Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximus1 said:
Sonderland alone proves that
Click to expand...
SONDLAND: “I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelenskyy to do the right thing”. (Sondland Depo. at 106)
 
I wasn’t talking about the OMG Just read the whistleblower complaint self serving denial statement. There was lots of testimony. Before the complaint was forming Trump’s communications
 
Last edited:
So you said SOndland yet meant something other than Sondland

Seems consistent
 
Similar letters sent by the Justice Dept to the House Committee in the past with Trump subpoenas.

Trumps lawyer now explaining doctrine of immunity and the same principles of EP, and reasons on how and why and when EP can be formally issued.

You should listen to understand.
 
Last edited:
“Hasn’t asserted privilege” is red herring

You’re ignoring Presidential Doctrine of Immunity that is implicit and need not be asserted like privilege, both parties President asserted since 70s
 
Sondland testified to regular conversations with Trump. I am speaking about those prior to," no quid pro quo."
Which was non responsive in the Sondland dialog, but perfectly responsive to a president just given the WHISLEBLOWER complaint covering tracks
 
Maximus1 said:
Sondland testified to regular conversations with Trump.
Click to expand...
No he testified that the ONLY basis of his theory about quid pro quo was “my presumptions” that he admitted were based on NOTHING when asked

Your house of cards is falling
 
Last edited:
I understand immunity. It has nothing to do with privilege. There is no claim for civil damages
 
Last edited:
America knows Trump is hiding the evidence. They know it is not hidden because it helps him.
That is a successful day.
The Congress has oversight power over the executive. Without it, a president is a king. That’s fundemental.
 
Nixon’s mistake was not acting more like a king, like Trump. But he did not have a partner in his Kingship like Trump has in the Senate leader. McConnell can effectively make Trump not bound by law or the Constitution. That is what we are seeing.
 
dvdjs said:
He has worked in the area of civil liberties. What is his background on impeachments?
Has he taught Constitutional law at Harvard?
Click to expand...
He is a constitutional law scholar. He’s written , taught and wrote books about constitutional law. What is your argument now?

Many other constitutional lawyers have commented contrary to your initial claim. Jenna Ellis another.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top