Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Dec 07 08:15:22 PST 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Gordon Sondland Wed Nov 20 testimoney
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Wed Nov 20 00:57:13
It seems like Gordy has set a perjury trap for himself with all his conflicting testimony.

Will he tell the truth and rat on Trump or will he go to jail?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 12:20:12
so we have rock solid proof Trump was holding up phone call & visit to get assurances of investigations of Biden & DNC server nonsense

and Sondlands belief the aid was too

as he couldn't get any other explanation from anyone... plus him giving his concerns to Ron Johnson (who later pressured Trump to release the aid)... plus every time he talked to Trump he was only interested in those investigations (or telling him to talk to Rudy, who was only interested in those investigations) plus Trump saying Ukraine tried to take him down in 2016 and we know Trump has a 1-track mind, he'd never let that thought go... plus Trump only mentioning those investigations when talking to Zelensky... plus there being NO other explanation provided (other than kargen types claiming Trump cared about corruption in general, even though he NEVER mentions a thing except his personal interest investigations)

any thinking person knows the aid was withheld corruptly
plus Giuliani was used corruptly
plus that Trump is an unfit idiot child
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 13:16:17
Rs & kargen should also be extremely upset that not only is the White House & State Dept denying access to documents to congress and also telling every witness not to testify, they also denied Sondland access to material to assist his recollection of events

but they won't be
Average Ameriacn
Member
Wed Nov 20 13:34:29
Disloyal POS will not get a pardon, Sondland will burn in hell!
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 14:52:45
Nunes might be mentally retarded

days ago he noted it's the 'mother of all conspiracy theories' that Trump would ask Ukraine to do any investigations as he doesn't like Ukraine (the ask is undisputed fact)

and today he lists a bunch of other supposedly false things, some of which have been proven true as well... ex "Trump had a diabolical plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."... i guess you could argue it wasn't diabolical... but he definitely had that plan... -definitely-... a proven fact, a signed document exists

he was also listing out completely irrelevant things like a Ukrainian writing an anti-Trump opinion piece during the election... -everyone- in Ukraine should have supported Hillary as Trump was openly pro-Russia all campaign & dismissed Crimea, saying perhaps the people prefer to be Russian
(so this expected behavior makes it ok to hold up aid i guess is Nunes' point?)


i avoid listening to Nunes mostly, but everything i've heard is always stupid... yet he's the R pick to lead the Intelligence Committee...
Habebe
Member
Wed Nov 20 17:16:14
So the gist I got

Trump wouldn't invite Ukraine over for a meeting unless they investigate shit ( Giuliani's words as witnessed by gordan s.)

If military aid was or was not with held...he doesn't know...he thinks so but that was his belief.

However as from his talks with Trump directly...Trump says he wants nothing for the aid nor the meeting etc.

Now its the withholding of m. Aid thats the issue...and the only evidence from GS. Was that was the feeling he got from Guilianni but any Trump told him explicitly he wanted nothing.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 17:53:26
a poor gist of it

it was Sondland's belief based on lots of indications, including no one providing a different reason (including when talking to Trump)

plus when Trump said 'i want nothing, no quid pro quo' that was -after- the whistleblower had gotten to congress (plus if that really is the quote, really suspicious Trump would even say the words quid pro quo, unless he's responding to people talking about an illegal quid pro quo)

AND Morrison (who takes notes) testified that Sondland relayed the 'no quid pro quo' conversation but also said that Trump wanted Zelensky to do what was right & to make the public statement

Trump saying something stupid like that would fit perfectly w/ Trump behavior... 'don't do anything illegal, but just punch the protester' (not a Trump quote, but he'd certainly say something like it)

and back to it being merely Sondland's belief... well, many had that belief, and no one has testified to another reason... if there is some clear other reason, why does no one know it, Dems have invited -everyone- relevant to testify (the ones denied are not going to know... whistleblower, Biden, Ohr, whatever other nonsense)

why is there -no one- saying 'oh yeah, Trump told me it was because ____'


(also, the quid pro quo on just the official working White House meeting is still improper which is proven completely by numerous texts)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 17:56:13
R's really make so many stupid points...

the last guy was talking about how Trump admin authorized Javelins when Obama's didn't

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING

& not even the first idiot to note it, it's a repeated talking point... just like the completely irrelevant whistleblower...

