So what? That's hard cold evidence from the people who were actually part of the phone call. Hearsay and presumptions mean diddly squat!
Not showing up and showing up and pleading the fifth gives the same results. The questioners don't get their questions answered.
Bwahahahahaha! Ukraine is Russia 2.0 and the dems have been screaming impeachment for 3 years. Get a clue.
There are such things as facts; remember? Assumptions don't pass the reasonable doubt standard when assessing guilt. You've got a tough road ahead, if you really want to change minds. You have proven liars leading a flimsy game of gotcha. Do you remember that Biden wasn't even a candidate then? Whoops! There goes that whole "political rival" argument. Do you remember that three Democrat Senators threatened Ukraine with a loss of support if they didn't aid an investigation into their political opposition? Whoops! There goes that quid pro quo/extortion/bribery argument.
So, a guy trying to curry favor at a freaking press conference is "evidence", but career professionals offering testifying under oat is not? Uh, dude, you don't grasp what evidence means.
Ambassador Sondland testified that there was definitely a quid pro quo for the White House meeting and that President Trump wanted it. He said he wasn't sure about the the military aid, but the meeting ... for sure. As an aside, you do realize that sworn testimony is considered evidence. If we start assuming that everyone whose testimony we don't agree with is lying under oath without being able to prove as much then we may as well throw out our entire justice system.
Thanks for finally admitting that Trump didn't demand anything from Ukraine. So now you agree that this report is crap because it's accusing Trump of doing something he did not do? Good to know.
So all the witnesses that testified that Ukraine's government did not know about the freeze lied? How about the witness who testified that the aide was never brought up in any of the meetings that he knew about? And what was with the text that was released by Mr. Cummings that indicated that they didn't know about it until Politico's article and wanted to talk with Volker about it? The one dated August 28th. Also, I find it interesting that you're willing to believe this lady but not Zelensky when he says there was no quid pro quo.
It's in the report. You need to read it for yourself instead of staggering around demanding that I spoonfeed it to you.
Yes indeed the dems have been calling for the impeachment as you noted. And no president has ever been subjected to this sore loser syndrome . They even accused him of colluding with putin! And spent years to no avail . Trump was tormented by leaks from Obama holdovers from day one. All of these actions made VIPS say it looked like a soft coup was in process. Things that retired Intel people noticed given they are schooled in coups. And these retired intel people are mostly democrats! And cant stand trump . But unlike modern dems have integrity and honest men that place this nation above sick politics. Did trump attempt to bribe the president of Ukraine ? Or is just more of a soft coup? I dont know Given the theatrics of partisanship and the character of people like schiff who knows? I sure dont.. For the waters are so muddy and not having .real journalism in msm doesnt help Just looks like another tale told by an idiot to me . This is normal today. And it should be against the law given what it does to this country and her people.
Back to the report (am I the only one plowing through this thing??), Schiff spends 14 full pages documenting the removal of the ambassador in the details section. As much as I abhor what he and Giuliani did to this woman, that's actually not impeachable. I guess they are just documenting all the background.. Lot of pages dedicated to that however...
The jist. Help my election and I can be more flexible after about missles. That is a well defined quid pro quo and more than what Trump ever said on his phone call.
Do you understand that pleading the 5th applies to testimony that may incriminate the witness, not some other person?
