Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One take on the Impeachment document submitted to the House.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206746867934982145.html

Hint: Crimes were committed.

Hint: Just because Democrats make this claim, it doesn't mean it is true.
Democrats have claimed all kinds of things for the past 2 years. Nearly all their claims have turned out to be a bunch of lies.
Another hint: The evidence presented IS indeed disputable.

It really isn’t disputable that Trump and his coconspirators repeatedly asked for personal political benefits from a foreign government as a condition for official acts of U.S. and Presidential support for that government and its President. It also isn’t disputable that Trump and the White House obstructed the investigation by Congress.

Both are disputable.

No, not really. Mulvaney and Sondland both said it for all of the world to see. The facts of money being withheld, conversations with Ukrainians etc as per testimony, emails and public pronouncements line up perfectly. It really is undisputable for any average person to understand.

Sondland admitted he was PRESUMING. People are not convicted on presumptions.
There were no personal benefits being sought. You can PRESUME that all you want.

Sondland specifically stated that there was a quid pro quo as it related to a white house visit. Specifically. Sorry you cannot understand this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One take on the Impeachment document submitted to the House.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206746867934982145.html

Hint: Crimes were committed.

Hint: Just because Democrats make this claim, it doesn't mean it is true.
Democrats have claimed all kinds of things for the past 2 years. Nearly all their claims have turned out to be a bunch of lies.
Another hint: The evidence presented IS indeed disputable.

It really isn’t disputable that Trump and his coconspirators repeatedly asked for personal political benefits from a foreign government as a condition for official acts of U.S. and Presidential support for that government and its President. It also isn’t disputable that Trump and the White House obstructed the investigation by Congress.

Both are disputable.

No, not really. Mulvaney and Sondland both said it for all of the world to see. The facts of money being withheld, conversations with Ukrainians etc as per testimony, emails and public pronouncements line up perfectly. It really is undisputable for any average person to understand.

Sondland admitted he was PRESUMING. People are not convicted on presumptions.
There were no personal benefits being sought. You can PRESUME that all you want.

Sondland specifically stated that there was a quid pro quo as it related to a white house visit. Specifically. Sorry you cannot understand this.

Sondland knew all along that he was requesting a personal political benefit in exchange for a White House meeting. That was the basis of his conflicts with Bolton and Hill and Vindman and Taylor. They all called him on it and he told them his authority came directly from the President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One take on the Impeachment document submitted to the House.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206746867934982145.html

Hint: Crimes were committed.

Hint: Just because Democrats make this claim, it doesn't mean it is true.
Democrats have claimed all kinds of things for the past 2 years. Nearly all their claims have turned out to be a bunch of lies.
Another hint: The evidence presented IS indeed disputable.

It really isn’t disputable that Trump and his coconspirators repeatedly asked for personal political benefits from a foreign government as a condition for official acts of U.S. and Presidential support for that government and its President. It also isn’t disputable that Trump and the White House obstructed the investigation by Congress.

Both are disputable.

No, not really. Mulvaney and Sondland both said it for all of the world to see. The facts of money being withheld, conversations with Ukrainians etc as per testimony, emails and public pronouncements line up perfectly. It really is undisputable for any average person to understand.

Sondland admitted he was PRESUMING. People are not convicted on presumptions.
There were no personal benefits being sought. You can PRESUME that all you want.

Sondland specifically stated that there was a quid pro quo as it related to a white house visit. Specifically. Sorry you cannot understand this.

And, upon questioning, he said it was a presumption.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

[Anonymous]

NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

DP, but if the phone call was "perfect," why do we only have a summary, with ellipses cutting out major portions of the call?

[Anonymous]

So, there is such a thing as a sane republican

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/gop-congressman-breaks-ranks-giulianis-ukraine-involvement-disturbing-and-bolton-and-mulvaney-should-testify/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One take on the Impeachment document submitted to the House.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206746867934982145.html

Hint: Crimes were committed.

Hint: Just because Democrats make this claim, it doesn't mean it is true.
Democrats have claimed all kinds of things for the past 2 years. Nearly all their claims have turned out to be a bunch of lies.
Another hint: The evidence presented IS indeed disputable.

It really isn’t disputable that Trump and his coconspirators repeatedly asked for personal political benefits from a foreign government as a condition for official acts of U.S. and Presidential support for that government and its President. It also isn’t disputable that Trump and the White House obstructed the investigation by Congress.

Both are disputable.

No, not really. Mulvaney and Sondland both said it for all of the world to see. The facts of money being withheld, conversations with Ukrainians etc as per testimony, emails and public pronouncements line up perfectly. It really is undisputable for any average person to understand.

Sondland admitted he was PRESUMING. People are not convicted on presumptions.
There were no personal benefits being sought. You can PRESUME that all you want.

Sondland specifically stated that there was a quid pro quo as it related to a white house visit. Specifically. Sorry you cannot understand this.

And, upon questioning, he said it was a presumption.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Do you think your sleight of hand is clever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One take on the Impeachment document submitted to the House.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206746867934982145.html

Hint: Crimes were committed.

Hint: Just because Democrats make this claim, it doesn't mean it is true.
Democrats have claimed all kinds of things for the past 2 years. Nearly all their claims have turned out to be a bunch of lies.
Another hint: The evidence presented IS indeed disputable.

It really isn’t disputable that Trump and his coconspirators repeatedly asked for personal political benefits from a foreign government as a condition for official acts of U.S. and Presidential support for that government and its President. It also isn’t disputable that Trump and the White House obstructed the investigation by Congress.

Both are disputable.

No, not really. Mulvaney and Sondland both said it for all of the world to see. The facts of money being withheld, conversations with Ukrainians etc as per testimony, emails and public pronouncements line up perfectly. It really is undisputable for any average person to understand.

Sondland admitted he was PRESUMING. People are not convicted on presumptions.
There were no personal benefits being sought. You can PRESUME that all you want.

Sondland specifically stated that there was a quid pro quo as it related to a white house visit. Specifically. Sorry you cannot understand this.

And, upon questioning, he said it was a presumption.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Nobody believes that Sondland did this on his presumption. He lied about that. He's a weasel who lied in his first two attempts under oath until the testimony of others forced him to admit the obvious. As Rudy has admitted again, they got rid of Yovanovitch so a politically appointed stooge would be able to go around the State Department diplomats to make the bribery demand to Zelensky. Sondland was that stooge and everything he did was at the direction of Trump and Giuliani.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

Trump withheld U.S. government support to demand a political bribe from a foreign head of state. In what universe is that acceptable?

[Anonymous]

Nobody believes that Sondland did this on his presumption. He lied about that. He's a weasel who lied in his first two attempts under oath until the testimony of others forced him to admit the obvious. As Rudy has admitted again, they got rid of Yovanovitch so a politically appointed stooge would be able to go around the State Department diplomats to make the bribery demand to Zelensky. Sondland was that stooge and everything he did was at the direction of Trump and Giuliani.

Sorry, bribery didn't make it into the impeachment articles. Maybe the Dems can try an "attempted murder" charge for the comment DT made about Times Square.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, there is such a thing as a sane republican

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/gop-congressman-breaks-ranks-giulianis-ukraine-involvement-disturbing-and-bolton-and-mulvaney-should-testify/

Retiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP - honest question for Trump supporters: if the phone call was "perfect," why not let Mulvaney and Bolton testify? They'd be questioned by Republicans as well as Democrats. If the position is that Trump has nothing to hide, why hide these witnesses?

I did not vote for Trump but this whole impeachment nonsense was aimed at damaging Trump in the context of reelection. With the presidential election less than a year away and there not being any chance that Trump would be removed, there really is no other explanation.

And it is not working:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

Trump withheld U.S. government support to demand a political bribe from a foreign head of state. In what universe is that acceptable?

Even assuming that this is true, the Democrats are going to impeach him and he is going to be acquitted. What a totally futile gesture!

[Anonymous]

It’s not futile. It’s embarrassing to him, and that’s something.
Personally, I’m hoping he drops dead from the stress of impeachment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not futile. It’s embarrassing to him, and that’s something.
Personally, I’m hoping he drops dead from the stress of impeachment.

+1

And...

The House is performing its duty. It's not the House's fault that the Senate is completely derelict.