case the jury were those who voted on his impeachment - where the Republicans bent over and took it for the party.

I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

[Bill the Cat]

No, it's not. The law presumes nothing of the kind. The jury decides. And in this case the jury were those who voted on his impeachment - where the Republicans bent over and took it for the party.

The House of Representatives are not the jury, the Senate is. The House is merely the investigative branch.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...m-court-trials

[Bill the Cat]

Since I've offered none, irrelevant.

Yes you have. The same one Schiff gave.

Nope.

Yep. Lack of a high crime or misdemeanor = no removal from office = right decision = butthurt libtards.

He attempted to use his office to pressure a foreign power to attack an opponent.

Biden had not entered the race when the first demand was made. He HAD been VP at the time of his son's potential treason.

The childish responses have been all yours.

Riiiighht...

[Mountain Man]

The law presumes nothing of the kind.

In fact, it does. When a witness swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then anything he testifies to is presumed true unless his credibility is impeached by an opposing party.

[Electric Skeptic]

Then it was up to the prosecution to impeach his credibility. They failed to do so. Therefore, the law presumes that he is telling the truth.

That's how it works.

No, it's not. The law presumes nothing of the kind. The jury decides. And in this case the jury were those who voted on his impeachment - where the Republicans bent over and took it for the party.

[Mountain Man]

I would’ve thought the fact that he continued to act under his assumptions would be a reason for doubt.

No, because he admitted they were only his unfounded assumptions and not orders from the President.

[Watermelon]

That's what he testified to under oath, and nobody was ever able to credibly challenge his testimony, so I see no good reason to doubt him.

I would’ve thought the fact that he continued to act under his assumptions would be a reason for doubt.

[Ronson]

In other news, Barack and Joe were well aware that Hunter Biden's Ukraine employer was up to no good.

The Obama administration allowed then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to continue working at Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, even after U.S. officials established “strong” evidence suggesting that the company had engaged in corrupt activities in 2014, Just the News reported Monday, citing State Department memos and interviews.

Hunter, the son of now-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, served on Burisma Holding’s board of directors from April 2014 to April 2019, getting paid tens of thousands of dollars each month, more than the average executives with similar positions.

The U.S. investigators reportedly believed Burisma paid a $7 million bribe to local prosecutors between May and December 2014.

According to the State memos, U.S. officials’ concerns about the bribe came to light in January 2015, only months after Burisma hired Hunter and following the opening of two significant corruption probes against the gas firm by investigators in Ukraine and Britain, respectively.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rved-on-board/

And lest we forget this one:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...inian-oil-deal

[Mountain Man]

In other news, Barack and Joe were well aware that Hunter Biden's Ukraine employer was up to no good.

The Obama administration allowed then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to continue working at Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, even after U.S. officials established “strong” evidence suggesting that the company had engaged in corrupt activities in 2014, Just the News reported Monday, citing State Department memos and interviews.

Hunter, the son of now-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, served on Burisma Holding’s board of directors from April 2014 to April 2019, getting paid tens of thousands of dollars each month, more than the average executives with similar positions.

The U.S. investigators reportedly believed Burisma paid a $7 million bribe to local prosecutors between May and December 2014.

According to the State memos, U.S. officials’ concerns about the bribe came to light in January 2015, only months after Burisma hired Hunter and following the opening of two significant corruption probes against the gas firm by investigators in Ukraine and Britain, respectively.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rved-on-board/

[Mountain Man]

That's not how it works, because people lie.

Then it was up to the prosecution to impeach his credibility. They failed to do so. Therefore, the law presumes that he is telling the truth.

That's how it works.

[Electric Skeptic]

Not interested in your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories either.

Since I've offered none, irrelevant.

Yeah it was.

Nope.

Which was a lie. He used the military funds to pressure a foreign power to investigate a potentially treasonous manipulation of the sitting Vice President's son. That the same former VP announced his candidacy for POTUS 3 weeks later isn't - nor should it be - Trump's problem.

He attempted to use his office to pressure a foreign power to attack an opponent.

Then don't make childish responses.

The childish responses have been all yours.

[Electric Skeptic]

Sorry, kiddo, but firsthand witness testimony trumps guesswork and rumor. When a firsthand witness who spoke directly with the President testifies that he was told unequivocally that there was to be no quid pro quo, and nobody was able to directly challenge his testimony, then it was all over for the prosecution.

That's not how it works, because people lie.

[JimL]

That's what he testified to under oath, and nobody was ever able to credibly challenge his testimony, so I see no good reason to doubt him.

Of course you don't.

[Mountain Man]

And if you believe that the "ambassador" just came to that assumption all on his own...

That's what he testified to under oath, and nobody was ever able to credibly challenge his testimony, so I see no good reason to doubt him.

[JimL]

Yes, he did say that, but he said it was based entirely on his own unfounded presumption. He never given that directive from the President himself, and when he finally did ask the President directly, the President set him straight with zero ambiguity: "No quid pro quo."

What was that you were saying about the ease with which biased minds ignore the facts?

And if you believe that the "ambassador" just came to that assumption all on his own, that he didn't consult with the president before delivering that message, then I still have that bridge for sale. Sondlund knew, just like everyone else working on behalf of the US in Ukraine who knew about the hold-up on the military aid, knew what was going on and testified to that fact. The no "quid pro quo" remark was simply Trump covering his tracks, covering up his corrupt intentions. The Senate republicans simply let him off the hook, just like they let him off the hook for the infamous phone call with President Zelinsky himself wherein he personally requested the quid pro quo deal and then hid the evidence, the transcript of the call, in a highly secure server. Why do you think he was hiding the transcript out of the reach of oversight in the first place if it was all so innocent? This is why I believe you are just feigning ignorance, because you're not stupid, you're just complicit with the actions of the corrupt autocrat.