Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

ALL Presidents????

Or just this one????

Were you adamantly insisting Obama reveal every part of his coverups, lies, omissions and clandestine deals....or even just his withholding of aid and foreign executive office dealings......or were you silent then just like the media????

(I'll wait for you to show me where you insisted on the same in those cases)

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

You've said you want him to prove the charge 100% untrue.

This why they have socks...

VegasAg86 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

You've said you want him to prove the charge 100% untrue.

---

Look, we already know from Nixon vs. US that we will eventually get all of the information. We will eventually see emails, documents, etc. It's inevitable.

President Trump maintains that he is innocent and acted in the interest of the United States. The documents and emails should support that. If we are going to see them eventually, why not just release them now? Doing so will prove the allegations 100% untrue.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

You've said you want him to prove the charge 100% untrue.

---

Look, we already know from Nixon vs. US that we will eventually get all of the information. We will eventually see emails, documents, etc. It's inevitable.

President Trump maintains that he is innocent and acted in the interest of the United States. The documents and emails should support that. If we are going to see them eventually, why not just release them now? Doing so will prove the allegations 100% untrue.

---

Apply the same standard to Schiff. He's classified the transcript from their meeting with the ICIG over all this (that started this whole thing). Don't you want to see what that guy had to say? He's the inspector general, after all.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

ALL Presidents????

Or just this one????

Were you adamantly insisting Obama reveal every part of his coverups, lies, omissions and clandestine deals....or even just his withholding of aid and foreign executive office dealings......or were you silent then just like the media????

(I'll wait for you to show me where you insisted on the same in those cases)

---

Yes, all Presidents.

I didn't post here much during the Obama years. I only found one post I made about him.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/1933289/replies/28452410

AG 2000' said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

You've said you want him to prove the charge 100% untrue.

---

Look, we already know from Nixon vs. US that we will eventually get all of the information. We will eventually see emails, documents, etc. It's inevitable.

President Trump maintains that he is innocent and acted in the interest of the United States. The documents and emails should support that. If we are going to see them eventually, why not just release them now? Doing so will prove the allegations 100% untrue.

---

Apply the same standard to Schiff. He's classified the transcript from their meeting with the ICIG over all this (that started this whole thing). Don't you want to see what that guy had to say? He's the inspector general, after all.

---

Sure, I'd love to see any and all evidence.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

ALL Presidents????

Or just this one????

Were you adamantly insisting Obama reveal every part of his coverups, lies, omissions and clandestine deals....or even just his withholding of aid and foreign executive office dealings......or were you silent then just like the media????

(I'll wait for you to show me where you insisted on the same in those cases)

---

Yes, all Presidents.

I didn't post here much during the Obama years. I only found one post I made about him.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/1933289/replies/28452410

---

It's unfortunate you missed out on at least 20 significant times you could have insisted on transparency.... but I'll take you word that you are impartial I guess. These things got me rankled but nobody did a damn thing.

• Benghazi disaster and cover-up
• the great "Stimulus" heist
• Operation Fast and Furious gun running
• Obamacare illegal tax and fraud
• caught spying on Journalists (conservative ones of course)
• IRS scandal targeting conservative groups
• Hillary SoS classified email scandal
• NSA spying on Americans, Snowden revelations
• prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl
• Iran nuclear deal and ransom payment
• EPA cover-up of colorado river fiasco
• VA cover-up of bogus death lists
• Solyndra energy scandal and cover-up
• Gov. shutdown and Obamas directed tactics that were targeting people that otherwise would be unaffected
• Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress - the first sitting member of a Presidents cabinet to be found in contempt of Congress
• The Pigford scandal - the abuse of a program meant to compensate minority farmers for racial discrimination exploded under Obama, blatant mishandling of huge amounts of taxpayer money
• The GSA scandal: The General Services Administration was caught wasting ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on lavish parties and silly projects. there was a cover-up and nobody got fired.
• Several secret service scandals (agents on duty with hookers, fence jumpers getting close to WH, etc.)
• oh and apparently directing the DOJ and FBI to spy on another political party ILLEGALLY - at the very least he knew about it
• failing to do anything about the Russian "interference" even though it was known since 2014

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

Replying just further pollutes this board.

---

I never said this.

---

You may not have said it, but it's the process that you have consistently described across forum 16.

