What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Red said:
But, when he was recalled to testify, Sondland in fact confirmed the quid pro quo:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...uid-pro-quo-but-denies-he-heard-it-from-trump

The least you could do is fact check your information, and get the timeline correct. Some of the tweets you have posted contain erroneous information, or, in this case, were revised upon further testimony. You're just like your boy Trump. Just sling the ****, and actually think nobody will notice or care....
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I was listening to the live hearing after Sondland revised his testimony. Despite the everyone was in the loop comment, when asked directly under oath what the president said to him he said "no quid pro quo." Am I mis-remembering something?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
MARK STEYN ON IMPEACHMENT: Objection: Sad!

This time I’m the one disinclined to follow along. The left, being not terribly imaginative, always accuse you of what they’re doing themselves. So, in this case, President Trump is charged with interfering with the 2020 election by men who have been interfering with the 2016 and 2020 elections for over three-and-a-half years now. Which is why we have the preposterous spectacle of four Democrat presidential candidates preparing to vote to remove from office the guy they’re running against.

This is a joke. I gave up on it when, on the eve of the trial, the laughably named “Government Accountability Office” released its supposedly entirely separate conclusion that Trump had acted “illegally”. Aside from the fact that that “finding” is flat out wrong, I wonder whether the permanent bureaucracy ever thinks, “Gee, maybe we should be a little more subtle about putting our Deep State thumbs on the scale.”

Read the whole thing.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I'm pretty sure I was listening to the live hearing after Sondland revised his testimony. Despite the everyone was in the loop comment, when asked directly under oath what the president said to him he said "no quid pro quo." Am I mis-remembering something?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, you are mis-remembering. This is what Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations said while under oath:



And of course Trump denied that there was a quid pro quo to Sondland. They both probably felt like Taylor was saving texts. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an quid pro quo. Sondland testified to the truthfulness that he received the described text but Sondland testified under Oath that the text wasn't truthful. He even admitted that there was a clear quid pro quo. I mean, we have Trump's actions to prove that:

  • Sending Rudy and working with Lev Parnas.
  • Pressuring President Poroshenko to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens.
  • Defaming Marie Yovanovitch with John Solomon and Rudy and removing her because she wasn't corrupt.
  • Pressuring President Zeleksky to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens. "Donald, I need the desperately needed anti-tank javelins." "Zelensky, of course, do me a favor though..." What else do you need? If you're expecting Donald to actually use quid pro quo, then you're going to be sorely mistaken.
  • Halting the aid so abruptly that even the Republican controlled Senate began to investigate why.
  • DOJ halting the whistleblower complaint.
  • Smearing witnesses like Vindman.
  • Attempting to out the whistleblower.
  • Admitting on the south lawn that he wanted even China to investigate his political opponent.
  • Trump's obstruction of justice. If he's really so innocent, why isn't her permitting his cabinet to speak?
I mean, Trump's denials to Sen Johnson and Ambassador Sondland really don't mean anything when you consider the evidence we already know about his crime, right? I mean, Nixon denied knowing anything about Watergate. But when you consider his administration's actions, the bungled cover-up, and the tapes, it's pretty obvious that his denials were pathetic lies, right? Just like your boy's text to Sondland!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Thriller said:
Yes, you are correct, you are mis-remembering. This is what Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations said while under oath:

Click to expand...

Based on what you just posted I don't feel that I mis-remembered at all. He made some bombshell claims which were almost completely neutered on cross-examination. He never presented any evidence of a quid pro quo or of being told that the investigation was tied to the aid. In the end it simply seemed to be a sense that he had. His sense might have been correct, but he did not have actual evidence to back it up. As a matter of fact, his actual evidence pointed in the opposite direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Political Jazz Fan said:
Jerry Nadler Admits He’s Got No Impeachment Case
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/01/23/jerry-nadler-admits-hes-got-no-case/
Click to expand...

The media you consume really sucks. You really need to trust in better sources that actually inform. He wasn't claiming that they didn't know anything. You're ripping a quote out of context from the argument he was making.

Your media source is lying to you.

Let me give you some free advice, if you have to lie to "prove" that your side is innocent, then your side is guilty.
Nadler then asserts that the president’s actions were driven by a desire "to obtain a corrupt advantage for his re-election campaign."

"As we will show the president went to extraordinary lengths to cheat in the next election," Nadler says, recounting the president’s efforts to remove Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Kyiv.

"The truth is that Ambassador Yovanovitch was the victim of a smear campaign organized by Rudy Giuliani, amplified by President Trump's allies, and designed to give President Trump the pretext he needed to recall her without warning," Nadler says.

