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.
No goalposts are being moved. In fact, they make more credible witnesses than most by refusing to speculate on whether what they witnessed would fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Actually, they directly testified that they saw (or heard, as applicable) no bribery or QPQ committed by Trump.
Too bad that in the 3,500 pages of sworn deposition testimony, the only time bribery was referenced by the witnesses was in regards to Joe Biden using $1 billion in taxpayer money to bribe the Ukraine into firing their prosecutor.
All Ratcliffe proved with his wasted question time and stack of papers is that he needs a thesaurus.
"A person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."
No goalposts are being moved. In fact, they make more credible witnesses than most by refusing to speculate on whether what they witnessed would fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." You know who is moving the goalposts? Republicans. First Republicans said it's not quid pro quo because they can't subpoena the whistleblower, who doesn't matter now because there is a gaggle of witnesses besides him so they can't pretend the whole episode never happened. Then Republicans said the testimony didn't count because it's all hearsay. When witnesses with direct knowledge entered the picture, that defense went out the window, so they tried the it's not quid pro quo because the aid was only delayed, another ridiculous defense because an attempted crime is still a crime, especially since Trump never released the aid, John Bolton did. Then they turned to the defense that it wasn't a crime because the witnesses (not the lawyers or the House, but the WITNESSES) said it wasn't, a defense that is just as stupid because witnesses to crimes aren't usually lawyers. That's why they are called witnesses and don't have an Esquire after their name.
We have the ****ing transcript. There is NO BRIBERY; NO QUID PRO QUO; NO EXTORTION; NOTHING!!!!
Just give it up Scooby dooo! Your retarded DemocRAT party is lost in a fog of Communist dreams!
Your party is going to extinguish itself in their quest for absolute POWER and CONTROL!
EVERY witness has been asked this question and EVERY witness has answered they have not seen or heard anything that is QPQ, Extortion or Bribery.
Everyone.
Bribery is not usually a direct question, it is implied but the intent is obvious. When a mobster offers a business protection and states this is a nice business it would be a shame if something happened the intent is obvious.
Amazing how Volker and Sondland's memories were refreshed.
Trump is from Queens. That's just the vernacular. I know it's fiction but it's remarkably spot on... Ever watch King of Queens? The Carrie character is the epitome of the Queens mindset. I'm thinking there's just a lot of people who never ventured more than 50 miles from where they were born and don't understand that someone from Queens is going to behave differently than someone from somewhere else.
I lived in NYC, and have been through Queens many times, and know people from Queens. They are all much nicer people than Trump. Being from Queens does not make one a creep.
Trump has lived in Manhattan (and Palm Beach) for his entire adult life. When I lived in NYC, I knew and worked with many people. Not one of them acted or talked like Trump.
He is personally a nasty, vengeful, rude, often ignorant, name-dropping and very insecure bully. This is due to his upbringing, family and personal socialization--not from being born in Queens.
He is a crude bully and that is just who he is. What people really disliked about him was not just his crassness, materialism and rudeness, but the fact he is a gigantic phony, desperately trying to impress people, and failing miserably.
Once again, these are fact based witnesses. These witnesses do not determine charges, nor do any witnesses in a trial. They said they were not legal experts. They are there to discuss what they saw, heard, and did; nothing else. Determining the charges levied against a defendant, if any, is the job of the House.
That's not true at all !!! How did you feel about this or that, and what is your opinion on it, has been a constant theme !!!
The silver lining in this cloud of BS is the democrats are doing immense harm to their candidates in their own primary !!!
No goalposts are being moved. In fact, they make more credible witnesses than most by refusing to speculate on whether what they witnessed would fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." You know who is moving the goalposts? Republicans. First Republicans said it's not quid pro quo because they can't subpoena the whistleblower, who doesn't matter now because there is a gaggle of witnesses besides him so they can't pretend the whole episode never happened. Then Republicans said the testimony didn't count because it's all hearsay. When witnesses with direct knowledge entered the picture, that defense went out the window, so they tried the it's not quid pro quo because the aid was only delayed, another ridiculous defense because an attempted crime is still a crime, especially since Trump never released the aid, John Bolton did. Then they turned to the defense that it wasn't a crime because the witnesses (not the lawyers or the House, but the WITNESSES) said it wasn't, a defense that is just as stupid because witnesses to crimes aren't usually lawyers. That's why they are called witnesses and don't have an Esquire after their name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Actually, they directly testified that they saw (or heard, as applicable) no bribery or QPQ committed by Trump.
Once again, I am going to repeat what I said twice already and bolded above. Only in the fantasyland of blind Trump loyalists would charges automatically be dismissed because WITNESSES didn't decide on the exact legal definition for what constitutes bribery and whether or not POTUS met that definition. They aren't Constitutional lawyers. That is not their decision to make. Witnesses to a crime (or potential witnesses) do not make the decision as to the charges.
EVERY witness has been asked this question and EVERY witness has answered they have not seen or heard anything that is QPQ, Extortion or Bribery.
Everyone.
No, they haven't.
It's not the witnesses job to decide on a verdict. They're fact witnesses. They are there to reveal what they know. Facts.
The evidence is clear. Unless you are wilfully blind.
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.
