 |
| Opps! I guess wasn't what I expected? |
“CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ I don’t know if that’s true,” Schiff said, while trying to persuade his Senate colleagues to vote with “moral courage” rather than in their political self-interest.
So this, of course, was a dumb thing to say, especially to Senators who believe that they are superior to House members and certainly do not want to be lectured by Adam Schiff regarding anything ethically or morally related.
So how did this go over? Senator Murkowski was quoted: “that’s where he lost me. Whatever gains he may have made, he lost all of it — plus some — tonight.” While Senator Collins suggested that “Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration.”
The overall reaction was anywhere from amusement, disbelief, to actual anger. Schiff basically went back to "making stuff up" rather than sticking with the facts, and probably showed GOP Senators exactly how it feels when "they" are the subject of one of his personal attacks based on his own fantastic opinions (rather than the reality of where we are).
But this exposes the main problem for Democrats and for Schiff. If you stick to the facts, then you literally have zero case that you can make. The lack of any actual tangible evidence of any real impeachable wrongdoing has simply gotten Democrats so used to "making things up" to fit the case, that I am not sure that they still have a real understanding between fact and fiction anymore.
What Schiff did last night was personally expose the lack of tangible arguments to the very people he is trying to convince. He literally "made up" stuff about them, as a means to convince them that they should listen to the rest of the "made up" stuff he has stated about the President.
Now members of the Senate know first hand how the President feels. You can thank Adam Schiff for that!
121 comments:
You just can't trust FAKE NEWS
or Schiff
The attempted coup should be blown up to so little pieces that no president ever will have to go through this again. That will be Obama's only legacy.
Should be a FANTASTIC MORNING for PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!
heh. no one gives a shit:
The Senate spectator gallery was at least half-empty throughout the first week of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and senators serving as the jury in the marathon sessions are taking notice — some stunned that there aren’t more people watching history unfold, while others understand the public avoiding the repetitive proceedings.
“I’m really surprised at that because this is kind of historic and I would think this would be an opportunity for people to get in there regardless of whose side you are on,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told The Post Friday.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/trump-impeachment-half-empty-spectator-gallery-puzzles-senators/
The opening so far has been very, very weak.
"We will show that the impeachment managers don't even believe in their own case."
Maybe you should actually watch.
I am watching. I can't believe he raised that admitted parody that Schiff made of what Trump said in the phone conversation as if he were claiming that was an exact citation of the transcript (which by the way we still have only in a redacted form, though I believe the original unredacted form was promised.)
Even dem Joe Manchin said Schiff should not have said it. This is over.
If he read it into the official record, then it was not a mere parody. Defense will now smartly articulate every lie Schiff put forth.
Cover up cover up cover up cover up deflect deflect deflect deflect deflect
"...very good and very fair prosecutor was shut down..."
No, a prosecutor was shut down whose pro-Russian corruption was obvious to all our allies.
"Others on the call had different reactions than did Vindman."
Well, a considerable number had even stronger reactions and tried to hide the call from the American public.
Strange way to hide the call. By releasing the transcript.
Trump's lawyers are picking the House managers case apart.
"The best evidence that there was no pressure is from the Unrainians themselves"
Yeah, they should have spoken up and completely ruined their chance for receiving the aid by protesting being put on the spot like that regarding their getting involved in the next American election.
COMMENSA: Strange way to hide the call. By releasing the transcript.
JAMES: LOL The transcript was released only under whistle blower pressure.
Historians will get a lot of laughs from this "defense."
Wrong. Transcript was released to prove accusations were false. Dems didn't think he would do it and were caught flat footed.
What is ballsy talking about? Why was a transcript released that did not include the word "Burisma" when we know from two who heard the call that that word was part of the original conversation?
The transcript was released only under whistle blower pressure.
pressure?
LOL.
it was released 24 hours after the pipsqueak made his first claim, and worked to shut him down immediately.
and from there it was grasping at straws by the democrats, which is exactly why the recording of trump saying get rid of yovanovitch, only to have her get fired almost a year later, is yet another sign of desperation.
ironically, now that pencil neck and golden corral have wrapped up their nonsense with a finale that was the equivalent of a fart in church, will the proceedings attract some actual viewership by the American people.
the trump team will now proceed to skin the house managers alive. now THAT will be worth watching.
24 hours? It took THAT long to redact the transcript?
Why was a transcript released that did not include the word "Burisma" when we know from two who heard the call that that word was part of the original conversation?
pederast...
we do not KNOW that was part of the original conversation. what we know is that a couple of career hacks SAID it was part of the conversation.
and one must choose to believe them. i choose not to. i, like trump, do not trust them as far as i can throw a grand piano.
and vindman? he's a clown who likes to play dress up in a weekend warrior costume.
Why aren't they telling us that Ambassador Sondland later corrected himself and affirmed that there was a quid pro quo. "Yes."
Neither Vindman nor the lady sounded like a hack.
They are no more hacks than I am a pederast, liar.
geez, i wonder if al green is already working on the NEXT set of articles of impeachment, since we all know how THIS set will be decided.
LOL.
Ambassador Sondland said PRESUMED and no one told him. sorry to point out another "pastor" mistake. Does appear to be a multi-year "problem" with him.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A RATINGS BONANZA !!!
Brilliant use of strategy by Trump, especially compared to the dems rating disaster which even got clobbered by soap operas.
ROFLMFAO !!!
I am interested in three decisions:
The sycophantic decision of the GOP dominated Senate.
The decision of the American people in the next election.
The decision of historians.
CNN is reporting that the next set of impeachment articles against President Trump are in fact being drawn up by the House of Representatives.
And CNN has confirmed that a special commemorative House of Representatives Crayola Crayon set - the 64 crayon set with built in sharpener - has been issued to mark this auspicious occasion.
The challenge for democrats is whether or not they will be able to color inside the lines. An unnamed source has told CNN that this particular requirement disqualified several members of the House, most notably AOC.
Stay tuned to CNN for up to the minute updates to this story.
I am watching. I can't believe he raised that admitted parody that Schiff
That "parody" made it's way into the record.
And no one except moronic syncopates like you actually believe Schiff when he said it was a parody.
Why aren't they telling us that Ambassador Sondland later corrected himself and affirmed that there was a quid pro quo. "Yes."
Because he didn't.
In the original speech (read it!) Schiff made it clear that he was not directly quoting Trump. Only later did describe his words as a parody.
