[paraclete]

Here are three:

Former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

Trump won't allow them to testify.

and what direct evidence might they have, were they in the Oval Office when Trump made the call?

[Wondergirl]

and what direct evidence might they have, were they in the Oval Office when Trump made the call?

These were some of the witnesses who were in the room with tRump and had direct knowledge of his decision to cut off aid to Ukraine in order to benefit himself.

[jlisenbe]

These were some of the witnesses who were in the room with tRump and had direct knowledge of his decision to cut off aid to Ukraine in order to benefit himself.

You are speculating on a very high order as concerns "in order to benefit himself." Your anti-Trump prejudice is showing though.

I do hope you are feeling better. Been praying for you.

[talaniman]

It's already been reported that Bolton, Pompeo, and ESPER all told the dufus to free the money. All witnessed the dufus's actions to fire the anti corruption ambassador and replace her with his donor Sondland. WHY if corruption was his reason and the congress and DOD certified they were in compliance and he changed his mind after signing the bill. WHY would he do that without revealing the reason? Did he know something everybody else in government didn't know?

Placing the blame for 2016 on the Ukrainians is another mystery know one can answer and goes against the entire government assessment of the cyber incursion, including the Senate Report. Again where is he getting this stuff that only he knows about and nobody else? So smearing a campaign foe, and protecting the Russians is my conclusion which makes his asking for a favor from Ukraine on these matters a breach of trust and an abuse of power. No speculation to connect these dots but hearing testimony from the people the dems are asking for and have been blocked from testifying would sure end the wild speculation of EVERYBODY!

Won't even get into the stuff that Crazy Rudy is doing.

[paraclete]

The whole issue is being avoided. Biden is corrupt, an influence peddler and the demonrats are going ape because their favourite son stands accused. poetic justice. and they cannot see it

[jlisenbe]

Speculation. Rumor mill. "Your honor, we believe the defendant is guilty because, after all, there are three people out there who, we are convinced, would testify that he is." How far do you think that would get you?

[talaniman]

That's not the argument though and you know it!

"Your honor the dufus thought he could extort the Ukraine into helping him get dirt on his political foes through his son, and worked to cover it up after being caught and has offered no reasonable argument for his actions. He broke the law trying to involve a foreign country in our election and aided and abetted the Russians in their continuing efforts to undermine our democracy with cyber incursions. We offer as evidence the actions, and testimony of Sondland ETC showing his deviation from normal government channels to facilitate this goal, not for the interest of the country but for the purpose of his own re election, which continued after an impeachment inquiry has began, and he obstructed the congress from it's constitutionally duty to investigate the incidents."

Maybe you should have read the Impound Act links and see if the dufus violated that law in some way before you stick to your claims of NO evidence, since, you think its perfectly OKAY to go around the policy and practice of the government just because he said so. As I said before though that ship has sailed and the senate is charged with making the rules for this trial and VOTE on them BEFORE we can even get started presenting the evidence so you may as well stop speculating about it until that hurdle is cleared. Yes senators will have to VOTE on whether certain witnesses are called to testify, or not.

Reversing course on a bill that the dufus signed is rather suspicious just on it's own, so if you want to speculate, why did he sign the bill in the first place?

That's not the argument though and you know it!

"Your honor the dufus thought he could extort the Ukraine into helping him get dirt on his political foes through his son, and worked to cover it up after being caught and has offered no reasonable argument for his actions. He broke the law trying to involve a foreign country in our election and aided and abetted the Russians in their continuing efforts to undermine our democracy with cyber incursions. We offer as evidence the actions, and testimony of Sondland ETC showing his deviation from normal government channels to facilitate this goal, not for the interest of the country but for the purpose of his own re election, which continued after an impeachment inquiry has began, and he obstructed the congress from it's constitutionally duty to investigate the incidents."

