Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

Hanafuda · Nov 20, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
If congress gained access to relevant documents and had the involved senior staff along with the president testifying (even in writing), this would wrap up quite quickly. That's just my perspective. If he's innocent and as smart as he says he is, he should have no problem avoiding simple perjury traps and proving to the American people that there is nothing to be concerned with.

Nice try. Only an idiot would voluntarily subject himself to giving sworn testimony before a hostile adjudicator. The only things I've seen actually proven ... not "presumed" or guessed or opinion ... is that President Trump talks on the telephone, and certain partisan Democrat federal employees don't like him not following their protocols (and just don't like him).

Xzi · Nov 20, 2019

Hanafuda said:
Bullshit. You're inferring what you want to get out of his expressions of opinion. But Stefanik asked, point blank: Do you have any evidence of quid pro quo? NO. Do you have any evidence of bribery? NO. Do you have any evidence of treason? NO.

As I explained to cots, he was a second-hand witness at best, which is why Republicans thought they could get him to testify in favor of Trump. It didn't go down that way, but that doesn't mean he has any evidence himself.

Meanwhile, Sondland's testimony today was the most direct confirmation of quid pro quo that we've heard yet. And he was one of the people directly involved with the entire thing. Sondland DOES have evidence, and because of that, I don't think any Republicans asked him the same questions.

Hanafuda said:
Nice try. Only an idiot would voluntarily subject himself to giving sworn testimony before a hostile adjudicator. The only things I've seen actually proven ... not "presumed" or guessed or opinion ... is that President Trump talks on the telephone, and certain partisan Democrat federal employees don't like him not following their protocols (and just don't like him).

I've already stated this in different terms, but the purpose of these hearings isn't to change the minds of people who had already chosen a side before they began. The purpose is to hold the president accountable, and if a few truly independent voters learn something about his character and/or impeachment in the process, that's just a bonus.

seany1990 · Nov 20, 2019

urherenow said:
Love him or hate him, he's the only person getting things done.

Like what exactly?

IncredulousP · Nov 20, 2019

seany1990 said:
Like what exactly?

Giving tax breaks to the rich.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 20, 2019

Hanafuda said:
Nice try. Only an idiot would voluntarily subject himself to giving sworn testimony before a hostile adjudicator. The only things I've seen actually proven ... not "presumed" or guessed or opinion ... is that President Trump talks on the telephone, and certain partisan Democrat federal employees don't like him not following their protocols (and just don't like him).

I stand by what I said. If he's as innocent and intelligent as he claims I believe the republican minority would easily demonstrate to the American public that this is a farce and Trump has been a victim of a political hackjob. If he did this he would easily secure 2020 by defending himself through transparency of documents and delivering his testimony.

I've seen a private lawyer dictate our foreign policy vis-a-vis President Trump. I've seen Trump request a foreign entity to investigate a political opponent (twice if you count China). Any dispute to that?

Just to be clear, he could have used the senate during the past 3 years in office to launch a bipartisan congressional committee to investigate whether there was wrongdoing w/ Biden. It's been discussed this would have been the most proper manner to move forward if he wanted to target perceived domestic corruption by a previous administration that as 2020 nears also now involves a political opponent. I think there is a reason this option was not pursued. I think this is the better question to ask: "why are we not launching a senate bipart committee investigation." If people are truly concerned about acts of impropriety by a previous administration it would be best to start there and to be clear, the senate could do that even now, why aren't they?

Hanafuda · Nov 20, 2019

Xzi said:
I've already stated this in different terms, but the purpose of these hearings isn't to change the minds of people who had already chosen a side before they began. The purpose is to hold the president accountable, and if a few truly independent voters learn something about his character and/or impeachment in the process, that's just a bonus.

The purpose of these hearings is to put a thumb on the scale of next year's election due to all the weak candidates in the Democrat clown car. It's a campaign event. They have no intent or concern about actually proving any wrongdoing. Having a bunch of witnesses say they felt something the President did was wrong, or they heard something the President did was wrong, is plenty fine with them. They're using the process of impeachment, and taxpayer dollars, for campaigning purposes.

