Thank you for your summary Bernard, but it appears the subject we are discussing is beyond your ken. Lets see if it’s possible for you to become enlightened.
First lets describe what the process is going forward in respect to impeaching President Trump.
1. The House must make its case for impeachment before the Senate based upon the charges and evidence they have gathered and documented in their Impeachment report. This is the hand they have to play. Nothing more, Unless the Senate grants them the ability to call even more witnesses. They must make their case with this evidence.
2. These House manages must convince 67 Senators that the evidence they have gathered is strong enough to convict Trump of demanding a Quid Pro Quo for the release of the aid and a White House meeting – and doing so for PERSONAL GAIN.
3. The President or his attorneys will be allowed to mount a defense against these charges. They will be allowed to poke holes in the testimony of the House’s witnesses. They need to only convince 34 Senators that reasonable doubt exists to such an extent that they exonerate the President of the charges.
4. The Senators may or may not be allowed to ask questions either verbally or in writing as dictated by the rules the Senate may enact to govern the proceedings. Only 51 Senators are required to approve the rules package for the trial.
5. This will be a decidedly lawyerly proceeding. Most likely the house manages will be attorneys. Most likely the White House defense team will be attorneys. The proceedings will be presided over by a Supreme Court Justice…an attorney. A good number of the Senators who will be the “Jurors” are attorneys.
6. Even though this is not a criminal trial, but rather a political one, it will most likely be argued and judged based on criminal or civil law standards, and the burden of proof such a trial demand.
The long and short of all of this is the QUALITY and RELIABILITY of the evidence is really going to matter. What the House will need to prove is that Trump ordered this Quid Pro Quo and the only reason for doing so was for this personal gain.
Now let see how your “understanding” fits the criteria described above.
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
A Common Understanding is not proof that Trump ordered a Quid pro Quo. At the very best it’s Presumption. Not a single player in this group made a statement that they knew of or heard of Trump making this demand. To the contrary, many spoke of asking why the aid was withheld and not receiving an answer. This is big time loser for the House team.
- 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
What a convoluted piece of logic. No one said no, so they must have meant yes. And that means Trump made the demand. My oh my. This one gets you laughed right out of court. If this is the main trust of your argument, you have dealt yourself a death blow…and handed me a win. Great work Bernard.
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.
But that’s not what happened at all. No one confirmed that Trump ordered the Quid Pro Quo for personal gain. Let me repeat that so it might have a chance to sink in. NO ONE CONFIRMED that Trump ordered a Quid Pro Quo for personal gain.
What Sondland said that it was a PRESUMPTION. And he repeated this many times over. He had NO personal contact with Trump that confirmed it, and in fact Trump told him he want NO Quid Pro Quo. And no one TOLD Sondland or any of the other House witnesses that they heard or witnessed Trump ordering a Quid Pro Quo.
Remember this is a trial. A trial by attorneys for attorneys and most likely governed by legal rules standards. This testimony might not even be allowed to see the light of day in a trial because it holds no true evidentiary value.
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.
Oh please, climb down off your high horse and put it in the stable. Be careful not to step in the horse dung you are flinging about. I might just be a Trump liking, deplorable Midwestern photographer, but I’m capable of understanding the language spoken by these people in the course of their testimony. And lets be very clear here. Soudland is not a “diplomat”. He is the owner of a chain of Hotels…a businessman. And I speak businessman.
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.
This shows the complete intellectual dishonest of your position. Sondland got the “blessing” from no one. He received no order to carry out a Quid Pro Quo. In fact he was told point blank there was no Quid Pro Quo. Who cares? Sheesh. This is a trial to convict and remove the duly elected … sitting…. President of the United States. It’s the most severe form of punishment that can be inflicted on a sitting President. As such it requires well founded charges backed by unimpeachable evidence. Evidence that proves unequivocally that the President is guilty of committing the specifics of the charge. In Bernardland, all that takes it seems is conjecture, innuendo and presumption. Thank goodness I don’t live there.
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
I think that should cover it.
