Sondland changes everything

[Maximus1]

Who is going to testify to that fraud?
Acting as protector? How? ( Crickets).
What an opportunity for the Democrats.
You are thankful? Wow, Trump sure I lucky to have you at the trial.
Jordan has no speaking parts. And offers no evidence. It is trial not Trump’s fraud show

 

[Maximus1]

Zelinski has the fate of his nation at stake. With a legendary vindictive president

 

[JonNC]

I find that that analysis strains credulity. I think the common wisdom is that the Senate Republicans won’t vote to convict Trump no matter what he does. They have put up with everything else - why draw the line at bribery?

If there was clear evidence that Trump committed bribery, the Republican senators would make that walk to the White House.

Well, then, given the choice of believing former federal prosecutors or an internet poster…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) JonNC:

Believe whomever you want. I certainly don’t believe Schiff or his cronies.

A whole lot of people believe there is evidence.

the same ones who believed in collusion.

 

[JonNC]

Who is going to testify to that fraud?
Acting as protector? How? ( Crickets).
What an opportunity for the Democrats.
You are thankful? Wow, Trump sure I lucky to have you at the trial.
Jordan has no speaking parts. And offers no evidence. It is trial not Trump’s fraud show

Schiff is good at fraud. Maybe he will admit to his.
Protecting taxpayers money from a potentially corrupt government. I know progressives don’t care about such, so it might be a new idea to you.
It would be better is they called Ciaramello, but we know Schiff needs to cover his trail.
Jordan has no speaking parts? You should share that idea with Schiff. Suppressing who testifies for political reasons is his stock-in-trade.

 

[JonNC]

Zelinski has the fate of his nation at stake. With a legendary vindictive president

Yes, I’m sure he’s afraid of a possible President Biden. He saw what Biden did there before.

 

[dvdjs]

Protecting taxpayers money from a potentially corrupt government.

1. Testimony was that Trump showed no interest in ostensible corruption in Ukraine outside of the debunked CrowdStrike conspiracy theory, and the Bidens.
2. The Federal government has an investigative process for gauging progress on anti-corruption as a per-requisite for the release of funds. That process was conducted; the release of funds was green-lighted. Trump added nothing to this process. He did not even require an investigation, just the announcement of one according to testimony.
3. Trump’s does not have legal authority to impound funds. His administration was concerned by this illegal action according to testimony.
4. The people working the back channel to Ukraine admit, according to testimony, to the quid pro quo - release of funds for a public statement on an investigation of CrowdStrike and the Bidens.

 

[JonNC]

Testimony was that Trump showed no interest in ostensible corruption in Ukraine outside of the debunked CrowdStrike conspiracy theory, and the Bidens.

Source. Who has access to this mindset by Trump? Who did Trump say it to?

The Federal government has an investigative process for gauging progress on anti-corruption as a per-requisite for the release of funds. That process was conducted; the release of funds was green-lighted. Trump added nothing to this process. He did not even require an investigation, just the announcement of one according to testimony.

The President of the United State is the final voice on all issues from the executive branch. He/she is the only one who is elected. That process isn’t complete until he says it is. In the transcript of the phone call, Trump clearly shows an interest in investigating corruption, but if he didn’t require an investigation, as you say, then there is no quid pro quo. Further, if he was not interested in an actual investigation, then there was no personal gain in it for him.

Trump’s does not have legal authority to impound funds. His administration was concerned by this illegal action according to testimony.

Then Biden’s quid pro quo was illegal as well. Further, he didn’t hold funds up. He did delay them, which is legal.

The people working the back channel to Ukraine admit, according to testimony, to the quid pro quo - release of funds for a public statement on an investigation of CrowdStrike and the Bidens.

An announcement provides no personal gain. How could it? If that’s the case, a quid pro quo for an announcement is of no consequence.

 

[dvdjs]

Source

Testimony.

The President of the United States…

We had a process. He entitled to ignore it. But he is not entitled to make claims counter to the reality.
Nor is he entitled to violate the law.

if he was not interested in an actual investigation, then there was no personal gain in it for him.

LOL. What he was interested in the narrative that there is an invetigation and that Ukraine appears to think that there was a reason to investigate. He gets all of that from the announcement.

Then Biden’s quid pro quo was illegal as well.

