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.
SMH, it's not just my opinion that the Ukraine has a long history of corruption, PLENTY to investigate. Honestly it's not even a disputed fact that the Ukraine has a long history of corruption, so it's pretty hilarious to see you trying to take that position. Suggesting that there was no corruption to investigate in the Ukraine is actually pretty hilarious, so thanks for the laugh.
I mean, you can ATTEMPT to do that, but it doesn't really work for you because I'm dealing in facts rather than spin.
If the existence of corruption in an entity is grounds to be suspicious of further corruption in an entity, then you should be suspicious of corruption in Donald Trump and his organization, because it is widely known he and his organization have been spectacularly corrupt over the decades.
If there was compelling testimony or not, "shock and gasp" testimony or not, "nothing burger" testimony or not, the Democrats still had their mind made up BEFORE this impeachment inquiry, that they were going to impeach President Trump in the House.
So, this is all a circus of smoke and mirrors, and some folks giving opinions of how they didn't like Trump, didn't like his style, working with him, or his interactions with other leaders, etc.
The decision to impeach had already been made before this spectacle going on today of wasted money and time.
Trump will be impeached by the House, and it dies in the Senate. Democrats will jump up and down saying "we got him now!" as they have been relentlessly for 3 long years.
The Democrats still have a bad group of folks as candidates, that cannot compete well with Trump--even if he is "impeached" in the House. I think the Democrats will be surprised come next election cycle, Trump could very well still win.
Just testified that the "Zelensky had to announce in public the investigations [into Biden and 2016 interference] in as a condition of an official act".
The only opening for Trump at this point is to claim Giuliani was going rogue unbeknownst to him, but even that claim is tenuous given the numerous emails sent to State and the NSC by Sondland.
There is also the fact that Trump told Z on the July 25th call to get in touch with Rudy, and told Sondland to talk to Rudy. Seems that it would be difficult to claim he was going rogue when these people were told to deal with Rudy by the president. That would mean that Rudy was acting as Trumps go to person on these matters.
Just testified that the "Zelensky had to announce in public the investigations [into Biden and 2016 interference] in as a condition of an official act".
The only opening for Trump at this point is to claim Giuliani was going rogue unbeknownst to him, but even that claim is tenuous given the numerous emails sent to State and the NSC by Sondland.
No doubt trump will throw Rudy under the same bus that trump threw others under.
Indeed it is. Trump and Giuliani are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. A non-partisan jury would certainly vote to convict on a count of attempted bribery and/or extortion, and conspiracy to do same.
Yes, no facts, just the testimony of Mr. Sondland, Mr. Volker, Ms. Morrison, the partial transcript of the 'perfect' phone call, Mr. Vindland, Mr. Kent, etc.
Plus, the new emails introduced this morning by Mr. Sondland.
The bulk of testimony that you are referring to is opinion, not fact. None of those you've mentioned have stated any facts supporting the conspiracy theory that any illegal activity occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
But there is a problem with bribery which is what Trump is being accused of.
There has been absolutely no proof of "bribery" whatsoever. As of right now, there is a baseless allegation made by some Democrats, but the existence of a baseless allegation is not proof of anything.
Hunter being paid $3 million to sit on Burisma board is not fantasy, that is real. I would think everyone would want to know if there was any past corruption between Ukraine and the US. I don't see Trump looking for "dirt" here, more like, if there is corruption find it.
Folks are paid hefty salaries for sitting on boards ALL the time.
Often these positions are for optics.
Burisma could easily have wanted a Biden on Board as a show of their integrity.
There is nothing to suggest there was a criminal intent.
Nikki Hayley has been asked and is now sitting on the board of Boeing. If you don't think that was a convenient situation for Boeing given their problems today...you are naive.
There is nothing to suggest Hayley is guilty of any crime by sitting on the board. LEt's be real...she has influence with the federal govt who is having to review Boeing's mistakes over the last few years. The potential for some sneaky business exists doesn't mean it will happen.
Sondland just testified that it wasn't just his opinion, but that "the only logical conclusion" was that the aid was being withheld as part of a quid pro quo for the investigations.
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.
