***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

tempo_n_groove

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Last thing I'm going to say on this...

From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote?  The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.

So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.

The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.

I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...

Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released. 

https://time.com/5707713/bill-taylor-opening-statement-impeachment-inquiry/

I'm reading it now, TY for that clarification.

My pleasure, I'm looking forward to hearing your insights (and I'm not being facetious, though even that statement sounds facetious).

So, reading the opening statement as a whole would definitely seem condemning.  The one statement that stood out to me from Taylor was this one:

Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message
asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are
conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to
call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that
President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly
that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. election.

The only mention of a QPQ was actually from Taylor and not Trump nor Sondland.  “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”

The problem I am having may be in the wording of things.  It says Trump wants Zelensky to say publicly that he is investigating but NOT "to investigate".

Viewing the timeline one could conclude that aid was withheld from Ukraine because there was a lack of an investigation if you use Taylor's "opinion".  But that is all this recount is, an opinion from someone who is involved but doesn't have all the facts and is offering conclusions derived from them.

I'm still not sold on this, sorry.  This is not a slam dunk at all to me.

There is another part of the story that I may be lost on.  Was there an ongoing investigation?  If so asking to mention that publicly doesn't seem like abusing power if it was going on all along.

If there was no investigation then I have huge concern as to why Trump would want that mentioned.  This I would have an immense problem with.

So I may be missing part of the puzzle and timeline about if or when an investigation was taking place or one was wanting to start or pressure to reopen one?

I'm open to the discussion, thanks @benjs

dignin

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Last thing I'm going to say on this...

From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote?  The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.

So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.

The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.

I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...

Maybe they didn't make it clear in that article, but the context isn't from the quotes, but is plain as day in the short and easy-to-read opening statement released. 

https://time.com/5707713/bill-taylor-opening-statement-impeachment-inquiry/

I'm reading it now, TY for that clarification.

My pleasure, I'm looking forward to hearing your insights (and I'm not being facetious, though even that statement sounds facetious).

So, reading the opening statement as a whole would definitely seem condemning.  The one statement that stood out to me from Taylor was this one:

Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message
asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are
conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to
call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that
President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly
that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. election.

The only mention of a QPQ was actually from Taylor and not Trump nor Sondland.  “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”

The problem I am having may be in the wording of things.  It says Trump wants Zelensky to say publicly that he is investigating but NOT "to investigate".

Viewing the timeline one could conclude that aid was withheld from Ukraine because there was a lack of an investigation if you use Taylor's "opinion".  But that is all this recount is, an opinion from someone who is involved but doesn't have all the facts and is offering conclusions derived from them.

I'm still not sold on this, sorry.  This is not a slam dunk at all to me.

There is another part of the story that I may be lost on.  Was there an ongoing investigation?  If so asking to mention that publicly doesn't seem like abusing power if it was going on all along.

If there was no investigation then I have huge concern as to why Trump would want that mentioned.  This I would have an immense problem with.

So I may be missing part of the puzzle and timeline about if or when an investigation was taking place or one was wanting to start or pressure to reopen one?

I'm open to the discussion, thanks @benjs

There was no ongoing investigation.

dignin

Halifax2TheMax said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/inevitability-impeachment/600559/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

Impeachment Just Became Inevitable

The testimony of William Taylor confirmed that what seemed improbable just a few weeks ago is now all but certain.

No, I googled "Trump smoking gun" and that didn't come up for some reason.

I need my Trump smoking gun.

Yeah so I mentioned the Sondland thing but never found the China thing.  Are you still trying to prove you are right?  Not sure.

Next question.  Open to everyone.

The Sondland thing.  Taylor asked Sondland if the meeting was only going to happen if the Biden investigation was going to further.  There wasn't any mention that this came from Trump's mouth though.

I see this as going through a bunch of "he said, she said".  

Sorry I'm skeptical.

Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."

Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."

As an aside, if I get in trouble with the law, I would like you to serve on my jury.

Neither of those are a quid pro quo though.  Asking him to state something publicly is not doing so in favor of receiving something.

