When did Republicans learn to hate Democrats more than Russia?

Mueller said insufficient evidence of conspiracy to charge them but enough that he couldn't clear them either.

Yes that is what it said.
And it is Weasel Talk
It is a complete contradiction of American legal principles
Trial or no trial this is weasel talk that overturns our legal standards.
If you have "insufficient evidence ...to charge" ANYTHING, that means you've found the defendant NOT GUILTY. That is how our legal system works. We don't parse the evidence between "some" and "enough," if you have insufficient evidence that is as good as having none in the eyes of the law.
And the idea that you had SOME evidence that prevents you from clearing the defendant is a massive corruption of our legal system, something apparently made up only for Trump. This is a disgusting travesty, as is this "impeachment" proceeding in the House. There is NO evidence, NONE, it's all a fantasy they intend to push through anyway. .

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: That's a big *** Democrat lle,

Then why are Republicans repeating Russian propaganda? Why does Trump and his Republican cronies go out of their way to support Russia's interests?

It is a complete contradiction of American legal principles

No it isn't.

Unless, of course, you can name a real legal principle and specify exactly how it was contradicted.

you have "insufficient evidence ...to charge" ANYTHING, that means you've found the defendant NOT GUILTY.

No it doesn't. Repeating unsupported claims is not an argument, but it's obviously all you have.

That is how our legal system works. We don't parse the evidence between "some" and "enough," if you have insufficient evidence that is as good as having none in the eyes of the law

Where is that found in law or legal precedent? If you can't answer you have no argument.

And the idea that you had SOME evidence that prevents you from clearing the defendant is a massive corruption of our legal system, something apparently made up only for Trump.

There is no evidence that prevented indicting Trump. There is an administrative opinion that has no force in law but bound Mueller as an employee of the Justice Department. That administrative decision was made in 1973 in response to Nixon's transgressions and had nothing to do with Trump.

There is NO evidence, NONE, it's all a fantasy they intend to push through anyway. .

The many hours of public and private testimony under oath are evidence. The publically known actions of the principals are evidence. The public statements of the principals are evidence.

None of which you can address, so denying it exists is all you can do.

Support Russian interests?. They sent aid for military defense against Russia to Ukraine. What Russian interests? What Russian propaganda? The Ukrainians DID interfere in the election for Hillary, it's not propaganda. Russia interefered also.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unbelievable how you deny the obvious and demand evidence for the obvious, for historical fact. Unbelievable that we've sunk this low.l

Oh "testimony" under oath" indeed. Sure, tons of hearsay two and three times removed, and evidence that actually supports the defense though it is denied.

The Ukrainians DID interfere in the election for Hillary, it's not propaganda.

Some individuals did, with little effect.

Russia interefered also.

To an extent so great that the Ukrainian's attempts are not even in the same ballpark.

Unbelievable how you deny the obvious and demand evidence for the obvious, for historical fact. Unbelievable that we've sunk this low.

Translation:you have no support for your fantasy.

Oh "testimony" under oath" indeed. Sure, tons of hearsay two and three times removed, and evidence that actually supports the defense though it is denied.

Not Sondland's testimony. And the other witnesses together told a story that is consistent and fits the facts we know.

Trump won't let any others testify. He knows what they would say.

And the public statements by and actions of the principals. Especially Mulvaney and Trump.

But I would love to see you support "evidence that actually supports the defense though it is denied" with citations and explanations.

You won't even try.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Sondland clearly said Trump denied wanting a quid pro quo in so many words. So much for his evidence for impeachment.

The rest is all hearsay. No matter how "consistent" it's all hearsay.

And then there is the unidentified "whistleblower" whose identity we all know although they are protecting it despite the fact that it violates the principle that a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him. This is such a travesty of justice how can any of you even dare to try to defend it?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sondland clearly said Trump denied wanting a quid pro quo in so many words. So much for his evidence for impeachment.

---

Sondland was also very clear that Trump expected a quid pro quo. Your attempt to dismiss his evidence founders on the facts.

quote:

---

The rest is all hearsay. No matter how "consistent" it's all hearsay.

