Looks like another democrat enquiry headed for the rocks!

Sondland got rolled by the republican tanks yesterday.

20 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

33 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Exactly but it's a Coup by any other name

Uhm, no, it isn't. Were you similarly vexed circa 1998-1999?

 

It is a Constitutionally approved process.

 

Shocking that you don't know what a "coup" is? OK, maybe not so shocking.

It is a Constitutionally approved process. A particular application of that process may or may not be legitimate, legal.

 

A car is a legally owned and operated instrument. Driving it into a crowd of people is not.

 

In my view, the purely partisan use of impeachment to remove a president for political gain is tantamount to an attempted coup. It is an illegitimate attempt to remove a head of state.

 

Sondland's testimony today along with the resultant false headlines in the media, confirms Trump's contention that this is all a witch hunt orchestrated by the Deep State and fueled by the main stream media.  Sondland today made Trump's case.  Time to move on, but Schiff and Pelosi will continue down the rabbit hole, most likely to their political demise.  

On 11/19/2019 at 5:40 PM, bristolboy said:

You mean Trump didn't take charitable funds and use them for his own benefit? He doesn't contest that. And because thaivisa.com didn't open a thread about it, it's not significant? Boy, for someone who doesn't like Trump, you sure seem to have trouble with acknowledging even his most flagrant and sleazy violations.

There you go again, making things up. Where did I say I don't like Trump personally? I don't know him, so why would I? I don't like people I know personally that do bad things to me, but neither do I know Trump, nor has he done bad things to me.

He's a billionaire, and being a socialist I'd tax the <deleted> out of him, but that's not a personal dislike.

Far as what he has done, pretty normal stuff for a rich guy. Most keep it quiet though.

I suppose it's too much to hope that you and the other guy stop making things up in the future. 

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

 

Link: Gordon Sondland just saved himself -- and jeopardized Donald Trump's presidency

 

"

35 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

First off, no one has accused anyone of anything yet. That step comes with an up or down vote on Article of Impeachment.

55555555555555555555555

The Dems have been accusing Trump of bad things since he was elected. All of which so far have come to nothing.

However every days brings the next big thing that will see him gone, LOL.

40 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Well then, you should be pleased? Why do your posts indicate a level of displeasure?

I can't speak for him, but for me this is just a waste of time that could be better spent making the US a better country. I don't see how they can be doing the job they were elected to do when every waking moment is spent thinking up ways to "get" Trump, when the senate will probably let him off.

I get that they were upset that a womanising businessman of questionable ethics defeated her, but move on, do the job they are paid to do, and find someone that can defeat him in the election, which is how it is supposed to happen.

It's like everyone in the Washington bubble has lost their mind.

17 minutes ago, Becker said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

 

Link: Gordon Sondland just saved himself -- and jeopardized Donald Trump's presidency

 

"

 

 

 

The question now is not whether there was a quid pro quo. There quite clearly was. The question is whether Congress (and Republicans in Congress, specifically) believes that is an impeachable offense.

 

 

Exactly. Given what previous presidents have done and not been impeached for, I doubt it, but time will tell. If that's the best the dems can get, IMO they'll have egg on their faces if they impeach him on that.

 

Personally, I wish they'd get on with it and impeach, but that, IMO, isn't the plan. Another year of this is going to make everyone barmy though.

I'd quite like to see what president Pence would do. The Dems should be careful what they wish for.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Straight out of the Big Book of GOP Deflections (Impeachment Addition). 
Would you also like the Bidens to appear? Or perhaps Elvis? I mean if you’re going for the “list of people that don’t matter to this investigation” why stop at the living. 

Just read that the FBI are interested in interviewing the "Whistleblower" hmm... Imagine that

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-seeks-interview-with-cia-whistleblower-121637359.html

17 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Just read that the FBI are interested in interviewing the "Whistleblower" hmm... Imagine that

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-seeks-interview-with-cia-whistleblower-121637359.html

Thanks for the link. Just love the survey results that 67% posted yes to impeachment. Even a random survey generated such a big endorsement to impeach Trump. The big picture may be worse and bad news for the 2020 election. 

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

So, the whistleblower has no part in this according to you, unbelievable.

Almost everything the whistleblower reported has been confirmed by others. What more by others who can offer first hand testimony. As i recall, the major complaint against the whistleblower was that a lot of what he reported was second hand or hearsay. So why would his testimony be necessary now? Even if he were a rabid partisan of the Democratic Party, what difference would that make?

Maybe the most significant thing to come out of the testimony was Sondland saying that Trump and his confederates never pushed for and never discussed an actual investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike nonsense by the Ukrainians. What they pushed for was a public announcement by the Ukrainians that there was going to be an investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike allegations.

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Almost everything the whistleblower reported has been confirmed by others. What more by others who can offer first hand testimony. As i recall, the major complaint against the whistleblower was that a lot of what he reported was second hand or hearsay. So why would his testimony be necessary now? Even if he were a rabid partisan of the Democratic Party, what difference would that make?

The FBI might have a different opinion.

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The FBI might have a different opinion.

About confirming what the whistleblower said? That's pretty much all in out there now.

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

Nonsense.

