Will Trump be impeached?

[GT Pony]

So just releasing the transcript for anyone to read isn't good enough for you? Guliani, while probably a scumbag in his own way, does not work for the government, he is a private individual, he is also a personal attorney, therefore he can't be made to talk because of attorney client priviledge.

Did you watch the hearings today? Morrison said the released transcrips of the call is not exact word for word. What's in the actual call that might not be in the transcript of the call? - that's what investigators need to know for sure. Just a few word changes from the recorded call to an edited transcript, or a few critical omissions can change some of the context and focus of the call. Others that heard the call testified (from memory only) that the transcript was "pretty accurate", but that could never be verified without comparing the transcript side by side with the call recording.

Why do you think Trump sent Rudy to the Ukraine if he's not an official gov't official or represents the US in any political capacity? Rudy and Trump both know the "client - lawyer privilege" and I wouldn't put it past them that Rudy was sent for nefarious reasons knowing he's immune to spill beans if shit hits the fan. That's what these ambassadors were also puzzeled about, wondering what Rudy was doing there and operating on an unofficial side channel. More onion needs to be peeled back on Rudy's role and involvement.

Sponsored

 

[GT Pony]

True, it was only Vidmam who used that specific word. Others that have testified may have used words like "not right", etc

QUOTE="bjstang, post: 2720144, member: 27640"]Former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison testified the President did not commit a quid-pro-quo, bribery, or any other offense as has no other witness. That's the bottom line.[/quote]

Agreed ... so far. Tomorrow's hearing will be interesting when Sondland testifies. There may be nobody that ever heard a "qualified" quid pro quo (maybe Sondland and/or Rudy), but still doesn't mean there wasn't some abuse of power for personal gain going on.

I don't agree with your response about Rudy. He was there for a reason, acting as a non-gov't official. Why do you think he was there as a "lawyer", which is all he is. More peeling required. Sondland might fiill in some of the blanks on Rudy's role in this whole Ukraine thing.

 

[GT Pony]

Then what about the call was put on a server - just the call transcript, and how was the call transcripted for accuracy? I was under the impression these calls are recorded. Maybe they should be.

Never claimed it was against the law for Rudy to be there. Asking why he was involved; what was his actual purpose there when he's not employed by, nor represents the US Gov't in any way. The ambassadors testifying mentioned an unofficial side channel operation going on with the Ukraine involving Rudy.

 

[GT Pony]

Hearings aren't over yet, so time will tell if there's any impeachable offenses. Even if Trump is charged with impeachable crimes, he won't be voted out of office by the Senate, I think we all know that ... so yeah, that makes it an even bigger waste of time and money.

 

[GT Pony]

I think Rudy's "operational channel" is lined with land mines. Reminds me of when Wile E. Coyote schemes to try and catch the Roadrunner he blows himself up instead, lol.

 

[GT Pony]

Based on some of the crazy things I've heard Rudy say, he might be changing his name to Wile E. Giuliani.

Need to get everyone mentioned in this article to testify under oath.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.html

 

[Docscurlock]

Did you watch the hearings today? Morrison said the released transcrips of the call is not exact word for word. What's in the actual call that might not be in the transcript of the call? - that's what investigators need to know for sure. Just a few word changes from the recorded call to an edited transcript, or a few critical omissions can change some of the context and focus of the call. Others that heard the call testified (from memory only) that the transcript was "pretty accurate", but that could never be verified without comparing the transcript side by side with the call recording.

I was addressing your concern about trying to hide the call by putting it in a secure server therefore obstructing investigation. The "as far as everyone that has testified can remember accurate" transcript was released for the entire country to read at their leisure. Doesn't seem a very effective way of hiding it. Face it, Trump called their bluff by releasing the transcript, he wasn't supposed to do that. He was supposed to claim executive priviledge and keep it secret. This way everyone in the country would be wondering what is really in the call. Now everyone sees it as a plain old call and all of this is partisan sideshow. Releasing the "as far as everyone can remember accurate" transcript is being about as transparent as possible. We never got any transparency from the previous administration.

QUOTE="GT Pony, post: 2720061, member: 14534"]Why do you think Trump sent Rudy to the Ukraine if he's not an official gov't official or represents the US in any political capacity? Rudy and Trump both know the "client - lawyer privilege" and I wouldn't put it past them that Rudy was sent for nefarious reasons knowing he's immune to spill beans if shit hits the fan. That's what these ambassadors were also puzzeled about, wondering what Rudy was doing there and operating on an unofficial side channel. More onion needs to be peeled back on Rudy's role and involvement.[/QUOTE]
What does it matter what Trump sent Rudy to Ukraine for? He can do whatever he wants with his own money and pay lawyers to do whatever he wants on his own dime. He probably is trying to get to the bottom for the whole Russian collusion hoax and evidence led them to that corrupt part of the world. Those ambassadors can be puzzled all day long and it doesn't matter. Did we look into everything that the Obama's paid their personal attorneys to do? Why the hypocrisy?

 

[Docscurlock]

Exactly, I read the transcript. I may be called to testify as to how I'm feeling and it would matter as much as 90% of the testimony so far.

 

[Timeless]

I see that our favorite Russian Trolls are here again with their little memes and disinformation campaign.

I’m not sure if they are trying to convince others or themselves with their propaganda??

RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA! LOLZ!

Russia interfered in our elections about as much as we interfere in every other countries elections.

You don't think we buy ads in other countries to try to influence elections? You don't think we probe other countries networks for vulnerabilities and exploit them when necessary?

Grow up.

 

[Weather Man]

 

[GT Pony]

What does it matter what Trump sent Rudy to Ukraine for? He can do whatever he wants with his own money and pay lawyers to do whatever he wants on his own dime.

He probably is trying to get to the bottom for the whole Russian collusion hoax and evidence led them to that corrupt part of the world. Those ambassadors can be puzzled all day long and it doesn't matter. Did we look into everything that the Obama's paid their personal attorneys to do? Why the hypocrisy?

It's starting to sound like: Trump > Rudy (middle man/messenger) > Ukraine political dirt digging assignment.

Planned to be a buffer/middle man between Trump and a quid pro quo (aid for political dirt) so Rudy can be thrown under the bus (Wile E. gets blown up) as a rogue operator if the scheme is discovered.

Keep peeling back the onion.

I don't think Obama used his lawyer to coordinate a political dirt digging operation. Do you have any info to show he did?

 

[Hack]

I don't think Obama used his lawyer to coordinate a political dirt digging operation. Do yo have any info to show he did?

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.

 

[GT Pony]

The July 25th phone call is now only one very small piece in this whole puzzle ... as the impeachment hearing seems to be proving.


Disagree ... the more people that were directly involved and called to testify the more the true picture becomes. Whole reason for hearings like this, main purpose of this established process.

I think "Fake News" is overblown, and typically used as an excuse people use to blow something off they don't agree with, even though they have no other more "un-fake" source to verify their thoughts on the subject matter.

Note in the testimony today, that Trump didn't make the "I want nothing, no quid pro quo" to Sondland (and made same announcement today) was done after the announcement of the whistleblower report and that an investigation would ensue. A quid pro quo seems to be what Sondland concluded with his involvement in all this. A person doesn't have to actually hear those words in this involvement to understand that Party A isn't going to get abc unless Party B does xyz.

And why are key people that are implicated to be involved refusing to testify after a served subpoena? Don't you think if there was a clear factual picture that absolutely nothing was done illegally that anyone called under subpoena to testify would do so.

 

[GT Pony]

Exactly, I read the transcript. I may be called to testify as to how I'm feeling and it would matter as much as 90% of the testimony so far.

See previous comment. You guys were not directly involved with all the dealings going on beyond the now pimple phone call. Your testimony would not even happen because it's way beyond that point now. Maybe if you were one of the call transcript writers before all this started snowballing, but not now.

Everyone focuses on the July 25th phone call, but that's just what basically raised the red flag to kick off this whole investigation. Analogous to the guy pulling the fire alarm after seeing smoke, yet people want to know who pulled the fire alarm and ignore further investigating the source of the smoke after looking and finding possible sources of the smoke.

Sponsored