Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[Strike 5,607]

9 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Just getting caught on on the day.  Looks like the Dems FINALLY brought forth a witness testimony that actually presents some sort of value.  GAH, about time.

1. Sonland does believe there was a quid pro quo via multiple conversations

2. He did however testify directly today that he directly asked Trump if thats what he wanted, and Trump flat out said NO.

Sort of all over the place.

Here's the problem.  From what I've read, Sondland didn't say there was Quid Pro Quo re: investigating Biden.  He said there was Quid Pro Quo re: a meeting with Trump at the  White House, which would not be illegal or unethical.  Basically, Trump wasn't going to meet with him unless he did certain things, if you believe Sondland.  But this impeachment is supposed to be about extortion/bribery on a phone call re: investigating Biden.  Funny how the goalposts change constantly with these Dems.  But, as Worms told us on 11/5, Sondland has already perjured himself so why should we believe him NOW?

[IGotWorms 4,059]

33 minutes ago, DonS said:

What's the controversy regarding Sondland's previous testimony?  Didn't he revise his statements a few times or something? 

Yes basically he originally said there was no quid pro quo then when that talking point/lie fell apart he had to come clean and admit there was

[DonS 3,292]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

So a conversation like this...

Trump:  You tell them, if they don't give me the investigations, no money, no meetings!

Sondland:  You want a Quid Pro Quo? 

Trump:  No, I don't like French food.   

[Herbivore 1,142]

On September 24, 2019 at 5:44 PM, Filthy Fernadez said:

Do you liberals actually think if Trump threatened to with hold funds unless Ukraine investigates Biden that Trump would release that transcript unredacted?

 

 

I'm going to laugh my a$$ off if the transcript has evidence against Obama officials including Biden.  

 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Just now, Strike said:

Here's the problem.  From what I've read, Sondland didn't say there was Quid Pro Quo re: investigating Biden.  He said there was Quid Pro Quo re: a meeting with Trump at the  White House, which would not be illegal or unethical.  Basically, Trump wasn't going to meet with him unless he did certain things, if you believe Sondland.  I'm sure that happens all the time with foreign governments.  But, as Worms told us on 11/5, Sondland has already perjured himself so why should we believe him NOW?

He said he didn’t know there was quid pro quo re the Bidens at the time. Now he knows there was, as we all do

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Just now, lickin_starfish said:

Let's get this thing moving now. The House needs to impeach Trump so we can get this into the Senate, when REAL evidence can be laid out for the public. Hurry up, Nancy! I don't want to lose my justice boner.

The witness list in the Senate would indeed be a nightmare for the Dems. A whole lot of "On the advice of counsel, I plead the fifth".

Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Ciarimella, Vindman unfetered, etc...

[DonS 3,292]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Yes basically he originally said there was no quid pro quo then when that talking point fell apart he had to come clean and admit there was

So he lied under oath then?  That sounds like that would cast doubt on anything he says, but that's just me. 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

And yes he lied before but, critically, it was to PROTECT the administration. So for the administration to now attack his credibility is a little rich—yes he did lie, FOR THEM.

[Strike 5,607]

Just now, DonS said:

So he lied under oath then?  That sounds like that would cast doubt on anything he says, but that's just me. 

Yes, that's a basic legal concept.  You don't trust anything someone says once they've been caught in a lie.  If Worms was actually a lawyer he'd know that.  And, since Sondland's testimony supports his POV he's willing to overlook that simple concept.

[Strike 5,607]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

And yes he lied before but, critically, it was to PROTECT the administration. So for the administration to now attack his credibility is a little rich—yes he did lie, FOR THEM.

Rationalize it any way you want, fake lawyer boy.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

4 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

 

Que?

[Herbivore 1,142]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

Rationalize it any way you want, fake lawyer boy.

Dig those heels in

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

15 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Just his word.  Unless you're saying he was... lying (but you all are saying he doesn't do that).

I think he was telling the truth. You don't . You don't seem to believe him at all. Maybe you should read the whole statement? Or just rely on what you're spoon fed. 

[Kanil 520]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I think he was telling the truth. You don't . You don't seem to believe him at all. Maybe you should read the whole statement? Or just rely on what you're spoon fed. 

When you say "statement", do you mean the video of him saying it?

[5-Points 3,581]

23 minutes ago, Kanil said:

Just his word.  Unless you're saying he was... lying (but you all are saying he doesn't do that).

Conversely, you all claim he lies constantly about everything but somehow believe he was telling the truth about grabbing women by their poosays and suggesting it was against their will. Hypocrite much?

By the way, he never said he grabbed anybody by the poosay, he said "you can..." He never said "I grabbed them by the poosay."

And his point was that they allow you to do so because you're rich and famous and theyre hoping to hook up with you. So it isn't any kind of assault at that point, it's consensual. 

