Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower identified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
    No. Gordon Sondland, has revised his testimony and has described an explicit quid pro quo. “Sondland admitted that he had told one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisers that continuing to receive the U.S. aid was tied to their public announcement of two investigations sought by Trump”.

    https://time.com/5719342/trump-diplo...-quid-pro-quo/
    Here's a look at Sondland's actual words:

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Other sketchy statements from Sondland's "corrections" (again, emphasis mine):

    "I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why, or by whom the aid was suspended. However, by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement. As I said in my prepared testimony, security aid to Ukraine was in our vital national interest and should not have been delayed for any reason. [This is nothing but his opinion. -MM] And it would have been natural for me to have voiced what I had presumed to Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians, and Mr. Morrison."

    An awful lot of presuming going on. He also says "it would have been natural" for him to voice his concerns to interested parties, but pay attention to sleight of hand: He never says that he actually voiced his concerns!

    "Soon thereafter, I came to understand [Meaning he wasn't told. -MM] that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this [Again, the implication is that he wasn't told. -MM], but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volkor, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani."

    Remember, any time a witness says "may have", you can substitute "may not have" without changing the meaning of the statement.

    "In a later conversation with Ambassador Taylor, I told him that I had been mistaken about whether a public statement could come from the Prosecutor General; I had come to understand [The implication, again, is that this isn't something he was told. -MM] that the public statement would have to come from President Zelensky himself."

    Now see if you can follow along with this one:

    "Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak..."

    That's like something out of a Marx Bros. skit!

    And on it goes. Taking apart testimony like this is like batting practice for defense attorneys.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Here's a look at Sondland's actual words:
      "Presumptions" and "I came to understands" are simply ways of shielding the source out of which those beliefs were conveyed. Use your brain once in a while, MM. One doesn't just "presume" or "come to understand" the details of what someone else wants. Sondland didn't just presume that the president wanted investigations into the Bidens and crowdstrike, he didn't just presume that they wouldn't get their desperately needed military aid unless publicly opening investigations against the Bidens. Besides that, he at first denied he even knew or conveyed any such message to Ukraine only to revise his testimony after hearing the contradictory testimony of everyone else concerned who testified under oath. Don't be such a dumbell!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
        "Presumptions" and "I came to understands" are simply ways of shielding the source out of which those beliefs were conveyed. Use your brain once in a while, MM. One doesn't just "presume" or "come to understand" the details of what someone else wants. Sondland didn't just presume that the president wanted investigations into the Bidens and crowdstrike, he didn't just presume that they wouldn't get their desperately needed military aid unless publicly opening investigations against the Bidens. Besides that, he at first denied he even knew or conveyed any such message to Ukraine only to revise his testimony after hearing the contradictory testimony of everyone else concerned who testified under oath. Don't be such a dumbell!
        Spin like that would make even Chuck Yaeger dizzy.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
          What evidence? So far All the Democrats have is third hand information based on peoples feelings or peoples feelings and opinions, presumptions on what was going on.
          That would be the line that is being pushed from the conservative news outlets. It simply does not line up with that actual evidence. I'm hearing this line from some republican senators, and from people like rogue who are normally capable of a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. And yet, I can see looking at the content of the transcripts that it simply is not true. And so I have no explanation for how intelligent people can believe that claim makes sense, but I am aware of the fact they, and apparently you, do. However, given you are intelligent and have access to information, I will assume you've read it. And given that, if you can accept that 'explanation' for the actual evidence, then I doubt very much there is anything I can say that will convince you otherwise.


          When someone accepts non evidence as evidence that wrong has been done because of what the person did in the past rather then wait for real evidence; or even hand waves the real evidence away presuming they know what a person really thinks happened but is afraid to say it, Is in my OPINION their showing hatred towards the person not what he's done.
          AFACT, that isn't what is happening here, at least not as a primary cause, but I doubt I can convince you that is the case.

          Oxmix, When have you ever acknowledged the good things trump has done without qualifying with but he's done this evil thing even if there is no basis to think he did it or that it was done with malice in his mind*?
          Not many times RTT. I have no reason to do so. And it is a false expectation. A double standard. Can you point me to the posts by Rogue, Sparko, MM, or CP that praise Obama or Hillary for the good they have done? If they exist, I would hazard a guess that their ratio of bad to good would be in the same ball park - at best - to my own as regards Donald Trump.

          The issue - especially the last few months - is that Trump is engaged in impeachable behavior. So even if there are things out there he is doing that are good, they are not the topic of discussion - anywhere. And especially not here.

          Right now the single most important element of this entire discussion to me is not Trump himself, but the fact that a large portion of the Evangelical Christian Church supports him. If you want to focus on what might be wrong with my thinking, or how I might be misguided, you need to either engage that issue directly, or provide actual evidence that the elements that rise to such a level of general badness that it would concern me a large part of the Evangelical Christian Church supports him are not what they appear to be.

          so please show me. show me my opinion is wrong about your bias being so bad agasint trump that you let it color your mind on what evil is.
          That would be impossible. Your opinion about me is not up for debate nor could it be changed by any words I could write.


          *and no I'm not saying that Trump hasn't done things I think are wrong I'm just saying I know human beings are not perfect and not all the things you say Trump did are things.
          1. he actually did
          or
          2 wrong.
          So far I've not seen any convincing evidence of what you say above. What I have seen is Trump doing some very bad things, and a lot of conservative and/or Christian people so angry at liberals and what they perceive as the bias of the main stream media that they are willing to compromise nearly every thing they believe in on the hope he will push back against those same liberals and MSM.

