America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

So Schiff’s star witness, the one who was supposed to confirm this whole quid pro quo case, testified that he never heard President Trump tell anyone that the foreign aid was dependent on investigating Biden. In fact, he seems to had said that President stated that he wanted no quid pro quo.

Sondland testified that on Sept. 9, he asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine.

“And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” the ambassador said. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”

Sondland, however, testified that he and others in the administration understood that a meeting at the White House and a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky would happen only if Zelensky agreed to an investigation into the 2016 U.S. election and the son of former Vice President Joe Biden.


**********************************
So far no one has testified that they have direct knowledge of President Trump establishing any quid pro quo. Now it’s time for the FBI follow the trail from the whistleblower all the way back to Schifff and any other politician associated with this colossal charade. Especially, the whistleblower’s attorney who we know was trying to sabotage the President since day one. Everyone up to and including Nancy Pelosi should be investigated for this treasonous attempt to depose the President whom has to be the most boorish person to ever walk the planet. This is nothing short of a coup attempt. The Democrats have wasted 2 years on this trying to accomplish what they couldn’t do at the ballot box. This has severely divided America. The members of the media who have been pushing this as well as their bosses need to be investigated for treason as well.

Make no mistake though I feel Obama has absolutely no redeeming qualities, had the Republicans done the same to him I’d want them investigated for treason as well.

Really?

Reread the article. No where did he ever say Trump told him or anyone else to pigeon hole the Ukrainian leader. Nowhere. In order to convict a person there needs to be some direct knowledge of the crime. If the Democrats really believed this happened why was the ambassador not asked to describe the meeting he had with the President where he was told in no uncertain terms to establish quid pro quo?

In fact, he said that Trump told him the opposite. Supposedly he’s the pinnacle from which this idea descended. At best, he has no recollection of such a conversation, at worse he’s proven that he can’t be trusted to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. If this were a trial in in a courtroom where the star witness has been proven unreliable the judge would throw it out and admonish the prosecution for bringing a case that relied on the testimony of such witness.

I get you don’t like him. I don’t either. But, in the US we can’t impeach or remove a President because we’re sore he beat our candidate. The President is very important, but the rule of law is what binds this country. We have reached a sad point where Congress has been weaponized. Our founders aren’t rolling in their graves there’re doing cartwheels.

obviously they haven't said he wanted quid pro quo...
and he is not allowing them to testify.
Why would you even ask that?

Sigh, so again, it's perfectly fine to ask for or even pressure help in many situations of National Security/Interest...Hey New Guy, promise me you'll do me a favor before we help you. Look into this well known Mafia guy. He's violated federal laws here, and we believe he has buried the bodies of his victims in your country.

But asking to investigate American Citizens who have not even been charged with anything here (or in that foreign country) AND one of them (at the time) was favored in polls to beat you head to head is illegal and has been explained as such by people more familiar with Constitutional law than me.

Can't ask Putin for easy permitting to build a Trump Moscow hotel either...HA!

and I simply can not explain again that Biden's stupid boast is not remotely connected to what you hope is the same. The guy was pushed out by the entire free world with Biden sent to deliver the message because he WASN'T investigating corruption...he was corrupt himself.

Odd that corrupt investigator was hanging with Rudy as they needlessly plotted to smear and replace our Ambassador.

We need to put Rudy under oath.

where is Rudy?

So it was ok for Biden to meddle in the affairs of another country, especially if the company that the corrupt foreign prosecutor was investigating is a company that employs his son as a board member?

I’ve been told by many that I’m handsome, but you’re the first male.

My dear friend there very little of what you said that I will dispute. By no means am I saying there wasn’t a quid pro quo. Just that it hasn’t been proven so far and based on this ambassador being the smoking gun, the only person to have first hand knowledge, I’m not confident this will be but a highly partisan abuse of Congressional authority. Based on what I’ve read, this is the first time but parties weren’t equally represented and had equal authority. That is how Nixon’s impeachment was handled.

In the case at point, Schiff has all the authority and refuses to allow anyone who doesn’t agree with him to have a say. That in of itself taints the entire impeachment inquiry. There were no secret testimony in Nixon’s impeachment. Hell there were no secret squirrel proceedings in the Iran Contra affair and if I recall correctly members on both sides of the isle were given equal say in the proceedings.

Here we have a partisan whistleblower who is representing by an attorney who is unquestionably highly partisan. The chairman overseeing this clusterf**k first stated he had absolutely no contact with the whistleblower. Then he had to walk that back because members of his staff were in contact with him BEFORE he lodged his complaint. I worked on Capital Hill as an IT contractor and became friends with many Congressional staffers and had many conversations with both Senators and Representatives (I’ve never met a stranger). I have a close relative who recently retired as a high level Senate committee staff member. Her husband will retire from the Senate in about 2 years. I’m certainly not an expert in the inter workings of the Congress, but I know enough to know that there is absolutely no way in hell Schiff wasn’t briefed. Members have daily staff meetings were they discuss their agenda with staff and forge a strategies. I know that first hand. As such this isn’t a bi-partisan inquiry it’s a perfect example of a partisan weaponization of Congress. As such, the President rightly sees this for what it is and has steadfastly refused to cooperate. I see nothing wrong with that. If however this was truly bipartisan and Trump refused to cooperate or advise his employees (he is the CEO of the Executive branch so every member of his administration is his subordinate) I wouldn’t give a crap whether he was guilty of what he’s been accused of, but I assure you I’d be in the forefront calling not just for an impeachment for obstructing Congress, but a conviction in the Senate followed by his removal from office.

