Impeachment now certain

PeterZ wrote:No, Sondland did NOT testify to that. He testified he assumed those conversations indicated a quid pro quo. Upon questioning he admitted he had not primary evidence nor hearsay evidence that the President demanded a quid pro quo.

Just a reminder that we have the call transcript between Trump and Zelinsky. Where Trump directly tied the aid to the investigations.

Republicans seem to forget this daily.

All Sondland said in that exchange was that no, Trump never specifically spelled out a bribery campaign. Which is about as big a deal as someone testifying that while they watched some guy stab someone repeatedly that person never once announced "I am murdering someone now! Murder murder murder!"

Well damn, case dismissed?

PeterZ wrote:No, Sondland did NOT testify to that. He testified he assumed those conversations indicated a quid pro quo. Upon questioning he admitted he had not primary evidence nor hearsay evidence that the President demanded a quid pro quo.

gcomeau wrote:
Just a reminder that we have the call transcript between Trump and Zelinsky. Where Trump directly tied the aid to the investigations.

Republicans seem to forget this daily.

All Sondland said in that exchange was that no, Trump never specifically spelled out a bribery campaign. Which is about as big a deal as someone testifying that while they watched some guy stab someone repeatedly that person never once announced "I am murdering someone now! Murder murder murder!"

Well damn, case dismissed?

No, the transcript did not make that connection. Shiff's made up opening statement to this entire fiasco did that. Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate the 2016 election to include Crowd Strike's and Burisma's activities aimed at him during 2016. Those firms are part of potentially corrupt activities. He brought up the Bidens later and that was not tied to anything. The Bidens are secondary to trump. The primary issue were the agents that attacked him in 2016.

Sondland admitted he presumed the quid pro quo. That translates to making things up without evidence. Just as I can presume you are an amoral, lying sack of shit because you are a progressive. My presumption is not proof of your deceitful, amoral, excrement ladened activities. Making that presumption is NOT evidence of anything besides the existence of my imagination. The same applies to Sondland.

The transcript contained no quid pro quo. A reader would have to infer or assume that. So, please, Dems make that assumption and take this to the Senate where a more honest and transparent inquiry can truly get to the bottom of this sordid mess.

Mind you, that doesn't prevent the House from voting out impeachment. I hope they do. We need a more transparent investigation of all this. No skiffs on something so[political as an impeachment. Keep it out for all to see.

WeberFan wrote:But I also believe that the Senate, as the arbiter of those articles, will not vote 2/3 to remove the President.

There could be iron-clad evidence Trump shot someone and the Senate would be unlikely to vote 2/3rds to convict.

I can see the Presidents lawyer's requesting subpoenas to the DNC for any and all communications with any person related to the Ukraine going back oh... let's see... to the beginning of the Obama administration. I can see the President's lawyers requesting subpoenas for (former) VP Biden's call and correspondence transcripts on the subject of Ukraine. I can see the President's lawyers requesting any interoffice / intraparty communications between any and all House members related to Ukraine.

How is any of that relevant to Trump's innocence or guilt?

I can see the President's lawyers requesting a subpoena for the "whistleblower." And if the Democrats object, saying that that person must be "protected", then the Republicans can rightly argue that any and all information derived from that complaint MUST be disallowed as poisoned fruit.

How is "fruit of the poisoned tree" relevant here?

Consider the following analogy - I call the police and file a complaint about my neighbor, saying a lot of other neighbors have complained that he's been dealing drugs from his house. The police think that may be credible so they launch an investigation, staking out the place, sending in an undercover buyer, and then secure a warrant and search the house, finding a large stash of drugs.

At this point, given all the evidence, any testimony I could provide is redundant and probably pointless so there's no reason to call me to testify.

Now let's say it turns out that I lied in my initial complaint - I was just trying to make trouble for him because I was irritated at him and I had no idea he actually was dealing drugs. Assuming that the police did the investigation by the book, properly establishing probable cause and so on, that would not invalidate of the rest of the evidence.

Besides all that, impeachment and the ensuing Senate trials are not actually legal proceedings and I'm not sure they necessarily need to hew to judicial procedures in the first place.

Just as a side note, I find it quite interesting that the Impeachment process took so long to come to fruition.
After all, if you look at the statements that Trump's adversaries have given (and articles printed by both the Independent and the Washington Post), Impeachment was first promoted within the first week of his entry into the White House.

With the movement stretching that far back and only now hitting the voting level (right when campaigning for 2020 is underway), those of us with a more cynical outlook might assume that it's a classic case of mud-slinging by a desperate party who are still unable to decide which of them should run for President in between doing their best to cast Obama as someone as evil as the person that they are trying to take down.