Something for something is the definition.

I'd love to be on your jury if understanding a rule of law is just that and not seeing something for what it s not.

My apologies, I thought you were more informed than that. My bad.

Here is some context.

Allegation of a quid pro quo

Taylor: "...Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election."

Context: The ongoing hold on military aid to Ukraine had vexed Taylor for weeks as nobody in the administration offered a clear explanation for why it had not sent the money. Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."

Taylor described being "alarmed" at hearing for the first time the link between the military aid and the investigation of Biden. He texted Sondland that same day to express his concern about this outlining of a quid pro quo, prompting Sondland to ask Taylor to call him. Taylor said that phone call is when Sondland told him Trump had requested the quid pro quo.

Those text messages were released as part of Volker's testimony to Congress earlier this month. In his testimony, Sondland claimed withholding aid in this way -- to influence an American election -- would be wrong. "I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings," Sondland testified. But on Tuesday Taylor testified that Sondland had participated in exactly that.

Promise to investigate Biden

Taylor: "...President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself."

Context: This is further evidence from Taylor that Trump intended for the military aid to be withheld unless Zelensky complied with Trump's demand to act in a way that benefited Trump politically. The September 7 conversation between Sondland and Trump that Taylor is recounting here comes more than a week after the hold on the money was made public in an August 29 Politico report and after a meeting Taylor had with Zelensky in which the Ukrainian President was pressing for answers about the issue.

Taylor went on to recount a conversation he had with Sondland on September 8 in which Sondland described Trump as being "adamant" that Zelensky "clear things up" about pursuing these investigations or risk a "stalemate." Taylor says he perceived the stalemate as meaning Ukraine would not receive the aid.

Foreign policy undercut

Taylor: "...the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."

Context: This statement from Taylor encapsulates his perception of the divide between the official foreign policy arm of the US government and the efforts by Giuliani, and how that divide was being perceived by Ukraine.

For a quid pro quo threat to be effective, the Ukrainians would have had to discount what Taylor describes as a bipartisan effort by him and other US officials to reassure Zelensky that the US policy toward Ukraine remained unchanged. To Taylor, the counter-narrative from Giuliani undermined the authority of officials like himself by appearing to condition that policy on cooperation with Trump's own domestic political concerns.

That goes to the heart of the concern that House Democrats have, and explains why Taylor on September 9 wrote his now infamous text to Sondland, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-statement-5-explosive-lines/index.html

Last thing I'm going to say on this...

From the quote of Taylor they derived a "Context" from that quote?  The story seems to takes certain words and put the quotes around them then form an opinion from those words.

So I am reading the same things you are but just seeing them differently.

The Sept 9th text is the most damaging but the person that admits to holding back aid is Taylor and not Trump.

I don't support Trump but you have to question certain things...

Then I suggest you read his full opening statement. It's all there, pretty clear slam dunk.

Was you there?

Ah shit, you got me.

Game, set, match.

The Juggler

2019

Republican sources on Capitol Hill told CNN there's a "growing unease that there is no defense" of the President's actions.

"How do you defend the indefensible?" one source told CNN. "We can't defend the substance, all we can do is talk about process."

OnWis97

"THE FIELD"

The Juggler

"How do you defend the indefensible?" 

Kool-Aid is a hell of a drug.

Halifax2TheMax

Fun facts are like dots! You like dots, right? 107 closed door hearings during the Benghazi investigation. 107. Remember those chickens? Bok bok bok. Trey “three times” Gowdy looks like a rooster, or a woosta, as Wob might say. Any defenders?

Go Beavers

The Juggler said:

Republican sources on Capitol Hill told CNN there's a "growing unease that there is no defense" of the President's actions.

"How do you defend the indefensible?" one source told CNN. "We can't defend the substance, all we can do is talk about process."

It only took three years of indefensible acts for them to reach the ‘growing unease’ phase. 

Halifax2TheMax

“Do us a favor, ya know.” The senate trial will be so much fun. 

https://apple.news/AAGtEUr9nQ0uX2S71bRP3Hw

Halifax2TheMax

Now we know what all the ruckus is about. The walls are closing in. I'm sure it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court and we'll see if Roberts wants to protect the Team Trump Treason or let the House have their evidence.

