Gregg Jarrett: Trump Impeachment Based on unreliable Presumptions, Rumor and Innuendo

[Earl]

Gregg Jarrett: Trump impeachment based on unreliable presumptions, rumor and innuendo – Not facts
Gregg Jarrett By Gregg Jarrett

“The House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearing Wednesday posed a conundrum. Better yet, let’s call it a riddle. When is a “quid pro quo” not a “quid pro quo?” The answer is … when it’s “presumed.”

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” between the U.S. and Ukraine, even though President Trump made it crystal clear to Sondland that there was no “quid pro quo.”


So, how did the ambassador arrive at his opinion that a “quid pro quo” must somehow exist? It turns out that he assumed or “presumed” it. At one point, he called it a mere “guess.”

SONDLAND IMPLICATES TOP OFFICIALS ON UKRAINE, BUT SAYS HE ‘NEVER HEARD’ QUID PRO QUO FROM TRUMP

Gregg Jarrett: At impeachment hearing, irrelevant opinions by Trump critics masquerade as facts
Cal Thomas: Impeachment effort motivated by Dem fears that strong Trump economy will hurt them in elections
The trouble with presumptions and guess-work is that they are often unreliable and sometimes quite wrong. Assumptions and suppositions, by their nature, can be risky and foolish. We should trust only in what we know that is derived from facts. This was the fatal flaw in Sondland’s narrative.

Here is what we actually know: Nowhere in the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is there evidence of a demand, threat, condition or pressure for a “quid pro quo.” None. That is a demonstrable fact, as proven by a transcript of the conversation that the White House released to the public. Read it for yourself.”
foxnews.com

[Earl]

“Can you really swear to be truthful in your recollection of what your impression was of someone else's impression of what someone else said they heard someone else say?“
Per abatis

[Earl]

Rep.Turner RIPS SONDLAND's "PRESUMPTION" to SHREDS
Turner: "So NO ONE ON THIS PLANET, TOLD YOU THAT THE AID WAS TIED TO THESE INVESTIGATIONS...YES or NO??"


Sondland: : "YES."


Turner: "BUT YOU CLAIMED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU KNEW IT WAS."


Sondland : "THAT WAS MY PRESUMPTION....."


Turner: :WHICH IS NOTHING!!!!

GAME, SET, MATCH.....

Per Grokmaster

[Darth Omar]

What’s maddening is that QPQ is a necessary component of foreign policy.

All QPQ means is foreign aid is conditional lol. That’s all a QPQ means in foreign policy. Trump is accused of executing foreign policy by setting certain conditions before aid is delivered.

But...but...but he was squeezing Zelensky for dirt on Biden.

Sorry, that doesn’t work because it’s plausible Biden [one or both of them] is dirty in Ukraine and you can’t impeach Trump for being excited about the prospect that the Ukrainians might discover it in an investigation.

This whole charade could hardly be more ridiculous.

[Earl]

A president, any president, has the duty to investigate corruption in any country receiving billions in aid.

QPQ is part of the carrot and stick policy.

A request for corruption, any corruption, to be investigated and mitigated is part of the foreign policy of the US.

To put it in terms that even a far lefty can understand...when a child misbehaves, he is told that a condition for not being punished is that there will be no more misbehavior.

[Darth Omar]

The News Fakers were all a-flutter over Sondland’s testimony yesterday despite the fact it yielded no evidence of a non-illegal QPQ beyond the ambassadors opinion lol.

Can we just stop this now?

[Earl]

Morning, D.O.

You’re up early...unless you are in Europe.

[Earl]

Gregg Jarrett: “The Trump impeachment inquiry is already in big trouble. Here's who Democrats have to thank:

The clown show known as an "impeachment inquiry" is getting more comical and hapless by the day.

Consider the latest remark from the circus master himself, California Rep. Adam Schiff, (think Bozo, not Pennywise). The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says he doesn’t want Republicans turning the impeachment proceedings into a “sham.” The hilarious irony is lost on no one. Schiff has already managed to accomplish it all on his own.


At first, Schiff wanted the faux “whistleblower” who triggered the impeachment farce to testify. Then, suddenly, he didn’t. What changed? In the interim, evidence emerged that Schiff and/or his staff colluded with the “whistleblower” before the complaint was ever filed and then lied about it, earning Schiff “Four Pinocchios” from The Washington Post.

GREG JARRETT: WHISTLEBLOWER NOT ENTITLED TO ANONYMITY — HE'S AN INFORMANT ACTING AS A DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE

The chairman now wants to conceal his own role in engineering the pretext for impeachment and his subsequent deceit. This is why he has insisted that the “whistleblower” remain anonymous, despite no such right, guarantee, privilege, or entitlement written in the law, as I explained in an earlier column. Even though the undercover informant (reportedly working for the CIA) does not qualify for whistleblower status under the law as determined by the Department of Justice, any effort by Republicans to call him as a witness will be blocked by Schiff.”
Fox News.com

[Darth Omar]

Morning, D.O.

You’re up early...unless you are in Europe.

Morning Earl.

Nope, sitting in the lounge at work. There’s four total joint replacements between me and the end of this day but someone has to work to pay for all these entitlements lol.

[Darth Omar]

Saw where the Horowitz report is going to drop on the ninth of December; Horowitz testifies before Congress on the 11th and House Democrats need to poop or get off the pot by the 12th.

Things are about to get entertaining lol.

[Earl]

Morning Earl.

Nope, sitting in the lounge at work. There’s four total joint replacements between me and the end of this day but someone has to work to pay for all these entitlements lol.

Human joint replacements?

[Darth Omar]

Human joint replacements?

Yeah lol.

[CFM]

Gregg Jarrett: Trump impeachment based on unreliable presumptions, rumor and innuendo – Not facts
Gregg Jarrett By Gregg Jarrett

“The House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearing Wednesday posed a conundrum. Better yet, let’s call it a riddle. When is a “quid pro quo” not a “quid pro quo?” The answer is … when it’s “presumed.”

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” between the U.S. and Ukraine, even though President Trump made it crystal clear to Sondland that there was no “quid pro quo.”


So, how did the ambassador arrive at his opinion that a “quid pro quo” must somehow exist? It turns out that he assumed or “presumed” it. At one point, he called it a mere “guess.”

SONDLAND IMPLICATES TOP OFFICIALS ON UKRAINE, BUT SAYS HE ‘NEVER HEARD’ QUID PRO QUO FROM TRUMP

Gregg Jarrett: At impeachment hearing, irrelevant opinions by Trump critics masquerade as facts
Cal Thomas: Impeachment effort motivated by Dem fears that strong Trump economy will hurt them in elections
The trouble with presumptions and guess-work is that they are often unreliable and sometimes quite wrong. Assumptions and suppositions, by their nature, can be risky and foolish. We should trust only in what we know that is derived from facts. This was the fatal flaw in Sondland’s narrative.

Here is what we actually know: Nowhere in the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is there evidence of a demand, threat, condition or pressure for a “quid pro quo.” None. That is a demonstrable fact, as proven by a transcript of the conversation that the White House released to the public. Read it for yourself.”
foxnews.com

In a way it's based on a fact. The fact is Democrats are doing this because they're mad they got their asses kicked in 2016.

[Trumpet]

Gregg Jarrett: Trump impeachment based on unreliable presumptions, rumor and innuendo – Not facts
Gregg Jarrett By Gregg Jarrett

“The House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearing Wednesday posed a conundrum. Better yet, let’s call it a riddle. When is a “quid pro quo” not a “quid pro quo?” The answer is … when it’s “presumed.”

U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that there was a “quid pro quo” between the U.S. and Ukraine, even though President Trump made it crystal clear to Sondland that there was no “quid pro quo.”


So, how did the ambassador arrive at his opinion that a “quid pro quo” must somehow exist? It turns out that he assumed or “presumed” it. At one point, he called it a mere “guess.”

SONDLAND IMPLICATES TOP OFFICIALS ON UKRAINE, BUT SAYS HE ‘NEVER HEARD’ QUID PRO QUO FROM TRUMP

Gregg Jarrett: At impeachment hearing, irrelevant opinions by Trump critics masquerade as facts
Cal Thomas: Impeachment effort motivated by Dem fears that strong Trump economy will hurt them in elections
The trouble with presumptions and guess-work is that they are often unreliable and sometimes quite wrong. Assumptions and suppositions, by their nature, can be risky and foolish. We should trust only in what we know that is derived from facts. This was the fatal flaw in Sondland’s narrative.

Here is what we actually know: Nowhere in the July 25 telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is there evidence of a demand, threat, condition or pressure for a “quid pro quo.” None. That is a demonstrable fact, as proven by a transcript of the conversation that the White House released to the public. Read it for yourself.”
foxnews.com

Earl, Fox News is a right wing propaganda factory, and therefore, not reliable.