Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

Although it seems likely that Trump was running foreign policy for his own benefit unfortunately the case against him has not been made to a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. 

The Democrats need a smoking gun to be able to turn the Senate and they’re not able to provide one (though it’s highly likely that such evidence exists). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Although it seems likely that Trump was running foreign policy for his own benefit unfortunately the case against him has not been made to a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard.

If this was a Jury Trial, he'd be behind bars now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Although it seems likely that Trump was running foreign policy for his own benefit unfortunately the case against him has not been made to a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. 

The Democrats need a smoking gun to be able to turn the Senate and they’re not able to provide one (though it’s highly likely that such evidence exists). 

GOP complained the Dems made it a political sham and didn't allow them to ask questions... in the time they had to ask questions.

Also, the Whitehouse blocked a few witnesses from turning up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bickster said:

If this was a Jury Trial, he'd be behind bars now

But it’s not. In a jury trial White House witnesses might be compelled to testify under oath and evidence such as unredacted phone transcripts might be able to be brought out, giving the evidence that would put this beyond a reasonable doubt. 

From what has been produced however Trump’s supporters are able to muddy the waters enough to keep things on partisan lines. 

If nothing else comes out the Republicans will be able to run a credible trial that dismisses the charges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

But it’s not. In a jury trial White House witnesses might be compelled to testify under oath and evidence such as unredacted phone transcripts might be able to be brought out, giving the evidence that would put this beyond a reasonable doubt. 

From what has been produced however Trump’s supporters are able to muddy the waters enough to keep things on partisan lines. 

If nothing else comes out the Republicans will be able to run a credible trial that dismisses the charges. 

So the bloke in the middle of all this Sonderland, literally coming out and saying that aid was withheld to force the investigation into Biden Jr and that he passed the message on as directly instructed by the WH means nothing. That I'd wager would have been a slam dunk in most Jury trials. Rudy Giuliani actually admitted on TV that this is exactly what he was up to in Ukraine. SO the bloke in the middle of it all and the Presidents personal lawyer both saying it was so, would be enouch to secure a conviction in most courts

The evidence is there in plain sight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bickster said:

So the bloke in the middle of all this Sonderland, literally coming out and saying that aid was withheld to force the investigation into Biden Jr and that he passed the message on as directly instructed by the WH means nothing. That I'd wager would have been a slam dunk in most Jury trials. Rudy Giuliani actually admitted on TV that this is exactly what he was up to in Ukraine. SO the bloke in the middle of it all and the Presidents personal lawyer both saying it was so, would be enouch to secure a conviction in most courts

The evidence is there in plain sight

Unfortunately Sondland did not say the bit in bold. He gave Trump and the Republicans enough cover. He refused to confirm Trump withheld aid and he refused to say Trump was interested in the Bidens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Unfortunately Sondland did not say the bit in bold. He gave Trump and the Republicans enough cover. He refused to confirm Trump withheld aid and he refused to say Trump was interested in the Bidens. 

He pretty much did from every quote I've read.Trump told him to talk Giuliani, Was there a quid pro quo, yes, Oval Office meeting conditional on Investigation into Burisma and Biden Jr...

It was pretty much all there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

He pretty much did from every quote I've read.Trump told him to talk Giuliani, Was there a quid pro quo, yes, Oval Office meeting conditional on Investigation into Burisma and Biden Jr...

It was pretty much all there

Pretty much? He specifically refused to include the Bidens in the narrative, even under heavy repeated questioning. He also refused to say military aid was being withheld by Trump. Both of those things would have been serious admissions but he wouldn’t go there.

His ‘explosive’ testimony was that Trump said he would not meet with the president of Ukraine unless there was an investigation into corruption in Ukraine and that that was the ‘quid pro quo’. 

The Republicans are now running with the line that it would be a ridiculous reason to impeach a president for that and all other evidence presented so far to the contrary has been third hand hearsay or conjecture.

There seems to be a lot of reporting running ahead of the story here, we need actual evidence to come out that nails the guy and frustratingly we haven’t seen it yet. 

