Impeaching Donald Trump

[Craig Lamson]

Would you agree Craig that having testimony from the first line of Trump is becoming absolutely essential now?

We know from Sonderland testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.

I share your view that we don't have direct proof that Trump requested Sonderland to support the Quid Pro Quo.

Anyone truly seeking the truth should therefore want Bolton and his friends to testify, right?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well why don’t we have that testimony Bernard?  it’s up to the House to seek and obtain that testimony.  They decided they didn’t need it.  No time to wait and all that rot.   But the irony is that Bolton, who was under subpoena when to court to try and get a judge to tell him if he could testify.  He stated he wanted to come.  And then Shiff withdrew the subpoena.  So if you want this testimony...go tell it to the Dems. Seems they really didn’t even want it.  I wonder why?.


We DON’T know from Sondland’s testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.  You made that up from whole cloth.   The fact is Sondland never did get an answer as to WHY the aid was withheld.  And that destroys your silly no means yes theory.

I have no problem with Bolton.  But you need to take this one up with the Dems...

[James Clark]

Sorry but you gotta have proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  In this case you can’t read Trumps mind,   And inference surely is not going to cut it for at least 34 Senators.  The “prosecutor” in this case..the House...has already made its case.  Unless they somehow convince the Senate to allow them to call more witnesses ( don’t bet the farm on that happening ) their case is set.  Needless to say they have a pretty poor case to present as it pertains to Trumps mindset.  And that of course is why they are seemingly in a state. Of panic over a trial in the Senate.  The defense is going to cut them to ribbons.

You’ve moved the goalposts though...  Up to this point you’ve been insisting that it’s impossible to divine Trump’s intent without a direct admission from Trump himself, which is simply not correct.

Now you’re shifting to a different assertion - that THIS senate would never convict / remove THIS president without direct admission of guilt. And I concur - though I suspect that Trump himself could appear and admit he “ordered the code red” for no other reason than to torpedo Biden and the Senate still wouldn’t convict.

But of course this is a reflection of the Trump base, their hold on the party, and their irrationality, as opposed to any inherent problem with the Democrats or the case against Trump.

[James Clark]

Well why don’t we have that testimony Bernard?  it’s up to the House to seek and obtain that testimony.  They decided they didn’t need it.  No time to wait and all that rot.   But the irony is that Bolton, who was under subpoena when to court to try and get a judge to tell him if he could testify.  He stated he wanted to come.  And then Shiff withdrew the subpoena.  So if you want this testimony...go tell it to the Dems. Seems they really didn’t even want it.

Yep - This is probably the most incomprehensible thing the Dems have done during this process.

[Craig Lamson]

You’ve moved the goalposts though...  Up to this point you’ve been insisting that it’s impossible to divine Trump’s intent without a direct admission from Trump himself, which is simply not correct.

Now you’re shifting to a different assertion - that THIS senate would never convict / remove THIS president without direct admission of guilt. And I concur - though I suspect that Trump himself could appear and admit he “ordered the code red” for no other reason than to torpedo Biden and the Senate still wouldn’t convict.

But of course this is a reflection of the Trump base, their hold on the party, and their irrationality, as opposed to any inherent problem with the Democrats or the case against Trump.

No, if you refer to my long post to Bernard, my context has been about what the Senate would do with the evidence presented.  The goalposts have not moved an inch.

And the statement not being able Devine Trumps intent without him expressing it.  You can’t read his mind., he has to tell it to someone, or write it if you wish before you could actually know his intent.  But if you wish to explain how we could know what his true intent might be with his expression of that intent, please try.

I must disagree that there is no inherent problems with the Democrats case against Trump.  They have one huge problem and that’s lack of a case at all.

[BernardLanguillier]

We DON’T know from Sondland’s testimony and counter examination that the first line of Trump confirmed the relevance of the Quid Pro quo in July time frame.  You made that up from whole cloth.   The fact is Sondland never did get an answer as to WHY the aid was withheld.  And that destroys your silly no means yes theory.

