Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

listermint

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being fair.

You can't dispute my points so you have to attack my character.

This is predictable, but unfortunate, and the reason I am hesitate to reply any further.

You've provided no points.

You've provided nonsense disproven talking points picked up off republican twitter and fox news. It's tiring. Do you not find it tiring.

Leroy42

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being fair.

You can't dispute my points so you have to attack my character.

This is predictable, but unfortunate, and the reason I am hesitate to reply any further.

Everyone has already torn all your 'points' apart.

You have shown no understanding of what has gone on, instead taking tiny portions of hours or testimony, without any context to what else has been said, to make a point.

Answer me this, what is Trump best known for? What has he sold himself as and shown open too throughout his presidency? Deals. Apparently the man is all about deals. He tried to make a deal with NK, with China.

Yet all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that Trump turned his nose up at the possibility to help himself from the needs of someone else?

It would be so out of character for Trump to act that way.

everlast75

Woodenfloor wrote: »

One would imagine Mr Holmes will be out of work soon.
Eavesdropping on an Ambassador and gossiping the phone call .
MS HILL very likable witness but one would wonder about her connections to the Brook inks Institute.
Unfortunately can't see past President Trump for 2020.

Get your eyes tested then.




Innuendo and character attacks. Avoid the fscts.

Classic move out of the Republican playbook.

OMM 0000

listermint wrote: »

You've provided no points.

You've provided nonsense disproven talking points picked up off republican twitter and fox news. It's tiring. Do you not find it tiring.

I've provided actual video footage where the EU Ambassador said Trump personally told him no quid pro quo.

I've provided a typed conversation of the video you provided which shows the conversation you thought was "proof" was actually about a separate topic, one the democrats supported.

You're really proving my point here. No matter what evidence is presented to you, you'll dismiss it. You can't even accept literal video testimony.

Frankly it's disturbing.

PropJoe10

StringerBell wrote: »

Which ones?

As a disclaimer I'm not sure how reputable this is, but:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents

OMM 0000

PropJoe10 wrote: »

As a disclaimer I'm not sure how reputable this is, but:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents

The same thing happened during the Clinton impeachment.

I don't have an explanation.

prinzeugen

Having watched most of the public testimony I am surprised one thing didn't get a mention.

Trump put a hold on the aid to Ukraine hours after his favourite TV show (Fox & Friends) showed a poll that had Trump trailing way behind Biden.

Coincidence?

Leroy42

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've provided actual video footage where the EU Ambassador said Trump personally told him no quid pro quo.

And you have been told that that was after the whistleblowers complaint came to light.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've provided a typed conversation of the video you provided which shows the conversation you thought was "proof" was actually about a separate topic, one the democrats supported.

You're really proving my point here. No matter what evidence is presented to you, you'll dismiss is. You can't even accept literal video testimony.

Frankly it's disturbing.

Mulvaney clearly stated that QPQ was done. Rudy has admitted that he was working on the Ukraine on behalf of Trump. We have numerous witnesses, under oath, state that it was understood what the QPQ was.

And we have a WH that has lied throughout the whole thing. Firstly trying to bury the call transcript, then leaving parts of the call out, then trying to spin what it all meant, and then refusing to take part in the investigation.

Are you saying that after listening to the last few days, that Trump has nothing to answer at all?

No one, not Trump, the GOP, anyone, has denied that Trump wanted Biden investigated.

OMM 0000

Leroy42 wrote: »

And you have been told that that was after the whistleblowers complaint came to light.

The testimony I provided is from yesterday.

My god, the mental gymnastics here are just insane.

I'm wasting my time.

Btw I absolutely accept Trump may be guilty, the issue for me is there is no actual evidence. Use facts, not feelings.

spacecoyote

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Some polls apparently showing more people turning against impeachment which I find absolutely staggering.

