The Judiciary Committee scheduled the hearing, “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” for Dec. 4.

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday invited President Trump and his legal team to participate in its first public impeachment hearing next week, when lawmakers plan to convene a panel of constitutional scholars to inform the panel’s debate over whether the president’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The Judiciary Committee convened a similar panel of expert witnesses in 1998 when it began debate over whether to impeach President Bill Clinton.

BREAKING NEWS: Trump Administration Lied About Wanting to Be Involved in Impeachment Process
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BREAKING NEWS:
PeteF is now wearing diapers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BREAKING NEWS:
PeteF is now wearing diapers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Projecting again, I see.

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Projecting again, I see.

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps,but I can’t be sure. Projecting would be more along the lines of the giant poop you will make in your diaper after the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps,but I can’t be sure. Projecting would be more along the lines of the giant poop you will make in your diaper after the next election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look down, I'm sure you could tell. Or look at the box, if it says Depends, they ain't tighty whiteys

1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.

1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

For impeachment, you only need enough votes in the House of Representatives to do it.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

Abuse of power is a vague enough concept that convincing sounding narratives of all sorts can be concocted to appear to be an "abuse of power."

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.

Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.

It is if done for a personal favor and to hurt a political opponent in the upcoming election, not to mention it impacts our national security and probably cost lives. Personal gains are NOT the same as gains to help our national interest or security. Keep spinning, don’t you get dizzy doing it day in and day out, must hurt your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look down, I'm sure you could tell. Or look at the box, if it says Depends, they ain't tighty whiteys

1. For impeachment and removal you don’t need a smoking gun, just evidence that proves the point, directly, circumstantially or otherwise.

2. And you don’t need a quid pro quo—just abuse of power.

3. That said, there’s plenty of smoking-gun evidence here of quid pro quo.
I am anxious to see justice prevail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quid pro quo is standard procedure in foreign policy. It is one of the basic understandings in policies of cooperation. It is not a crime.

Abuse of power is cause for impeachment, as is obstruction.

Floridaman has told us repeatedly, he will seek and use information from foreign governments and agents to pervert our next presidential election to his personal, political, and financial benefit.

The facts—at least the broad outlines and necessary highlights—are already well known, so the question is not: What did the president say and when did he say it?

1) Sondland actually did directly tell a top Ukrainian official that military aid was conditioned, and did this after taking direction from Trump for months.

2) Many officials testified meeting was conditioned.

Those are smoking guns. The call itself is a smoking gun.

And there is a remedy............

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to … yield[ing] up the emoluments he enjoyed … might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients.

An ambitious man, too, when … seated on the summit of his country’s honors, … would be … violently tempted to embrace a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at every personal hazard.

And it is moving forward, Floridaman has chosen to continually obstruct in every manner possible short of sending the troops to invade Congress, though he did send his stooges to storm the SCIF (which most of the members had failed to attend in any case) and conduct a sit-in or something, for the purported reason that they were not public.
When the meetings were public, he cried because he felt he had inadequate representation.
When they say OK you can have representation and can appear, he claims executive privilege without precedent.
The only claim to executive privilege during impeachment was made by Nixon and decided unanimously against the Presidency by the Supreme Court sixteen days before he resigned.

Presidents from Washington on down have acknowledged that executive privilege is inapplicable--or in any event outweighed by congressional need as a co-equal branch of government--in impeachment inquiries. Polk's 1846 statement is representative. He “cheerfully admitted” that with “a view to the exercise of [the impeachment] power,” the House “has the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the Government,” and its power “in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, & to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.” In such cases, said Polk, “all the archives and papers of the Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to the inspection and control of a committee of [Congress] and every facility in the power of the Executive be afforded them to enable them to prosecute an investigation.”

Abuse of power is cause for impeachment, as is obstruction.

Floridaman has told us repeatedly, he will seek and use information from foreign governments and agents to pervert our next presidential election to his personal, political, and financial benefit.

The facts—at least the broad outlines and necessary highlights—are already well known, so the question is not: What did the president say and when did he say it?

1) Sondland actually did directly tell a top Ukrainian official that military aid was conditioned, and did this after taking direction from Trump for months.

2) Many officials testified meeting was conditioned.

Those are smoking guns. The call itself is a smoking gun.

And there is a remedy............

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to … yield[ing] up the emoluments he enjoyed … might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients.

An ambitious man, too, when … seated on the summit of his country’s honors, … would be … violently tempted to embrace a favorable conjuncture for attempting the prolongation of his power, at every personal hazard.