You have not listened to his answers carefully enough Craig. Or you have and don't want to draw the obvious conclusions not matching your narrative. Either way, it's 100% clear.

I have no problem with Bolton.  But you need to take this one up with the Dems...

If that's the case, and I have not checked this and am unfortunately not sure I can trust your claims, then it's indeed a mistake on their part.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

You have not listened to his answers carefully enough Craig. Or you have and don't want to draw the obvious conclusions not matching your narrative. Either way, it's 100% clear.

If that's the case, and I have not checked this and am unfortunately not sure I can trust your claims, then it's indeed a mistake on their part.

Cheers,
Bernard

So why don’t you quote the passage.  And then I’ll quote the passage and the context where Soudland never got a clear answer as to why the aid was not being delivered.  It’s really quite clear Bernard and if you can’t deal with that reality no one can help you.

This is not about reaching conclusions, your presumptions are really meaningless.  Show us some actual facts.  Like when Sondland was told there was a QPQ for aid.  Or better yet some real fact that shows Trump was only interested in himself and not the country.  I would really appreciate someone bringing this fact forward as evidence of Trumps Abuse of Power.  It would be enlightening to be sure.

Btw, I just this evening listened to the cross of Sondland in its entirety.  Your are simply making up,your claims from whole cloth. That is very clear.

But hey.  Post the testimony you claim makes your point.  Let’s see if it really says what you say it does.

[Alan Klein]

Yep - This is probably the most incomprehensible thing the Dems have done during this process.

What if the Dems realized that Bolton would just say that Trump did not want a quid pro quo?  That all Trump wanted was Ukraine to clean up the corruption regarding the 2016 campaign including the apparent corruption of Biden.  That would blow their argument against Trump and hurt their leader Biden as well.  They wanted the impeachment regardless.  After all, they know they are going to lose in the Senate in any case.  The whole point is just to smear Trump by impeaching him.  The facts and evidence, be damned.

[Peter McLennan]

...conversing with him is simply a waste of time.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yup.

[BernardLanguillier]

So why don’t you quote the passage.  And then I’ll quote the passage and the context where Soudland never got a clear answer as to why the aid was not being delivered.  It’s really quite clear Bernard and if you can’t deal with that reality no one can help you.

This is not about reaching conclusions, your presumptions are really meaningless.  Show us some actual facts.  Like when Sondland was told there was a QPQ for aid.  Or better yet some real fact that shows Trump was only interested in himself and not the country.  I would really appreciate someone bringing this fact forward as evidence of Trumps Abuse of Power.  It would be enlightening to be sure.

Btw, I just this evening listened to the cross of Sondland in its entirety.  Your are simply making up,your claims from whole cloth. That is very clear.

But hey.  Post the testimony you claim makes your point.  Let’s see if it really says what you say it does.

Craig,

I gave you the exact time in the video already.

Being about to catch a plane I am sorry, I won’t be able to quote the exact phrases today.

But I advise you consider both the testimony of Sonderland and the famous July 25th call whose transcript we have.

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Poor Nancy. Sooner or later she's gonna have to do it or get off the pot. Either way she's in trouble. Stand by for chapter ? in this laughable soap opera production by the Democrats.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I gave you the exact time in the video already.

Being about to catch a plane I am sorry, I won’t be able to quote the exact phrases today.

But I advise you consider both the testimony of Sonderland and the famous July 25th call whose transcript we have.

Cheers,
Bernard

I’ve reviewed those sections multiple times Bernard, but they simply don’t support your claims.   

But this tidbit pretty much sums the whole thing nicely.  From Castors second round of questioning...

CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.

[Craig Lamson]

Here are the passages Bernard has referenced:

SONDLAND: Well I sent that e-mail to Secretary Pompeo to set up a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw and when I referred to the log jam, I referred to the log jam in a very inclusive way.
Everything was jammed up at that point and Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those - those announcements.