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 18:09:45
also for more gist (for people who didn't watch)

he noted the 3 amigos who were working together w/ Ukraine (Perry, Volker, himself - Sonland) were told to work w/ Rudy by Trump, they didn't want to but felt they had no choice

he also noted at least once Rudy talking to Ukrainians about the shakedown w/o them being in the loop & was quite annoyed

he had many texts that confirmed various people were aware of things & proof that Ukraine also felt pressure w/ them texting assurances that Zelensky would do what they were asking

he confirmed the restaurant phone call seemed accurate although he didn't recall himself mentioning Biden specifically

he noted basically everyone was in the loop that things were being held up, so Pompeo & Mulvaney others should all have been aware (& if they have some other explanation, then go testify, you traitors...)

...although Mulvaney has already confessed in the presser that aid was withheld for minimally the 2016 investigations (he was very careful & precise most likely to make sure he wasn't including Biden)... yes, he tried to walk it back later after yelled at, but it was VERY clear... plus fits ALL testimony


go read news articles for any more gist :p... (not Hannity ones)
kargen
Member
Wed Nov 20 18:11:39
Turns out if there was any quid pro quo was a meeting for an announcement. Basically good publicity for both involved. This is very common and has been a thing for as long as there has been relations between countries.
The Democrats are making a big deal about Russia being able to attack Ukraine while that money was withheld. If 400 million in aid is all that kept Russia from invading how piss is the Russian military? That aside we now know aid wasn't withheld for the investigation announcement so has no relevance really to the quid pro quo argument. The military angle is pure shit and the meeting for an announcement is business as usual.

So what will the Democrats try next?

Also why are they even continuing with these hearings. Schiff has already laid out what articles of impeachment he is going to file. So just fucking do it.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 18:58:45
"Basically good publicity for both involved."

Trump gets a public announcement that Ukraine is investigating his political opponent for his personal benefit... Zelensky gets an official working meeting w/ the U.S. on behalf of Ukraine.

Kargen: sounds perfect

------------------

"That aside we now know aid wasn't withheld for the investigation announcement"

so the 'attempted robbery isn't a crime' defense... aid was not released until after the whistleblower known, the withholding made public, R's upset about it, yadda yadda

Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 20 19:01:15
"-everyone- in Ukraine should have supported Hillary as Trump was openly pro-Russia all campaign"

It's fine for Ukraine to be pro-Hillary, but not fine for Russia to be pro-Trump

Or...one is our enemy, because they're evil and corrupt, so it's not okay, the other is, because they're our friend, being so...evil and corrupt
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 19:08:05
R's seem to be going w/ the idea Trump was holding up aid due to general corruption concerns

lets review all the times Trump has been concerned w/ corruption:

...

ok moving on, let's review Trump/Zelensky phone call #1, here's the White House read-out:

Trump "expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption”

Trump has released the transcript, NONE of that is in there. Supposedly that readout was a draft made before the call made, so Trump was -supposed- to talk about that stuff, but he's an unfit idiot who doesn't prepare, so all we got was nothing of substance & him noting he has a good sense of Ukraine based on their Miss Universe contestants (i see why they stuck w/ the draft).

So, even when he's supposed to discuss corruption he didn't.