---

The transcript is hardly hearsay to name but one item.

quote:

---

And then there is the unidentified "whistleblower" whose identity we all know although they are protecting it despite the fact that it violates the principle that a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him.

---

No it doesn’t because the whistleblower isn’t one of the witnesses. We all know that the reason his identity has to be protected is because of the threat of retaliation. Revealing his identity would not serve justice in any way,

quote:

---

This is such a travesty of justice how can any of you even dare to try to defend it?

---

If your idea of justice is that the crook gets away with it through obstruction and smears and lies then you are the one defending a travesty of justice. But I don’t think you believe that. I think you know you are fighting for injustice. Why else all the obvious falsehoods ?

Faith writes: Support Russian interests?

Yes. First, they are repeating Russian propaganda meant to deflect blame for Russian interference in the 2016 elections, and put the blame on Ukraine. Russia is currently under sanctions for that interference, and they want them removed. Republicans are doing their dirty work when they repeat the propaganda meant to cover up their crimes.

The Trump administration is also pushing for Ukraine to settle with Russia, giving Russia Crimea and also ending the sanctions they are under for invading Crimea to begin with.

We also have troops being pulled out of Syria which has allowed Russian influence to increase in the region, even to the point of Russians taking over former US bases.

I could go on and on and on.

What Russian propaganda?

The Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, for one.

The Ukrainians DID interfere in the election for Hillary, it's not propaganda.

Where is the evidence?

Sondland clearly said Trump denied wanting a quid pro quo in so many words. So much for his evidence for impeachment.

Yes, Trump said that. Most guilty people say they are innocent. Sondland said :

“Was there a quid pro quo?...The answer is yes.”

The rest is all hearsay. No matter how "consistent" it's all hearsay.

Which is allowed in this sort of proceeding.

And then there is the unidentified "whistleblower" whose identity we all know although they are protecting it despite the fact that it violates the principle that a defendant has the right to confront witnesses against him.

No, it doesn't. As I wrote in Message 3507, the right to confront accusers does not apply in non-criminal matters:

quote:

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

• impeachment is not a criminal matter.
  
• What's happening is not a prosecution, it's an investigation.
  
• The whistleblower is not one of the witnesses against Trump. Trump’s culpability has been solidly established by people with more direct and complete knowledge.
  

Sondland said : “Was there a quid pro quo?...The answer is yes.”

Besides admitting that Trump had clearly said he did not want a quid pro quo, all he wanted was for Zelensky to do the right thing, SONDLAND ALSO SAID HE "PRESUMED" IT, HE DID NOT KNOW IT, HE DIDN'T EVEN HEAR IT, HE "PRESUMED" IT. This is worse than hearsay, he made it up entirely in his own head and admitted it under interrogation.

Faith writes: Besides admitting that Trump had clearly said he did not want a quid pro quo,

Trump only said that after he was caught. It was clearly an attempt to cover his own butt.

all he wanted was for Zelensky to do the right thing,

False. Trump wanted Zelensky to do the wrong thing which was to corruptly announce a baseless investigation into Trump's political rivals for the express purpose of personally benefiting Trump. Trump asked Zelensky to participate in corruption.

Trump only said that after he was caught. It was clearly an attempt to cover his own butt.

We on the Right take it as simple truth, and since there is no evidence whatever of a quid pro quo our position seems the valid one. Trump wanted only, all along, from the beginning, it's what he actually said in the phone call, that Zelensky would look into the corruptions in his own country that involved interference in our elections. He later added they should look into the allegations concerning Biden's quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor who was looking into the company where his son worked, or he'd withhold billions in aid. Perfectly legitimate requests of the Ukraining President by the American President.

That's just the usual reversal of the truth we on the Right have come to expect of the Left, ANYTHING to slam Trump; sorry but not guying it.

MAY ALL THE TRUTH COME OUT.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

MAY ALL THE TRUTH COME OUT.

Oh, it will all come out! After all Trump's frantic attempts to obstruct the investigations have been thwarted.

I'm especially looking forward to Congress finally getting Trump's financial and tax records, which will show where his money is coming from.