Exposed partisanship

[Private Pickle]

The timing was rather improvident.

So no one said it was in connection with an election. Got it.

[Ethereal]

I'm not so sure of that. Obama was the first president to set the precedent that the government can literally order the assassination of a US citizen. That's a lot more blatant than any potential quid pro quo, and the media made barely a complaint about that. Overall, Obama may have been criticized a lot by conservatives, but the mainstream media usually provided cover for him.

Democrats, in general, tend to have the media advantage when it comes to scandal coverage.

Obama also threatened to imprison a New York Times journalist who would not divulge his source. Can you imagine if Trump tried to do the same thing?

[Cannons Front]

Sure and any defense lawyer will try to utilize that upon cross-examination. Yet it's still evidence.

Yes. And others state they were in direct contact with either the POTUS or an agent of the POTUS such at Giulliani.

No you are listening to CNN to much, while I have not watched every minute I have watched a great deal of the hearings by far the majority. No one has said that they were told by Trump or anyone else. Sondland is by far the closest to that but again he testified that NONE on the planet had told him to do anything, even the "overheard" phone call just says investigations and does not name who is to be investigated.
They have said they heard, or were told, or that they thing, or they presumed, not that they were told or instructed. If I am wrong show me where it has been said.

[Cannons Front]

It's not against the rules for a POTUS to investigate corruption or even to investigate another candidate. What is absolutely not allowed is to involve a foreign government in that investigation. That is the crux of the impeachment theory. Trump could investigate Biden Sr. and Jr. with the full force of the FBI within the US and even through CIA and the US embassy in the Ukraine during an election. He can't enlist or pressure the Ukrainian government in that regard because, per federal law, "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."

You are factually incorrect, The Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998

Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain,suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request.

By Treaty we can request their help, and they can request ours. While there may be room to debate ""It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."
Lets just look at that at face value, do you think anyone running for office that may have committed a crime in another nation may not be investigated because they are running for office?

[Private Pickle]

No you are listening to CNN to much, while I have not watched every minute I have watched a great deal of the hearings by far the majority. No one has said that they were told by Trump or anyone else. Sondland is by far the closest to that but again he testified that NONE on the planet had told him to do anything, even the "overheard" phone call just says investigations and does not name who is to be investigated.
They have said they heard, or were told, or that they thing, or they presumed, not that they were told or instructed. If I am wrong show me where it has been said.

I don’t watch CNN... That’s as far as I got.

[Cannons Front]

Sure and any defense lawyer will try to utilize that upon cross-examination. Yet it's still evidence.
Yes. And others state they were in direct contact with either the POTUS or an agent of the POTUS such at Giulliani.

Lets recap I will help you out
Day One:
The first two witnesses had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s decision to temporarily hold back nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, nor did they have any direct discussion with President Trump about his intent.
Day Two:
Yovanovitch the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, was a key key witness, according to the press and Chairman. She had no knowledge of the supposed “quid pro quo” she had been fired two months before the Trump-Zelensky telephone call.
Day Three:
LTC Vindman testified that he felt “concerned” about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. As with the witnesses before him, this was his gratuitous opinion. LTC Vindman had prepared materials and talking points in advance for Trump’s use in his call with Zelensky. When Trump did not follow the staffer’s script, he became offended.
Morrison, LTC Vindman’s boss, could barely contain his contempt for Vindman, calling into question his judgment.Morrison testified he had no “concern” about Trump’s conversation on the call. He said there was “nothing improper” although he feared that Democrats would politicize the call. “My fears have been realized,” he observed.
Day four:
Sondland acknowledged that the president kept repeating to him “over and over again” that there was no “quid pro quo.” Quoting Trump, the ambassador testified that the president said: “I want nothing, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” More than a dozen times he said that he merely “presumed” it.
Day five:
Holmes claimed he overheard portions of a telephone conversation between Trump and Sondland the day after the call. while eavesdropping he stated he formed the “impression” that the hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine was “likely” to nudge Ukraine into investigating the Bidens. Beyond supposition, Holmes had no other knowledge to support his opinion and actually stated he had no idea why the aid was held up
Hill, was unaware of the call until it became public. Added nothing to the case as she had left her position before the conversation ever took place

Ok so what did I miss?

POST EDITED TO INCLUDE LINK:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg...=prn_newsstand

Warning

@Cannons Front Reference forum rules you must include link to copied text.

8. You must provide a link when quoting an article and follow fair use guidelines (you are permitted to copy and paste two to three paragraphs). In addition, do not alter another user's words when quoting them.

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

[Cannons Front]

I don’t watch CNN... That’s as far as I got.

Well if that is the case, you sure seem to parrot what they say... I didn't think you could provide what you claimed so I recapped what everyone said for you, minus the mainstream media spin

[Private Pickle]

Lets recap I will help you out
Day One:
The first two witnesses had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s decision to temporarily hold back nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, nor did they have any direct discussion with President Trump about his intent.
Day Two:
Yovanovitch the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, was a key key witness, according to the press and Chairman. She had no knowledge of the supposed “quid pro quo” she had been fired two months before the Trump-Zelensky telephone call.
Day Three:
LTC Vindman testified that he felt “concerned” about Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. As with the witnesses before him, this was his gratuitous opinion. LTC Vindman had prepared materials and talking points in advance for Trump’s use in his call with Zelensky. When Trump did not follow the staffer’s script, he became offended.
Morrison, LTC Vindman’s boss, could barely contain his contempt for Vindman, calling into question his judgment.Morrison testified he had no “concern” about Trump’s conversation on the call. He said there was “nothing improper” although he feared that Democrats would politicize the call. “My fears have been realized,” he observed.
Day four:
Sondland acknowledged that the president kept repeating to him “over and over again” that there was no “quid pro quo.” Quoting Trump, the ambassador testified that the president said: “I want nothing, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” More than a dozen times he said that he merely “presumed” it.
Day five:
Holmes claimed he overheard portions of a telephone conversation between Trump and Sondland the day after the call. while eavesdropping he stated he formed the “impression” that the hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine was “likely” to nudge Ukraine into investigating the Bidens. Beyond supposition, Holmes had no other knowledge to support his opinion and actually stated he had no idea why the aid was held up
Hill, was unaware of the call until it became public. Added nothing to the case as she had left her position before the conversation ever took place

Ok so what did I miss?

You watch too much Fox. Or in this case read:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg...=prn_newsstand

If you’re gonna accuse someone of parroting a mainstream media source make sure to hide your tracks better when parroting a mainstream media source.

You’re doing the same thing in cherry picking testimony to fit your agenda. If you can’t look at this objectively then what’s the point in discussing it?

And plagiarism is wrong... Jus sayin...

[Private Pickle]

Well if that is the case, you sure seem to parrot what they say... I didn't think you could provide what you claimed so I recapped what everyone said for you, minus the mainstream media spin

LOL and I just got displaying to the entire Forum you plagiarized an Op Ed from Fox News to give me your “non-mainstream media spin” recap.

[Dr. Who]

You are factually incorrect, The Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998

Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain,suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request.

By Treaty we can request their help, and they can request ours. While there may be room to debate ""It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."
Lets just look at that at face value, do you think anyone running for office that may have committed a crime in another nation may not be investigated because they are running for office?

They can be investigated, but not through the personal efforts of a rival candidate directly engaging a foreign government. Trump has a conflict of interest in this instance and it's that conflict that permits the current impeachment hearings. As I said, if Trump used more traditional protocols, he couldn't be so accused.