The Impeachment Thread

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[MontyPython]

You don't know? I'm sorry I didn't know you were a special needs poster.

Heh. Cute babe. So who's the Whistleblower?

 

[MontyPython]

Thank you for at least providing a mature response, unlike RT85, which is funny because he mentions me not being an adult while hurling childish insults.

With that said, I haven’t seen that at all. Sondland said he “presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” Maybe you are referencing a different part. If so, what part?

Sondland amended his testimony, I believe, after other depositions led congressmen to realize he had committed perjury. See his statement there. He was covering his ass.

 

[norrislakevol]

It's kind of fascinating how the trumpers jumped on and believed that it's all hearsay while ignoring that the people who can set the record straight, are in hiding.

Dude, they haven't given a damn thing of substance.....nothing.

In hiding Lol! They would really need to be in hiding if they were telling on the Clintons.

 

[norrislakevol]

LOL......that's what you're being provided by the hearings.

That's hear say.....not evidence.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sondland amended his testimony, I believe, after other depositions led congressmen to realize he had committed perjury. See his statement there. He was covering his ass.

He cleared Trump by agreeing that Ukrainian corruption in a general sense was a huge and valid concern due to US interests, that Burisma was only mentioned in the context of several other corrupt companies, that Trump never made any Biden-specific demands, that Trump personally told him (Sondland) that there was no quid pro quo, etc.

Have you read the opening remarks that were released?

 

[C-south]

Sondland amended his testimony, I believe, after other depositions led congressmen to realize he had committed perjury. See his statement there. He was covering his ass.

Jury members like me-would be sure to swiftly second guess anything coming from someone who amends their testimony.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Deep state RINO

From David French: Building the Idiocracy, One Word Salad at a Time

Excellent article. I hope some of our Right wing friends here read it and tell us where the author's constitutional arguments are wrong.

 

[C-south]

Excellent article. I hope some of our Right wing friends here read it and tell us where the author is wrong.

Lol. Yet both of you have the nerve to criticize other news outlets.

 

[MontyPython]

That's hear say.....not evidence.

So here's the problem for Trump and his ilk: He can't claim "hearsay" on the one hand, while on the other hand simultaneously preventing potential witnesses with first-hand knowledge to testify.

This constitutes obstruction AND effectively qualifies hearsay as the best evidence available.

 

[VolStrom]

Heh. Cute babe. So who's the Whistleblower?

Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

 

[MontyPython]

Jury members like me-would be sure to swiftly second guess anything coming from someone who amends their testimony.

Agreed. The guy's a dirtbag.

 

[C-south]

So here's the problem for Trump and his ilk: He can't claim "hearsay" on the one hand, while on the other hand simultaneously preventing potential witnesses with first-hand knowledge to testify.

This constitutes obstruction AND effectively qualifies hearsay as the best evidence available.

Yep. Case dismissed.

 

[MontyPython]

Eric Ciaramella: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Huh. So you are outing this guy as the WB?

Hmmm...

I gather you're also accusing Bill Taylor of perjury during his deposition?

"Attorney Steve Castor, a lawyer for Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee asked Taylor about the whistleblower complaint. During the questioning, Castor asked, “Does a person by the name of Eric Ciaramella ring a bell for you?” Taylor responded, “It doesn’t.” Castor then asked Taylor if, to his knowledge, he had ever had communication with Ciaramella. Taylor responded, “Correct.”"

 

[Mick]

Funny thing is the federal whistle blower act does not guarantee anonymity in any way.

Another funny thing, Trump has a trail of bodies in/out/waiting on jail now. The deep state will not stand for Trump BS and the truth will come out. The whistle blower will get a book deal when this is over and Trump will never risk being under oath.

 

[RockyTop85]

Just read my post right about this one where I responded to Mick. That’s my response to your so-called “proof”.

It’s the same thing as you saying you saw me rob my neighbor (neighbor A) even though both neighbor A and I say that isn’t what happened and nothing is missing. Despite that you keep on saying I robbed neighbor A because another neighbor (B) heard me telling yet another neighbor (C) that I was going to rob neighbor A. That doesn’t work in any court of law.

I don’t know your neighbors but, in May, Perry, Sondland, and Volker began assisting Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, with securing these investigations. They spent two months trying to use leverage to get the Ukrainians to commit to investigations that included Hunter Biden.

