Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction

[Crazyhole]

So it looks like we now have a 2nd State Dept staffer that overhead the July 26 Trump/Sondland call at the table.

AP Source: 2nd US Official Heard Trump Call With Sondland

"The need for Ukranians to pursue investigations". I think we can all agree that Ukraine did need to pursue investigations into the corruption allegations. Impossible to say what the context of the conversation between the 2 was until sondland testifies.

 

[Crazyhole]

I get Jordan's angle - it's insanely weak but it's about all they have - but it just doesn't hold up when the 1st hand witnesses could all show up tomorrow if the administration wasn't claiming a fictitious "blanket immunity" for the entire executive branch.

I'd bring Sondland up last. Why? Because I wouldn't be able to trust him to be truthful if he lead off. He needs everyone else to testify to box him in and help him "remember" details he seems to forget. Look at the new July 26th call we just learned about yesterday. If I'm Schiff, I'd rather force Sondland to remember that now, rather than have that break after he testifies.

So you paint the picture with you highly credible witnesses. They have 1st hand knowledge of everything going on because their dead in the middle of it - but they lack 1st hand knowledge of Trump's specific role. Once that picture is painted, your reluctant witness (Sondland) that does have 1st hand knowledge, can tie the entire thing back directly to Trump.

Makes sense. I would just think that you would want the smoking gun witness to come up first so that they can control the narrative. Doing what they did may box him in, but it doesn't solidify the case until the very end, at which time there will be tons of additional questions.

In a criminal rape case, you start and finish with the victim. In the middle, you bring in corroborating witnesses to solidify the case. They should have done the same thing.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Makes sense. I would just think that you would want the smoking gun witness to come up first so that they can control the narrative. Doing what they did may box him in, but it doesn't solidify the case until the very end, at which time there will be tons of additional questions.

In a criminal rape case, you start and finish with the victim. In the middle, you bring in corroborating witnesses to solidify the case. They should have done the same thing.

You put the Amb to Ukraine first because he knows the ins and outs to the entire story. If you start with anyone else, they can only give part of the story. Next you bring in the people who verify each part of Taylor's story, the phone calls, the release of money, the request for the dirt on Biden, Guiliani's involvement.

 

[DaShuckster]

we start out the first day with an argument that heresay is more valuable than first hand witnesses? It's silly and borderline inept.

Yeah, if the 'first hand witnesses' had accepted their subpoenas, stepped forward, and testified, this farce would all be over, right Crazy?

 

[Boosted87]

"The need for Ukranians to pursue investigations". I think we can all agree that Ukraine did need to pursue investigations into the corruption allegations. Impossible to say what the context of the conversation between the 2 was until sondland testifies.

Yea but keep in mind the kicker from Taylor testimony yesterday. The original staffer in question asked Sondland after the call if Trump cared about Ukraine, and Sondland replied that Trump cared more about the investigations of Biden.

So if both staffers confirm that Sondland said something to that effect, how Sondland frames that is going to be significant.

 

[UCFWayne]

honest question, no trolling.

what do you think is going to happen after all is said and done?

 

[DaShuckster]

So if both staffers confirm that Sondland said something to that effect, how Sondland frames that is going to be significant.

Money CAN buy you anything. Sondland used his money to buy himself a place in American history.

 

[fried-chicken]

"The need for Ukranians to pursue investigations". I think we can all agree that Ukraine did need to pursue investigations into the corruption allegations. Impossible to say what the context of the conversation between the 2 was until sondland testifies.

Ladies and gents, if you ever had any hope that trump chuds would accept any of the evidence against trump please let this post end any effort to engage in honest discussion.

These people have already made up their mind that they won't believe any of it and they are just trying to figure out how to justify it to retain the illusion of dignity.

 

[fried-chicken]

honest question, no trolling.

what do you think is going to happen after all is said and done?

