New Impeachment Scam Thread. Nice People Only.

The Sideshow Bob defense is strong today.

Paged!

We already went over this. There is no need for exculpatory evidence if the case is built entirely on hearsay. Even Sondland testified that his testimony was built on presumptions. Presumptions aren't admissable evidence.

It would be more accurate to say you have tried to say this and failed. Sondland was talking directly to Trump in May when he set up the scheme Nothing in his opening statement was "hearsay."

So let me see if I have the timeline of this absolute clusterfuck somewhat straight.

-Obama administration and people in direct orbit of it take advantage of instability in Ukraine to use the entire country as their personal extralegal money laundering piggy bank, this goes on for years.
-Biden's dumb *** brags on TV about getting the guy who was investigating corruption in the Ukraine fired and replaced with their own paid for guy.
-Enter Zelinsky, Democrats start getting antsy about Ukraine back in early summer 2019 before the shitshow even began, start sending him letters urging him to reconsider working with Trump. Really quite strange that they'd already be agitated before they even knew about the call.
-Zelinsky going off the reservation is confirmed when Eric Ciaramella hears about the call from another unknown fellow swamp creature and immediately runs to tattle to Schiff about it.
-Schiff sits on it for a few weeks while the Democrats no doubt desperately begin cleaning closets and looking for new places to stack the skeletons, come up with the "genius" plan of an impeachment inquiry show trial to divert attention while they try to pull their fangs up out of Ukraines neck before the thing blows up on them.
-2 million articles with the words Quid Pro Quo in the title and a picture of a smug looking career bureaucrat as the thumbnail later and we're at where we are now

Am I missing anything?

Lol, that Ukrainian news from yesterday has not been debunked at all.

Then what is this?


And this exchange?

No testimony other than "my own presumptions" sounds pretty cut and dry. Everything you heard in his opening statement that you guys are taking as gospel truth was based on Sondland's presumptions, carefully tailored so that the entire MSM could run with it before Sondland was actually pressed to clarify in cross-examination.

You have nothing. You lose. Good day, sir!

That was entirely the point behind the withholding of funds in 2016 that Biden bragged about; the prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, was notoriously corrupt and, among other things, was holding back investigations into Burisma. For what it's worth, this investigation was to begin in 2012, well before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board in 2014. The pressure on Ukraine to remove Shokin was not coming from just the Obama administration, but from many EU countries as well.

We give out aid when it advances our interests. Ukraine is a vital ally against Russian influence, and to leave them high and dry would be to abandon an ally and cede power to one of our biggest rivals. Quid pro quo is itself a neutral term since it merely implies an exchange. The issue with Trump's quid pro quo is that he used his position to extort Ukraine out of much needed aid in return for something that benefits only Trump, which is a misuse of executive power. Biden is a political rival regardless of whether or not he becomes the nominee, as all potential nominees are.

Testimonies are not mere hearsay, and congressional hearings do not follow the rules of standard criminal trials (a comparison between impeachment inquiries/trials and criminal trials shows a lack of understanding about either). The point of the inquiry is to determine what, if any, indictments should be made, and as such, leads like testimony can be used as a basis for those indictments, as well as investigations into claims. Without testimony, there's effectively no way to start any investigation unless the evidence is out in the open from the start.

Rav, all that exculpatory testimony has been debunked by his opening statement before hand.

Don’t you get it?

?

The charge isn't that testimonies in general are hearsay, the charge is that the substance of these particular testimonies is hearsay. There's a difference, and being under oath doesn't negate that.

Completely. The source has been posted. No indictments took place, no arrests were made, the story was completely fake.

Its you ignoring everything that happened in May and June. It was made very clear that the scheme started with: May 23. Get the Ukrainians to announce an investigation in exchange for a WH meeting. Go. They went. The foreign aid was not in play at any point during this time.

Then, two months later, the aid came into play, unbeknownst to everyone outside of Trump and Mulvaney. No one was told the aid was being blocked, everyone has testified they found out well after the fact, some of them didn't find out until August.

It was only then that Sondland learned of that additional leverage against the Ukrainians. Previously, he had been working with the 3 amigos to set up the investigation announcement and the WH meeting. He didn't say a single word to contradict this. Sondland's objective, that came from Trump, never changed.

Read the rest of my post before you jump to reply. Even hearsay is valid in an inquiry as it provides leads for investigation.

In high school gossip based whodunit? Sure.

In the impeachment of a president, not a *** chance.

Things they agree with are "Real Truth", things they don't agree with are False, things they don't agree with but that can't be dismissed are "Hate Facts". Sums on the local lefties pretty well.

Remember guys

Democrats: Good
Republicans: Bad
Orange Man: REALLY REALLY BAD!!!

It's practically an inevitable necessity in a presidential impeachment inquiry, especially if there may be obstruction involved. Don't conflate the rules of an inquiry with the rules of a trial.

Now to be quite frank.

Your not gonna change any of the local lefties minds here. If they had a big red button that said "Remove Trump" with the known cost being the lives of a few dozens children, they would immediately push it and claim the cost was acceptable.

Remember they've already actually done this.

The only thing we can really do is point out how hilarious and ridiculous this all is and the best way to do that is with satire and parody. Fone's had the right answer all along.

He's still convinced that these hearings are tantamount to an actual investigation No, this is political theatre is disguise. If the Democrats vote to impeach, it will be based entirely off this hearsay, not some magical evidence that will appear after the public hearings

That is such an ironic post from the cowardly Saevel, who has done nothing but lie for weeks. Its ok though, we will keep debunking all the conspiracies you guys are throwing out there. Its very easy.

It will be based on the firsthand evidence that was produced this week. Its not magical, its obvious.

"First-hand evidence", huh? I don't think you even know what that means.

Yeah, I do. Sondland took his orders directly from Trump. Its not hearsay, its fact. They spoke on the phone all the time. You have nothing to dispute it. You tried. You failed. Your little quote from his testimony does nothing to change the scheme he was carrying out.

Wow, throwing out several Vic.exe iterations in one post. "Lie", "debunk", "conspiracies", "easy".

Is that so? Where's the proof?

That is why social media is dangerous ignorant people spreading their ignorance with others.

Back in the day the dumb people didn't have a way of communicating...now these sons of *** are mass communicating !

Thereby, lowering the IQ of anyone that have contact with. And making America worse off.

And they are all accurate :)

I got two hand evidence does that count ?