July 10 Sondland tells Ukraine’s national security advisor no WH meeting unless we get investigations. Bolton ends meeting, makes drug deal comment, ultimately resigns.

By July 18, no investigation had been announced and aid was delayed. None of those four men has the authority to do that. Trump and Mulvaney are the only people who could have done that.

Two weeks later, Volker texts a member of Ukraine’s government and explicitly tells him that they must deliver on the investigations to get a WH meeting.

The next day, Trump’s phone call with Zelensky establishes that he personally wanted the investigations and he wanted Biden investigated. He tries to leverage javeline missiles to get them.

Still no public announcement of investigation. Still no release of aid.

August 29, it’s published in politico that the aid is withheld. Taylor texts Sondland “that’s crazy.” Sondland: call me. Taylor says that, over the phone, Sondland told him that “everything” was now conditioned on the investigations and that his prior statement that it was just the WH meeting was “a mistake.” Effectively says Trump’s not signing the check until he gets what he’s owed.

September 1: Sondland tells Yermak no investigations = no money.

September 9 Joeseph Maguire makes WH OLC aware of the whistle blower complaint. Schiff starts bitching. September 11 aid is released.

That’s just off the top of my head. So yeah, good luck with “there’s no evidence,” and “no connection between aid and investigations” and “wouldn’t hold up in a court of law” defenses because there is a mountain of evidence despite frivolous claims of executive privilege, there was an explicit connection between aid and investigations, and impeachment is literally a court of public opinion.

Also, lol at all these process arguments. Trump already victimized the process. He doesn’t get to skate on obstruction charges by the sole virtue of being the president of the United States and then have a cry about relaxed evidentiary rules in an impeachment hearing. You want Trump to have the full panoply of constitutional rights? He can waive immunity at any time, tell the DOJ to indict him, and have a trial in a court of law. Good luck with that though because Federal courts treat circumstantial and direct evidence in the exact same way and most of this falls into the numerous exceptions to hearsay.

I’d say he finds his current situation, where he doesn’t have to worry about a pesky thing like an impartial jury, to be preferable.

 

[VolStrom]

 

[Mick]

I don’t know your neighbors but, in May, Perry, Sondland, and Volker began assisting Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, with securing these investigations. They spent two months trying to use leverage to get the Ukrainians to commit to investigations that included Hunter Biden.

July 10 Sondland tells Ukraine’s national security advisor no WH meeting unless we get investigations. Bolton ends meeting, makes drug deal comment, ultimately resigns.

By July 18, no investigation had been announced and aid was delayed. None of those four men has the authority to do that. Trump and Mulvaney are the only people who could have done that.

Two weeks later, Volker texts a member of Ukraine’s government and explicitly tells him that they must deliver on the investigations to get a WH meeting.

The next day, Trump’s phone call with Zelensky establishes that he personally wanted the investigations and he wanted Biden investigated. He tries to leverage javeline missiles to get them.

Still no public announcement of investigation. Still no release of aid.

August 29, it’s published in politico that the aid is withheld. Taylor texts Sondland “that’s crazy.” Sondland: call me. Taylor says that, over the phone, Sondland told him that “everything” was now conditioned on the investigations and that his prior statement that it was just the WH meeting was “a mistake.” Effectively says Trump’s not signing the check until he gets what he’s owed.

September 1: Sondland tells Yermak no investigations = no money.

September 9 Joeseph Maguire makes WH OLC aware of the whistle blower complaint. Schiff starts bitching. September 11 aid is released.

That’s just off the top of my head. So yeah, good luck with “there’s no evidence,” and “no connection between aid and investigations” and “wouldn’t hold up in a court of law” defenses because there is a mountain of evidence despite frivolous claims of executive privilege, there was an explicit connection between aid and investigations, and impeachment is literally a court of public opinion.

Also, lol at all these process arguments. Trump already victimized the process. He doesn’t get to skate on obstruction charges by the sole virtue of being the president of the United States and then have a cry about relaxed evidentiary rules in an impeachment hearing. You want Trump to have the full panoply of constitutional rights? He can waive immunity at any time, tell the DOJ to indict him, and have a trial in a court of law. Good luck with that though because Federal courts treat circumstantial and direct evidence in the exact same way and most of this falls into the numerous exceptions to hearsay.

I’d say he finds his current situation, where he doesn’t have to worry about a pesky thing like an impartial jury, to be preferable.

I feel like I just read over a legal brief or opening statement for the prosecution. It will be quickly refuted by hearsay.

