Sondland putting the nail in the coffin

[Sea Dangles]

The strange phenomena is watching the approval ratings and popularity steadily climbing. Hard to explain,but true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

The strange phenomena is watching the approval ratings and popularity steadily climbing. Hard to explain,but true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s easy to explain because it’s not true. You are hard to explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

it's a little sad to watch all of these deranged democrats crawling on their bellies through the parched desert of their trump hatred spotting mirages everywhere

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It’s easy to explain because it’s not true. You are hard to explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THE HILL
Trump approval ticks up amid impeachment battle: Gallup
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 11/20/19 10:48 AM EST

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

It’s easy to explain because it’s not true. You are hard to explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proving once again that you believe only what you want to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why did Sondland read a 23-page opening statement which didn’t include the words “by the way, this is all presumption, i have zero direct evidence connecting Trump to this.”? gimme an alternative reason for excluding such a key fact from
a 23 page opening statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because as any lawyer can tell you, direct evidence is not required to prove the crime.
In this case you likely won’t get it unless Colludy flips, it’s pretty apparent the definition of the ask was his job. Everybody else was supposed to stay in line and move the agenda.
That’s the way “Drug Deals” work.
Fiona will explain it again today, but you’ll claim there Isn’t evidence that is not required.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

there is no crime

[Pete F.]

No, Trump just told them to hold the aid and wouldn't agree to a WH meeting, Mulvaney told OMB to hold the aid on order of Trump, Trump asks Zelensky for investigation right after he put hold on aid... aid was not released until after all this becomes public.
That’s all, folks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Because as any lawyer can tell you, direct evidence is not required to prove the crime.
In this case you likely won’t get it unless Colludy flips, it’s pretty apparent the definition of the ask was his job. Everybody else was supposed to stay in line and move the agenda.
That’s the way “Drug Deals” work.
Fiona will explain it again today, but you’ll claim there Isn’t evidence that is not required.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

there is no crime

nope. not until we hear what Durham has to say about FISA abuses, that is. But all the libs here, as testament to their
non partisanship and dedication to getting the truth, have already concluded that the investigation is a nothing burger, despite the fact that nothing has been released yet. but somehow they already know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, Trump just told them to hold the aid and wouldn't agree to a WH meeting, Mulvaney told OMB to hold the aid on order of Trump, Trump asks Zelensky for investigation right after he put hold on aid... aid was not released until after all this becomes public.
That’s all, folks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if all that is true, and that’s still
an if, where is the crime?

Again, there is
no evidence that it’s true, except hearsay and presumption. As of
now, that’s all there is. The only direct testimony has come
from two guys on the call, and one who had a subsequent conversation with Trump, all denying any direction of a quid pro quo.

if that’s where the bar is set for proving something, will
you keep the bar that low
when the IG report and
the Durham reports come
out about DOJ abuse during the obama administration? will you be his easily persuaded by accusations no evidence? we shall see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to pay attention...there was a meeting, aid and movement without trump getting a public statement on investigation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what evidence are we denying? who “confirmed” anything?

two guys on the call, said the aid wasn’t contingent on an investigation.

Yesterday, we heard from a guy who trump specifically told he didn’t want a quid pro quo.

all claims trump directed the quid pro quo, are hearsay and presumption. that is fact.

as i said, if i had to bet, i’d bet trump did it. but do we overturn a fair presidential election based on jersey and presumption? and again, even if he did it, biden did the same thing. no one cared. biden bragged about it on tv. why is it so awful for the executive branch to use leverage to get a foreign power to discover the truth about what americans might be doing there?

you guys are very dedicated to get facts related to trumps corruption, but have zero interest in finding out the truth about what biden may have done. if that’s not based on partisanship, what is it?

he’ll probably be impeached in the house, no way he gets convicted in the senate. it may hurt his chances of re election, it may be a big boost. for sure it’s helping his fund raising.

republican questions show desperation? ok. it’s an act of desperation to ask, “what evidence do you have, that the alleged act ever took place?”.

if say that’s a fair, obvious question. one that democrats are avoiding asking. why do you suppose that is?

“ a failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.”

To incarcerate the robber, you need
a whole lot more than someone saying, that he heard from someone else, that the suspect robbed the bank.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers and certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally and NOT when the end game is interference in our elections, that is what this is about. If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels, but in true Trump fashion, he knows better and of course he eats conspiracy theories for breakfast.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

democrats are just like the woman screaming at the white cat

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i keep saying there’s no direct evidence, because there is none.

and if what trump allegedly did is bribery, why isn’t biden also accused of bribery?

the shoe bomber was caught with the bomb in his shoe. he wasn’t convicted because someone testified that they overheard someone else say he was a shoe bomber.

Is that going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there’s also that...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i keep saying there’s no direct evidence, because there is none.

and if what trump allegedly did is bribery, why isn’t biden also accused of bribery?

the shoe bomber was caught with the bomb in his shoe. he wasn’t convicted because someone testified that they overheard someone else say he was a shoe bomber.

Is that going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floridaman said it in the memo and admitted it in public
Mulvaney admitted it in public
Colludy texted it and said it in an interview
Floridaman exhibited it in his call to Sondland by saying no quid pro quo, unsolicited, that’s not part of his limited vocabulary and it’s admissible
Do me a favor and think about it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes to enter the country is illegal it is also a misdemeanor. oh the horror

Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government. He can say there was no quid pro quo..on a phone call days after the whistleblowers complaint . (convenient ) After all the info and his own white House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that Mr. Trump was indeed offering a quid pro quo during that July 25 call, but dismissed the controversy and said people needed to “get over it.”

