Sondland changes everything

[dvdjs]

The only observations meant to alter the facts are presented by diplomats who didn’t like the policy

That is simply incorrect.
Trump hijacked foreign policy to serve a domestic political errand. When the story began to break, he made a clumsy attempt at cover up.

evidence

Plenty of evidence.
But the fans invent make-believe standards in which nothing less than a confession with a particular formula of words will do. It evokes fremdschamen.

 

[drcube]

Nothing was subpoenaed during the public hearings only when Schiff was conducting his private auditions in his dungeon.

So, did the Republicans subpeona them? It seems like everyone would want to hear from these three at this point.

 

[mrad25]

You do know or maybe you don’t that the Republicans don’t have control over what witnesses get called in the impeachment inquiry. Although in a Senate trial things change!

 

[drcube]

You do know or maybe you don’t that the Republicans don’t have control over what witnesses get called in the impeachment inquiry. Although in a Senate trial things change!

I do know that Republicans were asked to provide a list of potential witnesses. Were Pompeo, Guiliani and Mulvaney on the Republican list?

 

[Maximus1]

Comprehensive. Lol

 

[Maximus1]

Did you hear an objection?

 

[Maximus1]

That is not the hearsay rules. There are ancient document exceptions to hearsay. The rule is there to act as a gatekeeper of threshold trustworthiness and protect the right of cross examination.
" An out of court statement offered to proove the truth of the matter asserted." Before you get to exceptions you have " not hearsay".
What is a statement.
What is the purpose of the offer? If it isn’t for the truth of the matter asserted, but instead some element, like evidence a person is on notice, it might get in. There were no objections. Well in a trial that would waive objections. So nothing happening was in a forms to evaluate hearsay. It sounds " official" and if conservative TV plays it a lot, they can release the believers on the public
You start there and in about 1000 hours of study you will get it.

 

[JonNC]

He gives Trump what he asks, or risks doom.

Except he didn’t give Trump anything. Trump gave him the money. Why? People, Republican senators and others, told him Zelensky was the real deal. Trump was skeptical, as he should have been. In the end, they convinced him, and it had nothing to do with Schiff’s spy in the WH.

“U.S. senators, Ambassador [John] Bolton, Vice President Pence, all became convinced that Zelensky was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and the real deal and a real change. And guess what? They told the president, ‘He’s a reformer, release the money.’ And that’s exactly what President Trump did.”

Jim Jordan Explains Why Trump Held Up the Money to Ukraine Without a Quid Pro Quo – PJ Media

 

[JonNC]

That is simply incorrect.
Trump hijacked foreign policy to serve a domestic political errant. When the story began to break he made a clumsy attempt at cover up.

The entire presentation by Bishop and Kent and Yovanovitch and others was they didn’t like the policy, didn’t like that they were not involved/ in charge, or Trump hurt their feelings cry.
No evidence presented of a quid pro quo. None.

 

[PaulinVA]

I do know that Republicans were asked to provide a list of potential witnesses. Were Pompeo, Guiliani and Mulvaney on the Republican list?

Mulvaney was subpoenaed and refused to testify. However, he did release a statement refuting some of Fionna Hill’s testimony.

Remember, Hill’s testimony was under oath. Mulvaney’s statement was not, and he refuses to testify under oath.

 

[drcube]

Mulvaney was subpoenaed and refused to testify. However, he did release a statement refuting some of Fionna Hill’s testimony.

Remember, Hill’s testimony was under oath. Mulvaney’s statement was not, and he refuses to testify under oath.

You can issue whatever statement you want; if it’s not under oath, it’s as good as a Gateway Pundit opinion piece.

I think it is time to reissue those subpeonas now that people are paying more attention. I know @mrad25 really wants to get the truth. These are the people that can tell the truth. Under oath. Where there is risk of being charged with perjury if they lie.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think it is time to reissue those subpeonas now that people are paying more attention. I know @mrad25 really wants to get the truth. These are the people that can tell the truth. Under oath. Where there is risk of being charged with perjury if they lie.

Yep, the people who can exonerate the President refuse to testify. I think it’s because they believe the Senate will acquit no matter what, so there is no need to risk perjury. Of course, I don’t believe there is any exculpatory evidence that Mulvaney can testify to, but that’s just me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The president is charged by reason of his office to enforce the law. Nothing in the Constitution says he must go ask Congress for mechanisms with which to do that. The Justice Dept is supposed to be the chief instrument of enforcement, but as we know, it had been seriously corrupted. As these “hearings” show us, many others in government are likewise untrustworthy. So who to trust?

Giuliani was one of the most successful federal prosecutors in recent history; taking down the whole “syndicate” of crime families in New York; a remarkable achievement, and one requiring no small amount of courage.

For goodness sake, past presidents have employed various agents, domestic and foreign, to carry out policy. JFK even employed the Mafia. So did Roosevelt.

But if we’re going to go with the theory that this was all about investigating corruption, well, there are actually attorneys and investigators in the DOJ whose job it is to do exactly that.

How do you know there aren’t?

