The 2019-2020 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

[tbm3fan]

I remind people not to feed the troll that we obviously have. That especially means you snapper because you do have the tendency to take the bait too easily at times. Stay out of the dump...

[Parihaka]

What I am saying is that Biden part of a long list of people who wanted Shokin gone. Yet according to Guiliani Shokin was a paragon of virtue that after he was fired was murdered twice with mercury yet still remarkably lives - nobody in Ukraine heard of his two deaths which would have been the cause of rejoicing in some quarters.

Moreover this is NOTHING to do with the impeachment. It is 'whataboutism'.

pressuring a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor (whom, by the way, never even looked at Biden's son to begin with) be fired as part of a US national strategy for bolstering Ukraine is not corruption.

pressuring the Ukrainian President to announce (but not actually prosecute) a case against a political rival's son based on no evidence whatsoever, now that is corruption.

Two for the price of one.


Fabulous, for the record.

As per the above testimony, the assumption by both ambassadors that aid was tied to specific investigations was never told to them by any other person on earth let alone anyone in the Trump administration, but was reasonable on their part given the Obama administrations constant tying of aid via Joe Biden with various quid pro quo.

[Parihaka]

I remind people not to feed the troll that we obviously have. That especially means you snapper because you do have the tendency to take the bait too easily at times. Stay out of the dump...

Is there anything between those eardrums of yours besides noise?

Does anybody know what the hell he is talking about since i don't speak his strange language?

Well you have confirmed for me how utterly you have lost touch with reality. It is a sad thing but it seems to late for you to ever get back to any balance in your mind. I see all the typical talking points you see on Brietbart whereas everyone else is a leftist. Of course that makes it easy for you since everyone being a leftist makes it easy to identify them. Can't wait for the only good Indian is a dead Indian to have a few word substitutions. Suffice it to say that probably went over your head along with leftist and extremist getting all jumbled up in the neurons left.

I talk to you as a child, because you are a child.

[Double Edge]

The Constitutional Provisions for impeachment are based on the idea that the House is an elected mob with pitchforks that gets to hold power for 2 years so we don't have another Shay's Rebellion. It's why revenue bills can only originate in the House (you better have the mob on board if you're going to tax them) but appointments and treaties are made under the advice of the Senate (because you wouldn't trust those idiots appointing judges).


Basically it's a really low bar, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with attacking the process as ridiculous and partisan. Standing behind the bare minimum standard set by the Constitution when the Constitution basically imagined the House as a mixture between frat house and lynch mob is disingenuous.

Also, the analogy of Grand Jury and prosecutor? Yeah, given America's current prison population and the shit-show that is our court system, not really sure that's the analogy you want to make. Grand juries and prosecutors are both broken indictment-happy institutions in the US that need serious reform.

I would take this impeachment business more seriously if it led to something concrete instead of being a load of hot air

Will Trump get impeached by the Senate ? no

Will being impeached by the house prevent him from running a second time ? no

If he wins will he be president again ? yes

Remind me again, why this topic matters ? because from where i stand it looks like a slap on the wrist as in don't do that again.

We still love you

[Double Edge]

Simple reason for that; you cannot mess up when you're not in power.

I'm thinking there is something deeper going on

Turning tolerance up to 11

Let the opposition feel a part of the conversation and have the last word

They always get to bash govt for whatever

This is the way the game should be played in a free country

Sound bout right ?

[Parihaka]

I'm thinking there is something deeper going on

Turning tolerance up to 11

Let the opposition feel a part of the conversation and have the last word

They always get to bash govt for whatever

This is the way the game should be played in a free country

Sound bout right ?

It presupposes a desire for fairness on both sides. We are increasingly finding in politics it does not work. Within western culture, the right can sometimes tends toward totalitarianism, but now the left intends totalitarianism.

[Double Edge]

It presupposes a desire for fairness on both sides.

We are increasingly finding in politics it does not work.

Fairness in the sense you are not being muzzled. This is the key point.

As to whether what is said actually has a bearing on reality or is solely designed to guide people to one's point is another matter.

Both sides have agendas and you'd have to be sharp to spot it.

The side opposing shouts about principle and conveniently forgets them when they get into the driving seat.

This is why the system always caters for an opposition.

Within western culture, the right can sometimes tends toward totalitarianism, but now the left intends totalitarianism.

Extremes of either side have always tended towards dictatorships

The way to prevent that is having a viable middle. If the middle collapses then its a feeding frenzy for extremes on either side.

Centre is holding from what i can tell.

[Double Edge]

Conservatives all around the globe are going through severe fatigue. On the outside, they look to be controlling the power but actually they are only defending their existence.

The left has always known what it wants, the right seems to be making it up as it goes.

The left is well networked around the world. They have a plan.

Does the right have any idea or are they just the beneficiaries of anti-incumbency when people get fed up of the left.

Remember the tea party ? few years ago they were all the rage.

What happened to them ? Trump happened.