In the original speech (read it!) Schiff made it clear that he was not directly quoting Trump. Only later did describe his words as a parody.
so any way you look at it, schiff read a LIE into the congressional record.
i'm old enough to remember when people were prosecuted for lying to congress.
Blogger James said...
I am interested in three decisions:
The decision of the GOP dominated Senate.
Acquittal, and very likely no additional witnesses called.
The decision of the American people in the next election.
Re-election for President Trump.
The decision of historians.
You'll be dead.
COMMONSENSE: Because he [Sondland] didn't.
What is he doing here?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sondland+there+was+a+qujid+pro+qujo&view=detail&mid=A05030189A8409789BF6A05030189A8409789BF6&FORM=VIRE
Boy, putting Trump's video on is not very clever.
He sounds so -- Trump like.
Boy, putting Trump's video on is not very clever.
He sounds so -- Trump like.
yet people line up days in advance in lines that stretch for miles to attend his rallies.
while the democrats can't draw fucking flies to their pile of impeachment bullshit.
you assholes are the ones with a problem pederast. not trump.
Under oath Ambassador Sondland said he never heard what he testified to in his opening statement about "quid pro quo". He presumed. THAT was his under oath testimony. It was just his opinion.
Opinions are NOT FACTS.
Schiff and the house impeachment is getting crushed and the "pastor" is so blinded he can't see it.
but desperately clinging to his "mistakes"
you assholes are the ones with a problem pederast. not trump
YOU have a persistent problem of trying to defend a repeatedly lying President.
This is getting too boring to keep watching it.
I'm glad it will be relatively short. That will give the Democrats plenty of time to take it apart in prime time.
Publically he is a train wreck that is on fire.
Insulting Members of the Jury is a rookie mistake.
Jane you look frail and ignorant.
Best you take a break.
You are getting spank here.
Example
"Strange way to hide the call. By releasing the transcript. "
Massive Plank Appears In Adam Schiff's Eye As He Accuses Trump Of Being A Liar
WASHINGTON, D.C.—As Adam Schiff gave his opening arguments in Trump's impeachment trial yesterday, stunned witnesses claim a huge plank suddenly appeared protruding from his left eye socket.
As he turned his head back and forth giving his speech condemning his opponents for their moral failings, the audience was forced to duck to avoid getting smacked in the face by the dangling board.
"Trump's corruption and lies are causing irreparable damage to our democracy," Schiff said as the long board stuck out of his face. "He really needs to check himself."
"It's important for all us politicians to be self-reflective, to really examine ourselves to see if we are being honest and forthright."
When asked about the board, Schiff said that having a board stick out of your face is "always a sign of God's favor in the Bible."
that really happened, ho ho ho
Trump’s Idea of Executive Power Is His Defense
Associated Press:
“Donald Trump has always been a man of absolutes. Something is the best or the worst, a person is a winner or a total loser, an event has never happened before, even when it has.
“Absolutism was the unwritten credo of his career in business and is the guiding light of his presidency as he makes an assertion rarely heard from an American president: that he can do as he pleases.”
[ON THAT ALONE HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.]
“Now that approach faces its ultimate test as a foundation of Trump’s defense in his impeachment trial, namely that he is cloaked with unrestrained authority. How that question is answered, both by the Senate in the impeachment trial and by voters in November, will define how Americans view the concept of presidential power.”
___________
He thinks is cloaked with unrestrained authority.
Everything depends on America's answer:
No you ain't.
BEFORE I COULD QUITE GET GONE (SO BORED WAS I)
IT HAS ACTUALLY NOW ENDED?
BOY WAS THAT LAME!
Why aren't they telling us that Ambassador Sondland later corrected himself and affirmed that there was a quid pro quo. "Yes."
This is why you are a Reverend of the Church of Dishonesty!
The ONLY quid pro quo that Sondland confirmed that he remembered was in regards to certain things the President wanted in exchange for a White House meeting.
He flat out denied having first hand knowledge of any quid pro quo in terms of the aid and any investigations... and stated UNDER OATH that when he specifically asked Trump about it, Trump told him that there was no request or agreements regarding any quid pro quo attached to the Aid.
Why do you continue to lie, Reverend Hypocrite?
Is it on intentional or are have you actually been fooled?
CHTRUTH: The ONLY quid pro quo that Sondland confirmed that he remembered was in regards to certain things the President wanted in exchange for a White House meeting.
JAMES: What were the "certain things" that the President wanted? Please list them for us.
Elizabeth Harrington
@LizRNC
"Do you know who else didn't show up in the Judiciary committee to answer questions about his report, in the way Ken Starr did in the Clinton impeachment?
Chairman Schiff. He did not show up.
Why didn't he show up?"
With all his lies, Schiff couldn't risk being under oath!
the weaselly "pastor" calls these "mistakes"
Wonder if Schiff is heading to Pike's Peak to look for more "facts" over the weekend.
CHTRUTH: The ONLY quid pro quo that Sondland confirmed that he remembered was in regards to certain things the President wanted in exchange for a White House meeting.
JAMES: What were the "certain things" that the President wanted? Please list them for us.
_____________________
While the crickets chirp and we wait for Ch's answer, consider this:
Trump tees up impeachment defense with stream of insults at AOC and Democrats
MSNBC 1 hr ago
Liddle, lyin', nervous and dumb as a rock.
President Trump set the stage for his impeachment defense with a stream of insults aimed at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other top Democrats.
“Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC... starts today,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Trump also urged his supporters to watch the proceedings on his favorite news sources: Fox News and the right-wing One America News Network. He trashed CNN as “Fake News” and suggested that MSNBC is a front for Democrats.
_________________
BRILLIANT GENIUS PRESIDENT WE HAVE THERE.
Now, Ch, please list them for us.
Shut up, crickets!
Don't really want to jump in here and I'm sure nobody is going to spend all day Saturday answering your drivel but if you are using Sondland as the quid pro quo witness and he testified under oath to Schiff YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIST THOSE.
Else you should shut the fuck up, "pastor".
Good god look at you pederast. factually incorrect everything and demanding responses to your stupid suppositions within minutes
Get a fucking life
TRUTHFUL PASTOR JIM BOSWELL SAYS:
It was Ch, not I, who said:
"The ONLY quid pro quo that Sondland confirmed that he remembered was in regards to certain things the President wanted in exchange for a White House meeting."