Maybe you should have read the Impound Act links and see if the dufus violated that law in some way before you stick to your claims of NO evidence, since, you think its perfectly OKAY to go around the policy and practice of the government just because he said so. As I said before though that ship has sailed and the senate is charged with making the rules for this trial and VOTE on them BEFORE we can even get started presenting the evidence so you may as well stop speculating about it until that hurdle is cleared. Yes senators will have to VOTE on whether certain witnesses are called to testify, or not.

Reversing course on a bill that the dufus signed is rather suspicious just on it's own, so if you want to speculate, why did he sign the bill in the first place?

You had me interested until your links were going to a music list or whatever it was.

[jlisenbe]

"Your honor the dufus thought he could extort the Ukraine into helping him get dirt on his political foes through his son, and worked to cover it up after being caught and has offered no reasonable argument for his actions. He broke the law trying to involve a foreign country in our election and aided and abetted the Russians in their continuing efforts to undermine our democracy with cyber incursions. We offer as evidence the actions, and testimony of Sondland ETC showing his deviation from normal government channels to facilitate this goal, not for the interest of the country but for the purpose of his own re election, which continued after an impeachment inquiry has began, and he obstructed the congress from it's constitutionally duty to investigate the incidents."

If I am the defense attorney, I am delighted. I get to stand up and say, "Your honor, you have just heard a host of unsubstantiated and unproven accusations. They are merely the opinion of the "we hate Trump" crowd." I ask that you dismiss the case due to lack of evidence.

As to the Impound Act, is that what the House has accused him of doing in the articles of Impeachment?

You had me interested until your links were going to a music list or whatever it was.

What?

[talaniman]

We will see if that works or not Mr Defense Attorney, in due time. and the poster that I quoted was deleted by the site. There seem to be several examples under the charge of abuse of power to be cited, as there are under obstruction of congress. He certainly has shown a clear pattern for disregard to law and order and needs to be held accout and repubs share that blame that he was allowed to get this far.

Sort of like the wild dog terrorizing the neighborhood analogy I have used before, who is to blame the animal or owners of the animal?

[jlisenbe]

We will see if that works or not Mr Defense Attorney

Very true. In the meantime, I hope you have a great and productive 2020.

[talaniman]

You too, my friend as 2020 has started fairly wild. You could throw a dart at a map and find a hotspot that seems to get hotter by the minute. I wonder if the dufus has called his sweetheart Kim about that beautiful vase he promised? Or if we join China, Russia, and Iran on another joint military exercise since we couldn't make the last one?

[paraclete]

Well it seems Trump has accepted the invitation to up the ante in Iraq, but it is a rerun of the American embassy event in Tehran so long ago. It seems the investment in "Iraqi Freedom" has turned sour, time to liquidate

[talaniman]

Naw, the militias have pulled back for now but have you seen the emails just released unredacted between the DOD and OMB about holding up the funding?

https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/e...egal-concerns/

https://publicintegrity.org/national...-spending-law/

[paraclete]

Yes so what? You and I know that whether Trump is guilty or not the jury is stacked so as Pilate said so long ago "what is truth".
The truth of this situation is whatever you want it to be

[talaniman]

I ain't Pilate, and you ain't Paunchess(?), so let's get down to the facts as they are and that is the dufus broke the law and was confronted with it several times by several people in his government administration.

[jlisenbe]

It seems the investment in "Iraqi Freedom" has turned sour, time to liquidate

I have been thinking the same thing.

[Wondergirl]

I ain't Pilate, and you ain't Paunchess(?)

Pontius? (Pilate's family name).

[talaniman]

Pontius? (Pilate's family name).

Paunchous as in PAUNCHY as in fat or big belly. Darn humor font is on the blitz again.

[paraclete]

I ain't Pilate, and you ain't Paunchess(?), so let's get down to the facts as they are and that is the dufus broke the law and was confronted with it several times by several people in his government administration.

Can't believe anyone's hands are clean Tal when you have whistleblowers in action Tal you never know what you get

[talaniman]

That's precisely why Clete that there is a lawful process for reporting and investigating and specific protections afforded by those that come forward. I take it you don't approve of such actions. You agree that any president can do as they please in the manner they see fit regardless of the rule of law?