Impeaching Donald Trump

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Again, your self-righteousness is reaching comical proportions.

Did you see/hear Sonderland's testimony and the questioning of Gordon Sondland ?
Here is the questioning, to refresh your memory as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtRUhzlaORM

It would have been useful to get other confirmations, e.g. from Pompeo, Volker, and others. However, in an attempt to frustrate the inquiry, the other players were told  to not testify. Obstruction of justice.

[JoeKitchen]

Seriously Bart? 

Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video?  If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.  It was a big flop for both sides. 

And by the way, the testimony of Volker, and others was conjecture based on hearsay that all originated with Sondland.  Pompeo's testimony was more cryptic then anything else and did not give the Dems the goods. 

This is why that, although Pelosi insists her case is solid, she is so desperately trying to force McConnell's hand for more witnesses, which she could have insisted on calling (and taking Trump to court) to testify.  She has a weak case, a product of rushing and not doing her do diligence in the courts, and suddenly realizes she does not have the goods.

Impeachment without any criminal charges, give me a break.  Come up with a actual crimes and you'll get my attention.  But articles without any crimes that are so vague any president could have been impeached over half a dozen times, please.   

[BernardLanguillier]

Seriously Bart? 

Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video?  If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.  It was a big flop for both sides. 

No Joe, Sonderland's testimony is one and only and clearly confirms the quid pro quo.

The Republicans tried very hard to focus the discussion on something else, which is the way Trump spoke about the quid pro quo. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Sonderland did confirm there was one.

You are attempting once again to deform facts.

What I would like you to think about is why you need to do this? Why need to deform the facts if they support your views. Or if they don't, why not challenge your position? Nothing forces you to remain stuck in deception.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Peter McLennan]

f you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.

Show us, with video, or with any hard evidence you have, how he contradicted his morning testimony in any way that disproves the fact that he witnessed the QPP.

You're not Trump, you can't just make stuff up and expect us to believe it.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am surprised that this hasn't been discussed here more btw.

https://apnews.com/0b2bbd8f03d7e4d02513803856d2dc84

This looks like the largest set back for Trump ever. Far worse than impeachment.

It's his very core base of supporters saying "we've had enough".

At the core of its indictment of Trump is what Galli described as the “profoundly immoral” act of seeking the assistance of the Ukrainian government in a bid “to harass and discredit” a Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

It's seem that for them also, there is little doubt that Trump did what he is being accused of...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Seriously Bart? 

Where is the cross examination by the Republicans in that video?  If you are going to post a video, at least give the illusion of impartiality and fairness.  The fact is Sondland contradicted his morning testimony from Democratic questioning with his afternoon questioning from Republicans.  It was a big flop for both sides. 

And by the way, the testimony of Volker, and others was conjecture based on hearsay that all originated with Sondland.  Pompeo's testimony was more cryptic then anything else and did not give the Dems the goods. 

This is why that, although Pelosi insists her case is solid, she is so desperately trying to force McConnell's hand for more witnesses, which she could have insisted on calling (and taking Trump to court) to testify.  She has a weak case, a product of rushing and not doing her do diligence in the courts, and suddenly realizes she does not have the goods.

Impeachment without any criminal charges, give me a break.  Come up with a actual crimes and you'll get my attention.  But articles without any crimes that are so vague any president could have been impeached over half a dozen times, please.   

The reason there's no crime because asking for an investigation of the Biden's who appear to have done something corrupt is perfectly legal.

[Alan Klein]

If witnesses are called during the Senate trial,  the Biden's wil be called as well.   Of they refuse to testify,  which is likely,  others wil be called to explain the corrupt appearance of what they did to justify Trump's call for an investigation. Joe Biden wil take a major hit in his bid for the Democrat nomination.

[BernardLanguillier]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxFkEj7KPC0

For those unable to keep focus for 32:37 mins, the last 3 are the most important ones.

His call for a strong and free press is more important now than ever. A President able to embrace opposition because it is an intrinsic part of Democracy. Not the press saying what you want them to say, the press coming up with investigation, facts and logical objective thinking.

And for those interested in the power of non partisanship, in the power of truth and respect, here is another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raDyWogvQ2Y

For those lacking time, start at 8:15~9:30 and then 12:15~12:45. These words are of striking importance today.

Trump was nowhere to be found the day this great Republican passed away.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's your biased reading of the facts, nothing more... 

And your reading of the facts is unbiased!?

You created such a straw man in your head that I am afraid you’ll come down with a hay fever.

... Remove the name Trump, ask 1,000 randomly chosen people in the world about this case and 90% will answer the same...

Thanks God the world doesn’t decide who the president of the US is.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... an attempt to leverage a foreign power to take personal gains...

