The Impeachment Thread

Here’s a fact for you. No witness has yet been able to directly testify they heard the POTUS so as you stated. Not once. Hearsay maybe. But not one single witness since day one can answer under oath a direct question that they witnessed or hear Trimp say or do anything illegal or unethical in his exchange with the POTUK.

So when Sondland testifies today about the phone conversation between he and Trump on July 26 in which Sondland reassured Trump the Ukrainians would agree to investigate the Bidens...

What say ye then?
 
So when Sondland testifies today about the phone conversation between he and Trump on July 26 in which Sondland reassured Trump the Ukrainians would agree to investigate the Bidens...

What say ye then?
I won’t get your hopes up. It’s in his interest to say as little as possible. Wouldn’t be surprised if he just pleads the 5th most of the day.
 
A officer is sworn to uphold the Constitution against threats foreign and domestic, not fealty to president or look the other way when he is bribing a foreign power.
Interesting you say bribing when not one witness has accused Trump of such an act. In fact, they’ve all said there is no bribery when asked.
 
Interesting you say bribing when not one witness has accused Trump of such an act. In fact, they’ve all said there is no bribery when asked.

Bribery is a legally defined crime. As defined, it includes soliciting something of value in exchange for official government action. Their was a request for "a favor"--the seeking of something of personal value (investigation of Biden)--and in return there would be official action (WH meeting, release of aid).
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
Bribery is a legally defined crime. As defined, it includes soliciting something of value in exchange for official government action. Their was a request for "a favor"--the seeking of something of personal value (investigation of Biden)--and in return there would be official action (WH meeting, release of aid).
But that scenario that you got as a DIM and Liberal MSM Talking point did not happen.
 
The solicitation or "seeking" is all that's required. The bribe doesn't have to be consummated and have a honeymoon.
From a guy very much on your side of the Aisle and a Constitutional Attorney (Jonathan Turley).

...
TURLEY: I'm afraid history does not support Chairman Schiff on his suggestion of a bribery article of impeachment. His position is that bribery was defined differently during the colonial times and had this much broader meaning. On the face of it, I thought that was a little bit humorous because, you know, Chairman Schiff seems to support a living Constitution, so suddenly, he sounds like an originalist. But the problem is that it was not the case - that bribery was defined differently, but it was not as broadly defined as Chairman Schiff suggests.
...
 
I won’t get your hopes up. It’s in his interest to say as little as possible. Wouldn’t be surprised if he just pleads the 5th most of the day.

Sondland's in a pickle. He's already corrected his testimony once to avoid perjury, so he's not a reliable witness. Also, he can't claim the 5th on - generally - the issues he's testified to thus far.

Sondland would be wise to just come clean - that beeping sound is Trump's bus backing towards him.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but that's the airforce, it's like the diet military. Recognition of rank and giving it the respect it takes to earn it - even if they're a friend, you address the person by their rank in front of others. Full stop.

Perhaps calling LTC Vindman "mister" was a honest mistake, but it was more likely a backhand.

Beat Navy.
WebNavySingSecondFront_large.jpg
 
Advertisement

Back
Top