The Right Side of the News

And still no attempt to address the issues. False insults and any excuse, no matter how flimsy and transparent, to avoid those issues. Pathetic.The really pathetic thing is that all or almost all Republican Senators are just like you. They lied when they swore to "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws".Schiff is a politician, but for a politician he's pretty honest. Of course Shapiro didn't provide any examples of Schiff's alleged dishonesty.

Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | Cloudflare

quote:

---

Former national security adviser John Bolton revealed in his manuscript that President Donald Trump told him as early as August 2019 that he wanted to continue freezing the military and security assistance to Ukraine until they could get officials to go after the Biden family.

​

New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman Michael Schmidt reported Sunday that the $391 million in aid to Ukraine was contingent on Ukraine officials agreeing to help with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.

---

Yet to be confirmed, of course, but the reports on Ukraine do keep getting confirmed.ABE Of course. Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | CloudflareEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

On impeachment, you're way off.Fox News Poll: Record economy ratings, as half say Senate should remove Trump | Fox News

quote:

---

On impeachment, by a 50-44 percent margin, voters think the Senate should vote to convict Trump and remove him from office. Most Democrats say remove (81 percent) and most Republicans disagree (84 percent). Among independents, more say Trump should be removed by a 19-point margin (53-34 percent).

---

Fox is fake news, of course.

I think it's extortion. What do you think illegally withholding aid and making an oval office visit contingent on compliance, all for his personal benefit should be called? No, it's normal practice to pressure other countries to further the interests of the United States or implement US policy. Trump's only interest was his campaign. There was a quid pro quo as shown by Trump's phone call and the documented actions of several other people involved. As Sondland said under oath:

quote:

---

I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,

---

Had the whistleblower not blown the gaff, Zelensky would have announced investigations on Fareed Zakaria's show in a few days, and God only knows what would have happened to the aid.BUt that's all irrelevant. Attempted extortion is a crime. Trump did obstruct Congress in a legal an properly conducted investigation. Corruption was investigated. In May the Pentagon officially announced Ukraine had made sufficient progress in fighting corruption to allow aid.

quote:

---

On behalf of the secretary of defense, and in coordination with the secretary of state, I have certified that the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption and making other improvements, Rood wrote.

​

Rood wrote that his certification, legally required before the aid could be released, was based on insights gained in persistent U.S. engagement with Ukraine, including meetings between the U.S. defense secretary and his Ukrainian counterpart.

---

Trump obviously has no interest in corruption, just smearing the Bidens. His aids asked him to discuss corruption in his first call to Zelensky in March. He didn't. His aides asked him to discuss corruption in his infamous second. call. He didn't. He did say he wanted the Bidens investigated. As Schiff said: Can you answer those questions?Finally, Trump has shown no interest in corruption in any other countries, and the alleged Biden misdeeds have been disproven long before the phone call.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

All BS, of course.But the point was that a large number of people, nearing a majority, agree with us. Marc9000's "10%, maybe 15%" is spectacularly wrong.

Irony.Fox News is consistently BS. Fox News Polling is a respected and trustworthy group.

Sondland had direct knowledge.The others filled in the blanks.Every day more devastating info comes out. Now John Bolton the extremely far right conservative says there was a quid pro and it was to investigate Biden. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Bolton confirms the accusations. As did Sondland.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You sure love your lies. It's telling that you have no response to new evidence and explanations, just repeating the same old long-debunk horseshit. (I hope you're right by your fainting couch.There never was a Ukrainian investigation of Hunter Biden. There was an investigation of the Burisma company, which investigation had been set aside befote Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster. He didn't call for Shokin's ouster because of any investigation, he called for his ouster because he wasn't investigating any of the rampant corruption in Ukraine. Ousting Shokin was the official policy of the United States and several other countries in.Unlike Trump, who called for an investigation of something for which there is not even a scintilla of evidence. He held up aid in violation of the findings of of the Defense and State Department's findings. He would benefit personally from an investigation and the United States would not.

Bolton was there in the room. Sondland was on the phone call. The other witnesses filled in the blanks.The aid was illegally withheld until the scandal broke. Attempted extortion is a crime, as is obstruction of Congress.See my immediately previous message for the truth about the BidensYour repetition of lies gets tiresome

Yes, Trump said that. Criminals always profess innocence.

quote:

---

I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo?" As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes

---

Who said that?

Bolton was in the room, no matter when his claims came out.But he really should testify under oath.

What people saw and heard is evidence.

There was an investigation into Burisma. Nobody says otherwise.There was no investigation into Hunter Biden.Nothing more to learn there.But plenty more to learn about Trump’s actions. With more coming out every day.

What people saw is not hearsay. Neither is what people heard if they can adequately substantiate it.Ready for this?Hearsay evidence is not prohibited in impeachment or trial. Federal rules of evidence do not apply. The House has the sole power of impeachment, the Senate has the sole power of trial. The only rules are the ones they create. The House or Senate can decide to disallow hearsay, but they haven't.