Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Recap:
We now have both the April and July calls between President Trump and President Zelensky.
Once again, no linkage of any kind.
The WH has displayed unprecedented transparency.
Meanwhile, Democrats haven’t even released all of the deposition(rehearsal) transcripts.
even democrats don’t think this is going to work out for them.
Not even close. He did not commit any crimes. He is just angry. If any other person had been treated like he has been they would be pissed too. He went over the top with the poor little ambo today. So what.
He can have intimidating a witness added as an article of impeachment. That's what.
Originally Posted by BentBow Recap:
We now have both the April and July calls between President Trump and President Zelensky.
Once again, no linkage of any kind.
The WH has displayed unprecedented transparency.
Meanwhile, Democrats haven’t even released all of the deposition(rehearsal) transcripts.
Let us summarize today's whole hearing:
Q: "Do you have any information regarding POTUS accepting bribes?"
Yovanovitch: "No"
Q: Do you have any evidence of any criminal activity from POTUS?"
Yovanovitch: "No"
That, there, should be the ballgame
You folks realize there's going to be more witnesses, right? She was testifying to what she knew. No one ever claimed she was a wiitness to those questions
This partisan little adam Skippy show is a big fat turd of a bomb....Trump is going to embarrass the Dims next election. Great job Dims, you've made my Christmas.
I believe that bribing a foreign government for the purpose of getting help in smearing a political opponent is very much impeachable. That leaves two questions: (1) Did Trump in fact do that, and (2) Can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
From what I have heard so far, I think it probable that Trump did indeed commit such an act. But from I have heard so far I am not convinced it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But the standard in American law for putting someone on trial is probable cause, and I think that has been met.
But we have not heard everything. It is not over until the prosecution rests its case. So I cannot say how I would vote if I were on jury that is trying Trump. Ask me when the prosecution rests its case.
Bribing is the word that was introduced today so the masses could understand the meaning of obstruction of justice. It's not bribery in the typical sense, more like creating new conditions for the release of something that is already due. Trump would release critical military aid to Ukraine if Ukraine agreed to do Trump a personal favor. That personal favor was for Ukraine to investigate a political opponent. It may have included badmouthing the ambassador.
It looks like Trump did do some of that. Can it be proven? It seems that today the prosecution laid out the point that Ukraine was extremely vulnerable, and a delay in military support weakened the EU defense against Russia.
Trump's tantrum today during the inquiry was bizarre. He thinks he's hitting back harder, but he's just lashing out. He's a funny little man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
