New Impeachment Scam Thread. Nice People Only.

We have clear testimony stating this from Ambassador Sondland.

He had a job in the Ukraine. And all it amounted to was a conflict of interest. There was never any crime committed related to his position and no one was ever investigating Hunter Biden.

Also, Nunes brought up debunked conspiracies about Ukraines role in the 2016 election that didn't exist. Im surprised he is the ranking member of any committee tbh, his discredited work as Chairman should have caused the GOP to put someone else there.

This is why we can't have civil discourse, a fundamentally different language is being used.

"Know for a fact" = "I want this to be true"

In real English "know for a fact" would be an audio or video tape, or even multiple witness's being present when President Trump made the statement "I want X done for Y". Everything other then that gets into probabilities, words like "might, could, may" and so forth.

In law there is a concept known as "res ipsa loquitur" which is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself". It's when you have video or audio evidence of the act being committed, in which case you don't need to argue for the thing but rather just point to the video / audio and say "res ipsa loquitur". This would be colloquially known as "known for a fact" or "hard evidence", it's evidence that doesn't need explained, inference or argued for. You just point to it and say "there we go". It's also extremely rare evidence to have.

In the case of President Trump they don't have any hard evidence and thus don't have "known for a fact", instead they have second and third party witness statements that conflict with each other. This is actually normal, second and third party witness statements always conflict with each other, them *not* conflicting with each other would be a strong indication of tampering with evidence and coordination of testimony. Remember these are people's interpretation of events as seen through second or third hand, it's the legal equivalent of hearsay and rumors. None of this would be admissible in a court of law as it's simply too unreliable to hold up under cross examination.

Of course this isn't a court of law, this is an "investigation", and it's hard to type that with a straight face. Investigations frequently accept second and third hand testimony, not as evidence but as indicators of where to go to find real evidence. Person A testifying they heard something from person B lets us know to go ask person B, who tell us they hard it from person C, who we can then go and get a statement from. First hand testimony is admissible in court but it's held as extremely weak without any corroborating evidence.


Now then, Jack and John's "testimony" is useful for investigation as it leads to Mike but is otherwise completely useless.

Mike's testimony is weak, he can place the deceased with Jill right before the time of death and can attest that there was some sort of altercation that happened but otherwise is worthless unless they can get DNA / fingerprints or some other way corroborate Jill killing Jake.

Of course none of this matters to the liberals because.

Democrats good.
Republicans bad.
Orange man very bad!!!!

President Trump beat Hillary in the 2016 election and therefor is guilty of crimes against humanity and should be removed from office.

Kudos to anyone that read that nonsense.

wasn't hard to read ~ but anywho



this was interesting earlier when jordan asked schiff about questioning the whistleblower. He stated that one member of the committee knows the name which would be schiff but he denied that he knew

The GOP gas been accusing, without evidence, Schiff of having interacted with and spoken to the whistleblower directly. He has denied it and there isn't any evidence that disproves him.

This thread isn't locked yet ?

And to draw an odd parallel, we had clear testimony that a previous president "did not have relations" and I remember that being proved wrong?

Clear testimony ain't fact sir. What this Impeachment Proceedings needs is facts, not biased opinions and hit jobs from people that don't like the president.

You can certainly agree that facts should be the basis of convictions, right? Or do we believe everyone that says "they didn't do it" ?

So what? What are you accusing him of?

Agreed.

Oh? Don't tell the GOP it was "proven wrong. They will say Clinton was guilty and the Dems acquitted him anyway

Show me some evidence of corruption. Remember, the Ukrainians themselves have said Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, and its not a crime to be on a board of a company.

I mean....isn't that what happened?????

Isn't that the same parallel being played out now with partisan tactics?

but in the closed testimony hearings it was stated that schiff blocked any attempts and questions about identifying the whistleblower's identity. We don't have any info on what questions were asked or phrased but how would he know to stop a question if it would potentially expose the whistleblower. The witness could give whatever answer to a question and then say the name as part of the explanation....

Right, the name of the whistleblower is protected by whistleblower laws. It gives them the right to file a complaint anonymously, which they did. The GOP has been launching a concerted effort to expose the person's identity, and Schiff has stopped them every time. Officially, no one in Congress knows who the person is. They just have the complaint.

Use that same standard you protect Biden's son with for Trump.

I don't see or believe he did anything wrong, and the Burden of Proof should be equal for both.

But how we have it, Republican side has valid point to look into? Majority of Media ignores it and disproves it. Democrat side has valid point to look into? Well lets run that 4 weeks on end, and let's let a Congressman LIE about what the transcript says, to rile up the people.

For God's sake, be objective. I am being objective about Biden.

but technically wouldn't the guy not be considered a whistleblower because the info they know is all second/third hand knowledge?

Volk, that makes too much sense! You are missing the point of "orange man bad" vibes in the "whistle blower complaint". =/

Umm having no experience in the oil and gas field then all of the sudden working for the oil and gas field.

Maybe he read the oil and gas field for dummies book !

No, he is considered a whistleblower, and the law protects him. First/second/third hand knowledge doesn't invalidate his complaint.

Uh, what? When this started, Rav asked me what I thought about this whole thing, and I said it completely depends on the money. If Trump blocked the aid because he wanted an investigation into the Bidens, thats an abuse of power. And the fact that the money had been blocked for months gave Congress a legitimate reason to investigate why. Now, we do know he did block the money for that exact reason.

What we actually know is that Ukraine got the money (it wasn’t delayed) and there was no announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

So the extortion or the bribery or the Quid pro quo or whatever never actually happened. The only thing lefties have is to claim they heard Trump wanted to commit bribery or extortion or a quid pro quo from someone else.

Which is nothing more than hearsay, and is contradicted by the Ukrainian President, but he’s got to be in on it (or something).

Schiff blew this BIG time. Pelosi is gonna jump ship by the weekend i bet.

This has already been proven false. The money was approved for release in May, it was blocked by Trump until September 11th.

ah, you right. the form wording was changed and the person didn't file the complaint first before talking with certain members of congress ~ suspicious

Uh huh, what members of Congress?

I posted that NYT story confirming it. Its the lefty bible. Schiff is lying now and has demonstrably lied before when he made up a version of the transcript that didn’t exist.

Not to mention the 3 years of having evidence of Trump colluding with Russia that were all STILL waiting for.