To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

You are not really good at the set up and all that does not change the fact that Taylor testified that he was basing his testimony on what he heard from Volker and Sondland.

Oh and then you forgot this. Taylor saying his sole source was the NY Times.


Secret Impeachment Hearing Transcript: Democrats' 'Star ...
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2019/11/secret-impeachment-hearing-transcript...
Secret Impeachment Hearing Transcript: Democrats’ ‘Star Witness’ Admits He Wasn’t On Trump-Ukraine Call, Sole Source Was NY Times. 11/06/2019 By Stillness in the Storm Leave a Comment House Democrats have released the latest in the series of heavily-redacted transcripts of the secret hearings they had undertaken in recent weeks – that of Bill Taylor – the top US diplomat in Ukraine ...

 

Yes, the grand intellectual progress of reading headlines on your phone by an industry controlled by a political party.

There is so much laughable content here I don't know where to start.

 

There are rules for keeping the names of whistle blowers private, but they are not strict and they are not blanket. The strict conventions for "protecting" whistle blowers apply to retaliation.

 

No, that is false as my post shows. Among other factors, Taylor based his testimony on what Trump said.

"I would like you to do us a favor though. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

However, noting what you said, it was Volker and Sondland who said Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens and used extortion to compel Zelensky to do what Trump wanted.

Well, okay, have it your way.

 

State Department official George Kent is a key witness in the impeachment inquiry. In his deposition made public today, Kent said, "If you' re asking me, have we ever gone to the Ukrainians and asked them to investigate or prosecute individuals for political reasons, the answer is, I hope we haven't, and we shouldn't because that goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post Soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the promotion of the rule of law."

The transcripts from key figures in the impeachment inquiry have largely established a narrative that confirms Trump directed officials to tie nearly $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine to demands that Zelenskiy announce probes into the Bidens and the 2016 election.

For example, Sondland made a significant change to his testimony: He said he now remembers telling a top aide to Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not receive U.S. military assistance until it committed to investigating the 2016 election and Joe Biden.

Sondland was one of Trump's political appointees, not an experienced foreign service official in the state department. Sondland is a hotel magnate who contributed a million dollars to the Trump campaign.

 

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's staunchest supporters, appears to be confused. His latest defense of Trump is that Trump's Ukraine policy is "incoherent." No kidding, that is what he said.

"What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo," Graham said.

Graham told reporters that he would not be reading newly released deposition transcripts, calling the Democratic-led impeachment probe a “bunch of BS."

Graham told us that he hopes the President will be able to call his own witnesses. Assuming it would be the White House staff who would support Trump on the witness stand, apparently Graham doesn't know that it is the President who is stonewalling White House staff from testifying.

When Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked Graham about Sondland's testimony, Graham contrived a conspiracy accusing Sondland of switching up his testimony because of a “connection” with Democratic operatives.

“Why did [Sondland] change his testimony?” Graham said. “Was there a connection between [Sondland] and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff’s staffers?”

Graham didn't even know the name of the witness. He kept referring to Gordon Sondland as “Sunderland.”

It is clear that Graham is losing it, and the Senator has no idea what is going on. Was he sober when he said that? This conspiracy is beyond comprehension.
Sondland is, after all, a Trump-appointed ambassador, a poltical appointee, not an experienced envoy. He is also a Republican mega-donor who reportedly contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

This is the same ambassador whom Trump recently described as “a really good man” and a “great American.”

And yet, we’re now supposed to believe that Sondland may be in league with House Democrats?

Well, according to Graham, that is a possibility. Actually, Sondland revised his testimony because his lawyer told him that perjury in a Congressional hearing is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. In his previous testimony, Sondland lied to protect Trump.

Graham is the perfect example of the confusion and the problems Trump Republicans have trying desperately to come up with some angle to defend Trump. As Graham illustrates, it is a losing endeavor.

 

You never do.

Why can't I find a Trump supporter who will actually defend Trump?

Answer: Trump cannot be defended. He is guilty, and the mounting evidence shown on this thread proves it. That's why.

By their silence Trump's supporters are themselves proving that Trump is guilty.

 

Trump's fans remain silent on the mounting evidence. Is it time for them to admit that Trump committed an impeachable offense by requesting foreign interference in our Presidential election to benefit him politically and extorting the Ukrainian president? Their total silence indicates they know that is true.

