Read the post that I quoted. The word 'fact' is immediately followed by opinion, presumption, and assumption. Didn't you follow the testimonies? Spin isn't going to cut it.
What is funny is why this was done in the Intelligence Committee. No one wanted Nadler as the lead so pushed it to Schiff for brains where he made a spectacle of the dem clown show. Now Nadler gets to play at being a grown up for a change so watch for more theatrics.
What's funny is that many of these folks claimed to have watched the testimonies but like some, they believe whatever they want regardless of the facts like some thinking the Mueller report proved there was collusion. Funny stuff.
This is the quote: To increase leverage over the President of Ukraine, President Trump, acting through his agents and subordinates, conditioned release of the vital military assistance he had suspended to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine’s public announcement of the investigations that President Trump sought. The word "fact" does not appear in that sentence.
It's very odd. None of us can know what any other thinks or believes. That is ridiculous. All we can know is what they state or claim.
42 members vs 21 members is the reason the House Intelligence led the public testimony portion. Nah, the real reason is that Democrats feared Jim "Wrestler" Jordan more than Devin "Cow" Nunes. Apparently Republicans realized Devin Nunes shortcoming as well.
...OK...I think you are going to have an extremely difficult time demonstrating a logical consistency and avoiding hypocrisy, but you do you. Did Donald Trump claim that the memorandum of the call was a word for word perfect transcript?
*LOL* This is still funny. From the Preface of the House Intelligence report: "In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a moment when “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation. Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution. In response, the Framers adopted a tool used by the British Parliament for several hundred years to constrain the Crown—the power of impeachment. Unlike in Britain, where impeachment was typically reserved for inferior officers but not the King himself, impeachment in our untested democracy was specifically intended to serve as the ultimate form of accountability for a duly-elected President. Rather than a mechanism to overturn an election, impeachment was explicitly contemplated as a remedy of last resort for a president who fails to faithfully execute his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Accordingly, the Constitution confers the power to impeach the president on Congress, stating that the president shall be removed from office upon conviction for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While the Constitutional standard for removal from office is justly a high one, it is nonetheless an essential check and balance on the authority of the occupant of the Office of the President, particularly when that occupant represents a continuing threat to our fundamental democratic norms, values, and laws. Alexander Hamilton explained that impeachment was not designed to cover only criminal violations, but also crimes against the American people. “The subjects of its jurisdiction,” Hamilton wrote, “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Similarly, future Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania at the Constitutional Convention, distinguished impeachable offenses from those that reside “within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence.” As he noted, “impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.”
All of the witnesses were fact witnesses and these are witnesses who testified despite being ordered by TRUMP to keep their mouth shut. If you want more personal testimony from those most likely to have heard orders directly from TRUMP, then join Democrats by demanding that TRUMP stop stonewalling.
Yes, that's the opinion part of the post that I quoted. That opinion part came immediately after the word 'fact'. That you would change the parameters is interesting.
From politically driven made up report... The President demanded that the newly- elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Trump didn't demand anything from anybody. What a bunch of lying scumbags these Democrats are.
From politically driven made up report... The President demanded that the newly- elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Trump didn't demand anything from anybody. What a bunch of lying scumbags these Democrats are.
I'm working through the Executive Summary---here's the portion addressing the Orange ******bag's attempts to obstruct the inquiry: The President’s Refusal to Allow Top Aides to Testify No other President in history has issued an order categorically directing the entire Executive Branch not to testify before Congress, including in the context of an impeachment inquiry. President Trump issued just such an order. As reflected in Mr. Cipollone’s letter, President Trump directed government witnesses to violate their legal obligations and defy House subpoenas—regardless of their offices or positions. President Trump even extended his order to former officials no longer employed by the federal government. This Administration-wide effort to prevent all witnesses from providing testimony was coordinated and comprehensive. At President Trump’s direction, twelve current or former Administration officials refused to testify as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry, ten of whom did so in defiance of duly authorized subpoenas: Mick Mulvaney, Acting White House Chief of Staff Robert B. Blair, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff Ambassador John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor John A. Eisenberg, Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Advisor, National Security Council Michael Ellis, Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Deputy Legal Advisor, National Security Council Preston Wells Griffith, Senior Director for International Energy and Environment, National Security Council Dr. Charles M. Kupperman, Former Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, National Security Council Russell T. Vought, Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffey, Associate Director for National Security Programs, Office of Management and Budget Brian McCormack, Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science, Office of Management and Budget T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, Counselor, Department of State Secretary Rick Perry, Department of Energy These witnesses were warned that their refusal to testify “shall constitute evidence that may be used against you in a contempt proceeding” and “may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President.”
Yes, so even though they say something, and take actions in furtherance of what they said, they're magically "exonerated" because we're not mind readers, eh?
Oh, I see. My apologies. But yea, that's their conclusions based on the witness testimony and evidence collected thus far. Here is that entire section.
I am fine to keep going with those types of speculations on a forum devoted to debating political content.
