ADVERTISEMENT

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

It's pretty close to that.
I really respect this response. Not many -- or quite, frankly, ANY -- of our other Trump supporters here would say that.
Oh please. (Nunes) He's done a pretty good job so far. So has the lady from New York.
What's the ultimate purpose of their questioning? If they've been trying to cast doubt on these hearings, they've failed miserably. I agree that the New York Congresswoman has done well with the nothingburger she's had to work with.
 
Haha, oh I'm sure. As soon as any of them mention Biden Obama or Soros you'll throw your hands in the air and say "I knew it."
Nope. I wont change my mind that Biden needs to be investigated but at this point it looks like trump is definitely guilty. That's why I said nunes has his work cut out for him.
 
I really respect this response. Not many -- or quite, frankly, ANY -- of our other Trump supporters here would say that.
What's the ultimate purpose of their questioning? If they've been trying to cast doubt on these hearings, they've failed miserably. I agree that the New York Congresswoman has done well with the nothingburger she's had to work with.

I went into this being completely objective about trump. Nunes, jordan, and the Congresswoman have done a good enough job to keep me there. Not sure they can pull me back now though
 
The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. So far they havent done anything to meet that burden. Quite honestly, I still think they should have called sondland first and used the rest of the witnesses as supporting testimony, which would have made it much more difficult for the defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
It helps trump that sondland said he was never told that aid was tied to the investigation. That would have been the smoking gun. When it goes to the senate, the roles will be reversed and the dems will have to prove that the meeting was for official government business, which will be tough. Since there was no announcement, aid wasn't ultimately withheld, and the meeting never happened I don't think they can make the case for removal, particularly needing 2/3rds to remove. Trump will probably be sanctioned in some way but not removed.
 
The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. So far they havent done anything to meet that burden. Quite honestly, I still think they should have called sondland first and used the rest of the witnesses as supporting testimony, which would have made it much more difficult for the defense.
Personally, I think the Congressional Democrats over the past decade or so have screwed up more than helped themselves. But that said, IMHO Adam Schiff has handled this proceedings brilliantly. By having closed-door hearings first, he was able to carefully lay out the case against Trump. In fact, by sequencing these interviews the way he did, people like Volker and Sondland were forced to revise their original testimony or risk perjury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poolside Knight
It helps trump that sondland said he was never told that aid was tied to the investigation. That would have been the smoking gun. When it goes to the senate, the roles will be reversed and the dems will have to prove that the meeting was for official government business, which will be tough. Since there was no announcement, aid wasn't ultimately withheld, and the meeting never happened I don't think they can make the case for removal, particularly needing 2/3rds to remove. Trump will probably be sanctioned in some way but not removed.

I guess it helps Trump but it puts Pompeo & Rudy on the hot seat who might spill the beans. Can they impeach Pompeo?
 
Nunes strategy is.... (trumpet fanfare) …. talk about the debunked tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of Ukraine's supposed 2016 election interference.

Yeah, boy, that changes everything! :rolleyes:
 
Guilani was acting on his own.
Here's a strategy. Collude with Rudy - throw him under the bus with the intention that Rudy take's the 5th since he's under investigation by SDNY. If Rudy doesn't refute Trump's throwing him under the bus, does that create a plausible alternative story?
 
Here's a strategy. Collude with Rudy - throw him under the bus with the intention that Rudy take's the 5th since he's under investigation by SDNY. If Rudy doesn't refute Trump's throwing him under the bus, does that create a plausible alternative story?

I don't understand why that wasn't the plan from the beginning.
 
I guess it helps Trump but it puts Pompeo & Rudy on the hot seat who might spill the beans. Can they impeach Pompeo?
I don't think it works the same way, but yes they can have pompeo removed. That would be an extremely high hurdle though as they would have to prove that he was going against trumps national policy AND congress, and then explain why trump doesn't just fire him. Not sure how that would work.
 
I don't understand why that wasn't the plan from the beginning.
When you've got a President who is batsh*t crazy enough to openly bribe a foreign leader, it's probably excusable that he's not sane enough to mount a rational defense.
 
I don't think it works the same way, but yes they can have pompeo removed. That would be an extremely high hurdle though as they would have to prove that he was going against trumps national policy AND congress, and then explain why trump doesn't just fire him. Not sure how that would work.

I figured that since Pompeo was a part of the executive branch and senate confirmed, he or anyone else in the cabinet could be impeached.
 
I figured that since Pompeo was a part of the executive branch and senate confirmed, he or anyone else in the cabinet could be impeached.
They can be, and if trump is removed they would have a clear path to do so. I think proving criminal charges would be easier than impeachment/removal in that scenario.
 
Fun Fact:

Yesterday while Dan Goldman was speaking I thought to myself "Bizzle, that dude looks like he came from money, I wonder what his background is". So I Google him and his grandfather and great-grandfather were CEOs of the Levi-Strauss corp.
 
Today was a decent day for dems, he said yes there was a quid pro quo for Whitehouse meeting, which is actually pretty common, But then admitted that when he directly asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine,
Trump answered I want nothing from them, no quid quo pro, "Nothing."
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Today was a decent day for dems, he said yes there was a quid pro quo for Whitehouse meeting, which is actually pretty common, But then admitted that when he directly asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine,
Trump answered I want nothing from them, no quid quo pro, "Nothing."

Adds more layers to it since Rudy and Pompeo instructed the QQP
 
Today was a decent day for dems, he said yes there was a quid pro quo for Whitehouse meeting, which is actually pretty common, But then admitted that when he directly asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine,
Trump answered I want nothing from them, no quid quo pro, "Nothing."

Trump said that on Sept 9th which was the same day the whistleblower story broke. You do see that of course the president said that when he was being accused of quid pro quo. His actions prior to September 9th paint a different picture.
 
The biggest quote I remember from today was

“I never heard, anyone say that the investigations had to start, or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise, was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.”

They didn't even care if the investigations were done. Only that they were announced. Previous witnesses testified that the plan was for the president of Ukraine to go on CNN and that interview was scheduled until through story broke and it all fell apart.

Even with Sondland being an alwaystrumper scumbag this is clear cut.
 

EJ2GPqPW4AEvzY7.jpg


 
They didn't even care if the investigations were done. Only that they were announced. Previous witnesses testified that the plan was for the president of Ukraine to go on CNN and that interview was scheduled until through story broke and it all fell apart.
B-B-But that CAN'T be true. We ALL know that the Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian's 2016 election meddling stories are HUGE EXPOSE'S that MUST be brought to light!!!!!
 
This didn't hurt anybody but the congressman. It wasn't an impressive line of questioning, just very direct and he came across as being very insulting. I don't totally understand why at this point he would make it seem as though the dems are at odds with Sondland considering he basically have them everything they need for impeachment.
 
After watching the schiff interview, the nunes interview, and the Castor interview I'm back to 50/50. The only takeaway I get from this is that Sondland was not someone who should have been an ambassador to the UN and he doesn't remember things accurately enough to not take more notes. There was just way too many instances where he used the word "presumption", both in favor of and against, to feel like he is a witness that this should hinge on. I don't know if he was inept or just completely unaware but how it took him until the Politico article to put things together seems fishy. He seems like a nice guy and very genuine but not exactly the kind of witness that gives a prosecution the tilt to burden of proof that is necessary.
 
She lied about the do not prosecute list.
Under Secretary Hale just called the do not prosecute list a complete fabrication. Is it possible that you're susceptible to believe fake news that you want to be true or did he just commit perjury too?

Could you be a chud or is that beyond the realm of plausibility?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShinobiWolf
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT