N
niceatheist
Guest
What kangaroo court is that? Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one, just like the Framers intended.
- Status
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Is it? Here is what was said.
www.foxnews.com
Sondland testified about a conversation with Trump where he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine.
“And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” the ambassador said. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)Video
While Trump argued that Sondland’s statement proves there was no quid pro quo between his administration and Ukraine – the matter at the heart of the impeachment probe – Sondland gave a more nuanced account.
He confirmed he never heard directly from Trump on a quid pro quo linking military aid for Ukraine to politically advantageous investigations.
But Sondland said “we all understood” that a meeting at the White House for Ukraine’s president and a phone call with Trump would happen only if President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to an investigation into the 2016 U.S. election and the Bidens. And he said he came to presume aid was linked to investigations too.
So he said Trump specifically said no quid pro quo, but claims we “understood” (note he never says how he understood) he meant it to be one. Nonsense. The thought of removing a sitting President on some people’s “thoughts” despite direct evidence from the President himself to the contrary should scare anyone.
Couple this with the fact we have heard from a single witness the Republicans want to call (unless I missed one, since Schiff disallows the oppsing witnesses) basically means this is a one-sided fake search for evidence to support an already decided verdict. Why can’t the Democrats do something like this on the up and up?
I look forward to the moment the Senate tosses this garbage in the trash bin of history (because no matter how many witnesses Schiff calls, his tainting of the proceedings has rendered any outcome moot), and even moreso to the day that Trump is hopefully reelected.
Trump says 'it's all over' for impeachment inquiry after Sondland testimony
President Trump on Wednesday said that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee should exonerate him of any claims of wrongdoing in the ongoing impeachment inquiry into him.
www.foxnews.com
Sondland testified about a conversation with Trump where he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine.
“And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” the ambassador said. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)Video
While Trump argued that Sondland’s statement proves there was no quid pro quo between his administration and Ukraine – the matter at the heart of the impeachment probe – Sondland gave a more nuanced account.
He confirmed he never heard directly from Trump on a quid pro quo linking military aid for Ukraine to politically advantageous investigations.
But Sondland said “we all understood” that a meeting at the White House for Ukraine’s president and a phone call with Trump would happen only if President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to an investigation into the 2016 U.S. election and the Bidens. And he said he came to presume aid was linked to investigations too.
So he said Trump specifically said no quid pro quo, but claims we “understood” (note he never says how he understood) he meant it to be one. Nonsense. The thought of removing a sitting President on some people’s “thoughts” despite direct evidence from the President himself to the contrary should scare anyone.
Couple this with the fact we have heard from a single witness the Republicans want to call (unless I missed one, since Schiff disallows the oppsing witnesses) basically means this is a one-sided fake search for evidence to support an already decided verdict. Why can’t the Democrats do something like this on the up and up?
I look forward to the moment the Senate tosses this garbage in the trash bin of history (because no matter how many witnesses Schiff calls, his tainting of the proceedings has rendered any outcome moot), and even moreso to the day that Trump is hopefully reelected.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
I am guessing they assumed it would be fair and honest, but they should have known . . . in . . . dealing with the likes of . . . people like Adam Schiff. . . .
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Did you forget the other part of the Ambassador’s testimony - the explicit conditioning of the Whitehouse meeting on Ukraine pursuing political investigations? Overseas, where we are rather more disinterested in US politics, this is all playing badly for Mr Trump, not for the other side.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
I am guessing Trump was not held in good light overseas, judging from comments I hear, so I am not surprised. And why would you form any opinions when witnesses who would be called by Trump’s allies are not allowed to be called? In theory, we should all reserve judgement until both sides are allowed to be heard, but Schiff’s rule will not allow that. I wonder why?
I’d say Schiff’s bogus rules, while legal, are doing exactly what is intended. Luckily, non-Americans overseas are not allowed to vote, the Senate is not going to remove him, and the election is a year away. That is a lifetime from these hearings. So meh.
Oh and from the WaPo,
Sondland said that he was never privy to the White House meetings where the aid was frozen but that he became convinced it was being held up as leverage and thought that was inappropriate.
If we elected Sondland, we might care whether he though something was inappropriate. So “he became convinced” but has no evidence other than his “gut feeling.” And for this, we are expected we should remove the President? Not going to happen. Trump 2020. I will enjoy watching keyboards breaking across America as posters pound away in frustration when he wins again.
I’d say Schiff’s bogus rules, while legal, are doing exactly what is intended. Luckily, non-Americans overseas are not allowed to vote, the Senate is not going to remove him, and the election is a year away. That is a lifetime from these hearings. So meh.
Oh and from the WaPo,
Sondland said that he was never privy to the White House meetings where the aid was frozen but that he became convinced it was being held up as leverage and thought that was inappropriate.
