Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[tsubaki]

Not really. The whistleblower is effectively irrelevant at this point. Not only do we have testimony from the likes of the two gentlemen on Wednesday who have just as much first hand knowledge as the whistleblower, but the White House itself released a transcript which corroborated exactly what the whistleblower said.

Could they bring the whistleblower out in the Senate? I mean, if its someone very senior or whose character they couldn't immediately trash (please, please, please let it be Melania) then that might be enough to sink him even with that jury.

 

[LinekersLegs]

TBF they didn't have to present a corrupt motive for her removal, just have to demonstrate that she was a competent representative of her country who was slandered out of her office when they could have easily (and correctly) just removed her.

The damning stuff is the slander, the timing of the removal and what happened after she was removed. If this was a jury trial, with honest jurors, this would be over now.

True, just think it would be more damning if they did - especially as I don’t think it was beyond reason to suspect that there may well have been two 1) that she would not support the quid pro quo of aid/meeting in exchange for Biden investigation 2) whatever scheme Giuliani and his pals were cooking up.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Could they bring the whistleblower out in the Senate? I mean, if its someone very senior or whose character they couldn't immediately trash (please, please, please let it be Melania) then that might be enough to sink him even with that jury.

Nothing is getting the Senate to convict him. The whistleblower isn't anyone particularly senior by all accounts (his name is out there if you go looking hard enough).

 

[Huyton Layne]

In a police conviction there's so many times a CI or CS will not be involved with the trial. They give info that breaks open the case but don't have anything that's useful as testimony. Why are the right getting such a hard on for finding the name out? So they can smear and deflect? Rather than actually deal with the information being presented.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

In a police conviction there's so many times a CI or CS will not be involved with the trial. They give info that breaks open the case but don't have anything that's useful as testimony. Why are the right getting such a hard on for finding the name out? So they can smear and deflect? Rather than actually deal with the information being presented.

It's so ridiculous. As I said, what the whistleblower said has been entirely corroborated either by other witnesses or (mostly) by the transcript released by the White House itself! The bold bit is exactly why they're doing it, even though if the whistleblower turned out to be the least trustworthy person on the planet, it would be irrelevant at this point.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Getting a bit spicy between George and Jnr

 

[RAFUH]

TBF they didn't have to present a corrupt motive for her removal, just have to demonstrate that she was a competent representative of her country who was slandered out of her office when they could have easily (and correctly) just removed her.

The damning stuff is the slander, the timing of the removal and what happened after she was removed. If this was a jury trial, with honest jurors, this would be over now.

This. They showed that the Trump agenda (quid pro quo/bribery) wasn't going to happen using her as an intermediary and that she might actively fight it so they got her out of the way discrediting (or trying to) her in the process.

 

[Bluetooth]

She got a standing ovation at the end!
The democrats did a good job of highliting trumps lack of respect for the state department, pointing out that the sacrifice these people make is akin to military.
They will garner a lot of support if the public think Trump is throwing non partizan people serving abroad under the bus for his own personal ends.

Standing ovation doesn't mean too much.

Trump got one the other week at a football game and people were moaning about it being a pro Republican state.

I dare say, this room where the hearing is being held is full of pro Dem/impeachment people.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Standing ovation doesn't mean too much.

Trump got one the other week at a football game and people were moaning about it being a pro Republican state.

I dare say, this room where the hearing is being held is full of pro Dem/impeachment people.

lol

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Standing ovation doesn't mean too much.

Trump got one the other week at a football game and people were moaning about it being a pro Republican state.

I dare say, this room where the hearing is being held is full of pro Dem/impeachment people.

Just to clarify, that'd be the same game where the Student Government Association pledged to punish anyone found to have booed Trump, yeah? Cool.

 

[Bluetooth]

Just to clarify, that'd be the same game where the Student Government Association pledged to punish anyone found to have booed Trump, yeah? Cool.

As I said.

Doesn't mean much.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

As I said.

Doesn't mean much.

Fair enough. We’ll just have to settle for the ample evidence (and admission, let’s not forget) of multiple impeachable acts then.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[dublinbluenose]

 

[Deleted member 28206]

Whitehouse releases transcript of call with Ukrainian president they says exonerates Trump: There's a prize for the first one to spot what's wrong with this transcript

They have literally released a different memo?