Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[cots]

If you honestly believe that trump is being impeached purely because the democrats lost the election then you are completely delusional.

The Liberals were asking how they could remove Trump from office if he wins and came up with the idea to use impeachment. Once he won they vowed to remove him from office at all costs as soon as they could find something to impeach him with. This is not their first attempt. This is just their first attempt that's gotten this far. It is all based on the fact they won't accept they lost in 2016. Just go ask a Liberal if they think Trump won in 2016 or search or ask around about how this was planned since before Trump took office.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Full evidence having to be present is a theoretical, right? I mean, have you read up on what hoops Daniel Ellsberg had to jump through to get imformation published? Have you heard the methods of retaliation used on William Binney? Chelsea Manning ring a bell?

Ehm. All for what? To present that information to a public that then shrugs and finds rationalizations on why - oh well, we live in totalitarian times then? (Scroll, scroll, facebook feed, scroll, scroll -) You see I'm firmly in the 'an informed public making rational choices is an illusion' camp then. I believe that whistleblowing still very much is needed to create an aura of accountability, even though any need for reform will entirely be spun away in any context anyhow.

I mean - have you heard fox news?

"Isnt it odd, that one of the consultants in this case spoke mainly ukranian" fed to the public as a factoid it eats up with the religious certainty of a cots, because the program host is female and blonde?

Do you still think, that public discussion cancels out misinformation? Because I dont.

Not sure on the initial question either - btw. (Impeachability of past (election cycle) administration.)

I think entertainment news has taken over most of that network and people can retreat to any corner of the internet to reinforce whatever bias they want. But I've spoken with people who change their mind and have an inherent sense of right and wrong. I also think if given enough evidence, people's bias can be pierced as long as they do not openly embrace it and ignore reality. This is just from my personal experience. Sure bad actors have no intention of yielding on anything in a topic because they are pushing an agenda. I believe most people just aren't. The problem is if no one brings up an issue and they only hear one side. I guess they will only believe one side.

I mean, like him, hate him, Chris Wallace is a guy I've enjoyed reporting news for the past few years. I think he's the last bastion of Fox news from being entirely entertainment news but I'm ok if others disagree with me. Its just my opinion. There's also the huge can of worms of how more people get their news entirely from facebook, I'm not going down that hole though.

I'll return when the hearing starts I guess. There's not much else to say. Anything else I want to say isn't on topic.

 

[arcanine]

The Liberals were asking how they could remove Trump from office if he wins and came up with the idea to use impeachment. Once he won they vowed to remove him from office at all costs as soon as they could find something to impeach him with.

Because he is a fucking criminal. The evidence is there, it is obvious. I’m not american and don’t live in america, I don’t give a shit who is president there. It’s not my problem. But the evidence is uncontested.

 

[notimp]

I think entertainment news has taken over most of that network and people can retreat to any corner of the internet to reinforce whatever bias they want. But I've spoken with people who change their mind and have an inherent sense of right and wrong. I also think if given enough evidence, people's bias can be pierced as long as they do not openly embrace it and ignore reality. This is just from my personal experience. Sure bad actors have no intention of yielding on anything in a topic because they are pushing an agenda. I believe most people just aren't. The problem is if no one brings up an issue and they only hear one side. I guess they will only believe one side.

I mean, like him, hate him, Chris Wallace is a guy I've enjoyed reporting news for the past few years. I think he's the last bastion of Fox news from being entirely entertainment news but I'm ok if others disagree with me. Its just my opinion. There's also the huge can of worms of how more people get their news entirely from facebook, I'm not going down that hole though.

I'll return when the hearing starts I guess. There's not much else to say. Anything else I want to say isn't on topic.

Quote:

A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinable.

This kind of transparency, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

And no, its not 'tha medias' fault. Its literally the public that doesnt want to care - and would rather go with spin if it doesnt fit into their believe systems.

Watch this news item. NOTHING will happen.

And the logic they (the pubic) are following is Disney level good / bad. Because its most easy. Because of this Propaganda principle:
https://citatis.com/a4017/3f32/

I'm not ranting about this in here - Ive conceptionalized this long ago. But transparency as a 'cleansing tool' in the age of PR at least partly controlling public opinion - is a laughing stock. Public will always side with the perceived 'winner' in any debate. Public will never care about learning details. Public on average will never make an informed decision, and always rely on opinion leaders to do the thinking for them. (Think youtubers).