 

It has been explained to you many times, Impeachment is not a judicial process, the norms of a judicial process do not apply.

 

If they did, Trump would be required to appear in person.

 

A fat chance fog that happening.

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

Perhaps they don’t want to name the whistleblower in order not to put a real target on his/her back.

 

Regardless, multiple witnesses are now providing corroborating evidence.

 

Deal with it.

23 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

The FBI might have a different opinion.

They can read the Whistleblower report and compare it to sworn testimony given to Congress.

 Just like the rest of America can.

So Sondland was another big dud for the Democrats. He came across as a little rat. Shift looked like a owl-eyed turd eater after questioning him. 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

55555555555555555555555

The Dems have been accusing Trump of bad things since he was elected. All of which so far have come to nothing.

However every days brings the next big thing that will see him gone, LOL.

There is a string of accusations against Trump in the Mueller report that ‘have come to nothing’ because and only because he remains in office.

 

Those accusations await him leaving office.

32 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Maybe the most significant thing to come out of the testimony was Sondland saying that Trump and his confederates never pushed for and never discussed an actual investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike nonsense by the Ukrainians. What they pushed for was a public announcement by the Ukrainians that there was going to be an investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike allegations.

 

I don't see what there is to discuss until Ukraine sets the ball rolling...you dont discuss investigations

until you are absolutely sure...unless you're Adam Schiff ????

8 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

I don't see what there is to discuss until Ukraine sets the ball rolling...you dont discuss investigations

until you are absolutely sure...unless you're Adam Schiff ????

What don't you understand about the significance the fact that , according to Sondland, Trump wasn't pushing for an actual investigation? Just the announcement of one. You got another motive besides trying to do damage to Biden?

Reported Troll/baiting comments removed.

 

Persist in this and BOTH of you will enjoy a holiday !

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is a string of accusations against Trump in the Mueller report that ‘have come to nothing’ because and only because he remains in office.

 

Those accusations await him leaving office.

That's pretty thin gruel to keep your dreams alive for 5 years. 

4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Sondland's testimony today along with the resultant false headlines in the media, confirms Trump's contention that this is all a witch hunt orchestrated by the Deep State and fueled by the main stream media.  Sondland today made Trump's case.  Time to move on, but Schiff and Pelosi will continue down the rabbit hole, most likely to their political demise.  

Thanks for not explaining how Sondland made Trump's case. Because he said that Trump never expressed any interest in actually having Ukraine investigate Burisma and the Bidens but only in having the President of Ukraine announcing such investigations?

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. 

 

And some more troll posts were removed. 

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What they pushed for was a public announcement by the Ukrainians that there was going to be an investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike allegations.

 

Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear. 

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

What don't you understand about the significance the fact that , according to Sondland, Trump wasn't pushing for an actual investigation? Just the announcement of one. You got another motive besides trying to do damage to Biden?

I have heard all of Sondland's "presumptions".

I also understand that Trump isn't going to tell an underling like Sondland everything in advance.

How sad it must be for you to latch on to anything with a glimmer of hope...only to have it

dashed on the rocks.... and having to grab another piece of driftwood. Give it up. Trump

is here to stay.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps they don’t want to name the whistleblower in order not to put a real target on his/her back.

 

I love how a democrat congressman from Oregon has started a movement to picket and harass customers outside a Sondland owned hotel/s, resulting in loss of business and possibly jobs from that community.

 

Protect the whistleblower, destroy everyone else.....such vile hypocrites the Dems are.

Most of the conspiratorial allegations about Burisma, the Bidens, and crowdstrike stem from John Solomon. It turns out that Solomon was allowed to bypass the usual editorial checks and sent his pieces directly to the Publisher of The Hill.

Here's a link:

Jimmy Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill, has flown under the radar. But he's played a key role in the Ukraine scandal

"While Solomon has received significant media attention for his work at The Hill, Finkelstein has stayed out of the headlines, despite having himself played a crucial role in the saga. 

Beyond his relationship with Solomon, Trump, and Giuliani, Finkelstein was Solomon's direct supervisor at The Hill and created the conditions which permitted Solomon to publish his conspiratorial stories without the traditional oversight implemented at news outlets." 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/18/media/jimmy-finkelstein-the-hill-ukraine/index.html

 

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Most of the conspiratorial allegations about Burisma, the Bidens, and crowdstrike stem from John Solomon. It turns out that Solomon was allowed to bypass the usual editorial checks and sent his pieces directly to the Publisher of The Hill.

Here's a link:

Jimmy Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill, has flown under the radar. But he's played a key role in the Ukraine scandal

"While Solomon has received significant media attention for his work at The Hill, Finkelstein has stayed out of the headlines, despite having himself played a crucial role in the saga. 

Beyond his relationship with Solomon, Trump, and Giuliani, Finkelstein was Solomon's direct supervisor at The Hill and created the conditions which permitted Solomon to publish his conspiratorial stories without the traditional oversight implemented at news outlets." 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/18/media/jimmy-finkelstein-the-hill-ukraine/index.html

Man the irony of CNN finger-pointing at The Hill after all the stunts they've pulled over the last couple of years is hilarious.