‘This is a very strong case of bribery’: House Intel Democrat on Trump Ukraine call

House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., is interviewed on “This Week.”

#ABCNews #ThisWeek #ImpeachmentInquiry #HouseIntelligenceCommitteemember

source

Author: avnblogfeed

ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2022 | HOSTING BY PHILLYFINEST369 SERVER STATS| & THE IDIOTS ROBOT AND CONTROL INC. |(RSS FEED MODULE)| ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS (AVNBLOGFEED.COM)

42 thoughts on “‘This is a very strong case of bribery’: House Intel Democrat on Trump Ukraine call

  1. I'm not too fond of news organizations, which are seen as being reputable to many, while spewing out information without concrete proof. Indeed, "freedom of the press" should be redefined and not allowed to broadcast stories of (maybe this or that) without significant evidence to back claims. This too should apply to legal proceeding, both which are seriously flawed.

  2. The President was seeking information of corrupt behavior of Democrats in 2016.
    This is a waste of time. Even if the House Democrats impeach, the Senate will not convict.
    Democrats have the votes, why don’t they vote to impeach tomorrow. It’s a partisan activity. It does not matter who testified or what they say.

  3. I can't call Frump a president, but if it will get him to resign, I’LL EVEN CALL HIM ”SIR”, PLEASE RESIGN!! 🙅‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️🙎‍♀️🙍‍♀️

  4. DEMTARDS KEEP TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF WHAT JACKIE SPEIER IS SAYING, when her statements of the facts are all open to interpretation, subjectivity, innuendos, and guessing as to what was in the presidents mind in the transcript. Very difficult to prove any of what Speier said when one has to peer into Trump's mind. No one can ever know what's in Trump's mind when he says things; so, again it's just speculation, suppositions, and accusations, mainly based on Trump's suspicious business dealings from the past & that's enough for most demtards.

  5. This is a very strong case of Lying Democrat talking points- Trump asked them to investigate possible corruption and the Ukraine did NOT know at the time that the Aid was being withheld.

  6. I don’t know how abc news feels like they have the right to talk about bribery when someone at abc news was paid to suppress the Epstein story. But that’s none of my business 🤷🏽‍♂️😂😂🤣

  7. Meanwhile, the Trump crime family has been found guilty and have admitted to stealing money from charity. You or I would be in jail, but Trump and his crime family get to buy their way out of prison with a 2 million dollar settlement. Of course he will probably use tax payer dollars or campaign donations to pay it off.

  8. So Obama helps release 400 MILLION dollars to Iran, which they then use to help make a nuclear bomb and that's NOT BRIBERY?!? Democrats are LITERATELY BRIBING Americans to vote for them by promising to give them government goodies!!

  9. Abc and google are deleting accounts that are pushing the epstein agenda . My other account was just deleted for no reason by google . Says something about major account violation .

  10. You Demonrats are not suppose to interfere in foriegn policy. You can not say how a president conducts his policies! He is under no obligation to give aid to anyone! Get you laws correct! No law about being anoymous nothing protected identity it protects his job! “Eric Ciamella” everyone already knows!

  11. I believe you are correct and Joe Biden must answer for it. 🇺🇸Trump2020🇺🇸

  12. Democratic owned House doesn't like Trump

    Should be the title of every political media created by the extremely biased Leftist media. Also, Epstein didn't commit suicide.

  13. By bribery the constitution meant of domestic Citizens. I don’t think bribery of a foreign government is a crime in the United States. And by this logic, any earmarks by a president to foreign aid could be seen as bribery. And by criminal intent, they have to show Evidence such as Statements made, that the president consciously did this for political purposes. By the opposite premise of sheer circumstantial evidence, anytime the president asks for an investigation into somebody who happens to be a Democrat, you can characterize it as purely political

Comments are closed.