President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

It was a response that took Sondland hours to compose after consulting the President directly.

Your contention fits the timeline alright. Any proof?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Your contention fits the timeline alright. Any proof?

He testified as much to Congress last week.

”Sondland now says he only claimed there was no quid pro quo because Trump repeatedly assured him of it in a direct phone call — regardless of whether it was true.

“And I recall the president was in a bad mood,” Sondland said in his opening statement.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/gordon-sondland-to-break-from-trump-in-impeachment-testimony-000288

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

He testified as much to Congress last week.

”Sondland now says he only claimed there was no quid pro quo because Trump repeatedly assured him of it in a direct phone call — regardless of whether it was true.

“And I recall the president was in a bad mood,” Sondland said in his opening statement.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/gordon-sondland-to-break-from-trump-in-impeachment-testimony-000288

Read through that, my question is, was that in the time between the texts? Where is the evidence that it broke as news in between as suggested in this thread?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Read through that, my question is, was that in the time between the texts? Where is the evidence that it broke as news in between as suggested in this thread?

Yes, Sondland spoke directly with the president before responding to Bill Taylor

“ During his closed-door testimony before the House committees probing impeachment on Thursday, Sondland discussed the circumstances surrounding the text. It was already known that Sondland spoke to Trump on the phone just before he sent the text message to another U.S. diplomat who expressed concern about their dealings with Ukraine. But the admission that Trump tacitly pushed him into sending it by repeatedly assuring him there was no quid pro quo is new.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-trump-quid-pro-quo-text

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, Sondland spoke directly with the president before responding to Bill Taylor

“ During his closed-door testimony before the House committees probing impeachment on Thursday, Sondland discussed the circumstances surrounding the text. It was already known that Sondland spoke to Trump on the phone just before he sent the text message to another U.S. diplomat who expressed concern about their dealings with Ukraine. But the admission that Trump tacitly pushed him into sending it by repeatedly assuring him there was no quid pro quo is new.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-trump-quid-pro-quo-text

That confirms that Trump told him their was no QPQ in the time frame discussed but does not confirm it was because the news had revealed it, as contended here.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

That confirms that Trump told him their was no QPQ in the time frame discussed but does not confirm it was because the news had revealed it, as contended here.

Revealed what?

Overheal

Put this nail in this coffin right now with Sondlands own opening statement from his sworn testimony:

“ On September 9, 2019, Acting Charge de Affairs/Ambassador William Taylor raised concerns about the possibility that Ukrainians could perceive a linkage between U.S. security assistance and the President's 2020 reelection campaign.

Taking the issue seriously, and given the many versions of speculation that had been circulating about the security aid, I called President Trump directly. I asked the President: "What do you want from Ukraine?" The President responded, "Nothing. There is no quid pro quo." The President repeated: "no quid pro quo" multiple times. This was a very short call. And I recall the President was in a bad mood.

I tried hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is a valuable and effective diplomat and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine mission. I further encouraged Ambassador Taylor to contact Secretary Pompeo, as I followed up as far as I could go. As you have seen in the press, my contemporaneous messages support my recollection.”

Yes: Sondland read Bill Taylors text, then he called the president, had the call, then wrote the lengthy response back to Taylor, that ‘the President was crystal clear, no QPQ’

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770714277/read-gordon-sondlands-opening-statement-to-congress

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Revealed what?

The texts.
I was referring to this

duploelabs wrote: »

Yeah that was fire control, that text conversant happened after the story broke

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The texts.
I was referring to this

Well the texts did happen weeks after the call, weeks after the whistleblower complaint was filed. We will surely get more clarification today.

MadYaker

osarusan wrote: »

He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth.

The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him.

I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall.

Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles.

At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.

As long as the economy remains strong I think he's likely to be able to maintain enough grassroots support among GOP voters to prevent the GOP as a whole from turning on him. The corruption and the lies don't matter to these people and they don't seem interested in holding him to any legal or moral standards. At grassroots level the republican party is basically the trump party and although his support has been eroded slightly over the last couple of months he still has a very high approval rating with right leaning voters.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Well the texts did happen weeks after the call, weeks after the whistleblower complaint was filed. We will surely get more clarification today.

I was unaware of the time line. I am still mistrustful of the behind closed doors element of this inquiry.
The longer this circus continues the more they hand advantage to Trump.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I was unaware of the time line. I am still mistrustful of the behind closed doors element of this inquiry.
The longer this circus continues the more they hand advantage to Trump.

Closed door elements are part and parcel of Congress. Numerous closed door hearings took place for the Benghazi panel(s), and even more recently suspects and parties of interest in the Mueller investigation, including Robert Mueller himself and James Comey, all gave closed door testimony often in addition to public session testimony.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Closed door elements are part and parcel of Congress. Numerous closed door hearings took place for the Benghazi panel(s), and even more recently suspects and parties of interest in the Mueller investigation, including Robert Mueller himself and James Comey, all gave closed door testimony often in addition to public session testimony.

Yes I spent good time going over the closed door elements of some of the McCarthy hearings. I believe they are used to keep the public ignorant of facts that directly affect them, in a very negative way.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes I spent good time going over the closed door elements of some of the McCarthy hearings. I believe they are used to keep the public ignorant of facts that directly affect them, in a very negative way.

Well, they aren’t going away any time soon.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Well, they aren’t going away any time soon.

Nor will the full contents of this one be revealed any time soon.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Nor will the full contents of this one be revealed any time soon.

