This is why evidence needs to be concrete not sand.

[ludin]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

 

[Excast]

Trump's own chief of staff admitted there was a quid pro quo.

But hey, we get it. There could be a video of the President stating he blocked aid to Ukraine in order to force them to craft some dirt on his political opponents and the reaction by most of the right wouldn't be any different than it is now. People who are determined not to care are not suddenly going to have their minds changed.

 

[Craig234]

But hey, we get it. There could be a video of the President stating he blocked aid to Ukraine in order to force them to craft some dirt on his political opponents and the reaction by most of the right wouldn't be any different than it is now. People who are determined not to care are not suddenly going to have their minds changed.

Can we just summarize the trump Ukraine issue?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You want evidence: here is a website that has links to all of the publicly released documents related to the current Ukraine inquiry.


Public Document Clearinghouse: Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry

 

[veritas1]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

Dem impeachment attempts in under 2 minutes.:mrgreen:

YouTube

 

[chuckiechan]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

The Democrats just plan to slime Trump a’la Kavenaugh, and assume the demented will vote themselves into the unemployment line with Medicade for all.

 

[less right]

Not much of a Gregg Jarrett fan. He's about as fair & balanced as the president's own Sean Hannity.

It is getting routine watching grown men fellating the president on TV.

Throw Lindsay Graham and Jeff Sessions on that pile.

 

[trixare4kids]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

Absolutely! It's all a bunch of

and

 

[trixare4kids]

You want evidence: here is a website that has links to all of the publicly released documents related to the current Ukraine inquiry.


Public Document Clearinghouse: Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry

Yeah, you guys said the same about the Russian collusion delusion :bs.

First it was those pesky Russians, then it was Ukraine being pressured into investigating the Bidens, and next it will be Trump's reelection in 2020. :mrgreen:

 

[JasperL]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

Good. Let's get Rudy on the record here, and under oath, since he was apparently leading this effort and Sondland claims the QPQ demand was communicated through Rudy. Same with Mulvaney and Bolton, especially Mulvaney. The aid money WAS blocked, and Trump is prohibiting those who can testify as to the why from appearing or sharing documents or otherwise shedding some light on the subject. Let's hear it in testimony under oath!

Otherwise the argument is that because Trump is obstructing testimony from those who can tell us the answers, we cannot prove that it was qpq, so therefore because of this obstruction, he cannot be convicted.

 

[Mycroft]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

Furthermore, when questioned by Rep. Zeldin, Taylor said that he believed the non-existent quid pro quo was for political purposes because he read an article in the NYT that said so.

 

[ludin]

Good. Let's get Rudy on the record here, and under oath, since he was apparently leading this effort and Sondland claims the QPQ demand was communicated through Rudy. Same with Mulvaney and Bolton, especially Mulvaney. The aid money WAS blocked, and Trump is prohibiting those who can testify as to the why from appearing or sharing documents or otherwise shedding some light on the subject. Let's hear it in testimony under oath!

Otherwise the argument is that because Trump is obstructing testimony from those who can tell us the answers, we cannot prove that it was qpq, so therefore because of this obstruction, he cannot be convicted.

see executive privilege.
again this is why you need actual evidence not hearsay.

so far there is nothing on the phone call or anyone that was on the phone can that can testify to quid pro quo.

 

[JasperL]

Furthermore, when questioned by Rep. Zeldin, Taylor said that he believed the non-existent quid pro quo was for political purposes because he read an article in the NYT that said so.

That's false. My goodness, all anyone has to do is read his opening statement that directly contradicts such a dumb notion. E.g.

Page 35-36 at this link https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6541260/William-Taylor-Testimony.pdf

 

[JasperL]

see executive privilege.
again this is why you need actual evidence not hearsay.

so far there is nothing on the phone call or anyone that was on the phone can that can testify to quid pro quo.

So, obstruction works! A new right wing standard! If you are good enough at obstruction, they can't prove anything!! Conservative Values!

FWIW, I don't know who buys this dumb notion that the only thing that matters is the phone call, but it's not me, so try that on someone else.