For more context, this followed:

CASTOR: OK so you're asking Secretary Pompeo whether we should block time in - I mean, is there any discussion of specific investigations, is there any discussion of Biden or Burisma or anything linking to aid in this - in this e-mail that you sent to Pompeo?
SONDLAND: No, this - this was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky. And I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this e-mail and I was asking essentially President Pompeo's permission to do that.
CASTOR: Right.
SONDLAND: Which he said yes.

Next:
SONDLAND: Well again, I'm not going to dispute Ambassador Volker's recollection if he - particularly if he had notes. I know that the desire to have the 2016 election DNC server in Burisma were already being discussed by them. Again, I had no direct contact with Mr. Giuliani on July 10 but through Ambassador Volker.
And I probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. That seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. I don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. That would have been very memorable if someone would have stormed out of a meeting based on something I said.


And finally:
CASTOR: OK. And just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this - the so-called irregular channel?
SONDLAND: I'm not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel when you're talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Secretary of Energy. I don't know how that's irregular.
If a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, I don't know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when it's the leadership that makes the decisions.


So here is Bernards argument:

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.

So, lets unpack that.

Bernard claims that since no one told Soudland there was no Quid Pro Quo, that this in fact confirms there is one.  In other words no means yes.  It should be noted that Sondland never asked in this context that there was a Quid Pro Qou.  It must be "diplomatic english" that only people like Bernard understands were no means yes.  In Bernards world no one objecting is confirmation that something exists even though the question was never asked.  Amazing. 

Bernard clearly states it was only a PRESUMPTION on Sondlard's part but since no one objected it must be true.  It was his "clear impression"  Then  Sondland actually asks and gets his answer...from the top of the food chain...President Trump.

CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.

Of course President Trump stated he wanted no Quid Pro Quo.

Lets cut to the chase. As I said eariler Sondland is a train wreck of a witness for both sides.  He is conflicted on so many parts of his story...it changes depending on who is asking it seems.  If you are planning on pinning your hopes on Sondland for either side of the argument.you will be in bad shape.  Either side can spin his confliction to suit their needs. 

To claim Sondland proves a Quid Pro Quo is a fools errand.

[Alan Klein]

Here are the passages Bernard has referenced:

SONDLAND: Well I sent that e-mail to Secretary Pompeo to set up a potential meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky in Warsaw and when I referred to the log jam, I referred to the log jam in a very inclusive way.
Everything was jammed up at that point and Secretary Pompeo essentially gave me the green light to brief President Zelensky about making those - those announcements.

For more context, this followed:

CASTOR: OK so you're asking Secretary Pompeo whether we should block time in - I mean, is there any discussion of specific investigations, is there any discussion of Biden or Burisma or anything linking to aid in this - in this e-mail that you sent to Pompeo?
SONDLAND: No, this - this was a proposed briefing that I was going to give President Zelensky. And I was going to call President Zelensky and ask him to say what is in this e-mail and I was asking essentially President Pompeo's permission to do that.
CASTOR: Right.
SONDLAND: Which he said yes.

Next:
SONDLAND: Well again, I'm not going to dispute Ambassador Volker's recollection if he - particularly if he had notes. I know that the desire to have the 2016 election DNC server in Burisma were already being discussed by them. Again, I had no direct contact with Mr. Giuliani on July 10 but through Ambassador Volker.
And I probably mentioned that this needs to happen in order to move the process forward. That seemed to be the conventional wisdom at the time. I don't recall any abrupt ending of the meeting or people storming out or anything like that. That would have been very memorable if someone would have stormed out of a meeting based on something I said.


And finally:
CASTOR: OK. And just getting back to the irregular channel, did anyone else express any concerns to you about this - the so-called irregular channel?
SONDLAND: I'm not sure how someone could characterize something as an irregular channel when you're talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, the Secretary of Energy. I don't know how that's irregular.
If a bunch of folks that are not in that channel are aggrieved for some reason for not being included, I don't know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel and they to be the regular channel when it's the leadership that makes the decisions.


So here is Bernards argument:

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.

So, lets unpack that.

