What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

lol if a picture could explain what an embarrassment this has become. A snooze fest.
75576586_2693673784005139_2385287663532900352_o.jpg
 
Harambe said:
Trump has already been offered and invited to the hearings. But there's no way his lawyers will allow him to. He'd be eaten alive
Click to expand...

But if they want to refute the quid pro quo, all they have to do is tell the truth. That Rudy was not Trump's fixer, Trump did not tell Rudy to enact the funding for investigation activity, and the Rudy never told anyone that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden/ Burisma.

If that is the truth, why would they not testify to it under oath? We could get past all this secondhand information. Just testify, guys. What could they possibly be afraid of if the truth is on their side?
 
JazzyFresh said:
lol if a picture could explain what an embarrassment this has become. A snooze fest.
Click to expand...

When trump testifies it will become more exciting. All these bureaucrats with the boring truth telling is kinda bland.

They ought to bring in the director for The Apprentice to make this more exciting. Because that is what we are going for, entertainment, right?
 
JazzyFresh said:
He admits Schifty and CNN lied and he admits every... single.. thing... Is a and I quote "a presumption".



"I never said the President should be impeached". That's now 5 witnesses guys and gals who said the President did nothing impeachable.



Have a good day and keep living in your fairy tales! This is over.
Click to expand...


This is the 4th or 5th time you've posted that twitter clip, as if it actually proved anything at all.

So, let's look at this.

Morrison was in on the 7/25 phone call, and he said he did not believe Trump did anything illegal, although he did feel the memo of the call should not be seen by many. But, as to quid pro quo:

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEKt8BT-9P-S4qgcqW8a1KxIqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowlOzSATCaiDUwg7tz?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

"Under questioning from Democrats, Tim Morrison, the former top National Security Council official for Russia and European affairs, was asked to recall a September 1 conversation between US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and Ukraine official Andriy Yermak. That discussion has become central to the question of whether US military assistance to Kyiv was conditioned upon Ukraine opening investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden’s family and other Democrats.

According to Morrison, it clearly was.

“What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told Mr. Yermak?” Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman asked Morrison. Morrison replied, “That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.”

In other words, there was a quid pro quo.
---------------
As for Volker, he never said there was no quid pro quo. He said he did not know of any, and that Trump never told him there was. But, look closely at Volker's revised testimony this week:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/gordon-sondland-hearing-takeaways/index.html

As for what Sondland had to say about Volker, I'll quote the relevant sections from this Post article, since you can't read the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/takeaways-gordon-sondlands-opening-statement/

"... [Trump attorney Rudolph W.] Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he said. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

At another point, Sondland said explicitly that special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker told him this was the case. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) asked, “So, Mr. Volker told you that [Giuliani] was expressing the desires of the president of the United States?” Sondland responded, “Correct.”.....

.....“Our conclusion, and the conclusion of the three of us, was that if we did not talk to Rudy, nothing would move forward on Ukraine,” he said.

That doesn’t exactly make this sound optional. And it again connects this whole effort to Trump — in a way Volker declined to.

Sondland also, notably, disagreed with Volker’s testimony that he wasn’t aware of quid pro quos.

“I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony,” Sondland said. “It was absolutely a requirement.”
-------
So, you can post that Twitter comment dozens of more times, if you think it helps your case, but the links I've left for you seriously erode your conclusions....
 
Red said:
This is the 4th or 5th time you've posted that twitter clip, as if it actually proved anything at all.

So, let's look at this.

Morrison was in on the 7/25 phone call, and he said he did not believe Trump did anything illegal, although he did feel the memo of the call should not be seen by many. But, as to quid pro quo:

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEKt8BT-9P-S4qgcqW8a1KxIqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowlOzSATCaiDUwg7tz?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

"Under questioning from Democrats, Tim Morrison, the former top National Security Council official for Russia and European affairs, was asked to recall a September 1 conversation between US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and Ukraine official Andriy Yermak. That discussion has become central to the question of whether US military assistance to Kyiv was conditioned upon Ukraine opening investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden’s family and other Democrats.

According to Morrison, it clearly was.

“What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told Mr. Yermak?” Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman asked Morrison. Morrison replied, “That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.”

In other words, there was a quid pro quo."
---------------
As for Volker, he never said there was no quid pro quo. He said he did not know of any, and that Trump never told him there was. But, look closely at Volker's revised testimony this week:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/gordon-sondland-hearing-takeaways/index.html

As for what Sondland had to say about Volker, I'll quote the relevant sections from this Post article, since you can't read the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/takeaways-gordon-sondlands-opening-statement/

"... [Trump attorney Rudolph W.] Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” he said. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

At another point, Sondland said explicitly that special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker told him this was the case. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) asked, “So, Mr. Volker told you that [Giuliani] was expressing the desires of the president of the United States?” Sondland responded, “Correct.”.....

.....“Our conclusion, and the conclusion of the three of us, was that if we did not talk to Rudy, nothing would move forward on Ukraine,” he said.

That doesn’t exactly make this sound optional. And it again connects this whole effort to Trump — in a way Volker declined to.

Sondland also, notably, disagreed with Volker’s testimony that he wasn’t aware of quid pro quos.

“I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony,” Sondland said. “It was absolutely a requirement.”

So, you can post that Twitter comment dozens of more times, if you think it helps your case, but the links I've left for you seriously erode your conclusions....
Click to expand...
Here. You LOVE hearsay.

 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Red said:
Morrison was in on the 7/25 phone call, and he said he did not believe Trump did anything illegal,

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/gordon-sondland-hearing-takeaways/index.html

As election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

A States?” Sondland responded, “Correct.”.....

.



“I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony,” Sondland said. “It was absolutely a requirement.”
-
Click to expand...
So nothing illegal

And as my video posted he openly admitted it was his "presumption" not fact.

You're making **** up
 
I mean you just copy and pasted little pieces of what Sonland said while I provided the entire part where he admits everything he's said is his assumption not fact. Its extremely misleading Red.
 
And I'm sorry. Star witnesses admitting there was no quid pro quo, extortion, or wrong doing is 100% relevant. Just as relevant as anything you posted. 5 witnesses have come out and said nothing impeachable happened. 5.
 
silesian said:
But if they want to refute the quid pro quo, all they have to do is tell the truth. That Rudy was not Trump's fixer, Trump did not tell Rudy to enact the funding for investigation activity, and the Rudy never told anyone that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden/ Burisma.

If that is the truth, why would they not testify to it under oath? We could get past all this secondhand information. Just testify, guys. What could they possibly be afraid of if the truth is on their side?
Click to expand...

Why hasn't he testified under oath in front of congress?

Why wouldn't he answer questions directly to Mueller?

He should come for questioning like all of these witnesses have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top