Impeachment now certain

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...

PeterZ wrote:
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.

gcomeau wrote:
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.

Which version of his testimony? It changed 3 times.

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...

PeterZ wrote:
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.

gcomeau wrote:
It would be the first time 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.

Which version of his testimony? It changed 3 times.

Yeah it started as basically "I don't remember anything"

Then other people testified about a lot of things he was involved in and it became "ohhhh THAT.... ok now I remember that but I don't remember anything else.

Then MORE people testified about still other things he was involved in and it became "Oh THOSE things, yeah those things happened I remember now... "

In other words, as long as nobody else was talking he was trying to hold out by playing the "I don't recall" card, but he wasn't willing to face a perjury change once his activities were exposed.

Those aren't three different versions, those are three successively more complete versions each one filling in more detail than the last. And frankly I don't buy that he "didn't remember" any of this the first time and would like to see him eat a perjury charge for trying to cover for himself and Trump until that became untenable, but it's very hard to prove memory claims were false unless you can get some hard evidence they remembered details they claimed they forgot contemporaneously with when they were saying they forgot them. which is why people who are lying to investigators always saturate their statements with "I don't recall... I don't remember... I have no memory of...." instead of just saying they didn't do something. (<COUGH... Trump's written answers to Mueller... COUGH>)



But you do understand pointing out Sondland tried to hold out and not testify against Trump until that fell apart is in NO WAY somehow favorable to Trump?

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...

PeterZ wrote:
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.

gcomeau wrote:
It would be the first time 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.

PeterZ wrote:Which version of his testimony? It changed 3 times.

gcomeau wrote:
Yeah it started as basically "I don't remember anything"

Then other people testified about a lot of things he was involved in and it became "ohhhh THAT.... ok now I remember that but I don't remember anything else.

Then MORE people testified about still other things he was involved in and it became "Oh THOSE things, yeah those things happened I remember now... "

In other words, as long as nobody else was talking he was trying to hold out by playing the "I don't recall" card, but he wasn't willing to face a perjury change once his activities were exposed.

Those aren't three different versions, those are three successively more complete versions each one filling in more detail than the last. And frankly I don't buy that he "didn't remember" any of this the first time and would like to see him eat a perjury charge for trying to cover for himself and Trump until that became untenable, but it's very hard to prove memory claims were false unless you can get some hard evidence they remembered details they claimed they forgot contemporaneously with when they were saying they forgot them. which is why people who are lying to investigators always saturate their statements with "I don't recall... I don't remember... I have no memory of...." instead of just saying they didn't do something. (<COUGH... Trump's written answers to Mueller... COUGH>)



But you do understand pointing out Sondland tried to hold out and not testify against Trump until that fell apart is in NO WAY somehow favorable to Trump?

And his recollection was NOT influenced by a Democrat led boycott? Pull the other one!

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...

PeterZ wrote:
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.

gcomeau wrote:
It would be the first time 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.

PeterZ wrote:Which version of his testimony? It changed 3 times.

gcomeau wrote:
Yeah it started as basically "I don't remember anything"

Then other people testified about a lot of things he was involved in and it became "ohhhh THAT.... ok now I remember that but I don't remember anything else.

Then MORE people testified about still other things he was involved in and it became "Oh THOSE things, yeah those things happened I remember now... "

In other words, as long as nobody else was talking he was trying to hold out by playing the "I don't recall" card, but he wasn't willing to face a perjury change once his activities were exposed.

Those aren't three different versions, those are three successively more complete versions each one filling in more detail than the last. And frankly I don't buy that he "didn't remember" any of this the first time and would like to see him eat a perjury charge for trying to cover for himself and Trump until that became untenable, but it's very hard to prove memory claims were false unless you can get some hard evidence they remembered details they claimed they forgot contemporaneously with when they were saying they forgot them. which is why people who are lying to investigators always saturate their statements with "I don't recall... I don't remember... I have no memory of...." instead of just saying they didn't do something. (<COUGH... Trump's written answers to Mueller... COUGH>)



But you do understand pointing out Sondland tried to hold out and not testify against Trump until that fell apart is in NO WAY somehow favorable to Trump?

