(10-23-2019, 11:23 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]The more first hand witnesses to the events that are interviewed, the more information that is coming to light.
Although both sides hope for this to be relatively swift, it is important that we gather all the facts.
WHAT FIRSTHAND WITNESSES?
my God. R u paying attention?
(10-23-2019, 11:53 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Trump has said it himself. The witnesses are corroborating, clarifying, and providing additional details.
Many of those testifying are first hand witnesses to what transpired. William Taylor is a first hand witness.
That is why I specifically worded my post the way I did.
If you would read Mr. Taylor's opening statement, it clearly indicates that Trump directly ordered that not only would there be no White House meeting, but that aid to Ukraine would also be withheld until the president of Ukraine publicly declared that they were investigating the Bidens. The president of Ukraine was scheduled to appear on CNN in order to make the statement.
Taylor's statement clearly indicates that someone else told him that was the case.
Taylor's statement clearly states he has first hand knowledge about what happened in both the formal channel and the informal one. The only thing he didn't have at the time was the transcript of the partial phone call released by Trump. All of this is pretty damning first hand evidence of what transpired. We do not yet know what happened when Taylor and others were questioned behind closed doors. We do know that Taylor, a non-partisan, a civil servant with 50 years of service, who first served under George Bush, was extremely horrified and disturbed by what was going on in the unofficial channel.
In short, there was a quid pro quo.
This we now know.
Period.
(10-23-2019, 01:04 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Taylor's statement clearly states he has first hand knowledge about what happened in both the formal channel and the informal one. The only thing he didn't have at the time was the transcript of the partial phone call released by Trump. All of this is pretty damning first hand evidence of what transpired. We do not yet know what happened when Taylor and others were questioned behind closed doors. We do know that Taylor, a non-partisan, a civil servant with 50 years of service, who first served under George Bush, was extremely horrified and disturbed by what was going on in the unofficial channel.
In short, there was a quid pro quo.
This we now know.
Period.
Lol, you know nothing but what you've been told. You certainly demonstrate that you don't understand what you claim to have read.
There is nothing here to laugh about or celebrate. No one told me what to believe. I have both the ability and the tendency to weigh the evidence for myself and not take anyone else's word for anything. Your empty criticisms and belittlement of me are irrelevant to what I see and witness happening right before my eyes. And what I both read and comprehend is very troubling, indeed.
Forgive me for being in agreement with William Taylor in that regard. Before we had enough evidence. It was more probable than not. There is no longer any shadow of a doubt.
Thank you, however, for your kind words.
(10-23-2019, 01:27 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing here to laugh about or celebrate. No one told me what to believe. I have both the ability and the tendency to weigh the evidence for myself and not take anyone else's word for anything. Your empty criticisms and belittlement of me are irrelevant to what I see and witness happening right before my eyes. And what I both read and comprehend is very troubling, indeed.
Forgive me for being in agreement with William Taylor in that regard. Before we had enough evidence. It was more probable than not. There is no longer any shadow of a doubt.
Thank you, however, for your kind words.
Meh, you merely believe what you want to believe. You know as much about this situation "first hand" and Taylor does. Even your own statement says that you are taking someone else's word for it. You need to ask yourself why Pelosi won't bring it to the Floor, and you'll understand how much nothing this all is.
My beliefs evolve as more evidence is received, then weighed and analyzed. I am so sorry that the preponderance of evidence is not trending in the direction you prefer.
(10-23-2019, 01:37 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]My beliefs evolve as more evidence is received, then weighed and analyzed. I am so sorry that the preponderance of evidence is not trending in the direction you prefer.
"evidence", lol. What you have is hearsay presented by leak without cross examination, hardly a fair standard.
This was a publicly released statement, made widely available to those of us who care enough to delve more deeply into the issue for ourselves. There will be ample time for the presentation of witnesses and for cross examination when the time comes.
I am not certain you understand the process, and I am fairly perplexed you still do not understand what will occur.
Surely you are more intelligent than that. Surely this is just a ploy.
(10-23-2019, 01:50 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]This was a publicly released statement, made widely available to those of us who care enough to delve more deeply into the issue for ourselves. There will be ample time for the presentation of witnesses and for cross examination when the time comes.
I am not certain you understand the process, and I am fairly perplexed you still do not understand what will occur.
Surely you are more intelligent than that. Surely this is just a ploy.
Surely you'll recant that you've already decided based on the "evidence" leaked thus far. Else you merely insult your own credibility. But we know the answer, yes?
Thank you, flsprtsgod, for confirming this is just a ploy. As the OP, I posted a link to William Taylor's opening statement, hosted on documentcloud.org, that is his actual opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee. I can not make you read it, nor can I decide for you what it contains. But it most certainly is not a leak. Perhaps you would know a little more about what it actually contains, if you would take the time to read it fully. That is what this post was for.
I am, nevertheless, curious, for you to tell me more about what I have I have already decided.
I will admit that you have piqued my interest, that's for sure.
(10-23-2019, 01:50 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]This was a publicly released statement, made widely available to those of us who care enough to delve more deeply into the issue for ourselves. There will be ample time for the presentation of witnesses and for cross examination when the time comes.
