Trump ordered Ukraine ‘quid pro quo’ through Giuliani, key witness Sondland testifies

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Thankfully Maven remembered a few. It has been a long time since 2008, and the names that are still memorable are sometimes for the wrong reasons.  

Yeah, I wouldn't have known them.  I joined in 2010, and didn't lower myself into the depths of CEHST for quite a while after that.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Oh, hello you. How goes it down at the Jonathan Club these days?

 

I don't actually disagree with you. There is a contingent within the Senate that has refused to consider any evidence that the House might present before such evidence is even presented. Imagine this happening with a petty jury -- a potential juror who tells a judge, no, I won't listen to any evidence, my mind is made up, would be stricken for cause because he or she could not be impartial. But there's no voir dire here -- the Senate is the jury, whether they refuse to consider evidence -- even glancingly -- or not. It's sad, but I don't disagree that it's procedurally proper.

The House's "evidence" would not be construed as actual evidence, primarily because of the ridiculously partisan nature of it. No court would allow investigators to inject so much partisan bias and personal animus into hearings the way Schiff has turned it into an episode of Judge Judy.

 

Denying exculpatory testimony, coaching witnesses on how to answer, relying on the worst hearsay possible ("someone told me/I overheard someone say they heard someone told them they felt Trump" was bribing/engaging in a quid pro quo), soliciting witnesses to react to live tweets and call it "witness intimidation", just lol.

 

The Senate wouldn't need to just bin it, they'd merely use their authority to question the people Schiff wouldn't allow them to, add exculpatory testimony, subpoena Schiff himself, subpoena "Eric the whistleblower", and repeatedly drive over and back up, drive over, back up onto the Schiff committee's joke of an impeachment process. They would literally have all the investigative clout they wanted to do exactly what Schiff is doing. That's precisely why I've always been in doubt there will even be an actual impeachment before the 2020 election, and if there is, it'll be very close to it. It's not about crimes, it's entirely theater.  

[Dashinka 24,747]

7 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

If you're trying to say that implied powers are somehow lesser than enumerated powers, you're barking up the wrong tree. (Jesus, we'd have no Dormant Commerce Clause cases if that were the truth.) I am quoting here from my bar prep outline:

 

What is Congress doing here? It is "investigating to secure information as a basis for... other official action (such as impeachment or trying impeachments)." This is 100% within their wheelhouse. Impeachment cannot happen without investigation. This is an investigation to determine whether impeachment is appropriate. I'm just... confused? Just because circumstances should dictate that the power (i.e., impeachment itself) should be used sparingly does not mean it should not be used at all.

 

Something very, very weird happened in Ukraine. What happened is not normal. Investigation is proper and warranted to find out what did happen, and it is within Congress' powers to do what they are doing. Anyone who is telling you differently is lying to you. I say this from a place of love! Really! We can disagree with the outcome, but do NOT buy lies that this is not constitutional, or illegal, or whatever. I'm not seeking to mislead you. I don't pretend I will get you to agree with me on what I see happening. But I hope to persuade you that the law is not unsettled here or open to interpretation. 

Not at all, but it is clear that the Congress cannot force the President to come before them for oversight hearings, nor can Congress direct foreign policy, or direct or quash EOs by fiat.  Congress can demand Executive Branch heads to come before them especially to account for how tax dollars are spent.  Now Congress does have impeachment and trial powers, and yes they are free to conduct those as they see fit, my concern is since this impeachment investigation is so stunningly partisan as compared to the other three, it will become much more common in the future.  What is very interesting is that the House is accusing President Trump of doing many of the same things that was done in the previous Administration, but for some reason it is much more worse now.  Adam Schiff has paraded a number of witnesses that have offered their collective opinions and presumptions with respect President Trump’s foreign policy, but totally ignore the one piece of direct evidence.  Now you are a lawyer, when is hearsay evidence better than direct evidence?  Was Democrat Representative Quigley correct in his statement?