If we elected Sondland, we might care whether he though something was inappropriate. So “he became convinced” but has no evidence other than his “gut feeling.” And for this, we are expected we should remove the President? Not going to happen. Trump 2020. I will enjoy watching keyboards breaking across America as posters pound away in frustration when he wins again.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I guess two main reasons. We’ve seen such a stream of issues with trump: his statements about women, his statements about who pays import tariffs, his statements about who pays for the “wall”, his constant personal attacks on those who oppose him - this leads one to a view of character. Second, some of those testifying are his chosen appointees and without a powerful motivation to perjure themselves.
And yes, the senate will deal with the matter along party lines. No surprise there!
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
It may be dead on arrival,not ev n go to a vote.With each day of testimony by these “star witnesses’ it is being affirmed there is no there there. A very GOOD day for President Trump today
Last edited:
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
I’d say many are not his chosen appointees (Sondland was, of course), but they still offer zero evidence. Where is the evidence of anything? The closest thing we have is the President’s words saying “no quid pro quo.” Not to mention, the other witnesses added nothing to this whole testimony that hurt Trump, so we are really discussing one person, not “some of those.” Sondland says no quid pro quo from the President’s mouth, but he perceived it was.
It is the height of unfairness to say despite no actual evidence, we think you are a dink, and therefore, you must be guilty. if you do that, you have to look at house biased the proceedings have been against actually getting a fair assessment, all orchestrated by Schiff, and assume both sides of this tussle cannot be believed, since Schiff clearly has an agenda and no character. Again, if one is using the person’s perceived character as a means to fact-find, which I find to be a bad idea anyway.
I don’t see what the endgame is for those seeking removal. He isn’t going to be removed. Perhaps it is to hurt his popularity, but the election is a lifetime away without any opposition candidate, so that likelihood seems remote. Perhaps fundraising for the dems?
I’d say both Houses will deal along party lines, more or less. The likelihood is more Dems vote with Trump than Republicans vote against him if the House actually casts a vote, but the Senate is likely locked in, as there are fewer members.
It is the height of unfairness to say despite no actual evidence, we think you are a dink, and therefore, you must be guilty. if you do that, you have to look at house biased the proceedings have been against actually getting a fair assessment, all orchestrated by Schiff, and assume both sides of this tussle cannot be believed, since Schiff clearly has an agenda and no character. Again, if one is using the person’s perceived character as a means to fact-find, which I find to be a bad idea anyway.
I don’t see what the endgame is for those seeking removal. He isn’t going to be removed. Perhaps it is to hurt his popularity, but the election is a lifetime away without any opposition candidate, so that likelihood seems remote. Perhaps fundraising for the dems?
I’d say both Houses will deal along party lines, more or less. The likelihood is more Dems vote with Trump than Republicans vote against him if the House actually casts a vote, but the Senate is likely locked in, as there are fewer members.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Recent polls show President Trumps approval spiking since the hearings began and across all party lines nes including independents,support for his removal has been on the decline
H
Hodos
Guest
Yeah, but Matt Walsh covers the real bombshell story from yesterday. See first 10 minutes of the show.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“High crimes and misdemeanors” clearly indicates an intent that the offenses be of a criminal sort, if not clearly prohibited acts. I doubt the framers intended it as a “second election” by congress if the majority doesn’t like the result of the first. That’s what we have now.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I know you are not suggesting the Whistleblower should be prosecuted.
Because I know that you are aware that the Whistleblower followed every protocol INTERNALLY. AND the IG said the report was substantiated and serious. And then only staff with clearance from the INTEL CHAIRMANS office had contact. Meaning it would be illegal to take retribution or any other retaliation
Because I know that you are aware that the Whistleblower followed every protocol INTERNALLY. AND the IG said the report was substantiated and serious. And then only staff with clearance from the INTEL CHAIRMANS office had contact. Meaning it would be illegal to take retribution or any other retaliation
M
Maximus1
Guest
It should be a violation of the public trust an oath of office.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Enjoy whatever spike you think is.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You mean about “groupies”. He has made no sweeping attack on women generally.
The last I read, China has been absorbing those.
Possibly one of the reasons Pelosi won’t allow passage of the USMCA even though most of the Dems
support it. It does shift the balance in favor of the U.S.
This is a reason to impeach? Obama did it with a whole segment of the public “bitter clingers…”
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
No wonder the Democrats desperately want Trump gone and will say and do anything to that effect, making it up if they have to.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...eveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
The real battle that the Democrats are fighting is keep this story from blowing up in their collective faces. Impeach? Sure they can. Convict? when this stuff is coming out of Ukraine? Not happening.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...eveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
The real battle that the Democrats are fighting is keep this story from blowing up in their collective faces. Impeach? Sure they can. Convict? when this stuff is coming out of Ukraine? Not happening.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Assuming it’s even true, which I do not grant, this is a “crime” or “misdemeanor”? It just isn’t. It’s a political failing, if anything. But then, the whole impeachment is just a political move.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Impeachment is a political proceeding by design. That is true. It isn’t a criticism, it’s a definition
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So you believe the Founders intended impeachment as simply a way to overturn an election? You really believe that? If they intended it, why didn’t they say it?
- Status