Xzi · Nov 20, 2019

Hanafuda said:
The purpose of these hearings is to put a thumb on the scale of next year's election due to all the weak candidates in the Democrat clown car. It's a campaign event. They have no intent or concern about actually proving any wrongdoing.

Horse shit. Between Vindman and Sondland, both of whom were first-hand witnesses to the events in question, wrongdoing has already been proven. Let alone all the other second-hand witnesses involved. Whether you choose to leave your head in the sand or not is ultimately irrelevant, because again, you aren't being objective and you already had your mind made up before any public testimony occurred.

On a lighter note, Devin Nunes' face was absolutely priceless in the moments after Sondland confirmed quid pro quo:

https://i.imgur.com/rMmdB2k.mp4

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 20, 2019

The blaze is apparently interviewing Rudy. I'm interested as I haven't heard much from him lately.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 20, 2019

So this was some free airtime to pitch his conspiracy theory I guess. I don't watch Blaze but the most notable thing in relation to the public hearings - Rudy insisted again that he worked at the direction of the President and the State dept was working to provide him access to Ukrainians to gain information that shows Biden committed bribery and Russia was not involved in 2016 election interference.

*shrug* It could have been better. I guess its best to watch him interview with someone willing to ask questions who doesn't let him just have his own podcast, but that's my own fault at this point.

KingVamp · Nov 20, 2019

Xzi said:
Horse shit. Between Vindman and Sondland, both of whom were first-hand witnesses to the events in question, wrongdoing has already been proven. Let alone all the other second-hand witnesses involved. Whether you choose to leave your head in the sand or not is ultimately irrelevant, because again, you aren't being objective and you already had your mind made up before any public testimony occurred.

On a lighter note, Devin Nunes' face was absolutely priceless in the moments after Sondland confirmed quid pro quo:

After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?

Xzi said:
https://i.imgur.com/rMmdB2k.mp4

Wasted.

cots · Nov 21, 2019

So I'm awake. Nothing really damning was exposed after the rest of the testimony. Sonland never came up with any actual proof of quid pro quo. He is the Democrats most damning witness to Trump because he implicit states there was quid pro quo, but then when asked if he has proof he said he's just making an assumption. I understand the Liberal Democratic mindset, these are the same people that claimed second hand testimony is more valuable then first hand testimony (which is utter horse shit), so I know a lot of them think they've won already, which isn't the fact. Maybe because of "assumptions" they'll vote to impeach Trump, but then when the actual people familiar with fucking real law that act like adults (wtf is 2+2 = 4) the Senate will put this fucking pre-planned premeditated 10th impeachment attempt shit show to a rest. I was hoping for some actual evidence, but I'm not supporting this based on assumptive accusations. Historically speaking the Democrats have been consistent with at least one things - trying to fuck over the American public.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 21, 2019

cots said:
So I'm awake. Nothing really damning was exposed after the rest of the testimony. Sonland never came up with any actual proof of quid pro quo. He is the Democrats most damning witness to Trump because he implicit states there was quid pro quo, but then when asked if he has proof he said he's just making an assumption. I understand the Liberal Democratic mindset, these are the same people that claimed second hand testimony is more valuable then first hand testimony (which is utter horse shit), so I know a lot of them think they've won already, which isn't the fact. Maybe because of "assumptions" they'll vote to impeach Trump, but then when the actual people familiar with fucking real law that act like adults (wtf is 2+2 = 4) the Senate will put this fucking pre-planned premeditated 10th impeachment attempt shit show to a rest. I was hoping for some actual evidence, but I'm not supporting this based on assumptive accusations. Historically speaking the Democrats have been consistent with at least one things - trying to fuck over the American public.

Sondland's testimony solidified the need to have Rudy testify something both republicans and democrats said in passing today which is an improvement and significant, albeit for different reasons. Democrats want to leverage Rudy against Trump and Republicans (specifically Castor among others on the intel committee) want to use Rudy as the convenient fall guy since Sondland evaded that fate. If anyone is desiring 'actual evidence' they will be waiting for DOD, State dept, OMB, etc to begin providing documents. In tonight's testimony it was shared that DOD started to have IT staff ensure retention of documents to prepare to provide such documents when approved.