I QUESTIONED HIM: What were the "certain things" that the President wanted? Please list them for us.
_______________
Still waiting for that list.
Well Reverend Hypocrite!
Sondland testified that Giuliani (not Trump) was trying to garner Zelensky to announce that he was wanting investigations into Burisma and the DNC Server/2016 election, or the President would not allow a White House Visit.
Sondland never mentioned any investigation (nor did he state that Giuliani desired a statement) about the Bidens, nor did Sondland ever state that he got any first hand order (from anyone) regarding withholding Aid.
He testified:
"I thought the quid pro quo was the White House visit in return for the 2016 DNC server and Burisma investigation."
He testified more than once that when he specifically asked the President:
"There were lots of reasons being given by various people as to why those weren’t moving forward and I finally got exasperated by receiving Ambassador Taylor’s latest text and I just picked up the phone. I got through to the president and I said, what do you want?"
“I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want him to run on and do what he ran on, which is deal with corruption."
I get that YOU worship at the Church of Dishonesty James...
But Sondland never once in his testimony confirmed the ALLEGATIONS OF IMPEACHMENT... was that Foreign Aid was being held up because Trump was demanding an investigation of a political opponent.
Sondland stated multiple times that anything he heard, he heard from Giuliani, that it involved the Ukrainian Company Burisma, whether they had the DNC Server, and that Giuliani was holding up a potential White House visit (not aid).
Sondland "assumed" that aid was being held up for the same reasons, but was being told many things by many different people. When he asked the President, Trump told him that he wanted nothing (in specific) from him.
So tell me James...
Where in the transcripts does Sondland tell us that he talked to Trump and that Trump told him that there was Quid Pro Quo that involved Aid for investigations into the Bidens???
Or ignore the question... like you ALWAYS DO!!!!
Because you are a liar and a hypocrite and a coward!
Oh... crickets!
No response from the Reverend Hyprocrite!
What say you, Reverend Hypocrite of the Church of Dishonesty!
Show us in the Sondland Testimony where he clarifies his statement to state that there was quid pro quo regarding the Aid and Investigations into the Bidens...
We'll wait!!!
Tick tock Tick tock...
crickets!
pastor pederast has fled the scene...
Let's be clear Reverend Hypocrite!
Three of the Democrat's OWN WITNESSES were on board with the idea that the Ukrainians should open the investigation into Burisma back up. Burisma was a very corrupt company (in ways that had nothing to do with Hunter Biden).
So it was not against anyone's "policy" for Giuliani to be pushing for Ukraine to reopen that investigation. In fact, it would be considered our US Policy (at least as much as it was US Policy to fire a prosecutor).
pastor pederast has fled the scene...
I need one of those milk cartons with a "have you seen this person" picture!
Perhaps I actually got him reading he actual testimony!
He can look till he is blue in the face, and he will not find anywhere where Sondland states that he had any first hand knowledge or heard anything from Trump regarding quid pro quo Aid for (Investigations into the Bidens).
If you search on the testimony on the words quid pro quo there like 69 references, and like 68.99 of them come from the people questioning him!
Everyone was trying to put words in his mouth, or use a "gotcha" because he admitted early on that he felt there was quid pro quo for a White House Meeting.
Well Reverend Hypocrite...
We're waiting!
C.H. Truth said...
pastor pederast has fled the scene...
I need one of those milk cartons with a "have you seen this person" picture!
Maybe they can put it on those Senate milk cartons
Trump Cherry-Picks Sondland Testimony
President Donald Trump said he “turned off the television” after Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that the president told him in a phone call, “I want nothing [from Ukraine]. I want no quid pro quo.” But Sondland had a lot more to say than that.
Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, described how Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, directed U.S. efforts to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to make a public announcement of investigations into a debunked theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company. Hunter Biden had served on Burisma’s board when his father, Joe Biden, was the vice president.
“[A]s I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” Sondland told the House intelligence committee. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”
The House opened an impeachment inquiry in late September into whether Trump misused his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political enemies in exchange for congressionally appropriated military aid. It began holding public hearings on Nov. 13, and Sondland testified on Nov. 20, the fourth day of public hearings.
Sondland testified that he “never heard from Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement” from Ukraine, but the president did direct Sondland and other State Department officials to “talk with Rudy,” meaning Guiliani. And, Sondland said in his prepared opening statement, Giuliani’s agenda was clear. In an early August conversation, Sondland said Giuliani “emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into corruption issues. Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two topics of importance to the President.”
Sondland testified that “yes” there was a “quid pro quo” when it came to granting Zelensky a White House visit.
Sondland said such a visit was “vital to cementing the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, demonstrating support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, and advancing broader U.S. foreign policy interests.” Sondland said efforts to get Zelensky to make a public statement about the investigations to “satisfy President Trump’s concerns” was openly communicated among numerous officials in the leadership of the State Department and National Security Council as a condition for a White House call and visit.
Sondland, Nov. 20: I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these pre-requisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.
As evidence that the arrangement was common knowledge among State Department and NSC leadership, Sondland pointed to a July 19 email that he sent to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and others in which Sondland wrote, ““I Talked to Zelensky just now… He is prepared to receive Potus’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone’.” Sondland testified that he was referring to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma.
“Everyone was in the loop,” Sondland said. “It was no secret.”
Sondland detailed how he and others, including Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, helped craft a statement for Zelensky to make.
The ambassador said he later “came to the conclusion THAT THE AID, like the White House visit, was jeopardized” unless Zelensky made a public statement about the investigations.
Sondland revealed an Aug. 22 email he sent to Pompeo about an upcoming Sept. 1 meeting between Trump and Zelensky in Warsaw (Vice President Mike Pence ended up attending instead of Trump). Sondland said in that message: “Should we block time in Warsaw for a short pull-aside for Potus to meet Zelensky? I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place ([in] mid-Sept[ember), that Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US. Hopefully, that will break the logjam.”
Pompeo replied, “Yes.”
Sondland testified that the “logjam” he referred to included the security aid. “Nothing was moving” on Ukraine, he said.
Under questioning by Republicans, Sondland acknowledged that Trump never directly told him about a scheme to withhold aid in exchange for the investigations. Rather, Sonderland said that was “my own presumption.”