• A federal judge on Friday said that the U.S. Justice Department must turn over to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee normally secret grand jury material collected as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
• Judge Beryl Howard, in her ruling, repeatedly noted that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which could be assisted with the material assembled by Mueller’s probe.
• Howard brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters in and outside of Congress that the House’s  impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote to authorize such a probe.

Judge Beryl Howard, in her ruling, repeatedly noted that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, which could be assisted with the material assembled by Mueller’s probe.

“The need for continued secrecy is minimal and thus easily outweighed by [the Judiciary Committee’s] HJC’s compelling need for the material,” Howard wrote in the decision issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where she is chief judge.

“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the President described in the Mueller Report.”

Howard brushed aside arguments made by Trump’s supporters in and outside of Congress that the House’s  impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House has not held a formal vote to authorize such a probe.

“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” Howard wrote.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/judge-orders-release-of-mueller-material-citing-impeachment-chance.html

Storm the secure hearing room in chicken costumes! 

Halifax2TheMax

“Was you there?” Well, indeed I was.

https://apple.news/AD94VKOrRTsW5KhDcvDH_vA

HughFreakingDillon

2018

fuck I'd love to see that asshole go to prison. 

darwinstheory

2019

This ought to be fun: just getting to work for a 9 hour shift with a SUPER right wing (who claims to be in the middle) guy. We will be sharing a 10'x16' pulpit for the entire turn. I never bring up politics to him. But, he will bring it up daily. I usually try to just ignore it and let him talk.

One time, we were discussing things when he said "Trump has done everything he said he was going to do." I couldn't help myself, and busted out laughing. He took offense to that. 

ikiT

2018

When talking to those who feel it necessary to share the good word, I usually say it's the relentless lying of easily checkable facts that bothers me.   If that was your wife or your boyfriend, you'd never put up with it.   That or "I don't get it." on repeat. 

It's literally impossible for the afflicted to yammer their way into Don Trump being right.

OnWis97

"THE FIELD"

It’s difficult to win an argument with a smart person but it’s flat impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.  Don’t bother.

Smellyman

2018

darwinstheory said:

This ought to be fun: just getting to work for a 9 hour shift with a SUPER right wing (who claims to be in the middle) guy. We will be sharing a 10'x16' pulpit for the entire turn. I never bring up politics to him. But, he will bring it up daily. I usually try to just ignore it and let him talk.

One time, we were discussing things when he said "Trump has done everything he said he was going to do." I couldn't help myself, and busted out laughing. He took offense to that. 

If Bernie or Warren said that they could give every American healthcare and Canada will pay for it...I would say they are fucking idiots and never vote for them.

Mexico paying for a wall is totally believable though.  Trumpletons aren't deep thinkers.

darwinstheory

2019

Not so bad so far. Just a comment about the hole in the ozone has been shrinking. An obvious reference to the comments before that global warming is fake and glaciers are not melting at a faster rate than they were in prior decades.

And an out loud question to himself: "I wonder if we're still going to buy Greenland."



But then again, it seems most Trumpets seem to be quiet right about now, unless provoked. GENERALLY, they seem to be the ones who provoke, sooo...everything's as cool as can be in a peaceful world.

mickeyrat

darwinstheory

2019

I feel like I've gotten so excited and bought in to this whole process that my hopes have officially gotten up. 

But the oast 3 years have proven this damned dirty ape to be invincible. Crazy and outlandish things are now seen as "it's just trump being trump, nbd." This belief scares the shit out of me. I also have a very real fear that, if not impeached (I do not believe he will resign) the he will absolutely get re-elected. 

Lerxst1992

"THE FIELD"

He got Bad Daddy. Now he really is invincible. No way he loses.

ikiT

2018

Lerxst1992 said:

He got Bad Daddy. Now he really is invincible. No way he loses.

nah man I ain't buyin it.

https://youtu.be/AmlwCEEh37s