With the rise of social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram more traffic has gone to them and they are openly promoting leftist contents. As days of long and elaborated debates are becoming a relic of the past the shoot and scoot has become more powerful warfare well suited to leftists who are experimenting with every new idea (feminism, Gender, LGTB, Environment), shifting blames of their own sins towards the other side very effectively and making inroads into new avenues especially academia and educational institutes.

They are very good at narrative setting. Unless somebody jumps up an says something to challenge most will go along

They are herding sheep most of the time until something goes wrong and then the other side takes over.

The narrative of victimhood, hate speech, humanity, equality etc. have been built so strong that ordinary conservative is under extreme pressure either to change or keep quite. Defecation rate is quite high among Conservatives. The more steadfast conservatives now look towards political strongmen like Trump not boy scouts like Mit Romney and John McCain to preserve what they can and to keep the balance.

You need a strong man when you don't have an idea. The people like him so he calls the shots. TINA.

Populism works

Go around the globe and see how many populists there are.

Trump, Bolsonaro, Abe, Duterte, Modi, MBS, Erdogan, Orban, Putin & Xi jingping.

With this Global leftists have shifted their focus on these strongmen who know how to play this dirty game. Fence-sitters are Fence-sitters for obvious reasons. The revulsion they are showing towards Trump is their lack of strategic thinking which is only enabling leftist order sleeping in bed with Jihadis and post-modern Communist ideologues.

They accuse the right of having co-opted their ideas. Copyright infringement.

Conservatives were about being fiscally responsible it was the left that was reckless but really both are the same, one taxes the rich the other racks up debt.

So now the left have to come up with new ideas.

We will find out what they have in store after the next economic crash.

[snapper]

I remind people not to feed the troll that we obviously have. That especially means you snapper because you do have the tendency to take the bait too easily at times. Stay out of the dump...

Thankyou for your advice but I am a grown Lady.

[snapper]

As per the above testimony, the assumption by both ambassadors that aid was tied to specific investigations was never told to them by any other person on earth let alone anyone in the Trump administration, but was reasonable on their part given the Obama administrations constant tying of aid via Joe Biden with various quid pro quo.

How you construe the whole testimony of both Taylor and Sondland, who was in personal contact with Trumpkin, as denying that there was no quid pro quo from this amazes me. Are these the only clips you have watched? Sondland (the EU Ambassador) who should have had no part in this "drug deal" (to quote Bolton) opened his testimony saying that it was quid pro quo; CNN were lined up. What Trumpkin said to Sondland was something like "I need them to do this (investigate Biden or at least announce they are investigating him) and look into this (GRU rumour fed to Manafort by Kostya from the GRU) that the DNC server somehow magically got to Ukraine.... but no quid pro quo right?" Well you cannot set conditions for the release of Congress voted aid to conditions without it being a quid pro quo. As your Orange traitor would tell you "Just read the transcript" though of course is not actually a 'transcript' but a summary.

[Parihaka]

How you construe the whole testimony of both Taylor and Sondland, who was in personal contact with Trumpkin, as denying that there was no quid pro quo from this amazes me.

Well it's easy really. Both categorically denied under congressional oath in those videos I posted that Trump had ever said any such thing. I knew ya wouldn't watch them ya wee pickle :-)

[Parihaka]

Fairness in the sense you are not being muzzled. This is the key point.

As to whether what is said actually has a bearing on reality or is solely designed to guide people to one's point is another matter.

Both sides have agendas and you'd have to be sharp to spot it.

The side opposing shouts about principle and conveniently forgets them when they get into the driving seat.

This is why the system always caters for an opposition.



Extremes of either side have always tended towards dictatorships

The way to prevent that is having a viable middle. If the middle collapses then its a feeding frenzy for extremes on either side.

Centre is holding from what i can tell.

In reverence to our at-times completely tangential conversations and how you unfailingly tend to cheer me up, I give you a wee gem from three years ago

[snapper]

Sondland said that Trumpkin told him "I want A and B but this is not a quid pro quo right?"

Just for your information he does not have the right to withhold aid voted by Congress.

[Parihaka]

Sondland said that Trumpkin told him "I want A and B but this is not a quid pro quo right?"

Well, no.
One of the things I find most delightful about your persona is the willingness to repeat the same lie repeatedly even when shown to be false. I agree entirely that your audience, like you, can't be bothered watching the interminable boredom inducing various senate and congressional 'enquiries' and so is happy to absorb one liners from propaganda outlets that justify your own prejudices.
Thus knowing that your audience doesn't want to check your veracity, you simply invoke often, to make lies truth in their minds.


