• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump impeachment hearings

Should trump allow Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton to testify?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 81.3%

  • No

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
R

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
9,354
Reaction score
5,417
I am a bit confused by the republicans defense strategy. They keep using words like hearsay and second hand and third hand. They say the democrats have no witnesses that have actually heard Trump say he wanted the president to publicly announce an investigation of hunter and joe biden in exchange for the release of the military funding.

Now that is a great argument but since Trump is banning all those with first had knowledge from testifying it is kind of a disingenuous argument. Why would an innocent man not want those closest to him to testify. They could clear this right up.

Should trump allow Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton to testify?
 
rickc said:
I am a bit confused by the republicans defense strategy. They keep using words like hearsay and second hand and third hand. They say the democrats have no witnesses that have actually heard Trump say he wanted the president to publicly announce an investigation of hunter and joe biden in exchange for the release of the military funding.

Now that is a great argument but since Trump is banning all those with first had knowledge from testifying it is kind of a disingenuous argument. Why would an innocent man not want those closest to him to testify. They could clear this right up.

Should trump allow Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton to testify?
Click to expand...

Did any of them listen in on the phone call and add anything different from what we already know? I don't think so.....The two witness that testified on Wed add nothing to the conversation. If this is what democrats got this will not go well for them.
 
rickc said:
I am a bit confused by the republicans defense strategy. They keep using words like hearsay and second hand and third hand. They say the democrats have no witnesses that have actually heard Trump say he wanted the president to publicly announce an investigation of hunter and joe biden in exchange for the release of the military funding.

Now that is a great argument but since Trump is banning all those with first had knowledge from testifying it is kind of a disingenuous argument. Why would an innocent man not want those closest to him to testify. They could clear this right up.

Should trump allow Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton to testify?
Click to expand...

The entire Republican strategy is to be disingenuous. It works well for them as they are quite good at it.

antiquity said:
Did any of them listen in on the phone call and add anything different from what we already know? I don't think so.....The two witness that testified on Wed add nothing to the conversation. If this is what democrats got this will not go well for them.
Click to expand...

The phone call is a single event. This is not about a single phone call, but the attempted extortion and/or bribery of an official of another government. Yesterday's witnesses testified to the overall mindset of the Trump administration and how it was completely contrary to general modus operandi of US foreign polity. They laid foundation for the overall story, which you have yet to hear.

Horror movies begin in a nice quite suburb. The opening scene is not the whole story. Be patient. Let's see the evidence.

That said, the Republicans have done nothing to actually lay out a case that this is anything other than how the Democrats are painting the picture. Their arguments are entirely about process; not about substance. There ultimate reasoning here is "you haven't proved anything" rather than "this just didn't happen"

There line of reasoning fundamentally relies upon disingenuousness.
 
Last edited:
antiquity said:
Did any of them listen in on the phone call and add anything different from what we already know? I don't think so.....The two witness that testified on Wed add nothing to the conversation. If this is what democrats got this will not go well for them.
Click to expand...

So let's get the guy who started it to talk. I'm sure that djt would be welcomed at the hearings.
 
No. The mission of republicants is to drag out the impeachment process and to preserve the executive privilege concept as much as possible. The more that "obstruction of congress" (actually the House demorats) is relied upon then the better the republicants in the Senate will look when they vote to prevent Trump's removal as POTUS.
 
I should remind you, there is no evidence that there is any standard to which Trump supporters will hold Trump to account. None.
The idea that "better evidence" will someone change them, is simply not supported by the facts. They both do not care about the rule of law, and they have been conditioned to simply point to some other perceived injustice, as evidence it's OK. You know, like the definition of unethical.

To your specific point, prosecutors put crime bosses like Trump away all the time with witness testimony and records that all fit one, single, pattern. Former SDNY type prosecutors have even said this wouldn't be a case that normally would even go to trial...it's overwhelming, they would make a plea agreement to reduce the penalty and be done with it. Stop being Charlie Brown with the football.

The only difference here is Trump can't be indicted, so they can't use criminal justice...not like Barr would do the right thing anyway. The current evidence is more than sufficient. That Trump supporters have been conditioned to be unreasonable, is not something you an solve with "one more witness".
 
mrjurrs said:
So let's get the guy who started it to talk. I'm sure that djt would be welcomed at the hearings.
Click to expand...

Trump has already talked many times, declaring that his phone call was "perfect", and has gotten the Ukrainian leader to back him up (no pressure/push of any kind) - all publicly. The mission of House republicants is to get as many of Schiff's witnesses as possible to say that Ukrainian "lethal" military aid is better under Trump than it was under Obama, that they had "policy differences" with Trump (et all) and that evidence of corruption in Ukraine (including the high pay for a "make work" job given to Hunter Biden) looked bad to them.
 
rickc said:
I am a bit confused by the republicans defense strategy. They keep using words like hearsay and second hand and third hand. They say the democrats have no witnesses that have actually heard Trump say he wanted the president to publicly announce an investigation of hunter and joe biden in exchange for the release of the military funding.

