‘It’s All Over’ — Donald Trump Cites Gordon Sondland’s Testimony as Impeachment Exoneration

[stevil]

Trump told him he didn't want ANYTHING in regard to a quick pro quo but just wanted the Ukrainians to do the right thing!

Yip, Trump said this after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
It was a feeble, desperate attempt to cover his tracks.

"I didn't want the cookies, I wasn't going to eat them, I wasn't going to take them, I wanted nothing"

 

[NightHawkeye]

Yip, Trump said this after he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
It was a feeble, desperate attempt to cover his tracks.

"I didn't want the cookies, I wasn't going to eat them, I wasn't going to take them, I wanted nothing"

... and no actual cookies were found to be missing, or eaten.

 

[stevil]

... and no actual cookies were found to be missing, or eaten.

Which isn't a defence.

He got caught red handed. In the act of committing the crime, but before it was fully executed.
There is no plausible innocent explanation for the situation that he was caught in.

"well, yes, police officer, yes I'm in this house, which isn't mine. I am using a tourch and don't have the lights on, I'm wearing gloves and a balaclava, I have a large bag.
But, didn't you notice that I have taken nothing, my bag is empty. Sure there are a bunch of expensive items in a pile on the floor, and I understand that you are accusing me of emptying my bag before you came close to me, but I didn't do that. I did nothing. I want nothing."

 

[keith99]

He won the Electoral College. We don't "think" he won, we KNOW it.

And so do you.

Way to ignore an important adjective DECISIVELY makes a difference. Trump won on a last minute field goal or Hail Mary pass. He DID NOT win decisively no matter how poor the memory of his followers become.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Which isn't a defence.

He got caught red handed. In the act of committing the crime, but before it was fully executed.
There is no plausible innocent explanation for the situation that he was caught in.

"well, yes, police officer, yes I'm in this house, which isn't mine. I am using a tourch and don't have the lights on, I'm wearing gloves and a balaclava, I have a large bag.
But, didn't you notice that I have taken nothing, my bag is empty. Sure there are a bunch of expensive items in a pile on the floor, and I understand that you are accusing me of emptying my bag before you came close to me, but I didn't do that. I did nothing. I want nothing."

Remind me again, what CRIME is being alleged?

Are you talking about a "Thought crime" by any chance? Because some people "think" Donald had certain "thoughts"?

 

[Halbhh]

Unless you believe in free will.

People make their own choices, pick their own leaders, make their own laws etc.

Trump's increasingly obvious wrong-doing -- which gets harder to deny over time -- might possibly help some that wrongly placed faith in him reflect, and redirect their faith to be in Christ, instead of in men.

 

[stevil]

Remind me again, what CRIME is being alleged?

Are you talking about a "Thought crime" by any chance? Because some people "think" Donald had certain "thoughts"?

Firstly impeachment doesn't require a crime.

But the closet crime that I can think of is "bribery"
And the abuse of power, which is an ethical transgression, is about bribing the president of Ukraine for personal gain. To help Trump win the next election.

If you let future presidents do this, then they all will. It will become a feature of all future elections that some foreign countries publicly declare investigations into each of the main potential presidential candidates that are running against the incumbent sitting president.

It hurts the democratic process, it hurts the reputation of USA, it hurts those countries that are being squeezed, and it betrays the tax payers and voters of USA.

 

[AACJ]

I have seen many Christians claim to know the mind of God. Those Christians are opposed by other Christians who claim to know the mind of God. All the empirical evidence I have seen to date supports the idea that we are all just mortals and none of us have a direct line to the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything.

And yet you approve of the scientific naturalist's claim to having a path to all-knowledge through natural means and methods?

Your own knowledge claim is one that requires advanced knowledge. You must begin your presumption with foundational knowledge concerning the existence of which defies all natural explanation, such legitimate knowledge having no natural basis. You cannot even argue against possible access to the mind of God without those means provided by the very mind of God.

Your position is hopeless and contradictory. You must start with God in order to even argue against claims about God.

 

[Belk]

And yet you approve of the scientific naturalist's claim to having a path to all-knowledge through natural means and methods?

Your own knowledge claim is one that requires advanced knowledge. You must begin your presumption with foundational knowledge concerning the existence of which defies all natural explanation, such legitimate knowledge having no natural basis. You cannot even argue against possible access to the mind of God without those means provided by the very mind of God.

Your position is hopeless and contradictory. You must start with God in order to even argue against claims about God.

 

[AACJ]

Two peas in a pod. And they’ll both get an impeachment trial. Sweet!

You don't seem to mind the Dems misusing the Impeachment process. They know they have little to no chance of the Senate agreeing; therefore, they are intentionally using the process not to ultimately impeach the Pres, but just to create negative Press for him. To use the impeachment process for that purpose of course is wicked and works to upset the balance of power between the two branches.

 

[AACJ]

He still hasn't released his tax returns - that is entirely in his own control and power. He hasn't replaced Obamacare or even come up with a proposal. He hasn't "locked her up" - as much as he would have liked to have.

