Impeaching Donald Trump

[Craig Lamson]

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

Yep, you bought the fake news lock, stock and barrel.

I'm under no illusion that your mind could be changed even when you were presented with real facts.  Its very clear from your posts that you hate Trump with a passion.  You can't teach those who don't want to know.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

I would say both are used as figures of speech for emphasis.

[Craig Lamson]

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

Thanks for confirming that indeed Soudland had nothing but PRESUMPTION on which to base his claim of a Quid Pro Quo.  And of course that is the entire point.  He has no clue at all if Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo.  He is only guessing.  And you want to impeach the President on a guess.  Amazing. 

This of course is why the Democrates are fearful of this case going to trial, because they have no real evidence.  If there case was ice on a lake there would be a big red flag stating "Danger Thin Ice! No Skating!"

[Craig Lamson]

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!

Based on my  (admittedly slim) understanding on the rules governing the Aid granted by Congress, they must be informed if the President is doing to completely stop or never start Aid to a Country. It appears they do not need to be notified in the case of a delay, that is Aid will actual be given after some length of time.  That is the content of why we were discussing  the "words". Given that "withhold" may indeed be used to indicate a delay or a complete refusal may muddy the water a bit.

[Craig Lamson]

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).

How can you fail to see that there is not a single piece of DIRECT PROOF that what you said was actually demanded by the President.

How can you fail to see that we have DIRECT EVIDENCE thst shows the President stating he did not WANT a Quid Pro Quo.

How can you fail to see that we have DIRECT EVIDENCE that shows the President of Ukraine stating he was not pressured into a Quid Pro Quo situation.

That you can't see this is puzzling (to say the least)

[Alan Klein]

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

Excuse me Bart. But it's not your money.  It figures a Socialist European is so cavalier with other people's money.  We put all sorts of conditions on our money as your country and you do.  Turkey, an ally and NATO partner was cut off from receiving certain military aid when it bought Russian missisles.  It;s our money.  Conditions.  Quid pro quo.  Call it what you want.  ALl perfectly legal and expected until the Democrats and you decided to make it illegal because Trump is doing it.

The president is responsible for good stewardship of taxpayer money.  We use it as an incentive for foreign countries to work with us as partners.  It's not up to foreigners who don;t foot the cost to tell us how to spend our money.  Frankly, if the Ukraine steals our gifts and doesn;t use it as intended, then we should pull it totally and let them deal with the Russias by themselves.  We're not in the charity business.  If NATO countries don't pay their 2%, then we should pull out of NATO and let Europe deal with the Russians on their own as well.

[Alan Klein]

Well, I suppose earning $50,000 a month in the Ukraine helped pay for the $2.5 million home.
It's a good thing that prosecutor was fired who was investigating the company he worked for there.  Good timing.  I wonder how that happened? 

Hunter Biden owns massive home in swanky Hollywood Hills, court docs reveal.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/24/hunter-biden-owns-massive-home-in-swanky-hollywood-hills-court-docs-reveal/

[RSL]

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).

Everybody is entitled to his opinion. Knowing something about the subject is optional.

[Rob C]

Everybody is entitled to his opinion. Knowing something about the subject is optional.

Exactly as with photography, art and sex!

;-)

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for confirming that indeed Soudland had nothing but PRESUMPTION on which to base his claim of a Quid Pro Quo.  And of course that is the entire point.  He has no clue at all if Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo.  He is only guessing.  And you want to impeach the President on a guess.  Amazing. 

This of course is why the Democrates are fearful of this case going to trial, because they have no real evidence.  If there case was ice on a lake there would be a big red flag stating "Danger Thin Ice! No Skating!"

I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:
- in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma
- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself

So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.

But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.

If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

I wonder if you have understood what I wrote as a result of a totally objective listening of the counter examination. Let me summarize it once more for you:
- in July time the common understanding among all the stakeholders was that the freeing of the aid was conditioned by the release of a statement by Ukraine that an investigation would be opened about Barisma
- among the closest colleborators of Trump, including Bolton, nobody objected to this understanding during meetings about this topic, therefore confirming this understanding, therefore confirming his presumption
- this group of people was confirmed to be the offiicial channel about Ukraine, involving Trump himself

So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

If that’s not good enough for you it shows that you have no understanding about the way sensitive diplomatic matters are handled. What is your personal level of experience dealing with diplomats if I may ask? Do you understand the way they speak? I prefer to ask because the English they use is very different from the one used in other professions such as photography and you may not be familiar with it.

