Oh, Sondland...right. The guy who changed his sworn testimony after his businesses were doxxed by Left's Outrage Squad? The same Sondland who quoted Trump as saying “I want nothing, want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” in all three versions of his testimony? Yeah, we should totally run Trump right out of town on that one, Lol.

---

Well now, I guess that depends on which of his three testimonies you're referring to now doesn't it?

He made his testimony match with that of his colleague Holmes so as to avoid a charge of lying to Congress. if he really believed what he was saying the first time, he would have said, "hey Holmes is lying to Congress! Hey district attorney you should be charging holmes for lying to Congress!"
Now maybe Holmes was lying, and maybe Sondland is a weenie.
sure would be nice if we had the testimony of someone like Pompeo or Bolton to know for sure. Until then the best explanation is that Sondland felt he owed some loyalty to Trump but not enough to potentially face criminal charges. He lied like  Trump's people wanted up until the moment that he was afraid of going to jail.

"Best explanation." You mean the explanation you and the proven liar Schiff want to believe.

I haven't followed all of the testimony. Did Sondland say he asked a Ukrainian official to campaign for Trump? Or was he just stating some fifth-hand rumor?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Oh, Sondland...right. The guy who changed his sworn testimony after his businesses were doxxed by Left's Outrage Squad? The same Sondland who quoted Trump as saying “I want nothing, want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” in all three versions of his testimony? Yeah, we should totally run Trump right out of town on that one, Lol.

---

Well now, I guess that depends on which of his three testimonies you're referring to now doesn't it?

He made his testimony match with that of his colleague Holmes so as to avoid a charge of lying to Congress. if he really believed what he was saying the first time, he would have said, "hey Holmes is lying to Congress! Hey district attorney you should be charging holmes for lying to Congress!"
Now maybe Holmes was lying, and maybe Sondland is a weenie.
sure would be nice if we had the testimony of someone like Pompeo or Bolton to know for sure. Until then the best explanation is that Sondland felt he owed some loyalty to Trump but not enough to potentially face criminal charges. He lied like  Trump's people wanted up until the moment that he was afraid of going to jail changed his story the minute he was threatened by the Left's Goon Squad.

FTFY.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Has ANYONE found the stupid time turner yet?

---

Has ANYONE found the stupid time turner yet?

JJ, Please keep repeating that hilarious, timeless joke. I beg you. It gets fresher with each repetition.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Has ANYONE found the stupid time turner yet?

JJ, Please keep repeating that hilarious, timeless joke. I beg you. It gets fresher with each repetition.

I know right?  


Gryffindor till the death of me.

---

He made his testimony match with that of his colleague Holmes so as to avoid a charge of lying to Congress. if he really believed what he was saying the first time, he would have said, "hey Holmes is lying to Congress! Hey district attorney you should be charging holmes for lying to Congress!"
Now maybe Holmes was lying, and maybe Sondland is a weenie.
sure would be nice if we had the testimony of someone like Pompeo or Bolton to know for sure. Until then the best explanation is that Sondland felt he owed some loyalty to Trump but not enough to potentially face criminal charges. He lied like  Trump's people wanted up until the moment that he was afraid of going to jail changed his story the minute he was threatened by the Left's Goon Squad.

FTFY.

You think some nebulous and unnamed squad of doxxing computer hackers is scarier than a Republican led DoJ that has recently indicted two Trump allies for lying to Congress.
OK.  
That's certainly one possible opinion...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

FTFY.

You think some nebulous and unnamed squad of doxxing computer hackers is scarier than a Republican led DoJ that has recently indicted two Trump allies for lying to Congress.
OK.  
That's certainly one possible opinion...

You misspelled F-A-C-T, but it's ok, you don't understand the concept of the word anyway.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You think some nebulous and unnamed squad of doxxing computer hackers is scarier than a Republican led DoJ that has recently indicted two Trump allies for lying to Congress.
OK.  
That's certainly one possible opinion...

You misspelled F-A-C-T, but it's ok, you don't understand the concept of the word anyway.