Until then we will just be waiting until the courts entertain upholding a lawful congressional subpoena. The other two administrations, Nixon and Clinton, tried to block such efforts and failed. I can't see how Trump's administration has any legal ground to stand in blocking an impeachment inquiry. 'I don't like it and don't think its fair so I'm not going to comply' isn't grounds to defy congress' constitutional authority.

Hanafuda · Nov 21, 2019

KingVamp said:
After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?

Because "all these people" haven't offered a single piece of direct, relevant, irrefutable and inculpating evidence yet.

Taylor: yes, my "clear understanding" about the aid was based on 4x hearsay, and nobody ever said anything about it ever in my presence

Yovanovitch: admitted no knowledge of any bribery, no knowledge of the President committing any crime whatsoever.

Volker: No evidence of quid pro quo, no evidence of bribery, no evidence of treason.

Morrison: Same questions asked as Volker's above, same answers.
Testified to Vindman having history for not following chain of command, leaking classified information, complaining when he felt not being given respect he's due

Vindman: admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy
admitted he never had any contact with President Trump, ever
admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”
admitted Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation
admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented”
admitted the Trump-Zelenksy call transcript was “very accurate”
admitted he has never used the term “bribery” to describe the president’s actions
said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigations
said, "As far as I can tell," Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on Burisma’s board
said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board
said he never thought anything the President said was a crime or anything of that sort, but he thought (i.e. opinion) that it was wrong
explained that he thought President Trump's request for a "favor" was a demand, based on his knowledge of military culture (neither Trump or Zelensky are military)

Sondland: "I know that members of this Committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question - was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is Yes."

BOOM! Sondland dropped the bomb, right?!? B'Golly, Now we got him.

But later: Schiff: "Though President Trump claimed to you there was no quid pro quo, he also made it clear to you in that call that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do it in public.' You don't have any reason to dispute ..."

Sondland: I don't have any reason to dispute the 'clear things up and do it in public,' what I'm trying to be very clear about was President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement.

Schiff: But in that same conversation you had with him about the aid, about the quid pro quo, he told you that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do it in public,' correct?

Sondland: I did not have a conversation with him about the aid. I had a conversation with him, as referenced in my texts, about quid pro quo.

Schiff: Well the quid pro quo you were discussing was over the aid, correct?

Sondland: No. President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question, as I testified previously, "What do you want from Ukraine?" His answer was "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing." That's all I got from President Trump.

so, itsfuckingnothing.gif

cots · Nov 21, 2019

Xzi said:
Horse shit. Between Vindman and Sondland, both of whom were first-hand witnesses to the events in question, wrongdoing has already been proven. Let alone all the other second-hand witnesses involved. Whether you choose to leave your head in the sand or not is ultimately irrelevant, because again, you aren't being objective and you already had your mind made up before any public testimony occurred.

On a lighter note, Devin Nunes' face was absolutely priceless in the moments after Sondland confirmed quid pro quo:

https://i.imgur.com/rMmdB2k.mp4

He didn't confirm anything. He stated he's assuming there was quid pro quo. You can't expect anyone with an actual objective brain to go into this 10th attempt with no lack of skepticism. After years of bogus "collusion" claims and 9 previews impeachment attempts would you actually think that someone that doesn't have a blind hatred for our President would really think that this entire thing is legitimate? Unless you're part of the group that has been planning this before Trump was even in office it's easy to see exactly what is motivating these hearings. Luckily, the Liberals are a minority, very vocal, yes, but the majority of the country doesn't support this nonsense and most of them don't even care about the inquiry and have already made up their mind on the issue - one way or another. Luckily, the majority of the country isn't Liberal and sees right through your and your parties bullshit. I watched the hearings. The spin on "everyone was in the loop" is clear evidence on how the Liberal Media twists things that were never implied nor said. That alone, plus the entire fact his claims are simply assumptions aka a simple "guess" would make anyone that has any sort of critical thinking skills see right through the entire farse. Liberals aren't honest though, I'm sorry your TDS is getting to you.