---

No, I've described wanting transparency from my President.

---

ALL Presidents????

Or just this one????

Were you adamantly insisting Obama reveal every part of his coverups, lies, omissions and clandestine deals....or even just his withholding of aid and foreign executive office dealings......or were you silent then just like the media????

(I'll wait for you to show me where you insisted on the same in those cases)

---

Yes, all Presidents.

I didn't post here much during the Obama years. I only found one post I made about him.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/1933289/replies/28452410

---

It's unfortunate you missed out on at least 20 significant times you could have insisted on transparency.... but I'll take you word that you are impartial I guess. These things got me rankled but nobody did a damn thing.

• Benghazi disaster and cover-up
• the great "Stimulus" heist
• Operation Fast and Furious gun running
• Obamacare illegal tax and fraud
• caught spying on Journalists (conservative ones of course)
• IRS scandal targeting conservative groups
• Hillary SoS classified email scandal
• NSA spying on Americans, Snowden revelations
• prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl
• Iran nuclear deal and ransom payment
• EPA cover-up of colorado river fiasco
• VA cover-up of bogus death lists
• Solyndra energy scandal and cover-up
• Gov. shutdown and Obamas directed tactics that were targeting people that otherwise would be unaffected
• Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress - the first sitting member of a Presidents cabinet to be found in contempt of Congress
• The Pigford scandal - the abuse of a program meant to compensate minority farmers for racial discrimination exploded under Obama, blatant mishandling of huge amounts of taxpayer money
• The GSA scandal: The General Services Administration was caught wasting ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on lavish parties and silly projects. there was a cover-up and nobody got fired.
• Several secret service scandals (agents on duty with hookers, fence jumpers getting close to WH, etc.)
• oh and apparently directing the DOJ and FBI to spy on another political party ILLEGALLY - at the very least he knew about it
• failing to do anything about the Russian "interference" even though it was known since 2014

---

Quite a list! I remember being upset about several of these. Hopefully you can find it in your heart to forgive my absence here. Based on my post history it looks like I was distracted by Johnny Football during part of that time.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Bryan98 said:

---

Stop feeding the troll, people. As soon as he said "guilty until proven innocent" you should have smashed the ignore button. Such a statement indicates disingenuousness or irrationality.

---

I don't have the ignore button.

---

Fair, but if people avoid the "Reply" button, that will do nicely.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Hearsay, opinion, and conjecture are not circumstantial evidence. Please define circumstantial evidence.

It is January 29th and I still do not understand exactly what Trump did that was so wrong.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Hearsay, opinion, and conjecture are not circumstantial evidence. Please define circumstantial evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from. For example, if an assault happened on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you can give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm. In that situation, you are giving the court circumstantial evidence. The court can draw conclusions from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence about whether the accused attacked a person.

---

Quote:

---

Common examples of circumstantial evidence include:

• Evidence that establishes a motive
• Evidence of an opportunity to commit the offence
• Evidence of the accused's state of mind when the offence was committed
• Evidence of the accused preparing for the crime
• Evidence of the accused having items that could be used to commit the offence
• Evidence of identification, for example, the accused's DNA, fingerprints or mobile phone records
• Evidence that the accused committed similar crimes around the same time the alleged offence was committed
• Evidence of the accused giving different versions of events

---

So is he being impeached for a quid pro quo, or thinking about and discussing the possibility of a quid pro quo?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

Circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts that the court can draw conclusions from. For example, if an assault happened on O'Connell Street at 6.15pm, you can give evidence that you saw the accused walking down O'Connell Street at 6pm. In that situation, you are giving the court circumstantial evidence. The court can draw conclusions from the fact that the accused was on O'Connell Street at 6pm, but you have not given evidence about whether the accused attacked a person.

---

Quote:

---

Common examples of circumstantial evidence include:

• Evidence that establishes a motive
• Evidence of an opportunity to commit the offence
• Evidence of the accused's state of mind when the offence was committed
• Evidence of the accused preparing for the crime
• Evidence of the accused having items that could be used to commit the offence
• Evidence of identification, for example, the accused's DNA, fingerprints or mobile phone records
• Evidence that the accused committed similar crimes around the same time the alleged offence was committed
• Evidence of the accused giving different versions of events

---

---

Evidence of facts, the opinions and assumptions of the state department employees aren't facts.

agsalaska said:

---

So is he being impeached for a quid pro quo, or thinking about and discussing the possibility of a quid pro quo?