“Which is nothing,” said Rep. Mike Turner, an Ohio Republican. “That’s what I don’t understand. You know what hearsay evidence is, ambassador? Hearsay is when I testify what someone else told me. You know what made-up testimony is? Made-up testimony is when I just presume it.”
Sondland told the committee that he came to that conclusion “IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID.”
Daniel Goldman, director of investigations for the Democratic majority on the House intelligence committee, described it as “a two plus two equals four conclusion,” and Sondland agreed with that assessment. “Is the only logical conclusion to you that given all these factors that the aid was also a part of this quid pro quo?” Goldman asked. “Yep,” Sondland replied.
Frustrated with the hold on the aid — which Sondland described as “a very bad idea”– and concerned that it was being held up until Ukraine made a public statement about the investigations, Sondland said he confronted the president about it in a brief Sept. 9 phone call.
Sondland, Nov. 20: I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman, “what do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?” And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood. And he just said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” Something to that effect.
Sept. 9 is the same day that the inspector general of the intelligence community notified the House intelligence committee that he received a whistleblower’s complaint relating to an “urgent concern,” and the same day three House committees announced they would investigate whether Trump and Giuliani tried to pressure Ukraine into conducting “politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity.”
Trump seized on Sondland’s description of the Sept. 9 phone call in remarks to reporters midway through Sondland’s testimony.
“I just noticed one thing, and I would say that means it’s all over,” Trump said. The president then recounted Sondland’s testimony about the call, and how Sondland said he asked the president, “What do you want from Ukraine?”
Trump, Nov. 20: And now, here’s my response, that he gave, just gave. Ready? You have the cameras rolling? “I want nothing. That’s what I want from Ukraine.” That’s what I said. “I want nothing.”… Now, if you weren’t fake news you’d cover it properly. I say to the ambassador in response, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky, President Zelensky, to do the right thing.” Then he says, “This is the final word from the president of the United States. I want nothing.” Thank you folks, have a good time.
Trump also said that he doesn’t know Sondland very well.
“I have not spoken to him much,” Trump said. “This is not a man I know well. Seems like a nice guy though. But I don’t know him well. He was with other candidates [in the 2016 presidential primary]. He actually supported other candidates, not me, came in late.”
Rep. Eric Swalwell asked Sondland about those remarks. Sondland said he talked to Trump at least 20 times and bought a VIP ticket to his inauguration. He gave $1 million to the inaugural committee. Asked if Trump knows him well, Sondland said, “It really depends on what you mean by know well. We are not close friends, no. We have a professional, cordial working relationship.”
And now, Ch, please tell us what IS a more "CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID."
We will wait.
Sondland testified that “yes” there was a “quid pro quo” when it came to granting Zelensky a White House visit.
Which is what I stated!
Under questioning by Republicans, Sondland acknowledged that Trump never directly told him about a scheme to withhold aid in exchange for the investigations. Rather, Sonderland said that was “my own presumption.”
Which is what I stated!
Sondland, Nov. 20: I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman, “what do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?” And it was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood. And he just said, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” Something to that effect.
Which is what I stated!
So Reverend Hypocrite!
Where is the part where Sondland "clarifies" his statement to suggest that there was actually quid pro quo regarding the Aid for Biden investigations?
Since you argued this multiple times on multiple threads?
Or are you finally willing to just admit...
THAT YOU WERE WRONG!!! and that Sondland never made such as statement?
Which would MAKE ME RIGHT... for about the 1000th time in a row?
"CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID."
Again Reverend Hypocrite!
Read what Sondland stated:
"There were lots of reasons being given by various people as to why those weren’t moving forward and I finally got exasperated by receiving Ambassador Taylor’s latest text and I just picked up the phone. I got through to the president and I said, what do you want?"
So there were "lots" of reasons according to the guy in the know. So many that he was confused by all of them. Any number of them could be credible.
But what we do know is that Gordon Sondland never once testified that the President (or anyone else) told him that the Aid was being held up because Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
Sondland provides no evidence that the Bidens were involved, he doesn't provide any testimony that either Trump or Giuliani said anything about the Bidens, and when he specifically asks the President, Trump states that there is no "quid pro quo".
So you see Reverend Hypocrite! How this works is that it's on Schiff and the Democrats to PROVE Trump guilty. Trump doesn't have to "prove" his innocence... but his statement to Sondland certainly goes a long ways to doing so!
This is real simple Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty...
Just admit you were wrong and be done with it!
Because you were wrong. Plain and simple!
Don't cherry pick, Ch, like the President.
Simply tell us how Sondland was wrong in concluding, on the basis of so many with whom he had spoken who were "in the loop," that there was NO OTHER CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF AID.
I'm sure you can offer us a MORE CREDIBLE EXPLANATION.
We will wait.
You’ve had your ass handed to you yet again pederast.
Man up and shut up
And this would be a wonderful time to have Bolton tell us what he knows, don't you agree?"
Hey Reverend Hypocrite!
Did you...
or did you not...
numerous times...
Suggest that Sondland "clarified" his no quid pro quo statement regarding Trump, Aid, and and investigation into the Bidens...
and actually "admitted" that there was such a quid pro quo arrangement?
because it seems to me that this is what you argued...
Multiple times.
Now, what? Not man enough to stand behind your statement?
Trying to "change the subject" as to not have to address how wrong you were?
The fact is... demanding that me (a software engineer, blogger, twitter dude) somehow PROVE a negative about something that we have no inside information on... is not how things work in our country.
You make the accusation. You are forced to prove it. If you cannot prove it, then that person is considered innocent of the allegations. Plain and simple.
Right now... you demanded that Sondland was the guy with the proof.
You demanded that he testified that he had first hand proof of Aid for Investigation of Biden quid pro quo... and that he specifically clarified it so everyone would know!
When in fact, no such clarification or testimony was provided.
But here is the reality... the Aid was released to the Ukrainians.
There was no evidence of any agreement for that release...
Because there was no agreement.
We know that, because there was nothing provided in return!
You can argue till you are blue in the face that somehow YOU KNOW something that you cannot prove. Well good for you!
And how fucking unAmerican of you as well!
Calling names and using obscenities is not what a blog administrator should do.
CH: But here is the reality... the Aid was released to the Ukrainians.
BUT NOT BY TRUMP. THE STATE DEPARTMENT WENT OVER HIS HEAD.
CH: There was no evidence of any agreement for that release...Because there was no agreement.