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

Hanafuda said:
Because "all these people" haven't offered a single piece of direct, relevant, irrefutable and inculpating evidence yet.

Taylor: yes, my "clear understanding" about the aid was based on 4x hearsay, and nobody ever said anything about it ever in my presence

Yovanovitch: admitted no knowledge of any bribery, no knowledge of the President committing any crime whatsoever.

Volker: No evidence of quid pro quo, no evidence of bribery, no evidence of treason.

Morrison: Same questions asked as Volker's above, same answers.
Testified to Vindman having history for not following chain of command, leaking classified information, complaining when he felt not being given respect he's due

Vindman: admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy
admitted he never had any contact with President Trump, ever
admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”
admitted Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation
admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented”
admitted the Trump-Zelenksy call transcript was “very accurate”
admitted he has never used the term “bribery” to describe the president’s actions
said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigations
said, "As far as I can tell," Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on Burisma’s board
said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board
said he never thought anything the President said was a crime or anything of that sort, but he thought (i.e. opinion) that it was wrong
explained that he thought President Trump's request for a "favor" was a demand, based on his knowledge of military culture (neither Trump or Zelensky are military)

Sondland: "I know that members of this Committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question - was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is Yes."

BOOM! Sondland dropped the bomb, right?!? B'Golly, Now we got him.

But later: Schiff: "Though President Trump claimed to you there was no quid pro quo, he also made it clear to you in that call that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do it in public.' You don't have any reason to dispute ..."

Sondland: I don't have any reason to dispute the 'clear things up and do it in public,' what I'm trying to be very clear about was President Trump never told me directly that the aid was tied to that statement.

Schiff: But in that same conversation you had with him about the aid, about the quid pro quo, he told you that President Zelensky had to quote 'clear things up and do it in public,' correct?

Sondland: I did not have a conversation with him about the aid. I had a conversation with him, as referenced in my texts, about quid pro quo.

Schiff: Well the quid pro quo you were discussing was over the aid, correct?

Sondland: No. President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question, as I testified previously, "What do you want from Ukraine?" His answer was "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing." That's all I got from President Trump.

so, itsfuckingnothing.gif

You left out the fact that Sonlands claim that there was "quid pro quo" is based on an assumption and not any factual evidence. We all know the rules. We know what the Liberals are up to. They don't deny it and then try to distract us with this shit. They're not even good at distracting us though. I wonder why we even allow them to go about it seeings as they openly admit to planning this from the get go. "We plan to fuck you over no matter what regardless if there's any actual wrong doing". We should have arrested them for simply threatening us with impeachment before the fact Trump even did anything that could have been impeachable and I hope once they lose that Trump has the balls to fucking destroy these peoples lives in every way humanly possible. We do need to build more mental health hospitals and throw all of the lunatic Liberals in them.

Hanafuda · Nov 21, 2019

cots said:
You left out the fact that Sonlands claim that there was "quid pro quo" is based on an assumption and not any factual evidence.

Yeah, under cross examination by Turner:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or No?

Sondland: Yes.

Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?

Sondland: Other than my own presumptions.

Turner: Which is nothing!

cots · Nov 21, 2019

Hanafuda said:
Yeah, under cross examination by Turner:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or No?

Sondland: Yes.

Turner: So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?

Sondland: Other than my own presumptions.

Turner: Which is nothing!

I presume I'm going to win the $180 million Powerball Saturday. Since presumptions usurper reality where's my money?

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 21, 2019

Actions shape reality as much if not more than words. Action of directing OMB to withhold aid and the appearance of only releasing this hold when congressional investigation is knocking isn't something that can be easily discounted when a significant percentage of those involved in Ukraine policy in multiple agencies drew similar conclusions based on the actions. The Trump administration could dispel this concern by providing the necessary documents and allowing those involved in the hold on aid to testify. The impeachment inquiry is an appropriate constitutional tool to use to bring the necessary facts before congress and the American people when a President conducts in behavior that crosses a line.