Has this type of computer hacker ever gotten anybody killed, or gotten anybody put in jail? Because DOJ definitely puts people in jail, and only getting killed is worse than that, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You misspelled F-A-C-T, but it's ok, you don't understand the concept of the word anyway.

Has this type of computer hacker ever gotten anybody killed, or gotten anybody put in jail? Because DOJ definitely puts people in jail, and only getting killed is worse than that, right?

Do you read about any of the unrest in the Pacific Northwest or do you just pretend all is fine out there? NM, we know your answer is "I read about it but that's totes not what's happening and it's all Trump's fault anyway."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Has this type of computer hacker ever gotten anybody killed, or gotten anybody put in jail? Because DOJ definitely puts people in jail, and only getting killed is worse than that, right?

Do you read about any of the unrest in the Pacific Northwest or do you just pretend all is fine out there? NM, we know your answer is "I read about it but that's totes not what's happening and it's all Trump's fault anyway."

You don't even need me, you're having a whole conversation with yourself.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So mikesez answer this.  How is either article of impeachment a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

1.  Abuse of Power - What evidence is there that concludes without a shadow of a doubt of abuse of power?  How is this a "high crime"?

2.  Obstruction of Congress - Again, what evidence is there that this is somehow a crime?  Because The President directed certain members not to testify?

If you truly can't see this for what it is then I can't help you.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't think democrats want to see what's going to happen if they continually try to go down this road of coup d'etat.

---

Do you read about any of the unrest in the Pacific Northwest or do you just pretend all is fine out there? NM, we know your answer is "I read about it but that's totes not what's happening and it's all Trump's fault anyway."

You don't even need me, you're having a whole conversation with yourself.

You're the comic relief, the show just wouldn't be the same without you!

---

I don't think democrats want to see what's going to happen if they continually try to go down this road of coup d'etat.

Nancy knows it's gonna be her Coup de Grace.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So mikesez answer this.  How is either article of impeachment a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

1.  Abuse of Power - What evidence is there that concludes without a shadow of a doubt of abuse of power?  How is this a "high crime"?

2.  Obstruction of Congress - Again, what evidence is there that this is somehow a crime?  Because The President directed certain members not to testify?

If you truly can't see this for what it is then I can't help you.

Whenever I don't understand something, first I go to Wikipedia to try to get the lay of the land. in this case Wikipedia is kind of a dangerous choice because it gets edited frequently. But to their credit, Wikipedia tracks all changes. And they have an article about "high crimes in misdemeanors". I've checked what it says both now and what it said back in 2015. It essentially has the same message. I'd start there.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So mikesez answer this.  How is either article of impeachment a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

1.  Abuse of Power - What evidence is there that concludes without a shadow of a doubt of abuse of power?  How is this a "high crime"?

2.  Obstruction of Congress - Again, what evidence is there that this is somehow a crime?  Because The President directed certain members not to testify?

If you truly can't see this for what it is then I can't help you.

Whenever I don't understand something, first I go to Wikipedia to try to get the lay of the land. in this case Wikipedia is kind of a dangerous choice because it gets edited frequently. But to their credit, Wikipedia tracks all changes. And they have an article about "high crimes in misdemeanors". I've checked what it says both now and what it said back in 2015. It essentially has the same message. I'd start there.

So you don't have an answer backed up by fact.  I'm shocked (sarcasm).

Explain how either article is a "high crime or misdemeanor".  I'll give you a hint... neither one.

The whole reason for "impeachment" is simply because the democrats want to overturn the results of the last presidential election.  The timing of it is simply to influence the next election.  There is nothing there to prove the prior accusations of "quid-pro-quo, Russian collusion, bribery" or any of the other nonsense that your party (the democrats) have claimed.

Ask yourself this.  Why did the democrats all of the sudden want to get UCSMCA passed so quickly?  It's been sitting in The House for a year, yet the democrat controlled house sat on it until now.  Why was the announcement released just one hour after the impeachment announcement?

If you don't see the clear partisan politics behind all of this... you must be blind.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Also mikey, if you want to do some research (I don't recommend Wikipedia as a source) take a look at the IG's report on the RUSSIA investigation.  It's not been in the news, but it should be alarming to anyone regardless of political affiliation.  Evidence in that report will end up with multiple people in handcuffs soon and also once again proves NO COLLUSION when it comes to the Trump campaign and the Russians.

The fact that this isn't a MSM headline just blows me away.  They pretty much shoved it "under a rug" pretty quickly.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Whenever I don't understand something, first I go to Wikipedia to try to get the lay of the land. in this case Wikipedia is kind of a dangerous choice because it gets edited frequently. But to their credit, Wikipedia tracks all changes. And they have an article about "high crimes in misdemeanors". I've checked what it says both now and what it said back in 2015. It essentially has the same message. I'd start there.

So you don't have an answer backed up by fact.  I'm shocked (sarcasm).

Explain how either article is a "high crime or misdemeanor".  I'll give you a hint... neither one.

The whole reason for "impeachment" is simply because the democrats want to overturn the results of the last presidential election.  The timing of it is simply to influence the next election.  There is nothing there to prove the prior accusations of "quid-pro-quo, Russian collusion, bribery" or any of the other nonsense that your party (the democrats) have claimed.

Ask yourself this.  Why did the democrats all of the sudden want to get UCSMCA passed so quickly?  It's been sitting in The House for a year, yet the democrat controlled house sat on it until now.  Why was the announcement released just one hour after the impeachment announcement?

If you don't see the clear partisan politics behind all of this... you must be blind.

How about you tell me what you think a high crime or misdemeanor is?  And explain the sources for your research.  Then we can compare your sources to the ones Wikipedia cited.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you don't have an answer backed up by fact.  I'm shocked (sarcasm).

Explain how either article is a "high crime or misdemeanor".  I'll give you a hint... neither one.

The whole reason for "impeachment" is simply because the democrats want to overturn the results of the last presidential election.  The timing of it is simply to influence the next election.  There is nothing there to prove the prior accusations of "quid-pro-quo, Russian collusion, bribery" or any of the other nonsense that your party (the democrats) have claimed.

Ask yourself this.  Why did the democrats all of the sudden want to get UCSMCA passed so quickly?  It's been sitting in The House for a year, yet the democrat controlled house sat on it until now.  Why was the announcement released just one hour after the impeachment announcement?

If you don't see the clear partisan politics behind all of this... you must be blind.

How about you tell me what you think a high crime or misdemeanor is?  And explain the sources for your research.  Then we can compare your sources to the ones Wikipedia cited.

It's up to the people claiming HC&M to define them with clarity.  Here's a hint, lawfully fulfilling treaty obligations isn't part of it!

---

How about you tell me what you think a high crime or misdemeanor is?  And explain the sources for your research.  Then we can compare your sources to the ones Wikipedia cited.

It's up to the people claiming HC&M to define them with clarity.  Here's a hint, lawfully fulfilling treaty obligations isn't part of it!

I have already referred you to a fairly thorough Wikipedia article.
Question: Did Talleyrand break any French laws or fail to meet any French treaty obligations when he sent X, Y, and Z out to meet the new American delegation?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I've explained this before. Everyone talks about this like there is some list of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's not. This is a controversy that literally goes back to the founders, but there is nothing legally defined that says there must be a crime associated with impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and congress can impeach for any action they deem unfit. Judges have been impeached for things like intoxication on the bench, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. The democrats could literally impeach Trump for being crude or lying about the size of his hands... literally anything they think misrepresents the office of the Presidency.

What DOES matter, is whether or not the American people would tolerate that. Which, I personally believe is a resounding NO. Impeachments, even historical ones, have been largely motivated by political purposes, and have almost always backfired. I believe the same will hold true here. There is nothing like failure to cause a political group to reevaluate their priorities. Although, I will concede that the current Democrats are showing a remarkable resistance to common sense. The sooner they stop appealing to their radical base, the sooner they will wise up (on a side note, their reluctance to move away from the radical base is a strong indicator that their donors have become more radical, which is a real problem, imo).

---

I will also add, before someone mentions it, that historical precedent would suggest that only impeachments with a crime have been successful. Most impeachments attacking one's character have ended up in acquittal.

---