[Dashinka 24,747]

7 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Congress has the power to not only stop, but completely invalidate executive orders. If a President attempts to veto the invalidation, Congress may over-ride the veto with the two-thirds majority. The President is not above the law, and the Congress has oversight. He is not a god or king.

Umm, I believe I said that, but thanks for confirming it.  However, the founders made that power very difficult (overriding a veto of legislation).  No one is saying the President is a king, and the Executive Branch is accountable particularly financially to the Congress, but I cannot remember the last time the President, any President, was forced to testify to Congress on a regular basis other than through an impeachment proceeding.  If Congress or the House wants to willy nilly conduct these hearings based on bureaucratic option and presumption, feel free.  The political optics are horrible, but let’s see it play out and let the chips fall where they may.  I for one would love to see Rep Schiff testifying in the Senate trial to his and his office’s actions.

[Dashinka 24,747]

6 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Oh, hello you. How goes it down at the Jonathan Club these days?

 

I don't actually disagree with you. There is a contingent within the Senate that has refused to consider any evidence that the House might present before such evidence is even presented. Imagine this happening with a petty jury -- a potential juror who tells a judge, no, I won't listen to any evidence, my mind is made up, would be stricken for cause because he or she could not be impartial. But there's no voir dire here -- the Senate is the jury, whether they refuse to consider evidence -- even glancingly -- or not. It's sad, but I don't disagree that it's procedurally proper.

I feel differently, considering this is an extremely partisan operation by Nancy and Adam right now, I could see that occurring in the Senate as well, causing it to drag out for months.  It would be interesting to see Schiff testify as to how he seemed to know Vindman was about to reveal the “Whistleblower’s” name, and how his office orchestrated this whole thing.  I wonder how happy Warren, Sanders, Booker and Harris will be if forced to sit in an impeachment trial while Biden and the others are out campaigning.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

9 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Yeah, I wouldn't have known them.  I joined in 2010, and didn't lower myself into the depths of CEHST for quite a while after that.

So I dont think any still here thought that 

[90DayFinancier 910]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I feel differently, considering this is an extremely partisan operation by Nancy and Adam right now, I could see that occurring in the Senate as well, causing it to drag out for months.  It would be interesting to see Schiff testify as to how he seemed to know Vindman was about to reveal the “Whistleblower’s” name, and how his office orchestrated this whole thing.  I wonder how happy Warren, Sanders, Booker and Harris will be if forced to sit in an impeachment trial while Biden and the others are out campaigning.

I cannot grasp why folks think the Whistleblowers identity will shed light on Trump's actions. The law protects them for a reason. A legal process was followed that set these hearings in motion. Judge the case by the information presented.

 

Both sides were allowed to bring their witnesses and those at the epicenter chose not to participate to explain/vindicate, or they have more to hide.

 

The reason for unmasking the person is a form of retribution and us meant to intimidate others from using the law as intended.

 

It simply builds the case that Trump and his circle behave like thugs. I guess that appeals to some with a strong need for authority.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Dashinka 24,747]

6 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I cannot grasp why folks think the Whistleblowers identity will shed light on Trump's actions. The law protects them for a reason. A legal process was followed that set these hearings in motion. Judge the case by the information presented.

 

Both sides were allowed to bring their witnesses and those at the epicenter chose not to participate to explain/vindicate, or they have more to hide.

 

The reason for unmasking the person is a form of retribution and us meant to intimidate others from using the law as intended.

 

It simply builds the case that Trump and his circle behave like thugs. I guess that appeals to some with a strong need for authority.

 

 

 

Personally, I do not care about the name, what I do care about is a committee chairperson who is also not supposed to know the name seemingly knowing it.  I suppose that is not troubling to some.  Considering that this whole thing was started by someone reporting their opinion and supposition, and the witnesses we saw this week were also simply relaying their opinions and supposition, it seems the whistleblower is still relevant.  Now if this had lead to some actual direct evidence, it may be different.  Regardless, if this is the case that is sent to the Senate they can certainly subpoena this person and let the court decide if the whistleblower law actually applies here.