The line that was crossed was the President soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. I've outlined a proper manner of approaching a Biden investigation in prior comments on this thread. Ultimately, our President can't invite foreign powers to influence our election. Americans might disagree on many policies but we should hopefully come together to agree on that.

cots · Nov 21, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
Actions shape reality as much if not more than words. Action of directing OMB to withhold aid and the appearance of only releasing this hold when congressional investigation is knocking isn't something that can be easily discounted when a significant percentage of those involved in Ukraine policy in multiple agencies drew similar conclusions based on the actions. The Trump administration could dispel this concern by providing the necessary documents and allowing those involved in the hold on aid to testify. The impeachment inquiry is an appropriate constitutional tool to use to bring the necessary facts before congress and the American people when a President conducts in behavior that crosses a line.

The line that was crossed was the President soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. I've outlined a proper manner of approaching a Biden investigation in prior comments on this thread. Ultimately, our President can't invite foreign powers to influence our election. Americans might disagree on many policies but we should hopefully come together to agree on that.

Yeah, well, lots of things shape reality. Per say the Liberals premeditated impeachment attempts. They said they were going to do it, they've tried 9 previous times and they don't deny any of this (as they openly admit and brag about it). That's a clear and cut case. Right now, the Democrats only have testimony of what people overheard or assume based on some circumstantial evidence that can be proved (your actions). That's not clear cut evidence. If I thought this impeachment would have been fair and impartial what has been presented so far would point towards Trump's guilt. However, since this shit was setup from the start and is in no way fair or impartial the Liberal Democrats can fuck off.

I wonder what the 11th attempt will consist of? How about 25th? You'd figure after the 3rd attempt people would have WOKE the fuck up and told these Liberal scum where to shove their impeachment. It's no wonder 70% of the citizens have made up their mind and have no interest in watching this shit. I watched it and it's fucking a circus. Just look how the Liberals are spinning what was said. If they (the Liberal Media) can't accurately report on something that I witnessed first hand then they can fuck off too.

RationalityIsLost101 · Nov 21, 2019

cots said:
Yeah, well, lots of things shape reality. Per say the Liberals premeditated impeachment attempts. The said they were going to do it, they've tried 9 previous times and they don't deny any of this (as they openly admit and brag about it). That's a clear and cut case. Right now, the Democrats only have testimony of what people overheard or assume based on some actual circumstantial evidence that can be proved (your actions). That's not clear cut evidence. If I thought this impeachment would have been fair and impartial what has been presented so far would point towards Trump's guilt. However, since this shit was setup from the start and is in no way fair or impartial the Liberal Democrats can fuck off.

You would find bad actors on either side of the political spectrum. I remember the birther movement with Obama (something that Trump himself was admonished for voicing). It would be folly and against the interest of our nation to remain partisan when we easily can see what precedent would have been set if we ignored what occurred and did not launch an impeachment inquiry.

Imagine 1-13 years from now, there is a democratic president that decides to go to China and request them to publicly launch an investigation into a political opponent allowing him to potentially shape the primaries of his opposing party to benefit the candidate that he knew he polled well against in the general election or it could just as easily occur in the general election.

If that sounds disastrous and a threat to our republic, then you and I would agree and regardless of party I would expect an impeachment inquiry to be launched.

Xzi · Nov 21, 2019

cots said:
He didn't confirm anything. He stated he's assuming there was quid pro quo.

I'm not going to continue to entertain these asinine denials of what was clearly stated in the testimony. Neither Sondland nor Vindman minced their words or used any uncertain terms. Just like Hanafuda, you already had your mind made up before the first word was spoken.

KingVamp said:
After all these people coming out, how can they still be using the "it's just the democrats" defense?

When there is no logical defense left, all they can do is pick their favorite illogical defense and stick to it, regardless of how much contradictory evidence comes to light. Trump supporters exhibit many of the same behaviors you see in cults, and with how thoroughly they've intertwined their egos with his success or failure, signs of Stockholm syndrome are starting to manifest themselves as well. I'm just thankful that they don't really matter in the long run, as both polls and election results continue to reflect that the majority are fighting back against this insanity. When even Kentucky and Louisiana are no longer considered safe red states, you know for certain that the Republican party has shot itself in the foot one too many times.

Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

GBAtemp's Resident Bastard

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Haaah-hahahaha!

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Banned!

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum