gangstonc
Member
What is your definition of quid pro quo? I think it must be different than mine.
the WB indicated their was a quid quo pro and the testimony mirrored that so...
-
Welcome to TalkWeather! We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion. CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread
- Thread starter Bama Ravens
- Start date
- Status
the WB indicated their was a quid quo pro and the testimony mirrored that so...
gangstonc
Member
Some reasonable polls show over 70% of people saying trump did wrong and 51% saying he should be removed from office.
This is having a much bigger affect on the population than the Russia saga due to its simpler nature
Last edited:
Kory
Member
That's great and all, but I don't put much into that. There's clearly a disconnect there...with a large portion of the population where wrongdoing doesn't = support for impeachment. Are those people in states that matter for the electoral college? I don't believe one bit he get removed before 2020, so it will be up to the voters to decide. A whole different perspective...I just read an NPR article where an overwhelming majority will not let the hearings influence their opinion (that's including a majority of independents!), so....
gangstonc
Member
I agree with you there. Note I said 51% favored impeachment and removal. The numbers were never that strong for the Russia issue.
for some reason, and i think trump has to do with it, we have become a nation that doesn’t listen to facts or evidence. We formulate an opinion and try our hardest to stick to it.
edit:I think I misunderstood what you were saying about public perception. Inow believe you were saying that people’s minds won’t be changed by these hearings. I previously thought you meant nobody cared about the scandal. Sorry about that.
Last edited:
The WB blower may have but all the witnesses have not. The WB seems to be a liar.
Are these the polls that said Hillary would win 400 electoral votes ?
gangstonc
Member
You said their testimony mirrored the WB, what gives?
What is your definition of a quid pro quo?
CBS cut off the the the coverage early. It's a dud.
You need you to correct your assertion.
gangstonc
Member
Vindman was a witness today and you said his testimony mirrored the WB
They both used the word 'demanded" . As in trump demanded an investigation. Did not happen. Collusion?
gangstonc
Member
He said, “It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent.”
can you tell me where he is wrong?
I find it very telling that the republican “star witness” is the one that had to revise his testimony.
Trump asked for help looking into corruption. He never once mentioned 2020 campaign. He is duty bound, as are the Ukrainians to investigate wrong doing by individuals acting corruptly in their country.
gangstonc
Member
Trump never once mentioned corruption. That was said multiple times in the testimony today.
Can you point out where in the quote I posted Vindman was wrong? You conveniently ignored my post.
trump is duty bound to go through the proper channels to investigate wrong doing in tbeir country
“The allegations against Vice President Biden are self-serving and non-credible,” Volker
Last edited:
- Admin
- #7,995
- Messages
- 3,366
- Reaction score
- 2,648
- Location
- Fayetteville, AR
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
Not so fast my friend... (always wanted to say that to someone), I'm okay with removing a sitting President based on confirmed facts that they committed a crime the meets the requirements laid out in the Constitution. As I mentioned earlier, I believe there is some shady stuff going on but I don't personally think we have reached the point where the law has been broken.
We haven't seen a true transcript of the call. We have seen a memo so until the White House declassifies the entire transcription of the call it is open to interpretation of those on the call. The ball is in their court on that one and it can only serve to hurt them by not released the FULL unabridged transcript or recording.
As for not being able to confront his accuser, as I posted before, this is not a criminal trial so therefore the President is not given that right under the 6th Amendment. Hence my reference the the impeachment to Senator William Blount. Furthermore, the Whistleblower Protection Act has those anonymity protections for a reason. It also ensures a few other things such that the investigating authority has to confirm the complaint which has occurred and it protects the whistleblower from reprisal. If I were Trump or anyone involved I would stay about 100 miles away from wanting to find out the identity because all it will do is setup a reprisal case down the road along with the potential for witness tampering. If the Republicans were thinking clearly they would focus on the people walking up and confirming the Whistleblower's accusations and stay far, far, far away from anything to do with the Whistleblower.
gangstonc
Member
This is about as bad as it gets. Further, Sondland saying he wasn't given access to his own emails and documents by the State Department or WH furthers the obstruction claim.
Kory
Member
Yeah, Sondland is dropping the hammer.
gangstonc
Member
What do you think the republican counter-strategy will be? I think they will try to pin everything on Giuliani and say trump didn't really know.
Kory
Member
Yep. They’re gonna go with “Guiliani is a private citizen and went rogue.”
- Admin
- #8,000
- Messages
- 3,366
- Reaction score
- 2,648
- Location
- Fayetteville, AR
- Special Affiliations
- SKYWARN® Volunteer
That would be my guess. I also think there is a breaking point where the GOP stops supporting Trump and looks to save the party. I think the testimony today and their response will give a clear indication of how close they are to shutting down their support.
- Status