Floridaman’s spin theory

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Gordon Sondland is still the US Ambassador to Europe. He is Trump's pick. He was a Republican witness at the impeachment hearing. He testified that everyone was in the loop about the quid pro quo.

wrong. he testified that he presumed trump asked for a quid pro quo. According to his own testimony, he had no evidence of the quid pro quo, just his presumption. His exact words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wrong. he testified that he presumed trump asked for a quid pro quo. According to his own testimony, he had no evidence of the quid pro quo, just his presumption. His exact words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He presumed by inference based on his knowledge of the facts and discussions with other people involved.

An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a fact exists on the basis of other facts that you know exist. Odd that they all came to the same conclusion, isn't it?

One Floridaman toady or another asked him a question that required a yes or no answer, but he and several other witnesses testified as to the implied intent of the actions of the people involved and the person they were working for and that it was common knowledge that Floridaman wanted and investigation of Biden announced in return for a meeting and military aid.

Sort of like Nunes "statements" that had nothing to do with the hearings but were only made to provide carefully orchestrated spin talking points.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He presumed by inference based on his knowledge of the facts and discussions with other people involved.

An inference is not a suspicion or a guess. It is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a fact exists on the basis of other facts that you know exist. Odd that they all came to the same conclusion, isn't it?

One Floridaman toady or another asked him a question that required a yes or no answer, but he and several other witnesses testified as to the implied intent of the actions of the people involved and the person they were working for and that it was common knowledge that Floridaman wanted and investigation of Biden announced in return for a meeting and military aid.

Sort of like Nunes "statements" that had nothing to do with the hearings but were only made to provide carefully orchestrated spin talking points.

i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.

if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?

You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.

Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?

He’s not getting removed from office. No chance. And given the weak slate of democratic candidates currently running, there’s a good chance he gets re elected.

As rockhound said, we’re due for a recession, that usually marks
the end of the run for the party in power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.

if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?

You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.

Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?

He’s not getting removed from office. No chance. And given the weak slate of democratic candidates currently running, there’s a good chance he gets re elected.

As rockhound said, we’re due for a recession, that usually marks
the end of the run for the party in power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump didn't withhold all information requested and refuse to let any witnesses testify, perhaps he would be able to rebut the testimony presented to date. He has been afforded that opportunity and did not use it.
Since he will not, I assume the evidence to date is not disprovable and he has no witnesses who would dispute it.
I have seen statements issued by members of his cabinet that seem to contradict testimony, go ahead and do it under oath.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If Trump didn't withhold all information requested and refuse to let any witnesses testify, perhaps he would be able to rebut the testimony presented to date. He has been afforded that opportunity and did not use it.
Since he will not, I assume the evidence to date is not disprovable and he has no witnesses who would dispute it.
I have seen statements issued by members of his cabinet that seem to contradict testimony, go ahead and do it under oath.

do you ever give a direct answer to challenging questions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

do you ever give a direct answer to challenging questions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never to stupid questions without a subpoena.

You'll just have to get your badge out.

So far anyone who has appeared before Congress, like DNI Maguire, has dodged when asked questions regarding this subject, I think they will continue hiding.

You may think this is over but Watergate took years.

Here is what Floridaman's cabinet and other co-conspirators are worried about

Just think Floridaman is the second president to be named as an un-indicted co-conspirator by a Grand Jury

John N. Mitchell – former United States Attorney General and director of Nixon's 1968 and 1972 election campaigns; faced a maximum of 30 years in prison and $42,000 in fines; on February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison, which was later reduced to one to four years; Mitchell actually served 19 months.

H. R. Haldeman – White House chief of staff, considered the second most powerful man in the government during Nixon's first term; faced a maximum of 25 years in prison and $16,000 in fines; in 1975, he was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and received an 18-month prison sentence.

John Ehrlichman – former assistant to Nixon in charge of domestic affairs; faced a maximum of 25 years in prison and $40,000 in fines. Ehrlichman was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury and other charges; he served 18 months in prison.

Charles Colson – former White House counsel specializing in political affairs; plead nolo contendere on June 3, 1974 to one charge of obstruction of justice, having persuaded prosecution to change the charge from one of which he believed himself innocent to another of which he believed himself guilty, in order to testify freely;[8] he was sentenced to 1 to 3 years of prison and fined $5,000; Colson served seven months.

Gordon C. Strachan – White House aide to Haldeman; faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and $20,000 in fines. Charges against him were dropped before trial.

Robert Mardian – aide to Mitchell and counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President in 1972; faced 5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines. His conviction was overturned on appeal.

Kenneth Parkinson – counsel for the Committee to Re-elect the President; faced 10 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. He was acquitted at trial. Although Parkinson was a lawyer, G. Gordon Liddy was in fact counsel for the Committee to Re-elect the President.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i understand
the difference between a presumption and a wild, random guess. But a presumption isn’t evidence.

if trump called his own witnesses who said “since ukraine got the aid and since there was no investigation, I presume there was no quid pro quo”, that is also a presumption arrived at after a logical review of facts. would
you consider that evidence of his innocence?

You seem to immediately believe all presumptions that help the left, and immediately dismiss all
presumptions that help the right.

Can you cite any examples that don’t follow that pattern?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the Republicans’ counsel asked about the “irregular channel” with Ukraine, Sondland shot back: “I’m not sure how someone could characterize something as an ‘irregular channel’ when you’re talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, [and] the Secretary of Energy.”

“I don’t know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel, and they to be the regular channel, when it’s the leadership that makes the decisions,” he added.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wrong. he testified that he presumed trump asked for a quid pro quo. According to his own testimony, he had no evidence of the quid pro quo, just his presumption. His exact words.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes a smart business man clearly has no experience in understanding the bosses intent.. because he wasn't told directly By Trump.

Would that excuse work on your child ? My father only told me i couldn't throws rocks
A brick isn't a rock
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device