And it is moving forward, Floridaman has chosen to continually obstruct in every manner possible short of sending the troops to invade Congress, though he did send his stooges to storm the SCIF (which most of the members had failed to attend in any case) and conduct a sit-in or something, for the purported reason that they were not public.
When the meetings were public, he cried because he felt he had inadequate representation.
When they say OK you can have representation and can appear, he claims executive privilege without precedent.
The only claim to executive privilege during impeachment was made by Nixon and decided unanimously against the Presidency by the Supreme Court sixteen days before he resigned.

Presidents from Washington on down have acknowledged that executive privilege is inapplicable--or in any event outweighed by congressional need as a co-equal branch of government--in impeachment inquiries. Polk's 1846 statement is representative. He “cheerfully admitted” that with “a view to the exercise of [the impeachment] power,” the House “has the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the Government,” and its power “in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, & to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge.” In such cases, said Polk, “all the archives and papers of the Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to the inspection and control of a committee of [Congress] and every facility in the power of the Executive be afforded them to enable them to prosecute an investigation.”

That's a lot of dancing around the edges. In the meantime, in the center of it all, Zelensky said he didn't know of a quid pro quo, and that Trump did nothing wrong. It would have to be proved that he is lying.

The money was given.

Trump had a history of being concerned with Ukrainian corruption and that he wanted some assurance that the money wasn't going to be more money wasted on corruption.

Burisma was a part of the corruption. Unqualified Hunter Biden was possibly (probably in fact) hired for influence. The Prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was fired at the behest of Joe Biden and replaced by another prosecutor who had the same reputation of corruption as the fired one. And the investigation of Burisma was dropped. The hiring of Hunter Biden paid off.

The notion that Trump asked for the investigations into corruption to be reopened or to continue, including the hiring of Biden, strictly for personal gain is open to interpretation, opinion, assumption, but difficult to prove, even with circumstantial evidence. When circumstantial evidence can be interpreted in different ways it is not strong enough to prove guilt and not important enough to overcome direct evidence or other circumstantial evidence that contradict it.

Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're wrong on both counts.

Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just block him.

Just block him.

I was pointing out that PeteF's party line narrative was only one side of what will be presented in the Senate trial. It will not be a cut and dry presentation of what Pete considers irrefutable "evidence." The other side, or other party line, can be derived from direct and circumstantial evidence as well. It's not the inevitable cake walk of indisputable testimony that Pete seems to think will happen. The notion that Pete's evidence is so overwhelming and without rebuttal and contradicting narrative supported by credible evidence is a pipe dream.

Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Either that is the basic party line or you didn’t watch any of the testimony given, I’m putting my money on party line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After being asked directly, Sondland said he had zero direct evidence of a quad pro quo, in his own words, he made a presumption. But he admitted to having zero evidence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you go to bed and then get up in the morning and there’s snow, did it snow?
Do you have direct evidence?
Or are you presuming?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?

Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you sip a few Manhattan cocktails before you wrote this?

If Zelensky says that he felt no pressure, that he was not aware of a quid pro quo, do you have direct evidence? Or are you presuming that he said it?

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a presumption, not direct evidence.

Gee wiz let’s think, he said no pressure because he wanted his fuc*king military aid dah.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

Floridaman’s theory is totally logical
Why ask someone you say you believe to be corrupt to investigate corruption.
Why would he even involve Ukraine since:
1. They don’t have jurisdiction over U.S. citizens for corruption cases
2. We don’t have an extradition treaty w Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hell last week they were all Corrupt Ukraines now there evidence of innocence :faga:

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.
The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The multitude of non partisan fact witnesses have clearly established the abuse of power Jim. Nunes pretty much had nothing but fart jokes during the intel hearings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you sip a few Manhattan cocktails before you wrote this?

Are you claiming it’s false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When your country is being invaded by Russia and your people are dying, leaving you in desperate need of the promised military aid, you might say what you normally wouldn’t to get that aid delivery. The testimony confirmed he knew the aid was dependent on certain public statements, it’s very clear there was great pressure, but you go to bed at night listening to Nunes audio clips so the spin is expected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^

Pretty sad that on the world stage at the Nato meeting, our presidential leader whines like a spoiled brat about the Impeachment and airing our dirty laundry for the world to see. In contrast Nancy attends a climate change summit in spite of a Trumps desire to pull out of any agreement to address the fake science and when asked about the impeachment, she said while overseas its policy not to speak ill of the president or discuss our internal issues. One is respectful and the other childish, not to mention he is expending the trade war and now suggest a deal with China might have to wait until after the 2020 election. Manufacturing is taking the hit and farmers will get coal for Xmas, it’s what Trump has been collecting from every stocking he has had since birth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty sad that on the world stage at the Nato meeting, our presidential leader whines like a spoiled brat about the Impeachment and airing our dirty laundry for the world to see. In contrast Nancy attends a climate change summit in spite of a Trumps desire to pull out of any agreement to address the fake science and when asked about the impeachment, she said while overseas its policy not to speak ill of the president or discuss our internal issues. One is respectful and the other childish, not to mention he is expending the trade war and now suggest a deal with China might have to wait until after the 2020 election. Manufacturing is taking the hit and farmers will get coal for Xmas, it’s what Trump has been collecting from every stocking he has had since birth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah....remember when pelosi went to syria to kiss assad's ass...I guess you don't....proceed with your gibberish

yeah....remember when pelosi went to syria to kiss assad's ass...I guess you don't....proceed with your gibberish


