Modded Mustang Forums banner

121 - 140 of 195 Posts

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Ha.. it’s a good chance imo all of the bending and twisting will stop or pull back eventually and those that are using those defense tactics will dump all of this in Rudy Giulianis lap.

He is about to become the fall guy for most of this no matter if he was just being a mouthpiece. Have to watch it all play out. With his possible knowledge of things I guess if he doesn’t get wrapped up they better hope he doesn’t start singing like Michael Cohen but it didn’t work out too well for him when he did tell what he knew.


These are some crazy times with some borderline fools still supporting and defending it. Hell and people thought there was outrage and scandal to Obama’s tan suite lol... craziness.
Give it an hour or so before the Fox News talking points come out to help all the people who have been "waiting for Sondland's testimony since it's first-hand knowledge" to get flipped into "well he didn't really know what was going on. hearsay hearsay hearsay and oh yeah he didn't literally say in plain words 'Donald Trump directed me to commit Quid Pro Quo' so it's all nothing anyway"

It's coming...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
Give it an hour or so before the Fox News talking points come out to help all the people who have been "waiting for Sondland's testimony since it's first-hand knowledge" to get flipped into "well he didn't really know what was going on. hearsay hearsay hearsay and oh yeah he didn't literally say in plain words 'Donald Trump directed me to commit Quid Pro Quo' so it's all nothing anyway"

It's coming...
Most definitely!
 
  • Like
Reactions: socialist

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
"I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said in his opening statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
Yeah there really is no way one can dance around that the way it has been laid out. That’s not saying there will be some obvious moves made to try to dance and bend around it though.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Yeah there really is no way one can dance around that the way it has been laid out.
Oh don't worry, we'll get them soon enough. In fact, if you're watching right now, it's only a matter of time before Nunes spouts some bullshit about TV ratings and drug deals and tax payers and "magic" and whatever buzz word-filled smears Trump and Fox News are tweeting out right now and Jim Jordan starts trying to get Sondland to imply that Lt Col Vindman is a whistleblower and traitor to nationalists....errrr, wait no I mean "patriots" like Trump

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

loooooool the amount of buses the Republican committee is driving over Rudy Giuliani is ****ing hilarious

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

Why does Trump always hold press conferences with helicopter rotors roaring in the background?

"I don't know him well [I just gave him a foreign policy job even though he had no political experience because he donated significantly to my campaign]"

What a surprise!

Again, ****ing lol to anybody who believes this blowhard
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
"I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes," Sondland said in his opening statement.
Yes, Sondland did say that. If I recall Volker said pretty much the same thing. So what? Do you think that holding off a meeting that National Security Advisor Bolton objected to is an impeachable offense? I was a bit disappoint in Sondland testimony. He said he didn't take notes and in many cases he just couldn't recall things. His testimony just isn't as reliable as it should be. Volker's and Morrison's testimonies were much better.

P.S. I'm glad you're watching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Have to turn down my volume every time Jim Jordan starts raging

"GUESS WHAT They got all the that and we got none of the this........................................................[GUESS WHAT because they got the that shortly after the story broke]..............GUESS WHAT so it's not even real! I can try to murder someone, but GUESS WHAT if I don't actually murder them, then it basically never happened!"

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

I don't know why Sondland is worrying about catching his flight back to the EU today. No way this dude is going to be employed by the Trump administration after he leaves the stand.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Patrick Maloney seems to be about as much of an asshole as Jim Jordan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
A couple of things really stuck out:
.

I don't intend to post all my thoughts. I wanted to watch it in case a lot of reports came out taking the testimony out of context. Taylor said over and over that he had no first hand knowledge. Neither he nor Kent had met with Trump. He repeatedly said he was there to report what other people told him.

Sondland seems to be at the center of his crap. He needs to testify.
Yes, Sondland did say that. If I recall Volker said pretty much the same thing. So what? Do you think that holding off a meeting that National Security Advisor Bolton objected to is an impeachable offense? I was a bit disappoint in Sondland testimony. He said he didn't take notes and in many cases he just couldn't recall things.


