Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.

Yeah, no way Johnson votes to convict Trump. He’s one of the biggest bootlickers out there. I’m more hopeful that he gets taken out by this than he votes to convict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.

This is spot on. Looks like a setup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.

This is spot on. Looks like a setup.

Exactly. Every single other person is lying except Trump. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, no. Taylor has his own agenda of some sort. Whenever someone says in a text or email "Don't you remember that conversation we had when you said such and such...." is an attempt by Taylor to create a phoney paper trail of a conversation that never occurred. Lawyers pull this stuff, or try to, all the time. They'll send correspondence "documenting" a conversation that never occurred. Then, if the correspondence is overlooked, or the recipient doesn't respond to set the record straight, the false documentation of a conversation which never occurred becomes the "default record." That's why Sondland jumped all over Taylor, immediately, completely refuting his phoney recollection of a conversation that never occurred.

This is spot on. Looks like a setup.

Exactly. Every single other person is lying except Trump. /s

Again. It's amazing how many times there has been a scandal and everyone involved in it is lying except for Trump.

[Anonymous]

AP reporting that House Democrats have requested Ukraine documents from Vice President Pence for impeachment inquiry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.

Yeah, no way Johnson votes to convict Trump. He’s one of the biggest bootlickers out there. I’m more hopeful that he gets taken out by this than he votes to convict.

Just saw that Johnson “doesn’t remember” signing the bipartisan letter urging Ukraine to fire Shokin. He’s totally full of sh!t.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464302-gop-senator-says-he-doesnt-remember-signing-2016-letter-urging-reform-of?amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AP reporting that House Democrats have requested Ukraine documents from Vice President Pence for impeachment inquiry.

By October 15. https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committees-seek-ukraine-documents-from-vice-president

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Senator Johnson confirms Sonderland told the quid pro quo and people are STILL denying it, as if it detracts at all from the impeachable action, which Trump has not only admitted, but is basically defying any punishment for.

He is assuming the GOP won't remove him from office.

Burr, Sasse, Romney and now Johnson. That is four on the road to 30.

Johnson has confirmed that Sondland told him (Johnson) that the military aid was contingent on Zelensky investigating Biden. But he didn't say that he (Johnson) thinks that Trump should not do that or that he thinks it's a serious violation of his oath of office. Johnson also said he thinks it's fine for Trump to ask China to investigate Biden.

Nor did Sondland ever say that Trump told Sondland it was a quid pro quo. The opposite is true. These bureaucratic functionaries seem to frequently misrepresent their superiors' positions in an effort to get leverage in a negotiation. "Give me what I want because unless you do, you won't get what you want, and that's coming straight from the top." Except it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mental gymnastics.

Impressive. I'll give it a 9.5/10.

[Anonymous]

So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

[Anonymous]

Economist/YouGov Poll:

should House try to impeach Trump?
50% yes
39% no

if House impeaches, should Senate remove Trump from office?
51% yes
39% no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if there was no quid pro quo, why was the money withheld? Why did the Ukranians think there was a quid pro quo?

If agreement wasn’t a prerequisite for aid, that means aid would have been delivered even if they didn’t agree. So why hold up aid to begin with? That doesn’t add up. Trump’s own defense doesn’t make sense without a quid quo pro.

Originally, the money was supposed to be disbursed on February 28, but was held up. Biden didn't even announce his candidacy until April 25.