I think 538 did have an article stating that polling had moved away from inpeachment among independents, but in terms of timelines, that was all pre sondland, etc... so will be interesting to see if there is a change in direction again

TomOnBoard

[HTML][/HTML]

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm wasting my time.

Even worse, you're wasting ours. ..

Leroy42

Yes I know, but when was the phonecall, that you claim clears Trump, take place?

And when did the whistleblowers complaint come to light?

Christy42

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The testimony I provided is from yesterday.

My god, the mental gymnastics here are just insane.

I'm wasting my time.

Btw I absolutely accept Trump may be guilty, the issue for me is there is no actual evidence. Use facts, not feelings.

We know when the testimony is from. You are ignoring the context. Trump said it after he knew he was in trouble for this. He was saying it to try and get out of trouble he was in already. Sondland also said there was absolutely quid pro quo and people were aware of it.

Eye witness testimony is evidence. Right now we are down either he lost complete control and Rudi went rogue (but is somehow still not fired) or Trump was aware of the quid pro quo.

Overheal

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes I know, but when was the phonecall, that you claim clears Trump, take place?

And when did the whistleblowers complaint come to light?

Timeline:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

Christy42

spacecoyote wrote: »

I think 538 did have an article stating that polling had moved away from inpeachment among independents, but in terms of timelines, that was all pre sondland, etc... so will be interesting to see if there is a change in direction again

I mean is anyone surprised by what has come to light? Honestly?

Trump didn't particularly hide who he was 3 years ago and still won. If people didn't care then why would they care now? 3 years had little to do with Hillary, they just needed an excuse to hold their nose in the voting booth. They will find the same no matter who the Dems put forward next.

joe_99

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Amazing.

Here's him saying there was no quid pro quo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ

It's only 1 minute, watch it.

This is him quoting Trump. These are not his views but Trump's. Sondland said there was a quid pro quo.

Overheal

https://twitter.com/JamesGleick/status/1197642695218323456?s=20

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

Timeline:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/

This should be required reading for anyone posting here in order to allow for sensible discussion and debate and to prevent the attempts at gaslighting and deflection that some folks seem to revel in.

prinzeugen

TomOnBoard wrote: »

This should be required reading for anyone posting here in order to allow for sensible discussion and debate and to prevent the attempts at gaslighting and deflection that some folks seem to revel in.

I agree but who is paying the subscription fee?

aloyisious

Watching CNN now. Wolf Blitzer has said there's breaking news in respect of the impeachment moves, with a backdrop photo of Nancy Pelosi at a rostrum on screen. He's just reported that the Dems believe there's enough evidence for an impeachment move gathered at the hearings for the committee to get papers together and move on to a vote in congress soon. A CNN panel member has mentioned January next for a trial.

weisses

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The testimony I provided is from yesterday.

My god, the mental gymnastics here are just insane.

I'm wasting my time.

Btw I absolutely accept Trump may be guilty, the issue for me is there is no actual evidence. Use facts, not feelings.

From 2:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8ttkGLklo

QPQ yes or no according to Sondland ??

What Trump says or claims is irrelevant

kowloon

mcmoustache wrote: »

My interpretation of the current position is that there was no quid-pro-quo and the quid-pro-quo was perfectly OK.


It takes a special kind of mind to be able to do that.

It's like concentric rings of bull**** as a defence.

OMM 0000

weisses wrote: »

From 2:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8ttkGLklo

QPQ yes or no according to Sondland ??

What Trump says or claims is irrelevant

This is incredibly disturbing.

1. How can you not see you're being fed propaganda? The most important thing he said - Trump told him directly there's no quid quo pro - is omitted from the video.

2. The video you've provided is about Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani are different people.

Holy cow. We're screwed. Manipulating people is child's play.

I give up.

Christy42

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is incredibly disturbing.

1. How can you not see you're being fed propaganda? The most important thing he said - Trump told him directly there's no quid quo pro - is omitted from the video.

2. The video you've provided is about Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani are different people.

Holy cow. We're screwed. Manipulating people is child's play.