His testimony just isn't as reliable as it should be. Volker's and Morrison's testimonies were much better.

P.S. I'm glad you're watching.

Well it seems as if Sondland was kind of at the center of this that more than likely why you and some others stated that’s why he needed to testify. Even if he isn’t up there giving the testimony some may wanna hear or expected he is the one that quite a few we’re saying should have been on the hot seat and he is there.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Well it seems as if Sondland was kind of at the center of this that more than likely why you and some others stated that’s why he needed to testify. Even if he isn’t up there giving the testimony some may wanna hear or expected he is the one that quite a few we’re saying should have been on the hot seat and he is there.
I agree. He talked to a lot of people and a lot of people quoted him as a source of their information. The problem is he presumed to know what Trump was doing. I had heard this before and he clearly testified to it today. The biggest problem is that presumptions and beliefs do not equal facts.

I'm sorry but I gave up after 4-4 1/2 hours. They are just rehashing everything. My wife is still watching and will alert me if something new comes up.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
As has been stated, the discussion is all mostly pointless because there is no evidence in existence, hidden or otherwise, that would convince the Republican-held Senate to remove Trump from office.

For the sake of argument and simplicity, I'm going to say Donald Trump is being accused of a "crime" in this case. We know it's not a "crime" to utilize quid pro quo for diplomatic reasons. It is however a "crime" to utilize quid pro quo to benefit yourself as a head of state.

The problem that arises is that Republicans believe this "crime" hinges entirely on some kind of recorded statement by Donald Trump saying "Please go commit a 'crime' for me so that I may benefit from it" (again, simplified for argument sake). Without this blatant (and obviously nigh impossibly unlikely ever made) statement, Republicans believe there is no issue.

Now, I highly, highly, highly, ****ing highly doubt this is the standard that they would apply to a Democrat in Trump's position, but that's irrelevant to the discussion (not really) since not one single person on this forum has acknowledged that precedence, probably for good reason.

Anyway

Democrats are using the idea that the actions that played out were obviously a "this for that" with the "that" being for Trump's personal gain. They know Trump doesn't have to say "I want you to quid pro quo for me" because that's not how ****ing crimes work in this world (at least up until this point).

Filtering everything through Giuliani seems to have helped him immensely as well in being protected by the Republican committee. That dude has been repeatedly run over by everyone at this point so I'm assuming if **** really hits the fan somehow, he's set up to be the final fall guy ("Trump never told you to do anything! Per your own testimony, you were talking to Rudy!" - flawless setup by the Republican committee today).

Ultimately, this hearing is to get everything on record and force politicians to show where they want to fall into the record for the future.

The Senate will never remove Trump and it will be up to the voters in 2020 to decide how to respond.

So let's hope the Republicans don't continue to under-staff and shut down polling stations and cutting voting hours to only be open during a normal workday in majority Democrat districts for bullshit (no no no I pinky swearsies they're good reasons!) "reasons" and utilize other shady-as-****-but-oh-well-because-it-only-affects-people-I-disagree-with! tactics like they did in 2016 to disparage certain voters from getting their voice heard.

I don't have much faith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
So let's hope the Republicans don't continue to under-staff and shut down polling stations and cutting voting hours to only be open during a normal workday in majority Democrat districts for bullshit (no no no I pinky swearsies they're good reasons!) "reasons" and utilize other shady-as-****-but-oh-well-because-it-only-affects-people-I-disagree-with! tactics like they did in 2016 to disparage certain voters from getting their voice heard.

I don't have much faith.

Spot on to your entire post but we all know(admitted or not) those voting tactics will most definitely happen. Some will just play deaf,dumb and blind to it and divert to the topic of IDs. But it’s known how that plays out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: socialist

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #132
Yes, Sondland did say that. If I recall Volker said pretty much the same thing. So what? Do you think that holding off a meeting that National Security Advisor Bolton objected to is an impeachable offense? I was a bit disappoint in Sondland testimony. He said he didn't take notes and in many cases he just couldn't recall things. His testimony just isn't as reliable as it should be. Volker's and Morrison's testimonies were much better.

