List of Trump's crimes?

[seanD]

That is quite the bit of excuse making there seanD.

No one still has a clear explanation why the 2016 polls were so wrong. One explanation I read was that voters were just changing their minds. I think public stigma of Trump support is as good an explanation as any.

[JimL]

If they knew then it was because they figured it out on their own and not because Trump instructed anybody to tell them. Multiple witnesses testified that they were never told that release of the aid was tied to the investigations, and Sondland testified that Trump told him explicitly that he didn't want any reciprocation from Ukraine.

Sondland also said that there was a quid pro quo and that everyone was in on it. I guess they all just conspired to do this together on their own and that Trump is just a moron who has no idea what criminal activity his underlings have been up to for so long. Btw, you wouldn't be in need of a bridge, would you, MM?

[Mountain Man]

Sondland also said that there was a quid pro quo and that everyone was in on it.

No, he said he presumed it, but when he spoke with the President directly, Trump set him straight.

[Sondland] said he did not know why the aid was delayed but "presumed" it was contingent on a public statement...

[...]

On September 9, Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, sent a message to Sondland questioning whether the U.S. was withholding aid to get Ukraine to open investigations. Sondland was taken aback by the text, and called Mr. Trump to ask him what he wanted from Zelensky.

"I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing," Sondland testified.

"And I said: What does that mean? And he said: I want him to do what he ran on. And that was the end of the conversation. I wouldn't say he hung up me, but it was almost like he hung up on me," Sondland continued. Sondland replied to Taylor's text several hours later, relaying the president's assertion that there was "no quid pro quo."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gordon-...es-2019-11-05/

[JimL]

No one still has a clear explanation why the 2016 polls were so wrong.

They weren't "so wrong." Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, just about what was expected. Russia did target those few states that Manafort targeted for them though, which Trump then barely won which gave him the electoral win.

One explanation I read was that voters were just changing their minds.

Yep, misinformation can swing enough people to do the trick, and it seems the collusion with Russia worked.

I think public stigma of Trump support is as good an explanation as any.

[JimL]

No, he said he presumed it, but when he spoke with the President directly, Trump set him straight.

[Sondland] said he did not know why the aid was delayed but "presumed" it was contingent on a public statement...

[...]

On September 9, Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, sent a message to Sondland questioning whether the U.S. was withholding aid to get Ukraine to open investigations. Sondland was taken aback by the text, and called Mr. Trump to ask him what he wanted from Zelensky.

"I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing," Sondland testified.

"And I said: What does that mean? And he said: I want him to do what he ran on. And that was the end of the conversation. I wouldn't say he hung up me, but it was almost like he hung up on me," Sondland continued. Sondland replied to Taylor's text several hours later, relaying the president's assertion that there was "no quid pro quo."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gordon-...es-2019-11-05/

Yes, and if you'd have been paying attention, Trump, unprompted, said "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo," just after realizing that the whistle had been blown on his scheme. There is also no record of such a call, so no reason to believe the contradiction concerning Sondlands other testimony that "Yes, there was a quid pro quo, and everyone was in on it. Anyway, about that bridge?

[seanD]

They weren't "so wrong." Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, just about what was expected. Russia did target those few states that Manafort targeted for them though, which Trump then barely won which gave him the electoral win.


Yep, misinformation can swing enough people to do the trick, and it seems the collusion with Russia worked.

You know, if Russia really has that much power and sway over American politics as you believe they do, then they're clearly influencing leftist politics. YT channels like RT -- with a clear pro-Russia bent -- are politically left leaning. In fact, though I'm subbed to their main channel because I like to get different foreign policy perspectives, I had to unsub from their RTAmerica channel because I thought I was watching TYT videos -- pro climate change alarmism, pro-gun control, pro BLM issues, etc. They've even had frequent leftist guests like Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Jill Stein, Ed Shultz, Chris Hedges on their shows. So if Russia really is influencing our political system the way you say they are, they're promoting left leaning politics while doing it.

[Teallaura]

Yes the constitution is law. I'm using law to mean legislative power here.

Okay... but it's not a good wording.

The president is above the law when it comes to executive power because its vested in the president by the constitution. Executive powers and the president are not the same, congressional powers can bind the president but it can't limit restrict or have any effect on executive powers.

Using your wording, okay - but this is otherwise a shaky premise. Executing his constitutional power does not place him above the law in the normal sense of the term.

What do you think of Trumps behavior regarding these proceedings?

If I were an attorney I wouldn't want him for a client since he won't shut up and you can't make him listen. Politically, I have to admit, his handling shouldn't work (the aforementioned failure to shut up) but it is.

If you mean ignoring the circus, that was exactly what he should do - let the Dems show their hand. I don't play poker, but I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to turn your cards up before you bet.

Aren't the polls showing 50% of Americans want Trump impeached and removed?

Nope - that was just the week following the announcement. The numbers have been going down ever since - and they aren't trustworthy to begin with. What the heck could you rationally use to weight the danged things?

