Questions about the Impeachment

a reply to: CryHavoc
It was told that someone had called the president and told him it wasn't a good idea to send the aid and that the money shouldn't be sent. So the president withheld but Sent it before the deadline. But the Democrats left that detail out.

originally posted by: Ljleming45
a reply to: CryHavoc
It was told that someone had called the president and told him it wasn't a good idea to send the aid and that the money shouldn't be sent. So the president withheld but Sent it before the deadline. But the Democrats left that detail out.

Who might that be? Putin?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Ljleming45
a reply to: CryHavoc
It was told that someone had called the president and told him it wasn't a good idea to send the aid and that the money shouldn't be sent. So the president withheld but Sent it before the deadline. But the Democrats left that detail out.

Who might that be? Putin?

Do you still really believe this Russia collusion crap?

Seriously I am curious.

a reply to: proximo

Does Trump still wet his pants in excitement at the chance of meeting with him?

originally posted by: Ljleming45
a reply to: CryHavoc
It was told that someone had called the president and told him it wasn't a good idea to send the aid and that the money shouldn't be sent. So the president withheld but Sent it before the deadline. But the Democrats left that detail out.

How can you break a law that says it must be sent by the deadline when you send it by the deadline?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You keep talking about evidence. Mind pointing out exactly what this evidence is?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The evidence is in the witness testimony, documents, texts, transcripts, emails, phone records, etc.

The Democrats have spent the last 2 days of the Senate trial laying out evidence, and they still have 2 more 6 hours days to go, presenting their evidence.

Democrats were wondering why no protestors were showing up at the Impeachment Trial, to support throwing President Trump out of office.

Today, a Protestor finally showed up!

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I didn't ask where the evidence is; I asked what it is.

I've had the trial playing in the background all day yesterday. I heard circumstantial suppositions... "This text said that, so obviously it was because of this." "So-and-so spent 30 minutes calling this phone number, so obviously they were talking about that." "This memo was circulated, and obviously it meant someone said this."

Those are suspicions. Show me in that evidence proof that Donald Trump stated that he intended to get dirt on Joe Biden. Not where someone said he thought Donald Trump said that... not where Donald Trump probably said that because he did something... not where someone said something that Donald Trump must have told him to say. That's all circumstantial supposition. Show me direct evidence.

So far, they might... might have a prima facia case. And remember that before these opening statements finish, Trump's defense has 24 hours left to refute that "evidence" and show how weak it is.

That's how a fair trial works. The prosecution goes first, then the defense gets a turn. It's like your football team struggled down the field on the first possession and managed to bounce the ball off one of the uprights on a long field goal attempt, and now you're claiming you already won the game before the other team gets the ball.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

Democrats were wondering why no protestors were showing up at the Impeachment Trial, to support throwing President Trump out of office.

Today, a Protestor finally showed up!

Yeah, and interrupted the prosecution!

Not to mention, it was him and not Trump who got thrown out. He's sitting in jail now awaiting additional charges.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: proximo

Does Trump still wet his pants in excitement at the chance of meeting with him?

wow
what is with the trump pee fetish?
first it was with russian hookers now just on his own?
quite weird

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is no evidence there. Every witness has said no crime was committed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I didn't ask where the evidence is; I asked what it is.

Where it is? What it is?...It's there is in witness testimony, texts, phone records, documents, transcripts, etc.

The President's defense isn't that the evidence doesn't prove abuse of power, they're saying that "abuse of power" is not an impeachable defense. The President's defense isn't claiming that obstruction of Congress didn't happen, they' saying that the President has the right to obstruct Congress, due to his "absolute immunity".

hearsay and rumors.....
the only first hand info given shows trump did not want anything from ukraine

no way they get 67 votes

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where it is? What it is?...It's there is in witness testimony, texts, phone records, documents, transcripts, etc.

OK, so you can't point it out... got it.

The President's defense isn't that the evidence doesn't prove abuse of power, they're saying that "abuse of power" is not an impeachable defense. The President's defense isn't claiming that obstruction of Congress didn't happen, they' saying that the President has the right to obstruct Congress, due to his "absolute immunity".

Which are all true.

If I want to go from one town to another and there are two roads to choose from, I will take the easiest route. That does not mean the other road doesn't exist or that it doesn't go to the same place. I only went down this road to show you that it goes to the same place.

You chose the road this time, not me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

OK, so you can't point it out... got it.

I won't. It's too tedious. There are tons of threads on the evidence already.

You talk about two roads to one town, but for me list all evidence on record will have me meandering all over the globe just to get from The White House to Capitol Hill.

The question really isn't "What does the evidence show?" The question is "Is abuse of power an impeachable offense, ever?" And, "Does the President of the United States enjoy "absolute immunity", and can therefore ignore congressional oversight and checks and balances?"

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I won't. It's too tedious.

is that you adam schiff?
will the whistleblower still be testifying?

The question really isn't "What does the evidence show?"

of course not because you have none
were this to be about actual evidence the house would not have forwarded such crap

a reply to: shooterbrody

There is plenty of evidence, and none of it is in dispute. The President isn't denying that he obstructed Congress. He did it, and he's proud of it. He abused his power and his defense is not disputing the evidence, or even that he did. They're saying it's not an impeachable offense.

So, you guys arguing about no evidence are day late and dollar short.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: proximo

Does Trump still wet his pants in excitement at the chance of meeting with him?

So I take that to mean you are to embarrassed to even answer the question - which must mean no you do not believe in Russian collusion - that is good to know.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is plenty of evidence

no you are confused
there is a lot of hearsay and rumors
the only actual evidence from a witness shows trump wanted nothing from ukraine

"obstructing congress" as the house has defined it is not a crime, go to court lazy asses, were they not afraid to lose they would have
"abuse of power" as the house has defined it is also not a crime, asking an ally to investigate corruption is not a crime
the dems making the subject of the investigation a presidential candidate may be tho

do you think they have 67 votes?


lol
nope
you champion farce