dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

darwinstheory said:

Kat said:

darwinstheory said:

Kat said:

Distracting from yesterday's nail in the coffin testimony...

Now, about that testimony. 

BINGO! It's certainly grabbed the headlines for now. Hopefully this will change quickly. 

Also, they're in disarray because they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. They can't defend the souleater because he's so obviously guilty as we hear the testimony of his misdeeds.

Someone just suggested how it's possible that McConnell turns on souleater to try to save the senate for GOP and himself.  All kinds of people will be trying to save themselves. This is historical and it just has to end up on the right side...we're a nation of laws.

It is just maddening to see/hear all the folks still sticking by his side. Be it 38%, 35% or 31% it is so crazy to think there are that many people that are "ride or die" with the angry orange man. It truly is mind boggling. People we all know, love and respect. It's just weird. 

It's not "ride or die".  I personally was caught up w the Collusion investigation and felt "pants" when nothing came of it.  Dems better have a smoking gun or their credibility goes further down the shitter.

I don't think you pay attention to the news. There are many smoking guns. His base just doesn't give a fuck. It's not the democrats credibility taking a hit here.

Again, if you follow the news from the collusion investigation there were supposedly a bunch of smoking guns too.

I hope I'm wrong.

Are you looking for a confession? Because they have already confessed. What more do you want?

And I don't remember the news from the last scandal claiming "smoking guns". There sure was a lot of evidence.

Isn't the confession from Mulvaney though and not Trump or did I miss something else?

He asked for China's help to investigate Joe Biden in front of everybody.

ikiT said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dignin said:

tempo_n_groove said:

darwinstheory said:

Kat said:

darwinstheory said:

Kat said:

Distracting from yesterday's nail in the coffin testimony...

Now, about that testimony. 

BINGO! It's certainly grabbed the headlines for now. Hopefully this will change quickly. 

Also, they're in disarray because they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. They can't defend the souleater because he's so obviously guilty as we hear the testimony of his misdeeds.

Someone just suggested how it's possible that McConnell turns on souleater to try to save the senate for GOP and himself.  All kinds of people will be trying to save themselves. This is historical and it just has to end up on the right side...we're a nation of laws.

It is just maddening to see/hear all the folks still sticking by his side. Be it 38%, 35% or 31% it is so crazy to think there are that many people that are "ride or die" with the angry orange man. It truly is mind boggling. People we all know, love and respect. It's just weird. 

It's not "ride or die".  I personally was caught up w the Collusion investigation and felt "pants" when nothing came of it.  Dems better have a smoking gun or their credibility goes further down the shitter.

I don't think you pay attention to the news. There are many smoking guns. His base just doesn't give a fuck. It's not the democrats credibility taking a hit here.

Again, if you follow the news from the collusion investigation there were supposedly a bunch of smoking guns too.

I hope I'm wrong.

Are you looking for a confession? Because they have already confessed. What more do you want?

And I don't remember the news from the last scandal claiming "smoking guns". There sure was a lot of evidence.

Isn't the confession from Mulvaney though and not Trump or did I miss something else?

He asked for China's help to investigate Joe Biden in front of everybody.

He said exactly what he wanted Zelinsky to do in relation to the Bidens.  out loud, on the WH lawn, WEEKS ago.

China doesn't even matter.

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.

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

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...

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.