So will Trump's appointee Sondland plead the Fifth today?
- Thread starter Syskatine
- Start date
You mean do the Lois Lerner?
Seems to me that he can just lie about a few things, that can't be proven, and get out of the mess he has made.
How many times? I've called how this will ultimately unfold for a long while. The people's chamber will impeach and the House of Lords will confer immunity no matter what he does.
Lol Nunes projecting all the criticisms of the gop onto the Dems. So predictable. Lie, lie, lie, accuse your opponent of your shortcoming.
Or accuse your opponent of what you are doing.
The opposite of course is true.
It’s another big zero. Watch them spread that testimony out and it will be another big dem disappointment.
Almost as if he saw and learned details of things that happened after 2015.
Good find! Who’s a good boy?
Or he’s having to pander to his audience to try and get re-elected?Almost as if he saw and learned details of things that happened after 2015.
Good find! Who’s a good boy?
Yesterday....
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-impeachment-hearings-schiff-no-crime
Today...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-gordon-sondland-quid-pro-quo-bombshell
When you've lost Ken Starr...
How much longer till the rest of the facade cracks?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-impeachment-hearings-schiff-no-crime
Today...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ken-starr-gordon-sondland-quid-pro-quo-bombshell
When you've lost Ken Starr...
How much longer till the rest of the facade cracks?
The problem is that the sycophants are never going to admit that this is what it is.
"The President said, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing... to do what he ran on.”
Thank you for eliciting that testimony that somehow didn't make into the 23-page opening statement, Congressman Schiffkatine.
Thank you for eliciting that testimony that somehow didn't make into the 23-page opening statement, Congressman Schiffkatine.
Seriously...Why do you even care about the identity of the WB at this point? Knowing who he is/naming him will not change anything that has been revealed in testimony already.
Either you didn't read the whole article, or it was updated after you posted. Schiff very astutely elicited facts from Sondland favorable to the President that he aparrently didn't have room for in his 23-page statement:
"After further questioning of Sondland, Starr said the case for impeachment remains "muddy [and] murky" and that removing a president should not be based on evidence that is "subject to interpretation." Starr also said it was a "shocking omission" for Sondland not to include in his opening statement the details of a phone conversation with Trump about Ukraine.
"President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question, what do you want from Ukraine? His answer was 'I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.' That's all I got from President Trump," Sondland recalled."
A little thing called due process. The right to face your accuser. This is not the star chamber.
Is the WB an accuser if they don't use him as evidence for impeachment?
Do you get to face the CI that started an investigation if the prosecution doesn't need to call the CI as a witness?
The answers are "no" and "no".
Plenty of witnesses refuse to testify at trial. The prosecution then has to make their case with other witnesses. If all of them corroborate the story and nobody contests the facts, then the original informant is immaterial.
He's either too dumb to grasp this, or he knows as much and doesn't care. Either way, it's not a serious legal argument.
So if my crew and I are planning a bank robbery, and a concerned citizen overhears me and tells the cops, all I have to do is say no, I was absolutely not planning a bank robbery, and it's all good? Nothing else matters at that point?
Try again.
Contrary to what has been stated in other threads, this is not analogous to a criminal investigation (but yes, there are circumstances in which the defense is entitled to the CI's identity.....I'm not a mob lawyer, so no, I can not deliver a treatise). Regardless, since we are talking about removing a duly elected president, due process (ie. fundamental fairness) requires that the electorate know who is at the heart of the whole episode. It is not just the person elected president who has an interest here, bit rather the entire citizenry.
No, counselor. Epic analogy fail. If you make an opening statement that is the polar opposite of your subsequent testimony, it pretty much blows the whole thing out of the water, dumb-ass.
PS: Congrats on an ever so appropriate screen name.
