President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Cody montana

Volker is throwing them all under the bus, while covering his own ass.

rosser44

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ok, well make a case for it.

Eehh... no. Those testifying are doing a perfectly good job in this regard

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ok, well make a case for it. Why do you consider him asking what he did to be an example of attempted bribery?

Zelensky is on record as saying he felt no pressure on the back of the requests.

Of course he's going to say that considering he's still reliant on US military aid, and that Trump can change his mind for those whom he sees going against him

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

Of course he's going to say that considering he's still reliant on US military aid, and that Trump can change his mind for those whom he sees going against him

Precisely why Republicans keep bringing up lethal aid that was released under Trump and not Obama - making it a nakedly partisan issue, not actually about whether that aid was going to be used to coerce the Ukrainians for the President’s personal agenda.

The President sets interagency policy, and if he is running his own policy counter to the interagency policy, that’s an alarming problem.

Water John

These are two witnesses called by the Reps!!!
Now their trying to vilify them.

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

Precisely why Republicans keep bringing up lethal aid that was released under Trump and not Obama - making it a nakedly partisan issue, not actually about whether that aid was going to be used to coerce the Ukrainians for the President’s personal agenda.

The President sets interagency policy, and if he is running his own policy counter to the interagency policy, that’s an alarming problem.

Another amusing moment yesterday was when some GOP committee member (dude with black hair is all I recall), badgered Lt. Col. Vindman about the Joe Biden talking about '6 hours to fire him or we'll withhold the aid." The Lt. Col. couldn't answer the childish "Is that wrong?!" question.

But really, the aid was not withheld, and the prosecutor not fired in 6 hours. So, by today's tGOP reasoning, no crime, right?

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

Of course he's going to say that considering he's still reliant on US military aid, and that Trump can change his mind for those whom he sees going against him

That's just a narrative and one which has little evidence to support it.

On one hand we're told Zelensky is much different that previous Ukraine politicians, that he won't tolerate corruption, and then the next it's: "He's lying because he wants the aid".

Nonsense. Either the guy is honourable or he's not.

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkN4P7R5stE

MeMen2_MoRi_

Nunes.. "Mr sondland you are here to be smeared".
The same words that should of been uttered to 4 of the 5 people who have testified so far.

PropJoe10

Devin Nunes is an absolute disgrace.

MeMen2_MoRi_

It was mentioned yesterday about vindman wearing his uniform, I think an appropriate "uniform" for nunes should come with a tinfoil hat.

ohnonotgmail

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

It was mentioned yesterday about vindman wearing his uniform, I think an appropriate "uniform" for nunes should come with a tinfoil hat.

a white jacket with long sleeves would be more appropriate. the guy is suing a cow for crying out loud.

Overheal

Forgot about the cow

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-20/abcarian-sunday-column

He has sued:

¤ A stone fruit farmer in Dinuba, and two other people, for conspiring to damage his 2018 reelection by asking that Nunes not be allowed to call himself a “farmer” on the ballot.

¤ The research firm Fusion GPS and a Democratic group called Campaign for Accountability for attempting to interfere with his “investigation” (quote marks are mine) into ties between President Trump and Russia when he was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

¤ Twitter and a couple of parody accounts, including @DevinCow, who has called Nunes “a treasonous cowpoke.” He is asking for $250 million to assuage his hurt feelings.

¤ McClatchy, parent company of Nunes’ hometown paper, the Fresno Bee, for writing that he had a financial interest in a winery sued by an employee who was asked to work on a charity cruise where men behaved very, very badly.

¤ And, most recently, Esquire magazine and the journalist Ryan Lizza, who Nunes claims have defamed him to the tune of $75 million in writing about the Nunes family dairy farm, which is not in California, but in Iowa, a fact Lizza alleged Nunes has sought to downplay. Lizza also wrote about how undocumented workers form the backbone of the Iowa dairy farm industry, and how the industry would collapse without them.

Outlaw Pete

Truth or untruth, Sondland is not a very convincing witness. Comes across as muddled.

Worth noting that he came to Morrison and told him he had made a mistake with what he had said Trump wanted, so it's not just his testimony he is like this, in the real world he doesn't even seem to be able to represent people adequately.

Him and Rudy are some pair for the Ukraine to have had to deal with.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Truth or untruth, Sondland is not a very unconvincing witness. Comes across as muddled.

Worth noting that he came to Morrison and told him he had made a mistake with what he had said Trump wanted, so it's not just his testimony he is like this, in the real world he doesn't even seem to be able to represent people adequately.

Him and Rudy are some pair for the Ukraine to have had to deal with.

Heh. Pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Agree about he and Rudy. Interesting Rick Perry's activities are getting more light of day, too.