Syrian civil war Started in March 2015 she visited in april 2007

your getting so desperate you dont even take the time to check the Facts.. Did you miss Trump handing Syria back to Assad russia and Turkey you're ok with that, and its not surprising :faga:

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haters gonna hate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Syrian civil war Started in March 2015 she visited in april 2007




so??

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nancy is pretty childish....she tries to sound adult but she's not fooling anyone...well, you I guess

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you missed the obama years...this is hilarious nonsense^^^

You should learn to pay attention, instead of reciting baloney.
We spent years and millions training and equipping Ukrainian forces and they are now able to use the Javelin systems.
They are missiles, not magic spells

Fiona Hill: (13:54)
I was not initially in 2015 before I joined the government. And I’m sure that many people on the committee have seen that I wrote an opinion piece with a colleague at the Brookings Institution in that juncture. Because I was very worried at that particular point in time that the Ukrainian military was not in a fit state to really take on board sophisticated weapons, be they defensive or offensive weapons. And I worried that there was not a longterm sustainable plan given the overwhelming force that the Russians could apply against the Ukrainians. However, when I came into government in 2017 and started to interact with all of my colleagues in the Pentagon and you had Laura Cooper here yesterday, I realized in fact that there’d been an awful lot of work done on this. And that there was a clear and consistent plan for the sustainability long term of the Ukrainian military so I changed my mind.

Steve Castor: (14:45)
Okay. And you’re in fact, one of the, I believe the only witness that we’ve spoken to that has been able to articulate the opposition to providing the javelins. And as we understand it during the Obama administration, the interagency consensus was in fact to provide the javelins but they were not provided. Are you aware of the decision back then?

Fiona Hill: (15:05)
I was, and I think it was very much made on a political basis about concerns that this would provoke the Russians depending on how this was presented. And we were very mindful of that also when there were the discussions internally about the lethal defensive weapons inside of the administration.

Steve Castor: (15:22)
And Mr. Holmes, you’re on the ground in Kiev and the javelins have now been authorized, provided. What’s the view from the field, the U.S. embassy as to the effectiveness of the javelins?

David Holmes: (15:39)
They’re an important strategic deterrent. They’re not actively employed in combat operations right now, but the mere idea that were the Russians to advance substantially using certain kinds of armor that the Ukrainians would have this capability deters them from doing so. And it also thereby sends a very important symbolic message to the Ukrainian military that they have access to these high end technology and that we trust them to do it. I would only add also they’ve offered to buy some using their own funds. The initial traunch was provided through basically a program to do that, but they’ve now offered to spend their own money to buy more, so I think they think they’re important

So no matter what he says, it's evidence that there was a quid pro quo.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, what choice did Zelensky have?
In his position what would you say, if you had been told that the only way to assure that you get what you needed to survive was to lie?
Keep in mind the Trumplican claim that politicians lie all the time.

Zelensky's closing statement from his Time interview:
"Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are clearly insane...just enjoy the spectacle :hihi:

not just zelensky, according to you and the liberals here, everyone who denied the quid pro quo, was actually providing evidence there was a quid pro quo.

Your mind was made up before the first witness opened their mouth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

Greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

did you miss the part of Sondlands testimony, when he explicitly stated he had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, just a presumption on his part? Which is nothing.

There is zero chance he gets removed from office, and a decent chance he gets re-elected.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]
This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Oh no I don’t think the rich are not owing this country for what either they or their family made because of what this country provided in the way of business opportunities. I’m all for a wealth tax, it’s about time they stopped avoiding paying what is a drop in the bucket, they should be paying more because they can afford it. They should start helping pay for their success, pay down our debt, help pay for higher education and rebuild our infrastructure.

That includes the Trump’s and Pelosi’s of the world.

Still has nothing to do with Trump whining like a baby on the world stage, it’s just not the way our elected leaders should be acting overseas; you keep that crap at home. Trump can’t of course it has ALWAYS been all about him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is hilarious statment from you...

