Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

skip fox

(19,359 posts)
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 11:05 AM Oct 2019

They suddently realized they can't let Sondland testify!

Because if they asked why he wrote Taylor that there was no quid pro quo after a 5-hour gap on communications, he would have to evoke executive immunity which would prove that he consulted the White House, involving Trump[ in more obstruction.

Scenario:

Ambassador Gordon Sondland receives call from Bill Turner warning against quid pro quo.

Sondland calls Trump.

Trump consults with advisors and lawyers for several hours.

Trumps calls and tells Sondland to inform Taylor in no uncertain terms that there is no quid pro quo and to stop text messaging about aid to the Ukraine and Biden

Sondland calls Taylor and follows the President's dictates.


***********************

The problem with Sondland testifying is that he can't claim executive privilege while hiding the existence of his communication with Trump, and once he admits talking to Trump in that five-hour period the reason for his denial to Taylor will be obvious and implicate Trump even more in obstruction.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They suddently realized they can't let Sondland testify! (Original Post) skip fox Oct 2019 OP
Obstruction!!!! ProudMNDemocrat Oct 2019 #1
Which is EXACTLY the "adverse inference" that will be assumed. Thunderbeast Oct 2019 #2

Thunderbeast

(3,414 posts)
2. Which is EXACTLY the "adverse inference" that will be assumed.
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:34 PM
Oct 2019

An impeachment hearing does not require the same rules of evidence as a criminal trial. Witnesses refusing to testify can be assumed to have acted in a belligerent way. The fact that they don't testify is fair game as evidence in proving the committee's case for impeachment.

If he doesn't show, Schiff can assert complicity in the act.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»They suddently realized t...