I did not state that he has done everything that he has said that he will do. On the whole, though, he is doing very well in fulfilling his promises.

 

[stevil]

You don't seem to mind the Dems misusing the Impeachment process. They know they have little to no chance of the Senate agreeing; therefore, they are intentionally using the process not to ultimately impeach the Pres,

Impeachment occurs in the House.
Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.

To use the impeachment process for that purpose of course is wicked and works to upset the balance of power between the two branches.

Impeachment, it seems is the only constitutional process in place to deal with a rouge president that is abusing power and behaving in a corrupt manner.

Your supposed sweetness is turning bitter in the mouths of the liars and hypocrites perpetrated this stunt against the constitution and people of America.

The impeachment process is in support of the constitution and the USA people and against corruption from an elected official.

 

[AACJ]

Impeachment occurs in the House.
Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.




Impeachment, it seems is the only constitutional process in place to deal with a rouge president that is abusing power and behaving in a corrupt manner.


The impeachment process is in support of the constitution and the USA people and against corruption from an elected official.

Your side stepping a major issue because you know that it is probable that the Dems know they are misusing the process. They know the Senate will not go along with their ruse, and so they obviously are using the process for one or more other reasons other than for removing the President.

 

[stevil]

Your side stepping a major issue because you know that it is probable that the Dems know they are misusing the process. They know the Senate will not go along with their ruse, and so they obviously are using the process for one or more other reasons other than for removing the President.

As far as I understand it, they are doing what they have personal responsibility and person control on.
They are duty bound to put checks and balances on the Executive Branch when the Executive Branch are abusing the office.

Once the House have done their obligation, then it is over to the Senate to do their obligation (or not)

 

[AACJ]

As far as I understand it, they are doing what they have personal responsibility and person control on.
They are duty bound to put checks and balances on the Executive Branch when the Executive Branch are abusing the office.

Once the House have done their obligation, then it is over to the Senate to do their obligation (or not)

A vain gesture is just that, a gesture and little more. Using the process like they are using it is in vain according to its intended purpose. That violates the purpose and spirit of the impeachment mechanism. The Dems have a duty to the intended purpose of the mechanism, not just a duty to use the mechanism when required.

That intended purpose is largely base on the fact that its use is supported by the real possibility that a President could be removed for supposed wrongdoing. There is little to no chance of President Trump being removed based on the available evidence. So they are in fact misusing the impeachment process.

 

[cow451]

A vain gesture is just that, a gesture and little more. Using the process like they are using it is in vain according to its intended purpose. That violates the purpose and spirit of the impeachment mechanism. The Dems have a duty to the intended purpose of the mechanism, not just a duty to use the mechanism when required.

The point is to inquire whether the President has abused his authority in strong arming another country into a political favor. Sounds like a good use of impeachment inquiry.

 

[AACJ]

The point is to inquire whether the President has abused his authority in strong arming another country into a political favor. Sounds like a good use of impeachment inquiry.

That intended purpose of the impeachment process is largely conditioned on the fact that its use should be supported by the real possibility that a President could be removed for some supposed wrongdoing. There is little to no chance of President Trump being removed based on the available evidence. So they are in fact misusing the impeachment process.

 

[DaisyDay]

I did not state that he has done everything that he has said that he will do. On the whole, though, he is doing very well in fulfilling his promises.

But that one is SO easy and entirely within his own control...

 

[DaisyDay]

That intended purpose of the impeachment process is largely conditioned on the fact that its use should be supported by the real possibility that a President could be removed for some supposed wrongdoing. There is little to no chance of President Trump being removed based on the available evidence. So they are in fact misusing the impeachment process.

You seem to be saying that they should turn a blind eye to evidence of abuse of power by the POTUS because the Senate is too partisan to weigh the evidence fairly. As of yet, we don't know all the evidence they have because much of it has not been presented. Also, as you know, this is only an inquiry into whether or not an actual impeachment is warranted. Do you think no inquiry should be held, given the whistleblower's complaint that was deemed both urgent and credible?

I don't think any actual impeachment will be held until the other committees (are there six doing inquiries?) also tender their evidence and recommendations.

 

[AACJ]

The point is to inquire whether the President has abused his authority in strong arming another country into a political favor. Sounds like a good use of impeachment inquiry.

According to your rationale, the President could never make a request of the Ukrainian President without it constituting strong-arming. There is no evidence of a conditional release of aid related to Trump's request. Besides, intentionality or motivation is a required factor for determining wrongdoing. If Trump's request of the Ukrainian President concerning Biden was motivated not by the prospect of politically damaging Biden, but only or primarily to pursue possible political corruption by Biden, then such request is entirely appropriate. Should Biden get a pass just because Trump may politically benefit? Is not an investigation into Biden more important than the possible political fallout occurring from such investigation? Would there be any real effort by Ukraine to investigate the biden-related situation if Trump had not personally made a request?

You are assuming wrongful motivation on the part of Trump. Such presumption is not grounds for impeachment.