Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The bribery is Ukraine was promised a meeting with Trump, also was promised attendance to inauguration by Pence, and military aid ALREADY approved.

Ukraine was supposed investigate Bidens in order to get the above.

They never provided Pence.

Just the request for investigations is highly problematic because it was done through Giuliani. He doesn’t work for the US. He has no security clearance. He hasn’t been vetted.

This is stinky. And it’s true.
 
PaulinVA said:
Focusing on the phone call alone is not enough. There were meetings and other phone calls. Bribery. They knew what was going on. Didn’t Bolton refer to it as “that drug deal”? Everyone know.
Click to expand...
Nobody was able to verify their assumptions and multiple hearsay in any manner, and those are the witnesses Schiff thought were his best to prove his case.

Until Bolton testifies, nobody is going to know what he meant by that utterance, or if he even said it. At some point when there’s a real hearing, likely he will.
 
Ukraine did nothing, but got the aid anyway. The most you can get out of the phone call in July is that Trump wanted a “favor”, which was to investigate influence arising out of Ukraine in the 2016 election; something Mueller was supposed to do but didn’t, probably because it wasn’t wanted by the Democrats.

Go ahead and give us the statute that says a president cannot name an investigator on his own. As we learned with Kushner, the president has the power to vet all by himself. And who in his right mind actually thinks Giuliani needs to be vetted?

The Democrats are grasping at straws, and it’s ironic. Biden announces on TV, brags actually, that he obstructed justice in Ukraine using American taxpayer money to do it. It just happened :roll_eyes: that that obstruction stopped investigation of his son’s activities in Ukraine.

Dems don’t want that investigated, but they think Giuliani shouldn’t be allowed to do work for the president unless some bureaucrats “vet” him first.
 
What policy. Investigate Biden? Investigate a debunked conspiracy theory?
 
Trump wanted Biden investigated for political reasons. The witness testified to it and the transcript confirms it.
 
McCabe got fired for leaking information that hurt Hillary. ( Indirectly helping Trump. )
 
Ridgerunner said:
Ukraine did nothing, but got the aid anyway. The most you can get out of the phone call in July is that Trump wanted a “favor”, which was to investigate influence arising out of Ukraine in the 2016 election; something Mueller was supposed to do but didn’t, probably because it wasn’t wanted by the Democrats.
Click to expand...
The aid was released only after the whistleblower complaint became known. It was released because Trump got caught withholding it.
Ridgerunner said:
Go ahead and give us the statute that says a president cannot name an investigator on his own. As we learned with Kushner, the president has the power to vet all by himself. And who in his right mind actually thinks Giuliani needs to be vetted?
Click to expand...
I certainly think Giuliani needs to be vetted. He seems to have very close relationships with people charged with corruption.
Ridgerunner said:
The Democrats are grasping at straws, and it’s ironic. Biden announces on TV, brags actually, that he obstructed justice in Ukraine using American taxpayer money to do it. It just happened :roll_eyes: that that obstruction stopped investigation of his son’s activities in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Oh, the errors. Will the errors never stop?
Ridgerunner said:
Dems don’t want that investigated, but they think Giuliani shouldn’t be allowed to do work for the president unless some bureaucrats “vet” him first.
Click to expand...
I’m shocked that reasonable people don’t want fantasies investigated.
 
That won’t work. The Congress controls the purse strings. The legislation that allocated the aid, came with bipartisan requirements that involved fixing Curruption. That was signed by Trump.
The DOD went through vigorous steps to make certain Curruption was being stopped persuant to the law. They finished in May. Trump had no power to defy THE LAW and add requirements beyond the law he signed. AND TRUMP DID NOTHING FOR 50+ days. He simply withheld funding inexplicably.
The investigation began and he found out and quickly disbursed. He was caught! Those are the facts. He has no explanation for why he suddenly disbursed.
 
Ridgerunner said:
something Mueller was supposed to do but didn’t,
Click to expand...
Mueller failed to mention motive such as having “nothing to lose” as Trump was way behind in the polls. And we know Trump doesn’t like it when his own polls show him behind.
 
The Ukrainians did do something. They met the requirements of the law and it was investigated by the DOD and was found compliant in May. Trump, to this day, has shown no reason to hold up thr money. Trump may not legally add requirements not in the legislation he signed that had already been done and confirmed. He got caught then disbursed. Trump has no explanation for WHAT HAPPENED THAT CAUSED HIM TO SUDDENLY DISBURSE. Those are the facts. His call makes clear he wanted Biden and the 2016 issue for himself
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
Well, that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Don’t expect sense. Expect this:
In yesterday’s impeachment testimony, Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his earlier statements, saying that he “followed the president’s orders” and summing up, simply, “Was there a ‘quid pro quo’? … The answer is yes.” How damaging is Sondland’s testimony for the Republicans’ defense of Trump?
Click to expand...
If the Republicans cared about the facts or the gravity of the crime being investigated, the answer would be apocalyptically damaging. But they don’t care, and they will continue to defend Trump even if those testifying under oath include an eyewitness to a criminal conspiracy hatched in the White House like Sondland, or patriots like Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, and Marie Yovanovitch, who not only provided irrefutable evidence of the crime but detailed the existential threat that crime poses to America.

Had Trump pulled out that (so far) proverbial gun and shot someone on Fifth Avenue, Republicans would trot out the exact same defense they have this week: The shot was fired at 2 a.m. and there were no eyewitnesses. Those nearby who claimed to have heard the shot had actually heard a car backfiring. The closed-circuit video capturing the incident is, as the president says, a hoax concocted by the same Fake News outlets that manufactured the Access Hollywood video. The confession released by the White House was “perfect” evidence of Trump’s innocence. Election records show that the cops who arrived on the scene were registered Democrats and therefore part of a deep-state conspiracy to frame the president for a crime he didn’t commit but that the Democrats did. The victim was not killed and will make a complete recovery, so no crime was committed anyway. And even if Trump had killed the young woman he gunned down, the argument advanced by Trump’s lawyer last month would apply: “The person who serves as president, while in office, enjoys absolute immunity from criminal process of any kind.” Next case!

The crime Trump actually is accused of is far more severe than that imaginary shooting in any event. He and his co-conspirators … were guilty of aiding Vladimir Putin’s plan to bludgeon Ukraine, an American ally. That Putin’s foremost goal is to sabotage the electoral process that is the beating heart of our democracy doesn’t seem to matter a whit to Vichy Republicans. If the devastating facts unfurled with great clarity by Adam Schiff’s committee has failed to move them, what would? …
Click to expand...
 
Maximus1 said:
Investigate a debunked conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...
No one can credibly say it’s “debunked” until it’s investigated, which hasn’t happened. When the Vice President of the United States gets on national TV and tells the world he got a foreign prosecutor fired under threat of not receiving aid approved by congress, and when that prosecutor was investigating his son’s company at the time, it cries for investigation and nobody should claim wrongdoing is “debunked” before that happens.
 
dvdjs said:
So what?
Click to expand...
So what? lol They have no evidence. That’s what. Maybe I should testify. :roll_eyes:
dvdjs said:
The people that you mention saw the unfolding of the nefarious plan.
Click to expand...
No they didn’t. By their own testimony, they saw nothing. They provided No evidence.
dvdjs said:
There was clar and compelling testimony that the professional diplomats were being undermined to make way for the three amigo’s drug deal.
Click to expand...
The only thing clear and plain is they dislike his policy toward Ukraine. But guess what? They weren’t elected to anything. Their one job is to carry out the policy of the one person in the executive who was. Or resign. That they didn’t like his policy means exactly zero, and it isn’t evidence of a crime.

Who heard Trump say, where did Trump write down, that the only way they got military aid was by launching an investigation in Biden? That’s the only way there is possibly a crime. A quid pro quo involving an investigation into possible 2016 interference in our election, on the other hand, is perfectly legitimate.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
So what? lol They have no evidence.
Click to expand...
JonNC said:
By their own testimony, they saw nothing. They provided No evidence.
Click to expand...
On the contrary people you named provided plenty of evidence of the operation. And Sondland, whom you omitted, provided the smoking gun on quid pro quo.
JonNC said:
The only thing clear and plain is they dislike his policy toward Ukraine.
Click to expand...
No. It is clear that Trump created a back channel to Ukraine, going as far as to smear and remove distinguished civil servant so that his lackeys could hijack foreign affairs to run a political errand. The quid pro quo was obvious and testified to by Sondland.
JonNC said:
Who heard Trump say, where did Trump write down, that the only way they got military aid was by launching an investigation in Biden?
Click to expand...
You may to say that that is the requisite evidence, but it is not.

You may find this illuminating.


The actions themselves - specified in the testimony - and the understanding of the co-conspirators - specified in the testimony are sufficient evidence. The only honest hope for Trump is to claim that Mulvaney, Gulliani, and Pompeo did this without his knowledge. That is a tough row to hoe, given Trump’s consciousness of guilt made evident in his Sept 9 call to Sondland.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top