Back to the Ellsberg case. That was 'won' because the NYT and then other papers (i think it was the NYT first), would go against their legal advisers and publish the material, after a philibuster in congress, reading it out loud, to make it part of the public record. The material had been published and in their hands for months at that point. And they were financially incentiviced to do so. And they did nothing even after Ellsberg had to go into hiding after publishing. Simply because of their political contacts warning them not to. When they flipped, it at least partly also was for a financial motive, that today doesnt exist anymore - because the public is too dumb to finance independent journalism. Do you think facebook cares if it feeds them Breitbart?

See that WP story above? Thats Bezos playing out the conflict, that Microsoft got those billion dollar defense agency contracts, that made Bill Gates the richest man on earth again - in public. At least partly. Thats your 'transparency' function of a working checks and balances system of power in your democracy. A billionaire with a hurt ego.

The world where the public gets, or even wants to decide based on 'all the facts' does not exist (ask Snowden). (And didnt in the past is my point here, I guess.)

Also this: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/australia-s-democracy-has-been-downgraded-from-open-to-narrowed
Transparency is not a principal set in stone. 'Just believing' that it will set you free, ... well. Someones got to act as well, right? And all your recent heroes now either live in russia (not by choice) or in prison.

Does the public care?

 

[cots]

Because he is a fucking criminal. The evidence is there, it is obvious. I’m not american and don’t live in america, I don’t give a shit who is president there. It’s not my problem. But the evidence is uncontested.

All of the witnesses other than Sonland testified they don't have any evidence of any crimes Trump committed. Sonland testified he "assumes" there was a crime committed, but then lied about other things (hint - an assumption no matter how educated is not proof of anything). So what evidence are we talking about?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Quote:
This kind of transparency, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/

Does the public care?

Have you not seen this thread? It covers the issue you just brought up. And no, the public doesn't care. They have their wide screen tv's, carbon producing cars, smart phones, nike shoes, fast food, happy pills and illegal drugs. Most people could care less where any of that comes from or the prices the rest of the world has to pay for it. What some moron is only allowed to post on Twitter is more important to people than some war they aren't subjected to because their main stream media pushes a pro-Muslim agenda (to purposely keep the subject buried). Anyway, please don't respond to what I typed here. I've repeated myself in that other thread dealing directly with this subject.

 

[notimp]

I've not seen it prior to posting no. But I used it to make the argument in here - I'll now stop the discussion on that (unrelated) matter in here though.

You can continue the 'liberals will destroy themselves and the world' line of logic again. (I'd still consider myself a liberal. (Just FYI for the lurkers))).

Rant was to confront the notion of 'transparency' and public opinion (after informed debate) will set us free. Because - no. Probably not. All things considered. But it helps.

 

[arcanine]

what evidence are we talking about?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

The Liberals were asking how they could remove Trump from office if he wins and came up with the idea to use impeachment. Once he won they vowed to remove him from office at all costs as soon as they could find something to impeach him with. This is not their first attempt. This is just their first attempt that's gotten this far. It is all based on the fact they won't accept they lost in 2016. Just go ask a Liberal if they think Trump won in 2016 or search or ask around about how this was planned since before Trump took office.

So I decided to look at the mindset of republicans back before the election was called.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/02/michael-mccaul-floats-impeaching-hillary-clinton/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how...o-impeach-hillary-clinton-if-she-wins-2016-11


Just stop. This isn't 'republicans would never do that, they would accept the election results, unlike democrats'! They discussed it and dropped it because they won the 2016 election. It didn't stop them from vilifying her and pretending she was guilty despite no indictment given at the time or in the completion of any investigation ever done to her (so much for republicans believe in 'presumption of innocence' defense too). I'm not saying she's without flaws but your narrative is so flawed, so partisan and often a complete derailment from reality.

If Clinton won she would have been investigated for 3+ years, the moment anything surfaced she would have been impeached, I can see the entertainment section of fox news headlines now : Any Clinton is destined for impeachment

This isn't a defense otherwise you have to acknowledge the republican party is guilty of the same thing you've been whining about for the past month.


