A very bad impeachment hearings day for Donald Trump

[Zzyzx_Road]

Read what CNN, et al will not tell you about Sondland’s testimony.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/rep-mike-turner-gets-witness-to-admit-bombshell-debunks-cnn-headline-in-real-time

Sondland tried to duck the question, but ultimately had to admit he didn’t really testify to anything substantial. From the article. Which includes the video of this exchange.

“After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,’” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

“I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,” Sondland replied.

“So, no one told you?” Turner fired back. “Giuliani didn’t tell you? Mulvaney didn’t tell you? Pompeo didn’t tell you? Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?”

“I think I already testified,” Sondland responded.

“No, answer the question,” Turner shot back. “Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is ‘yes,’ then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong.”

As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”

“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Sondland responded.

“So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.

“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland replied.

“Which is nothing,” Turner fired back.

 

[niceatheist]

To believe the rest of what you’re saying, the Framers would have had to disdain elections entirely, making ours a “stealth” parliamentary system in which the congressional majority makes and unmakes chief executives.

Why would that follow. Impeachment was placed in the Constitution as a means of removing Federal officials up to and including the President. The concept of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is an explicit choice, since it rises out of English Common Law, and in particular out of the 14th century English Parliament. The Framers would have understood the term as being broad, and not limited to any specific criminal statute.

And really, the Framers had a backup plan should a President be removed, and that’s the Vice President. Now the succession has been altered by the 25th amendment, but the concept still stands, that should a President be removed due to impeachment and conviction in the Senate, the VP takes up the role. Since the 12th Amendment was passed, that means the guy who takes over from the guy who was just removed from his office is almost certainly to be wearing the same team colors, no election has really been overturned.

I’d say the odds of conviction in the Senate or low to nil for Trump, but I see absolutely no signs that Democrats are ready to remove Pence (although he’s been named as one of the folks “in-the-know” about the alleged quid-quo-pro). So there will still be a pro-life President even if the Senate votes to convict Trump.

But in reality, I don’t accept your premise at all. “High crimes and misdemeanors” do not refer to any specific criminal conduct, but rather to a broad Common Law concept of misconduct by high-ranking officials, and that is how the Supreme Court interpreted it in 1974 (since the largest charge against Nixon was abuse of power, which is not a specific criminal act at all).

 

[dvdjs]

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.”

How funny that that is taken as exculpatory.
Sondland made it crystal clear that there was quid pro quo and everyone was in on it.
Those who would have this phone call as exculpatory are overlooking the time line:

• August 26 : Intelligence IG forwards complaint to the acting DNI.
• August 28 : Then-national security adviser John Bolton meets with Zelensky in Kiev.
• August 30: Trump considers blocking $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, effectively pausing disbursement of the funds during a formal review process.
• September 1 : Vice President Mike Pence meets with Zelensky in Warsaw.
• September 2 : Deadline for DNI to send whistleblower complaint to Congress – he does not send it.
• September 9 : Intel IG notifies House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of an “urgent concern” that DNI has overruled.
• September 9 : Three House committees launch investigation of efforts by Trump, Giuliani and others to pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President’s reelection efforts. The committees request information about Trump’s July phone call with Zelensky.
• September 10 : Schiff demands acting DNI turn over the complaint.
• September 11 : The administration hold on Ukraine aid is lifted.

When was the phone call?
.
.
.
September 9th.

We have this unusual (“I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much” ) call by Trump to Sondland, when it is becoming clear that the Ukraine shake-down story was not killed by the acting DNI, but was breaking. Trump is scrambling during the drug bust to flush the evidence down the toilet. Too bad. That scramble is “surely an attempted cover-up that shows consciousness of guilt on Trump’s part.” Busted.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197218075067727874

 

[Jeanne_S]

Sounds like someone been reading NY times headlines and watching CNN…explains the obvious confusion re what actually occurred and what some have been led to believe occurred

 

[mrad25]

IMPEACHMENT ILLUSION ANTIDOTE: Ukraine Received Half Of the $250 Million In Security Aid By July 31, 2019. POTUS Never Had The Ability To Cancel Any Of The Funds. - The Post & Email

"DESTROYING THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX" Researched and written by Ren Jander, J.D., ©2019 (Nov. 14, 2019) — You’ve been lied to, America. Put to sleep. It’s the Editorials

www.thepostemail.com

POTUS Never Held, Froze, Slow-Walked, Withdrew or Canceled Even One Penny of Funds from Ukraine Aid - The Post & Email

“POTUS Never Held, Froze, Slow-walked, or Canceled Even One Penny if Funds from Ukraine Aid”

The laws surrounding the release and review of foreign aid and facts are outlined clearly in the articles above.