For a non-American like myself, there is only one rational response to this entire political mess.

PeterZ wrote:No, the transcript did not make that connection.

Yes, it very explicitly did.

Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate the 2016 election to include Crowd Strike's and Burisma's activities aimed at him during 2016.

One more time, that is a fiction. It is KNOWN to be a fiction. There was no interference from Ukraine directed against Trump. That is propaganda initiated by the Russians. If you happen to be listening to Dr. Hills testimony this morning she stated so flat out in her opening statement. There are no "agents that attacked him in 2016". What fucking attack? All the interference was IN HIS FAVOR.

Michael Everett wrote:Just as a side note, I find it quite interesting that the Impeachment process took so long to come to fruition.
After all, if you look at the statements that Trump's adversaries have given (and articles printed by both the Independent and the Washington Post), Impeachment was first promoted within the first week of his entry into the White House.

With the movement stretching that far back and only now hitting the voting level (right when campaigning for 2020 is underway), those of us with a more cynical outlook might assume that it's a classic case of mud-slinging by a desperate party who are still unable to decide which of them should run for President in between doing their best to cast Obama as someone as evil as the person that they are trying to take down.

For a non-American like myself, there is only one rational response to this entire political mess.

I certainly can not fault you there.

Even the Russians are amused:

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status ... 4434037760

Michael Everett wrote:J
With the movement stretching that far back and only now hitting the voting level (right when campaigning for 2020 is underway), those of us with a more cynical outlook might assume that it's a classic case of mud-slinging by a desperate party

Yes, if of course you were both cynical AND paying sufficiently little attention to realize all the people testifying that Trump did it are members of his own administration...

gcomeau wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:J
With the movement stretching that far back and only now hitting the voting level (right when campaigning for 2020 is underway), those of us with a more cynical outlook might assume that it's a classic case of mud-slinging by a desperate party

Yes, if of course you were both cynical AND paying sufficiently little attention to realize all the people testifying that Trump did it are members of his own administration...

One of those members had a boycott of his wife's business launched by a Democrat member of congress. The Sondland hotels along the west coast by Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Portland. That smacks of witness tampering. Here's the link.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yes, if of course you were both cynical AND paying sufficiently little attention to realize all the people testifying that Trump did it are members of his own administration...

One of those members had a boycott of his wife's business launched by a Democrat member of congress. The Sondland hotels along the west coast by Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Portland. That smacks of witness tampering. Here's the link.

It would be the first tim in US history anyone was charged with "witness tampering" for saying only that someone "should testify and turn over requested documents".

Which, you know, isn't tampering. It's just saying "do your duty and obey the law".

And his testimony lined up with EVERYONE ELSE'S testimony and all the available evidence except when he tried to claim he didn't think Bolton was upset with him. Which is immaterial to whether Trump is guilty and looks more like personal ass covering.

So either you think they're ALL being somehow pressured in ways that you can't quite explain or you're desperately grasping at any excuse to ignore the facts in front of your face because you don't like what they say.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:No, the transcript did not make that connection.

Yes, it very explicitly did.

Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate the 2016 election to include Crowd Strike's and Burisma's activities aimed at him during 2016.

One more time, that is a fiction. It is KNOWN to be a fiction. There was no interference from Ukraine directed against Trump. That is propaganda initiated by the Russians. If you happen to be listening to Dr. Hills testimony this morning she stated so flat out in her opening statement. There are no "agents that attacked him in 2016". What fucking attack? All the interference was IN HIS FAVOR.

Not a fiction.
Snipt-
"A Ukrainian court last December ruled that Leshchenko and the head of the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) — an investigative agency modeled on America’s FBI — both illegally meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking financial documents that smeared then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
The documents, known as “the black ledger,” identified payments Manafort secretly received from a Russian-backed political party in Ukraine years earlier and led to Manafort’s abrupt resignation from the Trump campaign. He eventually pleaded guilty to lobbying and tax violations and is in prison."

Yeah, Manafort was guilty of tax evasion, but the courts in Ukraine did rule this was illegally meddling. The information was not targeting the President directly, but the information did impact the Trump candidacy. Was it enough to defeat him? No, it was not. Would the President consider this hitting him? I am certain he did consider it that way.

Burisma's primary share holder is under investigation for money laundering of up to $7.4BN in Ukraine. The probe targets Zlochevsky. That sort of corruption is reason enough to hold back aid pending ensuring safeguards are in place.

So, yeah, Sondland's presumption of a quid pro quo is presuming a motive absent any evidence. He presumes a motive absent any evidence when there is evidence of alternative motives. Alternative motives that are consistent with his long standing and powerful reservations against foreign aid.