From Trumps mouth
I would like you to do us a favor and

Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son

Or Giuliani’s public comments — like when he acknowledged in May that some might find his efforts to make Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals “improper” —
To see one only needs to open ones EYES
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers and certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally and NOT when the end game is interference in our elections, that is what this is about. If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels, but in true Trump fashion, he knows better and of course he eats conspiracy theories for breakfast.

"Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers"

The hell they aren't, if the citizen is doing something fishy in another country. You're saying Ukraine has no sovereign authority to see if American citizens are breaking Ukraine laws while in Ukraine? Remember when Bill Clinton was president, some spoiled brat American teenager was living in Saudi Arabia (?), got caught vandalizing cars with spray paint. Saudi law calls for caning as punishment. Clinton looked into it, a lot of people wanted Clinton to intervene, he didn't (good for him), the kid was caned. But Clinton absolutely asked the Saudi government to let him know exactly what they discovered that this kid was doing.

"certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally"

Nonsense, much of what Presidents (all politicians ) do, is done to help them get re elected.

"If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels"

Please, please cite the rule or law which says that Trump asking the Ukranian president, isn't the proper way to do it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government. He can say there was no quid pro quo..on a phone call days after the whistleblowers complaint . (convenient ) After all the info and his own white House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that Mr. Trump was indeed offering a quid pro quo during that July 25 call, but dismissed the controversy and said people needed to “get over it.”

From Trumps mouth
I would like you to do us a favor and

Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son

Or Giuliani’s public comments — like when he acknowledged in May that some might find his efforts to make Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals “improper” —
To see one only needs to open ones EYES
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government"

How do you know, without an investigation, that there wasn't actual wrongdoing? If an investigation uncovered actual corruption, is that "dirt"? Or is it "truth"? You are awfully afraid of seeking the truth on this issue.

"He can say there was no quid pro quo"

It's not just him saying it. Every single witness who has firsthand knowledge, denied it. Every. Single. One. Zero exceptions.

Again, you're saying the offense was the quid pro quo. Right? How did Biden not engage in quid pro quo? Yes, Trump wanted a political opponent looked at, and Biden wanted a crook fired. But both times (assuming Trump demanded quid pro quo), Biden/Trump used the leverage of a quid pro quo to get what they wanted. But it's only an issue when Orange Man does it. If he did it, an allegation for which there is precisely zero evidence.

[Pete F.]

Will it be acceptable for the democratic candidate to say Russia/Turkey/Saudi Arabia announce an investigation of Trump, you will be rewarded
Is that how our elections will work now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Will it be acceptable for the democratic candidate to say Russia/Turkey/Saudi Arabia announce an investigation of Trump, you will be rewarded
Is that how our elections will work now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with a good faith investigation of Trump, and I can live with the results either way. My existence doesn't depend on securing one outcome. You guys cannot handle anything which doesn't serve your agenda.

Pete, there's evidence of fishy nepotism on the part of the Bidens. I'd like to find out the truth, none of you have any interest in learning the truth. What does that tell you?

Your side started working on impeachment, literally, on day one. Is that how elections work now?

[Pete F.]

Just to be clear, I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989.
And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected.
You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt, but Floridaman repeatedly lied to the American people about having no business interests in Russia, again and again.
Nothing to see there?
You should go watch Fiona rip Nunes and Gym new #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just to be clear, I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989.
And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected.
You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt, but Floridaman repeatedly lied to the American people about having no business interests in Russia, again and again.
Nothing to see there?
You should go watch Fiona rip Nunes and Gym new #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989."

Good for you.

"And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected."

And he deserves criticism for that. He also stopped the birther baloney as soon as Obama released the most official birth certificate. But it was all garbage, the entire birther movement, embarassing garbage.

'You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt'

I repeatedly said let's do the investigation, and abide by the results (no indictment, no chargeable crime). Your side wanted the investigation, refused to accept the conclusions.

Pete, if I said that all you do is defend liberals and criticize Republicans, can you offer anything to dispute that?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989."

Good for you.

"And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected."

And he deserves criticism for that. He also stopped the birther baloney as soon as Obama released the most official birth certificate. But it was all garbage, the entire birther movement, embarassing garbage.

'You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt'

I repeatedly said let's do the investigation, and abide by the results (no indictment, no chargeable crime). Your side wanted the investigation, refused to accept the conclusions.

Pete, if I said that all you do is defend liberals and criticize Republicans, can you offer anything to dispute that?

You are wrong
I defend people Floridaman and Trumplicans attack falsely and respond in kind.

Here's the big tell that the Hunter Biden stuff is bs. The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have. They certainly didn't shy away from stoking scandals. And yet they didn't. But now they do, silly boys
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You are wrong
I defend people Floridaman and Trumplicans attack falsely and respond in kind.

Here's the big tell that the Hunter Biden stuff is bs. The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have. They certainly didn't shy away from stoking scandals. And yet they didn't. But now they do, silly boys
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any recent examples of you saying a Republican was on the right side and a democrat was on the wrong side?

"The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have"

Trump wasn't POTUS. Just because he was the first to ask for the investigation, doesn't necessarily mean the request fir the investigation wasn't legitimate. Maybe the Republicans in Congress are to blame for not asking.

You are assuming (proving my earlier point of bias), that the fact that Trump was the first one to ask for an investigation, means it was a sham.

That makes zero sense. Do the investigation. If it shows that Biden did nothing wrong, then Trump deserves blame for wasting our time. So what are you afraid of? How is that unfair? It's not unfair. But it doesn't serve your narrative, which is all that matters. Nothing else matters. Your every post shows that.