SO if someones mind was made up beforehand

And all the information presented re enforces this . You find that odd

But having your mind made up that nothing happened.. then your given the same info . And dismiss it as hear say .. just tells everyone you need to understand evidence.. you dont need a gun to convict someone of murder.. seems for you. a gun is required with out it no ones guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there no evidence there was. quid pro quo, though i’d bet there probably was. but if it wasn’t bad when biden did it, i don’t see why it’s bad when trump does it.

did biden use quid pro quo to get what he wanted?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you miss the part of Sondlands testimony, when he explicitly stated he had no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, just a presumption on his part? Which is nothing.

There is zero chance he gets removed from office, and a decent chance he gets re-elected.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Awful lot of people with the same presumption, obviously mass hysteria.

Dan Goldman: (27:26)
And at this time you were aware of the President’s desire along with Rudy Giuliani to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:38)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (27:40)
And you said President Trump had directed you to talk, you and the others to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23rd, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:51)
If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.

Dan Goldman: (27:55)
Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (28:00)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (28:03)
And in fact, President Trump also made that clear to President Zelensky in that same July 25th phone call, he said, “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the Mayor of New York city, a great mayor and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy.” And after this, President Trump then mentions Mr. Giuliani twice more in that call. Now from Mr. Giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have, that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (28:55)
Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it.

Dan Goldman: (28:58)
Right, because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

Gordon Sondland: (29:03)
I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.

Dan Goldman: (29:19)
Announced publicly?

Gordon Sondland: (29:20)
Announced publicly.

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of that doesn't preclude him acting inappropriately on this issue.

"I need a favor, though"

You can argue it is impeachable or not, but pretty clearly he withheld aid to try and get an investigation into the Biden's to benefit him politically, and only released the aid when he heard about the whistleblower report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The WH seems not to be able to find any record of the "no QPQ" call.

All of that doesn't preclude him acting inappropriately on this issue.

"I need a favor, though"

You can argue it is impeachable or not, but pretty clearly he withheld aid to try and get an investigation into the Biden's to benefit him politically, and only released the aid when he heard about the whistleblower report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so a president can’t do
anything that will benefit him politically. So if Trump can ink a favorable trade deal with China which helps our economy, he can’t do it if it helps him politically?

Biden was sure bragging about using quid pro quo to get what he wanted, I bet he thought that helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The WH seems not to be able to find any record of the "no QPQ" call.

how about the conversation between trump and Sondman? That was pretty explicit.

and both parties on the call, deny any quid pro quo, so theres that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how about the conversation between trump and Sondman? That was pretty explicit.

and both parties on the call, deny any quid pro quo, so theres that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

The call that apparently didn't exist you mean?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so a president can’t do
anything that will benefit him politically. So if Trump can ink a favorable trade deal with China which helps our economy, he can’t do it if it helps him politically?

Biden was sure bragging about using quid pro quo to get what he wanted, I bet he thought that helped him politically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.

What Biden did was not the same Jim, no matter how many times you say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The GOP changed its platform to pro-Russia when Trump became the nominee and is now saying it’s basically all good that Russia has invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. Can you really blame their politicians for having an opinion on America’s elections.

So now the move over the last 72 hours has been to conflate criminal interference in an election with having a preference. Yet another way the GOP shows confidence their base won’t see through their lies.

This is why waiting for the next election — the very election Trump is NOW corrupting and will stop at nothing to “win” — is no substitute for impeachment and removal.

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/heres-the-proof-that-trumps-no-quid-pro-quo-call-never-happened/


At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, members of Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe that there were two phone calls between President Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland in early September—with the second call having the possibility of helping the President’s case. That’s not what happened. There was only one call, and it was highly incriminating.

The call occurred on September 7th. In this call, Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but he then went on to outline his preconditions for releasing the security assistance and granting a White House visit. The call was so alarming that when John Bolton learned of it, he ordered his deputy Tim Morrison to immediately report it to the National Security Council lawyers.

Sondland has testified there was a call on September 9th in which Trump said there was “no quid pro quo,” but that he wanted President Zelenskyy “to do” the right thing. A close reading of the publicly available evidence shows that the latter call was actually the very one that sent Morrison to the lawyers, and that Ambassador Bill Taylor foregrounded in his written deposition to inform Congress of the quid pro quo.