And his recollection was NOT influenced by a Democrat led boycott? Pull the other one!

You mean the boycott that called only for him to appear and testify? And his recollection that MATCHES EVERY OTHER SINGLE SWORN WITNESS?

Yeah, I think we're pretty safe pulling that one, the other one, and any additional ones you would like to direct us to.

Would you like to now try to claim all the other Trump administration officials testifying under oath are also somehow being influenced through unknown undefined means that don't actually make any sense when we look at them? Perhaps the Illuminati is involved?

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...

PeterZ wrote:
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.

gcomeau wrote:
It would be the first time 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.

PeterZ wrote:Which version of his testimony? It changed 3 times.

gcomeau wrote:
Yeah it started as basically "I don't remember anything"

Then other people testified about a lot of things he was involved in and it became "ohhhh THAT.... ok now I remember that but I don't remember anything else.

Then MORE people testified about still other things he was involved in and it became "Oh THOSE things, yeah those things happened I remember now... "

In other words, as long as nobody else was talking he was trying to hold out by playing the "I don't recall" card, but he wasn't willing to face a perjury change once his activities were exposed.

Those aren't three different versions, those are three successively more complete versions each one filling in more detail than the last. And frankly I don't buy that he "didn't remember" any of this the first time and would like to see him eat a perjury charge for trying to cover for himself and Trump until that became untenable, but it's very hard to prove memory claims were false unless you can get some hard evidence they remembered details they claimed they forgot contemporaneously with when they were saying they forgot them. which is why people who are lying to investigators always saturate their statements with "I don't recall... I don't remember... I have no memory of...." instead of just saying they didn't do something. (<COUGH... Trump's written answers to Mueller... COUGH>)



But you do understand pointing out Sondland tried to hold out and not testify against Trump until that fell apart is in NO WAY somehow favorable to Trump?

PeterZ wrote:And his recollection was NOT influenced by a Democrat led boycott? Pull the other one!

gcomeau wrote:
You mean the boycott that called only for him to appear and testify? And his recollection that MATCHES EVERY OTHER SINGLE SWORN WITNESS?

Yeah, I think we're pretty safe pulling that one, the other one, and any additional ones you would like to direct us to.

Would you like to now try to claim all the other Trump administration officials testifying under oath are also somehow being influenced through unknown undefined means? Perhaps the Illuminati is involved?

Funny that after all those other witnesses gave their testimony, Sondland's final version matches all of them jot and tittle. That match comes after the boycott is launched. Again, Democrats want people to believe this is an honest inquiry without any sort of coordinating witnesses despite evidence to the contrary. Despite calls for impeachment in January 2017 prior to the current affair even arising. Heck, the current whistle blower's lawyer, Mark Zaid, put out a call for bureaucrats to come forward and stage a coup, his word, not mine.

PeterZ wrote:Funny that after all those other witnesses gave their testimony, Sondland's final version matches all of them jot and tittle.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just try to make an argument that witness testimony from multiple sources NOT contradicting each other about what happened is suspicious?

And if you want to make the accusation that is somehow coordinated provide an IOTA of evidence of that claim. And no, people calling for Sondland to testify at all is not such evidence or anything resembling it.

Here, let me summarize the ludicrousness of your implication here.

"EVERYONE who was willing to be sworn in and provide testimony under oath is lying. And all the people who are telling the truth are the ones who refused subpoenas and will only tell their side in interviews or press releases!"

Because you know, that's how these things work.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Funny that after all those other witnesses gave their testimony, Sondland's final version matches all of them jot and tittle.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just try to make an argument that witness testimony from multiple sources NOT contradicting each other about what happened is suspicious?

And if you want to make the accusation that is somehow coordinated provide an IOTA of evidence of that claim. And no, people calling for Sondland to testify at all is not such evidence or anything resembling it.

Yes when the side arguing for impeachment has called for impeachment even before any wrong doing was asserted. This inquiry is an impeachment looking for a pretext. So yes, the use of the Intel Commitee to conduct the inquiry in a skiff rather that the Judicial Committee out in the open is suspicious. Denying the President's 6th Amendment rights to face his accuser displays a disregard for the rule of law. So when the only witnesses displayed in public after their time in the skiff all recount a cohesive pattern of opinions, it is suspicious. Even so it took Sondland three tries and the threat to his livelihood to get his testimony of opinion and presumption to coordinate with the rest.

So again I want this fiasco voted out and sent to the Senate where a more honest trial may be conducted. Public opinion on this matter is turning because of Schiff's handling of this travesty. People see the pure partisanship involved and they don't like it.

PeterZ wrote:
Yes when the side arguing for impeachment has called for impeachment even before any wrong doing was asserted.

You must have missed the part where people argued that Trump started violating the emoluments clause from basically the moment he took office. The search wasn't for wrongdoing, it was looking for something egregious enough that the GOP in the Senate might actually put aside partisan interests.

PeterZ wrote:
Yes when the side arguing for impeachment has called for impeachment even before any wrong doing was asserted.

noblehunter wrote:
You must have missed the part where people argued that Trump started violating the emoluments clause from basically the moment he took office. The search wasn't for wrongdoing, it was looking for something egregious enough that the GOP in the Senate might actually put aside partisan interests.

As I said, this is an star chamber inquiry looking for a pretext. Pure partisan politics. So vote out this modern day bill of attainder and send this trial to the Senate. Since this is a purely political endeavor, let the public participate and prepare for their political response in 2020.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:I'm sorry, did you seriously just try to make an argument that witness testimony from multiple sources NOT contradicting each other about what happened is suspicious?

And if you want to make the accusation that is somehow coordinated provide an IOTA of evidence of that claim. And no, people calling for Sondland to testify at all is not such evidence or anything resembling it.

Yes when the side arguing for impeachment has called for impeachment even before any wrong doing was asserted.

As already pointed out, serious wrongdoing has been occurring from day 1 of this presidency due to Trump's refusal to divest his assets. It was open season on abject corruption from the word go. Even before they hauled away his National Security adviser and all the obstruction of justice began.

He just got too brazenly cocky about getting away with it and it finally made an impeachment hearing impossible to avoid.

This inquiry is an impeachment looking for a pretext.

A whistleblower coming forward and alleging the president is extorting a foreign head of state into interfering in the upcoming election by withholding security funds Congress appropriated to serve US national security interests is a hell of a pretext, particularly after the Inspector General's initial investigation finds that report both Urgent and Credible.

And oh look, they didn't even need to go looking for it because that came first you doofus.

So yes, the use of the Intel Commitee to conduct the inquiry in a skiff rather that the Judicial Committee out in the open is suspicious.

You mean the exact same way all of the 100+ depositions taken in the Benghazi hearing were held in the exact same way (except for Clinton's)? You mean "suspicious" like that?

You. Don't. Let. Witnesses. Hear. Each. Other's. Testimony. So. They. Can't. Coordinate. Their. Answers.

And that is in the rules for such inquiries the REPUBLICAN majority wrote when they were in power.

Denying the President's 6th Amendment rights to face his accuser displays a disregard for the rule of law.

That applies to a trial genius, not an investigation.

The trial part happens in the Senate.

Stop making up imaginary rights just so you can claim Trump had them violated and play fake victim.

So when the only witnesses displayed in public after their time in the skiff all recount a cohesive pattern of opinions, it is suspicious.

So I'm going to circle back to this part you're conveniently skipping over one more time. Explain exactly why all the witnesses I assume you must think exist who know the "truth" of Trump's innocence will not testify? Why they actively and strenuously fight compliance with Congressional subpoenas to do so? Why are they withholding all the documents that were also subpoenaed which I assume you also think would show how innocent Trump is. Why are they so desperately battling to make sure they don't have to go under oath and tell the "truth" about how Trump did nothing wrong? Why are all the Republicans in Congress and the Senate not screaming from the rooftops for these people to come forward to prove Trump's virtuous innocence?

Explain how this conspiracy you are implying is at work here would actually, you know, work. Try to sound sane while doing so, I dare you.