Infamous phone call #2... no mention of 'corruption' specifically, -ONLY- Biden / DNC server talk, literally nothing else, that was his sole concern on the call

conversations w/ Sondland or others: NOTHING but those investigations

no witness has said Trump has asked about ANY 'corruption' except for the investigation of Biden / 2016 election



this general corruption excuse is nonsense... what appears to be the truth -is- the truth with literally no evidence suggesting otherwise

kargen fails again

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 19:21:24
"It's fine for Ukraine to be pro-Hillary, but not fine for Russia to be pro-Trump"

Russia was hacking our election systems in all states, & the DNC server, & had a targeted misinformation campaign

what is alleged on Ukraine? some Chalupa person & 'the black ledgers' where a reporter exposed criminal activity by a criminal as they like to do...

have our intel agencies concluded the gov't of Ukraine corruptly worked to help Hillary? i'm unaware of it, even under the corrupt AG Barr DOJ

should Trump be able to withhold congressionally approved aid over rumors & personal feelings?

especially since he doesn't even know about Chalupa or black ledgers... his concern was the DNC server... which he thinks is in Ukraine (it's not), & he thinks that because he thinks the owner of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike is Ukrainian (he is not)... & i guess he thinks the owner of the company who investigated the server would take it to his home or something (he didn't)... & Trump wants that server as he believes Russia was not the one to hack it (against unanimous conclusion by America's intel agencies, & instead based on nothing)


unfit... so obviously so...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 19:35:33
also if Chalupa & black ledgers & Ukrainians daring to have opinions warrants holding up the aid, then why did Rs approve it in the first place and why did it ever get released? What has happened on that issue between the time aid was held up and then eventually released?
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 20 20:59:32
"where a reporter exposed criminal activity by a criminal as they like to do..."

After some Ukrainian Schiff passed on the unverified ledgers to American reporters
Dukhat
Member
Wed Nov 20 21:18:17
Cuckservative arguments are even more thin and weak than the used single-ply toilet paper they are usually printed on.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 22:08:36
Also in the mix of overwhelming evidence is Zelensky was set to appear on Fareed Zakaria on Sep 13, with the NYTimes reporting he would do that public announcement Rudy and Trump so desperately wanted

the aid got released Sep 11 (after whistleblower known)... then Zelensky canceled that appearance (obviously he would not have wanted to make that announcement), so this yet again fits the obvious fact pattern that has only one logical explanation

sadly Trump fans don't operate on logic or facts
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 20 22:32:22
and to toss one more nugget on the monumental stack of evidence... Sondland had noted Trump seemed in a bad moon in his 'i want nothing, no quid pro quo' call (Sep 9)

well, if he had just recently found out there was a whistleblower & had people urging him to end his shakedown, he'd be in a bad mood

everything fits one obvious fact pattern
kargen
Member
Thu Nov 21 02:51:09
I like how you still pretend to be able to read minds.
Or maybe you are not pretending but actually think you can.

jergul
large member
Thu Nov 21 03:04:40
Its not really about the evidence. Its about first convincing a majority of the House of representatives that it is more likely than not that the president should be impeached.

After impeachment, it is about convincing 2/3rds of the senate that it is more likely than not that the president should be removed from office.

Impeachment is actually quite a severe sanction on its own, even if the Senate does not remove the president from office.

Very few presidents are ever impeached and it tends to be their legacies when it happens.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 21 03:12:59
"When Gerald Ford was a member of the House, he defined an impeachable offense as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." In other words, impeachment and conviction by Congress is a political punishment, not a criminal one."
kargen
Member
Thu Nov 21 04:55:08
"Its about first convincing a majority of the House of representatives that it is more likely than not that the president should be impeached."

Takes a simple majority and they have that. They also have Schiff saying for months now that it is a slam dunk.

"After impeachment, it is about convincing 2/3rds of the senate that it is more likely than not that the president should be removed from office."

The Senate will investigate and hold a hearing for that if the Democrats ever let it get that far. What is said in the house will be of little consideration.

Two presidents have been impeached. Johnson's legacy is obscurity, most people just don't know who he is. Granted his name does get mentioned any time there is talk of impeachment so kind of a legacy I guess. People who know more about him also know he and Seward. Kind of interesting when he was president congress reduced the number of judges on the Supreme Court rather than allow him to appoint a new member. After his term was up they raised the number back.