As this article was in the publication process at Just Security, the Washington Post published a report raising doubts about the existence of the September 9 call. The analysis that follows is consistent with the Post’s report and, among other points, shows why Sondland’s “no quid pro quo” call is in fact the same as the September 7th call that Morrison reported to NSC lawyers on September 7th

One of the central questions that the House’s impeachment inquiry is attempting to resolve is “whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign.” And, over the past several weeks, witnesses testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) have given uncontested testimony that established the following:
∙During a July 10, 2019 meeting at the White House, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union told Ukrainians officials that there would be a “pre-requisite of investigations” before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 10; Hill Depo. at 27; Vindman Depo. at 29)
∙During a July 25, 2019 phone call, President Trump asked President Zelenskyy for the “favor” of an investigation into Joe Biden and the false, Russian-backed claims that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (Memcon of Trump-Zelenskyy Call, July 25, 2019)
∙Following a July 26, 2019 meeting between the Ambassador to the EU and Ukrainians officials, President Trump asked the ambassador, “So [Zelenskyy is] going to do the investigation?”, to which the ambassador replied, “He’s going to do it.” (Holmes Depo. at 24; Sondland Testimony on Nov. 20, 2019)
∙President Trump demanded that President Zelenskyy make a public announcement that he was opening an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election as a pre-requisite before he would agree to a White House meeting. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
∙President Trump’s personal attorney told both American officials and Ukrainian officials that the president would require, as a quid pro quo, that Ukraine announce the desired investigations before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
∙At a meeting in Warsaw, Poland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union informed a senior Ukrainian official that the security assistance money would not be released until Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into “Burisma and 2016.” (Sondland Declaration, Nov. 4, 2019, at 2; Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 10-11; Morrison Depo. at 144-145)

That list is by no means exhaustive. In addition to other testimony before the HPSCI supporting these facts, the Acting Chief of Staff/Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney stated during a press conference that the security assistance to Ukraine was withheld as a quid pro quo in exchange for Ukraine conducting an investigation into false allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

What then, is there left for the impeachment inquiry to prove?

In the face of this damning and conclusive evidence, the White House and House Republicans have been forced to retreat to their current defense: that President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

I. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call

Of all the omissions from Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, one of the most significant has to do with his testimony about what has been dubbed the “no quid pro quo” call. Because the White House and State Department did not comply with the House’s subpoenas for records, no documents concerning this call have been produced, but all witnesses agree that, some time around the second week of September, President Trump and Ambassador Sondland had a phone call, and at some point during this call, Trump said the words “no quid pro quo.”

Sondland has, at times, been ambiguous as to when exactly this phone call took place, and has vacillated between the dates of September 6-9. But in the version of events that Sondland most frequently describes in his testimony, he says that he made the “no quid pro quo” call on September 9th. Sondland has testified it was a brief conversation, in which he asked President Trump a single question:


I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelenskyy to do the right thing. (Sondland Depo. at 106)

It is this testimony from Sondland that the White House and House Republicans have clung to, in support of their claim that the impeachment inquiry has failed to show misconduct by the President. ’’

President Trump has taken to regularly invoking Sondland’s testimony at rallies and at press events, asserting that Sondland’s description of the “no quid pro” call exonerates him. In fact, in the middle of Sondland’s public testimony, President Trump made an appearance on the White House lawn, a portion of Sondland’s paraphrased testimony in hand, to perform a dramatic reenactment of the call, as it was described by Sondland.



Overall, it must be noted, Sondland’s testimony was incredibly damning for Trump. However, it was not quite as damning as it should have been.

Because in reality, as shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th. What’s more, the call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.

II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9

The “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th, as Sondland claimed at one point in his testimony; instead, it took place on September 7th. This is shown from the testimony of Tim Morrison, Senior Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, and Charge D’Affaires Bill Taylor, both of whom were briefed on the call by Sondland shortly after it occurred.

This detail is critically important, not because the precise date of the call is significant in and of itself, but because of what it shows about the true content of that call – the substance of the conversation that Morrison and Taylor described in their testimony, and that Sondland omitted from his.

Sondland’s Testimony

Though Ambassador Sondland testified that, to the best of his recollection, the “no quid pro quo” call occurred on September 9th, Sondland was also quick to point out that as a result of his inability to review certain State Department records, his “memory admittedly has not been perfect.” (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019) Still, Sondland said he had a distinct reason for remembering the date of this particular call: it was prompted by what Sondland described as a “fairly shocking” and “alarming” text message he received from Charge Taylor, in a group chat that included Ambassador Kurt Volker. It was in response to this text, Sondland said, that Sondland made the call to President Trump:


So rather than ask the President nine different questions – is it this, is it this, is that – I just said what do you want from Ukraine? I may have even used a four letter word. And he said I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on or – or words to that effect. (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019)

Because Ambassador Volker’s text exchanges were one of the few documentary records produced in response to the HSPCI’s subpoenas, we have a copy of the text exchange Sondland referred to. Per Volker’s records, Taylor’s text was sent at 12:47am on September 9th:

The GOP changed its platform to pro-Russia when Trump became the nominee and is now saying it’s basically all good that Russia has invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. Can you really blame their politicians for having an opinion on America’s elections.