If you had any shred of self respect you would at least spend time learning about what the party you defends says before you keep putting your foot in your mouth. But history is showing you don't @cots.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

This excerpt of exchange between a former judge, Ms. Garcia, is over direct evidence. It also discusses that the evidence provided below is not hearsay and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence.

Furthermore it discusses another piece that was called hearsay and correctly labeled it as That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible.

Please review the entire exchange, source is linked above. I'll take a former judge's description of evidence over a lawyer and she made very succinct important remarks below that are worth reading in full.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:31:48)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the President and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the President’s conduct. Now, I’m a former judge and you, Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my Republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:15)
No. There’s a lot of direct evidence, and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:32:22)
Indeed, it is not true. Now, I don’t want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, I’d like to go over some examples with you, and please tell me if they are direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Volker both testified that on May 23rd, 2019, President Trump told him to, “Talk to Rudy about Ukraine.” Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:48)
Yes, technically. Well, not technically, but yes.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:32:51)
Okay. Thank you. And then we have the memorandum of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:01)
Yes. That is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:33:02)
So there is direct evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both President Zelensky and US officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:18)
Yes. And if I could just jump in here on the July 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are, three of them are completely wrong. So one of them happens to be that there’s no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th call. There is absolutely a quid pro quo when President Zelensky says, “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington, DC, and then he says, “On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.” That is the quid pro quo that President Zelensky was informed of before the call. So that’s wrong. It’s also wrong that no Ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call, even though that doesn’t even matter.

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:03)
And then finally, there was no White House meeting ever provided, so the third or fourth fact, so I do think that that just needs to be clarified, particularly as we’re focusing on what direct evidence is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:15)
Well, let’s give some more examples. We also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July 25 call. Is there testimony, direct evidence of what happened during that call?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:27)
Yes, although I would say, the call record is better evidence than their…

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:31)
And the day after that call, David Holmes testified that on July 26th, he overheard the President ask Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was, “going to do the investigation.” Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:43)
That is direct evidence.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:45)
And after the July 25 call record was released, the President got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent’s family, the Bidens. Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:59)
Yes, it is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:59)
His own words. Now, that seems to me like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman-

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:03)
Now that seems to be like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these?

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:08)
Well, there’s a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because it’s not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other, and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible. So let’s not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:32)
We don’t want to relive that evidence class.

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:33)
I understand, but it is very important because anything Mr. Giuliani says, anything Ambassador Sondland says, anything any of these people say is not hearsay, and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of course, we don’t follow the federal rules of evidence here. It’s even more lenient, but that’s an important point.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:50)
Right. Well, is there anything wrong, Mr. Goldman, with drawing inferences from circumstances?

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:55)
Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when Ambassador Sondland draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid, the fact that the White House meeting has already been held up because of the investigations, and determines that that’s the reason why the security assistance is also held up, that is a natural, logical inference that every jury draws across the country.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:25)
Well, I agree with you. I’m just disappointed that rather than to respond to this serious, factual, direct, and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. What President Trump did here was wrong. It’s unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be held accountable.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:43)
I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our Constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:55)
I yield back.

 

[notimp]

(The law of their peers in this case.. - so not "law" law.)

 

[leon315]

very probably there will be a NEW president to discuss the trade deal with China soon

 

[cots]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Yeah, I've read it plenty of times. There's no evidence Trump committed quid pro joe in that transcript. If you selectively take certain parts and link them together, sure, but that's not how it works. Sorta of like how the Liberals will selectively leave out 2/3 of the information when reporting on something to twist it to make it look like something happened when it didn't. That transcript doesn't prove any wrong doing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

So I decided to look at the mindset of republicans back before the election was called.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/republicans-are-already-talking-about-impeaching-clinton

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/02/michael-mccaul-floats-impeaching-hillary-clinton/

https://www.businessinsider.com/how...o-impeach-hillary-clinton-if-she-wins-2016-11


Just stop. This isn't 'republicans would never do that, they would accept the election results, unlike democrats'! They discussed it and dropped it because they won the 2016 election. It didn't stop them from vilifying her and pretending she was guilty despite no indictment given at the time or in the completion of any investigation ever done to her (so much for republicans believe in 'presumption of innocence' defense too). I'm not saying she's without flaws but your narrative is so flawed, so partisan and often a complete derailment from reality.

