Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That opinion will disqualify you as a juror as it would prevent you from reaching a just verdict. Opinions are solicited in almost all trials
 
Maximus1 said:
By experts with lots of foundational facts to support them
Click to expand...
Perhaps we should just put bureaucrats in charge of everything and not bother with elections. Certainly if bureaucrats deign themselves such “experts” that they defy elected officials who are supposedly their superiors, and especially based on triple and quadruple hearsay and “presumptions” (all of which were admitted by some of these people) and if that’s to determine who the executives are, then there’s really no need for elections anymore.

Maybe the Dems are all okay with the idea of giving all power to the sovi…oops, the bureaucrats, but they shouldn’t be.
 
Apparently one doesn’t even have to actually say what our president has been accused of.Just so long as the Dems think he wanted to say quid pro quo,oh wait it’s now it’s bribery ,no now it’s extortion ,yeah that’s the word of the day.:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Elections are irrelevant. It’s like arguing," I guess nobody gets water any more.
What did an election have to do with expertise?
It isn’t their fault that they know infinitely more than Trump on the subject. That’s why they are there.
You say they defied elected officials. How? If something is illegal, or it harm’s an ally, then it does. President’s are not above law.
 
Do you mean the presumption of innocence I criminal cases? This is not a criminal case. The burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt either
 
The constitution did prescribe that impeachment was for cases of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Perhaps that was intended to mean “disagrees with your political opinions”, but I doubt it.

Are you actually saying a presumption of guilt should carry the day?
 
Maximus1 said:
That opinion will disqualify you as a juror as it would prevent you from reaching a just verdict. Opinions are solicited in almost all trials
Click to expand...
No it wouldn’t. Opinions can be said, but you cant’ hang someone on hearsay and opinions, there’s something called proof beyond a reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence granted to defendants and which is based on the “Due Process” Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Not in impeachment. This is not a criminal case. In fact the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Yes it does. They impeach elected people. Apparently you believe there can be no such thing
 
Maximus1 said:
Tell you what. Trump supplies information about specific things he did for 56 days to determine " Curruption" I will consider your argument." Not," everyone knows" Trump is anti- Curruption. That is a slogan, not action.
Click to expand...
lol. He’s the accused here. He shouldn’t supply anything. He supplied the phone call, probably more than he should have done, considering the impact on future conversations beheads of state, not that the impeachment left cares.
Maximus1 said:
We know the legislation passed by Congress giving the aid, did not authorize giving it until very specific investigation went into determining the UKRAINE progress eliminating Curruption. DOD and others did actual work, analysis, and evaluation. They were done in May, at which point the law said implement the giving of the money. ( Trump signed that law)
After that, what did Trump do? Specifically!
Click to expand...
If they gave the evaluation process to the FOD, they gave it to the president. He is the head of the DOD. He has the obligation to Operate the executive branch. He decides when the evaluation is done.
Maximus1 said:
What happened between the last day the money was held, to the day it was transfered, that changed the status from stop to go?
That’s fair isn’t it? Lol. This is going to be a highlight of the trial. I promise.
Click to expand...
The last day the money was held is the first day it was released.
 
I agree. Another lie and pretense by Trump. He tried to extort the Ukraine president using the aid. He is lying about Curruption. That is why there is no evidence he did anything. Of course Congress decides the criteria. They were complete. The only evidence on the subject. That leaves extortion as the only possible motive. He is getting impeached.
 
Last edited:
Congress would have impeached President Trump no matter what the reason.We get that.The American citizenry get that. Which is why President Trump will not be convicted either the Senate or in the court of public opinion.His approval is going up while support for this scam is taking a nose dive.
 
mrad25 said:
Completely inaccurate. The first aid package got released before Sept. 11th as scheduled and in accordance with procedures and statue on foreign aid. The second release of aid got released after review, as is the case with all foreign aid. This is a myth that’s been debunked. Ukraine Received Half Of the $250 Million In Security Aid By July 31, 2019. POTUS Never Had The Ability To Cancel Any Of The Funds.

The Post & Email – 15 Nov 19

IMPEACHMENT ILLUSION ANTIDOTE: Ukraine Received Half Of the $250 Million In…​

“DESTROYING THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX” Researched and written by Ren Jander, J.D., ©2019 (Nov. 14, 2019) — You’ve been lied to, America. Put to sleep. It’s the greatest political hoax ever perpetrated on this nation. The coordination between deep state…
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m not saying this is made up or anything of the sort, but don’t you think that, if this were true, we’d be hearing about it from some place with more authority. Like, maybe, the White House.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No one can credibly say it’s “debunked” until it’s investigated, which hasn’t happened. When the Vice President of the United States gets on national TV and tells the world he got a foreign prosecutor fired under threat of not receiving aid approved by congress, and when that prosecutor was investigating his son’s company at the time, it cries for investigation and nobody should claim wrongdoing is “debunked” before that happens.
Click to expand...
Which keeps me wondering about the Tooth Fairy. I know people tell me it has been debunked, but has anyone really investigated it yet?
 
" Protecting our money"
How did he do that?
First, he signed legislation authorizing the expenditure. When he did that, he signed into law that the money would not be sent until a review by the DOD. WE HEARD TESTIMONY about what was done to see that Curruption was being eliminated. We learned that it was complete in May.
The law of the land, he signed, completed it’s" actual “verification work. The law he signed included nothing additional. Technically, he would act unconstitutionally trying to add more than the law required.
But if he actually did anything to determine if Ukraine had moved from Curruption, maybe America forgives. No problem.
What actually happened is , TRUMP CAME TO DO XY and Z on Curruption " protecting our money”
Let’s test that fairy tale, that puffery, and examine the concrete…I am waiting! List the objective things Trump did to protect our money! As to investigate Biden and his crazy server theory? Anything else! Anything! Anything! Give me a break.
And you should realize Trump confessed to the link between his nutty crowdstrike theory as his fight against Curruption, and it’s link to withholding funding.
See, he doesn’t actually disagree with the Democrats on the core impeachment issue. Go watch Fox and Friends do him in
 
Last edited:
I see. That’s great. A president can create 100 crazy conspiracy theories, then set the FBI off investigating them against their political opponent.
The rationale is, we don’t know till we investigate do we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top