Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 225

Thread: Sondland admits quid pro quo

  1. #21
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,954
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6458
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Your reading way too much that. These were back channel (under the table) negotiations, it would not be expected everyone would be aware of them to their fullest extent. Volker did testify to his own efforts to push back against statements that might serve to involve ukraine in 2020, esp Wrt giuliani. Taken with taylor,vindman, and now sondland testimony there is nothing contradictory here. Volker just wasnt fully aware or didnt want to be fully aware of what was going on behind closed doors.
    Your gift of spin remains as impressive as ever. I'm just quoting what was said during the hearing. If anybody is reading into this, it's you.

    And I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "back-channel diplomacy" and regular old diplomacy. 95% of diplomatic negotiations happen in private, and it's generally only after an agreement is reached that we learn of the particulars.
    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

  2. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  3. #22
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,100
    Amen (Given)
    349
    Amen (Received)
    1663
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Your gift of spin remains as impressive as ever. I'm just quoting what was said during the hearing. If anybody is reading into this, it's you.

    And I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "back-channel diplomacy" and regular old diplomacy. 95% of diplomatic negotiations happen in private, and it's generally only after an agreement is reached that we learn of the particulars.
    Spin refers to a distortion of the facts to achieve a goal or avoid an unflattering result - which is more your department MM.

    As for the issue of backchannel diplomacy. Ignorance is not really an excuse MM.

    "Backchannel Diplomacy Law and Legal Definition
    Backchannel diplomacy refers to secret lines of communication held open between two adversaries. It is often communicated through an informal intermediary or through a third party.

    Backchannel communication refers to a secondary conversation that takes place at the same time as a conference session, lecture, or instructor-led learning activity."

    In other words, what Giuliani was doing. You have one line of Diplomacy that was open and involved the usual players, and you have a secret, secondary line that in this case was undermining the first and which had other, secret, goals. In this case, not merely secret, but personal to Donald Trump and contrary to the best interests of the US.

    How to judge such a channel is not its existence, but its goals/purpose. So in the general case, you are correct, backchannel diplomacy happens all the time. But there are two critical elements - authority (which was violated when kushner tried to set up such a channel BEFORE Trump was President), and purpose.

    In this case, the purpose was illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine. And that is why it was bad.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-06-2019 at 07:16 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  4. #23
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Oh my. Ignorance is not really an excuse MM.

    "Backchannel Diplomacy Law and Legal Definition
    Backchannel diplomacy refers to secret lines of communication held open between two adversaries. It is often communicated through an informal intermediary or through a third party.

    Backchannel communication refers to a secondary conversation that takes place at the same time as a conference session, lecture, or instructor-led learning activity."

    In other words, what Giuliani was doing. You have one line of Diplomacy that was open and involved the usual players, and you have a secret, secondary line that in this case was undermining the first and which had other, secret, goals. In this case, not merely secret, but personal to Donald Trump and contrary to the best interests of the US.

    How to judge such a channel is not its existence, but its goals/purpose. So the the archane case, you are correct, backchannel diplomacy happens all the time. But there are two critical elements - authority (which was violated when kushner tried to set up such a channel BEFORE Trump was President), and purpose.

    In this case, the purpose was illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine. And that is why it was bad.
    Not to mention the best interest of Putin and too the finacial interests of Giuliani and his partners in crime.

  5. #24
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,810
    Amen (Given)
    8058
    Amen (Received)
    8389
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    And it's official:

    //https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/gordon-sondland-kurt-volker-transcripts-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

    Source: cnn

    US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland sent the committee a three-page addition to his testimony on Monday, saying he had remembered a September 1 conversation that occurred on the sidelines of a meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he told a top aide to Zelensky that the security aid and investigations were linked.

    © Copyright Original Source

    No crap, sherlock. The anti-corruption investigations were linked to aid. That Biden happened to be involved in one of those is a side issue. As MM cited, "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement... "


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  6. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  7. #25
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,954
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6458
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Oh my. Ignorance is not really an excuse MM.

    "Backchannel Diplomacy Law and Legal Definition
    Backchannel diplomacy refers to secret lines of communication held open between two adversaries. It is often communicated through an informal intermediary or through a third party.

    Backchannel communication refers to a secondary conversation that takes place at the same time as a conference session, lecture, or instructor-led learning activity."
    But that's just good old fashioned diplomacy. Calling it "back channel" is nothing but a game of semantics to make it sound sinister. As one historian said, "Back channels are a tool in the diplomatic tool box, and they can be a very effective tool. There’s a long tradition of it -- it goes back as long as diplomacy itself." So there is, in reality, no meaningful difference between diplomacy and "back channel" diplomacy. It's all the same thing in the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    In this case, the goals were illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine.
    This is not a fact but merely your opinion.