On the other hand what Biden bragged about surely opens himself to scrutiny. He should have stayed far far away since the very company the corrupt prosecutor was investigating was the same company that whose board his son sat upon being paid handsomely yet had apparently absolutely no expertise in their business. Like me I would hope every American would like anything which even hints as impropriety no matter what party the accused is a member be investigated. Let the chips fall where they may.

Disclaimer: I’m lying in an ER bed at one hospital waiting to be transferred to another one for an overnight observation. So if I sound cranky it’s because I am.

Thanks for the well wishes my friend. It means quite a lot to me. You know it’s ironic that we don’t consciously discuss when we talk. We just take the time to check on each other. Yet, here we go round and round. I’m proud to call you my friend and deeply cherish the fact that you call me the same, yet we have never met in person. I do look forward to day when we have a seat, buy drinks for each other while smoking uber premium cigars and yak about all things non-political.

I wanna go...

At this point I suspect we lose. I'v all ready call dibs on buying the first round.

Drafter you’re most welcome to join if Frankie T approves.

Nope just crappy service. In an observation unit in the middle of a huge hospital. I saw the voicemail pop up as my phone didn’t ring. Tried to call you back but the call wouldn’t go through. Though it did allow me to send TW a selfie where I was shooting him the bird.

the cons defense of Trump is that there is no evidence that he's done anything wrong because nobody has testified that he specifically said he wanted to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for meetings and investigations into the Bidens, among a list of other things he wanted Ukraine to do...

as proof, they point to Sondland's testimony about a call with Trump where Trump said,"I want nothing. I want nothing. No quid pro quo. Tell Zellinsky (sic) to do the right thing. This is the final word from POTUS." It is important to note that this phone call between Sondland and Trump happened AFTER the House announced they would initiate an investigation into Trump's dealings with Ukraine...

Trump's own words provide the evidence: the transcript of his "perfect call" to Zelensky shows that Trump said what he wanted in return for the aid. During the call, Zelensky spoke about US support to Ukraine, especially defense, and that he is ready to buy more javelins (anti-tank missiles that Trump says is part of the military aid to Ukraine that he approved which Obama didn't), Trump responded by saying "I want you to do us a favor though" and during the rest of their conversation, Trump says he wants them to investigate Crowdstrike and the DNC server and the Bidens, and to talk with Rudy Giulani (who has admitted he went to Ukraine on Trump's behalf and that the POTUS wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

would the cons be defending Obama if, during the campaign of 2016, it was discovered that during a meeting with Putin in Russia, Putin asked about sanctions relief, and Obama replied he wanted Putin to do him a favor, though.

What if Obama told Putin he wanted him to look into Trump's activities around the Trump Moscow Tower project and to publicly announce the investigation, when Trump was the GOP candidate for POTUS?

all fall on people out of office or minimized by the extensive Mueller Report and are not germane to this investigation.

smearing is not a defense either.

Hillary's role in the retention (payment?) of the Steele dossier is closer to the line crossed by Trump...but there is a significant difference...

Trump's the POTUS, and in his official capacity used the power of his office to hold back, contrary to legal process and beyond established protocols and procedures, approved Congressional aid to a foreign ally dependent upon that aid to maintain its sovereignty against aggression by a mutual adversary, which is contrary to the USA's national security interests, solely for his political benefit against a primary political opponent...

Obama's hot mic comment is the real nothing burger, of the three, imho...he coulda promised Putin a midnight rendezvous with Hillary, for all that's worth...

good point Julian...

I do regret jumping in on this thread. I had decided to let all of this play out and stuff, but I've never had a whole lot of self control.

Delta, I have no problem following the statute. The problem I have is there is no proof, just hear say. There has been zero tangible proof of any crimes, just unfounded allegations.

America is a democratic republic that has been an example to the rest of the world: of the basic value of the rule of law and a fair and open electoral process...

will we accept as a general practice that our duly elected politicians may use the levers of power of their office for their own personal benefit and to manipulate the election process in their own favor, by involving foreign governments?

That all depends on what the definition of "is", is.....

The witness just contradicted his statement, your honor...

Nunes thinks Trump did the same thing as Washington.

but he may prove even dumber than that...

Wait I though Ukraine was corrupt?

Which script are we on today?

not sure you mean this.
should we round up every convicted tax fraud accountant when there are ongoing embezzlement investigations nearby?

My neighbor murdered someone. Did he murder everyone?

This particular misdirection fantasy about Ukraine has been directly linked to the Russians as part of their work to undermine us...

Conspiracies are fun, every once in a while they even bear fruit. But when every US Intelligence agency and every nonpartisan Diplomat and Trump appointed Investigators etc state clearly that the Russians are responsible, and the only people still putting it out there as part of alternate reality and deep state crap are the likes of Rudy G and his secret policy gang, then those repeating it are just rooting for it to be true.

By the way, I've thought it over.
I'm sticking with my position from months ago...no impeachment, but yes censure.

At this point, we know what happened and who is involved. We won't get the statements needed under oath to sway the blind supporters because those key direct witnesses are not allowed to testify and the WH and State Dept are holding back evidence (obstruction anyone?) including stuff from active employees, and tweets from Bolton (That's really weird).
Nunes was even involved in trying to provide dirt to help his master get reelected...but it's fair play that he gets all that airtime? He's involved for Gawd's sake.

I wonder what they will impeach him for in 2021..