Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

a reply to: Sillyolme
more of your made up nonsense

good example of hearsay tho

which is inadmissible in court

Senator Graham on TV right now outlining why the House might be engaged in an illegitimate process, possibly illegal too 😃

ustv247.tv...

If these impeachment hearings are illegitimate, why don't Republicans come out and talk about what the Witnesses are saying?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

"Felt no pressure"

fair enough

so if he felt no pressure who knows better than him?
or is he lying?

the one actual first hand witness.....

He was faced with a response that would either:
A) Force him to publicly lie his first month in office OR
B) Incriminate the President of the United States (Standing beside him) who he desperately needs for Military Assistance amid standing invasion from Russia.

With that context...the Question:
"did you feel pressure from President Trump to investigate the Bidens in order to unfreeze the Military Aid"

Answer:
"I'd like to tell you that I NEVER feel pressure. I have lots of people who would like to put pressure on me, here and abroad, but I am the President of an independent Ukraine, No one can put pressure on me"
www.cnn.com...

NO WHERE DOES HE EVER SAY PRESSURE WAS NOT APPLIED

And BTW I could do this part all day:
Ukraine's president discussed Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports
thehill.com...

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I dunno, I find it hard to believe blabbermouths like Jordan or Nunez (both in the hearings) aren't crowing to the high heavens to the media about the unfairness of it all (as you suggest above) if it really were as unfair as you think.

??? been living under a rock? I see them all over the news talking about how unfair, and unConstitutional, it is.

originally posted by: carewemust
If these impeachment hearings are illegitimate, why don't Republicans come out and talk about what the Witnesses are saying?

I've asked myself the same question. I guess its because they do still respect the rule of law, even when it is being abused by others, and don't want to stoop to the level of the dems.

a reply to: xuenchen

What are the conflicts between what the whistleblower says and what the memorandum (not transcripts) of the conversation says?
Because they pretty much match up and now there have been a few people who actually did witness the phone call who have testified to what it said. Not only that but we have what Giuliani was up to trying to get people to make stuff up. We have oligarchs who make statements one day only to retract them the next because they are a lie and they dont want to be caught lying to the United States congress.
The stench on this whole thing reaches Saint Peter as his desk.
So if you think there are conflicts between what the whistleblower complaint says and what happened please lay that case out for all of us.

originally posted by: Extorris
Wouldn't it be to the WHs advantage to let people testify, provide the facts and dispute what has been said under oath?

Ok, now you're just being a disingenuous ass.

Why do you think the Rs are screaming bloody murder about the unfairness of these secret meetings?

They want to call witnesses and dispute what has been said.

How exactly do you propose they do that when the Dems have forbidden it with these secret meetings?

a reply to: Extorris
you can provide whatever spin you like, you were the one that advised me on spin.....right?
nobody pushed him
his own words

I would take that over 2nd or 3rd hand bs anyday

originally posted by: tanstaafl
"There is no formal impeachment proceeding currently underway though, that would require a vote of approval by the HoR."

For anyone interested, I just started a new thread to debate this one very specific question.

Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

Feel free to join in, especially if you disagree with my claim that the Constitution requires that vote be held in order to initiate a formal Impeachment inquiry/investigation.

a reply to: xuenchen

You are not paying attention to the news then because witnesses to the phone call and witnesses to other conversations and actions are building a solid case that trump was extorting the president of the Ukraine to get a political gain.
Sorry dude but not cool. Not legal. Not good for trump at all.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Well all this has been discussed right here on ATS, but here's one article that outlines a few things without 500 pages of details .....................😎

Whistleblower Complaint Conflicts With Trump–Zelensky Call Transcript

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
you can provide whatever spin you like, you were the one that advised me on spin.....right?
nobody pushed him
his own words

I would take that over 2nd or 3rd hand bs anyday

Ok
In the Ukranian's own words, he NEVER said he was not pressured.

You are going to agree on facts right?

I don't think his "feelings" are relevant nor is his explaining his "feelings" about things under oath or deposition examination.

a reply to: Extorris
no corruption
nobody pushed him

in no way did he indicate he was coerced
unless you have info I dont

if you do please provide it

a reply to: Extorris

Especially when it turns out that they are asking that country to fake evidence and make up stuff which of course they refused to do.
Zelinskyy can only say he did not feel pressured. LOL of course trump is still holding the purse strings so what else can he do he does not want to make an enemy of the USA.
The oligarch Lutsenko on whos statements trump was relying retracted what he said about Hunter Biden, what he said about the ukrainian involvement in the 2016 elections or that Obama ordered him not to investigate. All of it false. All of it retracted upon further thought.
But trump doesn't even care that he retracted everything trump needed him to say. trump still claims it and it doesnt matter to him that its all a lie.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Sorry dude... it was your story to start with. You thought your little scenario explained it all away. I just showed you that what happened after proved it did not. Of course the characters are made up but it was you who made them up.
I simply fleshed them out and gave them friends.

The fact is that people who were witness to the phone call have verified what the whistleblower said and what that memorandum showed.
And other people who were in the loop on what was happening have testified and the republicans who are in on the hearings are speechless. Numb.
The big showy action comes from a mob trying to make a visual statement but only has the news talking about what jerks they are. Every day is worse than the day before.

a reply to: xuenchen

If he thinks the actions are illegal then going on tv is not how he should be handling it.
There are legal means to address it.
Going on tv.... just more lip flapping. If he has something he needs to bring it to the DOJ. NOW...
but he only has hot air which is what tv was made for.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
no corruption
nobody pushed him

He never said that.

You disagree?

a reply to: tanstaafl

There are republicans in the hearing. Please stop saying they are not represented.
It is not true.

a reply to: xuenchen

How about you lay it out for me instead of making me chase it.
Name two things. We cans start small if you like.