Overheal wrote: » Far far sooner than the practice going away. We do after all already have his opening statement
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Nor will the full contents of this one be revealed any time soon.
Overheal wrote: » Well, they aren’t going away any time soon.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Yes I spent good time going over the closed door elements of some of the McCarthy hearings. I believe they are used to keep the public ignorant of facts that directly affect them, in a very negative way.
Overheal wrote: » Closed door elements are part and parcel of Congress. Numerous closed door hearings took place for the Benghazi panel(s), and even more recently suspects and parties of interest in the Mueller investigation, including Robert Mueller himself and James Comey, all gave closed door testimony often in addition to public session testimony.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » I was unaware of the time line. I am still mistrustful of the behind closed doors element of this inquiry. The longer this circus continues the more they hand advantage to Trump.
Overheal wrote: » Well the texts did happen weeks after the call, weeks after the whistleblower complaint was filed. We will surely get more clarification today.
osarusan wrote: » He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth. The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him. I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall. Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles. At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » The texts. I was referring to this
Overheal wrote: » Revealed what?
duploelabs wrote: » Yeah that was fire control, that text conversant happened after the story broke
Spencerfreeman wrote: » That confirms that Trump told him their was no QPQ in the time frame discussed but does not confirm it was because the news had revealed it, as contended here.
Overheal wrote: » Yes, Sondland spoke directly with the president before responding to Bill Taylor “ During his closed-door testimony before the House committees probing impeachment on Thursday, Sondland discussed the circumstances surrounding the text. It was already known that Sondland spoke to Trump on the phone just before he sent the text message to another U.S. diplomat who expressed concern about their dealings with Ukraine. But the admission that Trump tacitly pushed him into sending it by repeatedly assuring him there was no quid pro quo is new.”https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-trump-quid-pro-quo-text
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Read through that, my question is, was that in the time between the texts? Where is the evidence that it broke as news in between as suggested in this thread?
Overheal wrote: » He testified as much to Congress last week.”Sondland now says he only claimed there was no quid pro quo because Trump repeatedly assured him of it in a direct phone call — regardless of whether it was true. “And I recall the president was in a bad mood,” Sondland said in his opening statement.”https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/gordon-sondland-to-break-from-trump-in-impeachment-testimony-000288
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Your contention fits the timeline alright. Any proof?
Overheal wrote: » It was a response that took Sondland hours to compose after consulting the President directly.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » It was the next text sent in the chain of texts that she published. You should be skeptical of the rest of the messages also then.
duploelabs wrote: » I really couldn't be arsed taking apart that wholly inaccurate article, for example the artocle tried to say that the Ukraine/DNC tried to 'expose' Manafort, which amuses me as I believe during his trial Manafort was shown in a court of law as passing on voter data, amongst other proven charges that he is currently serving time for. So using that example, was Manafort's conviction political?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Let's be fair, that's mere spin and coverage. It's neither credible nor believable. This was the actual reasoning for the combined US. and E.U. move to get rid of the previous official, who Rudy tried to get a visa for.
Spencerfreeman wrote: » Looks like Pelosi forgot to include this text from page 3 of her FACT sheet; [9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks. Lets be fair about this.
Overheal wrote: » Ah yes, the ‘let’s take this to paper’ text. Glad you brought it up again: Sondland admits that he consulted Trump before writing that text, and has since admitted the text may not have been truthful - and indeed, we now have acting chief of staff Mulvaney and head of the OMB confirming on live television over the weekend that there was in fact, Quid pro quo. Fear not: Bill Taylor - the man Sondland was responding to when he wrote the above attempt at exculpating the shakedown, will he testifying all day today on the hill in closed depositions.
peddlelies wrote: » They are also obviously using it for political gain, the Democrats had no problem in the 2016 election having foreign interference coming from Ukrainian leadership and the embassy in Washington, nor did they have any problem maximising the damage and fallout from the Steele dossier, information which supposedly came from foreign diplomatic sources. Trump put his foot in it big time and I do agree it's a constitutional problem, but let's not pretend the Democrats are going so gung-ho on this issue solely because it's a matter of principle. If they solely cared about interference in a non partisan way they wouldn't have totally ignored Ukrainian influence in the 2016 election, simply because their candidate lost the election.https://www.politico.eu/article/ukrainian-efforts-to-sabotage-trump-backfire/ "Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
duploelabs wrote: » Nancy Pelosi releases a fact sheet detailing Trump's betrayal of his oath of office.https://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Trump%20Shakedown%20and%20Coverup.pdf
duploelabs wrote: » Did you read the sheet in the link that I posted earlier? This isn't a political partisan issue, this is a constitutional issue
osarusan wrote: » He's safe until the GOP decide he's more trouble than he's worth. The GOP will be looking at polls and public opinion and gauging where public sentiment is, and if they conclude that backing him will cost them future votes and future seats, they won't back him.I don't believe the Democrats have any honourable or principled reasons for initiating this impeachment process. They've done so because they think that politically, it's worth it to do so - it will benefit them overall. Similarly, whatever the Republicans do will by motivated by what they believe is best for them politically too, rather than any particular principles. At the moment I think his party are a long way from turning on him though.
