Sondland changes everything

[Maximus1]

You must have missed the testimony last night.
Are you really going to argue Trump was vetting curruption in Ukraine? Or are you grasping at a fiction to save him?
There really is no debate with the latter. Since no facts exist to support Trump investigating CURRUPTION, he had a right to get away with it is all that is left

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t think you really understand how foreign policy works under our Constitution, but you mask it well with your extensive use of ALL CAPS

I didn’t know that the exercise of foreign policy included extorting foreign powers using the taxpayers money to smear political rivals .

The completion of the vetting is determined by the commander in chief. Congress cannot designate executive authority away from the chief executive to a subordinate.

Grasping, Jon, grasping. Produce the document (or a story) that says Trump was holding up the delivery of funds due to inadequate vetting by DOD.

 

[dvdjs]

I think a more obvious case can be made for Biden using the powers of his office for personal financial gain

The problem is, notwithstanding your “thinking”, the case against Biden is no case at all.
Biden used the powers of his office in a manner consistent with the goals of our allies against corruption in Ukraine. The prosecutor ousted, in fact, quashed the investigation of the leader of Burisma and refused cooperation with allies in investigations outside of Ukraine. It should be noted, btw, that the changes were related to action taken while that owner worked within the Ukraine government, not as head of Burisma. Finally, there has been no allegation, AFAIK, of the moneys paid to Biden and others on the payroll of Burisma, making their way to Biden.

It is a red herring, as irresistible as that is to some.

 

[Maximus1]

No case can be made. BRUTUM Fulmen accusation is all there is

 

[JonNC]

I didn’t know that the exercise of foreign policy included extorting foreign powers using the taxpayers money to smear political rivals .

Except that never happened.

Grasping, Jon, grasping. Produce the document (or a story) that says Trump was holding up the delivery of funds due to inadequate vetting by DOD.

Why would we need that? It was clear he was after an investigation into Ukraine’s influence in the 2016 election. I continue to be amazed how strongly Democrats oppose such an investigation.

 

[Guinness]

Are you really going to argue Trump was vetting curruption in Ukraine? Or are you grasping at a fiction to save him?

Considering how rife with corruption the Ukraine was under prior governments, I’m not sure why it’s such an unreasonable consideration. Certainly you aren’t going to argue that the Biden situation doesn’t have a least a small whiff of corruption attached to it.

I didn’t know that the exercise of foreign policy included extorting foreign powers using the taxpayers money to smear political rivals .

It’s not, but that’s not what happened here.

 

[JonNC]

The problem is, notwithstanding your “thinking”, the case against Biden is no case at all.

How do you know. An investigation has been stonewalled by Democrats. Obviously, Maloney thinks there’s something to it, since yesterday he was clear that he thought such an investigation would hurt Biden and help Trump.

 

[Guinness]

The problem is, notwithstanding your “thinking”, the case against Biden is no case at all.
Biden used the powers of his office in a manner consistent with the goals of our allies against corruption in Ukraine.

I guess if you ignore the $3 million a year “no show” gig Biden’s drug addict son wound up you do “have no case at all”, but that is a sticky thing to ignore.

Just as an aside, sometimes your typing makes it very difficult to understand what you’re trying to say.

 

[dvdjs]

How do you know.

1. Accounts of the criticisms of Shokin at the time of his ouster indicated that wide spread sense of his corruption
2. Contemporaneous accounts of Biden’s action show that that was not merely a personal goal but the goal of the US and its allies.
3. Whatever the misgivings about Hunter cashing in on his father’s notoriety, has there been a scintilla of evidence that Joe Biden was remunerated. We’ll see on his tax returns, which I suspect he will not conceal.

 

[Maximus1]

Through official acts of his office, he tried to coerce personal benefit in his election from a foreign leader. These are the only facts in the record

 

[Maximus1]

Why is routing out Curruption an," unreasonable consideration?" ( You ask)
I think that the Congress attached Curruption reform to this expenditure recognizing that it is. And the DOD effectively and competently and objectively took steps to assure the standards of the law. They completed their work by May.
But I didn’t object to the " concept". I objected to claims Trump engaged in what the law required. Trump did nothing anyone can identify. " Trump has been afforded status via , it is what he cares about." But that doesn’t matter to what I said. I focused on objective deeds. And there are none with Trump. Nobody can identify any.
Not that he can. He cannot add to what Congress required. He is not a monarch. Congress controls purse strings and legislates the requirements to get money.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

No, he should not. And no lawyer who has any semblance of reality would advise him to, especially with the target he has on him by Schiff and crew. The house is likely to vote to remove regardless of his testimony, and the Senate isn’t likely to remove him. He has nothing to gain.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

You can type that all you want, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Sondland testified that he saw the appearance of quid pro quo. He also testified he was directly told from the President there was no quid pro quo, and no conditions. But you already know this anyway.

 

[PaulinVA]

Why would we need that? It was clear he was after an investigation into Ukraine’s influence in the 2016 election. I continue to be amazed how strongly Democrats oppose such an investigation.

Ukraine was not trying to influence the US election. Listen to Fiona Hill. it was the Russians, Ukraine’s enemy.

Have you not been listening to testimony or reading stories about it on a source other than Fox?

And, get your story straight. Was the President asking for Ukraine to look into 2016 election interference? Was he asking for Ukraine to look into Hunter Biden and Burisma? What exactly non-illegal thing was he doing? I’m losing track.

And, if it was all above board, why wasn’t the President asking Ukraine to cooperate in an FBI investigation of those terrible things? What good is a foreign investigation of those things/people?

 

[dvdjs]

You can type that all you want, but that doesn’t make it accurate. Sondland testified …

Just to be clear:
Sondland: “Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.”

He also testified he was directly told from the President there was no quid pro quo, and no conditions. But you already know this anyway.

Just to be clear: That was not until the day disclosure of the whistle blower. But you already know this anyway.

 

[dvdjs]

Have you not been listening to testimony or reading stories about it on a source other than Fox?

Something even on FOX. Five words. That is not anti-corruption. That is corruption.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Sondland in his opening statements said ther was a quid pro quo.However upon further questioning he admitted there was no quid pro quo,per his conversation with President Trump.His initial statement was based on his own presumption.Huge difference.
Again No quid pro quo as has been verified by the three bombshell witnessess’ This is a shameful scam and Trumps approval ratings are actually going up in spite of the Dems efforts.

 

[dvdjs]

Sondland in his opening statements said ther was a quid pro quo.However upon further questioning he admitted there was no quid pro quo,per his conversation with President Trump.His initial statement was based on his own presumption.Huge difference.

Sondland said that there was a quid pro quo.
He also admitted that as the story was about to break, when the gig was up, Trump took the unusual step of calling him and saying: “There was no quid pro quo”. Got it?
And then Trump could not retrain his bad impulses to go a step further and speak to the action that he did in fact want from Zelensky.

That testimony, which Sondland did not volunteer in his opening statement, sealed Trump’s guilt.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

So you have no direct evidence of a quid pro quo. Got it. You apparently want to defend removing a President because some folks got an “impression.”

No point in arguing. Folks who want Trump gone will rely on people like Sondland’s impression, folks who don’t want him gone will rely on the lack of any actual proof. And he will remain either way. There is no point for Trump supporters to try and convince Trump detractors that they are correct. I’d guess we all have better things to do.

 

[dvdjs]

So you have no direct evidence of a quid pro quo.

Just the testimony regarding about requests made, actions taken, and the understanding of the relation between the requests and action by persons involved.
IOW compelling evidence.

Do you really think that bribery cases hinge on written contracts the explicit use the word “bribe”? Is that what you mean by actual proof?