Impeaching Donald Trump

[BernardLanguillier]

Because they say there was none.   If there was,  I believe it would be legal.

Lovely admission of your thinking process.

Whatever narrative as long as the conclusion is that Trump is a victim...

Cheers,
Bernard

[James Clark]

Honest show of hands... forget about legal or illegal, impeachable or not - who actually thinks Donald Trump wouldn't do exactly what he's accused of?

[Craig Lamson]

The Quid pro quo is a set of actions taken over a period of time. It's a slow and carefully planned crime, you may think of it as an arsenic poisoning rather than an emotional stabbing.

Sonderland saw the whole thing unfolding in front of his eyes. He joined some calls, heard stuff, did stuff.

His global assessment is that there was a quid pro quo and he made a clear testimony confirming his views.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sorry Bernard, it still takes a definite request from Trump for it to happen and for Trump to be impeached for it.  Sondlands  “assessment” is pretty much worthless as evidence that Trump demanded a Quid Pro Quo for aid and a meeting.

That’s the long and short of proving your case and you failed.

Welcome to reality. 

[Peter McLennan]

Such a transparent tactic.  When defeated declare victory and dismiss your opponent.   Great job Peter.

I was neither defeated, nor did I declare victory.  I simply gave up.  It appears that you are either incapable of, or reluctant to enage in, reasoned discussion.

Like you, another poster here attempted to lecture me in grade school physics and accused me of "declaring victory" when I gave up on him, too.

As I said previously, it's a waste of time and keystrokes.

[Craig Lamson]

I was neither defeated, nor did I declare victory.  I simply gave up.  It appears that you are either incapable of, or reluctant to enage in, reasoned discussion.

Like you, another poster here attempted to lecture me in grade school physics and accused me of "declaring victory" when I gave up on him, too.

As I said previously, it's a waste of time and keystrokes.

Well if those words make you feel better, have at it. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Sorry Bernard, it still takes a definite request from Trump for it to happen and for Trump to be impeached for it.  Sondlands  “assessment” is pretty much worthless as evidence that Trump demanded a Quid Pro Quo for aid and a meeting.

That’s the long and short of proving your case and you failed.

Welcome to reality.

Have fun in the alternate one where you reside.

People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk.

Try to deform facts all you please, that's abusing fewer and fewer people as time passes by.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Have fun in the alternate one where you reside.

People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk.

Try to deform facts all you please, that's abusing fewer and fewer people as time passes by.

Cheers,
Bernard

Translated from Bernardspeak...I have no facts, I can’t bluff anymore and I’ve lost the argument.  Time to run.

[Alan Klein]

Of course not, if that's how you insist on describing the "crime".

Withholding congress-approved financial aid for personal reasons is the crime.

er, one of the crimes...

You say it was for personal reasons.  But the fact is Ukraine was to clean up its corruption, which it had not yet done  Even Obama demanded they clean it up.  With Zelensky being a new president, Trump was smart asking him to follow thru with previous promises made by earlier Ukrainian leaders.  Why should America give money to a corrupt nation?  Would you give money for services to a guy you doubted would fulfill his part of the deal?  Does Trump strike you as the kind of guy who gives away his money or the money he's responsible for?  You better perform if you want our money.  There's nothing wrong with demanding, yes a quid pro quo, that the other side perform before they get our taxpayer money.  Trump protected us with the costly Paris Agreement, NATO 2%, tariffs, etc.  He wanted Zelensky to promise he would follow through with investigation of corruption including Biden,  and publish his promise publicly to lock him in to his promises. Trump did not become a billionaire giving away money. The idea that the Democrats are now twisting that into something that they could try to justify impeachment is obscene.  It's just a continuation of three year witch hunt for impeachment long before anyone even heard of the Ukraine. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Translated from Bernardspeak...I have no facts, I can’t bluff anymore and I’ve lost the argument.  Time to run.

Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.

Your inputs have not changed in any meaningful way the strength of Sonderland's testimony. All you have demonstrated is how great questioning is able to spread some FUD.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

Thanks for admitting you don't know the answer. 

So you don't know how long a President may "DELAY" ( note, that is not withholding - which is another point altogether)  the release of Aid, nor do you know if what he did was against the law.  Now its my understanding that the requirement is to notify Congress that he woud be canceling aid, but I'm happy to be shown incorrect on that point.

The long and short of it is you have nothing in this regard that is unlawful or impeachable. 

Just more posturing.

