Impeaching Donald Trump

[BernardLanguillier]

Sheesh, you really do have it bad.

Yep it’s so clear, it was never told to your star witness Sondland.   He only PRESUMED it.   Now that’s some quality evidence.

Merry Christmas, Bernard.

No Craig, I am just looking at facts. I have a hard time thinking you can watch this Republican questioning in good faith and think they are attempting to find the truth here.

You are apparently still thinking that lawyer techniques can convince anyone. But this is more of the same corrupt stuff Trump supporters claim they have chosen him to get rid of... you guys have come a full circle.

Merry Christmas to you.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Classic lawyer tactics. There is no "direct yes or no" answer to this question.

However, I'll play your brain-dead game, despite your transparent attempt to corner me. 

The answer is "How the eff would I know?" And, "Why would I care?"

The issue isn't whether or not Trump told Sondland to invoke the QPP.  The issue is whether or not TRUMP invoked it.

Sorry Peter, you lose.  There is in fact a direct yes or no answer to the question and the answer is no.   You non answer shows very fully that you can’t come to grips with very direst evidence that destroys your position.

We are discussing Sondland and his claim there was a quid pro quo.  In that respect Sondland lwas less than honest when he said there was...it was only his presumption.   
 
I didn’t attempt to corner you.  You cornered yourself.   I simply pointed it out.   Your inability to deal with this in an intellectually honest manner speaks volumes.

Merry Christmas Peter.

[Craig Lamson]

No Craig, I am just looking at facts. I have a hard time thinking you can watch this Republican questioning in good faith and think they are attempting to find the truth here.

You are apparently still thinking that lawyer techniques can convince anyone. But this is more of the same corrupt stuff Trump supporters claim they have chosen him to get rid of... you guys have come a full circle.

Merry Christmas to you.

Cheers,
Bernard

But they did find the truth Bernard. You just don’t like the truth because it destroys your position.

[Craig Lamson]

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

Is there a difference between taking something away forever or holding it for a time Peter?

Words matter.


A yes or no answer will do just fine.

[BernardLanguillier]

But they did find the truth Bernard. You just don’t like the truth because it destroys your position.

No Craig. This is clearly not what Sonderland has been telling us.

I am impressed by the convoluted logic that results in you claiming the opposite of what has been said though. But I hope you realize that the techniques used here can be applied to just about anything. And can be leveraged to turn any truth upside down.

Are you proud of yourself to show support to this?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

No Craig. This is clearly not what Sonderland has been telling us.

I am impressed by the convoluted logic that results in you claiming the opposite of what has been said though. But I hope you realize that the techniques used here can be applied to just about anything. And can be leveraged to turn any truth upside down.

Are you proud of yourself to show support to this?

Cheers,
Bernard

Actually Bernard you are guilty of what you are charging. Under cross, Sondland  was VERY clear.   He had NO idea if there was a Quid Pro Quo issued by Trump in respect to Aid or promise of an investigation and he never heard it from Trump.  The very BEST he could offer was his PRESUMPTION that one existed.  He was asked that question directly more than once.  His answer was the same. No Quid Pro quo from Trump.   Trump even told him that directly.  Ukraine said they were not issued a Quid Pro Quo.

None of this can be refuted.  Its FACT.  Your position is doomed by these facts. 

BTW, I’m very proud that I can read and comprehend facts and not be swayed by blind hate.

[Peter McLennan]

Sorry Peter, you lose. Your inability to deal with this in an intellectually honest manner speaks volumes.
Merry Christmas Peter.

Oh, well.  Another one to add to the <insert usual suspects here> list.

Like I said earlier, Bernard.  This lot is a waste of time/keystrokes.  They'll say whatever they think will make them feel good.

Just like their fearless leader who I saw today in a video declaring "I know more about windmills than anybody!"

Really?  You allow this idiot to lead your country?

[BernardLanguillier]

Actually Bernard you are guilty of what you are charging. Under cross, Sondland  was VERY clear.   He had NO idea if there was a Quid Pro Quo issued by Trump in respect to Aid or promise of an investigation and he never heard it from Trump.  The very BEST he could offer was his PRESUMPTION that one existed.  He was asked that question directly more than once.  His answer was the same. No Quid Pro quo from Trump.   Trump even told him that directly.  Ukraine said they were not issued a Quid Pro Quo.

None of this can be refuted.  Its FACT.  Your position is doomed by these facts. 

BTW, I’m very proud that I can read and comprehend facts and not be swayed by blind hate.

Ah yes, I agree with you on this, Trump said no quid pro quo.

We know he can be trusted to tell the truth consistently.

The point here is that Sonderland, looking at the situation and all the facts he was aware of, clearly testified that there was a quid pro quo.

That's what matters, not an a posteriori denial from Trump.

But you know this full well...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Oh, well.  Another one to add to the <insert usual suspects here> list.

Like I said earlier, Bernard.  This lot is a waste of time/keystrokes.  They'll say whatever they think will make them feel good.

Just like their fearless leader who I saw today in a video declaring "I know more about windmills than anybody!"

