Sondland putting the nail in the coffin

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Impeachment does not overturn an election
It is the constitutional remedy for a President who has abused his power as Floridaman has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No matter how much you wish for it Jim, Hillary will not be President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thats a coup.

All Trump had to do to was avoid the situation
He finds himself in.. by

AKA acting like a Potus .. rather than a runaway train who thinks hes untouchable and cant be held accountable ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you are ok with a sitting president abusing their power at the expense of our national security?

Sure sounds like it.

Do you have any talking points that haven’t been contradicted with testimony under oath?

You do know Nunes Is giving the house republicans nothing right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So you are ok with a sitting president abusing their power at the expense of our national security?

Sure sounds like it.

Do you have any talking points that haven’t been contradicted with testimony under oath?

You do know Nunes Is giving the house republicans nothing right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if a sitting VP can use withheld aid as leverage to get what he wants, i don’t see why it’s an “abuse of power” for a president that do the same. Certainly it’s within the scope if the chief executive to ascertain the truth about what americans ( even
democrats) are doing.

i also don’t think you overturn a duly elected president, over hearsay and “presumptions”. that’s not even circumstantial evidence, which is at least evidence. as of this moment, hearsay and presumptions is all we have.

Why did Sondland read a 23-page opening statement which didn’t include the words “by the way, this is all presumption, i have zero direct evidence connecting Trump to this.”? Answer, because this isn’t about facts, it’s about getting rid of a president they hate. gimme an alternative reason for excluding such a key fact from
a 23 page opening statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why did Sondland read a 23-page opening statement which didn’t include the words “by the way, this is all presumption, i have zero direct evidence connecting Trump to this.”? gimme an alternative reason for excluding such a key fact from
a 23 page opening statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because as any lawyer can tell you, direct evidence is not required to prove the crime.
In this case you likely won’t get it unless Colludy flips, it’s pretty apparent the definition of the ask was his job. Everybody else was supposed to stay in line and move the agenda.
That’s the way “Drug Deals” work.
Fiona will explain it again today, but you’ll claim there Isn’t evidence that is not required.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

there is no crime

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

there is no crime

nope. not until we hear what Durham has to say about FISA abuses, that is. But all the libs here, as testament to their
non partisanship and dedication to getting the truth, have already concluded that the investigation is a nothing burger, despite the fact that nothing has been released yet. but somehow they already know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Because as any lawyer can tell you, direct evidence is not required to prove the crime.
In this case you likely won’t get it unless Colludy flips, it’s pretty apparent the definition of the ask was his job. Everybody else was supposed to stay in line and move the agenda.
That’s the way “Drug Deals” work.
Fiona will explain it again today, but you’ll claim there Isn’t evidence that is not required.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to pay attention...there was a meeting, aid and movement without trump getting a public statement on investigation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what evidence are we denying? who “confirmed” anything?

two guys on the call, said the aid wasn’t contingent on an investigation.

Yesterday, we heard from a guy who trump specifically told he didn’t want a quid pro quo.

all claims trump directed the quid pro quo, are hearsay and presumption. that is fact.

as i said, if i had to bet, i’d bet trump did it. but do we overturn a fair presidential election based on jersey and presumption? and again, even if he did it, biden did the same thing. no one cared. biden bragged about it on tv. why is it so awful for the executive branch to use leverage to get a foreign power to discover the truth about what americans might be doing there?

you guys are very dedicated to get facts related to trumps corruption, but have zero interest in finding out the truth about what biden may have done. if that’s not based on partisanship, what is it?

he’ll probably be impeached in the house, no way he gets convicted in the senate. it may hurt his chances of re election, it may be a big boost. for sure it’s helping his fund raising.

republican questions show desperation? ok. it’s an act of desperation to ask, “what evidence do you have, that the alleged act ever took place?”.

if say that’s a fair, obvious question. one that democrats are avoiding asking. why do you suppose that is?

“ a failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.”

To incarcerate the robber, you need
a whole lot more than someone saying, that he heard from someone else, that the suspect robbed the bank.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

democrats are just like the woman screaming at the white cat

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i keep saying there’s no direct evidence, because there is none.

and if what trump allegedly did is bribery, why isn’t biden also accused of bribery?

the shoe bomber was caught with the bomb in his shoe. he wasn’t convicted because someone testified that they overheard someone else say he was a shoe bomber.

Is that going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device