“Every penny of Ukraine monetary aid, the alleged carrot dangled before Zelensky, was spent on time, according to law, before , during, and after the July 25 call.”

 

[7_Sorrows]

7_Sorrows:

I actually heard it was not a good day for the democrats.

Then you haven’t watched. Sondland’s testimony is definitely damaging.

That is not what I heard.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I watched it a while ago.I honestly don’t see how anyone could see his testimony as anything other than affirming there is no there there.He answered three questions all of which made this clear.N the end He was merely making presumptions without any first hand knowledge.AS is three for three with duds re his star witnesses’ testimonies against Trump

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You do realize that the “anonymous” whistleblower can’t be named by Schiff because this anonymous fellow is liable to prosecution for leaking information critical to national security if his identity were to be revealed, which is why it hasn’t and Schiff has tied to “disappear” his identity?

No. whistleblowers do not need to be anonymous, they have legal protection against retaliation. People who leak sensitive information deserve to be prosecuted, and those who knowingly impede that process should also be prosecuted. And prosecuted in a legal court for committing actual crimes, not in some kangaroo court like we’re seeing in Congress right now.

That would be my position, as well.

I was actually speaking of Charlie Melon here, the alleged whistleblower who shall not be named but everyone seems to know his identity. My understanding is that the “whistleblower” leaked national security secrets and could be liable to prosecution once his identity has been established, which is part of the reason Schiff is suddenly keeping his identity secret.

Incidentally, it appears Vindman made a little boo boo in his testimony. He had claimed to not know the identity of the whistleblower in previous testimony, but claimed he revealed his concerns to several individuals before he consulted his lawyer, who advised him to not speak to anyone. When asked about who he spoke his concerns to he mentioned two names and then couldn’t reveal the third because that might jeopardize the identity of the whistleblower.

Seems odd for someone who does not know the identity of the whistleblower to not reveal the identity of who he spoke to because that might reveal the identity of the whistleblower. Why would he be concerned it might if he has no idea who the whistleblower is?

I will try to find the testimony segment.

 

[HarryStotle]

niceatheist:

7_Sorrows:

I actually heard it was not a good day for the democrats.

Then you haven’t watched. Sondland’s testimony is definitely damaging.

That is not what I heard.

About as “definitely damaging” as the long litany of previously “definitely damaging” plans launched by the Democrats detailed in this previous post…

A very bad impeachment hearings day for Donald Trump World News

A very bad 3 years for Democrats. Game Plan to eliminate Trump Plan A. Collude with Hillary, GPS and the Russians to win the election. Plan B. Sway the Electoral College votes Plan C. Overturn the Election results with recounts. (Recounts were abandoned when they resulted in more votes for Trump and exposing democrat voter fraud) Plan D. Nullify the election by framing Trump with Russian collusion Plan E. Have the Deep State take Trump out using the 25th Amendment Plan F. Impeach Trump fo…

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Your last paragraph is your opinion, which you are welcome to. However, citing Bill Krystol, who has been an admitted never-Trumper since he announced his candidacy, is a joke. Who cares what that selfish relic thinks about this situation? Might as well cite someone like George Conway again. Then, we can check Juanita Broderick’s twitter feed for reaction to Hillary’s possible candidacy, while we are at it. Please.

Trump’s not getting voted out, and he is still likely to win reelection a year from now. Come up with something else to get him out of office that A) warrants removal and B) has a chance of succeeding next time.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

By the way, in case anyone missed it, I highly recommend watching Rep. Mike Turner shred Sondland late today like fresh cabbage. I almost felt bad for Gordo. Here is some of the exchange.

