Absolutely he should be called. His motives in Ukraine are important.I look forward to a trial. I see no legitimate defense calling Biden for example.
Schiff‘s testimony is also critical. We need to know how much contact he had with Ciaramella and what their motives were. How much pressure has he overseen put on witnesses such as Sondland to get them to testing certain way?Calling Schiff is the same thing. “He is partisan” is not relevant to the facts.
And there hasn’t been any in testimony. so, without evidence of a crime, it seems a no vote on articles of impeachment is called for.Evidence of a crime requires a legal evaluation of facts and how they tend to proove or disproove elements of a crime. At the time of testimony, there aren’t even articles of impeachment in existrnce to reference.
And frankly, you are welcome to your opinion on this, an opinion apparently not shared even by a notoriously biased and dishonest chairman.It is true this was a committee hearing. It is true the questions were asked. I speak of the value of any answer given asking for an expert opinion from a non expert.
What testimony has been to this point? How do we know his motives without his testimony? His activity may be the real quid pro quo here that used government money as leverage for personal ends.How is Biden’s motives in Ukraine important if he is carrying out policy as an agent?
You just spent a whole post claiming that it takes witnesses who are experts. Currently there is no evidence that person A shot anyone. In fact, person T is now being accused of a crime for simply wanting to look into person A’s possible corrupt actions.Let’s say person A shoots person B.
You yourself just said those witnesses can’t testify to a crime. You can’t have it both ways.The witness testimony matters. Trump cannot go innocent of something 20 witnesses testify to, because the Whistleblower who didn’t testify didn’t like him.
Oh, you mean like a number of former intel community leaders who have said that about Trump, with whom the whistleblower has close ties.And it is not certain that the Wistleblower will testify. Trump, the most powerful man on Earth came out and called the person a traitor who committed treason. Raising the death penalty.
No evidence. There has been speculation, hearsay, and hurt feelings. There has been a transcript that shows the opposite of what has been alleged, but no evidence.There has been a lot of evidence.
There has been no facts that point to a crime.And as in a law case, the lawyer gathers the facts and orders them to fit the elements of the crime for the jury.
Actually, he doesn’t. For someone who claims to have years of court experience, you seem to have missed the presumption of innocence thing. Trump doesn’t have to do anything to prove innocence .Trump needs to offer testimony that he wasn’t trying to investigate a political rival. He needs proof he was interested in Curruption.
Now this is hilarious. John Brennan and numerous others in the leftist media have called Trump a traitor, accused him of treason. If that is, as you here claim, a threat, then they have threatened the president and should be arrested by the Secret Service immediately.Trump has threatened the Whisleblowers. That’s what I said.
Unless you are saying it is okay to threaten the president, you seem lack a coherent response.There is no evidence the Sun rises in the East. Just opinion and speculation.
Hey I can use your argument for anything. Thanks.
The John Brennan example is persuasive also.
Most powerful man on Earth vs a citizen. Nothing to distinguish.
Like a heavyweight champ and 5 year old is exactly the same also.
IOW, you really don’t have an argument.I think it is grifter -like to be the strongest man on Earth and have legions sympathetic to your victimhood. Very much the KING and Duke characters from Tom Sawyer.
Of course it is:
Victim that always wins.
Victim who is America’s biggest bully/ name caller
And victim with a sadistic streak as well.
A Bonanza of non sequitur
“Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?”
No
“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the president of the United States has been involved with, at all?”
No
Turner: “No, answer the question. Is it correct that no one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong.”
“Yes.”
Turner: “So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?”
“Other than my own presumption.”
So, no evidence. Just the imagination of an anti-Trump cartoonist.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Claiming? What evidence did they provide? That was the point of your original meme. Evidence.The point is that we have a large number of reputable witnesses claiming that the Trump administration was attempting to bribe Ukraine into announcing an investigation into Trump’s political rivals, which interfered with ordinary US interests in Ukraine.
The “no one” you mention is only one person: the President of the United States.The fact that no one explicitly said “we’re going to bribe Ukraine” is not relevant, as pointed out by the comic.
https://impeachment.guide/#chronologyClaiming? What evidence did they provide?