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, as a member of the NSC, was listening in on the July 25 call.

House investigators released transcripts of key depositions from two national security officials Friday after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney defied a subpoena and skipped a scheduled closed-door deposition at the Capitol. The testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman and Fiona Hill was made public today.

“Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president led him to report immediately to lawyers at the White House his serious concerns about political investigations the President pressed for on the call,” the statement said.

“Lt. Col. Vindman also told the Committees that the ‘demand’ by President Trump for the announcement of a politically-motivated investigation into a U.S. citizen by a foreign country forced him to make a‘moral and ethical’ judgment, and led to his concern that the act could ‘undermine U.S. national security."

Hill was “a respected Russia and Ukraine expert who served as Lt. Col. Vindman’s supervisor” and said she “detailed how senior officials at the White House, including National Security Advisor John Bolton, shared her serious concern about efforts prior to the July 25 call to push Ukraine to undertake these politically-motivated investigations, and about her efforts, at Mr. Bolton’s direction, to report this activity to senior White House officials.”

Hill resigned her post in August.

 

To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

Not the question. It is already determined. The question is how much will it hurt Trump's re-election chances.

 

If a super-majority of Americans, after all Trump has exposed of his incompetences, today do not believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office...this is a frightening indictment of so-called Americans and the Constitution.

Get rid of the POS and move on...

 

He's currently more popular than Obama was at this point in his presidency. It's wiping out your front runner and exposing the Fake News Media as complete frauds, but it's not laying a glove on Trump.

THE MERETRICIOUS PRESS WOULDN’T KNOW WHERE THE TRUTH WAS IF THEY SEARCHED WITH TWO HANDS, AND A SEEING EYE DOG: A recent WaPo piece exposes the rot behind the impeachment press.

When it comes to Trump and Impeachment, with apologies to Mary McCarthy, every word the Washington Post writes is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

A. The WaPo is wrong that known testimony contradicts the phone call transcript

The article begins with its conclusions, all presented straight-faced as facts:

Standing before a crowd of supporters this week in Lexington, Ky., President Trump repeated a false claim he has made more than 100 times in the past six weeks: that a whistleblower from the intelligence community misrepresented a presidential phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry that threatens his presidency.​

“The whistleblower said lots of things that weren’t so good, folks. You’re going to find out,” Trump said Monday at a campaign rally. “These are very dishonest people.”​

Behind him were men and women in “Read the Transcript” T-shirts — echoing through their apparel Trump’s attempt to recast an incriminating summary of his July 25 call with Ukraine’s president as a piece of exonerating evidence.​

It’s a form of gaslighting that has become the central defense strategy for the president as he faces his greatest political threat yet. But the approach is coming under increasing strain as congressional Democrats release transcripts and prepare to hold public hearings presenting evidence that directly undercuts Trump’s claims.​

Think about the above: What the WaPo is asserting is that contemporaneous documentary evidence of a phone call, one made in the presence of multiple witnesses, is of less evidentiary value than the later recollections and opinions of people who were not present during the phone call, including the so-called “whistleblower” himself (aka, a highly partisan Democrat Party operative).

Let’s back away from the WaPo’s conclusions and look at how the transcript compares to the subsequent testimony. We know that Tim Morrison, the outgoing senior director for European and Russian affairs on the NSC, was present during the call and confirms the transcript’s accuracy.

 

I appreciate the response but you should understand that I'm on your side.

 

I am not at all sure it has been determined, but it looks likely.

As matters stand now, impeaching Trump would be a serious mistake. The purpose of impeachment is to remove the President, and that won't happen, as things stand now. The possibility of 67 votes in the Senate to remove Trump is virtually nonexistent.

What the Democrats should do is continue their widely circulated impeachment inquiry, even admit reluctance to impeach because of Senate Republican opposition, and let the voters decide in the November 2020 election.

 

Good deal. I think this is an election year stunt, but, I think it blows up in Democrats faces. Their bitter partisans, they have, the moderates that they need absolutely will not support removal without a serious statutory crime and a completely fair process.

Further, this is such an obvious witch hunt by crooked prosecutors that I think Black Men, and the women that love them, are going to more and more identify with Trump's experience, the most important aspect of which may prove to be that WE are all seeing what the Black Community has known for a very long time. We have biased judges, crooked prosecutors and investigators infecting wide swaths of our Judicial and Executive systems.