I am not certain you understand the process, and I am fairly perplexed you still do not understand what will occur.
Surely you are more intelligent than that. Surely this is just a ploy.
What you fail to understand is the time to present witnesses and cross examination comes after a house vote to open impeachment proceedings.
Is the "process" to impeach a sitting President supposed to be held behind closed doors and in secret? Is the "process" supposed to be to "investigate" without the defense able to cross-examine and/or call their own witnesses?
This is nothing more than a political witch-hunt intended to drag out as long as possible. Nothing more.
I assure you, the impeachment proceeding will occur in the open and in plain view.
Thank you, flsprtsgod, for confirming this is just a ploy. As the OP, I posted a link to William Taylor's opening statement, hosted on documentcloud.org, that is his actual opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee. I can not make you read it, nor can I decide for you what it contains. But it most certainly is not a leak. Perhaps you would know a little more about what it actually contains, if you would take the time to read it fully. That is what this post was for.
I am, nevertheless, curious, for you to tell me more about what I have I have already decided.
I will admit that you have piqued my interest, that's for sure.
(10-23-2019, 02:57 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]I assure you, the impeachment proceeding will occur in the open and in plain view.
Thank you, flsprtsgod, for confirming this is just a ploy. As the OP, I posted a link to William Taylor's opening statement, hosted on documentcloud.org, that is his actual opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee. I can not make you read it, nor can I decide for you what it contains. But it most certainly is not a leak. Perhaps you would know a little more about what it actually contains, if you would take the time to read it fully. That is what this post was for.
I am, nevertheless, curious, for you to tell me more about what I have I have already decided.
I will admit that you have piqued my interest, that's for sure.
Not a leak? What are you talking about? Was the testimony open to the public? Was cross examination open tot he public? Was the president's lawyer present? Were they allowed to make objections? If you want to handle this as an Ex-Parte Proceeding (Grand Jury) then that's fine. That goes against historical precedent for impeachment, but even then under our system of common law those proceedings are CONFIDENTIAL. You are not allowed to take that information and selectively leak portions of it to the Press without giving the accused their day in court to respond. IF you did that in a criminal case that would be called obstruction of justice. Also, it is incumbent on the prosecutor that conveigned the Grand Jury to present any and all Exculpatory evidence as well as preserve the presumption of innocence. Schiff then would be responsible for also presenting the fact that there is yet no proof that the Ukrainians even knew about the hold on military aid and that there was evidence presented of potentially corrupt acts against the Bidens.
As for, "I assure you" I call bull sugar. There have been three instances of impeachment in our countries history. In all three, the president was given full due process rights in the house of representatives following a full vote of the house to open a formal inquiry. This secret tribunal crap with the plain text of a transcript in full view wreaks of desperation and is an affront to everything we understand and hold dear about our once democratic ideals.
(10-23-2019, 02:40 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you, flsprtsgod, for confirming this is just a ploy. As the OP, I posted a link to William Taylor's opening statement, hosted on documentcloud.org, that is his actual opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee. I can not make you read it, nor can I decide for you what it contains. But it most certainly is not a leak. Perhaps you would know a little more about what it actually contains, if you would take the time to read it fully. That is what this post was for.
I am, nevertheless, curious, for you to tell me more about what I have I have already decided.
I will admit that you have piqued my interest, that's for sure.
We all know this is a ploy, the Dems have been at this for almost three years now without result. Just more political grandstanding.
Grandstanding is what the GOP just did to interrupt the testimony of Laura Cooper. They did this in response to the House rejecting GOP attempts to censure Adam Schiff, which was also grandstanding.
As mentioned in another post, It will be interesting to see what the Pentagon and DOD has to say about the withholding of aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors. Allegedly.
Have you had a chance to read the opening statement from William Taylor yet?
(10-23-2019, 02:41 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2019, 01:50 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]This was a publicly released statement, made widely available to those of us who care enough to delve more deeply into the issue for ourselves. There will be ample time for the presentation of witnesses and for cross examination when the time comes.
I am not certain you understand the process, and I am fairly perplexed you still do not understand what will occur.
Surely you are more intelligent than that. Surely this is just a ploy.
What you fail to understand is the time to present witnesses and cross examination comes after a house vote to open impeachment proceedings.
Is the "process" to impeach a sitting President supposed to be held behind closed doors and in secret? Is the "process" supposed to be to "investigate" without the defense able to cross-examine and/or call their own witnesses?
This is nothing more than a political witch-hunt intended to drag out as long as possible. Nothing more.
So no answer from the lib about my post?
(10-23-2019, 04:58 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2019, 02:41 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]What you fail to understand is the time to present witnesses and cross examination comes after a house vote to open impeachment proceedings.
Is the "process" to impeach a sitting President supposed to be held behind closed doors and in secret? Is the "process" supposed to be to "investigate" without the defense able to cross-examine and/or call their own witnesses?
This is nothing more than a political witch-hunt intended to drag out as long as possible. Nothing more.
So no answer from the lib about my post?
Post #35 has the answer you are looking for. There is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that mandates what you perceive to be the procedure. In short, you are mistaken or have been misinformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/article