Impeachment hearings

[_MeDotOrg]

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If neither the facts or the law are on your side, pound the table argue with pictures.

[_EAllusion]

As bad as the testimony is for Trump, it's not moving the polls at all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

Trump supporters will stand by their man no matter what, and the Republicans in congress must do the same to avoid their wrath.

The conclusion here is misleading. 30% of people changing their mind would be a lot. It would change support for removal from a mild plurality to a large majority.

It also doesn’t take into account people who support impeachment who just can’t fathom the already overwhelming evidence being upturned in the proceedings. I can’t imagine a plausible scenario in which the President is shown to be innocent. We’re down to scenarios like me waking up in a hospital bed surrounded by doctors explaining to me that I have been in a coma for a year.

So my mind is made up, but not in a close minded sense. The evidence, including a released call summary that doubles as a confession and the President recapitulating the core offense in front of cameras, is just already very persuasive.

[_DarkHelmet]

As bad as the testimony is for Trump, it's not moving the polls at all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

Trump supporters will stand by their man no matter what, and the Republicans in congress must do the same to avoid their wrath.

The conclusion here is misleading. 30% of people changing their mind would be a lot. It would change support for removal from a mild plurality to a large majority.

It also doesn’t take into account people who support impeachment who just can’t fathom the already overwhelming evidence being upturned in the proceedings. I can’t imagine a plausible scenario in which the President is shown to be innocent. We’re down to scenarios like me waking up in a hospital bed surrounded by doctors explaining to me that I have been in a coma for a year.

So my mind is made up, but not in a close minded sense. The evidence, including a released call summary that doubles as a confession and the President recapitulating the core offense in front of cameras, is just already very persuasive.

The poll also doesn't break it down by state. Trump will be impeached, but I doubt any evidence would change the polls enough in red states to cause enough GOP senators to threaten Trump with removal. Trump could track down the whistleblower and have him killed and his supporters would love him even more, and the Senators in those states would be forced to defend the murder. I could see the polls in some of the swing states shifting against Trump, but I just can't imagine anything that would cause red state senators to stop pushing the goal posts all over the field to defend him.

[_Smokey]

Threadly reminder:

[_Chap]

Sondland's bombshell testimony blows holes in Trump's Ukraine defence

Ambassador to EU testifies as House impeachment hearing
Sondland: ‘We followed the president’s orders’

TL;DR:

'Chris Murphy, a Democatic senator from Connecticut, tweeted: “It’s hard to overhype how extraordinary Sondland’s testimony is. Every American needs to take 15 minutes today to watch or read it. He lays out the corruption scheme in clear, easy to understand detail. It was a clear quid pro quo, and the President directed it.” '

A star witness at the impeachment inquiry has delivered a devastating blow to Donald Trump, testifying about the existence of a quid pro quo with Ukraine and insisting: “We followed the president’s orders.”

Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, stunned Washington with bombshell evidence that blew a hole in the White House’s defences, implicated numerous senior officials and left the US president facing probable impeachment.

Before a rapt congressional committee and a TV audience of millions, Sondland told how Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, sought to condition an Oval Office meeting with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in exchange for politically motivated investigations of Trump’s rivals.

“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” the ambassador said. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”


Sondland, a wealthy hotelier and Trump donor, has been described as one of the so-called “three amigos” the administration used to bypass usual state department channels to Ukraine. He had been billed as the witness who most alarmed officials at the White House – fears that rapidly proved to be well founded.

Wearing a blue suit, white shirt and red patterned tie, Sondland took his seat in a cavernous, ornate committee room on Capitol Hill just after 9am and offered the most explosive testimony of the inquiry so far.

He asserted that an Oval Office meeting with Trump was dependent on Ukraine announcing investigations into Burisma, a gas company linked to the son of former vice-president Joe Biden, and a widely discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine planted evidence on a server of the Democratic party to show Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

“Mr Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelenskiy,” Sondland said. “Mr Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president.”

Sondland acknowledged he never heard directly from Trump that the security assistance hinged on an announcement of investigations, adding that the conclusion was his “own personal guess”. But by early September, he added, “it was abundantly clear to everyone that there was a link”.

The statement is a potential death blow to Trump’s fight against impeachment, demolishing talking points made by House Republicans and conservative media. The president himself, however, attempted to downplay its significance. “I don’t know him very well,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though.”

Trump’s impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House would put him on trial in the Senate, but a Republican majority there seems likely to acquit him and keep him in office.

Sondland’s evidence also raises questions over the future of Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, who pushed hard for the investigations in Ukraine despite having no official diplomatic role. Giuliani, who had business interests of his own in Ukraine, has refused to testify or hand over documents to the impeachment investigation despite a subpoena.

Trump told him to “talk with Rudy” about Ukraine, Sondland recalled, and he reluctantly agreed, even though it did not seem appropriate to go through the president’s personal lawyer.

“We did not want to work with Mr Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt … So we followed the president’s orders.”

The Brussels-based ambassador, who has no previous foreign policy experience, defended his own conduct and said he acted in good faith. He also said he was always opposed to the suspension of aid to Ukraine because of the country’s need to fight against Russian aggression.

Sondland adamantly denied involvement in “some irregular or rogue diplomacy” that departed from White House policy, claiming that he kept the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and other state department and the National Security Council officials informed of his activities.