Now that is a great argument but since Trump is banning all those with first had knowledge from testifying it is kind of a disingenuous argument. Why would an innocent man not want those closest to him to testify. They could clear this right up.

Should trump allow Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton to testify?
Click to expand...

Sondland has first hand knowledge and he testified. Too bad he didn't give the Trump haters what they wanted, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
Sondland has first hand knowledge and he testified. Too bad he didn't give the Trump haters what they wanted, eh?
Click to expand...

Not paying too close attention I guess. Sondland has amended his testimony once already, and after yesterdays new info looks like he is going to have to amend it again before he testifies again next week.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trump has already talked many times, declaring that his phone call was "perfect", and has gotten the Ukrainian leader to back him up (no pressure/push of any kind) - all publicly. The mission of House republicants is to get as many of Schiff's witnesses as possible to say that Ukrainian "lethal" military aid is better under Trump than it was under Obama, that they had "policy differences" with Trump (et all) and that evidence of corruption in Ukraine (including the high pay for a "make work" job given to Hunter Biden) looked bad to them.
Click to expand...

djt has never spoken under oath, and there is a huge difference between national interest and djt's interest.
 
mrjurrs said:
Not paying too close attention I guess. Sondland has amended his testimony once already, and after yesterdays new info looks like he is going to have to amend it again before he testifies again next week.
Click to expand...

Even with his amendment, he still didn't give the Trump haters what they want.
 
mrjurrs said:
djt has never spoken under oath, and there is a huge difference between national interest and djt's interest.
Click to expand...

That may well be so, yet is not likely a basis to get republicants in the Senate to remove him from office.
 
Mycroft said:
Even with his amendment, he still didn't give the Trump haters what they want.
Click to expand...

Pay attention, you obviously don't know what Sondland is saying. He gave djt a million dollars, do you really think he's going to jail for him as well.
 
Mycroft said:
Sondland has first hand knowledge and he testified. Too bad he didn't give the Trump haters what they wanted, eh?
Click to expand...

As Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over."

The House isn't finished with Sondland. Since Sondland's initial testimony and his "Oh, 'scuse me. I forgot that I forgot stuff. I need to amend my sworn testimony" we now understand that there was a phone call to Trump from Sondland from a restaurant in Kyiv that Sondland forgot to mention. Today it is reported by the AP there was more than one witness to the phone call.

Soon, tomorrow maybe, the 3 House committees will hear testimony from the second witness to the phone call.

Next week the House will hear Sondland's public testimony. You can bet the House will have talked to several people before Sondland's public testimony.

Sondland seems to have been less than truthful and less than complete during his initial testimony. Well, in fact, we know he was as, through his lawyers, he quickly needed to connect with the House to amend his sworn testimony. As of yesterday Sondland appears to have also forgotten a key phone conversation he had with Trump. What else has Sondland conveniently forgotten to mention? Committee staff will be steady looking into it from now until Sondlands's testimony next week.

The House will probably have lots of questions for Sondland during his public testimony. We can only imagine.

One thing I'd like to ask Sondland is if he had a direct line to Trump? It's odd that Sondland - someone Trump claims he doesn't know - had/has a direct line to Trump. If he did, then why? I'd like to establish how familiar Trump was with Sondland. Was Trump lying when he claimed that he barely knew Sondland? If so, why was he lying?

Also, the US Ambassador for the European Union called Trump on a cell phone from a restaurant in Kyiv? I'd want to verify that. If it's true, you Trumpers should be shouting "lock him up" as you've done regarding Hillary for similar security breaches.

Sondland is going to have to get right with God before his public testimony. As it is now, he may be in deep ****. It could only become worse if Sondland is found to have continually shucked and jived Congress.

Will Sondland be the next victim to take a fall for Trump? We're soon to find out.
 
Last edited:
rickc said:
I am a bit confused by the republicans defense strategy. They keep using words like hearsay and second hand and third hand. They say the democrats have no witnesses that have actually heard Trump say he wanted the president to publicly announce an investigation of hunter and joe biden in exchange for the release of the military funding.

Now that is a great argument but since Trump is banning all those with first had knowledge from testifying it is kind of a disingenuous argument. Why would an innocent man not want those closest to him to testify. They could clear this right up.

Should trump allow Rudy, Mulvaney and Bolton to testify?
Click to expand...

If I was Rudy's lawyer I would never recommend that he testify to anything. I's not that I think Rudy did anything wrong but more that he's erratic and prone to opening his yap before he thinks about what he's being asked.
 
