Sondland changes everything

[Guinness]

Oh I completely agree with you - the Republican senators will vote to acquit. That doesn’t mean it’s not blindingly obvious that the president was running an extortion scheme.

If it was “blindingly obvious”, you would have a problem getting enough Republican senators to vote to convict.

Sondland (was it him?) said the President wasn’t interested in having an investigation, just the announcement of one.

So? There was no announcement and the Ukraine got it’s money. If you had an announcement of an investigation and then a release of money, you’d have a reasonable case, still not clear cut, but you at least it would be something. The President does have the authority to ask foreign leaders to conduct investigations of corruption within their country, especially when it might involve a potential US President and his family.

 

[tomarin]

Trump has merely imported the ‘ethics’ of the shady world of corporate real estate to the White House and national politics. The danger is that it will become the new normal.

 

[tomarin]

Not at all, it’s what any reasonable person would conclude based not only on the ‘perfect’ phone call but the avalanche of corroborating testimony.

 

[PaulinVA]

So? There was no announcement and the Ukraine got it’s money. If you had an announcement of an investigation and then a release of money, you’d have a reasonable case, still not clear cut, but you don’t. The President does have the authority to ask foreign leaders to conduct investigations of corruption within their country, especially when it might involve a potential US President.

Dude, they got caught red handed. That’s why the money was released.

And, once again, attempted bribery is (checks notes) still bribery.

 

[Guinness]

Dude, they got caught red handed.

Red handed would mean a statement from Trump to the effect of “either you announce an investigation into the Biden’s or you won’t get any money from us”. You don’t have that. What you have is a bunch of people who don’t like Trump claiming to be able to read his mind. But you go on and weep and gnash your teeth at the stupidity of Trump’s supporters, while we work to get him re-elected, which is looking more and more likely the longer this charade goes on.

 

[Maximus1]

Trump is responsible for everything that has happened. I trust many will never get that. Some illusion that he is a victim.
He is no victim
In this investigation the fault obviously starts with Rudy. It ends with Trump’s phone call extorting Zelinski for personal favors on a state call while it is known he is freezing military aid by Trump and Zelinki both. An anti American act he had plenty of time to learn is wrong and illegal. Certainly capable of throwing the nation into this turmoil. He should have acted properly.
70% of America believe Trump asked wrongly. That won’t change

 

[Guinness]

Trump is responsible for everything that has happened. I trust many will never get that.

Darn those stupid Trump supporters…Darn them to heck.

 

[Maximus1]

After all Sondland and enable seem a clear match.

 

[ProVobis]

be darned if I can put my finger on where the spot Trump says to Zelensky something approaching “if you investigate Joe Biden, I’ll give you money”…

That was Schiff’s point, I believe. Unless you find it in your words, it doesn’t exist.

Sometimes there are actions that go with words. Like withholding $400 million for several months. That hasn’t been denied.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

Schiff makes up whatever he wants and your guys treat it like it is Gospel truth.

.

ProVobis . . .

Where’s the substance in this argument?

.

Cathoholic. Right here.

Rep. Dan Bishop Names Alleged Impeachment ‘Whistleblower’: ‘Eric Ciamarella World News

From back on Sept. 25th . . . Schiff: Trump-Ukraine Transcript Is a ‘Classic Mafia-Like Shakedown PAM KEY 25 Sep 2019 Wednesday MSNBC played live House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) press conference on Capitol Hill. Schiff said the newly released transcript of a phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a “classic mafia-like shakedown.” . . . . . . He added, “I think in its most naked form, and this is what our inq…

.

Schiff . . . .

“This is the essence of what the president communicates,” Schiff began.

“We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from YOU though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good,” Schiff read from his fabricated conversation.

“I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it,” he continued.

“On this and on that. I’m gonna put you in touch with people and not just any people,” he continued, affecting an accent meant to resemble Trump’s. “I’m going to put you with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”

“And I’m gonna put you in touch with Rudy, you’re gonna love him, trust me,” Schiff said, still avoiding any real quotations from the transcript. “You know what I’m asking, so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And by the way don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I’ve asked.”

Schiff said of his made-up conversation, “This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate.”

.

Pelosi (treating it like it is Gospel truth.
Not because she believes it.
She doesn’t believe it in my opinion.
Treating it like Gospel truth to fool YOU readers. The voters.) . . . .

STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you support Chairman Schiff but was it right for him to have that dramatic interpretation of the President’s ah transcript (transfer?) of the phone call at the hearing last week?

PELOSI: I want the American people to know what that phone call was about.
I want them to hear it (Adam Schiff’s interpretation). So, yeah, it’s fair. It’s sad but he (Adam Schiff) was using the president’s own words. So if he’s—.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, those weren’t the president’s words, it was an interpretation of the president’s words. They’re saying he made this up.

