You haven't proven when the disbursements were supposed to within or before the timeframe of July 12th or September 11th. If you don't know when the disbursements were scheduled to happen, they you don't know what Ukraine was aware of at any point, at any time. You're just postulating a theory.
I gave you hints where you can find your answers. Be a big boy and go look. Soon you will be able to do it all by yourself if you try real hard.
Continually repeating the same bullshit argument doesn't give it any more weight. Do you not understand that his testimony that he was doing exactly what Bonespurs ordered him to do is neither "opinion" nor "hearsay"?
No. But then perhaps you should start calling Sondland a liar instead of making phony "hearsay" and "opinion" arguments, because those are ridiculous--it's like TV lawyer objections.
Then let's 'pass' impeachment in the House, to be able to have the Senate trials. I fully expect everyone to be able to participate then. I just want the truth, the whole truth so help you god(I'm not religious, I'm just reciting the oath.). I'm tired of being lied to, on both sides. I'm tired of 'I can't talk about it in a classified setting' But it was enough to be heard on a newspaper column. No, that no longer suffices.
Your Logical Fallacy: Shifting of the Burden of Proof Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the claim. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
"To be able" to participate? Bonespurs has obstructed Congress by instructing those clowns to ignore subpoenas. They were "able to participate", but instead chose to violate the law by ignoring subpoenas.
Sondland is liar and I have posted thread stating just that... Pence chief of staff fires back at Sondland: That conversation never happened http://www.politicalforum.com/index...land-that-conversation-never-happened.564611/ Jordan, Stefanik respond to Sondland's impeachment testimony http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-to-sondlands-impeachment-testimony.564619/ 7 Key Moments From Gordon Sondland’s Testimony on Day 4 of Public Impeachment Hearings http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/7-key-moments-from-gordon-sondland’s-testimony-on-day-4-of-public-impeachment-hearings.564632/
He testified what his role was in this whole illegal and impeachable scheme was. Testifying what the Bonespurs told him to do is not an "opinion". It's not "hearsay". But it is evidence. All you're doing here is making fake arguments that you believe sound "magically legalistic". They're not. Your arguments are the kind offered by people who are not well-informed in the law, but think that they sound clever. Please find a real source other than yourself. Thank you.
Sondland is liar! Pence chief of staff fires back at Sondland: That conversation never happened... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...land-that-conversation-never-happened.564611/ Jordan, Stefanik respond to Sondland's impeachment testimony http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nd-to-sondlands-impeachment-testimony.564619/ 7 Key Moments From Gordon Sondland’s Testimony on Day 4 of Public Impeachment Hearings http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-day-4-of-public-impeachment-hearings.564632/
I didn't like them because the answers you provided answer the question, as I've already explained. You appear to be answering a different question. A simple, " I don't have an answer to that question," would have been better.
Those subponeas weren't legal because at the time, the House hadn't voted on an impeachment inquiry and I don't believe in retroactive application. If they want, they can always submit a new subponea, but they've yet to do so.
That finds no support in the law. Yet another phony legal argument that's just pulled out of thin air. And, someone actually learned in the law says it's nonsense: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...8a7d1524758e425ad31/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 “Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,”
And where is the evidence of this, because this doesn't appear on any Daily Treasury Statements or OMB statements? That is certainly too fast for any SWIFT transactions.
