Sondland admits quid pro quo

[rogue06]

right ... and that is why some of them consulted with lawyers ...

Anyone in that situation who didn't consult with a lawyer is a fool.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, that's not going to fly in the Senate.

You mean where there will be an actual judge, not a judge/prosecutor/partisan?

[Mountain Man]

You mean where there will be an actual judge, not a judge/prosecutor/partisan?

And actual rules of evidence.

[Teallaura]

Correction... Contradiction... What's the difference?

...

Perjury charges.

[Teallaura]

Schiff isn't testifying - grandstanding yes, testifying, no.

[Teallaura]

First of all, Schiff is offering an argument from silence. But secondly, Trump wasn't silent and in fact emphatically told Sondland that he did not want quid pro quo, so Schiff's argument doubly fails as a logical fallacy and on the basis of directly contradictory evidence.

And Schiff's 'testimony' isn't Sondland's - and doesn't improve Sondland's testimony in the least.

[Cow Poke]

Schiff isn't testifying - grandstanding yes, testifying, no.

I do get a kick out of every time Schiff has to say "I recognize myself" to grandstand, as he has made this all about him.

[Teallaura]

You mean where there will be an actual judge, not a judge/prosecutor/partisan?

CJ Roberts will preside, but the Senate will set its own rules. To be fair, they could muck with the rules - but it's unlikely since normal rules of evidence favor the President.

[Watermelon]

All we know based on sworn testimony is that when directly asked if they had any concerns or evidence that the President had engaged in illegal conduct with regards to his negotiations with Ukraine, every witness has clearly said no. You can spin it however you want, but the facts are the facts.

Unless you're going for Biden's "They have facts, but we have truth" routine.

[Teallaura]

I'll leave the substance to MM but being concerned that something could be illegal doesn't prove anything about whether or not it actually is illegal.

[Watermelon]

I'll leave the substance to MM but being concerned that something could be illegal doesn't prove anything about whether or not it actually is illegal.

[Mountain Man]

Their concerns were primarily political rather than legal. When asked point blank whether or not they think Trump committed a crime, every witness has said no, which honestly surprises me a little because I think the correct answer is, "I am not qualified to make that determination," but regardless, they've all said no.

[Watermelon]

[Watermelon]

Their concerns were primarily political rather than legal. When asked point blank whether or not they think Trump committed a crime, every witness has said no, which honestly surprises me a little because I think the correct answer is, "I am not qualified to make that determination," but regardless, they've all said no.

[Teallaura]

And multiple witnesses testifying to the opposite? One on record - none of the exculpatory witnesses the Republicans requested were granted (pretty sure - won't swear to it).

Even if I'm mistaken, not a lot better than nothing.