---

The first one, but as you already know, he wasn't successful in the way he wanted. He was successful in that this entire thing blew up, and now White House lawyers are using the impeachment trial to accomplish what he wanted Ukraine to do.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

So is he being impeached for a quid pro quo, or thinking about and discussing the possibility of a quid pro quo?

---

The first one, but as you already know, he wasn't successful in the way he wanted. He was successful in that this entire thing blew up, and now White House lawyers are using the impeachment trial to accomplish what he wanted Ukraine to do.

---

OK. So when was Ukraine told of this quid pro quo?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

Jimmy, did trump declassify the transcript or not?

---

Fact Check: True, Trump indeed declassified the July 25 call transcript.

---

Great. Let's move on. Of any testifying witness thus far, who had personal, first-hand knowledge of same?

---

I've said before that all 17 witnesses have only provided circumstantial evidence.

---

Does circumstantial evidence amount to Treason, Bribery or High Crimes and Misdemeanors???

---

I think the House Managers have put together a very strong case using the evidence they collected. I also think it begs for additional testimony from people inside the circle with direct first hand knowledge.

With that said, yes, I think accusations described are an Abuse of Power that rises to the level of impeachment.

---

Long overdue...but to the ignore pile you go.

JV would you agree House hasn't proven it's case at this point based on their completed investigation?

Yes or no will do.

agsalaska said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

So is he being impeached for a quid pro quo, or thinking about and discussing the possibility of a quid pro quo?

---

The first one, but as you already know, he wasn't successful in the way he wanted. He was successful in that this entire thing blew up, and now White House lawyers are using the impeachment trial to accomplish what he wanted Ukraine to do.

---

OK. So when was Ukraine told of this quid pro quo?

---

If you are trying to ask why Ukraine is saying they weren't pressured, I don't know the answer to that question. I cannot read Ukraine's mind.

However, there is evidence that Ukraine did know about it.

Former deputy foreign minister says Ukraine knew of aid freeze in July

https://www.axios.com/ukraine-aid-freeze-july-7bdcc6a5-7a56-46b5-8a45-016d1eb3b4ea.html

Additionally, Laura Cooper told the House intelligence committee that her staff received an email on 25 July from the state department saying that Ukraine's embassy and the House foreign affairs committee were asking about military aid.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/20/trump-impeachment-testimony-laura-cooper-ukraine-aid

Also, Vindman testified that Ukrainian's asked him about the hold in mid-August.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

So is he being impeached for a quid pro quo, or thinking about and discussing the possibility of a quid pro quo?

---

The first one, but as you already know, he wasn't successful in the way he wanted. He was successful in that this entire thing blew up, and now White House lawyers are using the impeachment trial to accomplish what he wanted Ukraine to do.

---

OK. So when was Ukraine told of this quid pro quo?

---

If you are trying to ask why Ukraine is saying they were pressured, I don't know the answer to that question. I cannot read Ukraine's mind.

However, there is evidence that Ukraine did know about it.

Former deputy foreign minister says Ukraine knew of aid freeze in July

https://www.axios.com/ukraine-aid-freeze-july-7bdcc6a5-7a56-46b5-8a45-016d1eb3b4ea.html

Additionally, Laura Cooper told the House intelligence committee that her staff received an email on 25 July from the state department saying that Ukraine's embassy and the House foreign affairs committee were asking about military aid.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/20/trump-impeachment-testimony-laura-cooper-ukraine-aid

Also, Vindman testified that Ukrainian's asked him about the hold in mid-August.

---

OK. So there was evidence that they asked about it. Is there evidence that they were told specifically that they had to do this to get that?

Also, I have heard several claims that Trump was not in a position to withold the aid for any reason. But I have also heard that he did have that right. I am speaking in generalizations, not specific to any reason why or why not. Did he have the right to hold the money?

Circumstantial evidence must be based in verifiable facts, not conjecture, opinion, or hearsay.

Admit that you're wrong, and accept that you only take issue with the appearance of impropriety of Trump's action (which should give you enough reason to vote against him, but not enough to impeach).

I'm fine with progressives until they start lying.