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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Sondland admits quid pro quo
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostYes that's the one, noting especially where it says "Sondland's new testimony, which was included in the public release of his closed-door deposition transcript on Tuesday, adds to Democrats' evidence that the President connected the freezing of US security aid to Ukraine to investigations into Biden as well as the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's servers during the 2016 election, which cuts to the heart of their impeachment case against Trump". Namely where he acknowledges what everyone knows: "a quid pro quo with Ukraine".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 PostMy 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 PostAs usual, the picture you paint is wrong.
The facts are that Trump was using US aid, almost 400 million of it, to buy dirt on a political rival.
And yet you support and excuse it.
What more needs to be said.
Oh, and you're not allowed to face your accuser - their lawyer can simply state that's what this anonymous person claimed.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYour 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.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYour 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.
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, 08:16 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 PostOh 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThat's what
- She
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostOh 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."Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIn this case, the goals were illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine.
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 sayingsaid 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostBut 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 saidVolker 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 sayingsaid 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.
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, 12:38 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostIf Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him.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 Bill the Cat View PostNo 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... "
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostIf Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him.That's what
- She
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post...if no one told him of the quid pro quo, why on earth would he just presume it?
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
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
|
23 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by eider, 05-11-2024, 06:00 AM
|
38 responses
196 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:07 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-10-2024, 03:54 PM
|
14 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 03:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-10-2024, 12:05 PM
|
7 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-10-2024, 05:10 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-09-2024, 04:14 PM
|
32 responses
200 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-11-2024, 04:50 AM
|
Comment