Speier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump

[JacksinPA]

Speier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump | TheHill

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said the public phase of the impeachment inquiry is more likely to sway Americans than the Mueller report did because of what she called the clear nature of President Trump’s bribery.

ABC “This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked Speier Sunday how House Democrats will make a “stronger public case” after former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony earlier this year on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election “did not galvanize public opinion.”
==================================================================
First of all, stop using quid pro quo as an alternative to bribery. Most Americans have either not taken Latin in school or have forgotten what they learned years ago.

Second, Mueller's report was too lengthy & filled with legalese. Most members of Congress haven't read it, let alone the voting public. It had almost no impact on America after 2 years of digging into Trump's muck.

 

[Mycroft]

Speier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump | TheHill

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said the public phase of the impeachment inquiry is more likely to sway Americans than the Mueller report did because of what she called the clear nature of President Trump’s bribery.

ABC “This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked Speier Sunday how House Democrats will make a “stronger public case” after former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony earlier this year on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election “did not galvanize public opinion.”
==================================================================
First of all, stop using quid pro quo as an alternative to bribery. Most Americans have either not taken Latin in school or have forgotten what they learned years ago.

Second, Mueller's report was too lengthy & filled with legalese. Most members of Congress haven't read it, let alone the voting public. It had almost no impact on America after 2 years of digging into Trump's muck.

So...Rep. Speier already knows what the testimony is going to be? Has she been meeting with the witnesses? Coaching them, perhaps?

Or is she just spinning and guessing?

btw, QPQ was a bust. Now they are trying to spin Trump's legitimate actions into bribery. Good luck.

 

[Mach]

So...Rep. Speier already knows what the testimony is going to be?

We have thousands of pages of witness testimony, and the transcript, and Mick's admission, and Trump's, and Rudy's...
But you're wondering how anyone has facts?

I agree, your posts regularly evidence that you don't use, seek, or pay any attention to facts. Head in the sand. Tell us more about "go pound sand", or "dismissed"...they reek of simple-minded right wing punditry and mimicry.

 

[apdst]

Speier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump | TheHill

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said the public phase of the impeachment inquiry is more likely to sway Americans than the Mueller report did because of what she called the clear nature of President Trump’s bribery.

ABC “This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked Speier Sunday how House Democrats will make a “stronger public case” after former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony earlier this year on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election “did not galvanize public opinion.”
==================================================================
First of all, stop using quid pro quo as an alternative to bribery. Most Americans have either not taken Latin in school or have forgotten what they learned years ago.

Second, Mueller's report was too lengthy & filled with legalese. Most members of Congress haven't read it, let alone the voting public. It had almost no impact on America after 2 years of digging into Trump's muck.

Well, is it bribery, or extortion? It can't be both. :lamo

 

[iguanaman]

Well, is it bribery, or extortion? It can't be both. :lamo

Actually it can. Extortion involves a threat to do harm and given the war Ukraine is fighting with Russia withholding vital military aid is definitely harm. Bribery is more appropriate when it involves Govt. officials taking money for "favors" but the Ukrainian President is a Govt. official. so....

Extortion could occur between two businessmen and still be a criminal offense, whereas bribery is primarily focused on the bribing of Government employees or bribing by Government employees. But the most important difference is the difference between a threat to do harm in extortion and an offer to do good in bribery.

Bribery Versus Extortion - criminal | Laws.com

Trump froze military aid — as Ukrainian soldiers perished in battle - Los Angeles Times

 

[Mycroft]

We have thousands of pages of witness testimony, and the transcript, and Mick's admission, and Trump's, and Rudy's...
But you're wondering how anyone has facts?

I agree, your posts regularly evidence that you don't use, seek, or pay any attention to facts. Head in the sand. Tell us more about "go pound sand", or "dismissed"...they reek of simple-minded right wing punditry and mimicry.

If we already have all that, why do we need more witness testimony?

In any case, Speier wasn't talking about stuff we already have. She was talking about stuff that is to come.

My questions stand.

 

[BlueTex]

So...Rep. Speier already knows what the testimony is going to be? Has she been meeting with the witnesses? Coaching them, perhaps?

Or is she just spinning and guessing?

btw, QPQ was a bust. Now they are trying to spin Trump's legitimate actions into bribery. Good luck.

Maybe she actually has read the transcripts and looked at some of the other evidence like these text messages...


View attachment 67267933
View attachment 67267934


In your opinion what was being discussed?

The following is a text exchange between Yermak and Volker on August 29th..

View attachment 67267935

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe she actually has read the transcripts and looked at some of the other evidence like these text messages...


View attachment 67267933
View attachment 67267934


In your opinion what was being discussed?

The following is a text exchange between Yermak and Volker on August 29th..

View attachment 67267935

How can she read transcripts of testimony that hasn't happened yet?

 

[Mach]

If we already have all that, why do we need more witness testimony?

Because like in every instance where you need to prove a case against someone, you use overwhelming evidence.

In any case, Speier wasn't talking about stuff we already have. She was talking about stuff that is to come.
My questions stand.

And Speier has access to all present evidence, which is a more than enough. Your question is as absurd as all your posts.

 

[Mycroft]

Because like in every instance where you need to prove a case against someone, you use overwhelming evidence.


And Speier has access to all present evidence, which is a more than enough. Your question is as absurd as all your posts.

sigh...

Did you even read the OP?

"Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said the public phase of the impeachment inquiry..."

The "public phase" starts next week.

 

[Mach]

How can she read transcripts of testimony that hasn't happened yet?? sigh....

You just got busted Mycroft.

Speier, summing up her interpretation of the findings so far, said “this is a very strong case of bribery.”

Tell me more about next week's public hearing, when she's literally told you it was a summation of the FINDINGS SO FAR.

Just correct yourself, it's not difficult.