Mark Meadows: Impeachment hearing produced this 'real bombshell'

GOP Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) hammered European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland during Wednesday's testimony, seizing on Sondland's admission that he never heard the president or anyone else in the White House explicitly link Ukrainian aid with the opening of an investigation into 2020 Democratic...

www.foxnews.com

During a fiery exchange, Turner focused on the Republican Party’s main defense of Trump, asking Sondland: “Is that your testimony today, Mr. Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

Sondland admitted that he was “presuming” the stalled military aid was linked to Trump allegedly asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the Bidens’ financial interests in Ukraine.

SONDLAND IMPLICATES TOP OFFICIALS ON UKRAINE, BUT SAYS HE ‘NEVER HEARD’ QUID PRO QUO FROM TRUMP

“So no one told you,” Turner pressed on. “Not just the president. Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?”

The congressman cut Sondland off, restating his point: “No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”

“Yes,” Sondland replied.

“So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner asked.

“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland said.



Video

Throughout Wednesday’s testimony, Sondland insisted that although he never explicitly heard the president or anyone in the administration demand investigations in exchange for aid, he never got a clear answer on why the aid was held up. He said the absence of a clear explanation led him to believe that the aid and the investigations were being linked.

Turner dismissed Sondland’s “presumption” as “nothing” and called his testimony “made up.”

“You know what hearsay evidence is, ambassador?” Turner said. “Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me. Do you know what made-up testimony is? Made-up testimony is when I just presume it. I mean you’re just assuming all of these things and then you’re giving them the evidence that they’re running out and doing press conferences and CNN’s headline is saying that you’re saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations – and you don’t know that. Correct?”

“I never said the president of the United States should be impeached,” Sondland responded.

 

[HarryStotle]

I will try to find the testimony segment.

 

[AlNg]

I don’t see the high crimes and misdemeanors required for impeachment.

 

[PickyPicky]

most news that goes abroad gets filtered by either the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Except, of course, as far as the UK is concerned, serious British newspapers, and news broadcasters such as BBC, ITN, Sky News, have their own staff bureaux in the US, as well as taking feeds from agencies such as AP, Reuter and AFP.

 

[Maximus1]

Nobody gets more free advertising than Trump.

 

[dvdjs]

However, citing Bill Krystol, who has been an admitted never-Trumper since he announced his candidacy, is a joke. Who cares what that selfish relic thinks about this situation? Might as well cite someone like George Conway again. Then, we can check Juanita Broderick’s twitter feed for reaction to Hillary’s possible candidacy, while we are at it. Please.

Ad homnem attacks do not counter the point made. This statement of Trump, far from being exculpatory as being crowed by some, is the very type of evidence used to show consciousness of guilt.

watching Rep. Mike Turner shred

What is the Trump defense now - that is was al Rudy gone rougue. or that it wasn’t really a conspiracy since no one said “mother, may I?” ?

I don’t see the high crimes and misdemeanors required for impeachment.

You may like to consult the pertinent Federalist papers for background on what the Founders meant by this. In short, Trump’s abuse of power for his own gain is just the sort of things that they had in mind.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

If you don’t like what you perceive to be “ad-hominem attacks”, try not citing never-Trumpers like SE Cupp or Bill Krystol who have been Republicans in opposition toTrump since day one. It is always the same setbofnfolks Trump trotted out to support an argument, when the reality is they have believed the Republican party should toss him aside since 2016, and made that known.

 

[dvdjs]

If you don’t like what you perceive to be “ad-hominem attacks”, try not citing never-Trumpers like SE Cupp or Bill Krystol who have been Republicans in opposition toTrump since day one.

I don’t cite ad hominems from Kristol. The fact that someone has been opposed to Trump since 2016 does not make them incapable of makg a substantive argument about Trump. In fact, looking over the landscape of commentary, it seems far more the other way around.

 

[PickyPicky]

Interesting, but my point still stands that if you are getting news from another country at least 75% of the “facts” being reported are merely liberal opinion masquerading as such

So your two points: most of the facts in foreign news reported in the United Kingdom are not facts but opinion; and most of that opinion is liberal. Those points do indeed sound at first hearing like assertion dressed as fact. How would you justify them?

 

[Rau]

but my point still stands that if you are getting news from another country at least 75% of the “facts” being reported are merely liberal opinion masquerading as such.

You can of course assert this opinion. But it comes across as an attempt to belittle feedback of non-US folks that might not favour Mr Trump.