H
Horton
Guest
In other words quid pro quo.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Well said, it is supposition, Democratic party talking points.Unfortunately, these are not facts so much as presumptions and created narrative. There is no link to helping the campaign and was shown to be not personal in nature; The hold was corrected by OMB to be much before the “call”. And Sondland’s testimony was professed to be his own and not factual…
But the fake news media leaves the facts out to leave to be sucked in by their lie…
J
JButky
Guest
Once again, presumptive Dem narrative propagated through fake news to appear legitimate. Doesn’t square with the facts… Same tactic that @maximus is using to assume facts that aren’t there…it does not extend to making the release fo aid contingent of favors to advance his campaign or obstruction of investigations into his wrongdoing.
It’s my presumption from what you’ve said, that you want Trump to be guilty and so have connected dots that are not there to make him so. Then keep repeating it as if its fact… But it’s not.
See how it works?? Can’t argue with my presumption…It’s a fact!
I’m sick and tired of hearing opinion and presumptions of made up facts. If we followed this, there would have been tons of impeachments throughout History over policy as an excuse because some group of people didn’t like a President’s legal actions. Of course these Democrats don’t care anymore. According to them, everything Trump does is dangerous, impeachable and warrants immediate removal on rules they wish to solely dictate. That is unless they can use it for their own political expediency, or in this case as it is turning out…political suicide…
I would normally say, let them hang themselves with the rope they’ve thrown out there, but the leaders of the Democrat party have become a danger to our Republic. If anyone needs to be removed… it’s them and not Trump.
But that process is underway. I can wait…
D
dvdjs
Guest
It’s my presumption
Interesting post. Presumptions and feelings, but not you did not address, let alone repudiate, any content in any post.I’m sick and tired
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
They will be removed at the ballot box in 2020 after all this bs
D
dvdjs
Guest
More presumptions and opinions, without addressing, let alone repudiating, any factual content in any post.They will be removed at the ballot box in 2020 after all this bs
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Okey doky!
Last edited:
H
Horton
Guest
That who told who what? Sondeland telling Ukraine an announcement would be sufficient? And Sondeland testified he had a direct order from Trump to do this? Or did Sondeland assume that is what Trump wanted or did he hear from someone who heard is from another person who thought that might be the President said?You neglected to quote the testimony in which he recounts telling Ukraine that the announcement of the investigation would be sufficient.
That is exactly what happened. That is factual information that was testified to by the witnesses. There is no testimony from Mulvany, Pompeo, and Giuliani because the Democrats did not followed through with getting the testimony. You have no idea what they would have said as there is no official record of testimony they did not give.If you would like to create narrative in which Sondland et al were acting on their own, or under false impressionism of what their boss wanted, good luck with that.
My opinion is the Dems really did not want their testimony due to it not proving what they claimed. You see I used the words “my opinion” as I am assuming, not relying on what may or may not be factual. See the difference?
This has been so completely discounted even the Dems have backed off it.Whatever latitude the President may have, it does not extend to making the release fo aid contingent of favors to advance his campaign or obstruction of investigations into his wrongdoing. Those are impeachable offenses
M
Maximus1
Guest
Trump issued a blanket prohibition to testify. There does not exist a legal basis to do that. He did not assert executive privilege.
This is why those witnesses did not testify. They were asked.
And if they had anything exculpatory to say, Trump doesn’t hide them.
And you seem to think the request for campaign favors from Ukraine has been " discounted". Even though it is precisely what Trump seeks in the transcript
This is why those witnesses did not testify. They were asked.
And if they had anything exculpatory to say, Trump doesn’t hide them.
And you seem to think the request for campaign favors from Ukraine has been " discounted". Even though it is precisely what Trump seeks in the transcript
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
If the quid is the American people, yes.
D
dvdjs
Guest
There is no evidence to support this extremely implausible idea. Not even the Trump team is putting this forward as a defense. Indeed the blocking of the testimony of Mulvany, Pompeo, and Giuliani argues against it.That is exactly what happened.
No need for it at the impeachment level. But it is proper to have it at the trial.There is no testimony from Mulvany, Pompeo, and Giuliani because the Democrats did not followed through with getting the testimony.
This. When Trump supporters are talking as though a written confession is the only thing that constitutes “hard” evidence, you know they have no defense against the charges.I am saying every jury is told to weigh evidence using common sense.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Trump put a hold on Aid.
As long as the record is devoid of any evidence of a legitimate reason for doing this, reason dictates you infer the only remaining reason with the evidentiary support in the record. Pretty standard.
As long as the record is devoid of any evidence of a legitimate reason for doing this, reason dictates you infer the only remaining reason with the evidentiary support in the record. Pretty standard.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Their defense is if Trump shot someone on 5th, they still vote for him. Nothing has changed since Trump said it.
D
dvdjs
Guest
It might be said that you must forgive that offense to be a good Catholic.Their defense is if Trump shot someone on 5th, they still vote for him. Nothing has changed since Trump said it.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Not exactly true, if you deal with the “preponderance of evidence.” Plus, you ignore the parade of witnesses making credible testimony. If you think that no facts assail or convict Trump you are surely quibbling.Facts are facts. Facts are not assumptions, not presumptions, nor are the a gathering of various statements that one might say add up to something.
H
Horton
Guest
In the authentic transcript of the actual call show me where Trump asks the president of Ukraine for campaign favors. I don’t want your interpretation of the call or what you think the call says, I want to see the actual words where Trumps asks for personal campaign favors.And you seem to think the request for campaign favors from Ukraine has been " discounted". Even though it is precisely what Trump seeks in the transcript
However it is not, it is just a certain group that does NOT represent all of Americans.If the quid is the American people, yes.
There is plenty of evidence to support it. You just choose to not believe it. That is your right, but it doesn’t make it less true.There is no evidence to support this extremely implausible idea. Not even the Trump team is putting this forward as a defense. Indeed the blocking of the testimony of Mulvany, Pompeo, and Giuliani argues against it.
Common sense and supposition are not the same thing. A written confession is good evidence but so are actual FACTS proving the Dems case, of which there are NONE. Not one witness could provide factual, without a doubt, obvious to everyone evidence.When Trump supporters are talking as though a written confession is the only thing that constitutes “hard” evidence, you know they have no defense against the charges.
As far as defense is concerned, you really have no idea what the defense will be. The House (Pelosi) refuses to send it to the Senate until she gets what she wants (quid pro quo). Msm and others have just assumed, once again, what the defense will be.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
I’m not sure that is the applicable standard of proof. Seeking a ‘smoking gun’ is a wild goose chase, to mix a metaphor.A written confession is good evidence but so are actual FACTS proving the Dems case, of which there are NONE. Not one witness could provide factual, without a doubt, obvious to everyone evidence.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I never thought it an offense. Just an explanation
M
Maximus1
Guest
Who said beyond a reasonable doubt? That is a criminal standard where liberty rights are at stake.
Most commentators suggest Clear and convincing. Several, Perponderence. Some say there is none.
Most commentators suggest Clear and convincing. Several, Perponderence. Some say there is none.
H
Horton
Guest
However, with a preponderance of evidence, you must still have factual evidence and not supposition.if you deal with the “preponderance of evidence.
preponderance of the evidence
There was only assumptions and hearsay testimony in the hearing, no facts.n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.