Dear me, please explain how one - even a president with brass halo - may delay without acually withholding. Kinda impossible, methinks. Either you deliver on time or you do not. If you do not, then you have withheld. Even using an American dictionary.

Sheesh!

[kers]

You say it was for personal reasons.  But the fact is Ukraine was to clean up its corruption, which it had not yet done  Even Obama demanded they clean it up.  With Zelensky being a new president, Trump was smart asking him to follow thru with previous promises made by earlier Ukrainian leaders.  Why should America give money to a corrupt nation?  Would you give money for services to a guy you doubted would fulfill his part of the deal?  Does Trump strike you as the kind of guy who gives away his money or the money he's responsible for?  You better perform if you want our money.  There's nothing wrong with demanding, yes a quid pro quo, that the other side perform before they get our taxpayer money.  Trump protected us with the costly Paris Agreement, NATO 2%, tariffs, etc.  He wanted Zelensky to promise he would follow through with investigation of corruption including Biden,  and publish his promise publicly to lock him in to his promises. Trump did not become a billionaire giving away money. The idea that the Democrats are now twisting that into something that they could try to justify impeachment is obscene.  It's just a continuation of three year witch hunt for impeachment long before anyone even heard of the Ukraine.

Alan, sorry, but what are you talking about?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

“Tax Reform Has Delivered for Workers
Two years later the data show that investment has increased, with wages and job participation rising”

And this is related, how? Wouldn't the investments have been made without taxbreaks? Where's the analysis of it?

[BernardLanguillier]

Just to add some clarity...Cross of Sundland by Republican council.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E

Having now had time to listen to this once again in details, the key fragment starts at 8:20-8:40 where he speaks of his email to Pompeo, then 19:10-19:20 when he clearly states that the conventional wisdom at the time (mid July) was that the investigation of the 2016 election and Barisma (although he mentions no explicit mention of Biden) were needed for the thing (the unlocking of the aid) to move forward, nobody including Bolton reacted to his statements.

Then the fragment between 29:30 and 30:30, when contrary to the intend of the Republican questioner, Sonderland clearly states that everybody up to the president himself was clearly involved in these discussions that were the main channel of communication about Ukraine.

Which means that the presumtion of Sonderland [that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by a declaration from Ukraine about an investigation] was confirmed by the non objection of key stakeholders including Bolton in July time frame and that these discussions were clearly fully known by all the chain of command up to Trump himself.

And again... we are talking here about the top diplomat of the US to the European Union, having been requested to devote special attention to Ukraine (which he confirmed), who has a clear and lasting presumption for 2 months that doesn't get challenged by any of the contacts he has with stakeholders. It takes a very low level of honesty to consider this cross-examination a proof that there was no quid pro quo. If anything this fully confirms the clear impression from a key witness that there was one.

You've got to love the final smile of the questioner... I can't help but understand it as "good for you, you've been vague enough for your kids not to die in a car accident next month".

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

.... People are just tired of the condescending lawyerly talk...

Yes.

When well-wishing, honest-to-God, decent, ethical do-gooders, like Bernard (and Democrats), accuse someone, no stinky lawyer should exist to muddy the clear waters of accusation with no stinky cross examination. The accused must prove himself innocent all by himself.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

These semantic arguments about whether aid was "denied" or "withheld" are beneath contempt.

Indeed, people die because of it, and Putin was enboldend in his annexation attempts.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes.

When well-wishing, honest-to-God, decent, ethical do-gooders, like Bernard (and Democrats), accuse someone, no stinky lawyer should exist to muddy the clear waters of accusation with no stinky cross examination. The accused must prove himself innocent all by himself.

Not what I said. I am totally fine with the cross-examination. And I would love more witnesses to be cross-examined. If only that could happen.

What people are tired of is the muddy interpretations of these cross interviews proposed by the likes of Craig.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Needless to say, that's not how I look at the situation.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's one that always bugs me. If it's "needless to say", why are you saying it?

[BernardLanguillier]

That's one that always bugs me. If it's "needless to say", why are you saying it?

Why not consider it a synonymous to “obviously”?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes there is a need for an explicit statement of a Quid pro Quo

How you fail to see a Quid pro Quo in the preconditioning of military support and financial help on the announcement of an inquiry (into a political opponent of Trump), is puzzling (to say the least).

[RSL]

Why not consider it a synonymous to “obviously”?

Cheers,
Bernard

Why not use "obviously"? "Needless to say" is a ridiculous preface if you then say what was needless to say.