Dubious: Dude....check your posts before posting. Makes it hard to respond to them. Conjecture and opinion. Conjecture and opinion. Conjecture and opinion. What? Conjecture and opinion.
Perhaps you should view the video. This video wasn't about "her turn". It was about putting into the record Schiff's public statements that the Whistleblower NEEDS to testify before congress...something a month and a half later he's changed his mind on. Looks like the player played himself here.
Bought what? She played Shifty or did you not watch? It was all about her calling out Shifty for all the times he lied about letting the “whistleblower” testify.
What do you think happens when someone gets accused of something? They just clap their hands and say "I'm innocent!" But sure, I'm the "Soviet" one. Also well done on once again completely ignoring the point. I understand it is necessary since there isn't a good defense for Trump's actions, but still, well done. You understand that the timeline is filled with facts, right? As in it is a fact that Trump held up the aid, wanted an announcement of an investigation, was going to get one, Congress found out about the whistleblower report, Trump released the aid a day later, and Zelensky cancelled his announcement interview (see below). I am using these facts to draw a conclusion. Do you have any actual facts that you are basing your conjecture on? Because right now it is looking like you are just making baseless assertions, and appear to be adopting the view that if we don't have a cold hard fact about something, then we can't draw any conclusions. That's not how the world works. Since I am not trying to make excuses for why all of this happened, it is pretty easy to see the connection. I can understand why you are having trouble. Here is the report: CNN host was set to interview Ukrainian President Since you asked for it I'm sure you'll read it right? And yes I've already admitted it is conjecture on both of our sides. It's just that my conjecture is actually supported by facts that have been released, and yours appears to be supported by nothing more than wishful thinking. What would constitute a smoking gun for you? And this is far from politics as usual.
Then don't It was a half-assed response to a half-assed post that you dismissed as conjecture. You didn't really need to, we know your position.
Yeah, anything about the whistleblower either way isn't really relevant anymore. Shiff was calling for it at a time before a dozen people corroborated everything the WB already said.
What I KNOW is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies. You were asking me (i.e. Trump) to prove his innocence. That's not how this works. I know that's what you BELIEVE. I'm still waiting for a document, video, or 1st hand witness to corroborate your claims. You seem sold on speculation backed up by your own biases. Meanwhile, there are other plausible claims of a far different narrative. I'm basing my position on the premise that it should be DAMN HARD to impeach a President out of office. That there must be IRONCLAD proof that can't be explained away any other way. That has yet to occur despite your certainty. Millions feel the same. This isn't anywhere near Nixon and the 18 minute gap in the White House tapes. Thanks for the link. Yes I read it. Ok, lets assume the story is true (which since its CNN and NYT sourced is a big leap these days). It doesn't leave room for a possible other reason the announcement was cancelled. It doesn't even know whether Biden would exclusively be the one under investigation. Remember that Trump also asked about Crowdstrike. Regardless, ALL of it is conjecture and innuendo since we don't have first hand corroboration from Zelensky himself. Zelensky stating he felt "bribed" or "extorted" to investigate Bidens son exclusively. So far, all I've seen is the opposite.
There are first hand witnesses. Much of the testimony by Taylor was not actually hearsay despite the claim. It was what he heard which is admissible in a court of law. There is also Vidman's testimony who was actually in on the call between Trump and Ukraine's president. So that is absolutely first hand. Trump's own chief of staff admitted it was quid pro quo. I have seen zero other plausible claims to any different narrative. The process for impeachment is not more strenuous than a criminal case. This is not a criminal case. Zelensky has acknowledged that there was pressure. https://nypost.com/2019/10/23/ukraine-president-knew-trump-wanted-biden-probe-back-in-may-report/ https://apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8 https://ktla.com/2019/10/24/ukraine...trump-months-before-taking-office-ap-reports/ Trump's own ambassador admits that he told Ukraine there would be no aid without the investigation. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/imp...-testimony-by-two-of-trumps-three-amigos.html It's quite clear. There are corroborating witnesses who witnessed the conversations.
Which would be true, if you weren't just obfuscating and pretending the evidence laid out doesn't lead to anything worthwhile. You aren't disproving the evidence, but just trying to poke hole (point out the fallacies as you say) in the overall narrative. What's Trump best defense for sending Rudy Giuliani, his private lawyer, over to Ukraine? Let's start from the beginning.... instead of a transparent process, you sent Rudy to Ukraine to investigate Biden, instead of the normal process, why?
I guess having dozens of witnesses to what Trump did is convenient for the truth, but it isn't convenient for Trump.
You can presume him innocent all you want. However you can't just ignore arguments against his innocence. How do you think people are found guilty ever? If you are unwilling to accept the witness testimony that has been happening, then I don't now what to tell you. Several witnesses have corroborated the claims made by the whistleblower. I don't see how someone can explain these events in any other way. We literally have witnesses testifying that Trump held up the aid and wouldn't grant a meeting to the new President of Ukraine because he wanted something in return. You call that something rooting out corruption. If that was the case, surely this President would have a track record of trying to root out corruption in other countries. Or perhaps he should have done it in previous years whenever aid was given to Ukraine. Nope, instead the "corruption" he wants to root out just so happens to involve his chief opposition in the Presidential race. It blows my mind the mental gymnastics people do to get around that. And on top of everything, this anti-corruption President just so happens to have people who are associated with him being convicted of crimes all around him. But sure, he is very concerned about corruption... For someone who is so against making conjectures, you sure do make a lot of them here. From witness testimony we know the basic outline of what happened, and it is pretty clear why.
You know darn well he never had any intention of letting the “whistleblower” testify. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Schiff is claiming now that he knows the “WB” won’t testify that he never met nor does he know who the “WB” is. You actually know who should be under investigation? That’s right the investigators once again.
If the WB mattered at this point, that would all be a huge deal. The WB has no bearing on the case anymore at all.