That is potentially, but not necessarily true.
What discretionary authority did Biden have under the law pertinent to his work?
Is there any testimony about concerns of the legality of his action?\

An announcement provides no personal gain.

Have you ever watched a political campaign? Do you honestly think that communications have no value? Srsly?

 

[JonNC]

Testimony.

Whose?

We had a process. He entitled to ignore it. But he is not entitled to make claims counter to the reality.
Nor is he entitled to violate the law.

No laws were violated.

LOL. What he was interested in the narrative that there is an invetigation and that Ukraine appears to think that there was a reason to investigate. He gets all of that from the announcement.

So, nothing. Lots of people already think an investigation was needed.

That is potentially, but not necessarily true.
What discretionary authority did Biden have under the law pertinent to his work?

He had the discretion given him by the President of the United States.

Is there any testimony about concerns of the legality of his action?\

lol. Is your argument that Trump shouldn’t ask for an investigation, and where is the testimony? Interestingly, Graham seems to have started one, and Biden stepped right out there with a threat.

Have you ever watched a political campaign? Do you honestly think that communications have no value? Srsly?

Oh, you mean like how the Democrats concocted the Russian collusion investigation using opposition research as if it was a real investigation in front of a FISA court and gained by the House of Representatives?
No, I just don’t believe it would have that kind of impact. The average citizen cares little about Ukraine.

 

[dvdjs]

Whose?

House Intelligence Comimttee

No laws were violated

That remains to be adjudicated.

Lots of people already think an investigation was needed

Yes some have already swallowed the Russian meme. And perhaps some more - those that need a factual basis - might be persuaded by an announcement by Ukraine.

Is your argument that Trump shouldn’t ask for an investigation, and where is the testimony?

No. I just think that one should circumspect about investigations and not start them in the absence of prima facie evidence. Moreover comparisons between actions for which there is testimony of criminal and those without prima facie evidence are specious.

Oh, you mean like how the Democrats concocted the Russian collusion investigation

The Muller report, should you get around to reading it, documents the interference of Russian in our election. It also document the interaction of numerous people in the Trump campaign with Russian agents. A number of whom have been sent to jail. The dismissal of this plays into the plan of our enemies

 

[Maximus1]

They might have believed I Santa at one time. When did beliefs serve as a get out of jail free card. Before Trump.

 

[JonNC]

They might have believed I Santa at one time. When did beliefs serve as a get out of jail free card. Before Trump.

More none answers.

 

[JonNC]

House Intelligence Comimttee

Whose testimony?

That remains to be adjudicated

True. I’m sure the Senate will be far more judicious than the House.

No. I just think that one should circumspect about investigations and not start them in the absence of prima facie evidence.

Of that we’re the case, imagine the millions we could have saved not having the Mueller investigation, the Ukraine investigation and the 7 investigations into Justice Kavanaugh.

Moreover comparisons between actions for which there is testimony of criminal and those without prima facie evidence are specious.

At least there is evidence for Biden’s quid pro quo.

The Muller report, should you get around to reading it, documents the interference of Russian in our election.

Had Brennan, Clapper and Comey done their jobs, maybe it wouldn’t have been necessary.

It also document the interaction of numerous people in the Trump campaign with Russian agents.

Finally we agree on this. Interactions well describe what happened. Not collusion.
Meanwhile, Clinton was actually colluding with and purchasing dirt from Russian agents. Investigation into the obvious apparently wasn’t needed.

A number of whom have been sent to jail.

None directly related to collusion. A few in perjury traps, and a couple completely unrelated. The ones who should be prosecuted aren’t available.

 

[JonNC]

Was there more waiting to be released, like in the TRUMP debacle, which Obama held up and didn’t authorize?

Trump Gave Ukraine What Obama Withheld - American Thinker

 

[Maximus1]

More questions Trump can only answer with deception

 

[Maximus1]

Ukraine did know.

 

[Maximus1]

Does he get more Mulligan’s?

 

[Maximus1]

Why did they give Russian agents internal polling data in battleground states and campaign strategy?
Why did they lie about the Tower meeting and the Trump Tower Moscow?
And we just found out Stone was the campaigns point man with WikiLeaks.

 

[JonNC]

Ukraine did know.

So Zelensky is lying.

 

[JonNC]

Does he get more Mulligan’s?

Nope. Just an election in November.