Jordan easily wiped the floor. Still, I was impressed that Schiff kept his Schiff together...so far. Too bad Gowdy wasn't around. The whole thing would be a meme. I'm not a Trumper and I've tried to keep an open mind but the more I dig into the origins of how we got here the more disgusted I get. If the Dems don't produce an obvious 'There There' then you have to concede that this is the sickest political maneuver in our history. Especially, when you go back to the same cast calling for impeachment as early as 2016.
So you are saying it was legal for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden (or publicly announce they would) to gain political leverage for 2020?
No. And I've not seen any evidence that Trump asked Ukraine to conduct an investigation to specifically help his political campaign. Have you? Be specific, please.
Pro tip #2: Sometimes there's a longtime lurker who knows the cast of characters. Let's just say the political environment has compelled me to speak up. My wife won't hear any of it...lol. I'm not seeking a 'fight'. I have no one else to discuss this with. You can't do it at work...we've become too PC. This D&D has been a favorite link of mine dating back to late 90's, early 2000's. I think maybe after 9/11 I've followed. I'm not trying to troll anyone.
Will this public impeachment hearing restore some trust in government institutions? I think so. The so-called Deep State is being exposed as nonpartisan professionals. That is a major plus of this process, giving a much-needed voice to hard-working diplomats and patriots trying their best to support the interest of the US. It also gives the US public a chance to understand what they do. Wednesday’s Biggest Winners Might Have Been U.S. Diplomats “If there is a silver lining, it is that the American people have had a rare chance to see American diplomats at work” and to “understand the caliber and patriotism” of their work, said Molly Montgomery, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence on Europe and Eurasia who spent 14 years in the foreign service. “Current and former Foreign Service officers are justifiably proud of their colleagues for answering the call of duty in testifying before Congress at great personal risk and expense,” Montgomery said. “They were exactly what they should have been: professional, nonpartisan, and of course, truthful,” said one senior U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. “They held their tongues better than I could have at certain points.” It was a historic moment for the State Department, which is normally used to operating out of the spotlight and behind the scenes but which finds itself at the epicenter of a Democrat-led probe into whether Trump’s alleged effort to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless it investigated a Democrat political rival constitutes an impeachable offense. The impeachment probe has unnerved many in the U.S. diplomatic corps—some wary that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle or in the White House will try to politicize their nonpartisan ranks, others quietly fuming at Pompeo’s apparent lack of interest in defending those career diplomats thrust into the spotlight.
But that's why he is so credible and a real professional he refused to make it political. He only reported on what happened
"Excuse me, Mr Illegal Narcotics Retailer, I, being an illegal narcotics user currently suffering from opiate withdrawl, would like to purchase some illegal narcotics to inject intravenously so I can get high. Preferably heroin or maybe some illegal fentanyl disguised as illegal heroin. Can I purchase the aforementioned items from you please, sir? Please provide detailed specifics on what you charge for specific amounts of illegal narcotics for the microphone." "Excuse me, Mr Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, famed mob hit man. I, Mr John Gotti, would like to engage your illegal murder services ad as professional hitman in order to murder Mr Paul Castellano, currently operating as as head of the Gambino Crime Family. Pray tell, how many dollars do I need to deposit in your offshore bank account to engage you to murder this person that I want dead." This is apparently the new standard we are holding criminals to when it comes to evidence. If they don't explicitly articulate in exacting detail all aspects of exactly what they are doing and why it is wrong when they engage in an illegal transaction, it was totally above board. I'm sure there are a ton of drug dealers and mobsters that are going to be thrilled with the new standards we are applying and will be thrilled that you guys support letting them out of jail. ACLU Man of the Year awards all around to conservatives for writing such exacting new rules of evidence in upholding the law!
Wow, total flop of a day for the democrats. Jim Jordan won the day, and his short video clip will live on for decades. Prediction markets immediately moved against removing Trump, after the day finished.
Here they are! The liberal pile-on crew trying to discredit a new poster. I guess they can’t argue against his points, so they take the low road.
Western countries use jury trials because they know the interpretation of truth relies on the bias of the listener. The most biased might hear the same evidence and interpret it 180 degrees differently. The best humans can do is get a broad spectrum of opinions and accept the consensus. Yesterday, serious committed State Department staff told you that the long term strategies regarding Ukraine and Russia were capriciously usurped for the purpose of instigating an investigation into de-bunked claims for the purposes of political advantage. The people that gave the orders and might explain how this was not extortion are being prevented from testifying. We can only assume because of the threat of committing perjury. Bring in the the actors and let's hear what they have to say under oath. Simple.
Jordan at no point was able to put forward the idea that Trump didn't do it. He did try and attack the credibility of American patriots including one who was number 4 from their class at West Point and volunteered to serve in Vietnam. Watch what you just posted. There wasn't one point where Jordan was able to suggest that Trump didn't do it. Jordan also got shown up by the Democrat Welch.
You can't convince True Believers with facts. They've already decided their faith doesn't require factual information.
I think you can with alt facts and conspiracy theories they are trying to firm up support and win back some that have left or is thinking of leaving The Dem is doing their congressional duty and positioning themselves politically as best they can while doing it. Their audience is the American people. The Rep is not doing their congressional duty and is using the occasion to spread alt facts and conspiracy theories. Their audience is the POTUS and his supporters.
What is the evidence that aid was conditional on investigating Burisma/Bidens? Trump says there was no condition. All the Ukrainians say there was no condition. None of these star Democrat witnesses from the government heard any Ukranian say anything about a condition or that an investigation had started or would be started. the Democrat witnesses acknowledge Ukraine wasn't even aware of the delay in aide, so how could it be a condition if they weren't told about it? Presuming aid was withheld on condition (no evidence it was), Trump is authorized by law to withhold aid for corruption reasons. Biden is not immune from criminal investigation because he is running for President. No one disputes Burisma is a corrupt company that Biden's son worked for. Biden himself bragged publicly to doing what Trump is being accused of. He withheld aide from Ukraine on condition that a prosecutor was fired. Trump asked that Ukraine assist with investigating foreign interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election, something the left was supposedly very concerned about. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Aid was withheld and Trump wanted an investigation. Nothing untrue or wrong with that. The left is trying to argue without evidence that the prior was conditional on the latter. But even if it were true, it's certainly not an impeachable offense. Conditioning aid on investigating corruption is a reasonable request. I have no doubt Trump took it personal that Ukraine worked with Hillary to stop him getting elected, and he would be justified in wanting accountability for that before giving aid. But the facts show he has given Ukraine far more support against Russia than Obama ever did, without condition.
Almost every single bullet point is wrong. Ukrainians have since said they did understand there were conditions. The witnesses have heard confirmation that Ukraine was going forward with announcing the investigation. Burisma was investigated prior to Hunter Biden working for them. It is not agreed that it was at all corrupt under Hunter Biden's time there. Biden did not at all do what Trump is accused to have done. Biden didn't do anything for personal gain. Trump did. Biden did the same that the IMF, NATO, and other allies were doing regarding the corruption in Ukraine. There is the testimony that clarifies investigating corruption meant the Bidens. In fact, Trump never mentioned any other investigations into any other Ukrainian corruption at all. If true, it is bribery as the founders of the Constitution understood bribery, and it is one of only two listed crimes that warrant impeachment.