P.S. I'm glad you're watching.
What is impeachable is the conduct of the POTUS. Your equivocation that a crime has to occur and that crime has to be verbalized from the criminals own mouth just goes to show how narrow your scope is in regards to what you feel is "impeachable". I get it. You don't want liberals to win. How about you let the US win?

When a POTUS uses his office for personal gain it is an abuse of power. That is an impeachable offense. Gordon Sondlaan has confirmed that, yes, there was a "quid pro quo".

quid pro quo noun

\ ˌkwid-ˌprō-ˈkwō

\
Definition of quid pro quo
: something given or received for something else
also : a deal arranging a quid pro quo

As defined by Merriam Webster: something given(In this case, military aid mandated by Congress) ) or received for something else (an announcement of investigations into Burisma;i.e. Joe and Hunter Biden and 2016 election interference)

Bribery requires proof of a quid pro quo — a specific, corrupt intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. Breaking this trinity down further, quid is the thing of value, pro is the exchange and quo is the official act. The deal may be struck tacitly.

Now that a quid pro quo has been established the POTUS commited Bribery.

Article 2; Section 4 of the US Constitution states - The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Yet you see NOTHING wrong...…

John
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-Lee. 30

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
What is impeachable is the conduct of the POTUS. Your equivocation that a crime has to occur and that crime has to be verbalized from the criminals own mouth just goes to show how narrow your scope is in regards to what you feel is "impeachable". I get it. You don't want liberals to win. How about you let the US win?

When a POTUS uses his office for personal gain it is an abuse of power. That is an impeachable offense. Gordon Sondlaan has confirmed that, yes, there was a "quid pro quo".


John
John, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. I'm curious. What part of "high crimes and misdemeanors " is unclear. Of course a crime has to have been committed. And, while you believe Trump is working for personal gain, I have not seen any testimony to that. The only ones voicing that opinion is the Democrat politicians.

If you add all of the first hand testimony together from Volker, Morrison, and Sondland then this is what I get.

1. Trump is fully aware that Ukraine is completely corrupt. The oligarchs steal from the government regularly.

2. Trump dislikes foreign aid in general.

3. Trump is fully aware that officials in Ukraine continuously make promises but do not follow through.

4. Because of a comment he made about Crimea while campaigning Ukraine officials actively campaign against him and for Clinton in 2016.

5. He was constantly getting negative reports from Guilaini. He was not sure anything had changed.

6. Trump wanted an investigation into the 2016 election and Burisma. VP Biden was never mentioned... ever.

Volker and Sondland knew this. Volker (a highly respected ambassador) explained it much better. They wanted a White House meeting so that Zelensky could convince Trump that things had changed. They wanted it earlier, not later. They thought it would help Zelensky win parliament. But not all in the administration wanted that. According to the Fiona Hill's transcript National Security Advisor Bolton did not. He considered it foolish to meet before parliament had been elected. If parliament went bad it could force a new election. According to Hill Bolton called this a "drug deal." So the meeting was held up.

Volker actually testified that asking the Ukrainians to investigate the 2016 election meddling and Burisma corruption was acceptable. But he did not think asking them to investigate VP Biden was. Schiff tried to get him to include Hunter Biden in the comment but he did not.

Everyone testified that they had no idea that an investigation into Burisma included VP Biden until the transcript of the July 25 phone call came out. Biden had never been mentioned until then.

I do not know know why Trump included it then except videos of Biden bragging about getting the investigation into Burisma stopped was all over the internet. Ambassador Yonavitch testified that an investigation into Burisma corruption had been started in 2015 under the Obama administration but it was mysteriously put on pause. The case was never closed. Since that was before she was Ambassador to Ukraine she said she didn't know why.

Several testified that Hunter Biden on the Board of Directors of Burisma looked bad. He was making more than $50,000 per month. One report said $83,000 per month. And it has been brought up twice that Burisma deposited $3 million in accounts related to Hunter Biden. And the investigation gets put on pause. The Democrats say there is no evidence of wrong doing. Of course not. There had been no investigation. But there is the appearance of wrong doing.

