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

Sondland admits quid pro quo

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

  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    A POTUS should be held to a much higher standard than no criminal conduct was proven.
    Can you show me that in our Constitution?

    Look at what just happened to Prince Andrew - he misjudged an interview.
    Prince who?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      If you're curious whether or not Sondland's testimony was good for the impeachment narrative, here's a hint: liberals are protesting outside of Sondland's hotels and threatening his family.

      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-with-threats/





      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        A POTUS should be held to a much higher standard than no criminal conduct was proven. Look at what just happened to Prince Andrew - he misjudged an interview.
        So, since you're applying that standard to the British monarchy, Queen Elizabeth should be removed from the throne since no criminal conduct has been proven about her.


        Prove, then remove.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          If 'everyone' was in the loop, what's the 'we professional diplomats were excluded' beef?
          One of the Republicans observed that some of Sondland's answers were circular and contradictory.
          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


          • Worth watching. Sondland relates the phone call where President Trump emphatically told him, "I don't want any quid pro quo."



            I'm not sure how Democrats can spin this as anything but devastating to their impeachment narrative.
            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
              I'm not sure how Democrats can spin this as anything but devastating to their impeachment narrative.
              I came here to see how you are psychologically coping with today's testimony being absolutely damning for Trump.

              I guess the answer is that there's no level of reality or evidence you can't spin.
              "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


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                And where Schiff can't ban any and all exculpatory witnesses and forbid questions the answers to which would cause him at the very least embarrassment.
                You're aware that Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker were both Republican-requested witnesses? Though it's understandable if you didn't realize this because their testimony helped put nails in Trump's coffin rather than exonerating him.

                The only questions Schiff has blocked in all the testimony so far that I can find was a couple of attempts to ask the witness about who the whistleblower was. Apart from that all questions seem to be fair game. Schiff wasn't blocking anything else.

                So your claims about Schiff seem to be false.
                "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


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  What I took from Axrlrod's comment is that he doesn't see Sondland's testimony moving the needle towards impeachment. And why would it? His testimony was very good for Trump.
                  Take off your rose-tinted glasses. Sondland's testimony was far from "very good for Trump".

                  "Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the E.U., pointed the finger at President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton in explosive public testimony on Wednesday in which he said explicitly that there was a "quid quo pro" linking a White House visit by Ukraine's president to investigations into a political opponent of the president".

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...raine-n1086541
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    I came here to see how you are psychologically coping with today's testimony being absolutely damning for Trump.

                    I guess the answer is that there's no level of reality or evidence you can't spin.
                    The only damaging thing was Sondland's opening statement which he proceeded to contradict during cross examination.

                    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 Dimbulb View Post
                      I came here to see how you are psychologically coping with today's testimony being absolutely damning for Trump.

                      I guess the answer is that there's no level of reality or evidence you can't spin.
                      Because in your world, when Sondland testified under oath that the President told him in no uncertain terms that he didn't want a quid pro quo, and that he was never told by anybody else that the release of aid was dependent on Ukraine agreeing to certain investigations, that just proves the exact opposite, right?

                      You guys have this strange defense mechanism that when someone states the plain facts and presents direct quotes and even video clips from sworn testimony that directly contradicts your preferred narrative, you accuse us of ignoring reality. It's a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.
                      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 Starlight View Post
                        I came here to see how you are psychologically coping with today's testimony being absolutely damning for Trump.

                        I guess the answer is that there's no level of reality or evidence you can't spin.
                        It’s entertaining that the walking and talking case study in psychological delusions and projection, accuses others of delusions. You can’t make this stuff up.
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
                          You're aware that Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker were both Republican-requested witnesses? Though it's understandable if you didn't realize this because their testimony helped put nails in Trump's coffin rather than exonerating him.
                          This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not sure how you can look at the following and think it was anything but good for Trump's defense (quoting myself from another thread)...

                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Former senior National Security Council (NSC) official Tim Morrison confirmed Tuesday afternoon that he did not think President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July was illegal.

                          Morrison was testifying alongside former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker in the fourth public hearing before the House Intelligence Committee in the ongoing impeachment inquiry. Both witnesses had already given closed-door depositions; their testimony had been so favorable to the president that Republicans asked committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) to invite them back. Though Schiff could have vetoed the request, the fact that he himself had called them in for earlier testimony made that politically difficult, and so he acceded to the GOP’s request.

                          When Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman asked Morrison, “you indicated in your opening statement or at least from your deposition that you went to [NSC counsel] Mr. [John] Eisenberg out of concern over the potential political fallout if the call record became public and not because you thought it was illegal,” Morrison replied: “Correct.”

                          Goldman then asked whether “asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival is inappropriate.” Morrison deflected the question somewhat, saying it was not recommended.

                          (In his deposition, Morrison testified — much to Schiff’s apparent annoyance — that he did not even interpret the Ukraine call as particularly political.)

                          Morrison also confirmed that the transcript of the Ukraine call had been placed on a more secure server by mistake — not because of an attempted cover-up.

                          Asked by Republicans whether either of them had seen anything resembling bribery or extortion, both said no.

                          Morrison also added, in response to Republican counsel Stephen Castor, later that he had no concerns about the call.


                          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-not-illegal/

                          And this...

                          Morrison testified there was no bribery tied to military aid with Ukraine, the basis for which the Democratic impeachment efforts are built upon.

                          “Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” asked ranking Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California.

                          “No,” said Morrison.

                          https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/19...r-impeachment/

                          And one more...

                          “I wanted to start between the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) began. “Mr. Morrison, you were on that call and there was no mention of withholding aid on the call, correct?”

                          “That is correct, Congresswoman,” Morrison responded.

                          “And there was no quid pro quo, correct?” Stefanik asked.

                          “Correct,” Morrison responded.

                          “No bribery?” Stefanik responded.

                          “Correct,” Morrison responded.

                          “No extortion?” Stefanik asked.

                          “Correct,” Morrison responded.

                          https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/19...r-impeachment/

                          I'm not sure what fake news you've been reading, Jimmy, but your claim that "Morrison ... was forced to admit to the Presidents quid pro quo/bribery/extortion demand" appears to be false.
                          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
                            Is it possible for instructions to be accurately communicated without being expressly told? If a president was to instruct someone to do something shady or illegal, would it be expressly communicated or implied? What made you presume aid was tied to investigations?
                            - Giuliani strongly pushing for investigations
                            - instructions/impression that Giuliani speaks for Trump
                            - no explanation to why aid was withheld
                            - emailed Pompeo asking if announcement of investigation would help release of aid to which Pompeo replied ‘yes’.
                            - asked Trump what he wants to which Trump responded ‘nothing! no quid pro quo! I want him to do the right thing!’ Right thing meaning corruption investigations meaning investigate Biden.

                            Then it’s up to jury to decide how a reasonable person would understand this. No express instruction is something to consider in respect to the entire situation but game is not over.


                            My sister in law is a creationist and will often find some creation science article and argue about it with my wife (who is a physicist) claiming this proves evolution is just fantasy. One day my wife told her that the main problem she sees with creation science is unity. One piece of evidence, taken alone, could appear to support creationism over evolution but science does not exist in isolation and theories get bigger with each fact it eats like a highlander. She then listed other areas of science and how their discoveries are consistent with evolution. She also said she thinks the highlander tv series was better than the movies so she may have been drunk.

                            That’s a rough summary of her explanation but her point was that we can’t consider evidence in isolation.

                            I get the impression that a similar thing is happening with this impeachment. The republican attitude seems to be that evidence is useless unless it conclusively proves the claim. Again, plausible excuses could be made to account for this but how many times can you claim witnesses are either lying or misunderstanding the situation or deeply prejudiced before considering maybe Trump did this?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              Is it possible for instructions to be accurately communicated without being expressly told? If a president was to instruct someone to do something shady or illegal, would it be expressly communicated or implied? What made you presume aid was tied to investigations?
                              - Giuliani strongly pushing for investigations
                              - instructions/impression that Giuliani speaks for Trump
                              - no explanation to why aid was withheld
                              - emailed Pompeo asking if announcement of investigation would help release of aid to which Pompeo replied ‘yes’.
                              - asked Trump what he wants to which Trump responded ‘nothing! no quid pro quo! I want him to do the right thing!’ Right thing meaning corruption investigations meaning investigate Biden.

                              Then it’s up to jury to decide how a reasonable person would understand this. No express instruction is something to consider in respect to the entire situation but game is not over.


                              My sister in law is a creationist and will often find some creation science article and argue about it with my wife (who is a physicist) claiming this proves evolution is just fantasy. One day my wife told her that the main problem she sees with creation science is unity. One piece of evidence, taken alone, could appear to support creationism over evolution but science does not exist in isolation and theories get bigger with each fact it eats like a highlander. She then listed other areas of science and how their discoveries are consistent with evolution. She also said she thinks the highlander tv series was better than the movies so she may have been drunk.

                              That’s a rough summary of her explanation but her point was that we can’t consider evidence in isolation.

                              I get the impression that a similar thing is happening with this impeachment. The republican attitude seems to be that evidence is useless unless it conclusively proves the claim. Again, plausible excuses could be made to account for this but how many times can you claim witnesses are either lying or misunderstanding the situation or deeply prejudiced before considering maybe Trump did this?
                              One example of the implications of the evidence over some CYA oriented statement - of why the game is not over - is Sondland's admission yesterday that there was no real requirement that Ukraine actually DO the investigations. No plan to ensure they followed through. All that was desired was a PUBLIC announcement of them. This seriously undercuts the claim Trump was concerned about general corruption in Ukraine and the Biden/Burisma focus was part of that concern and significantly bolsters the conclusion that Trump cared only about the effect of an announcement- which is purely political, purely an effect that would be felt by Biden as he campaigned against Trump and leverage for Trump to use in a potential run against him.

                              A second example would be the consistent and overwhelming testimony from multiple sources that the 2016 election ukraine meddling 'theory' was a total fabrication, likely sourced by Putin himself. This puts Trump acting consciously or unconsciously on Putins behalf regarding the Ukraine and regarding reducing or eliminating Russia's position as a meddler in our domestic politics and elections. This further and more importantly goes to Trumps incompetence, his choice to undermine and without credible reason supersede the conclusions of our intelligence community, and capacity to put personal interests above those of the US national interests and security.
                              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-21-2019, 08:52 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 Watermelon View Post
                                Is it possible for instructions to be accurately communicated without being expressly told? If a president was to instruct someone to do something shady or illegal, would it be expressly communicated or implied? What made you presume aid was tied to investigations?
                                - Giuliani strongly pushing for investigations
                                - instructions/impression that Giuliani speaks for Trump
                                - no explanation to why aid was withheld
                                - emailed Pompeo asking if announcement of investigation would help release of aid to which Pompeo replied ‘yes’.
                                - asked Trump what he wants to which Trump responded ‘nothing! no quid pro quo! I want him to do the right thing!’ Right thing meaning corruption investigations meaning investigate Biden.

                                Then it’s up to jury to decide how a reasonable person would understand this. No express instruction is something to consider in respect to the entire situation but game is not over.


                                My sister in law is a creationist and will often find some creation science article and argue about it with my wife (who is a physicist) claiming this proves evolution is just fantasy. One day my wife told her that the main problem she sees with creation science is unity. One piece of evidence, taken alone, could appear to support creationism over evolution but science does not exist in isolation and theories get bigger with each fact it eats like a highlander. She then listed other areas of science and how their discoveries are consistent with evolution. She also said she thinks the highlander tv series was better than the movies so she may have been drunk.

                                That’s a rough summary of her explanation but her point was that we can’t consider evidence in isolation.

                                I get the impression that a similar thing is happening with this impeachment. The republican attitude seems to be that evidence is useless unless it conclusively proves the claim. Again, plausible excuses could be made to account for this but how many times can you claim witnesses are either lying or misunderstanding the situation or deeply prejudiced before considering maybe Trump did this?
                                That's some mighty fine spin, but the plain fact is that Sondland testified under oath that he was never told by the President or anybody else on the planet that the release of aid was tied to Ukraine agreeing to undertake certain investigations, and contemporaneous text messages show that he clearly understood and communicated this fact to Bill Taylor.

                                And, yes, if the Democrats want to convince us that Trump should be impeached and removed from office then they darn well better have some conclusive evidence that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. But so far, witness after witness has said that while they may have disagreed with Trump's approach to foreign policy, none of them were concerned about the legality of his negotiations.
                                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

                                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