Lutherf said:
If I was Rudy's lawyer I would never recommend that he testify to anything. I's not that I think Rudy did anything wrong but more that he's erratic and prone to opening his yap before he thinks about what he's being asked.
Click to expand...

Which are perfectly fine qualities to have for someone who is the personal lawyer for a sitting President.
 
mrjurrs said:
Pay attention, you obviously don't know what Sondland is saying. He gave djt a million dollars, do you really think he's going to jail for him as well.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what Sondland said...and he said nothing about "political" or "personal" reasons. In fact, he said it was for national security reasons.

But hey...if you think Sondland is lying, present factual evidence of his lying. If you think donations are important, think about how Ciaramella not only donated time and money to Biden, but he worked with the DNC to get dirt on the Trump campaign for the DNC. Show me what Sondland did.
 
Mycroft said:
I know exactly what Sondland said...and he said nothing about "political" or "personal" reasons. In fact, he said it was for national security reasons.

But hey...if you think Sondland is lying, present factual evidence of his lying. If you think donations are important, think about how Ciaramella not only donated time and money to Biden, but he worked with the DNC to get dirt on the Trump campaign for the DNC. Show me what Sondland did.
Click to expand...


The amended statement is proof of his lying. It will be proved again next Wednesday when he amends it again before he testifies.
 
Risky Thicket said:
As Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over."

The House isn't finished with Sondland. Since Sondland's initial testimony and his "Oh, 'scuse me. I forgot that I forgot stuff. I need to amend my sworn testimony" we now understand that there was a phone call to Trump from Sondland from a restaurant in Kyiv that Sondland forgot to mention. Today it is reported by the AP there was more than one witness to the phone call.

Soon, tomorrow maybe, the 3 House committees will hear testimony from the second witness to the phone call.

Next week the House will hear Sondland's public testimony. You can bet the House will have talked to several people before Sondland's public testimony.

Sondland seems to have been less than truthful and less than complete during his initial testimony. Well, in fact, we know he was as, through his lawyers, he quickly needed to connect with the House to amend his sworn testimony. As of yesterday Sondland appears to have also forgotten a key phone conversation he had with Trump. What else has Sondland conveniently forgotten to mention? Committee staff will be steady looking into it from now until Sondlands's testimony next week.

The House will probably have lots of questions for Sondland during his public testimony. We can only imagine.

One thing I'd like to ask Sondland is if he had a direct line to Trump? It's odd that Sondland - someone Trump claims he doesn't know - had/has a direct line to Trump. If he did, then why? I'd like to establish how familiar Trump was with Sondland. Was Trump lying when he claimed that he barely knew Sondland? If so, why was he lying?

Also, the US Ambassador for the European Union called Trump on a cell phone from a restaurant in Kyiv? I'd want to verify that. If it's true, you Trumpers should be shouting "lock him up" as you've done regarding Hillary for similar security breaches.

Sondland is going to have to get right with God before his public testimony. As it is now, he may be in deep ****. It could only become worse if Sondland is found to have continually shucked and jived Congress.

Will Sondland be the next victim to take a fall for Trump? We're soon to find out.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath waiting for this "aide" that Taylor mentioned being called before any committee. That's not how the Dems operate. They don't call anyone to verify the 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand hearsay from anyone.
 
Last edited:
mrjurrs said:
The amended statement is proof of his lying. It will be proved again next Wednesday when he amends it again before he testifies.
Click to expand...

Wrong. And amended statement is not proof of lying. It is common and acceptable.
 
Mycroft said:
Don't hold your breath waiting for this "aide" that Taylor mentioned being called before any committee. That's not how the Dems operate. They don't call anyone to verify the 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand hearsay from anyone.
Click to expand...

Taylor's staff member who heard the Sondland/Trump conversation and later asked Sondland about the call is scheduled to testify tomorrow behind closed doors.

The second source also present and also hearing the phone call has been identified as Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv.
 
antiquity said:
Did any of them listen in on the phone call and add anything different from what we already know? I don't think so.....The two witness that testified on Wed add nothing to the conversation. If this is what democrats got this will not go well for them.
Click to expand...
fwiw, there's now more than just a single phone call at issue
 
Mycroft said:
Sondland has first hand knowledge and he testified. Too bad he didn't give the Trump haters what they wanted, eh?
Click to expand...
Sondland may suddenly remember more things again come Nov 20
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
If I was Rudy's lawyer I would never recommend that he testify to anything. I's not that I think Rudy did anything wrong but more that he's erratic and prone to opening his yap before he thinks about what he's being asked.
Click to expand...

Did his Russian "buddies" do any wrong? It's pretty clear they did.

rudy.jpg


694940094001_6093780563001_6093774755001-vs.jpg


6Z4HHUGQHBHCDNJM54T43TDGHY.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom