So Donnie Is Guilty. What Now?

You mean like the eyewitness statement from the whistleblower?  Or the transcript of the conversation of President dipstick trading missiles for political dirt?   Or the uncontested fact  the president tried to hide it all on a top secret server ?

Pick you proof.  

But dont worry, Fritz.   I dont expect or care for you to change your disposition on impeachment.   You're the guy who stated you voted for Trump because Hillary lied too much.    And thats pretty much anyone here needs to know about you.

Talk about being stuck on stupid. Here is the proof. 

That is called bribery Fritz.  Stating a condition that they have to fulfill in order for the U.S. Government to sell them weapons. The condition is a personal favor to Trump to manufacture some sort of evidence to implicate Biden's son or Biden directly.    

I suspect Fritz hasn't even bothered to read the call summary. That is why he runs around saying no proof, no proof. As long as he doesn't actually look at the evidence, he can claim there is no proof.

Fritzie will be like the last Wehrmacht soldier who died defending the entrance to Hitler's bunker. Loyal to the very end, with unshakable faith in his god. He'll be raving about the "witch hunt" that took down Trump five years from now.

Pj - the whistleblower's account is not first hand. It is hearsay. The rule about it being first hand was magically changed in August  

Hearsay evidence can be considered if it's corroborated. The call transcripts are such corroboration, as are the testimonies of other WH staffers and the narratives of Ukraine officials and Trump's evil little elf mouthpiece.

Tom answers with more conservative crackpottery. The whistleblower's account according to the State Department IG contains both first-hand and second-hand information. The call summary and the transcript itself (which we haven't seen) are official records of the government, not second-hand information. The whistleblower account is a road map that lays out who to talk to for more first-hand accounts and which official records to get. Also, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule which Tom can find in the Federal Rules of Evidence if he is so inclined. 

Furthermore, Bill Clinton's Impeachment was based upon the hearsay testimony of Linda Tripp. Among those most forcefully distorting the heresy rule, Miss Lindsey, for example, were active participants in the Clinton Impeachment based upon hearsay.  I don't see anyone making the argument that they made a horrible mistake Impeaching Clinton based on hearsay and advocating the government reimburse him for all of his legal fees for their improper impeachment. 

As to Tom's false claim about the whistleblower rules having been changed in August, he is incorrect.  Numerous news and fact-checking organizations have looked into this. They all agree this claim is pure horseshit straight out of Trump's vulgar mouth. Here is what factcheck.org found:

President Donald Trump and some of his defenders have advanced a bogus theory that whistleblower rules were changed to allow a complaint alleging misconduct by the president to be forwarded to Congress based only on secondhand information.

There was no such change in law or policy, according to a Sept. 30 statement issued by the independent Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.

“In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint,” the three-page statement said.

The ICIG statement also said that the whistleblower had “direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct” and that “other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations.”

Link

It is amazing what Tom could learn if he would spend 2-3 minutes researching his own claims rather than trying to sniff out the truth from Sean Hannity's ass. 

I noticed Fritz disappeared from this thread once the proof he says didn't exist was posted. 

Mark talking sense with guys is counter productive at best......if the dems thought they had proof why, oh why, aren't they bringing it forward?  Because they ain't got the goods!  Smear all you like, but if they had proof, they'd be presenting it.  The fact that they haven't moved on what they got is prima facia evidence that they ain't got anything even close to proof.

The dems say jump, and you guys ask how high?  You don't wait for the facts to come in.  You jump at the bait like dumb fish.  OR, are you saying the dems have proof but don't want to use it?

Mark......IF YOU GOT PROOF, WHY IS YOUR SIDE SITTING ON IT?

I repeat this is the proof. 

An offical document, from the Trump White House were Donnie asks for a quid pro quo from Ukraine before he will sell them weapons. What more proof do you need?

Trump literally admits on the record to doing the stuff Democrats accuse him of doing. While you run around denying the existance of any proof. Today he asked China and Ukraine to interfear in the election by investigating Biden. He said this in a public statment with the cameras rolling. 

Your cut & paste job implies that the ukraine said they were going to buy the javelins & Trump then said can you do me a favor. 

Unfortunatly that wasn't how the conversation developed.