Democrats would have been much better served working for The American People, rather than putting all their energy into Trump's removal, when it's clear to everyone who isn't crazy that this is a fight they are going to lose.

 

The Times reports, "John R. Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, knows about “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators have not yet been informed about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday.

"The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton’s testimony in their impeachment proceedings, arguing that his client would be willing to talk but only if a court rules that he should ignore White House objections."

Bolton did not show up for a deposition scheduled on Thursday because, his lawyer said, he wants a judge to determine whether he should testify in defiance of the White House.

What is Bolton trying to say here? Bolton strongly opposed Trump's attempt to use extortion in a request for foreign interference in our Presidential election to benefit the President politically, and he referred to Trump's personal lawyer, Giuliani, as a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,”, describing exactly what is happening now. The whole mess is blowing up in Trump's face.

Bolton was fired on September 10, about the time the hand grenade was going off in the Oval Office. Schiff was informed of the whistleblower's complaint on September 11.

Despite not showing up this week, does Bolton want to testify? Testifying would certainly help his book sales.

Or, despite their differences, does the outspoken conservative want to come to Trump's aid? Is he trying to drag this out with court fight?

One thing is true. If it is the latter, the Democrats are not biting although they would to have Bolton testify. They have had their fill of Trump's delaying tactics. They will welcome Bolton if he comes in voluntarily, but they are through with the subpoena business. In the meantime they will trot out their own witnesses.

They will be unimpeded by Trump. Stupidly, Trump will not allow his witnesses to appear in the impeachment inquiry which will go public next week.

The Democrats are delighted with Trump's incriminating recalcitrance.

 

??? Wheee!

What does a WaPo article have to do with this thread? What does your post have to do with the evidence against Trump contained in this thread?

You said absolutely nothing that relates to this thread.You did not question anything posted on this thread. That includes the huge amount of evidence.

I can only conclude you jumped on the wrong thread.

 

wow!!

have you watched the news or read a newspaper??

Fox or Cnn or any news outlet from brietbart to the NYT

they are reporting daily....yes some is fake news

and all the above report fake news

there are no secrets ...everybody knows what is going on

on both sides

if Bolton testifies in public then our boy trump may be toast

even the republicans cannot stick their heads in the sand forever

and for the die hard trumpeters ??

he could shoot someone walking down 5th avenue and not lose support

 

False, but Trump bum kissers fixate on Obama for some reason, a president elected twice with over 51% of the vote who completed those two terms with 60% approval, but his historic popularity has no impact on the nation's current plight.

(Fox currently has Trump as 42% approval/57% disapproval, close to the overall average, 41.4% approval/ 54.3% disapproval. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo)

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/150230/obama-job-approval-average-slides-new-low-11th-quarter.aspx

POLITICS
OCTOBER 21, 2011
Obama Job Approval Average Slides to New Low in 11th Quarter
Prior low was 45% in his seventh quarter

 

If Obama were President and in his first term now, and becoming hysterical over an impeachment investigation with all it is exposing, he definitely would not be looking forward to another popular vote victory and 60% approval at the end of a second term.

However, he's not President and in his first term now, and he is not becoming hysterical over an impeachment investigation with all it is exposing, so it's irrelevant.

 

My response was to a claim that Obama polled higher when he actually polled lower.

 

If you need to brood about Obama, there is no reason that you can't pretend that he was not twice elected with over 51% of the vote, and did not complete his two terms with 60% approval.

I don't know how that would help you, but I think that it would be a harmless self-indulgence that escapes whatever distress reality causes you.

 

Trumpets are desperate. They can't defend Trump -- the evidence is overwhelming -- so, they have to say something. They also spend a lot of time on the Clintons or personal attacks on Adam Schiff.

The one person Trumpets try to avoid is Trump.

Weird, huh?

 

I have been thoroughly pleased since November 8 of 2016. And shall be pleased all the way past 2024 with Trump in office.

Obama turned the presidents office into a genuine gold mine and he is on his way to being a billionaire. He got what he wanted from that office.

 

You have gunned at Trump since 2016 and the man still is the president. Sucks to keep missing huh?