 

It is interesting you say this person would be subject to the Trump thugs, what is your take on Blumenauer leading the intimidation of a witness?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

23 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

It simply builds the case that Trump and his circle behave like thugs. I guess that appeals to some with a strong need for authority.

 

I guess that's ONE way to view it.  But any woke person with a modicum of common sense will see it for what it really is... an attempt to smear Trump's name over nothing, with zero evidence of wrongdoing.  Again.  Just like they did with the massive waste of time and money that the "Russian Collaboration" hoax was.

 

They keep making up and throwing ugly things ar Trump,  hoping one of them will stick.  But as we move forward more and more dishonesty and cover-ups by the left keep appearing.

 

"Is it correct to say that not one single person on this earth told you there was a quid pro quo?"

 

"Yes.  I just presumed it."

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

I guess that's ONE way to view it.  But any woke person with a modicum of common sense will see it for what it really is... an attempt to smear Trump's name over nothing, with zero evidence of wrongdoing.  Again.  Just like they did with the massive waste of time and money that the "Russian Collaboration" hoax was.

 

They keep making up and throwing ugly things ar Trump,  hoping one of them will stick.  But as we move forward more and more dishonesty and cover-ups by the left keep appearing.

 

"Is it correct to say that not one single person on this earth told you there was a quid pro quo?"

 

"Yes.  I just presumed it."

 

 

Can you imagine trying a robbery case with zero evidence except, I assumed John did it ?

Stay Woke my friend 

[yuna628 9,700]

15 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Well, not exactly. More from my outline:

They would need to present new, passed legislation to undo the executive action, and then have it approved by the executive.

Edit to add: You are 100% correct that Congress DOES have oversight. We cannot say this enough.  

I think I was trying to say the same thing you were, just quickly and not in so eloquent of speech. But I do find it particularly hilarious that people these days seem to think that the President is so high and lofty he is unquestionable and that we do not have a process for determining if they have committed bad acts and destroyed their oath of office. It's like they never learned a thing in school....

15 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I'm curious where your pulling that information from? Opinions are pretty much split down the middle from what I can see online. 

Probably the same place he discovered information about mail order VJ brides. We can only hope it was a pop-up ad.

10 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The House's "evidence" would not be construed as actual evidence, primarily because of the ridiculously partisan nature of it. No court would allow investigators to inject so much partisan bias and personal animus into hearings the way Schiff has turned it into an episode of Judge Judy.

 

Denying exculpatory testimony, coaching witnesses on how to answer, relying on the worst hearsay possible ("someone told me/I overheard someone say they heard someone told them they felt Trump" was bribing/engaging in a quid pro quo), soliciting witnesses to react to live tweets and call it "witness intimidation", just lol.

 

The Senate wouldn't need to just bin it, they'd merely use their authority to question the people Schiff wouldn't allow them to, add exculpatory testimony, subpoena Schiff himself, subpoena "Eric the whistleblower", and repeatedly drive over and back up, drive over, back up onto the Schiff committee's joke of an impeachment process. They would literally have all the investigative clout they wanted to do exactly what Schiff is doing. That's precisely why I've always been in doubt there will even be an actual impeachment before the 2020 election, and if there is, it'll be very close to it. It's not about crimes, it's entirely theater.  

Politics is partisan. It is virtually impossible to have an impeachment trial that isn't partisan. Those investigating will claim that this is a legitimate process for the good of us all, while defenders and those desperately trying to cling to power will cry foul. Dishonesty abounds both sides. It is not a court, it is an impeachment inquiry and then there will be a trial (though still not like one in a regular court). But it still won't be a trial that is bias or partisan free.

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Umm, I believe I said that, but thanks for confirming it.  However, the founders made that power very difficult (overriding a veto of legislation).  No one is saying the President is a king, and the Executive Branch is accountable particularly financially to the Congress, but I cannot remember the last time the President, any President, was forced to testify to Congress on a regular basis other than through an impeachment proceeding.  If Congress or the House wants to willy nilly conduct these hearings based on bureaucratic option and presumption, feel free.  The political optics are horrible, but let’s see it play out and let the chips fall where they may.  I for one would love to see Rep Schiff testifying in the Senate trial to his and his office’s actions.