:yawn:

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

1 minute ago, Kanil said:

When you say "statement", do you mean the video of him saying it?

Yes. Why don't you believe him? You have read or heard the statement, right? 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

"They let you". But let's leave that out. Suckers. "They let you". What business is it of anyone's what two consenting adults  ( which is clearly laid out) do? 

[KSB2424 3,148]

All of these witnesses had a feeling, or "presumed" that there may be a quid pro quo linking the Ukraine aid to Ukraine going after the Biden's.  However nobody has testified that they were actually told to do that or heard anything direct in regards.

So this presumption will be good enough for the Democrats, and they will go forward with articles of impeachment in the House.

Having no direct evidence will not be good enough for the Senate where the impeachment will die.

Pretty much just split down party lines......and then we'll have the 2020 election and we will see what the American people think.

[lickin_starfish 1,942]

In America, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, just how the Forefathers envisioned it.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Most of these fockers are p!ssed Trump didn't keep the staus quo in regard to Ukraine foreign policy. Just like so called financial experts criticized his tarriffs which ended up working.

Some of them are guilty of nefarious actions like Yovanovitch spying on journalists or Vindman telling Ukraine to disregard Trump.

[5-Points 3,581]

40 minutes ago, Strike said:

Here's the problem.  From what I've read, Sondland didn't say there was Quid Pro Quo re: investigating Biden.  He said there was Quid Pro Quo re: a meeting with Trump at the  White House, which would not be illegal or unethical.  Basically, Trump wasn't going to meet with him unless he did certain things, if you believe Sondland.  But this impeachment is supposed to be about extortion/bribery on a phone call re: investigating Biden.  Funny how the goalposts change constantly with these Dems.  But, as Worms told us on 11/5, Sondland has already perjured himself so why should we believe him NOW?

Speaking of goalposts moving, now we aren't even talking about the Ukranians promising to conduct an investigation into the Biden's but rather simply making a statement that they intend to investigate Burisma.

Seems pretty focking benign to me. 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,518]

Now it's not about military aid to Ukraine, which was so important to our national defense. Now we're on to a meeting at the White House. A photo op. Nice case you got going there Schiff. Heavy, heavy stuff. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Ukraine Parliment demanding Trump/Zelinsky investigate....

https://t.co/hOIK3Hf8sl?amp=1

[Strike 5,607]

1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

Speaking of goalposts moving, now we aren't even talking about the Ukranians promising to conduct an investigation into the Biden's but rather simply making a statement that they intend to investigate Burisma.

Seems pretty focking benign to me. 

 

 

What has stuck out to me during all this testimony is how many people have said that nothing they heard on the call between Trump and the Ukraine raised any flags.  Everyone said it was just a normal phone call between heads of state.  Some seem a bit peeved that Trump told them to work through Rudy, because it's not how previous presidents have operated.  Here's the thing though.  Guess who gets to set policy and procedure?  The focking President.  So if he wants to do it differently that's his prerogative. 

[5-Points 3,581]

8 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Most of these fockers are p!ssed Trump didn't keep the staus quo in regard to Ukraine foreign policy. Just like so called financial experts criticized his tarriffs which ended up working.

Some of them are guilty of nefarious actions like Yovanovitch spying on journalists or Vindman telling Ukraine to disregard Trump.

Correct and the status quo policy in regards to Ukraine, as set forth by the previous administration, was to not provide any lethal aid whatsoever. But now they want to claim Trump doesn't care about Ukraine at all, he only cares about himself. Even though he was the one who actually provided the much needed lethal aid Ukraine needs. 

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

57 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

BTW.....You never addressed a point from earlier this week.

Guilliani has been digging around Ukraine since at least March 2019 and Biden didn't announce til late April 2019. How does one target someone BEFORE they make a decision?

Also, Yovanovitch gets fired April 24th. Biden announced April 25th. Has it occured to you that since the whistle blower, Eric Ciarimella worked with Biden and had deep ties in Ukraine (as well as those diplomats who acted illegally) this is nothing more than a distraction?

The river of dirty money that was pilfered in Ukraine (IMF loans, USAID funds, etc) implicates a lot of people. Kerrys, Bidens, etc.....Soros.

Still waiting Worms. Maybe Kanil, Herbivore or Honcho can resolve those for you.

[Strike 5,607]

BOMBSHELL!!!!
 

Quote

 

"On July 25, 2019, Presidents Trump and Zelensky had their official call. I was not on the call. In fact, I first read the transcript on September 25, the same day it was publicly released,” Sondland said during his opening statement.

“All I had heard at the time was that the call had gone well,” he continued. “Looking back, I find it very odd that neither I nor Ambassador Taylor nor Ambassador Volker ever received a detailed read-out of that call with the Biden references.”

