Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29,194

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

 

the "unprompted" no quid pro quo story coming out is just so cinematic (most stuff is in my head).

there have been several "A few good men" parallels, but when caffey is done walking with weinberg at his house, he says he was told "kendrick said specifically those men were not to be touched."  pollock is like, "so?"  and caffey says, "i never asked about kendrick, i don't even know who he is."  this is what a cover story looks like when it starts.

also, in all the president's men.  redford is talking to his editor, and says the white house told him something like "at no time do we believe howard hunt was involved in the break-in at watergate headquarters, or committed anything improper blah blah i can't remember."  again, his editor is like, "so, isn't that what you expected?"  and redford says, "i didn't ask about watergate, i just asked what were hunt's duties at the white house.  they volunteered he was innocent, but nobody asked if he was guilty."  and his editor thinks and then says, "be careful how you write it."

trump is so fucking inept, that he had to write his talking points for the cover-up down.

"hey mr president, how's it going?"

"no quid pro quo."

"ok, sounds good." 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,517

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Because it was consistent with official US policy, including the support of Congress, you waterhead.

Yes, this is important. 

Agents of the US government can do all kinds of bribey, extorty, quid-pro-quo-y things in furtherance of the policy of the US.

Quasi agents of the government acting actually on behalf of the President cannot do those same things in furtherance of the policy of the President, i.e. for his personal benefit.  It gets even worse when that personal benefit is to affect an election.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9,208

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well I will definitely lose sleep over that tonight.  

The fact that you're a very obvious Trump true believer who still tries to craft a false image of "both sides! I'm smarter than anyone on one side or the other!" absolutely proves that you have a massive insecurity issue about what you really are. So I'd imagine you do lose sleep over what you've become, or else you wouldn't have invented this Gary Johnson voter facade for yourself. Nobody believes your charade.

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,517

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the "unprompted" no quid pro quo story coming out is just so cinematic (most stuff is in my head).

there have been several "A few good men" parallels, but when caffey is done walking with weinberg at his house, he says he was told "kendrick said specifically those men were not to be touched."  pollock is like, "so?"  and caffey says, "i never asked about kendrick, i don't even know who he is."  this is what a cover story looks like when it starts.

also, in all the president's men.  redford is talking to his editor, and says the white house told him something like "at no time do we believe howard hunt was involved in the break-in at watergate headquarters, or committed anything improper blah blah i can't remember."  again, his editor is like, "so, isn't that what you expected?"  and redford says, "i didn't ask about watergate, i just asked what were hunt's duties at the white house.  they volunteered he was innocent, but nobody asked if he was guilty."  and his editor thinks and then says, "be careful how you write it."

trump is so fucking inept, that he had to write his talking points for the cover-up down.

"hey mr president, how's it going?"

"no quid pro quo."

"ok, sounds good." 

This is one of those cases in a jury trial where you probably want to have the jury draw its own conclusion about whether that conversation actually reflected the intention of Trump or whether it was a half-hearted denial of the truth.  The idea being that fact finders that reach their own conclusions do so with more conviction than when spoon-fed a conclusion.

However, in this instance, it would probably have been wise to ask Sondland:

So, did the President's protestations that he wanted nothing from Zelensky ring true?

Were those protestations consistent with what you knew of the President's behavior toward Zelensky?

Do you know why he specifically mentioned "quid pro quo"?

Is it your overall impression that this conversation was an effort by the President to deny or distance himself from what had actually taken place?  That, until that conversation he had in fact wanted something from Zelensky very badly and was willing to use military aid as a quid pro quo to get that something?  

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18,262

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


How is Biden’s statement about the Ukrainian prosecutor a “100% illegal” quid pro quo? Please cite the US Code provisions?

Because see...soliciting the action of a foreign state isn’t a crime. Nobody says it is. Soliciting such action in exchange for some benefit to be provided by the US isn’t a crime. There’s one distinction that makes it a crime. It’s an important one. Did Rush tel you what it is? I bet not.

What you lawyers don’t seem to understand is that quid pro quo is illegal.  In all circumstances. In fact, “quid pro quo” is Latin for “the only bad thing” and it is, as the name implies, the only thing that is illegal under US law.  See, e.g., stare decisis, sua sponte, en banc, et al.  It’s a little known fact of our legal system that you can do whatever the fuck you want so long as you don’t have quid pro quo.  It is also a defense against quid pro quo to utter the words “No quid pro quo!”, unless you have previously accused someone else of quid pro quo in which case.... no backsies. 

