Current Events > Trump's misconduct a textbook case of impeachable offenses, experts say

(+) Yeah! (+)

Donald Trumps misconduct offered a textbook case of impeachable offenses as prescribed by the constitution and applied over the course of US history.

Four constitutional scholars, including three called by Democrats and one called by Republicans, became the first witnesses to testify in a second round of public impeachment hearings beginning Wednesday

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBXJonb
---

bump 4 truth
---

Hairistotle posted...

they dont care about what experts think. to the rest of us this is kinda plain as day

when your country is run by a cult leader
---

Oh no he doesnt follow protocol

Surely biden is the answer

---

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. - Trump talking to Ukraine Ambassador months ago.

---

GoodOlJr posted...

Surely biden is the answer

Yuck.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. - Trump talking to Ukraine Ambassador months ago.

you mean the crap he wrote on his giant scrach-n-smell sharpie? xD
---

GoodOlJr posted...

Oh no he doesnt follow protocol

Surely biden is the answer

typical republican 1 dimensional thinking
---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

you mean the crap he wrote on his giant scrach-n-smell sharpie? xD

No, this came straight from the Ukraine Ambassadors mouth in the impeachment inquiries. He was suppose to be democrats star witness.


---

karlpilkington4 posted...

No, this came straight from the Ukraine Ambassadors mouth in the impeachment inquiries. He was suppose to be democrats star witness.

and?
---

GoodOlJr posted...

Oh no he doesnt follow protocol

Surely biden is the answer

someone thinks they know better than the founding fathers (god bless them every one)

---

Sackgurl posted...

someone thinks they know better than the founding fathers (god bless them every one)

republicans hate old white establishment now. you didnt hear how progressive they've become??
---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

and?

There is no "and". I simply quoted what Trump told the Ambassador. I'm not sure whats so confusing. Maybe too much CNN?

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

There is no "and". I simply quoted what Trump told the Ambassador. I'm not sure whats so confusing. Maybe too much CNN?

so by that logic i could kill someone, tell you i didnt, and i'm innocent. republican logic
---

Hairistotle posted...

this karl fellow is surely worth engaging in good faith

What part of my post isnt in good faith? Post actual points, and I'll close my account.

We'll wait

---

Hairistotle posted...

this karl fellow is surely worth engaging in good faith

i know he's a troll, its just fun to watch him flounder in his attempts.

he usually goes from trying to legit defend trump to realizing its impossible and going the deupd route
---

Hairistotle posted...

this karl fellow is surely worth engaging in good faith

karlpilikngton is a Funbazooka alt

Sondlands bombshell turns out to be merely his 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.
Sondlands answer: Other than my own presumption.

Indeed, when he directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

For weeks, Sondland testified, he saw no link between investigations and aid or a Trump-Zelensky meeting. And, he stressed repeatedly, he had no clue at all, til late in the game, that Joe or Hunter Biden was remotely tied to any of this.
He also admits his current take on it all is shaped by what hes read about others testimony not his own recollections.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

---

Hairistotle posted...

eyeroll man

ok...defend a troll account.

sad
---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

ok...defend a troll account.

sad

Saying not to engage with trolls is like the opposite of defending them

---

Oh. Didn't realize posts were missing.

Hanky_Bannister posted...

ok...defend a troll account.

sad

I think it's less defending, and more rolling their eyes at your justification for feeding.


---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

so by that logic i could kill someone, tell you i didnt, and i'm innocent. republican logic

No, its not "by that logic". The ambassador had no proof that Trumps orders were a quid pro quo other than his own presumptions. He literally said in the same paragraph, that Trump told me that he doesn't want anything from the Ukraine president in exchange.

Dont call me a troll, just because you cant even keep up with the conversation

---

Umbreon posted...

Oh. Didn't realize posts were missing.

I think it's less defending, and more rolling their eyes at your justification for feeding.

its not feeding. its more like a cat playing with some rodent its caught.
---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

you mean the crap he wrote on his giant scrach-n-smell sharpie? xD

I mean it worked at convincing cultists when Kavanaugh pulled out some calendar from decades ago saying he didn't rape anyone.

---

Ethosian posted...

karlpilikngton is a Funbazooka alt

Straight up lying is a TOS violation, you know that right?

---

I forgot this part

He also admits his current take on it all is shaped by what hes read about others testimony not his own recollections.
Sondland was an amiable, charming witness, plainly eager to please each questioner. That may make for a good diplomat, but it rendered his testimony confusing and contradictory and basically worthless.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

---

Eh. Anyway, I highly doubt they're saying anything amusing enough for me to care. If I wanted to see someone mindlessly defend Trump, I can just go to the politics board and see several low karma alts do that with similar quality.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

No, this came straight from the Ukraine Ambassadors mouth in the impeachment inquiries. He was suppose to be democrats star witness.

1) you are mixing sondland, the EU ambassador, up with yovanovich, the ukraine ambassador

2) sondland's testimony on the subject of these denials from trump was the following:

I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro quo? Sondland said. . . . With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.

My reason for telling (Taylor) this was not to defend what the president was saying, Sondland testified, not to opine whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay Ive gone as far as I can go in trying to understand what Trump wanted from the Ukrainians.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-sondland-denial-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-915283/

https://tinyurl.com/vv83jfb
(wapo)

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

I forgot this part

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

Editorials are about as reliable for facts as getting the weather report from your horoscope

---

Sackgurl posted...

1) you are mixing sondland, the EU ambassador, up with yovanovich, the ukraine ambassador

2) sondland's testimony on the subject of these denials from trump was the following:

So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Sondlands answer: Other than my own presumption.

Indeed, when he directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

Why did you leave this part out?

---

it is good that karl has shifted from trying to argue that sondland claimed trump didn't ask for a quid pro quo to attacking him, because attempting to argue the former would be a blatant lie dependent on nobody having actually seen or read his testimony

which is more or less what i'd expect from someone who can't differentiate two ambassadors since he's just copypasting astroturf emails but it at least is using today's astroturf emails and not last week's

karlpilkington4 posted...

Why did you leave this part out?

same reason i left out the fact that the initial call to 'clarify' on ukraine was only made by sondland after he learned the aid was withheld: because it's not relevant to the question of 'did sondland say trump committed a quid pro quo?'

you've moved the goalposts since you checked your email and discovered that was already a losing argument

sondland's testimony may be questionable and based on his interpretation of circumstance, but it is absolutely not exonerating and should not be viewed as such

also because it wasn't in the two articles i posted and i am quoting from them and not YOUR links.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Editorials are about as reliable for facts as getting the weather report from your horoscope

Good thing there is literal video evidence

---

Sackgurl posted...

it is good that karl has shifted from trying to argue that sondland claimed trump didn't ask for a quid pro quo to attacking him, because attempting to argue the former would be a blatant lie dependent on nobody having actually seen or read his testimony

which is more or less what i'd expect from someone who can't differentiate two ambassadors since he's just copypasting astroturf emails but it at least is using today's astroturf emails and not last week's

I have not shifted anything. The ambassador claimed there was a quid pro quo. Then said the president never asked for a quid pro quo, and stated his only evidence for his claim was his own presumption. I can play the video for you, if you dont want to read it.


---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Sondland was an amiable, charming witness, plainly eager to please each questioner. That may make for a good diplomat, but it rendered his testimony confusing and contradictory and basically worthless.

That's not fact, it's merely an opinion. I trust you understand the difference?

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

I have not shifted anything. The ambassador claimed there was a quid pro quo. Then said the president never asked for a quid pro quo, and stated his only evidence for his claim was his own presumption. I can play the video for you, if you dont want to read it.

you have shifted: your initial post was 'the ambassador said the president never asked for a quid pro quo'

you're only admitting that he said there was because i forced you to


---

gunplagirl posted...

That's not fact, it's merely an opinion. I trust you understand the difference?

And its based on video evidence. Thanks for your imput though!

---

Sackgurl posted...

you have shifted: your initial post was 'the ambassador said the president never asked for a quid pro quo'

you're only admitting that he said there was because i forced you to

My initial post was that the ambassador did say those things. That is still my stance, because he literally said so.

Idk whats so hard to understand. I didnt admit to anything else.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

My initial post was that the ambassador did say those things. That is still my stance, because he literally said so.

Idk whats so hard to understand. I didnt admit to anything else.

your initial post was lacking in the critical context of why he said those things to the investigation, and it was quite deliberately misleading. which is why i piped up to share the needed context.

also your post was outright wrong, since you called him the ukraine ambassador.

---

Hairistotle posted...

is this meta trolling or are you being real rn

are you? its fun to play with food. get over it.

this soapbox you are on is really dumb
---

Is he going to jail when he's out of office?

---

Hairistotle posted...

you're the one being played though, how is that not plain as day? you think karl gives a shit about any of what you type? he doesnt even give a shit about what he types

I care to have honest dialogue and not be called a troll for posting statements, facts and opinions.

Its quite simple, really.

---

Solid Sonic posted...

Is he going to jail when he's out of office?

no he's going to a mcdonalds
---

Sackgurl posted...

your initial post was lacking in the critical context of why he said those things to the investigation, and it was quite deliberately misleading. which is why i piped up to share the needed context.

also your post was outright wrong, since you called him the ukraine ambassador.

It didnt lack any context, you simply dont like the content. And me making a simple mistake doesnt suddenly make my entire post incorrect. The ambassador stated in his conversation with Trump, that Trump didnt want a quid pro quo, he didnt want anything in exchange.

Again, whats so hard to understand?

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

It didnt lack any context, you simply dont like the content. And me making a simple mistake doesnt suddenly make my entire post incorrect. The ambassador stated in his conversation with Trump, that Trump didnt want a quid pro quo, he didnt want anything in exchange.

Again, whats so hard to understand?

the context, which your post lacked, which I have posted elsewhere and am again posting here. saying you want nothing in exchange to a potential witness when you have already demanded from your victim does not exonerate you from having committed a crime.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-sondland-denial-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-915283/

Sondland said he knew by then the administration had frozen nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to help in an ongoing regional conflict with Russia. According to Sondland, Trump repeatedly told him on the call I want nothing and there was no quid pro quo. Sondland then relayed the presidents words to the new Ukrainian ambassador, William Taylor, who had become concerned about the administrations pressure campaign on Ukraine. My reason for telling (Taylor) this was not to defend what the president was saying, Sondland testified, not to opine whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay Ive gone as far as I can go in trying to understand what Trump wanted from the Ukrainians.

The timing of Sondlands call matters: That same day, the inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified the House and Senate that an anonymous whistleblower had filed a complaint, which the public would soon learn describing the broad contours of Trumps campaign to force Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election. Its likely Trump knew the committee had received the complaint, and that that knowledge informed his call with Sondland.

---