PELOSI: He (Adam Schiff) did not make it up. . . .

(Mine: Then Nancy changes the subject. GS lets her get away with it.)

To the readers here. You can view THAT spectacle here and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Maximus1]

A president of a country in a hot war who has the immense threat of subjugation and loss of a country. He knows he is meeting Trump, a president who is vindictive. Whose " man Rudy" is doing clandestine business and dark things in his country. Whose campaign manager was potentially responsible for a massacre in his country. ( At least Maniforts own kids seem to think so.They call it BLOOD MONEY. TRUMP who I 2016 and thereafter suggested Putin’s annexation of 7% of his nation was justified.
Trump is holding up money his nation needs to survive and there is no explanation why, but it is. And he knows it going in.
He has a phone call. He gets asked to investigate Biden. And because Trump didn’t mention money, it wasn’t the elephant in the room to this new president? Absurd!

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is an error to compare these protesters with Nazis and fascists

Why? Seems to me there isn’t a lot to distinguish people who terrorize families and beat people up, depending on the color of shirt they’re wearing.

 

[Guinness]

That was Schiff’s point, I believe. Unless you find it in your words, it doesn’t exist.

Sometimes there are actions that go with words. Like withholding $400 million for several months. That hasn’t been denied.

A US President has the authority to ask foreign leaders to investigate corruption in their own countries, especially when that corruption may involve a Presidential candidate, and a US President has the authority to make release of foreign aid contingent on certain behavior, unless you think we should be investigating Bernie Sanders for saying that as President he will threaten to withhold aid money to Israel unless they enact his preferred policies on the Palestinians. Heck, did you have a problem with Obama investigating Trump for Russian corruption? If you didn’t, I don’t see how you can have a problem here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So you think both Trump and Zelensky, (and Sondland) are lying. What’s your evidence for that? And it’s clear that Zelensky did not know aid was being held up in the July 25 call.

Zelensky is the president of a country where people assassinate or poison political rivals with Dioxin, and you think he’s afraid of Trump? What’s the evidence for that?

 

[niceatheist]

Trump should testify under oath and remove all doubt.

I’ll be frank. I think Trump would absolutely insane to testify before any House committee on this manner. It’s doubtful he could be compelled, separation of powers and all that, but there isn’t a lawyer on the planet that would suggest that the President ever testify before Congress where he is the subject of the impeachment. Ford did it voluntarily in 1974, and he did that primarily to disabuse Congress of any notion that Nixon’s pardon was part of a deal to speed his predecessor from office.

Prior to that the last sitting President to testify was Woodrow Wilson in 1919, and Wilson appeared before the Senate primarily to try to convince the Senate to allow the US to join the League of Nations (in other words, it wasn’t so much testimony as a sales pitch).

 

[Maximus1]

What is your error? This is election law. Your examples are not. This is a personal thing of value for Trump. Your examples are not. And after 2 1/2 years of election law violations of this type. With two of Rudy’s hoods indicted for it right now. With his own personal lawyer in jail over it right now and his being INDIVIDUAL 1 in a US indictment, this is inexcusable.

 

[JonNC]

Not at all, it’s what any reasonable person would conclude based not only on the ‘perfect’ phone call but the avalanche of corroborating testimony.

The phone call shows no quid pro quo. The hearsay is just that , not based on facts.

 

[Guinness]

Your examples are not. This is a personal thing of value for Trump.

Only if you adopt the position that a President accruing any benefit, no matter how tangential, from any of his uses of his Presidential authority is against the law, which is ridiculous. All politicians engage in self-serving behavior. Perhaps Trump did see some benefit to himself in exposing corruption involving a potential opponent, but that doesn’t mean he should have ignored it. Not too long ago, you guys were up in arms that Trump may be beholden to Putin and that we had to investigate everything Trump had ever done to expose it. Why doesn’t the possibility Biden being beholden to a foreign entity bother you as well?

 

[drcube]

Why? Seems to me there isn’t a lot to distinguish people who terrorize families and beat people up, depending on the color of shirt they’re wearing.

There were no emails to Sondland’s wife produced in the article, just a comment posted to a hotel owned by Sondland. There are protests going on outside his hotels, but there is nothing about anyone getting beaten up. So, you are exaggerating…again.

 

[tomarin]

The timing of Zelensky’s request, then the discussion by Trump of the asymmetry of help given between the two countries, then Trump’s request of a ‘favor’ of investigations, make it pretty clear what Trump expected of Zelensky. It certainly caused a lot of concern on the part of the people who heard the call. In the case of Sondland’s testimony, how can you call it hearsay when he was one of the people out orchestrating Trump’s desires (or trying to at least) at Trump’s direction?