... that's all I got from President Trump".
Amb. Sondland testimony 11/20/2019
" 'I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing' ...
-
^ Also, quid pro quo isn't inherently illegal. So the fact that it *was* a quid pro quo isn't impeachable. The crucial element was whether Trump held the aid hostage in order to force Ukraine to initiate investigations they didn't want to initiate. Which no witness has testified to. In fact, every witness has testified the opposite.
-
Has any testimony been provided that indicates first-hand that Trump did not request a quid pro quo? Or is that just hearsay?
Any testimony that looks bad for Trump is automatically "hearsay."
Similarly, any testimony that makes him look good is automatically "direct evidence."
-
Has any testimony been provided that indicates first-hand that Trump did not request a quid pro quo? Or is that just hearsay?
Any testimony that looks bad for Trump is automatically "hearsay."
Similarly, any testimony that makes him look good is automatically "direct evidence."Except that all of the evidence that's supposed to make Trump look bad is actually 'hearsay'. From the witnesses who were on the call, both testified that they did not witness illegal behavior and they did not witness bribery. The call disturbed them personally, but that's not impeachable. *That* is direct evidence because they are testifying about immediate events.
Sondland has testified that his direct contacts with Trump were very much anti-quid pro quo. He formed his own opinion about the quid pro quo based upon his interactions with Guiliani--not Trump. So it's not direct evidence.
I understand this isn't going great for you, but try not to be so cynical.
-
What evidence has been provided in defense of Trump?
Classic "prove you didn't do it" nonsense. There have been no witnesses called in Trump's defense yet because this is a political show to decide whether there is enough evidence to serve Articles of Impeachment. The Democrats have to show Trump did something, Trump does not have to prove he didn't. That's the way our system works.
And so far, the witnesses have been high on their opinions, or opinions they heard from others, but woefully short on any direct evidence.
-
^ so Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, was just off galavanting on his own in pursuing dirt on Trump's political opponents?
Even if true -- and, spoiler alert, it's not -- does it not bother you that Trump surrounds himself with personal attorneys who tend to go to prison?
-
^ so Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, was just off galavanting on his own in pursuing dirt on Trump's political opponents?
Even if true -- and, spoiler alert, it's not -- does it not bother you that Trump surrounds himself with personal attorneys who tend to go to prison?The great thing about our system is that I can't be convicted of something because I associate with *you*. And the answer to your question is, yeah. Giuliani wouldn't be the first White House employee to try and implement his own agenda behind the scenes.
I don't like any of the people in Trump's inner circle. But sh*tty hiring choices isn't an impeachable offense.
-
There's a presumption of innocence, you ignoramus. Those who make the case that Trump is guilty have to present the evidence.
What evidence has been provided in defense of Trump?No, there isn't.
This is an impeachment proceeding, not a trial.
Trial will be in the Senate.
-
There's a presumption of innocence, you ignoramus. Those who make the case that Trump is guilty have to present the evidence.
What evidence has been provided in defense of Trump?No, there isn't.
This is an impeachment proceeding, not a trial.
Trial will be in the Senate.Even in the Senate, the rules of evidence and standards for conviction aren’t the same as in a criminal trial. As we’ve seen today, hearsay and speculation are admissible. There is also no “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” part, either.
-
There's a presumption of innocence, you ignoramus. Those who make the case that Trump is guilty have to present the evidence.
What evidence has been provided in defense of Trump?No, there isn't.
This is an impeachment proceeding, not a trial.
Trial will be in the Senate.nayed because facts I disagree with aren't facts