Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

Tell Congress that. It's their aid to give out or withhold, not Trump's. Which is kinda why we're here right now...

everyone familiar with the situation said that they had met the goals they needed to get the aid. But trump knew better? The moron who thinks that Alabama is on the Atlantic and that Frederick Douglass is doing a great job? You are not even remotely believable, save your breath.

OOPs I meant to address that to the "Best be prudent" poster!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, this explains part of Devin's behavior

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

What a frothy milkshake!

One of the big pieces of Devin Nunes and Derek Harvey going on a disinformation tour with the now indicted Lev Parnas is the timing: 11/30-12/3. That was after the HPSCI was working on Russia, and even after HJC/OGR were. So what were they doing? Maybe seeding the Guiliani story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

It was after the whistle blower report, and it was also after a Politico article that reported that Trump had held up the security assistance, and it was when Ambassador Taylor asked Sondland whether they were saying that both the security assistance and White House meeting were conditioned on investigations, which is why Sondland was seeking guidance on what to say.

Saying that you are not committing a crime, during or after you committed a crime, does not make you innocent of the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

It was after the whistle blower report, and it was also after a Politico article that reported that Trump had held up the security assistance, and it was when Ambassador Taylor asked Sondland whether they were saying that both the security assistance and White House meeting were conditioned on investigations, which is why Sondland was seeking guidance on what to say.

Saying that you are not committing a crime, during or after you committed a crime, does not make you innocent of the crime.

Thank you for clarifying the timing! I couldn't watch all of the hearings today.

[Anonymous]

I'm dying. It's like if Clinton retroactively marked up a calendar: "No Blow Jobs Today!"

Are republicans and the general public this stupid? Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm dying. It's like if Clinton retroactively marked up a calendar: "No Blow Jobs Today!"

Are republicans and the general public this stupid? Seriously.

Just the ones in the Congress and who watch Fox.

[Anonymous]

Is all of this really changing anyone’s mind on either side?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is all of this really changing anyone’s mind on either side?

We'll know soon. Some Republicans were blindsided by Sondland's testimony. Totally surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

It was after the whistle blower report, and it was also after a Politico article that reported that Trump had held up the security assistance, and it was when Ambassador Taylor asked Sondland whether they were saying that both the security assistance and White House meeting were conditioned on investigations, which is why Sondland was seeking guidance on what to say.

Saying that you are not committing a crime, during or after you committed a crime, does not make you innocent of the crime.

It was after someone explained to Trump what a quid pro quo was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is all of this really changing anyone’s mind on either side?

It may not change any votes in Congress, but even if it doesn't, it is establishing the overwhelming evidence of the criminal conspiracy and exposing the Republicans in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is all of this really changing anyone’s mind on either side?

I doubt public opinion moved much. Maybe by a point or two.

[Anonymous]

"I definitely do NOT want any garbage. Nope! Not me! Not desiring any garbage today."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

OK, but if that was the decision (and it clearly wasn't), there are legal ways to do that, and it needed Congressional approval at that point (the aid had already been approved). He did not use the legal channels. He just said said don't sent it yet (beyond the legally required time to send it and without using proper methods - so IIMU that was issuing an order to break the law), I'm waiting for something first. A favor. (bribery)

[Anonymous]

"There's NO quid pro quo, there's NO quid pro quo, there's NO quid pro quo" . . . and tap your ruby slippers together three times and you'll be back in Queens where you belong.