So now the move over the last 72 hours has been to conflate criminal interference in an election with having a preference. Yet another way the GOP shows confidence their base won’t see through their lies.

This is why waiting for the next election — the very election Trump is NOW corrupting and will stop at nothing to “win” — is no substitute for impeachment and removal.

Moscow Mitch has transformed the GOP into a cult, he puts party over the needs of the nation and Trump is the cult leader. I sincerely hope blindly following Trump bites them back hard and they loss seats they might not have had they acted differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

When Trump is impeached and has to release the documents and allow his staff to testify, it will emerge.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/heres-the-proof-that-trumps-no-quid-pro-quo-call-never-happened/

Moscow Mitch has transformed the GOP into a cult, he puts party over the needs of the nation and Trump is the cult leader. I sincerely hope blindly following Trump bites them back hard and they loss seats they might not have had they acted differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Snow day got you whining?
Set a good example and go make snow angels with Peg. Teach fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.

What Biden did was not the same Jim, no matter how many times you say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

while i can argue that there’s a good reason for all of us to want to know the truth about what the bidens were doing in ukraine, i’m not going to try to say that trump had only noble intentions there. obviously he had political motives. But there’s a decent chance Biden had personal motives with his quid pro quo, too.

I’m not going to say trumps
motives were the same as bidens. but they both used a quid pro quo to get what they wanted, and both cases seem fishy to me. Are they sufficiently different that one is impeachable and one isn’t even questionable? Not to me. But that’s opinion, judgment. We can disagree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the president sets foreign policy

the president sets foreign policy

It's not the point

The whistleblower complaint said

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.

Trump’s ask of Zelensky was so grave that both the CIA general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, and the general counsel at the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, decided the accusations had a “reasonable basis” and together called the Justice Department on Aug. 14 to discuss how to handle them. Elwood reportedly intended this call to be a criminal referral about the president’s conduct. Later in August, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General for the Intelligence Community referred the allegations to the Justice Department as a possible criminal matter. This means that upon learning of Trump’s ask alone (forget everything else we’ve learned), multiple senior government lawyers, all appointed by Trump, were worried the president had committed a crime.

It's not the point

The whistleblower complaint said

.

not a whistle blower....partisan hack

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your beyond blind I get it all these people just misunderstood what Trump wanted :rotflmao:

so??

Shocking you never actually had a point :kewl:

not a whistle blower....partisan hack

Trump’s ask of Zelensky was so grave that both the CIA general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, and the general counsel at the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, decided the accusations had a “reasonable basis” and together called the Justice Department on Aug. 14 to discuss how to handle them. Elwood reportedly intended this call to be a criminal referral about the president’s conduct. Later in August, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General for the Intelligence Community referred the allegations to the Justice Department as a possible criminal matter. This means that upon learning of Trump’s ask alone (forget everything else we’ve learned), multiple senior government lawyers, all appointed by Trump, were worried the president had committed a crime.

All the people with an agenda at least
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shocking you never actually had a point :kewl:

more likely it escaped you :hee:

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

Awful lot of people with the same presumption, obviously mass hysteria.

Dan Goldman: (27:26)
And at this time you were aware of the President’s desire along with Rudy Giuliani to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:38)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (27:40)
And you said President Trump had directed you to talk, you and the others to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23rd, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:51)
If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.

Dan Goldman: (27:55)
Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (28:00)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (28:03)
And in fact, President Trump also made that clear to President Zelensky in that same July 25th phone call, he said, “Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the Mayor of New York city, a great mayor and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy.” And after this, President Trump then mentions Mr. Giuliani twice more in that call. Now from Mr. Giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have, that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (28:55)
Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it.

Dan Goldman: (28:58)
Right, because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

Gordon Sondland: (29:03)
I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.

Dan Goldman: (29:19)
Announced publicly?

Gordon Sondland: (29:20)
Announced publicly.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

So I was not wrong.

So I was not wrong.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

You keep repeating yourself. As if reinforcing your own opinions makes them more valid.

You keep repeating yourself. As if reinforcing your own opinions makes them more valid.

Well, I am still waiting for you to produce the shred of evidence that Floridaman turned over to the house IC..........

Well, I am still waiting for you to produce the shred of evidence that Floridaman turned over to the house IC..........

Well, if you're waiting for me to produce shreds of evidence before you stop repeating yourself, I supposed you'll just have to keep babbling.

You previously said that Floridaman had produced a shred to prove me wrong when I said zero.
Apparently I was correct.

🍔🍔🤡🍔🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You previously said that Floridaman had produced a shred to prove me wrong when I said zero.
Apparently I was correct.