    The fact is that Volker said there was no quid pro quo. Taylor threatened to quit because there wasn't a guarantee of quid pro quo saying, "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance." What Sondland "presumed" is irrelevant, and in fact, in a text message to Taylor, Sondland pushed back on Taylor's suggestion saying, "The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind." U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said there was no quid pro quo. Mulvaney said no quid pro quo.

    Of course to fake news connoisseurs like you, this just proves that Trump is guilty.
    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

  8. #26
    tWebber whag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,181
    Amen (Given)
    454
    Amen (Received)
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But that's just good old fashioned diplomacy. Calling it "back channel" is nothing but a game of semantics to make it sound sinister. As one historian said, "Back channels are a tool in the diplomatic tool box, and they can be a very effective tool. There’s a long tradition of it -- it goes back as long as diplomacy itself." So there is, in reality, no meaningful difference between diplomacy and "back channel" diplomacy. It's all the same thing in the end.


    This is not a fact but merely your opinion.

    The fact is that Volker said there was no quid pro quo. Taylor threatened to quit because there wasn't a guarantee of quid pro quo saying, "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance." What Sondland "presumed" is irrelevant, and in fact, in a text message to Taylor, Sondland pushed back on Taylor's suggestion saying, "The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind." U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said there was no quid pro quo. Mulvaney said no quid pro quo.

    Of course to fake news connoisseurs like you, this just proves that Trump is guilty.
    If Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him. And Democrats would be justified in being critical of such a reckless ask. I know I would be.

    At the very least, you could admit Trump shoots himself in the foot often. How hard would it have been for him to get what he wanted from Zelenskyy without mentioning Biden? He then gilds the lilly by insisting Zelenskyy announce the investigation of Biden publicly, which is just enormously idiotic for a host of reasons, the least of which being it makes Ukraine look partisan. Bill Taylor was eloquent about this.

    You're not a senator who has to worry about being reelected, MM. You could at least show some dignity and admit Trump annoys you by constantly making you defend his seeming incompetence. Look how much energy and time it takes arguing about this crap needlessly when all he has to do is act *slightly* presidential on a simple phone call.

    I must say, there was a time when Trump *almost* convinced me that he could be maverick, but multiple his multiple completely avoidable screw-ups soon dashed that hope.
    Last edited by whag; 11-06-2019 at 11:38 AM.

  9. #27
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,954
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6458
    Quote Originally Posted by whag View Post
    If Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him.
    If McCain or Romney had pulled the same stunt Biden did by using their position as Vice President of the United States to extort a foreign government into quashing an investigation into their son's sketchy business activities then Obama would have been perfectly justified to call for an investigation.
    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

  10. #28
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    No crap, sherlock. The anti-corruption investigations were linked to aid. That Biden happened to be involved in one of those is a side issue. As MM cited, "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement... "
    He didn't just presume, sherlock. In the first place you don't just forget having such an important discussion with foreign leaders in the first place, like Sondland testified to doing his first go around. What happened was he lied to Congress and then realized he got caught after hearing the contradictory testimony of others and so came back for a do over to protect himself from a perjury charge. Ask yourself why, if no one told him of the quid pro quo, why on earth would he just presume it? And you really need get out of the bubble once in a while. Biden wasn't just a side issue, the Bidens and Burisma were the only issue, Trumps deal was that the investigation into the Bidens and Burisma was to be made public, nothing else, just the Bidens and Burisma.

  11. #29
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,810
    Amen (Given)
    8058
    Amen (Received)
    8389
    Quote Originally Posted by whag View Post
    If Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him.
    Not if they were ON VIDEO admitting to malfeasance.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  12. Amen Mountain Man, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  13. #30
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,954
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6458
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    ...if no one told him of the quid pro quo, why on earth would he just presume it?
    Sure, you can try and salvage his testimony by making certain unfounded assumptions that are favorable to your case, but any competent defense attorney would rip it apart.

    For one thing, if he was told, then why wouldn't he just say that he was told? Instead, he said things like "I learned" and "I had come to understand" and "I presumed". He even says that he didn't know when the aid had been suspended, or by whom, or for what reason, or how he even came to know about it! If this is what Democrats have to base their case on then they're in big trouble.
    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

  14. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •