Doctored video of Trump

S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
This_person said:
They've treated presumption, innuendo, and policy disagreement like lawbreaking and impeachment material.


They then say that if one tries to not be railroaded with bogus charges based on those presumptions, innuendo, and policy disagreements that one is obstructing "justice" or at least Congress so that, too, would be impeachment material.


Does that help?
Click to expand...


If someone calls the police and says I believe that a crime is taking place the police go and investigate.

The police dont say well this is presumption , innuendo and a difference of opinion about what a crime is.

Below are four admissions of Quid Pro Quo.

One from the european Ambassador, One from Mulvaney, Trump and the final one from Vindman who was on the call in question. None of that requires presumption ( which even if it did would still be enough to investigate). These are first hand accounts

“I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?” Sondland said. “. . . With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.”
____
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy.
____


They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee," Trump said. "The FBI went in and they told them, get out of here, we're not giving it to you. They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it's called, which is a country — which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI's never gotten that server. That's a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?"

The cohost Steve Doocy, appearing to anticipate the path Trump was going down, asked incredulously: "Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?"


"Well, that's what the word is. That's what I asked, actually, in my phone call," he said, referring to his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that's the focus of the whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment inquiry.

Then, critically, the president added: "I mean, I asked it very point-blank, because we're looking for corruption. There's tremendous corruption. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there's this kind of corruption?"


___

“It was a demand for [Zelensky] to fulfill his — fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting,” Vindman said, describing what Trump said on the call. “The demand was, in order to get the White House meeting, they had to deliver an investigation.

www.nbcnews.com

'No doubt' Trump was demanding Ukraine launch investigations, national security official testified

Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, also outlined a quid pro quo effort linked to the acting White House chief of staff.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Stjohns3269 said:
If someone calls the police and says I believe that a crime is taking place the police go and investigate.

The police dont say well this is presumption , innuendo and a difference of opinion about what a crime is.
Click to expand...

And when they don't find a crime or evidence of a crime, they don't drag a suspect off to jail based on a presumption.

That's all anyone has - the only straight up factual evidence from an actual witness is Trump saying he didn't want or expect anything in return.
No one here who was a witness says otherwise - no one THERE who was a witness says otherwise. And despite all the posturing and grandstanding, not only did the Ukrainians NOT investigate, they GOT their money and their White House visit. If they were being strong-armed, not only did they not comply but they were also unaware of it.

Was ANYONE in charge supposed to TELL them that? Because evidently no one over there had any idea.

You know what else I find amusing? The left trying to make the case that Europe really WAS helping out Ukraine - that not only was TRUMP wrong, but Zelensky was ALSO wrong. That Europe was helping a lot. Well, well. I guess that means they really WEREN'T over a barrel, then, huh? This seemingly VITAL aid they needed to survive - evidently there was nothing urgent about it at all.
 
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
SamSpade said:
And when they don't find a crime or evidence of a crime, they don't drag a suspect off to jail based on a presumption.

That's all anyone has - the only straight up factual evidence from an actual witness is Trump saying he didn't want or expect anything in return.
No one here who was a witness says otherwise - no one THERE who was a witness says otherwise. And despite all the posturing and grandstanding, not only did the Ukrainians NOT investigate, they GOT their money and their White House visit. If they were being strong-armed, not only did they not comply but they were also unaware of it.

Was ANYONE in charge supposed to TELL them that? Because evidently no one over there had any idea.

You know what else I find amusing? The left trying to make the case that Europe really WAS helping out Ukraine - that not only was TRUMP wrong, but Zelensky was ALSO wrong. That Europe was helping a lot. Well, well. I guess that means they really WEREN'T over a barrel, then, huh? This seemingly VITAL aid they needed to survive - evidently there was nothing urgent about it at all.
Click to expand...


Yes and we have the Whistle Blower to thank for that. Zellensky already had set up the interview with CNN which was cancelled after the White Hosue learned of the Whistleblower complaint. The White Hosue released the Aid the day after the Whistle blower complaint reached th White House.


“It was a demand for [Zelensky] to fulfill his — fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting,” Vindman said, describing what Trump said on the call. “The demand was, in order to get the White House meeting, they had to deliver an investigatio


The above bolded portion is a direct account of a purple heart veteran who was on the phone call. The is a first hand account.,
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Stjohns3269 said:
What’s your point? This is another complaint about the process not a denial of the crime.
Click to expand...


WHAT CRIME ?

And the PROCESS you are so Proud of has been a LIE from the Start ......


Stjohns3269 said:
Give it up
Click to expand...


Yes YOU Should Give it UP ....... you want a process to be proud, lets see what happens when Schiff is called to testify how he clouded with the Fantasy Whistle Blower before the report was filed
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Stjohns3269 said:
If someone calls the police and says I believe that a crime is taking place the police go and investigate.

The police dont say well this is presumption , innuendo and a difference of opinion about what a crime is.
Click to expand...

Fantasy Supposition ....... Police have Standards of Evidence

What Schiff has done would be NOT BE EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW, and the police would have lauged your Gossip Artist out of the police Station with his 4th and 5th hand opinions about rumors right out of the Police Station with out EVER Taking a Report
 
Last edited:
S

Stjohns3269

Active Member
GURPS said:
Fantasy Supposition ....... Police have Standards of Evidence, not of what Schiff has done would be EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW
Click to expand...

Thank god you finally realized that.

There is a completely different set of rules and burden of proof in an impeachment than a criminal trial.

The impeachment process is still on going.

the Whistleblower, much like a call to police, is simply what set off the chain of events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top