The Right Side of the News

Indeed. The witnesses tonight, Laura Cooper and David Hale, from the state dept, will speak to the delay of the aid -- with the finger pointing to Mick Mulvaney at the white house.tick tockEnjoy

And the specific charge of Bribery came up yet again today.Article 2 Section 4 lists Bribery as a specific grounds for Impeachment.

quote:

---

Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

---

SourceNote that to be bribery all that is needed is the solicitation. There is no requirement that it must be successful. If il Donald asked for a personal favor as a condition of releasing aid, then that is bribery. Whether or not he received the desired benefit or whether or not the aid was granted is irrelevant. Simply asking for the favor is all that is needed to show Bribery.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Sure there are "plenty of mentions of aid in the statements of the witnesses" but they aren't witnesses, they didn't witness anything, they got it all second and third hand and even just made it up because it fit their strategy although none of it is in the transcript of the actual phone call which was said to be quite accurate. They just made it all up to suit their political agenda, and that was apparent in much of the testimony in the hearings today when the Republicans interrogated them. They were all going on their own made up opinions, their impressions, not on any kind of witnessing of anything. Biggest corrupt sham fraud on Trump and the American people ever perpetrated.

Discussing this with you is like some odd combination of "The Energizer Bunny" with "Dumb and Dumber." It just keeps going and going while drifting further and further from the original point. You need to go back, find the actual issue under discussion, and address it. You drift in and out of topic. From car emissions you're suddenly back to rural America. First, of course my lifestyle is going to be unlike most rural people's. Most people's lifestyles are going to be unlike most rural people's. That's because most people don't live in rural areas, and that's been true in the U.S. for a very long time.Second, you've forgotten your own position and have now got things backwards. It was me who argued that rural America has been in decline for over a century, and it was you who argued against that fact.Of course it's hard for many who live in rural America. And it will continue to get worse unless the government steps in to help and the people there accept that help. Seriously? Bye now.--Percy

In case anyone was wondering what the handwriting of a very stable genius looks like, here ya go: PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix image.

and there was no mention of corruption even though Lt. Col. Vindman prepared a list of talking points for the president for each phone call that included this. What they were reporting was circumstantial evidence.

quote:

---

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of factsuch as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directlyi.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

​

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

​

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

---

Here we have a series of witnesses that all connect the fact of the aid being withheld with the fact that Humpty Dumbty Trumpty wanted dirt on Biden and other "deliverables"EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The witnesses that heard Trump talking to Sondland, and Sondland himself.The transcript of the call is clear. "I want weapons". "I want a favor, say you're going to investigate my political rival and the Russian propaganda about Ukraine meddling in our election".You sure are obsessed with your "made it up" fantasy.

Trump's fingers have again been busy over the past 24 hours tweeting attacks and insults. He also tweeted lies and insinuations, but that's not what this subthread is for. Again, since no one's engaging these lists of tweets I won't insert any explanatory comments, but the lack engagement clearly indicates that the claim that Trump's attacks and insults are responses to attacks and insults from Democrats is false. Here's Trump tweeting that it's not possible to overhear a cellphone conversation that's not on speakerphone: Is there anyone here who has never encountered a cellphone conversation where the other party was understandably audible? Sometimes it's because the cellphone volume is turned up, sometimes it's because the party on the other end just has that kind of voice, and sometimes people actually do, whether on purpose or not, enable speakerphone mode.Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 38; Democrats: 1--PercyEdited by Percy, : Forgot to include the updated score.

Again, there is much, much more than just the phone call.For example, William Taylor was a direct witness to Sondland telling him that a visit to the White House and $400 million in aid depended on Ukraine publicaly announcing investigations into Biden. Do you think Sondland was a rogue agent acting on his own? Multiple witnesses have now come forward who are direct witnesses to WH officials stating outright that aid was conditioned on public investigations into Biden. DIRECT WITNESSES!! If "liar, liar, pants on fire" is the best that you can do, then you have admitted defeat.

And just whom would you consider to be primary-source witnesses? The closest would be the ones directly involved, like Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc, right?So why don't they show up and testify? They have been requested as witnesses and have received subpoenas, so why don't they show up and testify?The reason is because the White House has ordered them to ignore the subpoenas and to not testify.So if they are supposed to be the ones with information to exonerate Trump, why is Trump ordering them to not testify?The reason is because their testimony would not exonerate Trump, but rather would condemn him. Otherwise, why else would Trump be so desperate to cover everything up?

A witness would be someone who heard Trump's phone calls or talked to Trump personally. there were a couple of those. Everybody else was not a witness. The whistleblower also got his stuff second or third hand. there are other things that disqualify him as a whistleblower but those do for starters.

first hand knowledge is not required to be a whistleblower.

Using Faith logic, if I go to bed and there is no snow on the ground and I wake up and there is snow on the ground but I did not see it fall. I can not say it snowed last night. Because I do not have first hand knowledge of it snowing. Someone could have driven around in a truck and spread snow around my house.

And the tale they told was damning and consistent with all the other testimony. Even if you consider only what they said Trump is guilty as sin.The whistleblower has been corroborated. Whatever the source he/she was correct.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Republicans do that you know.