 

[drcube]

The president is charged by reason of his office to enforce the law. Nothing in the Constitution says he must go ask Congress for mechanisms with which to do that. The Justice Dept is supposed to be the chief instrument of enforcement, but as we know, it had been seriously corrupted. As these “hearings” show us, many others in government are likewise untrustworthy. So who to trust?

Those willing to testify under oath.

Giuliani was one of the most successful federal prosecutors in recent history; taking down the whole “syndicate” of crime families in New York; a remarkable achievement, and one requiring no small amount of courage.

Giuliani can testify under oath. He has refused to do so. Much like the crime families he prosectuted.

For goodness sake, past presidents have employed various agents, domestic and foreign, to carry out policy. JFK even employed the Mafia. So did Roosevelt.

US Policy or policy that favors the president at the expense of his political enemies.

How do you know there aren’t?

I’d expect they would be in front of cameras if they existed.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Giuliani can testify under oath. He has refused to do so. Much like the crime families he prosectuted.

A disgusting disparagement.

Giuliani may well testify under oath as soon as a hearing occurs in which there is fundamental fairness. Obviously Schiff excludes both testimony and questions he does not think serves his narrative. So why undergo that? Ultimately, there will be a fair hearing, but not yet.

US Policy or policy that favors the president at the expense of his political enemies.

Biden is not immune just because he is an (apparently failing) candidate in a field of many. He bragged before the world how he manipulated the Ukrainian justice system using American aid dollars to do it. The remaining question is “why”. He has his version, but he isn’t entitled to remain unchallenged just because he is running for office. If someone else had bragged about manipulating the Ukrainian justice system while his own son was being investigated by that system, and if Trump did nothing about it, liberals would be howling about the miscarriage of justice.

I’d expect they would be in front of cameras if they existed.

There will be actually fair hearings in front of cameras anon. Never fear.

 

[drcube]

A disgusting disparagement.

Giuliani may well testify under oath as soon as a hearing occurs in which there is fundamental fairness. Obviously Schiff excludes both testimony and questions he does not think serves his narrative. So why undergo that? Ultimately, there will be a fair hearing, but not yet.

No, it’s an appropriate comparison. If Giuliani were the great American you claim, he would be testifying under oath.

Biden is not immune just because he is an (apparently failing) candidate in a field of many. He bragged before the world how he manipulated the Ukrainian justice system using American aid dollars to do it. The remaining question is “why”. He has his version, but he isn’t entitled to remain unchallenged just because he is running for office. If someone else had bragged about manipulating the Ukrainian justice system while his own son was being investigated by that system, and if Trump did nothing about it, liberals would be howling about the miscarriage of justice.

Again, with the errors. Oh my. I’ve explained this over and over again and you keep repeating the same errors.

There will be actually fair hearings in front of cameras anon. Never fear.

I’m waiting for the truth to come out, but it seems like the Trump administration just wants to hide the truth from the American people. Let Mulvaney and Giuliani testify.

 

[PaulinVA]

The president is charged by reason of his office to enforce the law. Nothing in the Constitution says he must go ask Congress for mechanisms with which to do that. The Justice Dept is supposed to be the chief instrument of enforcement, but as we know, it had been seriously corrupted. As these “hearings” show us, many others in government are likewise untrustworthy. So who to trust?

DrCube already responded, but I can’t help myself. Are you serious?

The FBi is not “seriously corrupted”. The evidence of this is the IG investigations. They are, indeed, investigating potential wrongdoing. Corrupt organizations don’t do that.

As to casting aspersions on the patriotic Americans who have testified under oath to the things things they’ve seen and heard, your attack on them as being" untrustworthy" is unfounded and insulting.

Once again, until Rudy G and Mulvaney testify, you got nothing.

 

[JonNC]

Those willing to testify under oath.

You mean like Clapper and McCabe? Testifying under oath means they always tell the truth?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The FBi is not “seriously corrupted”. The evidence of this is the IG investigations. They are, indeed, investigating potential wrongdoing. Corrupt organizations don’t do that.

I think when the IG investigation report is issued, we’ll find that there is serious corruption in the FBI, or was. The Durham investigation will likely show more. This isn’t over by a long shot.

And the very purpose of the independent IG is to root out any corruption within the organization. If the organizations were not at hazard of corruption, there would be no IG.

your attack on them as being" untrustworthy" is unfounded and insulting

Never did I say their testimony would be untrustworthy. But from the standpoint of this administration’s policy, they obviously have been. That’s nothing new. Bureaucrats have resisted the policy of elected policymakers before Trump.

Once again, until Rudy G and Mulvaney testify, you got nothing.

So far, Schiff has nothing but opinions and speculation based on nothing. Schiff has the burden of proof here, not Trump. But he also has a lockstep-disciplined Dem party which will surely impeach; something it has been wanting to do since Trump’s election. It now has the power to do it, and will.

But I think Dems might have some things to worry about when there is an actual hearing in the Senate. And both the IG’s report and Durham’s findings are coming.

 

[niceatheist]

The president is bound by the law. Giuliani has no clearances, he is not presently a prosecutor.