 

[hog88]

I'm sure WB's attorney would figure what applies. While the anonymity isn't guaranteed, retaliation is prohibited. Obviously, anything negative that befell the WB could be pinned on the outing. Any competent attorney could likely prove that the person outting the WB would have reasonable expectation that such action *could* result in negative consequences - namely retaliation- for the WB.

There's a reason Trump hasn't outed the WB already. He's smart enough to know the potential ramifications. It's untested law, I suspect. And jury members like me - we'd be sure justice is served.

Jurors like you are why we have so many ****** lawyers.

 

[RockyTop85]

I feel like I just read over a legal brief or opening statement for the prosecution. It will be quickly refuted by hearsay.

Probably a lot more typing than it was worth for a guy who, less than 24 hours ago, suggested that the “no evidence” argument was bad faith and he was trying to avoid it.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'd match you again but I bought some Pete gear today.

nm. that was cold

 

[hUTch2002]

Sondland amended his testimony, I believe, after other depositions led congressmen to realize he had committed perjury. See his statement there. He was covering his ass.

What I quoted was his amended statement.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Well I can guarantee one thing - if any harm befalls him/her, the person(s) that did the outting will be sued. If I were on a jury, 5 second decision.

 

[Mick]

Probably a lot more typing than it was worth for a guy who, less than 24 hours ago, suggested that the “no evidence” argument was bad faith and he was trying to avoid it.

A timeline is always good. Time must be irrelevant in the reality of a Trumper.

 

[hUTch2002]

I don’t know your neighbors but, in May, Perry, Sondland, and Volker began assisting Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, with securing these investigations. They spent two months trying to use leverage to get the Ukrainians to commit to investigations that included Hunter Biden.

July 10 Sondland tells Ukraine’s national security advisor no WH meeting unless we get investigations. Bolton ends meeting, makes drug deal comment, ultimately resigns.

By July 18, no investigation had been announced and aid was delayed. None of those four men has the authority to do that. Trump and Mulvaney are the only people who could have done that.

Two weeks later, Volker texts a member of Ukraine’s government and explicitly tells him that they must deliver on the investigations to get a WH meeting.

The next day, Trump’s phone call with Zelensky establishes that he personally wanted the investigations and he wanted Biden investigated. He tries to leverage javeline missiles to get them.

Still no public announcement of investigation. Still no release of aid.

August 29, it’s published in politico that the aid is withheld. Taylor texts Sondland “that’s crazy.” Sondland: call me. Taylor says that, over the phone, Sondland told him that “everything” was now conditioned on the investigations and that his prior statement that it was just the WH meeting was “a mistake.” Effectively says Trump’s not signing the check until he gets what he’s owed.

September 1: Sondland tells Yermak no investigations = no money.

September 9 Joeseph Maguire makes WH OLC aware of the whistle blower complaint. Schiff starts bitching. September 11 aid is released.

That’s just off the top of my head. So yeah, good luck with “there’s no evidence,” and “no connection between aid and investigations” and “wouldn’t hold up in a court of law” defenses because there is a mountain of evidence despite frivolous claims of executive privilege, there was an explicit connection between aid and investigations, and impeachment is literally a court of public opinion.

Also, lol at all these process arguments. Trump already victimized the process. He doesn’t get to skate on obstruction charges by the sole virtue of being the president of the United States and then have a cry about relaxed evidentiary rules in an impeachment hearing. You want Trump to have the full panoply of constitutional rights? He can waive immunity at any time, tell the DOJ to indict him, and have a trial in a court of law. Good luck with that though because Federal courts treat circumstantial and direct evidence in the exact same way and most of this falls into the numerous exceptions to hearsay.

I’d say he finds his current situation, where he doesn’t have to worry about a pesky thing like an impartial jury, to be preferable.

I will say that I do appreciate you laying all that out. I still believe you are taking things that aren’t yet proven facts and displaying them as such but that’s what everyone on here does so no worries there. So there’s no reason why he won’t be removed from office then if it is that black and white, correct? I find it interesting that you find it so black and white when just this morning on CNN I heard their impeachment expert, who has been part of 4 impeachment hearings (not the President obviously), saying that yesterday was a actually a good day for Trump and that there is no direct evidence yet. It sounded like he was still holding out hope but he gave an impartial POV. I was very surprised to hear it on CNN, although I’ll say I’ve heard way more impartial arguments on CNN than I have on MSNBC.