We know that, because there was nothing provided in return!
HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID THAT WE KNOW THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE RELUCTANTLY ON THE VERGE OF COMPLYING AND ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION, EVEN THOUGH IT MEANT INVOLVING THEMSELVES IN OUR POLITICS, WHICH THEY FERVENTLY WISHED TO AVOID AND HAD RESISTED DOING. THEREFORE, THEY WERE GREATLY RELIEVED WHEN THEY LEARNED THAT THE AID HAD BEEN RELEASED AND THUS THEY WOULD NOT BE FORCED TO COMPLY. THAT AID WAS RELEASED BY OUR STATE DEPARTMENT (NOT TRUMP) UPON LEARNING FROM THEIR LAWYERS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) AND THEREFORE TRUMP COULD NOT LEGALLY BLOCK THE AID -- WHICH, HOWEVER,TRUMP HAD DONE.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST IT BE SAID THAT WE KNOW THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE RELUCTANTLY ON THE VERGE OF COMPLYING AND ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION
We know? We know nothing of the sort. Especially since the Ukraines never made the announcement.
Zelensky Nearly Announced The Investigations Trump Wanted — Then Everything Changed
The stage was set.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had received an ultimatum from the Trump administration. He was negotiating to sit for an interview with CNN host Fareed Zakaria. And Zelensky was prepared to do it: The President of Ukraine would go on international television and announce investigations into President Donald Trump’s domestic political opponent.
And then, Zelensky didn’t do it.
Over the course of a few nail-biting days in early September, Trump nearly obtained the “deliverable” he had sought from Ukraine for months. He’d wanted Zelensky to publicly announce investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden and purported Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections — perfect fodder for Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.
The President had placed a hold on a nearly $400 million aid package to Ukraine, and the Ukrainians were feeling the heat.
The date for the announcement was reportedly set for Sept. 13. But just before Zelensky went public, the security aid was released — and the public learned of a whistleblower’s complaint that would come to rock Washington and endanger Trump’s hold on the Oval Office.
A look at the chronology reveals just how close Trump came to extracting what he wanted from Ukraine’s president.
‘USED AS A PAWN’
Zelensky’s April election, and the parliamentary majority his party won in July, had catapulted him onto the world stage.
Zakaria, for his part, has claimed ignorance of the announcement Zelensky was set to make.
“We’d been trying to get an interview with President Zelensky pretty much since he got elected,” Zakaria recalled Wednesday. “They had been encouraging, and we were negotiating back-and-forth.”
But over and over behind the scenes, Americans acting pursuant to Trump’s push for investigations were leaning on the Ukrainians, and the country’s new leadership felt it.
On July 10, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials that Zelensky would get a coveted face-to-face meeting with Trump if the country pursued the White House’s desired investigations.
A week later, on July 18, several administration officials heard for the first time that Trump had instructed his budget office to place a hold on a $391 million aid package that Congress had approved for Ukraine.
The pressure built on the Ukrainians. But they resisted. The Ukrainian national security adviser told Acting Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor on July 20 that Zelensky “did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. re-election campaign,” Taylor later testified.
Also in late July, the anonymous whistleblower penned a complaint that would eventually make its way to into the public record. As the whistleblower’s concerns climbed the bureaucratic ladder, it wasn’t long before the White House heard about them.
But Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Sondland and others kept pushing Ukrainian officials, including Zelensky himself.
On Aug. 12, an aide to Zelensky offered a generic anti-corruption statement to the American officials pushing for an announcement, who showed it to Giuliani. The former New York mayor “did not find that convincing” because it didn’t mention the specific probes Trump wanted, then-U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker later testified.
So Volker sent back an amended proposal specifically mentioning the specific probes — the Ukrainians refused.
‘NEED TO TALK WITH YOU’
The pressure campaign, at this point, intensified: Politico, in an Aug. 29 article, revealed publicly that the nine-figure aid package Congress approved for Ukraine had been held up for months.
“Need to talk with you,” Andrey Yermak, an aide to Zelensky, texted Volker in response to the story. Taylor testified later that he began receiving “desperate” calls from Ukrainian officials worried about the money. By law, if the money wasn’t spent by Sept. 30, it would be lost forever — a deadline of which Zelensky was painfully aware.
But the pressure campaign continued. And now, the aid money was explicitly involved.
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in an amendment to his sworn testimony, recalling a conversation with Yermak on Sept. 1
“Everything” was dependent on Ukraine publicly announcing investigations, Taylor recalled Sondland telling him on the phone. And Trump “wanted President Zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations,” he recalled Sondland saying.
Taylor expressed his concerns to Sondland about such an ultimatum and suggested Sondland try to change Trump’s mind. But Trump reportedly refused to give up the push.
Sondland told Zelensky and Yermak on Sept. 8 that the military aid would be at a “stalemate” unless Zelensky agrees to a public statement, Taylor testified that Sondland told him.
“Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on CNN,” Taylor recalled Wednesday.
Indeed, the interview seemed inevitable, based on texts the diplomats exchanged at the time.
“The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance,” Taylor texted Volker. “The Russians love it. (And I quit.)” The next day, he referenced an “interview” again with Sondland: “Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon.”
“I never said I was ‘right,’” Sondland replied. “I saw we are where we are and I believe we have identified the best pathway forward.”
As the pressure on Ukraine intensified, so too did interview negotiations with Zakaria.
“Things picked up around August and September, I went to Kiev to meet with him,” Zakaria recalled later, referring to Zelensky. “It seemed it was confirmed. And then it fell apart.”
‘AND THEN IT FELL APART’
On Sept. 9, the White House pressure campaign on Ukraine met a severe obstacle: Congress.
The intelligence community’s inspector general notified Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) that acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire was withholding a “credible” whistleblower’s complaint.
Schiff wrote to Maguire demanding the complaint. But Maguire provided nothing — later, he testified that he approached the White House after receiving the complaint, and that the White House said the phone call between Trump and Zelensky described in it was subject to executive privilege.
Also on Sept 9th, three congressional committees launched an investigation into whether Giuliani strong-armed Ukraine “to assist the President’s reelection campaign.”
Then, everything changed.
On Sept. 11, The White House released the $391 million aid package to Ukraine, news of which spread worldwide the next day.
Taylor testified that he immediately informed Zelensky and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko. And he reminded Yermak, he testified, of “the importance of not getting involved in other countries’ elections.”
But he’d heard from Sondland that Zelensky had already agreed to a CNN interview, in which the Ukrainian president would make an announcement regarding the investigations.
Zakaria, in fact, had traveled to Ukraine on Sept. 12 and 13 and met with Zelensky for a pre-interview discussion. “We had a very nice conversation, no inkling of any of this,” he said.
While he initially confirmed with Prystaiko on September 12 that the interview was off, Taylor said, “I noticed during a meeting on the morning of September 13, at President Zelensky’s office, that Mr. Yermak looked uncomfortable in response to the question.”
Then, on Sept. 13 Schiff announced publicly that Maguire was withholding a whistleblower’s complaint.
The interview was “set,” Zakaria recalled, until it wasn’t. Looking back, he said, the release of the aid and the revelation of a whistleblower complaint appeared to have been responsible for the cancellation.
“The aid is released, so that’s the end of the quid, and then the interview is cancelled, that’s the end of the quo,” he said, adding later: “So it is possible to conclude that they realized this story was now public, the aid had been released, they didn’t need to do the interview.”
Well Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty
Nobody from Ukraine ever suggested that there was an agreement.
Nobody from Ukraine ever suggested that they were going to investigate.
Nobody from Ukraine ever stated that there about to make an announcement.
Aid was released.
No announcement.
No investigations.
Funny how Democrats "suggest" that nobody from Ukraine would "admit" any of this, because they are afraid of repercussions from Trump if they "told the truth". But yet, we are supposed to believe that they would be willing to "renege" on an agreement with Trump, without fearing repercussions?
Explain to us... how it is that the Ukrainians had the balls to tell Trump and his supposed agreement to go screw himself (in regards to the agreed announcements) when the aid came... but that now they "cower in fear" of telling the truth?
If they were willing to break off their agreement with Trump, certainly they would be willing to admit as much! By making an agreement (or working behind Trump's back to get out of it) they would be effectively burning all bridges with Trump and would literally have ZERO reasons to not tell the truth.
So no... NOBODYS KNOWS CRAP about any the Ukrainians being on the verge of anything. It is nothing more than stupid illogical speculation that doesn't even come close to holding up against the slightest bit of remedial scrutiny.
The real truth here, Reverend Hypocrite...
Is that you believe WHATEVER you are told... and you demand zero evidence. Even when the evidence is 100% against you... you still believe what you are told.
Occam's Razor - the explanation with the fewest assumptions is always the correct explanation.
My explanation requires no assumptions other than the facts as they exist and the reality in which we exist in.
Your explanation is 99.9% based on assumptions... it requires a willing suspension of disbelief of all things actual and real. It literally demands that even the most remote implausible explanation MUST be followed if it incriminates Trump... and every logical plausible explanation that exists on the facts cannot be believed... because of some "cover up" that has no evidence of existing.
And btw... you still haven't admitted you were wrong about the Sondland Testimony. Perhaps you are equally wrong about this suggestion.
You can engage in all the speculation you want James facts are still facts and the facts indicate Trump should be acquitted.
Well, Ch, the article above, just before yours, shows that I am RIGHT about "this suggestion."
Facts are indeed facts. Look at all the FACTS, not speculation, in the article above.
Actually Reverend Hypocrite...
You need to reread your own story.
First, much of what Taylor testified, Sondland denied recalling...
Secondly... what Sondland clearly stated was that he "believed" that aid was hung up on a request for an "anti-corruption statement". (not an investigation into the Bidens).
The only portion of the story that talks about investigations into the Biden is the narrative from the Politico author, which is meaningless.
LASTLY!!! Sondland testified UNDER OATH (and has not amended this) that everything he believes was his own presumption, and that he was never given any direct orders or direct information from the President.
His testimony clearly stated that he wasn't sure about when the aid was coming and that he had been provided multiple explanations from multiple people.
This is the difference between you and I, Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Dishonesty!
I read the transcripts and gather all my information from them!
You read unverified "stories" and misleading "analysis" from Politico!
So you still lose! Politico analysis and opinion does not count as sworn testimony. Nor does their analysis of what was said change what actually WAS SAID.
You want a link to what Gordon Sondland ACTUALLY TESTIFIED TO? Perhaps it will come as a fucking surprise what he actually stated, huh?
We are right back to square one, Reverend ridiculous!
Every time I provide you factual information from a factual source.
You fight back with a media story from Politico!
This is why we live in two different worlds.
The Three Socialist Stooges CHT.
I hear they are feeling "bullied".
To fucking funny, given this is a blog, not real life, why did they get confused.
Think about it Reverend Hypocrite!
Why is it that when we discuss something like the Sondland testimony...
I always go look up the source (in this case the actual testimony) and judge it for myself. I will actually quote from the source, finding all the exact relative parts and provide the exact quotes and statements. I do not replace what that person stated with my own opinion on what they must have meant or how I believe that they must be lying for some other reason.
Then you reply with some political pundit from a liberal website that provides for you some story about something that has nothing to do with the testimony actually provided. They rarely quote the source (other than out of context) and they provide no actual link back to the actual original factual source.
and then you say I am wrong?
Is it seriously that you are incapable of looking at the source yourself and understanding it? Are you seriously incapable of any sort of objective analysis? Are you really that reliant on what other people tell you?
Because it must suck to be that intellectually dependent on political pundits who get things sooooo wrong... sooooo often!
So do us all a favor!
Go to the source. If what Politico stated is true, then it will be in Sondland's testimony. If it is not in Sondland's testimony.. then guess what? It's a pile of crap!
I read the transcripts and gather all my information from them!
God dayum a newly wed like yourself with a hot young babe must be bored silly if the best you can do is read hundreds of pages of transcripts and then try to convince a singular poster on a loser blog that he is something special....GOD IT MUST BE COLD IN MN!!!!!!!! And nothing to do but prove a point that makes you feel good and will not affect a single thing.....Very sad existence that amuses me!!!!!!!
Facts are indeed facts. Look at all the FACTS, not speculation, in the article above.
You don't know the difference between facts and empty bias speculation.
Get back when you do.
You don't know the difference between facts and empty bias speculation.
Funny you saying that cramps......he who denies the facts of GW and evolution......neither of which are speculation but your cultist beliefs......BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
JAMES: Facts are indeed facts. Look at all the FACTS, not speculation, in the article above.