Far far sooner than the practice going away. We do after all already have his opening statement

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Far far sooner than the practice going away. We do after all already have his opening statement

Don't kid yourself, it will be partisan and selective, like Pelosi's fact sheet.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Don't kid yourself, it will be partisan and selective, like Pelosi's fact sheet.

Or the Nunes memo.

Let’s be clear though, the pelosi sheet excluding the Sondland text was a favor - it does nothing to exculpate the President, it only confirms Trump was engaged in an attempt to coverup quid pro quo that was facilitated by Sondland.

mcmoustache

First the opening statements will be released.

After or maybe even during the hearing, there will be leaks from each side. Nobody has a monopoly on leaks.

After the hearing, some documentary evidence might be released if available. This is Schiff's call in this house session (Nunes had the same powers in the last session).

Later on, transcripts will be released and some portions may be subject to classification.

At some point, there will be public hearings. The purpose of these will be to both take the public through what happened and also rant about physical servers in Ukraine and maybe some Hillary Clinton.

After that, I'm not sure where things will go.

Cody montana

New: Per source in the room, Bill Taylor’s opening statement was 15 pages long and prompted “a lot of sighs and gasps.”

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Or the Nunes memo.

Let’s be clear though, the pelosi sheet excluding the Sondland text was a favor - it does nothing to exculpate the President, it only confirms Trump was engaged in an attempt to coverup quid pro quo that was facilitated by Sondland.

I think it only proves that Trump gave assurances to Sondland, an amateur Ambassador.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I think it only proves that Trump gave assurances to Sondland, an amateur Ambassador.

One that paid Trump $1M through his inauguration fund for the pleasure.

Overheal

Cody montana wrote: »

New: Per source in the room, Bill Taylor’s opening statement was 15 pages long and prompted “a lot of sighs and gasps.”

Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN that Taylor was being “candid,” but did not provide details about his morning testimony.

“He’s filling in some gaps,” Bera said, adding that Taylor’s resume makes it hard for Republicans and the White House to impugn his credibility.

“His memory and recollection seems to be a lot better than Ambassador Sondland’s,” Bera said, referring to Trump donor and ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who appeared before the committees last week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diplomat-who-raised-alarm-about-withholding-aid-to-ukraine-testifies-in-impeachment-probe/2019/10/22/086fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

Bobtheman

I wish I had time to rea d all the posts here but we know that unless public opinion swings against Trump this won't pass the Senate where it really happens . So far his base is behind him but depends on what comes out. What's out there at the moment ain't enough

MadYaker

So is Sondland just a Trump stooge then who's going to protect the dear leader? You'd wonder how all these rich, accomplished and presumably smart people could think it was wise to get involved with a loose cannon like trump?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN that Taylor was being “candid,” but did not provide details about his morning testimony.

“He’s filling in some gaps,” Bera said, adding that Taylor’s resume makes it hard for Republicans and the White House to impugn his credibility.

“His memory and recollection seems to be a lot better than Ambassador Sondland’s,” Bera said, referring to Trump donor and ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who appeared before the committees last week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diplomat-who-raised-alarm-about-withholding-aid-to-ukraine-testifies-in-impeachment-probe/2019/10/22/086fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

I wish you'd stop posting links that are inaccessible. Do you get "Da papers" for free?

Overheal

MadYaker wrote: »

So is Sondland just a Trump stooge then who's going to protect the dear leader? You'd wonder how all these rich, accomplished and presumably smart people could think it was wise to get involved with a loose cannon like trump?

Trump won, Republicans controlled Congress, they expected 4 years of limited if not zero accountability. Then Mike Flynn happened...

Spencerfreeman

MadYaker wrote: »

So is Sondland just a Trump stooge then who's going to protect the dear leader? You'd wonder how all these rich, accomplished and presumably smart people could think it was wise to get involved with a loose cannon like trump?

Ambassadorships are 'Grace and Favour' jobs with great perks. In the case of actual politicians getting one it can be to remove you from the domestic political arena.

mcmoustache

Bobtheman wrote: »

I wish I had time to rea d all the posts here but we know that unless public opinion swings against Trump this won't pass the Senate where it really happens . So far his base is behind him but depends on what comes out. What's out there at the moment ain't enough

A large part of his base won't change their minds on Trump. it's a strange phenomenon but it is what it is.

At the moment, support for impeachment and removal is at around 50% and on an upward trajectory. Clinton and Nixon were on 32% and 58% respectively by the end.

I don't think it's possible for the numbers to go up to 58% in this case but that depends on how Trump behaves over the next few weeks.

But, lets say it gets to something like 53% or 54%. This would put the republicans in a tight spot. If the republicans clear him in the face of clear evidence of wrong-doing, that will annoy and motivate a lot of voters to turf them out.

That wouldn't normally be a big deal, depending on which senators are up for reelection in 2020. The thing is, out of 35 seats, 23 are republican and 12 are democrat held. To make things worse, several republican senators are already polling poorly (Thillis, Gardner, Ernst, Collins and McSally). The Dems don't have that problem at the moment.

I don't know exactly how this will factor into their decision making but it will certainly be considered.

mcmoustache

MadYaker wrote: »

So is Sondland just a Trump stooge then who's going to protect the dear leader? You'd wonder how all these rich, accomplished and presumably smart people could think it was wise to get involved with a loose cannon like trump?

He'll try and cover his ass with some amnesia and avoid incriminating himself. That said, he doesn't strike me as someone who would take pressure well.

I think he thought the ambassadorship would be a handy junket and didn't expect to be dragged into a something resembling a criminal conspiracy. He probably didn't even know that asking for electoral help from a foreign government was illegal.