"With Ambassador Yovanovitch out of the way, the first chapter of the Ukraine scheme was complete. Mr. Giuliani and his agents could now apply direct pressure to the Ukrainian government to spread these two falsehoods," Nadler says. "And who benefited from this scheme? Who sent Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine in the first place? Of course we could rephrase that question as the former Republican leader of the Senate Howard Baker first asked it in 1973: 'What did the president know and when did he know it?'"
Click to expand...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen...updates-democrats-make-case/story?id=68448840
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Based on what you just posted I don't feel that I mis-remembered at all. He made some bombshell claims which were almost completely neutered on cross-examination. He never presented any evidence of a quid pro quo or of being told that the investigation was tied to the aid. In the end it simply seemed to be a sense that he had. His sense might have been correct, but he did not have actual evidence to back it up. As a matter of fact, his actual evidence pointed in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Of course Trump denied that there was a quid pro quo to Sondland. Sondland testified to the truthfulness that he received such a text from Trump. But Sondland admitted that there was a clear quid pro quo; Trump lied. His text was a lie. Are we clear on that?

His entire testimony talked about how he and Rudy were working to compel Ukraine into announcing an investigation on Biden. Sondland provided testimony that Trump didn't care about corruption in Ukraine.

As far as evidence, what evidence exonerates Trump?
  • Sending Rudy and working with Lev Parnas.
  • Pressuring President Poroshenko to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens.
  • Defaming Marie Yovanovitch with John Solomon and Rudy and removing her because she wasn't corrupt.
  • Pressuring President Zeleksky to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens. "Donald, I need the desperately needed anti-tank javelins." "Zelensky, of course, do me a favor though..." What else do you need? If you're expecting Donald to actually use quid pro quo, then you're going to be sorely mistaken.
  • Halting the aid so abruptly that even the Republican controlled Senate began to investigate why.
  • DOJ halting the whistleblower complaint.
  • Smearing witnesses like Vindman.
  • Attempting to out the whistleblower.
  • Bolton distancing himself from "the drug deal that Rudy is cooking up."
  • Bolton sending his aid to lawyers over this corrupt quid pro quo.
  • Admitting on the south lawn that he wanted even China to investigate his political opponent.
  • Trump's obstruction of justice. If he's really so innocent, why isn't her permitting his cabinet to speak?
I mean, seriously, you can't be this dumb, right? What about this exonerates Trump?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Thriller said:
Of course Trump denied that there was a quid pro quo to Sondland. Sondland testified to the truthfulness that he received such a text from Trump. But Sondland admitted that there was a clear quid pro quo. His entire testimony talked about how he and Rudy were working to compel Ukraine into announcing an investigation on Biden. Sondland provided testimony that Trump didn't care about corruption in Ukraine.

As far as evidence, what evidence exonerates Trump?
  • Sending Rudy and working with Lev Parnas.
  • Pressuring President Poroshenko to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens.
  • Defaming Marie Yovanovitch with John Solomon and Rudy and removing her because she wasn't corrupt.
  • Pressuring President Zeleksky to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens. "Donald, I need the desperately needed anti-tank javelins." "Zelensky, of course, do me a favor though..." What else do you need? If you're expecting Donald to actually use quid pro quo, then you're going to be sorely mistaken.
  • Halting the aid so abruptly that even the Republican controlled Senate began to investigate why.
  • DOJ halting the whistleblower complaint.
  • Smearing witnesses like Vindman.
  • Attempting to out the whistleblower.
  • Bolton distancing himself from "the drug deal that Rudy is cooking up."
  • Bolton sending his aid to lawyers over this corrupt quid pro quo.
  • Admitting on the south lawn that he wanted even China to investigate his political opponent.
  • Trump's obstruction of justice. If he's really so innocent, why isn't her permitting his cabinet to speak?
I mean, seriously, you can't be this dumb, right? What about this exonerates Trump?
Click to expand...
One poster made the claim that no direct testimony has implicated Trump. Another one said that was incorrect because he had revised his testimony. I said that the revised testimony was severely weakened on cross-examination. All of that is true. I'm sorry that it's so upsetting to you.

Your bulleted list is full of all sorts of opinion on your part. I am not going to bother trying to prove that Trump should be exonerated based on your version of the facts. I will say that I find it hysterical that you believe he was treated fairly by the House. We are watching partisan politics at its finest. It should surprise no-one that a far left Trump hater like yourself is convinced of his guilt. You were convinced of that on the day he was elected (just needed to find a crime).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top