COMMENSA: You don't know the difference between facts and empty bias speculation.
Get back when you do.
January 25, 2020 at 3:56 PM
________________
JAMES SAYS:
List every example of "empty bias speculation" that
you find in the article stretching from 2:19 PM to 2:23.
I bet you won't be able to list even three or four.
Get back when you do.
That would be reposting the entire article that would be redundant. Move on.
Oh no. You could just succinctly list them in a phrase.
Your move.
I repeat. just list three or four examples, each in a short phrase.
Sorry Reverend Hypocrite...
I will continue to rely on the actual testimony, thank you anyways!
If you want to disagree with the actual testimony, and instead put your faith in an unsupported, unverified, and factually damaged "story" from a blog that is your choice.
But doesn't that just make you look like a fool?
Your deep refusal to check the testimony yourself tells me that you (deep down) know your story if bullshit, but that you want to "cling" to it anyway! We both know that if you took the time to verify it, that it falls on merit.
The Democrats are losing this impeachment trial because it's based on rumors, speculation, supposition, and misrepresentation. They are losing it because Adam Schiff decided to insult GOP Senators with a fake news story in his closing arguments...
which now will forever frame his overall performance!
Meanwhile the President's attorneys did more in three hours today, than the House agitators did in three days. Do you know why? Because they are working with facts, not stories.
- You have Jeffrey Toobin saying Democrats are losing.
- Jonathan Turley suggests that they should simply pull article two.
- Rumors are that Democrats are considering an exchange where they basically throw the House Democrats under the bus (with a public admonishment of how they handled the impeachment hearings) to get witnesses (and the GOP isn't biting).
This couldn't hardly be going any worse for them at this point, Reverend Hypocrite! The same is certainly true of your argument...
But hey... we both know that you still have not proven your remarkably inaccurate claim that Sondland "TESTIFIED" that he had first hand knowledge of Aid for Biden investigation Quid Pro Quo...
Looks like you read a blog post rich with fiction... and took it at face value! But that is who you are at the end of the day. A man addicted to other peoples stories and opinions.
Let me make it simple for you Reverend Hypocrite!
If you want to claim that Sondland testified that he had first hand knowledge of Aid for Biden investigation... as you have repeatedly claimed.
You should be able to find it from the actual testimony.
It's really that simple. There is no other place in the world. Not NYT, WaPo. Politico, Wikipedia, CNN, or MSNBC... that will provide your proof.
It has to come from his ACTUAL testimony.
So I will quite literally ignore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is not the actual testimony that does not actually state that the quid pro quo was in regards to Aid for Biden investigation.
Is that simple enough for you?
Good that you are here, Ch.
I think Commensa could use a little help from you.
I'm sure you will agree with him that the article above is terrible and that I "don't know the difference between facts and empty bias speculation."
So when I challenge him to list every example of "empty bias speculation" in the article stretching from 2:19 PM to 2:23, I'm sure you'd be willing to help him out.
But I bet you too won't be able to list even three or four examples.
Simple enough for you?
People are laughing at you James.
The interview was “set,” Zakaria recalled, until it wasn’t. Looking back, he said, the release of the aid and the revelation of a whistleblower complaint appeared to have been responsible for the cancellation.
“The aid is released, so that’s the end of the quid, and then the interview is cancelled, that’s the end of the quo,” he said, adding later: “So it is possible to conclude that they realized this story was now public, the aid had been released, they didn’t need to do the interview.”
I just looked at the last 2 paragraphs and I just found 3 "empty bias speculation"
Guess the lying POS "pastor" is up to his old tricks. And I mean OLD.
CHT completely OBLITERATED him and he keeps grasping at idiocrasy. GIVE IT UP WORTHLESS OLD MAN.
ROFLMFAO !!!
C.H. Truth said...
Let me make it simple for you Reverend Hypocrite!
If you want to claim that Sondland testified that he had first hand knowledge of Aid for Biden investigation... as you have repeatedly claimed.
You should be able to find it from the actual testimony.
It's really that simple. There is no other place in the world. Not NYT, WaPo. Politico, Wikipedia, CNN, or MSNBC... that will provide your proof.
It has to come from his ACTUAL testimony.
So I will quite literally ignore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is not the actual testimony that does not actually state that the quid pro quo was in regards to Aid for Biden investigation.
Is that simple enough for you?
the lying POS "pastor" is just barely able to cut-n-paste things even he doesn't read and definitely doesn't understand.
He is a one man sheep.
As rrb says quoting lo iq BWAAAAAA!!!!!!
Well cowardly king
Reverend Hypocrite cuts and pastes from an article that tells a story about how Zelensky is going to announce investigations into Hunter and Joe Biden... but then just doesn't. Alashazam!
He posts this as a response to a request to prove that Sondland "clarified" his testimony... and acts (oddly) as if this proves that Gordon Sondland actually testified as such.
Apparently the Reverend Hypocrite doesn't understand the difference between a story told on a political blog... and sworn testimony of Gordon Sondland (who was the only Democratic witness who actually had first hand contact with the President).
Gordon Sondland doesn't testify to any request made by either the President (or Rudy Giuliani) that would have demanded anything having to do with Hunter or Joe Biden. In fact, Sondland doesn't actually testify to any request made in exchange for aid.
For that reason, and that reason alone... the blog post story is speculation and is not based on any actual first hand testimony provided during the hearing by anyone. It might be taken from certain double hearsay speculations offered by anti-Trump deep state Democratic witnesses, but it certainly didn't come from Gordon Sondland.
but I digress...
In spite of Sondland speculating it to be true (but not sure because of many mixed messages) when he asked the President straight up, Trump says there is no quid pro quo. Not just nothing regarding the Bidens, but nothing at all.
Sondland testifies that the only request he got that he considered quid pro quo came from Giuliani (not Trump) and that involved a White House visit (not aid) and that Giuliani was discussing an anti-corruption statement (which was in line with what the financial aid package demanded). You see, Ukraine agreeing to clean up their act was part of the terms of them receiving aid. A statement to such would have been more than appropriate.
So now, Reverend Hypocrite is citing blog posts from far left liberal political pundits as EVIDENCE that Sondland actually testified differently... and then "challenges" me to "disprove" the blog post.
Reality is that Reverend Hypocrite could easily go to the transcripts of the hearing and prove me wrong (if I could be proven wrong)... but he won't (because he cannot - because I am not wrong).
