Asking the Ukraine for a favor in the manner quoted here does not in any way lay a condition on their receipt of the funding allocated to them. Thus, this does not support, much less prove, a charge of QQP.
Translation: You know you cannot show they are linked. The timing of the release of the money proves nothing with regard to Trump and the charge of QQP.
It establishes that Trump learned that his efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating his domestic political rival while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid had spawned a whistleblower complaint, one found credible and urgent by his own ICIG, just a few days before he decided to release the money.
You keep saying QQP, but the phrase, when abbreviated, is QPQ. And yes, asking for a favor from Ukraine immediately after they make a reference to their need for military aid is evidence of a demanded QPQ. What's more is that we have multiple eyewitness accounts, including from the person Trump cited as proof positive that no QPQ occurred, which further corroborated and confirmed that a QPQ was sought. And those testimonies exist despite a standing order from Trump to all current and former employees to keep their mouth shut. Do you want to hear from Mulvaney who publicly confirmed a QPQ? Do you want to hear from Giuliani who had two associates which committed criminal acts in Ukraine while investigating the Bidens? Do you want to hear from either of those two associates, one of whom is publicly claiming that he personally delivered a QPQ on behalf of Trump? Do you want to hear from any of the OMB officials who placed the hold on the aid money?
Nowhere in any intellectually honest reading of that conversation is there a conditional statement placed on any action from anyone, explicit or implied. Ok - I remember why I had you on ignore. thanks.
Because you believe emojis and wave handing are a sufficient substitute to making an actual argument. Those testimonies exist despite a standing order from Trump to all current and former employees to keep their mouth shut. Do you want to hear from Mulvaney who publicly confirmed a QPQ? Do you want to hear from Giuliani who had two associates which committed criminal acts in Ukraine while investigating the Bidens? Do you want to hear from either of those two associates, one of whom is publicly claiming that he personally delivered a QPQ on behalf of Trump? Do you want to hear from any of the OMB officials who placed the hold on the aid money?
Actually, the so called whistleblowers testimony is worthless. By admission he witnessed nothing. His information is second or third hand. It's only real value would be to expose a partisan political motive to the current situation.
I think the impeachment will happen. The Senate is unlikely to convict Trump and remove him from office. I heard one of the never Trumper types say there's zero chance. Even the never Trumpers know that this impeachment inquiry is setting a dangerous precedent.
That's right. And how he was able too get his hands on the President's classified conversations with other world leaders. It's now become a security issue, which means this will not be going away any time soon. Trump gave them the rope.
Never mind the fact this line of argument only matters if you believe a "political rival", by virtue of the fact he IS a "political rival", is immune to federal investigation by an incumbent White House for actions he took while in federal office.
Yes, Trump supporters would like to hear from every witness before a fair hearing with cross examination and full due process. OTOH, orchestrated show trials in America are about as interesting as soap operas, but I suppose there is an audience for almost anything.
One does have to wonder how the Democrats expect anyone in the house to make an informed decision on impeachment when the Democrats get to decide what information makes it to the membership as a whole and what information does not.
Hopefully so. The only reason Democrats are dying to see President Trump under oath is to try and set him up so he will perjure himself. They're masters of the craft.
Let's not play dumb here. The House investigates and indicts the President with articles of impeachment and sends them over to the Senate where he is tried and either convicted and removed or acquitted. In this case an anonymous tip using the whistleblower process was deemed to be credible enough to warrant further investigation. Barr and his dept of Justice were not interested for obvious reasons in pursuing this, so that left the House to begin its investigation based on that tip . During that further investigation sufficient witnesses came forward with corroborating testimony, including that of the President, Rudy, and Mulvaney, of the underlying complaint , that the House has decided it could move forward without breaching the confidentiality of that informant. The senate, under orders from the President, wants to undermine the entire impeachment by turning the anonymous informant WP into traitor and breaking him, rather than deal with the mountain of corroborating evidence. If there is an accusation of impropriety with Rep. Schiff with this informant , then there is a proper ethics procedure for that process described under House rules. I urge you to report it there. This process of impeachment is about the conduct of Donald Trump, and no one needs to concern themselves with the informant, his credibility, his memory, or his behavior for this trial , if the managers in the House have no reason to call him as a witness or use his testimony in the trial. Under no circumstance should the House consider feeding the whistleblower to the scum in the Senate who have no intention of performing their oath of office regardless of whether they get to chew on his carcass or not.
Yes, it's all for show. Hasn't Nancy been keeping a low profile recently? She may be sacrificing Schiff.
So, assuming that the corrupt political class manages to actually impeach and remove Trump from office while he remains the RP candidate for the 11/2020 election. Would he still win? Almost certainly. And if he did win after the 2016 election had been nullified, would Trump be able to run for reelection in 2024? Absolutely!
The house gets to make its rules any way it wants, just like the senate. You don't have to like them.