Really?  You allow this idiot to lead your country?

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

I’ll take Trump, warts and all, over anyone else running now or in 2016.

YMMV

[JoeKitchen]

LOL

I'll say it again, although some of you may not realize how weak the case is, the Dems in congress certainly do.  That is why they did not put a single crime in the articles.  No extortion nor bribery nor quid pro quo nor any other actual crime. 

Have a great night. 

[Craig Lamson]

Ah yes, I agree with you on this, Trump said no quid pro quo.

We know he can be trusted to tell the truth consistently.

The point here is that Sonderland, looking at the situation and all the facts he was aware of, clearly testified that there was a quid pro quo.

That's what matters, not an a posteriori denial from Trump.

But you know this full well...

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, what part of Sondlands testimony where he says he only PRESUMED there was a Quid Pro Quo don’t you understand.  His “clear statement” was destroyed upon cross examination.

It was his guess.  So now we are impeaching a president on a guess?  That’s your star witness?  Really?

That’s the state of your argument?  My oh my.

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, what part of Sondlands testimony where he says he only PRESUMED there was a Quid Pro Quo don’t you understand.  His “clear statement” was destroyed upon cross examination.

It was his guess.  So now we are impeaching a president on a guess?  That’s your star witness?  Really?

That’s the state of your argument?  My oh my.

Help me understand Craig... are you saying that Trump would have had to explicitely say "this is a Quid Pro quo" for this situation to be a quid pro quo?

Is that the state of your argument?

My oh my...

If we both agree that Sonderland was not lying under oath, we need to treat him for what he is. A diplomat working on a sensitive topic that Trump obviously knew was sensitive. His global assessment that there was a quid pro quo is undisputed and is as good as it gets. What you call "presumption" is a fact and a proof.

There is absolutely no need for an explicit "let's do a quid pro quo" comment from Trump for this to be one.

According to your logic, the witness of a murder would not be a valid witness unless he heard the killer say to the victim "I am killing you". I guess most objective people would agree with me that this is stupid.

And I have a hard time once again believe you are commenting in good faith.
 
Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Quid pro ques are not illegal even if they're read one.   We make demands on foreign governments all the time before we turn over money and weapons.   

[BernardLanguillier]

Quid pro ques are not illegal even if they're read one.   We make demands on foreign governments all the time before we turn over money and weapons.

Ah ok, so you agree there was one?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Ah ok, so you agree there was one?

Cheers,
Bernard

Ah ok, so you agree there was one?

Cheers,
Bernard

I didn't say that.   I said if there wss one,  it's not illegal.

[BernardLanguillier]

I didn't say that.   I said if there wss one,  it's not illegal.

Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Help me understand Craig... are you saying that Trump would have had to explicitely say "this is a Quid Pro quo" for this situation to be a quid pro quo?

Is that the state of your argument?

My oh my...

If we both agree that Sonderland was not lying under oath, we need to treat him for what he is. A diplomat working on a sensitive topic that Trump obviously knew was sensitive. His global assessment that there was a quid pro quo is undisputed and is as good as it gets. What you call "presumption" is a fact and a proof.

There is absolutely no need for an explicit "let's do a quid pro quo" comment from Trump for this to be one.

According to your logic, the witness of a murder would not be a valid witness unless he heard the killer say to the victim "I am killing you". I guess most objective people would agree with me that this is stupid.

And I have a hard time once again believe you are commenting in good faith.
 
Cheers,
Bernard

I don’t agree that Sondland was not lying under oath.  In fact I believe the exact opposite.  He had to “ revise” his testimony three time.  He was a world class wreck of a witness...for both sides.  That he is your star witness is quite a tell.  His “ assessment” is meaningless.

Yes there is a need for an explicit statement of a Quid pro Quo.  Without one all you have is speculation and you want to impeach and remove a president with speculation? Trump would indeed have to explicitly state the desire for a Quid pro Quo if you want to impeach him for that charge.   He can’t just “will” it to happen.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.  As a witness he would have actually seen the murder.  I guess most objective people would conclude that to conflate the two situations would be stupid.  Sondland  did not witness the “murder”.  He did not hear the “murder”.  No one told him who was the “murderer”.  Sondland simply guessed who committed the “murder”

Actually Bernard, I’m having a hard time understanding why the facts mean so little to you.  Or what you consider to be facts.  Your thought process on this matter does seems irrationally driven.

[Craig Lamson]

Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal?

Cheers,
Bernard

Why do you think Democrats ... and you...are trying so hard to convince people there was a Quid pro Quo despite the lack of true facts that there was one?

[Alan Klein]

Why do you think Republicans have been trying that super hard to convince the world against clear testimonies that there was no quid pro quo if a quid pro quo would have been legal?

Cheers,
Bernard

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

[BernardLanguillier]

Your analogy is fatally flawed.  As a witness he would have actually seen the murder.  I guess most objective people would conclude that to conflate the two situations would be stupid.  Sondland  did not witness the “murder”.  He did not hear the “murder”.  No one told him who was the “murderer”.  Sondland simply guessed who committed the “murder”

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