Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@JonNC You can say that there is no evidence, but I’ve heard and read a lot of former federal prosecutors who say they’ve gained bribery convictions against people with less evidence.

First, when you’re shaking someone down you don’t say, “I’m shaking you down”, and second, you don’t have to be successful in your attempt.

It’s not like a crook says, “Hey, youse guys know latin? Yeah, this is a quid pro quo. That means this for that. If you do this, I’ll do that.”.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
@JonNC You can say that there is no evidence, but I’ve heard and read a lot of former federal prosecutors who say they’ve gained bribery convictions against people with less evidence
Click to expand...
More hearsay. Thanks. I’ll add that to the pile.
Question: if the alleged victim Claims it didn’t happen, how does that affect their case?
PaulinVA said:
First, when you’re shaking someone down you don’t say, “I’m shaking you down”, and second, you don’t have to be successful in your attempt.
Click to expand...
Where is there evidence of shaking someone down? We only gave hearsay, assumptions, and bias. No one has heard Trump say or even imply a bribe. No one.
PaulinVA said:
It’s not like a crook says, “Hey, youse guys know latin? Yeah, this is a quid pro quo . That means this for that. If you do this, I’ll do that.”.
Click to expand...
The target has to know, however, and Ukraine’s leaders do not say they felt shaken down.

It comes down to the same thing as Russia: people who have wanted Trump impeached and removed since he won in November of 2016.
 
Are you an expert in the law? No.
The bribery statute? No.
Lay witnesses would never be asked your questions if " evidence" was the goal.
Did the Republican ask, what is your presumption based upon?
Thats what you ask if you are interested in " evidence"
 
They don’t say they were shaken down? Lol. That might be my favorite defense of all.
If I say yes, what can I expect? Lol
 
They knew Trump was holding back the money. They knew a meeting was tied to them doing political favors for Trump.
You want evidence, Mulvany. Get over it
 
Still looking for evidence. From your source.
On July 3, 2019 , President Trump ordered a hold on military aid funding to Ukraine with no explanation given to Ukraine or U.S. diplomats, but White House staff were told that it was because of a general concern about corruption in Ukraine. But because the aid was set in law and procedures for clearing the aid had already completed, including a Department of Defense certification, withholding the aid may have violated the law.
Click to expand...
  1. no reason to disbelieve the President’s reason for delaying the aid.
  2. unless the President agreed to the DOD certification, it isn’t complete. The president is the commander in chief. He decides what is or isn’t certified. IIRC, the aid was released within the timeframe of the statute.
Just a start
 
Maximus1 said:
Are you an expert in the law? No.
The bribery statute? No.
Lay witnesses would never be asked your questions if " evidence" was the goal.
Did the Republican ask, what is your presumption based upon?
Thats what you ask if you are interested in " evidence"
Click to expand...
The questions were asked and answered. That you seem to not like the question is irrelevant, and quite frankly, based on your obvious bias.
Maximus1 said:
They don’t say they were shaken down? Lol. That might be my favorite defense of all.
If I say yes, what can I expect? Lol
Click to expand...
Since there was no shakedown, other than by Biden and later Durban, Trump needs no defense.
 
Maximus1 said:
They knew Trump was holding back the money. They knew a meeting was tied to them doing political favors for Trump.
You want evidence, Mulvany. Get over it
Click to expand...
But the money was not tied to a political favor. There is no evidence that. The money was delayed for the reasons Trump and the administration said. There is no evidence otherwise, except hearsay, presumption and the gross bias of certain people in the diplomatic corps and intel community.

Mulvaney was absolutely correct that foreign aid is regularly tied to actions by the receiver of that aid. That’s what Biden did. That’s what Durbin did. It is a bigger issue when billions in cash are sent to Iran. To deny that is just ignorance born of blind hatred for Trump
 
Tell you what, I just want Trump to identify all of thr things he did to determine Curruption in the Ukraine after thr hold.
Then
I want him to show us the specific discovery and finding that caused him to send the funds.
I am willing to review the evidence fairly. None equals pretense of course.
To a Trump fan, Trump held it up because the man from Mars eats guitars, that would be conclusive. To the rest of the world he must show more than a bare assertion.
 
Last edited:
If Obama request and received a personal political favor/help for an election in exchange for money, you would have something similar.
 
JonNC said:
More hearsay. Thanks. I’ll add that to the pile.
Question: if the alleged victim Claims it didn’t happen, how does that affect their case?
Click to expand...
Abusing husband asks wife, “I’m not abusing you, am I?”.

Do you think you get a true response?

And, a former federal prosecutor telling us that they could get a conviction with this evidence is not hearsay. It’s an opinion. It’s an opinion that those of us who are not federal prosecutors or criminal defense lawyers can use to evaluate the evidence presented so far.
JonNC said:
Where is there evidence of shaking someone down? We only gave hearsay, assumptions, and bias. No one has heard Trump say or even imply a bribe. No one.
Click to expand...
Uhm, yes we have.

I think the hearings have told a pretty good story of bribery and knowledge of guilt.
JonNC said:
The target has to know, however, and Ukraine’s leaders do not say they felt shaken down.
Click to expand...
You know, to attempt bribery you don’t have to be good at it. No, the target does not need to know, although in this case there is strong evidence the target knew.
 
Maximus1 said:
Tell you what, I just want Trump to identify all of thr things he did to determine Curruption in the Ukraine after thr hold.
Click to expand...
There you go again. You seem to want to claim some sort of court experience, but you always go back to expecting the accused to testify. With no evidence against him, it would be foolish for him to testify. I hope you don’t give legal advice.
Maximus1 said:
To a Trump fan, Trump held it up because the man from Mars eats guitars, that would be conclusive. To the rest of the world he must show more than a bare assertion.
Click to expand...
More evidence that you don’t have an argument.
 
Maximus1 said:
If Obama request and received a personal political favor/help for an election in exchange for money, you would have something similar.
Click to expand...
He did. He got a political favor from Medvedev in return for “more flexibility” after the election.
 
Trump held the money up and it was a pretense. Nobody in the administration can show one thing he did. Slam dunk.
Who will testify Trump held it up to investigate Curruption?
Next question!
Do you know what he did?
 
Last edited:
What political favor.
And more flexibility?
Where is the personal benefit? Flexibility in his official duties?
 
PaulinVA said:
Abusing husband asks wife, “I’m not abusing you, am I?”.

Do you think you get a true response?
Click to expand...
If Zelenskyy says a Trump bribed him, he knows Trump is out of office. The analogy isn’t analogous.
PaulinVA said:
And, a former federal prosecutor telling us that they could get a conviction with this evidence is not hearsay. It’s an opinion. It’s an opinion that those of us who are not federal prosecutors or criminal defense lawyers can use to evaluate the evidence presented so far.
Click to expand...
If he thinks he can get a conviction without evidence of a crime, good luck to him.
PaulinVA said:
You know, to attempt bribery you don’t have to be good at it. No, the target does not need to know, although in this case there is strong evidence the target knew.
Click to expand...
To attempt to bribe someone, you actually have to attempt it. You know that. Right?
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Trump held the money up and it was a pretense. Nobody in the administration can show one thing he did. Slam dunk
Click to expand...
It was acting as a protector of the taxpayers money. I’m thankful somebody is finally holding other countries to a higher standard in order to get our aid.
Maximus1 said:
Who will testify Trump held it up to investigate Curruption?
Click to expand...
That’s already been spoken about Jordan has explained it. Not that ”orange man bad” people care.
 
Maximus1 said:
What political favor.
And more flexibility?
Where is the personal benefit? Flexibility in his official duties?
Click to expand...
Go back and read the transcript of the open mic conversation.
The personal benefit Obama states, he wants to win re-election.
 
JonNC said:
If Zelenskyy says a Trump bribed him, he knows Trump is out of office. The analogy isn’t analogous
Click to expand...
I find that that analysis strains credulity. I think the common wisdom is that the Senate Republicans won’t vote to convict Trump no matter what he does. They have put up with everything else - why draw the line at bribery?
JonNC said:
If he thinks he can get a conviction without evidence of a crime, good luck to him.
Click to expand...
Well, then, given the choice of believing former federal prosecutors or an internet poster…
JonNC said:
To attempt to bribe someone, you actually have to attempt it. You know that. Right?
Click to expand...
A whole lot of people believe there is evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top