The founders made everything difficult. That does not mean that congress does not have the power to do it if they want to and that the President isn't accountable and cannot do whatever he pleases as a king. You aren't supposed to remember impeachment proceedings, because hopefully the American people aren't dumb enough to elect a person that is happily willing to do something impeachable. The founders wanted good and moral men, but knew that temptation for even good men to do bad things was a risk, and far worse men to do even more terrible things unavoidable. The impeachment process is there for these reasons and more. Complete and full impeachment and removal is exceedingly difficult, and it's supposed to be. But even if a President is merely half impeached, the stain and shame remains in full view. Supporters of this President don't have to be thrilled about it, but that is how this Republic works.

31 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I guess that's ONE way to view it.  But any woke person with a modicum of common sense will see it for what it really is... an attempt to smear Trump's name over nothing, with zero evidence of wrongdoing.  Again.  Just like they did with the massive waste of time and money that the "Russian Collaboration" hoax was.

 

They keep making up and throwing ugly things ar Trump,  hoping one of them will stick.  But as we move forward more and more dishonesty and cover-ups by the left keep appearing.

 

"Is it correct to say that not one single person on this earth told you there was a quid pro quo?"

 

"Yes.  I just presumed it."

 

 

If someone says there is no quid pro quo while consistently doing the thing that is the quid pro quo and having people come out and admit the quid pro quo and then saying he did do the thing that was the quid pro quo but he doesn't call it that because in his world everything is perfect, blameless, and godlike then it doesn't change facts. The President can call his behavior singing in the shower while skateboarding for all I care, it doesn't change what it is.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

.

If someone says there is no quid pro quo while consistently doing the thing that is the quid pro quo and having people come out and admit the quid pro quo and then saying he did do the thing that was the quid pro quo but he doesn't call it that because in his world everything is perfect, blameless, and godlike then it doesn't change facts. The President can call his behavior singing in the shower while skateboarding for all I care, it doesn't change what it is.

I agree.

 

However, it is clear that Sonderland was lying.  His testimony went so far "all over the map" that Garmin and Magellan got lost trying to find the "X".

 

At the end, the loudest part of his testimony (for me, at least) was when he testified that Trump said, "I don't want anything from Ukraine, I just want them to do the right thing."

 

And by no means am i saying Trump isn't guilty of any wrong doing, both now nor in the past.  But I DO believe that IF he had struck a deal with Ukraine, it would be no different than what Obama did with Iran, and other presidents have done in the past.  It is simply part of the job.

 

As it turns out, Biden does look pretty dirty because of all of this mess.  But of course the media won't say much about that aspect.

[yuna628 9,700]

1 minute ago, ALFKAD said:

I agree.

 

However, it is clear that Sonderland was lying.  His testimony went so far "all over the map" that Garmin and Magellan got lost trying to find the "X".

 

At the end, the loudest part of his testimony (for me, at least) was when he testified that Trump said, "I don't want anything from Ukraine, I just want them to do the right thing."

 

And by no means am i saying Trump isn't guilty of any wrong doing, both now nor in the past.  But I DO believe that IF he had struck a deal with Ukraine, it would be no different than what Obama did with Iran, and other presidents have done in the past.  It is simply part of the job.

 

As it turns out, Biden does look pretty dirty because of all of this mess.  But of course the media won't say much about that aspect.

I also believe that Sonderland is lying, probably about a couple of things. I do not think he is as idiotic as he appeared and he knew exactly what was going on and knew he probably shouldn't have been doing it. He also participated in a massive security risk and probably should be removed from his post.

 

I do not believe it is appropriate for a President, ANY President to pressure a foreign government to dig up information on a political opponent in exchange for cash that Congress had already approved, while those people were dying on the battlefield. Its unethical and dishonorable. Is it impeachable? Probably not to you or maybe not to those who support him - but honestly I've said before how I feel a President should be conducting themselves and I'm tired of excuses when he does stuff wrong and refuses to admit it. I do not believe his behavior is simply a part of a job, and no President should be doing it ever.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Politics is partisan. It is virtually impossible to have an impeachment trial that isn't partisan. Those investigating will claim that this is a legitimate process for the good of us all, while defenders and those desperately trying to cling to power will cry foul. Dishonesty abounds both sides. It is not a court, it is an impeachment inquiry and then there will be a trial (though still not like one in a regular court). But it still won't be a trial that is bias or partisan free.

The impeachment isn't merely partisan, it's all for show. Even if one discards the farce that was the special counsel and looks at this situation anew, who in their right mind takes it seriously when hearings are rife with keeping people from calling key witnesses that can provide exculpatory testimony in hearings entirely driven by nonsensical 3rd party hearsay testimony? Who takes seriously when everything is staged, from the questions and answers, to the soliciting of emotional reactions? It's funny how leftists don't seem at all appalled, or perhaps even aware, that they're being toyed with by these hearings.

 

What made Trump have appeal after two failed attempts to enter the race is the very corruption Trump is facing now. Yet, the way the media, corrupt government employees, Democrats, and other NeverTrumpers are going about trying to rid of Trump is to stage corrupt PR campaigns with abuses of government power against him?

 

If it wasn't so aggravatingly dumb, a waste of time, and destabilizing to US society, I'd find this amusing. No doubt, it's a fantastic case study on psychological manipulation. While American society is increasingly compromised, the left, I find, are so compromised, they are clueless. They're hysterical about climate, hysterical about Trump, and seem entirely oblivious that this hysteria is fabricated by people taking advantage of their gullibility and childish desire for confirmation bias/getting their way.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,747]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I think I was trying to say the same thing you were, just quickly and not in so eloquent of speech. But I do find it particularly hilarious that people these days seem to think that the President is so high and lofty he is unquestionable and that we do not have a process for determining if they have committed bad acts and destroyed their oath of office. It's like they never learned a thing in school....

Probably the same place he discovered information about mail order VJ brides. We can only hope it was a pop-up ad.

Politics is partisan. It is virtually impossible to have an impeachment trial that isn't partisan. Those investigating will claim that this is a legitimate process for the good of us all, while defenders and those desperately trying to cling to power will cry foul. Dishonesty abounds both sides. It is not a court, it is an impeachment inquiry and then there will be a trial (though still not like one in a regular court). But it still won't be a trial that is bias or partisan free.

The founders made everything difficult. That does not mean that congress does not have the power to do it if they want to and that the President isn't accountable and cannot do whatever he pleases as a king. You aren't supposed to remember impeachment proceedings, because hopefully the American people aren't dumb enough to elect a person that is happily willing to do something impeachable. The founders wanted good and moral men, but knew that temptation for even good men to do bad things was a risk, and far worse men to do even more terrible things unavoidable. The impeachment process is there for these reasons and more. Complete and full impeachment and removal is exceedingly difficult, and it's supposed to be. But even if a President is merely half impeached, the stain and shame remains in full view. Supporters of this President don't have to be thrilled about it, but that is how this Republic works.

If someone says there is no quid pro quo while consistently doing the thing that is the quid pro quo and having people come out and admit the quid pro quo and then saying he did do the thing that was the quid pro quo but he doesn't call it that because in his world everything is perfect, blameless, and godlike then it doesn't change facts. The President can call his behavior singing in the shower while skateboarding for all I care, it doesn't change what it is.

I specifically said that Congress could override an EO via legislation and inferred that a veto override would be possible.  Basically, the same thing you said.  However, they cannot simply negate an EO by fiat.   I never said the President was a king, and the Executive Branch is accountable to Congress, but Congress does not have total oversight over the President particularly with respect to handling foreign policy.