Will Trump be impeached?

[GT Pony]

During the Obama presidency, the evildoers in the swamp were not leaking classified information, so we don't know about Obama's calls to other countries.

We do know that money came to the US and Russia got uranium during his presidency, though.
He also presided over the IRS torching the TEA party.
Fast and furious.
Too many other Obama scandals to even mention.

Well, people should have raised red flags and blew the whistle if anyone thought laws were possibly being broken.

But again, this hearing is about the possibility of POTUS using his position and power to achieve personal gain with the help of a foreign country - the Constitution makes it pretty clear that is not something the founders of this country wanted to happen. Not sure if any of those items you listed above would fall into that category. I think that's were people try to justify what's going on now with what's happened in the past with other presidents.

Sponsored

 

[Weather Man]

LOL at Schiff!



Robby Starbuck

@robbystarbuck



Schiff just blew up the one win he had from these impeachment hearings. While trying to get another soundbite for TV Schiff ended up pushing Sondland to clarify his testimony. Sondland says that Trump said to him that he didn’t want any quid pro quo.






874
1:28 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy


430 people are talking about this

 

[Weather Man]

The D's were all a tizzy this morning LOL, then the R's got their turn.



Ryan Saavedra

@RealSaavedra



Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH): "No one on this planet told you that this aid was tied to investigations. Yes or No?"

Ambassador Gordon Sondland: "Yes"

Turner then hammers CNN: "The headline on CNN is wrong"






4,601
1:22 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy


2,419 people are talking about this

 

[Weather Man]

It is interesting that they are responding to the news cycle in real time during the hearing. That is new and not sure if good or bad. Does speeding up an already light speed news cycle benefit anyone?

 

[GT Pony]

Schiff just blew up the one win he had from these impeachment hearings. While trying to get another soundbite for TV Schiff ended up pushing Sondland to clarify his testimony. Sondland says that Trump said to him that he didn’t want any quid pro quo.

Again, look at the timing ... it was pretty clear in the testimony today that the "no quid pro quo, I want nothing" mantra was said to Sondland by Trump on a phone call after the whistleblower investigation was announced. Seems like anyone trying to do something against rules/laws would try to change directions when they know the hounds have been released to sniff them down.

The repeating of the statement "no quid pro quo" doesn't make it so. Investigation and uncovering of further evidence either makes is so or not so.

Sondland testified today that him now knowing the missing pieces of the puzzle, that he didn't know when all this was happening real time, that it certainly looked like a quid pro quo ... Ukraine doesn't get abc until Trump gets xyz (and sounds like mostly through the side channel via Wile E. Giuliani).

I think it took a lot of guts for Sondland to testify since he's a Trump supporter and past money contributor. Says to me he believes in laws and morals more than political affiliation ... like a patriot should.

 

[GT Pony]

Note Rudy admits to stepping on the land mine of Joe Biden ... wonder how he did that, lol?

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...-the-bus-in-the-impeachment-process/23861634/

 

[GT Pony]

All your point is, is that nobody so far has testified that they specifically heard the words "quid pro quo" from Trump or Rudy, or anyone else playing the game. More onion peeling required IMO ... especially from people involved who refuse to testify (why?). And if you read what I said again, there have been more than one person so far that has testified that they felt there was a quid pro quo (this for that for personal gain) going on. They didn't have to hear the words, just see the actions.

Like I said, the words "quid pro quo" don't have to specifically be spoken to ask for or try/make a quid pro quo happen. That hollow argument continues to be used, but in reality it won't really help if evidence that "abc" was withheld until "xyz" was given. That is the very essence of a quid pro quo.

 

[Docscurlock]

All your point is, is that nobody so far has testified that they specifically heard the words "quid pro quo" from Trump or Rudy, or anyone else playing the game. More onion peeling required IMO ... especially from people involved who refuse to testify (why?). And if you read what I said again, there have been more than one person so far that has testified that they felt there was a quid pro quo (this for that for personal gain) going on. They didn't have to hear the words, just see the actions.

Like I said, the words "quid pro quo" don't have to specifically be spoken to ask for or try/make a quid pro quo happen. That hollow argument continues to be used, but in reality it won't really help if evidence that "abc" was withheld until "xyz" was given. That is the very essence of a quid pro quo.

Well, so far no one has tied President Trump to a "this for that" either personal or any other type of gain. There has been no person in these testimonies that has tied the president to anything. Even the transcript of the call never implies anything other than the President of Ukraine looking into corruption. So we at best have a" that for nothing".

 

[GT Pony]

Well, so far no one has tied President Trump to a "this for that" either personal or any other type of gain. There has been no person in these testimonies that has tied the president to anything. Even the transcript of the call never implies anything other than the President of Ukraine looking into corruption. So we at best have a" that for nothing".

Everyone's entitled to their opinion (thanks to a free country), but from what I'm seeing there is a tie back to Trump. Might not be a smoking gun direct tie, but the framework is obviously there. I have a feeling the continued hollow defense will be: "Nobody has actually heard anyone say the words 'quid pro quo' ". But like said before, a quid pro quo can be implied, asked for and conducted without hearing those exact words.

I believe if Trump and Rudy sat next to each other in these hearings, and both looked at each other and said: "Yes, we specifically asked for a quid pro quo for the Ukraine to investigate Biden for an advantage in the 2020 election." that people would still not believe it happened, and those that did believe it would then think the POTUS has ever right to do that to help him win an election. It seems this country could be falling into the early stages of how corrupt countries become to be. That's not what our Constitution is about.

And Rudy saying in that article I linked to earlier saying: "And then I stepped on the number one minefield, which is Joe Biden ..." is funny, especially since the FEC warned everyone about asking a foreign country for personal political gain way before the July 25th phone call. And sounds like other schemes were going on since when Pres Z got elected and the July 25th phone call.

 

[GT Pony]

I don't think so ... more to come, and based on what has been testified so far, that may kick-off the need to call even more people in to testify. They need to get Rudy to testify, although I have a feeling he'd purger himself. If this actually turns into a trial in the Senate, it might be possible that Rudy could be legally forced to testify. Guess that's why he got his own lawyer now.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...nt-privilege-to-avoid-congressional-testimony

I'm not fishing ... just saying what I see. Sure, I'd let anyone the Republicans what to testify to testify. At this point, it may not be in their own interest if someone was involved and knows something, and they don't want to purger themselves and find themselves in legal trouble (like some in this Admin have already done).

Yeah, but you really think he was in the know of all this stuff going on behind closed doors. I highly doubt a "check writer" is involved with defining the detailed stipulations of why a check is being written. He just writes and releases the check when he gets to go ahead. I bet Trump doesn't even know who the check writing guy is since he now hardly knows who Sondland is (someone giving him $1M and talks to him on the phone and in person quite a bit), that's pretty funny.

Well, feelings might not be a good word ... more like circumstantial evidence, which is really what it is with the proof of catpured emails, texts and who knows what other future documentation. More peeling required.

As some definitions of quid pro quo show, it can still be something that is simply asked for and not even received. Just stipulations that are asked for without even executing or receiving those stipulations. I'm sure there will always be arguments of what in this case constitutes a "quid pro quo". Still may things going on with abuse of power if someone in the position of POTUS is asking for favors to gain a political edge on someone else. At least an abuse of power I'd say. As the FEC said in June 2019, it's illegal to simply ask a foreign country to investigate a political rival, regardless of if there's a "quid pro quo" or not.

https://news.yahoo.com/is-a-quid-pro-quo-necessary-for-impeachment-160109797.html

If someone plans and sets up a murder for hire, but no murder was ever committed, and if those people are caught making those plans does the law just let anyone involved with that plan walk away like nothing ever happened?