 

[mrjurrs]

Gregg Jarrett: The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here'''s who Democrats have to thank | Fox News

once again facts beat the leftist emotion nonsense.

Those he will call to testify are already on record dishing up prodigious plates of multiple hearsay and rank speculation. It is obvious from the released transcripts of the heretofore “super top-secret” inquisition that none of them have any firsthand knowledge of a “quid pro quo” allegedly demanded by President Trump.

The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." hearsay and speculation.

If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Ah, yes. He "presumed." Reliable witnesses do not assume or presume anything. If they do, it is nothing more than supposition that should be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

exactly. actual witness do not presume they know for a fact that YES THIS WAS SAID and THIS WAS WHAT WAS WANTED.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record.

this is all schiff has folks the same thing he has had since day 1 a bucket load of nothing.

Maybe if I write it one more time it will sink in. Impeachment is not a criminal case so all that criminal dung is irrelevant to impeachment. Got it?

 

[mrjurrs]

Yeah, you guys said the same about the Russian collusion delusion :bs.

First it was those pesky Russians, then it was Ukraine being pressured into investigating the Bidens, and next it will be Trump's reelection in 2020. :mrgreen:

Read the Mueller report. Let me ask you this...if djt retweeted GRU tweets (he did), is that colluding with the Russians, or is he just being, as the Russians put it, a useful idiot?

 

[mrjurrs]

The Democrats just plan to slime Trump a’la Kavenaugh, and assume the demented will vote themselves into the unemployment line with Medicade for all.

And if you think what you do as a teenager doesn't matter, there are a bunch of inmates serving time that should be released.

 

[mrjurrs]

see executive privilege.
again this is why you need actual evidence not hearsay.

so far there is nothing on the phone call or anyone that was on the phone can that can testify to quid pro quo.

If he was alive you could ask Nixon and he would tell you that there is no such thing as Executive Privilege when discussing criminal activities.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yeah, you guys said the same about the Russian collusion delusion :bs.

First it was those pesky Russians, then it was Ukraine being pressured into investigating the Bidens, and next it will be Trump's reelection in 2020. :mrgreen:

Collusion was proven in the Mueller Report. You live in fear of reading it.

You wouldn't know.

 

[mrjurrs]

Furthermore, when questioned by Rep. Zeldin, Taylor said that he believed the non-existent quid pro quo was for political purposes because he read an article in the NYT that said so.

yawn...

 

[Rogue Valley]

Why All of Trump's Defenses Against Impeachment Are Doomed to Fail

 

[ludin]

So, obstruction works! A new right wing standard! If you are good enough at obstruction, they can't prove anything!! Conservative Values!

FWIW, I don't know who buys this dumb notion that the only thing that matters is the phone call, but it's not me, so try that on someone else.

what you call obstruction every other president has called executive privilege. obama used it almost every president has used it. so your nothing argument is just that nothing.
unless you want to admit that obama obstructed and that is a left wing standard?

no one has obstructed anything. this was already proven.

the phone call the basis of the entire investigation. without that they have nothing. which we already know they have nothing but
leftist just can't connect the dots. why? leftism and facts don't go hand in hand.

 

[ludin]

Maybe if I write it one more time it will sink in. Impeachment is not a criminal case so all that criminal dung is irrelevant to impeachment. Got it?

write it all you want. you just admit what we already knew this was a kangaroo witch trial.
nothing more than a coup against a sitting president on the verge of sedition.

but thanks for admitting it.

 

[ludin]

If he was alive you could ask Nixon and he would tell you that there is no such thing as Executive Privilege when discussing criminal activities.

cool what crime?

 

[JasperL]

write it all you want. you just admit what we already knew this was a kangaroo witch trial.
nothing more than a coup against a sitting president on the verge of sedition.

but thanks for admitting it.

Yes, because using a process outlined in the Constitution is a COUP!!! SEDITION!! And it's worse than a kangaroo court AND a witch trial which means it's the super bad Kangaroo Witch Trial!!

Don't you feel slightly embarrassed repeating these talking points?