Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, YChang said:

Hmmm... found the GOP line to use now, "President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on” investigations."

"Did the president ever utter the words 'I, Donald J Trump, being of sound mind and body, hereby bribeth thee, Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine'"?

 

"No"

 

"No further questions"

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fozzz said:

Did Sondland ever say that Trump told him that money for weapons was in exchange for investigations or was that just an inference Sondland made on his own?  That appears to me to be a rather important distinction.

Your IQ being 20 points distinct from average -- on the south side -- seems important, too.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Did Sondland ever say that Trump told him that money for weapons was in exchange for investigations or was that just an inference Sondland made on his own?  That appears to me to be a rather important distinction.

Everyone knows a crime isn't a crime unless you specifically outline why it's a crime as you're committing it, duh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captainant said:

Everyone knows a crime isn't a crime unless you specifically outline why it's a crime as you're committing it, duh. 

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tantric superman said:

What evidence of intent do you feel is lacking?

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

The evidence is subject to reasonableness. Do you think that Trump, or any leader in politics or business, speaks in 100% absolutes? We all interpret what people say, and people are still held responsible.

Do you think that every person ever convicted of telling a subordinate to commit a crime, had to explicitly make the request in order to be convicted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

Yes, Trump and Giuliani inadvertantly withheld Congressionally-approved aid from an ally in exchange for a political favor.

Of course there was intent.  And the proof is all over your tv right now.  If you still don't see it, it's because you don't want to.

Edited by TexArcher
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

I'm not asking you what the burden of proof is, I'm asking you what kind of evidence you would need.

 I'm just vaguely curious. 

Edited by tantric superman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The evidence is subject to reasonableness. Do you think that Trump, or any leader in politics or business, speaks in 100% absolutes? We all interpret what people say, and people are still held responsible.

Do you think that every person ever convicted of telling a subordinate to commit a crime, had to explicitly make the request in order to be convicted?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  As to your question, I do not believe that to be true.  However, we are discussing the probity of Sondland's testimony and his testimony appears to be lacking with respect to the key ingredient of bribery.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The evidence is subject to reasonableness. Do you think that Trump, or any leader in politics or business, speaks in 100% absolutes? We all interpret what people say, and people are still held responsible.

Do you think that every person ever convicted of telling a subordinate to commit a crime, had to explicitly make the request in order to be convicted?

Everyday people get convicted of crimes where the only evidence of specific intent is circumstantial. The informed opinion of the Sondland, who was involved in the day-to-day of this particular scheme, of what he believed Trump's intent to be is amazingly important and directly relevant. Fozzz remains an absolute moron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb and suggest that when the President directs someone to work with Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani conveys the quid pro quo nature of the task at hand, then that ties directly back to the President, Rocko's keen legal analysis notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 5:32 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What this is really about is making it difficult for GOP Senators to acquit Trump.  I know everyone thinks it’s a foregone conclusion (probably is) but I guarantee you no senator really WANTS to acquit Trump in the face of overwhelming evidence.  They would actually prefer not to vote at all.

 

Then those spinless fucking weasels need to convince DOTARD to resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

I think it's certainly reasonable cause to investigate a crime (ie, an impeachment hearing) and to gather evidence (turn over documents, get White House officials to testify.)  

It's an absurd position to assert that Sondland's limited access does not provide enough proof while arguing that others with more access can be barred from coming forward. Sondland, and the other witnesses, is who we have.  You want more certainty, then lets get more witnesses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Horn Dog said:

In fairness, Starr is saying that this is Schiff’s position.  He is not saying it is his

good point. Starr will still most likely walk the line that he doesn't think that a crime occurred, and if even if that is proven to be true, it doesn't rise to the level of removing a president. That level being on a president lying about sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb and suggest that when the President directs someone to work with Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani conveys the quid pro quo nature of the task at hand, then that ties directly back to the President, Rocko's keen legal analysis notwithstanding.

We also have Trump admitting to it. But other than that I guess there's just no way of knowing his intent. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  As to your question, I do not believe that to be true.  However, we are discussing the probity of Sondland's testimony and his testimony appears to be lacking with respect to the key ingredient of bribery.

Siths are generally pretty good at distinguishing difference between credibility, types of evidence and elements of a crime, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Back to the whole the aid was released after we got caught, so no big deal. 

Someone should ask these idiots what happens if you attempt to rob a bank, but get caught in the act.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fozzz is a great example of why no matter what comes out of the hearings there will still be millions of people who hear what they want to hear and will never move away from what they believe. Back to the shooting someone in the middle of Times Square. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...