Bernard claims that since noe one told Soudland there was no Quid Pro Quo, that this in fact confirms there is one.  In other words no means yes.  It should be noted that Sondland never asked or claimed in this context that there was a Quid Pro Qou.  It must be "diplomatic english" that only people like Bernard understands were no means yes.  In Benards world no one objecting is confirmation that something existes even though the question was never asked.  Amazing. 

Bernard clearly states it was only a PRESUMPTION on Sondlard's part but since no one objected it must be true.  Then  Sondland actually asked and got his answer...from the top of the food chain...President Trump.

CASTOR: And you've been very honest and we're not trying to give you a hard time on all the times you don't recall. We're just trying to say that a lot of important events that have happened that the committees asked you about and you've honestly said I don't recall. But the call with President Trump on September 9th or the 8th you recall it vividly, right?
SONDLAND: I recall it vividly because if was keyed by the frantic emails from Ambassador Taylor, I had again prior to that call had all kinds of theories as to why things weren't moving? Why there was no White House meeting? Why there was no aid? Why there was no this? Why there was no that? And I was getting tired of going around in circles, frankly. So I made the call and I asked as I said the open ended question what do you want from Ukraine? And that's when I got the answer
CASTOR: He was unequivocal?
SONDLAND: Nothing. What I said in the text is what I heard.

If this thing was so illegal, why did everyone up the line know what was happening? Trump would have kept it quiet and just had a one-on-one conversation with Zelensky. 

[Alan Klein]

Talk about painting yourself into a corner. Poor Nancy. Sooner or later she's gonna have to do it or get off the pot. Either way she's in trouble. Stand by for chapter ? in this laughable soap opera production by the Democrats.

Trump can sue the House of Representatives to sh#t or get off the pot as his name has been smeared and by not sending the articles of impeachment over to the Senate for trial, he cannot be cleared or convicted as required by the Constitution.  Of course, the House could have another vote to drop the charges, which would be even more embarrassing for Pelosi and the Democrats. Trump loves to sue so I could see him doing this.  The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment must be sent over to the Senate for trial.  The House is in violation of the constitution.  The Senate does not have to negotiate with the House how they're going to handle the Senate trial any more than the House had to negotiate with the Senate how they handled the House impeachment process.  The Constitution deliberately kept the processes separate to avoid conspiracies between the House and Senate to "get a president".   

"Trump vs. Cong. Nancy Pelosi and The House of Representatives."    Wouldn't that be something? 

[faberryman]

The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment must be sent over to the Senate for trial.

No it doesn't.

[Peter McLennan]

Trump would have kept it quiet and just had a one-on-one conversation with Zelensky.

HA!  LOL!  Imagine Trump keeping quiet about anything.

[Alan Klein]

HA!  LOL!  Imagine Trump keeping quiet about anything.

Of course he knows how to keep things quiet.   Didn;t he have a one-on-one conversation with Putin?  Everyone wanted to know what they talked about but he wouldn't say.  Presidents do that all the time with foreign leaders.  They couldn't have trusting relationships with them if their conversations weren't kept private.  In this Ukraine example, if there was an attempt to do something illegal, Trump would not have discussed it with Zelensky with everyone listening in. 

[Robert Roaldi]

If he did nothing wrong then the impeachment process will exonerate him. You have to trust the legal procedures that were put into place by your constitution, otherwise why bother having them.

[JoeKitchen]

If he did nothing wrong then the impeachment process will exonerate him. You have to trust the legal procedures that were put into place by your constitution, otherwise why bother having them.

Last I checked, Trump is calling for a trial in the Senate.  Pelosi is the one holding it up. 

BTW, since when do liberals think this is a legal process?  I have been told for months now on this forum it is not; it is a political process. 

Well get ready for the politics of the Senate to take over. 

[RSL]

Nancy and the Dems have shot themselves in the foot. Now. . . in order not to miss the other foot, we'll hold up passing the articles to the Senate. Blam. Blam. That'll do it. Ouch.