He said he and his lawyers had requested materials from the state department and White House but, to his frustration, this was declined. He did, however, provide a series of text messages and emails to back his account.

“Everyone was in the loop,” he told the hearing. “It was no secret.”

Sondland even implicated Vice President Mike Pence as having knowledge of the pressure campaign.

There was a swift response from Pence’s office. Marc Short, his chief of staff, said: “The vice-president never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based upon potential investigations.

Sondland also testified about a phone call he had with Trump from a restaurant in Kyiv. Previous witnesses have testified they overheard Trump asking, “So he’s going to do the investigation?” and Sondland replying, “He’s going to do it” because Zelenskiy will “do anything you ask him to”.

On Wednesday, Sondland told the committee: “While I cannot remember the precise details – again, the White House has not allowed me to see any readouts of that call – the July 26 call did not strike me as significant at the time.

“Actually, I would have been more surprised if President Trump had not mentioned investigations … However, I have no recollection of discussing Vice-President Biden or his son on that call or after the call ended.”

Asked whether he told Trump that Zelenskiy “loves your ass”, as has been told to the inquiry, Sondland replied in a moment of levity: “Sounds like something I would say. That’s how President Trump and I communicate, a lot of four-letter words. Three letters in this case.”

Sondland had already changed his closed-door testimony to admit the existence of a quid pro quo. He could now face a fierce backlash from the president and his conservative allies.

On Wednesday Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, dismissed “supposed bombshells” in Sondland’s testimony and repeated his complaint that Democrats refuse to call Biden’s son, Hunter, as a witness. Republicans also challenged Sondland over his failure to keep notes, but did little to stem the bleeding.

Chris Murphy, a Democatic senator from Connecticut, tweeted: “It’s hard to overhype how extraordinary Sondland’s testimony is. Every American needs to take 15 minutes today to watch or read it. He lays out the corruption scheme in clear, easy to understand detail. It was a clear quid pro quo, and the President directed it.”

[_EAllusion]

The media seems to be treating Sondland’s testimony as especially damning as best I can tell. He’s one of the co-conspirators and still quite obviously lying about certain things, but what he’s willing to admit to apparently has sufficient pizazz to not go after his credibility.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If neither the facts or the law are on your side, pound the table argue with pictures.

Clearly the posters who should be reading the thread are just logging in to post BIG PICTURES WITH FEW WORDS.

- Doc

[_Chap]

The media seems to be treating Sondland’s testimony as especially damning as best I can tell.

Do you think there is, in fact, any way it isn't pretty bad for Trump (and Giuliani for that matter)?

[_SteelHead]

Giuliani needs to appear. No way Privilege applies when he wasn't acting as an attorney in any traditional sense, but rather as some appendage to the state department.

[_Res Ipsa]

The media seems to be treating Sondland’s testimony as especially damning as best I can tell. He’s one of the co-conspirators and still quite obviously lying about certain things, but what he’s willing to admit to apparently has sufficient pizazz to not go after his credibility.

I watched the testimony live up until the round of five minute questions. I also watched the CNN panel during the break between before the round of five. I think the panel overhyped Sonderland's testimony. His story is that he never understood that investigating Burisma had anything to do with the Bidens until after the call transcript was made public in September. That means he contradicts the testimony of the two witnesses who heard the restaurant call. Under cross examination, he also agreed that the conclusion that the military aid was tied to an announcement of an investigation into the 2016 election and Burisma was "speculation" on his part. He also disputed the testimony that Bolton abruptly ended a meeting and stormed out, testifying that the meeting wrapped up in a friendly manner, and that they all gathered outside immediately afterward to take a group photo.

I thought the Republican attorney did a very good job of getting Sonderland to clarify his statements in ways that insulated the President. He made Sonderland be very explicit in terms of what he'd said, what he'd actually been told and by whom, and which parts were conclusions on his part.

As with Volker, I find it hard to swallow that the guy who has Ukraine as part of his diplomatic portfolio and is taking foreign policy direction from Rudy Giuliani didn't understand the politically significant connection between Burisma and the Bidens.

I think he strengthened the case that there was a quid pro quo: Zelensky would get the meeting with Trump that he wanted only if Zelensky would publicly announce an investigation into Burisma and the 2016 Ukraine election interference conspiracy theory. When the diplomats wanted Trump to meet with Zelensky to show his support, he told them to talk to Rudy. In typical Trump fashion, he delegate the dirty work to a fixer -- Rudy. It was Rudy who communicated the terms of the quid pro quo. And something I'm not sure the Republicans caught during the testimony -- Sonderland was careful to emphasize over and over that the quid pro quo was not an actual investigation, but a public announcement of an investigation into the 2016 election and Burisma. If you go back and watch clips of Trump from the 2016 election, you can see how one of he themes was that someone under criminal investigation should not even be eligible to run for president. Just the announcement of a criminal investigation involving Joe Biden would allow Trump to kneecap him with that same line of attack -- "you should be in jail," etc. It didn't matter at all whether an actual investigation occurred.

I don't think he added anything to the case that the military aid was also part of the quid pro quo. He did not testify that either Rudy or the President told him that the announcement was a precondition to getting the aid. Based on the totality of the events, he concluded that in order to get any action at all on Ukraine, he had to get Zelensky to make the announcement. One can argue that, based on all the facts, it was a very reasonable conclusion. But he's not a witness to anyone telling him that the aid was part of the deal.