          That is what I see RTT.
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-09-2019, 09:56 AM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            That would be the line that is being pushed from the conservative news outlets. It simply does not line up with that actual evidence. I'm hearing this line from some republican senators, and from people like rogue who are normally capable of a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. And yet, I can see looking at the content of the transcripts that it simply is not true. And so I have no explanation for how intelligent people can believe that claim makes sense, but I am aware of the fact they, and apparently you, do. However, given you are intelligent and have access to information, I will assume you've read it. And given that, if you can accept that 'explanation' for the actual evidence, then I doubt very much there is anything I can say that will convince you otherwise.
            Considering the content of your posts over the past few months I'm no longer certain that you are capable of determining what actual evidence is. Don't believe me? Go back and look through some of it. You have consistently conflated rumors, suppositions and opinions with facts and evidence. You never would have done something like this previously.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              "Presumptions" and "I came to understands" are simply ways of shielding the source out of which those beliefs were conveyed. Use your brain once in a while, MM. One doesn't just "presume" or "come to understand" the details of what someone else wants. Sondland didn't just presume that the president wanted investigations into the Bidens and crowdstrike, he didn't just presume that they wouldn't get their desperately needed military aid unless publicly opening investigations against the Bidens. Besides that, he at first denied he even knew or conveyed any such message to Ukraine only to revise his testimony after hearing the contradictory testimony of everyone else concerned who testified under oath. Don't be such a dumbell!
              "I came to understands" is a way of saying that you changed your mind.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                "I came to understands" is a way of saying that you changed your mind.
                And it's a well known fact that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and the further away you get chronologically from the event under examination the less reliable that testimony is -- particularly when it significantly differs from testimony given at the time of the event.

                In many ways, it's a way of not saying "my lawyer coached me to say...."
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  And it's a well known fact that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and the further away you get chronologically from the event under examination the less reliable that testimony is -- particularly when it significantly differs from testimony given at the time of the event.

                  In many ways, it's a way of not saying "my lawyer coached me to say...."
                  Many a case has imploded spectacularly because of witness' testimony differing wildly from the statements they gave the police

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Many a case has imploded spectacularly because of witness' testimony differing wildly from the statements they gave the police
                    "Goes to credibility, your honor!"

                    Or, more harshly, "So, should the jury believe you were lying THEN, or you're lying NOW?"
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Considering the content of your posts over the past few months I'm no longer certain that you are capable of determining what actual evidence is. Don't believe me? Go back and look through some of it. You have consistently conflated rumors, suppositions and opinions with facts and evidence. You never would have done something like this previously.
                      How Ironic. Guess you haven't seen the evidence coming from the testimony of those involved and who knew what was going on.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        "I came to understands" is a way of saying that you changed your mind.
                        Changed his mind based on what, rogue?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          And it's a well known fact that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and the further away you get chronologically from the event under examination the less reliable that testimony is -- particularly when it significantly differs from testimony given at the time of the event.

                          In many ways, it's a way of not saying "my lawyer coached me to say...."
                          Sondland changed his testimony only after hearing the contradictory testimony of honorable witnesses.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Sondland changed his testimony only after hearing the contradictory testimony of honorable witnesses.
                            You forgot "in my opinion".
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Here's a look at Sondland's actual words:
                              The change in Sondland's testimony has a much simpler and more credible explanation than a million dollar supporter of Trump being persuaded to make something up or change his mind about something that was vague or ill defined (Trump's purpose in the investigation). Fiona Hill described the conversation he 'remembered' in detail in her testimony. If that description were to validated by other witnesses, other sources, then Sondland would be guilty of perjury. And so, the most likely explanation is that he realized he'd better 'remember' the conversation before he could be proven to be hiding it.

                              This goes to guilty knowledge. Why wouldn't Sondland just leave it alone if it was some nebulous, maybe true, maybe not true divination of Trump's motive? Because he knows it happened, he knows it took place, and he just can't take the chance other people or sources will back up Hill's testimony. The cost to him would be too great.

                              And by his confirmation of her testimony, we have two witnesses to the conversation, one of whom was quite clearly a staunch Trump supporter. So we have clear evidence the money was conditioned on the investigation of the Bidens, and that that fact was made absolutely clear to Ukraine by Sondland.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                The change in Sondland's testimony has a much simpler and more credible explanation than a million dollar supporter of Trump being persuaded to make something up or change his mind about something that was vague or ill defined (Trump's purpose in the investigation). Fiona Hill described the conversation he 'remembered' in detail in her testimony. If that description were to validated by other witnesses, other sources, then Sondland would be guilty of perjury. And so, the most likely explanation is that he realized he'd better 'remember' the conversation before he could be proven to be hiding it.

                                This goes to guilty knowledge. Why wouldn't Sondland just leave it alone if it was some nebulous, maybe true, maybe not true divination of Trump's motive? Because he knows it happened, he knows it took place, and he just can't take the chance other people or sources will back up Hill's testimony. The cost to him would be too great.

                                And by his confirmation of her testimony, we have two witnesses to the conversation, one of whom was quite clearly a staunch Trump supporter. So we have clear evidence the money was conditioned on the investigation of the Bidens, and that that fact was made absolutely clear to Ukraine by Sondland.
                                Yep, what this mega-donor to Trump remembered, was that he didn't want to go to prison for perjury. So once he saw others were telling the truth rather than lying to protect Trump, he decided that he should do the same.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                291 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X