If Clinton won she would have been investigated for 3+ years, the moment anything surfaced she would have been impeached, I can see the entertainment section of fox news headlines now : Any Clinton is destined for impeachment

This isn't a defense otherwise you have to acknowledge the republican party is guilty of the same thing you've been whining about for the past month.

If you had any shred of self respect you would at least spend time learning about what the party you defends says before you keep putting your foot in your mouth. But history is showing you don't @cots.

Sorry bud, but the basis for the very limited number of Republican's floating the idea of impeaching her was based on that if it turns out she was guilty of using foreign governments to interfere with the election and her email mishap. There wasn't "plans" to impeach her solely on the fact she won the election, but because she was fucking with the election and the entire using a private email server illegally and then wiped and physically destroyed it before the feds could get their hands on it. If you had a brain you'd also realize the impeachment would only have happened if she was found guilty of these things (as covered in the articles you link to). They weren't planning on impeaching her for "any reason they could find with or without guilt" (regardless of Obama's interpretation of the issue). It also was only suggested by like 3 or 4 Republicans and dropped. Three links to news articles about the same story don't justify the entire Liberal left discussing and plotting the impeachment of Trump or the countless other Democratic officials that supported it.

Even if the the majority of the Republicans planned it, which they didn't then I guess the Liberals should take Obama's words to heart. 3 or 4 Republicans is nothing compared to millions of Liberals and the entire Democratic Congress going after Trump.

“You've got some Republicans in Congress who are already suggesting they will impeach Hillary,” Obama added, his voice rising. “She hasn't even been elected yet. And it doesn't matter what evidence they just — they'll find something. That's what they’re saying already.”

“How can — how does our democracy function like that?” he demanded.

So apply that to the Democrats premeditated impeachment on Trump (remember, this isn't the first attempt). Thanks for making the point I've been making this entire time for me.

Nice try, but if your goal was to justify what the Liberals are doing then you just epically failed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.rev.com/blog/house-judiciary-committee-impeachment-hearing-transcript-day-2

This excerpt of exchange between a former judge, Ms. Garcia, is over direct evidence. It also discusses that the evidence provided below is not hearsay and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence.

Furthermore it discusses another piece that was called hearsay and correctly labeled it as That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible.

Please review the entire exchange, source is linked above. I'll take a former judge's description of evidence over a lawyer and she made very succinct important remarks below that are worth reading in full.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:31:48)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we just heard, the President and his supporters have claimed that the investigating committees are relying on hearsay and that they have failed to obtain firsthand accounts of the President’s conduct. Now, I’m a former judge and you, Mr. Goldman, a former prosecutor. We know what direct evidence is. Mr. Goldman, my Republican colleagues have suggested there is no direct evidence. Is that true?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:15)
No. There’s a lot of direct evidence, and a lot of the evidence that they say is hearsay is actually not hearsay.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:32:22)
Indeed, it is not true. Now, I don’t want to relive a law school evidence class. Instead, I’d like to go over some examples with you, and please tell me if they are direct or indirect evidence. Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Volker both testified that on May 23rd, 2019, President Trump told him to, “Talk to Rudy about Ukraine.” Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:32:48)
Yes, technically. Well, not technically, but yes.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:32:51)
Okay. Thank you. And then we have the memorandum of the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:01)
Yes. That is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:33:02)
So there is direct evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into these investigations and directed both President Zelensky and US officials to talk to his personal attorney about those investigations. Correct?

Mr. Goldman: (02:33:18)
Yes. And if I could just jump in here on the July 25th call, because these four facts that we keep hearing about that are not in dispute are, three of them are completely wrong. So one of them happens to be that there’s no quid pro quo mentioned in the July 25th call. There is absolutely a quid pro quo when President Zelensky says, “I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington, DC, and then he says, “On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation.” That is the quid pro quo that President Zelensky was informed of before the call. So that’s wrong. It’s also wrong that no Ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld at the time of the call, even though that doesn’t even matter.