But yes, Sonderland didn’t get a direct order from Trump, he just got the blessing from his first line. Who cares really. A President is accountable for what his first line does, is he not? Even if his first line did it without Trump knowing about it makes no difference at all. Trump picked his first line and they act on his behalf. CEOs resign when their first line messes up. It’s called accountability.

If you still disagree with what I wrote please point out accurately what you disagree with, because what I am writing here is 100% logical and honnest.

Cheers,
Bernard

But the Bidens appeared to have played the system to enrich themselves and should be investigated. They are not above the law because they are politicians any more than Trump is above the law because he is a politician.  Requiring the Ukraine to clean up their corruption including that with the Bidens is the responsible thing to do.  If there is political fallout, well, VP Biden was told there would be by his staff and others in the Obama administration,  But he did not recuse himself as a was told.  In fact, he went on to use his office to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired allowing his son to continue to collect $50K a month.  So either VP Biden is a schmuck or he knew what he was doing helping the company his son worked for by getting the prosecutor fired.  You keep pointing to what Trump did.  But you don't explain why Biden should get away with corruption which would happen if Trump did not ask for an investigation.   

You seem to be a fair person, Bernard.  Don't you think someone should investigate the VP's action to see if there was corruption as there appears to be to ordinary people who look at the situation?

[Peter McLennan]

What Biden or his son did or didn't do isn't material to what Trump did. There is no equivalence.  Stop trying to create some.

Biden wasn't the president. Neither did he withhold congressionally-approved military aid from a foreign power to aid his own election status.

[Alan Klein]

What Biden or his son did or didn't do isn't material to what Trump did. There is no equivalence.  Stop trying to create some.

Biden wasn't the president. Neither did he withhold congressionally-approved military aid from a foreign power to aid his own election status.

First, what I said was that Biden appears to have corrupted his office and should be investigated.  The president called for his investigation. Perfectly legal.  What you;re doing is getting into the mind of the president rather than looking whether his action is legal.  Especially since it was part of an overall call for investigation into Ukraine corruption that even the previous administration called for.

You can't prosecute people for what they think and they may think different things at the same time.  The question is whether his call for an investigation is legal.  Biden was stupid for opening himself up to an investigation by appearing to act corruptly.   This reminds be of the Muslim travel ban.  People opposed were saying he had it in for Muslims.  That Supreme Court didn;t look at that.  What they looked at were which of the actions he issued a presidential order were legal.  They didn't try to read his mind.  We don't do that in American jurisprudence except when we want to hang a politician.

Second, what Biden did is absolutely related to what the president did.  If Biden acting por appeared to act corruptly, then the president;s call for an investigation is correct and legal.  In a Senate trial, the Bidens will be called to testify.  OF course, they won;t.  So others will be called to testify about what Biden did to show that there was corruption on his part, a valid reason to ask for an investigation.  Regardless,  Biden will be hurt and his Democratic opponents are drooling over the senate trial in helping them defeat Biden for the nomination.  MAybe that's why Pelosi is holding up the transmittal of the impeachment to the Senate.  She's looking for a guarantee Biden won;t be called or involved.  Of course, McConnell won;t give that to her because he intends to bury Biden.  remember, the Republican can slant the process in the Senate as much as the Democrats slanted it in the House.    This is all about politics and who wins the presidency.  It had=s nothing to do with the Constitution, quid pro quos, or anything else your read about the impeachment.  That's just conversation. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... CEOs resign when their first line messes up...

And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump 

[Rob C]

And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump 

But are they not "men of honour, or is that only an Italian concept? If it is, expect no changes any time soon.

Beautiful sunny day, this 2019 X'mas in Mallorca, so no snaps this time round. But boy, it was cold last night!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KK6sMo8NBY

Love that girl.

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

And Japanese CEOs commit harakiri. Which must be your wet dream, when it comes to Trump 

That’s gone out of fashion, nowadays they leave with a thick and contractual package.

I would be fine with a substantial bonus for Trump to. Especially since it won’t come from my taxes.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jeremy Roussak]

So what Sonderland answered to the republican questioning is in essence “a group of people tightly connected to Trump confirmed that the freeing of aid was related to the Ukraine investigation of Barisma”. This isn’t guessing at all.

It is, however, what is known as hearsay. It is admissible as evidence that that's what the the "group of people tightly connected to Trump" said, but not as evidence that what they said was in fact the case. That's the position in English law, at least. It may be different in the US.

Jeremy

[RSL]

It's not different in the U.S.

[kers]

It would be enlightening to hear Zelenski's view on the matter; but that will not happen.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It would be enlightening to hear Zelenski's view on the matter; but that will not happen.

Didn’t he actually say that he didn’t feel pressured or quid pro quo?