Opening Pandora's box

How very prejudiced of you. How does Sondland's testimony fit into your neat little schema?

 

Exactly the same the only clear evidence he produced was Trump's statement that he wanted nothing from President Zolensky except that he keep his campaign promise about transparency and cleaning up the endemic corruption in Ukraine. The rest was stuff he presumed without any factual basis for doing so.

Oh and prejudice is to presume guilt without evidence so...

 

What are the other examples of trump caring so much about corruption?

 

1. I find questions from BOTH PARTIES leading & pushy, but the only side trying to deliberately twist the testimonies into something different from what is said, are the Republicans.
2. The only side focusing on "facts" are the Democrats. It's been discouraging & disheartening watching the Republicans completely ignore the "facts" throughout these proceedings, while concentrating on process or any other thing they can come up with to detract from those facts.
3. Republicans on the committee have the right to both question every witness & call witnesses of their own--which they did on Tuesday. Even those witnesses called by Republicans continued confirming Trump's wrongdoing with Ukraine. Yesterday, Wed Nov 20, Sondland really corked the discussion with his testimony, where he openly admitted the quid quo pro, Trump's personal leadership of the Ukraine disaster, & the involvement of himself, Pence,Guiliani, Pompeo, Barr, & several others close to the President, in this mess. He openly admitted guilt for all.

What does it take for you Trumpsters to care more about the law & your country than you do about a highly defective & deficient con man who happens to be rich, famous & living in the White House?

 

They will come up with some phony excuse as to why they will be exempt and the Republicans in the Senate will fold like cheap suites as usual.

 

Do you understand what, "No Due Process," actually means? Go back and study the Constitution before you flail any more with your parched corn.

The Dems have not been this corrupt since they railroaded some Black Republican House members during ReConstruction.

 

Clearly, neither truth, nor honoring the law, nor protecting or expanding democracy, are part of your personal values. But you make a strong case for blind obedience & loyalty for an authoritarian leader.

 

1. Pure BS. First, the Constitution does NOT require "due process" in an impeachment inquiry. That comes later in the Senate. But in spite of that not being required, Democrats were considerate & honorable enough to include it into the hearings for Republicans, allowing them to cross-examine all witnesses, plus call witnesses of their own. Your accusations are both inaccurate & offensive.
2. The Dems copied the hearing structures created & used by the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment hearings of the 1990s, except in those, Republicans actually DID not allow Democrats to call their own witnesses. So, Republicans actually did WORSE when they impeached Clinton.

 

And that matters not a whit.

 

It shows his intent. He wasn't actually worried about corruption since he never has and never will be.

 

Wrong on all counts.

 

And your proof?

 

We're going in circles now. The proof is that he never has shown the slightest interest in stopping corruption in any context other than when it corruptly benefits him.

 

How can stopping corruption be corrupt?

 

Sounds like you've drunk the Trumpian Kool Aid. Neither I or anyone else will be able to permeate a closed mind with facts or truth. Trumpsters value neither.

 

Many ways. But of course there was never any stoppage of corruption. It's just an excuse that we know is nonsense.

 

Of course the swamp will fight being drained tooth and toe nail. And of course leftists will insist that trying drain the swamp - really more akin to a cess pool than a swamp - is corrupt. After all drawing the swamp also of necessity limits the lefts own totalitarian desire to run everyone else's life.

 

Sounds to me like your mind is as locked down as as an old sea chest to which the key is twenty years lost. I've yet to see anyone here produce any actual evidence. Mountains of supposition reams of guess work and tons of rumors but none of that equates to actual evidence.

 

Nattering unsupported conspiracy theories aside, this whole swamp draining thing would be easier to swallow if he ever did anything that didn't add feet of sludge to the swamp. It's sort of the point. He hasn't done a single thing to confront corruption, so it's not a believable excuse that suddenly he cares about corruption as it pertains to a nonsensical conspiracy theory around a political opponent. Even if that corruption was real, he didn't do anything to address the actual corruption, he just wanted a jim comey moment.

 

And that's almost entirely left wing conspiracy claptrap unrelated to any facts

 

The facts are that he withheld money that wasn't his to withhold. Everyone around him seemed to be under the impression that he wanted an announcement of an investigation into a political opponent in exchange. There are plenty of examples of selling ambassadorships and places in the administration to super swampy people. There are zero instances of him ever doing anything to curb corruption or even taking an interest in it anywhere. Those are facts, not conspiracy theory.

 

Under the impression does not constitute proof. You're using Cotton Mather proof.

 

Depends on where you set the bar for 'proof' (usually when people don't want to believe something, they will assert nothing constitutes proof). But it's extraordinarily damning evidence.

 

I noticed that a few times during the hearings, when it was a Republican's turn to speak,
he would somehow work into his narrative about Democrats hating Trump.
They don't "hate" Trump.
They just don't think he should be running a country.

 

You have Cotton Mather proof. You know, farmer Jones cow had a two head calf and some one reported little girls dancing in the woods, therefore old lady teal must be a witch.