Ergo ipso facto presto changeo, Biden is guilty and Trump is innocent.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ndawg

ndawg 1,242

Posted
Posted

The GOP reminds me of the annoying kid on the playground that constantly makes up new rules to whatever game he just lost at.

And while I would have meant that as an analogy in the past, now I mean they are precisely like that kid in every way except for inhabiting adult bodies.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is one of those cases in a jury trial where you probably want to have the jury draw its own conclusion about whether that conversation actually reflected the intention of Trump or whether it was a half-hearted denial of the truth.  The idea being that fact finders that reach their own conclusions do so with more conviction than when spoon-fed a conclusion.

However, in this instance, it would probably have been wise to ask Sondland:

So, did the President's protestations that he wanted nothing from Zelensky ring true?

Were those protestations consistent with what you knew of the President's behavior toward Zelensky?

Do you know why he specifically mentioned "quid pro quo"?

Is it your overall impression that this conversation was an effort by the President to deny or distance himself from what had actually taken place?  That, until that conversation he had in fact wanted something from Zelensky very badly and was willing to use military aid as a quid pro quo to get that something?  

 

Blue star for you. If Schiff had awarded Maloney that script and said pursue this, I guarandamntee that the exodus for the door at its conclusion would have been comical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,774

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

The GOP reminds me of the annoying kid on the playground that constantly makes up new rules to whatever game he just lost at.

And while I would have meant that as an analogy in the past, now I mean they are precisely like that kid in every way except for inhabiting adult bodies.

They remind me of a dog that's been caught eating out of the kitty litter, and they are trying to not talk about eating cat shit, and instead are bitching about who ratted them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,697

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, this is important. 

Agents of the US government can do all kinds of bribey, extorty, quid-pro-quo-y things in furtherance of the policy of the US.

Quasi agents of the government acting actually on behalf of the President cannot do those same things in furtherance of the policy of the President, i.e. for his personal benefit.  It gets even worse when that personal benefit is to affect an election.

And this wasn't just to further the policy of the US.  This was what most of the world wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,944

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

so help my dumbass understand how getting a foreign prosecutor fired for investigating Biden's kid by withholding aid is not corruption/bribery. 

And I am fine with trump being removed for the same thing if proven.  proof seems thing based on testimony have seen. I understand with trump it is using a foreign government to potentially dig up dirt on a political opponent.  wait a minute....haven't we seen that somewhere recently as well?  seems we have.  

Not that you care, but that prosecutor was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden when he was fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,634

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is one of those cases in a jury trial where you probably want to have the jury draw its own conclusion about whether that conversation actually reflected the intention of Trump or whether it was a half-hearted denial of the truth.  The idea being that fact finders that reach their own conclusions do so with more conviction than when spoon-fed a conclusion.

However, in this instance, it would probably have been wise to ask Sondland:

So, did the President's protestations that he wanted nothing from Zelensky ring true?

Were those protestations consistent with what you knew of the President's behavior toward Zelensky?

Do you know why he specifically mentioned "quid pro quo"?

Is it your overall impression that this conversation was an effort by the President to deny or distance himself from what had actually taken place?  That, until that conversation he had in fact wanted something from Zelensky very badly and was willing to use military aid as a quid pro quo to get that something?  

 

Yes, but it is even stronger. 

Q. The President (or Giuliani) told you, unprompted, that there was no quid pro quo?

A. Yes.

Q. And then said "but if President Zelenski does not clear this up in public, we are at a stalemate"

A. Yes

Q. And you understood that second part to mean that if President Zelenski did not announce investigations, that the aid would not be released and no meeting would take place?

A. Yes. 

Q. That's a quid pro quo, one thing done for another, isn't it?

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you agree then that the initial unprompted declaration of "no quid pro quo" was contradicted by his very next sentence?

A. Yes.

Q. No quid pro quo was a false statement, wasn't it?

....

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,027

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Haha, Schiff calling out Nunes on lack of Republican-requested witnesses when the two yesterday were Republican-request, and one of tonight's is.

My guess is that Nunes was trying to say that no UNIQUE witnesses requested by Republicans were called.  That might actually be true.  It would shock me if the Democrats didn't also list Volker, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29,961

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

so biden didn't commit quid pro quo is your take away from his own words about withholding aid until a guy investigating his kid was fired.  that is your position?

Quid pro quo is a description of a transaction not the name of a crime. It is not a crime to make an exchange. It is not a crime for a nation to demand something of another nation in exchange for some benefit to be given.

It is a crime to use a US government quid pro quo in international relations to further private political interests. It's a crime with many names: bribery, abuse of power, high crime or misdemeanor.

You're almost clever enough to take Devin Nunes' place on the committee. Almost.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...