Well, he did, and I must admit that it is becoming too tiresome to keep riding your anti-Trump merry go round. I don't have the energy that you do to keep going back and pointing out what was said by whom. And it is getting to the point with me to not even care. It will all continue to morph from one accusation, one investigation, one condemnation and pearl clutching OMG, one supposedly impeachable or criminal offense, that all fail, into the next one that you hope will work. It is obvious what's going on. Sea Dangles approach is looking more and more an attractive one.

Like jim said. It is not possible to talk to you. I have stopped reading your long cut and pastes because they have all been uncritical politically slanted opinions. I used to debunk them line by line for which you had no answer. The last one, except for a few shorter ones, that I read was by some retired CIA "expert" that analyzed Trump to be a useful idiot for Putin. It was amazing to me that you, or any analytically minded person, could not see that this "expert's" analysis could equally, or more so, show most of the Presidents since, and especially including, FDR to be useful idiots either of Russia or China. And that Trump is a piker as useful idiot compared to others.

I mean, TO THIS DAY, (so it is not merely an old so-called whataboutism), Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the Democrats greatest President. And yet he was by far, indisputably and demonstrably, the most egregious useful idiot for the Soviet Union that occupied the Oval Office. His policies were directly responsible for handing over Eastern Europe to Russia and eventually China into the soviet sphere.

And, as far as policies that are useful to those communist regimes, The Democrat Party association with the CPUSA as well as our Progressive's policy in general have been aids to those regimes. When Kruschev said "We will bury you" he understood the direction Progressives were taking this country, and he knew well how our educational system, especially the academic, were disposed toward communist style views toward social and political outcomes.

Further, that useful idiocy has been extended by "great" or mediocre past Presidents in giving aid to Russia's partner China. Nixon started it and all the others, before Trump, continued and expanded it. They all allowed China to rape the wealth we produced, and aided it by things like granting China favored nation status which helped it into the WTO. The supposed useful idiot Trump is the only one that is seriously trying to reverse that.

That CIA expert, if you critically analyzed his analysis, showed Trump to be "presidential" in terms of his critique. Trump was being what all the pasts Presidents were in that respect. It was one of those many articles which actually, if critically looked at, contradicted your view of Trump. It even debunked your notion that Trump conspired with Putin. It showed that Trump's personality, as the "expert" saw it, would not have made that possible--he could only be a supposed "useful idiot" not a conspiratorial partner.

You just keep piling on those long and boring opinions without critically analyzing them. Just taking them as gospel.

Hopefully, better men than me will keep pushing back. I tire of fruitlessly going round and round with your relentless horse-blinder views.

Well, he did, and I must admit that it is becoming too tiresome to keep riding your anti-Trump merry go round.
He did not,"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

I don't have the energy that you do to keep going back and pointing out what was said by whom. And it is getting to the point with me to not even care. It will all continue to morph from one accusation, one investigation, one condemnation and pearl clutching OMG, one supposedly impeachable or criminal offense, that all fail, into the next one that you hope will work. It is obvious what's going on. Sea Dangles approach is looking more and more an attractive one.

Like jim said. It is not possible to talk to you. I have stopped reading your long cut and pastes because they have all been uncritical politically slanted opinions. I used to debunk them line by line for which you had no answer. The last one, except for a few shorter ones, that I read was by some retired CIA "expert" that analyzed Trump to be a useful idiot for Putin. It was amazing to me that you, or any analytically minded person, could not see that this "expert's" analysis could equally, or more so, show most of the Presidents since, and especially including, FDR to be useful idiots either of Russia or China. And that Trump is a piker as useful idiot compared to others.

I mean, TO THIS DAY, (so it is not merely an old so-called whataboutism), Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the Democrats greatest President. And yet he was by far, indisputably and demonstrably, the most egregious useful idiot for the Soviet Union that occupied the Oval Office. His policies were directly responsible for handing over Eastern Europe to Russia and eventually China into the soviet sphere.

And, as far as policies that are useful to those communist regimes, The Democrat Party association with the CPUSA as well as our Progressive's policy in general have been aids to those regimes. When Kruschev said "We will bury you" he understood the direction Progressives were taking this country, and he knew well how our educational system, especially the academic, were disposed toward communist style views toward social and political outcomes.

Further, that useful idiocy has been extended by "great" or mediocre past Presidents in giving aid to Russia's partner China. Nixon started it and all the others, before Trump, continued and expanded it. They all allowed China to rape the wealth we produced, and aided it by things like granting China favored nation status which helped it into the WTO. The supposed useful idiot Trump is the only one that is seriously trying to reverse that.

