The Impeachment Thread

There are two, and only two, possibilities as to the significance of Sondland's testimony and the now infamous "nothing to see here" text.

Either the text is genuine and authentic, in which case Trump would desperately want the guy to testify. He'd be ecstatic to have it happen.

Or.

The text is either not his, or was CYA and not genuine when word started to get out about what Trump was doing, in which case Trump would try to block his testimony.


Trump blocked the testimony, so ......
I thought you were an attorney. If you have the evidence on your side and the burden of proof is on the other side why would you want to subject a witness to unnecessary examination? There you go making assumptions as to Trump’s reasoning again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
Who says I abandoned or supported anything? I'm just bringing forward things that you stated didn't exist.

Until the facts come out in the form of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke the law and comitted a crime, you are just looking at circumstances in a way that gives you the "feels" you've been hoping for since November, 2016. It's OK to look at circumstances and be suspect but, by themselves, they are not proof to convict by trial. You should be just a little less partisan and get a little (a lot) more objectivity. The fact is, there needs to be a lot more than circumstances like this to successfully remove Trump from office by impeaching him.


Beyond a reasonable doubt is sooooooo not the standard.
 
I thought you were an attorney. If you have the evidence on your side and the burden of proof is on the other side why would you want to subject a witness to unnecessary examination? There you go making assumptions as to Trump’s reasoning again.

LG is an attorney.

However, when he wakes up and sees Trump on the news, it's like he eats his stupid pills and washes them down with a cup of ignorance.
 
I'd much rather see lawyers asking questions than grandstanding representatives.

Oh, without a doubt. Dems should let the lawyers do the questioning. These representatives lead with what they think are zingers and have no idea on how to develop lines of questioning, much less recalibrate in response to an unexpected response.
 
Oh, without a doubt. Dems should let the lawyers do the questioning. These representatives lead with what they think are zingers and have no idea on how to develop lines of questioning, much less recalibrate in response to an unexpected response.
Where did you go to Law school again?
 


Betcha his banjo skills are more impressive than his lawyering




That's a mistake for both of them. It will make the base happy but that isn't who Trump needs to be worrying about. Plus, the Dems are going to over and over play the video of him imploring Trump to stop acting so guilty, followed by tough, essentially unanswerable questions for him.

Trump needs calm, non political legal advisors. Cheerleading is a bad idea now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
Oh, without a doubt. Dems should let the lawyers do the questioning. These representatives lead with what they think are zingers and have no idea on how to develop lines of questioning, much less recalibrate in response to an unexpected response.
Do you really think that Trump would have a hearing publicly? He’d be questioned in deposition wouldn’t he?
 
Do you really think that Trump would have a hearing publicly? He’d be questioned in deposition wouldn’t he?

He ain't answering anything. If the Dems held an inquiry vote, he'd come up with another reason not to answer anything.

Most transparent administration my azz.
 

VN Store



Back
Top