I give up.

Do you believe everyone should be let off if they say they didn't commit a crime? Seems like an easy way to get away with crimes really.

Giuliani is still employed by Trump... Should he be fired over this? Even arrested. Using taxpayer funds for his own goals and not even an elected official? And yet Trump seemingly stands by him.

PropJoe10

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is incredibly disturbing.

1. How can you not see you're being fed propaganda? The most important thing he said - Trump told him directly there's no quid quo pro - is omitted from the video.

2. The video you've provided is about Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani are different people.

Holy cow. We're screwed. Manipulating people is child's play.

I give up.

What you are basically doing here is this:

1) You are taking one line from Sondland's testimony as evidence that Trump did not want a quid pro quo

2) You're then disregarding all the other evidence of wrongdoing highlighted over this entire hearing process.

Did you watch any of Fiona Hill's testimony today? Or David Holmes? Or everything else that Sondland said outside of the clip you keep talking about? Or Tim Morrison?

All of these people (non-partisan diplomats) have indicated clearly that Trump was NOT interested in anything to do with Ukraine outside of Zelensky coming out and making a public statement about a Burisma/Biden investigation. Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, Bolton all knew of this. In fact, Sondland even said that Trump didn't seem to care whether or not the investigation actually happened. He just wanted Zelensky to announce it (and if I recall correctly) in an interview with CNN.

Trump saying on one phone call in a temper to Sondland that he didn't want a quid pro quo doesn't invalidate this evidence. That would be like someone calling up someone and saying that they had no plans to rob them, at the very same time they're having their crew rob them.

weisses

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is incredibly disturbing.

1. How can you not see you're being fed propaganda? The most important thing he said - Trump told him directly there's no quid quo pro - is omitted from the video.

2. The video you've provided is about Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani are different people.

Holy cow. We're screwed. Manipulating people is child's play.

I give up.

Guiliani acted on behalf of Trump ..as was testified over and over

Trump could have told him That there was no QPQ ... Sondland believed otherwise

Manipulation is childs play ... I think you provided a perfect example ... you are convinced after a 1 minute clip

You should give up .... You really should

Dohnjoe

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've provided actual video footage where the EU Ambassador said Trump personally told him no quid pro quo.

You've taken a tiny snippet of that, out of context.

Of course Trump openly stated "No QPQ". The problem for Trump is that all these witnesses are contradicting that statement. An increasingly clear picture is emerging that behind the scenes Trump was very much pushing for QPQ. A growing number of people who effectively worked for him are corroborating this.

You've attempted to narrow all of this down to one sound bite, a claim by Trump, a man who makes spurious claims on an almost daily basis.

drunkmonkey

PropJoe10 wrote: »

All of these people (non-partisan diplomats) have indicated clearly that Trump was NOT interested in anything to do with Ukraine outside of Zelensky coming out and making a public statement about a Burisma/Biden investigation. .

Not a single one of them have said the aid was held up on Trump's orders. Trumps only interest in Ukraine was the investigation, there not trying to impeach him for having an interest in the investigation into corruption by members of the party calling for impeachment.

Overheal

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Not a single one of them have said the aid was held up on Trump's orders.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/other/david-hale-white-house-budget-representative-said-trump-ordered-hold-on-ukraine-aid/vi-BBX49C0

Outlaw Pete

Christy42 wrote: »

That investigation is going nowhere fast. Get back to me when it gets some actual results.

Here you go: Some of the findings of IG Horowitz's report have been leaked:


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1197660620499357706

Exclusive: FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe

An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's review of the FBI's effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. Horowitz will release the report next month.

Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham's criminal probe.

It's unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI's investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document's meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

Horowitz's investigators conducted more than 100 witness interviews in their review. During one of interviews this year, they confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said.

The identity or rank of the FBI employee under investigation isn't yet known, and it's not clear whether the employee still works in the federal government.