That CIA expert, if you critically analyzed his analysis, showed Trump to be "presidential" in terms of his critique. Trump was being what all the pasts Presidents were in that respect. It was one of those many articles which actually, if critically looked at, contradicted your view of Trump. It even debunked your notion that Trump conspired with Putin. It showed that Trump's personality, as the "expert" saw it, would not have made that possible--he could only be a supposed "useful idiot" not a conspiratorial partner.

You just keep piling on those long and boring opinions without critically analyzing them. Just taking them as gospel.

Hopefully, better men than me will keep pushing back. I tire of fruitlessly going round and round with your relentless horse-blinder views.

Your belief, like Floridamans that we are better off alone against the world is foolish.

The John Birch Society went out in the 70s, perhaps you can revive it, I hope not.

We cannot singlehandedly force anyone to do anything. Floridaman is currently claiming that we might not honor NATO treaties, specifically article 5. We are the only ones who have ever called for help based on that and received it and more.
Next time will likely be different.

I have only two requirements from the Democratic nominee. First, he or she must not be obviously mentally unstable.



good luck with that one

Your belief, like Floridamans that we are better off alone against the world is foolish.

It is foolish to believe that there is this whole world out there against us. Or that what there is of such a world is unified within itself. There have always been disagreements between members in the alliance. Trump has done nothing to weaken that alliance. By demanding that the members pull their own weight, he may be strengthening it.

The John Birch Society went out in the 70s, perhaps you can revive it, I hope not.

I'm not interested, thanks for mentioning it though.

We cannot singlehandedly force anyone to do anything. Floridaman is currently claiming that we might not honor NATO treaties, specifically article 5. We are the only ones who have ever called for help based on that and received it and more.
Next time will likely be different.

Has Trump made a current claim about article 5. In 2017 he made a strong commitment to it in his Poland speech. He is known to give seemingly different (at least in the brains of his critics)"signals" for strategic purposes. He has criticized NATO's effectiveness and its members lack of commitment to paying their share, but I don't think he has ever specifically said that we would not commit to article 5.
If he has, as you say, "currently" that we would not honor it, when was that? "Might not" does not carry much weight since he, as I said, gives off different signals for strategic (bluffs to get desired action) reasons.

He did not,"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

When I said he did I was referring to the various documented statements he and Zelensky and other Repubs have said, not to documents that he has a legal right to keep private.

Has Trump made a current claim about article 5. In 2017 he made a strong commitment to it in his Poland speech. He is known to give seemingly different (at least in the brains of his critics)"signals" for strategic purposes. He has criticized NATO's effectiveness and its members lack of commitment to paying their share, but I don't think he has ever specifically said that we would not commit to article 5.
If he has, as you say, "currently" that we would not honor it, when was that? "Might not" does not carry much weight since he, as I said, gives off different signals for strategic (bluffs to get desired action) reasons.

Try today

It carries a lot of weight if you’re also a NATO signatory planning your foreign policy or a possible ally deciding what path to pursue.
That’s why we are the United States and this is what we stand for, do and expect. The world knew that for decades, the last administration faltered and this one has thrown it away.
A fickle feckless friend is worth little more than nothing.
Never know when those bonespurs are gonna act up.
And don’t dream that the diplomats of the world didn’t see how Pompeo failed his staff, just as sleazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try today

It carries a lot of weight if you’re also a NATO signatory planning your foreign policy or a possible ally deciding what path to pursue.
That’s why we are the United States and this is what we stand for, do and expect. The world knew that for decades, the last administration faltered and this one has thrown it away.
A fickle feckless friend is worth little more than nothing.
Never know when those bonespurs are gonna act up.
And don’t dream that the diplomats of the world didn’t see how Pompeo failed his staff, just as sleazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did he say?

What did he say?

Watch his pressers, you love those long verbose videos.

The other heads of state found his performance quite comical, he does love to get a laugh out of the crowd
This time he was the subject, again.
There’s a Floridaman tweet for that.
I’ll have to find it tomorrow to go with the clip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch his pressers, you love those long verbose videos.

The other heads of state found his performance quite comical, he does love to get a laugh out of the crowd
This time he was the subject, again.
There’s a Floridaman tweet for that.
I’ll have to find it tomorrow to go with the clip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks man. This was great. Really helpful stuff. You really say a lot of very informative things. I feel embarrassed when my verbose videos are matched up next to your fantastic links, cuts and pastes, and general remarks like these here gems in this post.

Kudos, and best wishes. I will devoutly follow your wisdom and hope to become a better person.

Well at least Pres. Trump has accomplished something he promised he would do - world leaders are no longer laughing at the US.

trump fixed nato not the chuckling twits:kewl: