Editor
To the critics where’s the evidence? It does no good to only criticize me show me proof.
At the end of Sondland’s testimony he stated he had a direct conversation with the President. He asked for clarification the President stated – I wanted nothing – I want nothing – no quid pro quo -- I want the Ukraine Pres. To do the right thing. This is recorded testimony indisputable in answer to Rep Jim Jordon’s questioning. Those testifying had no firsthand knowledge only hearsay and presumptions with the exception of the Army Lt. Col. Who stated that he didn’t like the language used; still no charge that will stick in any court including the Senate. If the President broke any law – prove it. I want to see the articles of impeachment. What is the delay?
Have a nice day
John Stiegelmeyer
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
Why doesn't #45 show any proof? He has all these people that he is refusing to allow to testify. Why. If he is so innocent they must be able to prove his innocence, right? The problem is I think they will be able to prove his guilt and that is why he won't let them testify but like the judge just said he is not a king but of course they will not follow that ruling either. They will appeal like every other ruling from the court. Nothing is ever good enough for him. I'll bet you were all in for the impeachment of President Clinton, weren't you? Your president asked the president of a foreign country to dig up dirt on his opponent. Would you have been ok with President Obama doing that? I know you wouldn't have. You would have been writing letters to impeach him. That makes you a hypocrite John. That is what the majority of the Republicans are. Graham, McConnell, Rubio and many others who called trump terrible names during the campaign but are now kissing his behind are nothing but hypocrites who don't want to have trump talk against them so they lose their cushy jobs. Now they have all joined the trump train to say that it was Ukraine that hacked our 2016 election even though they know it was Russia. Are you one of those butt kissers too John?
Now trump is interfering in the Military with his pardons. I think that is disgusting. He is issuing pardons and asking these guys to campaign for him. Is that why he issued the pardons? Sick.
You live in Iowa, what about what he has done to the farmers in Iowa and surrounding areas with his teriffs? How do you feel about the debt the country has incurred because of Republicans? Do you love that?
trump is a sick sick man who lies all the time and now the Republicans have become liars just like him. I find it hard to believe anything they say. Any Republican who has switched to spouting lies about Ukraine hacking our 2016 election instead of Russia I believe can no longer be trusted.
Norma Gould.
You are either extremely partisan, very ignorant of investigative practices, or both. You noted a single comment from Ambassador Sondland's testimony, although he testified for over 8 hours. Really? Do you think that nothing else he said matteres? How you can continue to share your *shallow* thoughts with the public, is quite remarkable.
The definitions of Extortion and Bribery are as follows:
The specific elements required to prove extortion differ between states, but the general requirements are that the offender maliciously (not mistakenly) make a verbal, written or printed threat with the intent to extort something from the victim or to compel the victim to do something against his or her will.
*My comment on this*:
The "president" verbally asked Zelensky to investigate *specific* U.S. *citizens*. He did this while speaking of the $400 million aid. There are many corroborating documents that show this offer was discussed between these two, other times between May 1st and August 1st. Along with documents between Giuliani, Pompeo and others.
The federal government, however, has very specific elements that it uses to prosecute cases of bribery against federal employees. These include the following:
1- The individual being bribed is a "public official," which includes rank-and-file federal employees on up to elected officials;
2- A "thing of value" has been offered, whether it's tangible (such as cash) or intangible (such as the promise of influence or official support);
3- There's an "official act" that may be influenced by a bribe (such as pending legislation that may have a direct impact on the party offering the bribe);
The public official has the authority or power to commit the official act (for instance, the official is a senator who is voting on a particular piece of legislation);
4- There must be the establishment of intent on the part of the bribing party to get a desired result (the intent to sway the vote by handing over an envelope full of cash);
5- The prosecution must establish a causal connection between the payment and the act meaning there must be more than just a suspicious coincidence.
*My comments on this*:
All of the bribery elements have been met.
1- Both parties involved are public officials.
2- The "things of value" are the $400 million in aid, and The investigation of a political opponent, in the current election cycle.
3- The "Official Act" is the public announcement of the Ukrainian investigation on CNN. The Prosecutor General had a specific time slot, already arranged with CNN, to make this announcement. They cancelled it when the aid was released on 9/11.
4- The established intent is proven by the documents that show this bribe (extortion) was in action for 3 months.
5- The *suspicious coincidence* goes out the window, with the proof that "Everyone was in the loop on this" that Ambassador Sondland proved with the documents.
So really! Why do you continue to show your use of such shallow thinking, about these things?
As I said earlier, the articles of impeachment are still 3-4 months out. Getting Don McGahn's testimony about everything he discussed with Bob Mueller is a priority. This *WILL* establish the Obstruction of Justice that is spelled out in the Mueller Report. McGahn's name was mentioned over 140 times in vol. 2 of the report.
Also, getting the "president's" tax records is going to be the proof for the 3rd article. Those records will show how Trump has laundered Russian money, for his main source of income, just like Don Jr. stated in 2013. As a source of embarrassment for Trump. This will also show that he isn't, and hasn't been, a billionaire, since he came out of bankruptcy, in the mid 90s.
Now, do I believe any of this evidence will sway the Republican Senators? I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. Trump's *mob boss* persona has too much of a hold on them. Also, there denial of the facts just shows how desperate they are to save their party from disbandment. They currently have only 22.5% of all registered voters. After all of this proof comes out, those true conservatives, left in the party, will make a mass exodus. Having less than 20% of the population would mean no chance of a presidency. At best, the party might merge with Libertarians. But, that would only get them back to where they are now.
Ciao