However

Rep. Michael Turner: “Ambassador Sondland, I want to walk through some of the portions of your testimony because sometimes you seem to make direct connections and sometimes they seem to be dead ends. I kind of want to clear up what are the dead ends and what are the direct connections. Yesterday, Ambassador Volker, who I consider to be very talented and a man of integrity, and I believe you think he’s a man of integrity, correct?”
Amb. Gordon Sondland: “I do.”
Turner: “He testified that the president of the United States did not tie either a meeting with the president, a phone call, or any aid to investigations of Burisma, 2016 or the Bidens—that the president did not do that. And you’ve testified that the president did not tell you that he tied them either. Correct?”
Sondland: “I did testify to that, although when Ambassador Volker and I were working on the statement and negotiating with the Ukrainians it was clear to Ambassador Volker that a meeting would not happen without the Burisma and 2016. That was very clear to Ambassador Volker.”
Turner: “And how do you know that? What did he say to you? Because he says that was not clear to him. In fact, he says that’s not the case. He was working on that, he knows that’s what the president wanted, but he didn’t have it as: This was a requirement.”
Sondland: “Oh, I strongly disagree with that portion of his testimony. It was absolutely a requirement or we would have just had the meeting and been done with it.”
Turner: “What about the aid? He says that they weren’t tied, that the aid was not tied.”
Sondland: “And I didn’t say they were conclusively tied either. I said I was presuming it.”
Turner: “Okay. So, the president never told you they were tied.”
Sondland: “That’s correct.”
Turner: “So, your testimony, his testimony is consistent in that the president did not tie aid to investigations?”
Sondland: “That’s correct.”
Turner: “He also testified that he spoke to Giuliani and that Giuliani did not relate that he was tying on behalf of the president or on the president’s behalf aid, and that in fact Giuliani never said to him that aid was tied to investigations. Now, the question I have for you is: Did you ever have a conversation with Giuliani that did not involve Volker, because your testimony is a lot of we’s and us’s. So, did you and Giuliani have a separate conference, separate phone call, where Giuliani told you that the aid was tied, because Volker says—and if he was on all your phone calls—Volker says that never happened.”
Sondland: “No, I did have a few conversations—I don’t recall how many because I don’t have the records—with Mr. Giuliani directly when Mr. Volker wasn’t available—“
Turner: “And did Giuliani say to—go ahead, what were you going to say?”
Sondland: “I don’t believe I testified that Mr. Giuliani told me that aid was tied.”
Turner: “Oh, I think, see this is part of the problem, Ambassador Sondland, and I just want to walk you through this. Is, you’ve said to us: Everyone was in the loop. And everyone knew. Now, hold on a second, hold on a second: I have listened to you today as [have] a lot of people. And not only are your answers somewhat circular, frequently you’ve contradicted yourself in your own answer. Now, the text messages and emails you’ve put up there, Kurt Volker walked us through and he has a completely different understanding of what you were saying than what you’re saying you were saying. So, I’m a little confused as to how everyone is in the loop because there—if Giuliani didn’t give you any express statement than it can’t be that you believe this from Giuliani. Now, let me tell you right now—Is Donald Trump your friend?”
Sondland: “No, we’re not friends. We have a—“
Turner: “Do you like the president?”
Sondland: “Yes.”
Turner: “Okay. Well, you know, after you testified, Chairman Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony, and if you pull up CNN today right now their banner says: Sondland Ties Trump to Withholding Aid. Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigation to the aid, because I don’t think you’re saying that?”
Sondland: “I’ve said repeatedly, congressman, I was presuming. I also said that President Trump never—“
Turner: “So, no one told you. Not just the president? Giuliani didn’t tell you. Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations? Is that correct?”
Sondland: “I think I already testified to that.”
Turner: “No answer the question: Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigation? Because if your answer is yes then the chairman’s wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations? Yes or no?”
Sondland: “Yes.”
Turner: “So, you really have no testimony that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?”
Sondland: “Other than my own presumption.”
Turner: “Which is nothing. I mean that is what I don’t understand. Do you know what hear-say evidence is, ambassador? Hear-say is when I testify what someone else told me. You know what made-up testimony is? Made-up testimony is when I just presume it. I mean, you’re just assuming all of these things, and then you are giving them the evidence that they’re running out and doing press conferences and CNN’s headline is saying that you’re saying the president of the United States should be impeached because he tied aid to investigations and you don’t know that. Correct?”
Sondland: “I never said the president of the United States should be impeached.
Turner: “Nope. But you did—You have left people with the confusing impression that you’re giving testimony that you did not. You do not have any evidence that the president of the United States was tied to withholding aid from the Ukraine in exchange for investigations. I yield back.”

See how easy that is?

[snapper]

So you are arguing that Volker and Sondland and everyone else - even Guiliani - were acting without instructions from Trumpkin? Get a grip Pari! They were acting together in a rogue do? Seriously? Why was the Ambassador fired? I met her once - seemed ok to me.

And again exerts of the whole testimony because the whole is damming.

And as for the Crowdstrike server being in Ukraine it is BS: Ukraine hacked the Hilary Clinton campaign to what? Help her? So we released the info from the hacks to help Hilary? Sad way some of you 'believers' think.

And look I am a still a conservative - I still buy gold when it is low because it is the best currency - but this is just BS and is not conservatism at all - look at the deficit - but cultism almost. With those who have left my view of conservatism and who are willing to attempt to justify a traitor I shall have no peace. You follow a traitor; sleep with dogs and you are bitten by the same infectious fleas.