Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s constant additions, the Democrats take one ridiculous claim and then try to add on to in once they start their sham processes.
 
Historically, other Presidents –- including big Democrat faves such as FDR –- have had non-government associates working at their right hands when it came to foreign policy; as far as I know, President Trump is the only one catching heat for it, as he does for everything.

It was Hillary Clinton, the person the bureaucrats WANTED as President, who got special privileges, along with chief aide Huma Abedin and attorney Cheryl Mills. While Trump associate Roger Stone now faces the prospect of life in prison over “process” crimes, Clinton associates Abedin and Mills got immunity in exchange for nothing, and Mills was able to sit with Clinton during questioning even though she was a potential witness in the case! Do you think that Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his associates would receive such special handling? Me neither.
 
dvdjs said:
The observation of an effort to alter the facts of the story just as it is breaking is typcially seen as a sign of consciousness of guilt.
Click to expand...
The only observations meant to alter the facts are presented by diplomats who didn’t like the policy and arrogantly think they should set policy.
dvdjs said:
For Trump fans, fortunately a minority, it seems that only an outright confession will do.
Click to expand...
For fans of justice, evidence instead of hearsay and bias are the expectation.
Trump said Zelensky should go the right thing. I think Zelensky is working in the right direction. Schiff, on the other hand, is acting like a two bit scoundrel.
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
mrad25:
There’s constant additions, the Democrats take one ridiculous claim and then try to add on to in once they start
Click to expand...
I understand the articles are being written as we speak.
Click to expand...
I think they’ve been writing them since November, 2016.
 
We now know that Zelinski took that call with full knowledge that the aid his country needed was inexplicably held up by the man( Trump) he is about to talk to on the phone.
Zelinski is the leader of a Nation in a hot war. Much smaller and weaker that it’s nuke power adversary, 7% of his nation is already annexed by the enemy and they are coming for more… The aid is the difference between his people being free of subjugated. That desperation over doom is how he enters the call. Trump need not spell out reality. Zelinski knows Trump is OK with Crimea, he said so. He knows Trump is vindictive. They both know zelinskis desperation and the potential for doom if he does not appease the man inexplicably holding back the aid. So that I added to the conversation. He gives Trump what he asks, or risks doom. It is the only logical presumption. The only one
 
Last edited:
Dreaming about Trump shooting someone and having an I just voted for Trump anyway sticker placed on their shirt
 
Not every benefit supports bribery. But that does not negate the bribery statute. We determine if something is " of value". All human beings indulge I self serving behavior. I would go even furthur that just politicians. Some self serving behavior is legal, some is not. OTHERWIZE your point negates the criminal code( for politicians).
Your last question introduces more pillars.
First, she Trump does it( an authoritarian also substitutes perfectly here), he wields the police powrr of the United States and I the most powerful man on Earth. When his personal interest and gain coincide with all the power of the US government, thos situation does not really transfer to your scenario for such obvious reasons, I won’t insult you spelling them out. With Biden, this is the case.
 
The GOP is offering a new legal system for us. All future criminal trials will either have a written signed and perfect confession, or the accused walks free. All other evidence is no longer relevant. Lol
 
Last edited:
Simply put, the hearsay rule says that secondhand testimony is not admissible in court. Exceptions: Hersay statements may be admitted if they were made “res gestae” - in the “immediacy of things.” Not the case with any witnesses. 2) Statements against Interest. Not the case with any of the witnesses. 3) Matter of Record. Not the case, official documents, prior court testimony, birth certificates, promissory notes not relevant, none apply here. Oh my bad Exception: only in Adam Schiffs court house!
 
Ridgerunner said:
You are attributing statements to me that I didn’t make----again.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see if I did.

You said:
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I said
drcube said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, you talked about terrorizing families, which is why I pointed out that there were no emails produced that were supposedly to Sondland’s wife and you talked about beating people up, which is why I said something about nothing in the article about people getting beaten up. Now, what exactly did I say that you claim I am attributing to you that you didn’t say?
 
mrad25 said:
Simply put, the hearsay rule says that secondhand testimony is not admissible in court. Exceptions: Hersay statements may be admitted if they were made “res gestae” - in the “immediacy of things.” Not the case with any witnesses. 2) Statements against Interest. Not the case with any of the witnesses. 3) Matter of Record. Not the case, official documents, prior court testimony, birth certificates, promissory notes not relevant, none apply here. Oh my bad Exception: only in Adam Schiffs court house!
Click to expand...
It is common for witnesses to testify they heard plaintiffs talking about a crime or confessing to a crime. Now, if Republicans really wanted to clear this up, I suppose Mulvaney, Pompeo and Guiliani could testify under oath.
 
Schiff can subpoena them to testify in the public impeachment sham, why hasn’t he? Oh that’s right, he needs that obstruction of justice narrative.
 
mrad25 said:
Schiff can subpoena them to testify in the public impeachment sham, why hasn’t he? Oh that’s right, he needs that obstruction of justice narrative.
Click to expand...
Guiliani has been subpoenaed. I don’t think Pompeo or Mulvaney has, but Pompeo’s state department did fail to turn over subpoenaed documents. Yes, definitely time for them to receive a subpoena. You think they would be chomping at the bit to straighten out the record anyway.
 
Nothing was subpoenaed during the public hearings only when Schiff was conducting his private auditions in his dungeon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top