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:03)
And then finally, there was no White House meeting ever provided, so the third or fourth fact, so I do think that that just needs to be clarified, particularly as we’re focusing on what direct evidence is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:15)
Well, let’s give some more examples. We also heard the testimony of three of the individuals who participated in the July 25 call. Is there testimony, direct evidence of what happened during that call?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:27)
Yes, although I would say, the call record is better evidence than their…

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:31)
And the day after that call, David Holmes testified that on July 26th, he overheard the President ask Ambassador Sondland whether President Zelensky was, “going to do the investigation.” Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:43)
That is direct evidence.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:45)
And after the July 25 call record was released, the President got on the White House lawn and again declared that Ukraine should investigate a potential political opponent’s family, the Bidens. Is that direct evidence?

Mr. Goldman: (02:34:59)
Yes, it is.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:34:59)
His own words. Now, that seems to me like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman-

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:03)
Now that seems to be like that’s a lot of direct evidence. Mr. Goldman, was there other direct evidence that the committee relied on in addition to these?

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:08)
Well, there’s a lot of evidence that I would call direct evidence because it’s not hearsay. If any of the people involved in the scheme are talking to each other, and they relay what someone else said, that is not hearsay. That would be in court a co-conspirator statement, and that would be admissible. So let’s not get too far afield on talking about direct evidence.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:32)
We don’t want to relive that evidence class.

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:33)
I understand, but it is very important because anything Mr. Giuliani says, anything Ambassador Sondland says, anything any of these people say is not hearsay, and would be permitted under the federal rules of evidence. Of course, we don’t follow the federal rules of evidence here. It’s even more lenient, but that’s an important point.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:35:50)
Right. Well, is there anything wrong, Mr. Goldman, with drawing inferences from circumstances?

Mr. Goldman: (02:35:55)
Courts tell juries to draw inferences every single day in every single courtroom. That is how you determine what the evidence shows. So when Ambassador Sondland draws inferences from the fact that there is no explanation for the aid, the fact that the White House meeting has already been held up because of the investigations, and determines that that’s the reason why the security assistance is also held up, that is a natural, logical inference that every jury draws across the country.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:25)
Well, I agree with you. I’m just disappointed that rather than to respond to this serious, factual, direct, and undisputed evidence before us, my colleagues continue to make unfounded arguments about the process. What President Trump did here was wrong. It’s unconstitutional. If anyone else did this, they would be held accountable.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:43)
I urge all my colleagues to face this evidence and uphold the oaths each of us have taken to protect our Constitution. Our democracy depends on ensuring that no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Sylvia Garcia: (02:36:55)
I yield back.

So some ex-Judge is discussing her opinion on the legality of heresy and if it's permissible in court. Who gives a shit. I could care less if it's brought up in the Senate. It's already been brought up on Congress. Even if her word was stone it's only heresy - it's about as valid as "assumptions". Since she's just some person stating what she thinks that's fine - it's not like her word means much. So according to her it could get mentioned in court. Well, this isn't a court and it's already been mentioned in Congress. So go ahead, bring it up again in the Senate. So now the Liberals are labeling the heresy "Direct evidence" - okay, but it's "direct evidence based on heresy". So go play word games. Doesn't change anything. Did she explain how Sonland's testimony would be treated seeings as he stated his entire testimony was limited and based on assumptions or presumptions because he testified under oath that the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records, except the State Department said that never happened and he was lying? So did this expert ex-Judge explain how his entire testimony could be thrown out in an actual court of law and the jurors instructed to ignore it because it was all based on a lie? It's too bad Sonland didn't get caught lying to a Judge under oath in a major criminal case that wasn't in some Democratic controlled circus. He'd be in jail for perjury right now.

Sonland is lying piece of shit. His testimony was based on lies. "The best they got" ... No wonder this Schitt show is doomed ....



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...e-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087656#liveBlogHeader

State Department contradicts Sondland, says he has 'full access' to his records

The State Department is disputing Sondland’s sworn testimony from Wednesday morning that he could not access records, such as emails, relevant to the impeachment inquiry.

“Ambassador Sondland, like every current Department of State employee called before Congress in this matter, retained at all times, and continues to retain, full access to his State Department documentary records and his State Department e-mail account, which he has always been fully free to access and review at will,” a State Department official said Wednesday evening.

But that is not what Sondland said just a few hours earlier.