And, yes, he's far from polished when testifying. Not unusual though, if you've never given testimony before it's daunting. Sondland's background is real estate.

Igotadose

Sondland describes "He loves you a*s" as Trumpspeak. Mentions "putting it in Trumpspeak" and how he and Trump swear a lot on calls.

Just.... eyerolling.

ohnonotgmail

Igotadose wrote: »

Heh. Pretty sure that's not what you meant.

Agree about he and Rudy. Interesting Rick Perry's activities are getting more light of day, too.

And, yes, he's far from polished when testifying. Not unusual though, if you've never given testimony before it's daunting. Sondland's background is real estate.

to be fair he is probably trying to remember which set of lies he is supposed to be saying today.

MeMen2_MoRi_

He keeps saying "announce investigation" though the txt from voulker says "will investigate"..

Outlaw Pete

"Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings"

Over folks, they can impeach him all they like - but with testimony like that there is no way the Senate would convict Trump of bribery.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Is that a gotcha moment there?

Outlaw Pete

The problem with statements which support the democrat narrative is that Sondland has also made contradictory statements which support the republican / Trump one.

Had he not said two or three of the latter, the former would be quite damning.

His testimony is a mess.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The problem with statements which support the democrat narrative is that Sondland has also made contradictory statements which support the republican / Trump one.

Had he not said two or three of the latter, the former would be quite damning.

His testimony is a mess.

which is why it should be ignored. he has changed his mind about what happened. he is not to be believed.

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The problem with statements which support the democrat narrative is that Sondland has also made contradictory statements which support the republican / Trump one.

Had he not said two or three of the latter, the former would be quite damning.

His testimony is a mess.

Just been watching a bit of the live proceedings there, and he's certainly in a mess. Trying to keep out of jail I think - like, claiming he knew there was a QPQ but he didn't know at the time that the QPQ was the Bidens, and now he agrees that it was always the Bidens but that he just didn't know. Like, yeah.

Now his problem is that because his defence for changing his testimony is that he's not a note taker, he's basically unable to contradict sworn testimony from others, eg that he himself mentioned the Bidens. And that's what's said to have happened at the restaurant. It also makes a lot more sense, if only because nobody is that naive.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Over folks, they can impeach him all they like - but with testimony like that there is no way the Senate would convict Trump of bribery.

He also said it was clear at the time of the call and txt messages that the aid was a condition of "announcing the investigation/investigating". Who weilds the power to with hold the aid? The man on the moon

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Over folks, they can impeach him all they like - but with testimony like that there is no way the Senate would convict Trump of bribery.

I know we all treat Trump like an idiot, because... well...

But just because Trump didn't explicitly say "The aid is contingent on the announcement of the investigation" doesn't mean it wasn't obvious that it was. As per his previous lawyer:

Michael Cohen said in testimony to Congress on Wednesday that President Donald Trump never directly ordered him to lie, but instead made his wishes clear by speaking in “code” understood by anyone who works with him.

“He doesn’t give you questions, he doesn’t give you orders, he speaks in a code. And I understand the code, because I’ve been around him for a decade,” testified Cohen, Trump’s former longtime personal attorney.

volchitsa

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

which is why it should be ignored. he has changed his mind about what happened. he is not to be believed.

When he is the only witness saying one thing, and the others are contradicting him, it's clearly the case that his credibility is less than most others - but when his testimony is in agreement with theirs, then all that means is there's no reason to doubt theirs, as some Republicans were trying to do.

Outlaw Pete

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

He also said it was clear at the time of the call and txt messages that the aid was a condition of "announcing the investigation/investigating". Who weilds the power to with hold the aid? The man on the moon

I agree with you, and that was one of the statements I suggested could be damning, but you're left with just his impressions and inferences when you take on board that he also said the POTUS said 'I want nothing, I want no QPQ!"

And also saying Trump never directly that the aid was conditioned.


https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197184322194853888

MeMen2_MoRi_

Penn wrote: »

I know we all treat Trump like an idiot, because... well...

But just because Trump didn't explicitly say "The aid is contingent on the announcement of the investigation" doesn't mean it wasn't obvious that it was. As per his previous lawyer:

Trumpspeak I think it's called lol

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I agree with you, and that was one of the statements I suggested could be damning, but you're left with just his impressions and inferences when you take on board that he also said the POTUS said 'I want nothing, I want no QPQ!"

And also saying Trump never directly that the aid was conditioned.


https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197184322194853888

I wouldn't hang my case on that soundbyte. Remember, all of these fact witnesses can re-appear before the judiciary committee and the impeachment trial

duploelabs

Is Nunes actually questioning or just making statements for the press? Sonderland doesn't seem to know anything he's asking