 

[GT Pony]

Now that's just defecting and being obtuse. Guess a simple analogy is hard to see, oh well. Guess I'm not really surprised, so I'll just leave it at that.

Sure, but that doesn't mean this country should just ignore and not investigate any possible corruption. Start giving leaders a pass on crap like that and we'll be creating a super swamp (seems like there actually is one now as this all unfolds) and we'll be living in an ever increasing shit hole.

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that you were not a proponent of corruption? If Trump and Rudy did commit what is alleged, then they are corrupt and law breakers in the view of the laws of our Constitution. Are you really OK with that?

Committing corruption to investigate corruption only leads to more corruption, then all of a sudden it's another corrupt Ukrainian or Putin ran Russia type of situation, and we are all dumbass zombies with somebody like Pres Camacho as our leader, lol.

 

[Hack]

Well, people should have raised red flags and blew the whistle if anyone thought laws were possibly being broken.

But again, this hearing is about the possibility of POTUS using his position and power to achieve personal gain with the help of a foreign country - the Constitution makes it pretty clear that is not something the founders of this country wanted to happen. Not sure if any of those items you listed above would fall into that category. I think that's were people try to justify what's going on now with what's happened in the past with other presidents.

It's already clear the president didn't do anything wrong. Too many people like you are busy assuming he is guilty and must be proven to be innocent (which is impossible).

It's also already clear that the Dems keep accusing Trump of wrong doing when they have zero evidence of any wrong doing. They accused Trump of Russia collusion for two years when there was no evidence. They even said there was evidence when really there wasn't. The way this is supposed to go is you start with real evidence and then you go forward with an investigation. But you only start the investigation if you have evidence of wrong doing. That is how innocent people are supposed to be protected by our laws.

Can't you see you are on the wrong side here? You are siding with people who are flaunting and ignoring the law for political purposes. Is that how you want America to be in the future? People who disagree with the powerful get thrown in jail?

We are right on the cusp of becoming like a communist country and losing our rights. Doesn't this scare you?

 

[Docscurlock]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion (thanks to a free country), but from what I'm seeing there is a tie back to Trump. Might not be a smoking gun direct tie, but the framework is obviously there. I have a feeling the continued hollow defense will be: "Nobody has actually heard anyone say the words 'quid pro quo' ". But like said before, a quid pro quo can be implied, asked for and conducted without hearing those exact words.

Nobody uses the words"quid pro quo" in a conversation. But in order for there to be a "quid pro quo" I, for example would have to say something like, "If you steal your neighbors car for me, i won't tell your wife I saw you with her sister." See, I want something nefarious and I bribe you with a reward or not carrying out with a threat. There was none of that in his phone call, no one who testified so far has said they were told that, no one was sent along to pass the message, no one has any proof that there were any conditions on Ukraine. Ukraine received the money and they never carried out any of the things people say Trump wanted. They got the potential reward without doing the favor already. This further shows there was no quid pro quo or bribery. This particular case should be closed.

I believe if Trump and Rudy sat next to each other in these hearings, and both looked at each other and said: "Yes, we specifically asked for a quid pro quo for the Ukraine to investigate Biden for an advantage in the 2020 election." that people would still not believe it happened, and those that did believe it would then think the POTUS has ever right to do that to help him win an election. It seems this country could be falling into the early stages of how corrupt countries become to be. That's not what our Constitution is about.

And Rudy saying in that article I linked to earlier saying: "And then I stepped on the number one minefield, which is Joe Biden ..." is funny, especially since the FEC warned everyone about asking a foreign country for personal political gain way before the July 25th phone call. And sounds like other schemes were going on since when Pres Z got elected and the July 25th phone call.

Look, is trump an angel? Hell no. But he is not guilty of what they are saying he has done, much like he was not a Russian plant or spy like they said he was. He has probably done shady deals, I have, you probably have not paid every cent you owe on taxes. If he is crooked, it will come out, but this is like I said before, shit!

Sponsored