“I have not had access to all of my phone records," Sondland said in his opening statement. "State Department emails, and other State Department documents. And I was told I could not work with my EU Staff to pull together the relevant files. Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, and what was said.”

Hahaha.. Dumb ass Liberals ....

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...skipping-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial

Strange, I thought Republicans would rather have witnesses that exonerate the President. To not have witnesses at all would be an odd decision.

Yeah, I've read it plenty of times. There's no evidence Trump committed quid pro joe in that transcript. If you selectively take certain parts and link them together, sure, but that's not how it works. Sorta of like how the Liberals will selectively leave out 2/3 of the information when reporting on something to twist it to make it look like something happened when it didn't. That transcript doesn't prove any wrong doing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Sorry bud, but the basis for the very limited number of Republican's floating the idea of impeaching her was based on that if it turns out she was guilty of using foreign governments to interfere with the election and her email mishap. There wasn't "plans" to impeach her solely on the fact she won the election, but because she was fucking with the election and the entire using a private email server illegally and then wiped and physically destroyed it before the feds could get their hands on it. If you had a brain you'd also realize the impeachment would only have happened if she was found guilty of these things (as covered in the articles you link to). They weren't planning on impeaching her for "any reason they could find with or without guilt" (regardless of Obama's interpretation of the issue). It also was only suggested by like 3 or 4 Republicans and dropped. Three links to news articles about the same story don't justify the entire Liberal left discussing and plotting the impeachment of Trump or the countless other Democratic officials that supported it.

Even if the the majority of the Republicans planned it, which they didn't then I guess the Liberals should take Obama's words to heart. 3 or 4 Republicans is nothing compared to millions of Liberals and the entire Democratic Congress going after Trump.



So apply that to the Democrats premeditated impeachment on Trump (remember, this isn't the first attempt). Thanks for making the point I've been making this entire time for me.

Nice try, but if your goal was to justify what the Liberals are doing then you just epically failed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



So some ex-Judge is discussing her opinion on the legality of heresy and if it's permissible in court. Who gives a shit. I could care less if it's brought up in the Senate. It's already been brought up on Congress. Even if her word was stone it's only heresy - it's about as valid as "assumptions". Since she's just some person stating what she thinks that's fine - it's not like her word means much. So according to her it could get mentioned in court. Well, this isn't a court and it's already been mentioned in Congress. So go ahead, bring it up again in the Senate. So now the Liberals are labeling the heresy "Direct evidence" - okay, but it's "direct evidence based on heresy". So go play word games. Doesn't change anything. Did she explain how Sonland's testimony would be treated seeings as he stated his entire testimony was limited and based on assumptions or presumptions because he testified under oath that the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records, except the State Department said that never happened and he was lying? So did this expert ex-Judge explain how his entire testimony could be thrown out in an actual court of law and the jurors instructed to ignore it because it was all based on a lie? It's too bad Sonland didn't get caught lying to a Judge under oath in a major criminal case that wasn't in some Democratic controlled circus. He'd be in jail for perjury right now.

Sonland is lying piece of shit. His testimony was based on lies. "The best they got" ... No wonder this Schitt show is doomed ....



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...e-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087656#liveBlogHeader

State Department contradicts Sondland, says he has 'full access' to his records

The State Department is disputing Sondland’s sworn testimony from Wednesday morning that he could not access records, such as emails, relevant to the impeachment inquiry.

“Ambassador Sondland, like every current Department of State employee called before Congress in this matter, retained at all times, and continues to retain, full access to his State Department documentary records and his State Department e-mail account, which he has always been fully free to access and review at will,” a State Department official said Wednesday evening.

But that is not what Sondland said just a few hours earlier.

“I have not had access to all of my phone records," Sondland said in his opening statement. "State Department emails, and other State Department documents. And I was told I could not work with my EU Staff to pull together the relevant files. Having access to the State Department materials would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct with whom I spoke and met, when, and what was said.”

Hahaha.. Dumb ass Liberals ....

This was a bunch of I don't like the evidence because it goes against how I feel so I'm ignoring it. Try again cots.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If you actually read his deposition and then compared it to the public hearing it would show how Sondland is only admitting the bare minimum, he is still a protector of the president. I don't know why you think someone who donated a million dollars to a republican campaign would suddenly work against the interest of the administration he is a part of.