I have to say though that the purpose of this is probably ultimately the court of public opinion. If enough people think Trump is guilty and that the Senate trial is a Republican stitch up it will help the Democrats in November. 

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve seen a bit about the implications of the decision on Monday that will rule on Don McGahn’s subpoena.

If it rules against him, will the committees be able to force subpoenaed witnesses to appear? Also am I right in thinking another committee will run hearings after the intelligence committee is done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Pretty much? He specifically refused to include the Bidens in the narrative, even under heavy repeated questioning. He also refused to say military aid was being withheld by Trump. Both of those things would have been serious admissions but he wouldn’t go there.

His ‘explosive’ testimony was that Trump said he would not meet with the president of Ukraine unless there was an investigation into corruption in Ukraine and that that was the ‘quid pro quo’. 

The Republicans are now running with the line that it would be a ridiculous reason to impeach a president for that and all other evidence presented so far to the contrary has been third hand hearsay or conjecture.

There seems to be a lot of reporting running ahead of the story here, we need actual evidence to come out that nails the guy and frustratingly we haven’t seen it yet. 

I have to say though that the purpose of this is probably ultimately the court of public opinion. If enough people think Trump is guilty and that the Senate trial is a Republican stitch up it will help the Democrats in November. 

He didn't specify the Bidens but he did say the business that Hunter Biden worked for (Burisma). He also testified that he did not at the time draw a line between Burisma and the Bidens at the time. This is mostly because it would make him more culpable of knowledgeably being a part of the wrongdoing.  There are other witnesses (most of them) who are happy to testify that the investigation into Burisma is the same as an investigation into the Bidens, specifically Dr Hill who said that it was not credible that Sonderland would not be able to make that connection.

The evidence is there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Straggler said:

specifically Dr Hill who said that it was not credible that Sonderland would not be able to make that connection.

Didn't she also say that Sondland specifically told her about the investigation being into the Bidens? I've read that she has said this but not sure if its in the actual hearing. Vindland has also corroborated this iirc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Didn't she also say that Sondland specifically told her about the investigation being into the Bidens? I've read that she has said this but not sure if its in the actual hearing. Vindland has also corroborated this iirc

I know she said that Giuliani made the connection several times in public, I don't recall her saying that about Sondland.  That said, given that Sondland admitted getting direction about the investigation from Giuliani, it is hard to believe that Sondland didn't know that Burisma was 'code' for Bidens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Straggler said:

I know she said that Giuliani made the connection several times in public, I don't recall her saying that about Sondland.  That said, given that Sondland admitted getting direction about the investigation from Giuliani, it is hard to believe that Sondland didn't know that Burisma was 'code' for Bidens.

Oh I agree, I think he is on Trump’s side here though (he’s a major Trump doner). He’s given enough away to be credible but held enough back to give the Republicans something to defend. 

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sondland is on Sondlands side now.  In an attempt to save his own skin he has thrown everyone under the bus including Trump.   I don't blame him for doing so, I have no idea why so many people seem to be willing to throw away their careers and sometimes their freedom to protect Trump.  It will be interesting to see what the other implicated parties decide to do.

Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Rudy, John Bolton, Tim Morrison will all have to decide if Trump is worth going to the mat for.  Pompeo and Bolton are the two most interesting to me.  Pompeo has tried to keep his distance from this and even said the odd 'this behaviour if proven would be troubling' sort of statement before and now it was proven in writing during Sondlands' testimony that not only did Pompeo know about it, he helped deliver it.  He needs to decide if coming clean and giving evidence against Trump as Sondland has done is the better option than holding out and possibly losing everything down the line.  Bolton having already quit is interesting because he clearly knows a great deal of corroborating information, would be very hard to counter as some sort of Democrat stooge and he did seem to have a problem with the behaviour towards Ukraine whilst it was happening according to the evidence given so far.

I'd love to see Rudy give evidence for the lols and because of his pivotal role, but I'm not sure what it would achieve.  He seems to have lost his mind.   Establishing the truth from his ramblings and contradictory statements would be a nightmare.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â