Trump knew all of this and Biden was all over the internet bragging about getting the investigator fired. In the transcript of the phone call he clearly says this and asks Zelensky to look into it.

That is not asking for something for personal gain. That is asking for an investigation into corruption. And this is not hearsay evidence. I have watched hours of hearings and I have read both Fiona Hill's transcript and the phone record.

John, you need to learn more than just a dictionary definition before you jump into this conversation. It is far, far more complicated than that.

P.S. But you are correct about one thing. I do not want the liberals to win. I think that would be very destructive for our country. But that is a different topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Why? I watch Chris Wallace all the time. He sometimes has a different opinion then mine but that's OK. He not expressing his opinion by calling everyone else names.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
Holy crap Eagle you watch Fox News man I never would have guessed that **** I mean completely surprised. :-/ . Yeah former Fox News employee Shep Smith sometimes had a “different “ opinion than the usual line of stuff that is quite often heard on there as well.

I suppose there are quite a few layers to that matter though that deviates a bit far from the current topic and situations at hand. I guess it would be a Trump like move all current things considered especially today to dive into that topic veering away from the current political **** storm. So I will leave it be by saying I hear what you’re saying!
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Yes, I watch Fox News. I used to watch CNN but it became more opinion than news, even during the news programs. Fox News almost has as many viewers as MSNBC and CNN combined. Last quarter prime time viewership was 2.4 million. MSNBC was 1.5 million. The one time industry leader has fallen to third with 1 million. Fox was down 1%, CNN was up 1%. That is basically nothing. MSNBC was down 18%.

Yesterday, when the hearing was coming back from lunch the first Republican to asked questions told Sondland what the news was reporting. He asked Sondland did you say that. Sondland said no. In a rush to be first with the headline (and being against Trump) the headline was completely wrong. But Sondland was not a good witness. Remember, almost all of the Congressmen pontificate before asking a question. In court it would be called leading the witness. Sondland avoided some but fell for others. But he was constantly changing his testimony.

There was one cross examination where when it became the Republican's turn where the Congressman went straight to the questions. He simply asked, did you say this? Did you say that? And Sondland answered no to all of them. This guy was a terrible witness.

As I said before, Volker and Morrison were better witnesses. They were better organized and their answers were consistent. They didn't change depending upon who was asking the question.

And this is the guy who a lot of other people were quoting as knowing Trump's opinion. Not only did he not know but he would guess. He was never told why the aid was being held up. Since he didn't know he told everyone, literally everyone, that it was for the investigations but he didn't know.

During the hearings, Volker and others made it clear that foreign aid was held up all the time for various reasons. Bush held up aid for 35 countries in order to get a UN resolution passed. Trump held up aid to Afghanistan and no one cared. DoD did not certify that Ukraine was fixing corruption until sometime in July. There are hundreds of reasons, and this rank amateur tells everyone that it was to get an announcement on the investigations. Unbelievable.

Fiona Hill was scheduled to testify today. I have read the transcript of her closed door testimony. I wonder if anything new will come up? Volker and Sondland testified that the Bolton meeting did not end the way she said. That said that it ended normally. There was no shouting. Bolton simple said he was out of time and had another meeting. Everyone then went out to have pictures taken.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
The Dems are such lying pieces of ****..... smdh

Jim Jordan Slams Sondland For Not Saying Trump Told Him 'No Quid Pro Quo' | NBC News


---------- Post added at 08:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 AM ----------

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
:popcorn. Interesting times from prior to the start of it in 2016.


Whoa... talk about details this guy seems quite detailed.
 

·
PSN alphadong11
Joined
·
28,936 Posts
I like how the president all of a sudden drops a Latin phrase. Come on man, who told you to say that ten dollar phrase? Those words aren't in his vocabulary. Somebody very familiar with the law told him those words. Giuliani?
 
121 - 140 of 195 Posts
Top