Senate Republicans are going to vote to keep trump in office in the face of a straightforward ironclad case with incredible evidence.

 

[firm_bizzle]

honest question, no trolling.

what do you think is going to happen after all is said and done?

Most of America will think that Trump is corrupt but he'll stay in office.

Trump forced this with his actions. You can't just ignore it.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Ladies and gents, if you ever had any hope that trump chuds would accept any of the evidence against trump please let this post end any effort to engage in honest discussion.

These people have already made up their mind that they won't believe any of it and they are just trying to figure out how to justify it to retain the illusion of dignity.

Let them go down with Trump. He's going to take down all the corrupt ones.

 

[fried-chicken]

@UCFWayne you're looking at the wrong things.

 

[UCFWayne]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-paul-gosar-jeffrey-epstein-didnt-kill-himself

Rep. Paul Gosar sends cryptic tweets that read 'Epstein didn't kill himself' during impeachment hearing


bravo sir

 

[Crazyhole]

Yea but keep in mind the kicker from Taylor testimony yesterday. The original staffer in question asked Sondland after the call if Trump cared about Ukraine, and Sondland replied that Trump cared more about the investigations of Biden.

So if both staffers confirm that Sondland said something to that effect, how Sondland frames that is going to be significant.

Agreed. I think sondland, in any objective trial, will be the person who provides the most important evidence. If he corroborates his staffers then this is open and shut on impeachment. If his doesn't do it succinctly then questions will be raised.

I guess the real issue at hand is the value that any of these other reports or testimonies bring to the table. Taylor's testimony probably wasn't worth much. The CNN interview thing also isn't much of a factor if it was in the works for weeks/months. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand accounts are dismissable as hearsay. Sondland, otoh, comes to the table with firsthand knowledge of the facts and intent.

 

[DaShuckster]

Trump forced this with his actions. You can't just ignore it.

I will be VERY INTERESTED to hear Sondland's testimony in light of the most recent testimony by Taylor AND given the last-minute changes he made to his original sworn testimony.

Barring something new, it looks like the House will vote to impeach Trump. What will be another VERY INTERESTING development will be whether or not the Senate will conduct a trial and vote without asking other members of the 'first-hand knowledge crowd' to testify. THAT would be hard defend in my book.

 

[fried-chicken]

@Crazyhole what all congresspersons questioning did you watch. You said you didn't watch any of it live and that you saw gym Jordans. I'm guessing you saw enough to provide you cover and stopped at that one.

 

[DaShuckster]

@Crazyhole what all congresspersons questioning did you watch. You said you didn't watch any of it live and that you saw gym Jordans. I'm guessing you saw enough to provide you cover and stopped at that one.

When a pedophile enabler is your best defense against Trump's batsh*t crazy antics, the House Republicans are in deep doo-doo.

 

[Boosted87]

honest question, no trolling.

what do you think is going to happen after all is said and done?

I think it could go several ways. Trump's in far more danger in the senate than conventional wisdom dictates. Still most likely they don't convict, but I think we're probably around 20% right now. Bigger shoes would have to drop for conviction, but with Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy all potentially drawn into testify at some point (possibly in the Senate), plenty of variables left. The House hearings are a big deal, but the Senate trial is going to be even bigger. Front page news, day after day after day for weeks on end.

If after the show is over and Trump remains President, he's likely to be substantially weakened politically but also emboldened. The general election will be nuts, with Trump shedding what little restraint he has left, claiming everything is a fraud and hoax, giving us the most politically awkward transition of power ever. Think "Scott Frost deletes recruiting database" kind of scorched earth.

 

[fried-chicken]

When a pedophile enabler is your best defense against Trump's batsh*t crazy antics, the House Republicans are in deep doo-doo.

The best defense is actually willful ignorance. Republicans know their base will act just like crazy is here. A lot of comments where they pretend they have a chance of caring about this when deep down they know they have already decided to defend the party. Because, while they know that what Trump did is unethical they would rather have a crooked conservative than a liberal.

 

[UCFWayne]

@UCFWayne you're looking at the wrong things.

?

 

[Ace of Knights]

honest question, no trolling.

what do you think is going to happen after all is said and done?

He’ll be impeached in the house but not convicted in the Senate. The goal in all of this for the Dems is clearly aimed at next November. They’re betting that enough people won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for an impeached President that they’ll stay home or vote for someone else.

It’s all geared towards independent voters.

 

[fried-chicken]

I think it could go several ways. Trump's in far more danger in the senate than conventional wisdom dictates. Still most likely they don't convict, but I think we're probably around 20% right now. Bigger shoes would have to drop for conviction, but with Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy all potentially drawn into testify at some point (possibly in the Senate), plenty of variables left. The House hearings are a big deal, but the Senate trial is going to be even bigger. Front page news, day after day after day for weeks on end.

If after the show is over and Trump remains President, he's likely to be substantially weakened politically but also emboldened. The general election will be nuts, with Trump shedding what little restraint he has left, claiming everything is a fraud and hoax, giving us the most politically awkward transition of power ever. Think "Scott Frost deletes recruiting database" kind of scorched earth.

Trump's not the target. Democrats are banking on senate republicans doing exactly what we all know they will do. They're not going to remove their only candidate for the 2020 election. Trump has high approval in their party. They will lose the whole government if they remove him, even though they know what he did they'll find a way to keep him in office.

 

[DaShuckster]

The best defense is actually willful ignorance.

Either they take the House charges seriously or they'll face the consequences in November of next year. And if they 'act' like they're taking the charges seriously, then they'll have to explain why they feel comfortable having a "trial" and a "jury vote" without ever questioning the all of the saga's actors who refused their Congressional subpoenas.

 

[fried-chicken]

?

Trump's not the target. Democrats are banking on senate republicans doing exactly what we all know they will do. They're not going to remove their only candidate for the 2020 election. Trump has high approval in their party. They will lose the whole government if they remove him, even though they know what he did they'll find a way to keep him in office.

2020 battleground senators will either remove him or they will be on the record providing cover to Donald Trump as he commits obvious crimes.

 

[UCFWayne]

2020 battleground senators will either remove him or they will be on the record providing cover to Donald Trump as he commits obvious crimes.

we will find out in 1 year if this strategy worked or not.

 

[DaShuckster]

we will find out in 1 year if this strategy worked or not.

You know someone has his head up his party's ass when the issue in his mind next November is "did this strategy work?" versus "Given what we've all seen and experienced, do we want four more years of Donald Trump as our Commander in Chief?"

 

[UCFWayne]

You know someone has his head up his party's ass when the issue in his mind next November is "did this strategy work?" versus "Given what we've all seen and experienced, do we want four more years of Donald Trump as our Commander in Chief?"

you are right, the dems are terribly partisan. the russian collusion strategy failed and now they are on the ukraine qpq strategy. i wonder what new strategies they will come up with after his reelection?

 

[Crazyhole]

@Crazyhole what all congresspersons questioning did you watch. You said you didn't watch any of it live and that you saw gym Jordans. I'm guessing you saw enough to provide you cover and stopped at that one.

So far, Sewell and Turner.

 

[firm_bizzle]

you are right, the dems are terribly partisan. the russian collusion strategy failed and now they are on the ukraine qpq strategy. i wonder what new strategies they will come up with after his reelection?

Trumpers are willfully ignorant.

 

[Crazyhole]

Either they take the House charges seriously or they'll face the consequences in November of next year. And if they 'act' like they're taking the charges seriously, then they'll have to explain why they feel comfortable having a "trial" and a "jury vote" without ever questioning the all of the saga's actors who refused their Congressional subpoenas.

These are people who are calculating politicians so they won't just allow it to make them look bad solely. The 2 most likely scenarios are a down vote impeachment, or an upvote for impeachment which leads to the senate using their authority to call witnesses that the HOR doesn't. Personally, I hope they impeach him and we get more details on the whole scenario via the senate.

Most likely outcome: red state dems vote against impeachment out of fear of what the senate uncovers, thereby securing their position as "moderates" while still being able to run on the party line. We will probably have several congressmen come out with a party line of "we are within 12 months of having a popular referendum on trump's policies so I want to leave this to the American voter". Then they will run on a platform of trump being one of the only presidents in history to have impeachment proceedings brought forth but suggest that it is up to the voter to decide.

Regardless, nothing will change and 2022 will be no different than 2018, 2016, 1994, 1978, etc. There will always be a boogeyman for each side. Right now its trump and Schiff. Before that it was McConnell and obama. Before that it was Pelosi, Boehner, Lott, bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gingrich, etc. Whoopty frigging doo, there's always a bad guy and a hero who literally do nothing different than anyone else.

 

[Boosted87]

Either they take the House charges seriously or they'll face the consequences in November of next year. And if they 'act' like they're taking the charges seriously, then they'll have to explain why they feel comfortable having a "trial" and a "jury vote" without ever questioning the all of the saga's actors who refused their Congressional subpoenas.

Here's how I would play this if I was one of those Republican Senators (or a Democrat like Manchin) who is in serious risk from both sides. There's no full proof strategy here, but if I cared about getting re-elected AND had a sense of duty...

Dems more than likely pass an article for "Obstruction of Congress." I let it be known publicly that (1) I say that the charges are serious, I'm not convinced they are worthy of removing a sitting president, however (2) obstructing congress is. I talk about checks and balances, the important oversight role of congress, etc. I suggest that I might vote for the Obstruction of Congress article unless the White House fully cooperates with the Senate Trial, inclusive of testimony from key players who were blocked during the house probe. This is an effort to play both sides.

This gives you multiple outs:

• Testimony is a dud, public support sticks just north of 50%. You can vote against conviction while carrying credibility of pushing for a fair and complete process.
• Testimony is seismic and public support pulls north of 60%. You can ride the train to conviction with safety in numbers (if it goes that way). If there's no train to ride, you vote against conviction while arguing how troubled you are over the behavior, but with an election only ~10/11 months way, you're going to let the voters decide.

No easy path but if you're in a purple state (or you're blue in red or vice versa) - you have to find a balancing act.

 

[UCFWayne]

Trumpers are willfully ignorant.

get used to trump. hes going to be around for awhile.

 

[firm_bizzle]

get used to trump. hes going to be around for awhile.

There are a lot of ignorant people out there.

 

[UCFWayne]

There are a lot of ignorant people out there.

i completely agree with you on that.

to think some people actually voted for hillary...

 

[firm_bizzle]

i completely agree with you on that.

to think some people actually voted for hillary...

Least incompetent of the two options.

 

[UCFWayne]

Least incompetent of the two options.

and yet the country is in a really good place today vs what every single msm outlet reported would happen.

 

[NinjaKnight]

and yet the country is in a really good place today vs what every single msm outlet reported would happen.

Imagine being ok with blatant racism, disgusting personal attacks, confirmed bribery, impeachment, and possible treason all because the stock market has continued to climb like it did under Obama.

Takes a special breed of stupidity to be @UCFWayne stupid.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Just wait until Faux News tells the trumpets what it all meant.

 

[UCFWayne]

Just wait until Faux News tells the trumpets what it all meant.

i was told we needed to hear from the whistle blower repeatedly from members of congress. what happened? why isnt he testifying now?

i was told these hearings would bring trump down. where is the smoking gun?

 

[fried-chicken]

i was told we needed to hear from the whistle blower repeatedly from members of congress. what happened? why isnt he testifying now?

i was told these hearings would bring trump down. where is the smoking gun?

Lolwut? No you weren't