President Clinton will be known always and forever as the president that had sex in the Oval Office. Impeachment isn't as much his legacy as the events that led up to that point. People know what he did prior to impeachment but most do not know why he was impeached. Again impeachment is a part of his legacy but kind of takes a back seat to a few other things up until the time congress starts talking about impeaching another president. If congress were not trying to impeach President Trump then the only mention President Clinton gets now is related to his sexual indiscretions and the actions of his wife since his presidency.
If we take what you say to be true then impeachment would be neither a political nor a legal punishment but one of history/legacy. How we remember somebody and/or their actions long after they are out of office has zero effect on their political career.
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 21 05:29:02
Kargen
My point is that impeachment is a political process that will run its course the way the majority in the house of representatives thinks is best.

You like workplace analogies.

The boards are simply trying to decide if it wants to fire Trump or not.

If stockholders may disagree with the boards' decisions and may change the boards' composition at the next general meeting.

The stockholders may also decide to fire trump at that point.

The boards' members are aware of the politics here, so are positioning themselves in a manner that best promotes their corporate agendas.

Do you see any problem with that analogy?
patom
Member
Thu Nov 21 09:37:24
As I see it, what is at stake here is the future of our country.
If the Democrats in Congress do not attempt to stop Trump from his practice of using foreign nations to his political end to defeat political foes. Then they will be viewed as condoning the practice. Even if Trump is not impeached when the Senate has their say. It will clearly establish those who condone and those who don't.


tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 11:39:25
agreed, it should be done for historical reasons even though R's won't do their duty

sadly though, it won't be clear who is condoning, as Fox News & the garbage R liars keep obfuscating & providing cover. There was a poll showing 29% of people in Wisconsin or Michigan didn't believe Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden (which is just a proven fact).
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 11:41:38
"I like how you still pretend to be able to read minds."

i dislike how you refuse to use yours

'hmm... everybody only believed it's what Trump wanted based on lots of reasons, & never got a different reason, & is totally consistent w/ Trump's behavior pattern, but i guess its not true even though nothing suggesting so...'
~kargen
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 11:53:39
'plus i don't care that they've tried to prevent every witness from testifying, including successfully stopping all those around Trump who definitely would know the truth, which I believe is on Trump's side so totally makes sense to block them, because i can't think properly as i'm a crazy person'
~ kargen

...and kargen probably wants the whistleblower, as the R's are obsessed with, who can definitely add nothing to advance the facts

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 12:59:35
Fiona Hill's intelligence really highlights Nunes' mental retardation
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 14:03:21
Hill testified she helped create the package of prep material for Trump's call w/ Zelensky

what a waste of time

in call #1 he discusses absolutely nothing of substance (even though he was supposed to based on the readout they gave)

in call #2 he discusses nothing but his personal interest investigations


apparently people go to great effort to prepare information & issues to discuss & he does NONE of it, doubtful he even looked at it (as we have confirmed he doesn't read from numerous reports, & his inability to spell basic words & the names of people he deals with)

how about you have a problem with that, kargen? (you claim to care about job performance issues)

kargen
Member
Thu Nov 21 17:25:45
I understand why President Trump wouldn't want to allow those around him to testify. He has executive privilege and doesn't want to give it up. He is probably doing it for selfish reasons but you also have to consider him giving in sets precedence for future presidents.
Kinda the same reason when a police officer asked to look into the trunk of my car I told him no even though there was nothing but a spare tire in the trunk. It is my right to say no and I'm not giving it up. Officer said why not if you have nothing to hide. Same bullshit you are trying to pull.
I already said the whistle blower is not relevant to the hearing a couple of times. Just like none of the witnesses are relevant. We have the transcript. How people felt about the call doesn't matter at all.
Democrats went back to the tactic of what about the children. This time it was Ukrainian children. We heard over and over how Russia could have killed thousands of Ukrainians (especially children) while the aid was held. They seem to forget that Ukraine actually got the aid earlier than was originally planned. So another argument that is just a distraction and nothing else.

And as I predicted this story is taking air out of the Democratic primaries. Most people didn't even remember there was a debate last night and those that did remember didn't give a shit. They are tired of the constant barrage of political bickering that is coming from the hearing. Political bickering is about the only thing coming out of the hearing.

And you do know what burden of proof is?

I think, my feeling is, probably, might of, is consistent with, and a whole myriad of other phrases mean nothing when it comes to proof. We don't like his tweets or we don't like his tone and words he says on the phone isn't proof either.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 17:42:48
"Kinda the same reason when a police officer asked to look into the trunk of my car I told him no even though there was nothing but a spare tire in the trunk."


would be more apt if there were others in the car with you telling the officer they think there's a body in the trunk, they all smelled a body in the trunk, & they note when they asked you about it you didn't say there wasn't a body in the trunk & in fact they all got the impression there -was- a body in the trunk... at least until just now when the cop pulled you over & began approaching the car, and they asked 'why do you suppose he pulled us over?' & you yelled 'there's no body in the trunk!'
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 17:47:05
now address my "Thu Nov 21 14:03:21" entry

do you have a problem w/ Trump not doing any preparation & not accomplishing anything on his official calls? completely ignoring all the work done by adults

(+ being super proud of his pointless calls, & labeling them perfect)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Nov 21 17:52:35
and to your 'precedent' argument, Trump has told EVERYONE not to testify not just executive privilege people

& if you are concerned about precedents, you should have heaps of problems w/ Trump's behaviors

kargen
Member
Thu Nov 21 18:11:25
I've said before I have problems with President Trumps behavior. I just do not think they fall under the impeachment category.

You also seem to be running on the premise I do not want President Trump impeached. I really do not care if he is impeached. I don't even care if he were to be removed. Pence would be a better president and there is nobody the Democrats are running that could beat Pence. I doubt they can beat President Trump either and they share my doubts as evidenced by these impeachment hearings.

What I do have a problem with is trying to impeach the president simply because you do not like him or the way he talks. That is wrong and it would be wrong if a Democrat were in office. So far the Democrats have not offered up an actual real and definite reason for impeachment and that should be concerning to all of us.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Nov 21 19:07:41
Grasping at straws as usual.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 00:31:14
"Kinda the same reason when a police officer asked to look into the trunk of my car I told him no even though there was nothing but a spare tire in the trunk. It is my right to say no and I'm not giving it up. Officer said why not if you have nothing to hide."

That would be true if the officer also owned the company you worked for and decided to fire you for not being trustworthy.

Trump is being subjected to a political process, not a criminal one.

"I have problems with President Trumps behavior. I just do not think they fall under the impeachment category."

That determination is actually up to the house of representatives.

(Why in goodness name would a blow-job be the basis for a congressional investigation?)

It let Stormy Daniels slide, and the Mueller investigation findings, and any other number of things. Or have they?

"So far the Democrats have not offered up an actual real and definite reason for impeachment and that should be concerning to all of us"

Do you really doubt Trump wanted the Ukrainians to do something and he withheld stuff to get them to do it?

But beyond that, the investigations and hearings actually do uncover impeachable things.

The question is not so much if Trump will be impeached, but rather on how many counts.

I don't really think democrats care if he is removed from office for the reasons you give.

The most likely outcome for now is a 2nd term Trump and democratic control of the house and senate.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 22 01:36:13
It does really seem like the dems are grasping at straws....in the end I think this will backfire agaunst them.

Let me ask this to all of those who think or want Trump impeached and kicked out of office.

Do you think the Senate will do anything?
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 01:45:45
Habebe
I don't think anyone wants Pence as president. No one actually wants him kicked out of elections.

You should view it more in terms of voter mobilization. 85% of democrats support impeachment.

The process will enourage democratic voters to turn out in numbers to keep the house democratic and flip the senate.

The stigma of an impeachment may weaken Trump, who knows?

But the alternative is letting China be kingmaker. It can use the ongoing tradewar to punish trump the same way Iran used the hostage crisis to punish Carter.

All China needs to do is tank the stock markets just before the election.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 01:46:40
No one actually wants him [Trump] kicked out before the elections.*
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 22 01:49:40
"That would be true if the officer also owned the company you worked for and decided to fire you for not being trustworthy."

I'm not even sure you are in the right conversation.

"That determination is actually up to the house of representatives."

Until this point and time the president actually had to do something besides win the election to be impeached.

"The question is not so much if Trump will be impeached, but rather on how many counts."

Exactly. The Democrats knew they were going to impeach him long before any investigation started. So why pretend? Just get it done.

"The most likely outcome for now is a 2nd term Trump and democratic control of the house and senate."

I doubt the Senate will flip. I do think the Democrats will make gains in the house but I also believe some of the fringe (AOC crowd) will lose their seats to more moderate Democrats. We are do for a correction back towards the middle for both parties.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 22 01:58:00
Jergul, That makes more sense..

I personally think it will hurt the dems more than Trump...but only time will tell.

Odd thought...IF Trump were kicked out of office and Pence became President Trump could still technically run again would that mean he could run in 2020 and 2024? As he that wouldnt be a third consecutive*** term.....
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 02:02:26
Kargen
It is not a criminal proceeding, so the analogy works better if the officer has some non legal way of getting compliance.

Sure the fellow can refuse to show what is in his trunk, but risks losing his job because the officer happens to call the shots at his workplace.

Crime analogies are always inaccurate when it comes to impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal process.

Why are the democrats drawing it out? Well, there is the lure of Trump almost certainly perjuring himself if he did testify.

But it ultimately boils down to assessing how many counts of impeachment there will be.

You have checked how many senate seats the GOP has up this sequence, right?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 22 02:04:38
"Until this point and time the president actually had to do something besides win the election to be impeached. "

so you don't believe anyone can reasonably believe that Trump was holding up aid for the investigations? ...even though basically everyone working on Ukraine issues believed that to be the case...

(see how that makes no sense?)

or perhaps you think they're all lying under oath... many of them having managed to work under both R's & D's now just can't take Trump's perfection & are all lying their asses off? ...even though Mulvaney also has confessed accidentally (though very specifically)... & John Bolton called it a drug deal... & Pence & Pompeo have had to carefully reword questions before answering or just refuse to answer... & no one has testified to any other reason...

your craziness is showing

just like how you can't spot any obstruction of justice evidence from Mueller

jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 02:06:20
habebe
I have no idea if it will backfire. It did for the GOP against Clinton, but that was mainly due to tons of infidelities revealed during the impeachment process.

Democrats feared a backfire. Hence the lack of impeachment over other stuff earlier.

You would have to check the wording of your constitution on the consecutive issue. Putin used that loophole, but that is of course a different country.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 22 03:44:50
Jergul, I've seen some polls lately showing it is having some backlash...but it wasn't Gallup or a a well known polling org. To me at least so I wouldn't trust it with out some research....

I have seen gallup polls saying that it hasnt swayed opinions any which way.
Habebe
Member
Fri Nov 22 03:51:06
As for the consecutive term thing...

So no one can be elected POTUS more than twice. Also filling in as potus for 2 yrs or more is essentialy counted as one full term in that regard.

Consecutive doeant seem to have anything to do with it.
hood
Member
Fri Nov 22 07:24:25
It never did.
TJ
Member
Fri Nov 22 09:28:31
"Odd thought...IF Trump were kicked out of office and Pence became President Trump could still technically run again would that mean he could run in 2020 and 2024? As he that wouldnt be a third consecutive*** term...."


http://his...igins-Development/Impeachment/

The power of impeachment is limited to removal from office but also provides for a removed officer to be disqualified from holding future office. Fines and potential jail time for crimes committed while in office are left to civil courts.

Trump won't be impeached. It is highly possible he'll be reelected for a second term.

Trump 2020!
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 09:38:21
TJ
He will almost certainly be impeached, but he is unlikely to be convicted.

He will still have been impeached on various counts, but not convicted of them.

"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Read carefully :-).

Paramount
Member
Fri Nov 22 09:38:28
I don’t see who can beat Trump. He is also being backed by Netanyahu, Mohammed, and maybe Putin. They can do things with the polls and the voting machines. His win is pretty much guaranteed.
TJ
Member
Fri Nov 22 09:45:01
jergul->He will almost certainly be impeached, but he is unlikely to be convicted.

I wouldn't be certain that will be the case.

Putin is laughing his ass off. I don't need to read carefully. I'm fully aware he can be impeached and acquitted in the Senate means he was still impeached-Clinton.
TJ
Member
Fri Nov 22 09:56:02
Addressing Pence and running for additional two terms. Carefully read the 22 Amendment Section I.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 22 10:38:32
Nice the care they took to allow for a 3-term truman :).

I think Putin is a bit vexed about how long it is taking to decouple the US from the global economy.
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 22 15:46:24
"so you don't believe anyone can reasonably believe that Trump was holding up aid for the investigations?"

No I am not saying that. I am saying there is no proof. The aid got there before the originally scheduled date and neither person actually involved with the call say there was a tit for tat arrangement.
And all those people testifying are real careful to not say anything definitive. They say how the feel, what they thought or what they suspected. When questioned about what actually happened they can't say yes I know for a fact President Trump used leverage to force an investigation into Biden. They have lawyers with them that help them insinuate without having to perjure themselves.

Paramont they can't do shit to the voting machines. The voting machines are calibrated then locked away until time for voting. The machines are not online so anyone hacking them would need physical access.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 22 15:53:24
you are allowed to use your brain as a juror, you don't need a signed confession*

the aid was held up 3 months, not like a day or two... you'd think someone in Ukraine would've got the word what the issue was if it wasn't what they repeatedly expressed concern about to superiors, it wasn't until 2 days before the release that Sondland got the 'no quid pro quo' answer out of Trump (which was after whistleblower had reported)... if this was about black ledgers, etc, what was resolved on that to get the aid released?

*plus we DO have the Mulvaney confession... plus Trump's phone call where Trump starts noting that things aren't reciprocal, Zelensky mentions aid, Trump says 'i'd like to do you a favor though' (no mention of crowd sizes, poll #'s, Arnold Schwarzenegger) his entire interest in the call is getting the investigations

start exercising common sense

there is absolutely reason to conclude that the obvious happened
Paramount
Member
Fri Nov 22 15:59:34
” Paramont they can't do shit to the voting machines. The voting machines are calibrated then locked away until time for voting.”


Kinda like Epstein was supposed to be locked away and safe.

All it takes is someone to ”fall asleep” so that someone can sneak in.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 22 16:16:28
also, as to this smear:

"They have lawyers with them that help them insinuate without having to perjure themselves"

or maybe they just told the truth?

what kind of garbage person are you anyway?

what indication whatsoever is there that they were all deliberately trying to mislead?

especially considering Mulvaney confessed, Bolton - 'drug deal', Pompeo & Pence being extremely careful in answers or not answering... texts from Ukrainian side aware Trump wants the public statement, Giuliani making it quite clear that's what he was after...

there is no other story, yet you suggest they are all trying to mislead in their testimony

you are crossing the line into being a Trumpian piece of shit, take stock of your life

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 22 16:32:32
you seem to have bought into the Fox News/R story of them being Schiff/anti-Trump witnesses (which there is no evidence of... but hopefully they all find Trump unfit as that's what smart people think)

they are just -the- witnesses, they weren't cherry-picked

name one person working on the Ukraine shit that wasn't called that R's wanted to call to explain what was -really- going on (if it's not what everyone else is saying)

good luck

stop watching Fox, & save your soul
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 22 17:37:31
"the aid was held up 3 months"

The aid got there early.

"Kinda like Epstein was supposed to be locked away and safe."

The key there being "was supposed" and I doubt Hillary wants to kill voting machines.

"or maybe they just told the truth?"

Oh I am sure they did. THey all probably really are butt hurt about being left out of the loop. I have no doubt they feel outraged with the way President Trump spoke. How they feel isn't something we should be impeaching for whether they are being honest about their feelings or not.

"Did President Trump demand an investigation into Biden for the aid?"

"That is my belief"

Maybe that is their belief maybe it isn't. Doesn't matter either way because belief isn't proof.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 22 17:47:24
"They all probably really are butt hurt about being left out of the loop."

what loop? is Giuliani the only one operating in Ukraine in the loop? that's some loop...

=========

"belief isn't proof"

plus you ignore why all of them have that belief... never be a juror

=========

how about -you- answer right now why the aid was held up... the Trump people won't testify to it, but there's no reason for them not to have announced it on Fox or wherever, so what was it? i assume you won't go w/ Mulvaney's confession (which he walked back as if all of his many carefully chosen words were all slips of the tongue... plus what did 'get over it' refer to?)


so not speculation as to what it could have been provide the actual reason
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 22 18:34:01
the ambassadors didn't get to be a part of the process. That is why they are pissed. They wanted to attend a state dinner or two, be wined and dined and be lauded over as they "negotiated" a deal. Instead Giuliani did it. So now they are saying their feelings are hurt and we should impeach President rump.

The aid wasn't held up so I can't answer that question. It is like asking why did the moon splash into the Pacific Ocean. It didn't happen so there is no why to be answered.

Maybe there was a threat of aid being held? Maybe. Truth is though Ukraine got the aid earlier than scheduled so all that Russia could have attacked talk is pure bull shit.

They received the aid early.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Nov 22 19:10:52
have you hit your head? you pretend to care about the facts, and completely make up a story that no one is saying, not even the R's

& what deal did Giuliani negotiate? we know what his interests were entirely... the corrupt ones

& if the aid was never held up, i'm incredibly certain the R's would have used that as their one & only argument as that's all they'd need

it was indeed held up... that's not even in dispute

you are completely lost... Fox claims another one

jergul
large member
Sat Nov 23 01:07:17
http://www...ocuments-to-american-oversight

“We can see why Mike Pompeo has refused to release this information to Congress. It reveals a clear paper trail from Rudy Giuliani to the Oval Office to Secretary Pompeo to facilitate Giuliani’s smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador.

“This is just the first round of disclosures. The evidence is only going to get worse for the administration as its stonewall strategy collapses in the face of court orders.

“That American Oversight could obtain these documents establishes that there is no legal basis for the administration to withhold them from Congress. That conclusively shows that the administration is engaged in obstruction of justice. The president and his allies should ask themselves if impeachment for obstruction is worth it if the strategy isn’t even going to be effective.

“This lawsuit is just one of several American Oversight is pursuing to bring transparency to the Ukraine investigation. The public should expect more disclosures, over the administration’s strong objection, for the foreseeable future.”
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 23 01:23:48
"Forseeable future"

One disadvantage with stonewalling is that it draws out the Congressional hearings somewhat.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Nov 23 14:18:02
“The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming"
~ Judge Napolitano

I guess another guy Schiff got to, or who is butt hurt at not being wined and dined enough, or whatever smear kargen wants to makeup with no evidence

-----

Dems asked everyone involved to testify, Trump ordered no cooperation in documents and all witnesses and has offered no clear explanation, yet people believe Trumps non-existent story...
Habebe
Member
Sat Nov 23 17:19:59
Idk TW. I have a firm rule not to trust anyone with a last name ending in a vowel....

Giuliani, pompeo, nappy-latino

All seem like shady foreigners.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Nov 23 22:01:32
just citing him for the portion of the population who think everyone outside of Fox News is a corrupt liar

and to (yet again) prove kargen wrong...
Napolitano would not have that position if this was all nonsense
(although he was also able to spot the obstruction of justice allegations in Mueller, so perhaps he's an undercover Dem, like Mitt Romney... and Condi Rice, i guess)
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share