Just noticed this.

1. Did you just use Ukraine and “power” in the same sentence? 

2. “Personal” gain!? Half of America wants him to remain president for their own gain. For him personally, it remains a loss.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... saved by a political play from Republicans senators...

From a political play by Democratic congressmen.

Seriously, Bernard, don’t you see, right there, the contradiction you keep falling into? That what Republicans are doing is a “political play,” while Democrats are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and pure love for the country, truth, and democracy!?

[BernardLanguillier]

From a political play by Democratic congressmen.

Seriously, Bernard, don’t you see, right there, the contradiction you keep falling into? That what Republicans are doing is a “political play,” while Democrats are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and pure love for the country, truth, and democracy!?

The motivation of the Democrats is irrelevant. All you need is to look at what Trump did and compare it with the constitution. And again, the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?

The impeachment process is trigerred by party not in power. This is the constitution. They are doing their job. Are they expecting some political gains? Probably, but that doesn’t change anything about Trump’s wrong doings.

And similarly, just look at the facts of how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

The motivation of the Democrats is irrelevant. All you need is to look at what Trump did and compare it with the constitution. And again, the religious community looking at his deeds as immoral should ring the bell that my inputs have failed to trigger in you?

The impeachment process is trigerred by party not in power. This is the constitution. They are doing their job. Are they expecting some political gains? Probably, but that doesn’t change anything about Trump’s wrong doings.

And similarly, just look at the facts of how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's the same argument I'm making about Trump's call for an investigation of the Biden's apparent corruption.

[BernardLanguillier]

That's the same argument I'm making about Trump's call for an investigation of the Biden's apparent corruption.

There is no apparent corruption, if there had been Republicans would have investigated when Biden was vice-president.

Even the suspicion of corruption did absolutely not justify what Trump did nor make it more constitutional.

But I am nonethless in favor of Biden testifying under oath as it would have as major benefit to quiet you down.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... how Republicans are tranforming senate trial into a joke according to their own public declarations.

How so?

[BernardLanguillier]

How so?

Slobodan,

I am sorry but you need to stay informed.

Do your homework man.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I am sorry but you need to stay informed.

Do your homework man...

Since reading the same facts (or “facts”) lead the two of us to vastly different conclusions, I am interested in YOUR interpretation.

[RSL]

The Senate will determine whether Trump must be removed from office. But since the Republicans controlling the Senate have announced their intention to make a political play to exonerate trump from his deeds regardless of facts, Trump will remain in history as guilty but saved by a political play from Republicans senators.

That will not change anything about the clear facts we have today demonstrating beyond any possible doubt that Trump did what he is being accused of.

And it won't abuse anyone. The latest poll show that 66% of Republican voters want these hearings to be real, with witnesses. You not being part of these 66% only speaks about yourself. And it begs the same question you have failed to answer, what are you afraid of?

Cheers,
Bernard

Believe it or not, Bernard, I want those hearings too. Once the Republicans are in charge of the hearings we’ll be able to hear from the witnesses the Democrats refused to hear during their “hearings.” The Dems are scared to death of that happening. That’s why Nancy’s trying to make a deal that will reduce the damage from their testimony.

Of course, the House “hearings” weren’t a political play. Only Republicans can make a political play. Right? Nothing in the Democrat “hearings” demonstrates Trump did what he’s being accused of. What they demonstrated was that the House Democrats want to impeach Trump because they hate him, and think Hillary should have won.

Oh, and you just demonstrated that you don’t know what “begs the question” means.

[BernardLanguillier]

Believe it or not, Bernard, I want those hearings too. Once the Republicans are in charge of the hearings we’ll be able to hear from the witnesses the Democrats refused to hear during their “hearings.” The Dems are scared to death of that happening. That’s why Nancy’s trying to make a deal that will reduce the damage from their testimony.

Of course, the House “hearings” weren’t a political play. Only Republicans can make a political play. Right? Nothing in the Democrat “hearings” demonstrates Trump did what he’s being accused of. What they demonstrated was that the House Democrats want to impeach Trump because they hate him, and think Hillary should have won.

Oh, and you just demonstrated that you don’t know what “begs the question” means.

I have already answered to Slobodan.

And I apologize for my imperfect mastery of English.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Since reading the same facts (or “facts”) lead the two of us to vastly different conclusions, I am interested in YOUR interpretation.

Facts are facts. Opinion differ from facts.

There is no need to interpret Sonderland’s testimony. He said “I witnessed a quid pro quo”.

There is also no need to interpret the Republican leader’s declaration to the press. Google it if you are interested. He made his intention 100% clear.

Cheers,
Bernard