[JimL]

Okay... but it's not a good wording.

Using your wording, okay - but this is otherwise a shaky premise. Executing his constitutional power does not place him above the law in the normal sense of the term.

If I were an attorney I wouldn't want him for a client since he won't shut up and you can't make him listen. Politically, I have to admit, his handling shouldn't work (the aforementioned failure to shut up) but it is.

If you mean ignoring the circus, that was exactly what he should do - let the Dems show their hand. I don't play poker, but I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to turn your cards up before you bet.

Nope - that was just the week following the announcement. The numbers have been going down ever since - and they aren't trustworthy to begin with. What the heck could you rationally use to weight the danged things?

In the Clinton case 29% wanted him impeached, in this case against Trump, 50% want him impeached, which rose from 30 something % since Pelosi signed on.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, and if you'd have been paying attention, Trump, unprompted, said "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo," just after realizing that the whistle had been blown on his scheme. There is also no record of such a call, so no reason to believe the contradiction concerning Sondlands other testimony that "Yes, there was a quid pro quo, and everyone was in on it. Anyway, about that bridge?

Unprompted? Dude, Sondland asked him what he wanted from Ukraine! The quote is literally right there in the post you responded to!

"I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing," Sondland testified.

It's funny how Sondland claims that "everyone was in the loop" and yet nobody could testify hearing it from Trump. In fact, the only testimony we have about a statement directly from Trump himself undermines the whole impeachment narrative.

If this was taking place in a courtroom, the defense would motion for dismissal, and it would be granted!

[Teallaura]

In the Clinton case 29% wanted him impeached, in this case against Trump, 50% want him impeached, which rose from 30 something % since Pelosi signed on.

They were still using full samples in Clinton's case - I think - and the numbers varied. The current numbers are below 50% - and falling.

[JimL]

Unprompted? Dude, Sondland asked him what he wanted from Ukraine! The quote is literally right there in the post you responded to!

"I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing," Sondland testified.

Did Sondland even mention a quid pro quo to the president? No he didn't. So what prompted the president even to mention a quid pro quo? Think about it, see if you can figure it out. And remember, in your musings,take into account the fact that there is no record of that call ever taking place. We have only Sondlands word that it took place.

It's funny how Sondland claims that "everyone was in the loop" and yet nobody could testify hearing it from Trump. In fact, the only testimony we have about a statement directly from Trump himself undermines the whole impeachment narrative.

And yet they all knew. Do you think the underlings just all got together and conspired to do this all on their own without the okay from the president?

If this was taking place in a courtroom, the defense would motion for dismissal, and it would be granted!

I see both you and Tea inhabit the same universe.

[Mountain Man]

Did Sondland even mention a quid pro quo to the president? No he didn't. So what prompted the president even to mention a quid pro quo? Think about it, see if you can figure it out.

Consider this: Sondland says "everybody was in the loop", meaning "everybody" (whoever Sondland was referring to) was passing gossip back and forth because nobody had heard directly from the President. Trump catches wind of it and is understandably frustrated with the rumormongers, so when Sondland asks what Trump wants from Ukraine, Trump immediately shuts down the rumor mill with a clear and direct answer: "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."

Did it really happen that way? I don't know, and neither do you. The point is, the facts lend themselves to multiple explanations. In a court of law, that's known as reasonable doubt.

[JimL]

Consider this: Sondland says "everybody was in the loop", meaning "everybody" (whoever Sondland was referring to) was passing gossip back and forth because nobody had heard directly from the President. Trump catches wind of it and is understandably frustrated with the rumormongers, so when Sondland asks what Trump wants from Ukraine, Trump immediately shuts down the rumor mill with a clear and direct answer: "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."

Did it really happen that way? I don't know, and neither do you. The point is, the facts lend themselves to multiple explanations. In a court of law, that's known as reasonable doubt.

You might make a case for that, not a very credible one, but a case, if not for all the other corroborating evidence pointing to Trumps absolute involvement in the whole scheme. Besides that, gossip, the passing back and forth of gossip? Gossip of an entire worked out conspiracy scheme to extort a foreign power doesn't come from nowhere, MM, and ithe conspirators don't just do it without an okay from the top.

[Tassman]

Unprompted? Dude, Sondland asked him what he wanted from Ukraine! The quote is literally right there in the post you responded to!

There is no record that this call about Trump saying “I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo," ever took place. Furthermore, this claim is contradicted by other parts of Sondland's own testimony: namely, that the White House DID place conditions on official actions, like a White House invitation for Zelensky etc.

[NorrinRadd]

There is no record that this call about Trump saying “I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo," ever took place. Furthermore, this claim is contradicted by other parts of Sondland's own testimony: namely, that the White House DID place conditions on official actions, like a White House invitation for Zelensky etc.

So Sondland is not a credible witness in any way, and all of his testimony should be tossed.