Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IOW is more like IYO, but if that is what you think, so be it. I think removing a sitting President requires a lot more than what is apparently available. As is often stated, this is not a legal trial, so referencing a bribery case has little bearing.

Enjoy at least one more year of Trump, and a good chance at four more to follow.
 
Last edited:
I agree.It truly is an exercise in futility. I guess those so invested in this being a legitimate hearing figure if they just keep repeating the quid pro quo mantra it will eventually resonate.Polls show this not to be the case
Also now it’s bribary so I guess the quid pro quo wasn’t working,semantics is the plan moving forward.:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
It’s very interesting that the experts prepare him on what the talking points are for the phone call. He disregarded the experts and use Giuliani ‘s talking points.

Giuliani, is not working for the US.

He hasn’t been vetted, he’s got no security clearance.

Why?
 
dvdjs said:
Accounts of the criticisms of Shokin at the time of his ouster indicated that wide spread sense of his corruption
Click to expand...
This doesn’t exclude the possibility that he was acting in his own self interest and that of his family. Both can be true.
dvdjs said:
Contemporaneous accounts of Biden’s action show that that was not merely a personal goal but the goal of the US and its allies.
Click to expand...
and it is quite possible he was also acting in his own self interest and that of his son.
dvdjs said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s why an investigation is needed. To find out. He and Hunter were also involved in questionable activities in China. It show also be investigated, but it also points to a pattern of possibly corrupt behavior.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, that is certainly not a neutral stating of what’s going on. Wow. There is proof all over the place. Witness after witness.

But, if Mulvaney, and Pompeo and Rudy G have an explanation for this misimpression, why don’t they testify?
Dr_Meinheimer said:
There is no point for Trump supporters to try and convince Trump detractors that they are correct.
Click to expand...
I think that that time for Trump supporters to try and convince people Trump is an honest person who didn’t bribe anyone is long past. Long past.
 
Maximus1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Actually, there is no evidence of that. Zelensky has denied that to be the case. your statement assumes facts not in evidence, but that won’t stop the coup attempt.
 
Maximus1 said:
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
Click to expand...
You may want to look up the word “facts”, because you clearly have a misconception regarding its meaning.
dvdjs said:
Sondland: “Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.”
Click to expand...
So what? There’s nothing in the transcript that directly calls out a “quid pro quo”, so all we have as an assertion of “quid pro quo” based on Sondland’s ability to read Trump’s mind. Absent an actual “quid pro quo”, we need to consider whether a President has the authority to request that the President of another country investigate alleged corruption involving US citizens. Clearly he does. Whether the US citizen in question is a potential political opponent is immaterial. If it was material, than you’d have to concede that Obama’s investigation of the Trump campaign was an abuse of authority, but I don’t recall you objecting to it. Saying there is no evidence that Papa Biden benefited from his son’s shady deal with Burisma is also immaterial. There was no evidence that Trump colluded with Putin either, but we were told the investigation was necessary to find the evidence. That same argument applies to Biden.

Just to note, this assumes that Trump did request a Ukrainian investigation into Biden’s dealings with Burisma, which nothing from the transcript supports. It’s just another inference relying on the ability of the one inferring to read Trump’s mind.
 
Last edited:
Who said anyone is doing that? They are asserting he didn’t do anything warranting removal from office; nothing more. it is obvious your past-dislike of the man clouds present proceedings, but I for one have no commented on his past, as it has little to do with the facts presented today. Does he deserve to be removed because some folks felt a quid pro quo was at play, despite not having evidence (evidence being Trump telling them “this is a quid pro quo.”) Removing a sitting president is too serious to expect anything less.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Does he deserve to be removed because some folks felt a quid pro quo was at play,
Click to expand...
And that goes beyond Ukraine. He’s publicly stated asking China for the same purpose. And we all know about Russia. If he isn’t removed from his powers, what’s to stop him from further abusing them given his tendencies?
 
Just like Ivanka’s dealings with China? They’re actually giving her copyrights. I wonder how clean that is.
 
Last edited:
Nope. He has an obligation to under Article 2, Section 3 and the oath he took as President. And if he believes a country was complicit in interfering in the 2016 election and or with American citizens he more than owes it the American people to investigate.
 
Copyrights as I have mentioned. Why isn’t there investigation into that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top