“Now, there are people who say they had concerns about that call. No one shared any concerns about the call with me at the time, when it would have been very helpful to know,” Sondland added

 

 

[5-Points 3,581]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

What has stuck out to me during all this testimony is how many people have said that nothing they heard on the call between Trump and the Ukraine raised any flags.  Everyone said it was just a normal phone call between heads of state.  Some seem a bit peeved that Trump told them to work through Rudy, because it's not how previous presidents have operated.  Here's the thing though.  Guess who gets to set policy and procedure?  The focking President.  So if he wants to do it differently that's his prerogative. 

Exactly. 

And considering all the buIIshit leaks and lies that Trump has had to deal with since day 1, it's neither surprising or alarming that he would choose to have somebody he feels he can trust be involved in some of the goings on. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Working through Guilliani took them out of control of information in both directions. Some got their pride/egos bruised while others are terrified of what Guilliani and Trump find out.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/impeachment-surprise-how-adam-schiff-validated-my-reporting-on-ukraine/

By the way, another great article by John Solomon.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

33 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

All of these witnesses had a feeling, or "presumed" that there may be a quid pro quo linking the Ukraine aid to Ukraine going after the Biden's.  However nobody has testified that they were actually told to do that or heard anything direct in regards.

So this presumption will be good enough for the Democrats, and they will go forward with articles of impeachment in the House.

Having no direct evidence will not be good enough for the Senate where the impeachment will die.

Pretty much just split down party lines......and then we'll have the 2020 election and we will see what the American people think.

Yeah that’s the new defense. Sondland misunderstood. The interesting part is he references records the state department is refusing to produce or even provide to Sondland which could apparently shed some further light

[IGotWorms 4,059]

19 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Speaking of goalposts moving, now we aren't even talking about the Ukranians promising to conduct an investigation into the Biden's but rather simply making a statement that they intend to investigate Burisma.

Seems pretty focking benign to me. 

 

 

That’s not accurate

[IGotWorms 4,059]

17 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Now it's not about military aid to Ukraine, which was so important to our national defense. Now we're on to a meeting at the White House. A photo op. Nice case you got going there Schiff. Heavy, heavy stuff. 

This isn’t accurate either

[IGotWorms 4,059]

13 minutes ago, Strike said:

BOMBSHELL!!!!
 

 

What do you think this means? To me Sondland is saying hey, I didn’t know the Bidens were included, I didn’t find out until the July 25 summary was released, so don’t look at me. Which is pretty much the whole tenor of his testimony.

[5-Points 3,581]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s not accurate

According to Goldman it is. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

What do you think this means? To me Sondland is saying hey, I didn’t know the Bidens were included, I didn’t find out until the July 25 summary was released, so don’t look at me. Which is pretty much the whole tenor of his testimony.

Seems about right.  He is claiming he was in the dark, and is only looking at past events with current events in mind.  Timeline is obviously important to prove this.  He did say that no one seemed too concerned at the time, at least concerned enough to notify those in high places.  Lends credence to a well kept plan. 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Notice how he keeps dodging actual questions while just saying 'that isn't accurate' while providing no info that he believes to be correct should it be refuted (again).

[Herbivore 1,142]

21 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Still waiting Worms. Maybe Kanil, Herbivore or Honcho can resolve those for you.

it was quid pro quo, Trump and pals tried to smear political opponent via conspiracy theories, you dont care.  your conspiracy theories are no better.

[Strike 5,607]

16 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What do you think this means? To me Sondland is saying hey, I didn’t know the Bidens were included, I didn’t find out until the July 25 summary was released, so don’t look at me. Which is pretty much the whole tenor of his testimony.

That no one thought the call was out of the ordinary.  I mean, there were like 25 people listening in on the call.  They weren't all Trump lackeys.  Yet no one thought it was out of the ordinary enough to report it until much later. 

See, the difference you and I have is that I can see why Trump asked for the investigation(s).  And I don't know but have no reason to believe he was targeting Biden.  It's unfortunate that Biden ended up in the cross hairs but that says more about Biden and the swamp than it does Trump.  But you're biased.  Everything Trump does you assume is corrupt, much like I do with Hitlery.  And that's fine.  But so far the evidence here is lacking. 

If you really cared about corruption you'd want the Burisma/Biden thing investigated too.  No one in their right mind thinks Hunter Biden got that gig due to his merits.  And if his dad or just his family lineage got him the job that's a problem.  Even the Obama administration expressed concerns about it.  But because TRUMP we don't want it investigated?  Please.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

5 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

it was quid pro quo, Trump and pals tried to smear political opponent via conspiracy theories, you dont care.  your conspiracy theories are no better.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about?  

[Kanil 520]

39 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Still waiting Worms. Maybe Kanil, Herbivore or Honcho can resolve those for you.

You seem to think I have skin in caring about the impeachment.  I've only pointed out hypocrisy.