 

[cots]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...skipping-witnesses-in-trump-impeachment-trial

Strange, I thought Republicans would rather have witnesses that exonerate the President. To not have witnesses at all would be an odd decision.

This was a bunch of I don't like the evidence because it goes against how I feel so I'm ignoring it. Try again cots.

What evidence? The heresy - okay, I've heard it. None of it proves quid pro joe. The transcript? No quid pro joe. All of the other witnesses than Sonland stated "We have no evidence of any bribery, corruption of quid pro joe". So again, no quid pro joe. The Democrats star witness Sonland said "he assumes" and those assumptions were all based on lying under oath. Still no quid pro joe. So, again, what evidence are we talking about?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

An ex judge has a better understanding of what is permissible evidence than you ever will. If she's wrong go get legal textbooks and prove it @cots

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What evidence? The heresy - okay, I've heard it. None of it proves quid pro joe. The transcript? No quid pro joe. All of the other witnesses than Sonland stated "We have no evidence of any bribery, corruption of quid pro joe". So again, no quid pro joe. The Democrats star witness Sonland said "he assumes" and those assumptions were all based on lying under oath. Still no quid pro joe. So, again, what evidence are we talking about?

You seemed to miss the bolded part that was excerpts from the transcript that shows Zelensky acknowledged the request for investigations for a whitehouse meeting, seems like you just are ignoring evidence rather than it not being present.

 

[cots]

An ex judge has a better understanding of what is permissible evidence than you ever will. If she's wrong go get legal textbooks and prove it @cots

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You seemed to miss the bolded part that was excerpts from the transcript that shows Zelensky acknowledged the request for investigations for a whitehouse meeting, seems like you just are ignoring evidence rather than it not being present.

You're going on ignore. I'll take you off after Trump is cleared and beats this impeachment so I can let you apologize to me.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

@cots I'm sorry that facts hurt your feelings and its not what you want to hear? That's fine, you can retreat to whatever biased right-wing talking points you want to believe. When you are ready for the truth feel free to return.

 

[sl0ps]

@cots I'm sorry that facts hurt your feelings and its not what you want to hear? That's fine, you can retreat to whatever biased right-wing talking points you want to believe. When you are ready for the truth feel free to return.

I don't think you're sorry, I think you're just being passive aggressive.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I don't think you're sorry, I think you're just being passive aggressive.

I found a way to apologize with some truth behind my statement, its about the only apology I can give to @cots. You are welcome to your opinion as anyone else is on this forum.

 

[cots]

I've been watching today's hearings (Wednesday, December 12th, 2019). Seems The White House handed over hundreds of thousands of pages of files per Congress requests yet the Democrats are still accusing Trump of not handing over anything they requested. Then the Democrats are stating that the call Trump made was all about him because he said "Do us a favor" and then purposely left out the next thing Trump said which was "Our Nation/Country" (as in who the favor was for). Sure, the second one is not a completely big deal, but seeings as the Democrats are accusing Trump of not renegotiating the Trade Deal because he didn't say "corruption" in his phone calls you can understand how a couple of words mean a lot to the Democrats (and it's really convenient to leave out the rest of what he said). How would you feel if you ordered a Double Whopper with Cheese, large Fries and Large Coke and all you got was the Large Coke because the clerk left out the rest of your order and then claimed it was your fault? The Republicans then brought up dates and times that the corruption was being investigated (to prove it was being investigated). It's just unfortunate that for whatever reason when pointing out how bad of a witness Sonland was no one brought up how he lied about a very major thing under oath. That's in addition to the hundreds of times he said "I can't recall" or the many times he said "I assume" or "I presume" yet "I have no proof". I emailed a certain Congress person a minute ago and gave them the URL to the story about how Sonland lied.

Anyway, it's still a Schitt show, but without the beta male in charge. Congress may vote on impeachment this afternoon. They're on break right now. The Republican minority made a good case as they were finally after all of this time given an equal voice in the matter (of course it's not rigged, right?). Aren't Liberal all about the minorities? Where's the love?

Edit: "Before the end of the day, the Democrats on the committee would almost certainly vote to send articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the House floor." - So not a vote for impeachment, just a vote to move the process along.