He also could not verify his own cut and past blog post based on any first hand testimony from the hearings. It's a story. An embellishment. It has no real sources (other than Taylor who is undercut by Sondland in Sondland's testimony).
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said Sondland testified that he had "first hand" evidence.
And that's why Trump doesn't want Bolton to testify.
James said...
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said Sondland testified that he had "first hand" evidence.
You dishonest piece of shit.
CHT didn't say you did from what I read.
You are an embarrassment to any religion, "pastor"
And your "mistakes" are way worse than LIES.
And your "responses" have been PATHETIC ALL DAY
YOU ARE SHOCKINGLY DISHONEST
well not to anyone who follows the blog
Here are Cowardly's examples of "biased speculation":
PROVING ONLY THAT HE MAKES STUFF UP:
The interview was “set,” Zakaria recalled, until it wasn’t. Looking back, he said, the release of the aid and the revelation of a whistleblower complaint appeared to have been responsible for the cancellation.
IT SURE APPEARS THAT WAY, SINCE THE CANCELLATION FOLLOWED QUICKLY UPON
1) THE REVELATION OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND
2) THE RELEASE OF THE AID.
(NOTHING WILDLY "SPECULATIVE" THERE.)
“The aid is released, so that’s the end of the quid,
and then the interview is cancelled,
that’s the end of the quo,”
he said, adding later: “
So it is possible to conclude that they realized this story [of the whistleblower] was now public, the aid had been released, they didn’t need to do the interview.”
TELL US WHAT ELSE THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY CONCLUDE.
(NOTHING WILDLY SPECULATIVE THERE EITHER.)
I never said Sondland testified that he had "first hand" evidence.
Actually when it was argued that Sondland stated that he never got first hand information about quid pro quo regarding aid for investigations...
You claimed... several times....
that Sondland had "clarified" his testimony and that he did testify that there was quid pro quo in those regards.
When in fact, it was argued multiple times by Democrats during Sondland's testimony that he thought there was quid pro quo (which he admitted Giuliani suggested in regards to a White House meeting and a "anti-corruption statement").
But then, when asked under cross (by the GOP) he admitted (clarified) that he never had any first hand knowledge of anything having to do with Aid, and that when he specifically asked Trump, he denied that he wanted anything in exchange for it.
So yeah, Reverend Hypocrite. You did suggest as much and you are wrong.
The interview was “set,” Zakaria recalled, until it wasn’t. Looking back, he said, the release of the aid and the revelation of a whistleblower complaint appeared to have been responsible for the cancellation.
This is an example of the VERY DEFINITION of speculation.
C.H. Truth said...
Let me make it simple for you Reverend Hypocrite!
If you want to claim that Sondland testified that he had first hand knowledge of Aid for Biden investigation... as you have repeatedly claimed.
___________
THAT'S where he put words in my mouth. I never said first hand.
Two plus two equal four can be called speculation too, I sujppose. Or, "I think the sun will rise tomorrow."
Well Reverend Hypocrite!
He actually testified that he had first hand information that Trump wasn't asking for anything from Ukraine in exchange for the aid.
He admitted that it was his his "presumption" that it might have been hung up over some sort of anti-corruption statement (or possibly an investigation into Burisma) but he also never once suggested that it had anything to do with investigating the Bidens.
Sondland never made any statements about an investigation into the Bidens.
Two plus two equal four can be called speculation too, I suppose
Is that your official belief?
That a math equation is "speculation"?
Perhaps you should actually look up the word!
Logical inference is one thing; wild speculation is another.
CH SAYS:
Sondland never made any statements about an investigation into the Bidens.
He admitted that it was his "presumption" that it might have been hung up over some sort of anti-corruption statement (or possibly an investigation into Burisma)...
________
So you are saying an investigation into Burisma would have nothing to do with the Bidens?
I believe I have read that in quantum physics/mechanics, two and two do not necessarily equal four.
Obama Called Trump a Fascist In Call with Senator
President Barack Obama called Donald Trump a “fascist” in a phone conversation with Sen. Tim Kaine during the 2016 presidential election, Kaine says in a video clip featured in an upcoming documentary about Hillary Clinton, NBC News reports.
Said Kaine: “President Obama called me last night and said: ‘Tim, remember, this is no time to be a purist. You’ve got to keep a fascist out of the White House.'”
_________________
And that was prophetic, not speculative.
So you are saying an investigation into Burisma would have nothing to do with the Bidens?
I guess that depends!
Burisma and their owners were being investigated on multiple fronts. They were considered one of the "poster children" of Ukrainian corruption. Those investigations were all shut down after the new Prosecutor General took over. Multiple witnesses (in the impeachment hearings) suggested that these investigations were shut down prematurely and they were open to the idea of them being reopened. Again, symbolically, they were like the Enron of Ukraine.
So if the Bidens were somehow part of whatever corruption this company was part of, then it could (and should) put them in legal jeopardy. If they are completely innocent (which every Democrat claims) - then they would have nothing to worry about.
But the fact that Joe Biden is running for President shouldn't have "anything" to do with whether or not Burisma corruption should be looked into. If it's a legitimate investigation and it would help symbolize the idea that the new President is not going to look the other way... then it has nothing to do with the Bidens.
Perhaps our previous Administration should not have ACTUALLY demanded quid pro quo for financial aid, and then none of this would be in question.
The investigation of corrupt Burisma had already gone dormant under prosecutor Viktor Shokin, also corrupt.
See the Wikipedia article on him for some interesting info.
Personally, I was surprised to see that Shokin remained in power for months AFTER Joe Biden said he would withhold a billion in aid if Shokin was not fired. To hear Joe tell it, Shokin was fired on the spot!
BTW the Wiki article on Viktor Shokin ends like this:
______
The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014. US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump.
From another article:
Biden did demand that Shokin be removed. At an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in 2018, Biden seemed to boast about it, saying that during a visit to Kyiv -- likely in December 2015 -- he told Ukrainian officials: "We're leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting the money."
"Well, son of a bitch," Biden continued. "He got fired."
Shokin was indeed fired, but not until March that year.
Contrary to "Wikipedia" Reverend Hypocrite...
Shokin has not only testified in international court that he was pressured to end the Burisma investigation, but he also had documents to show that Burisma was still being investigated. There is also an actual investigator who is on record as saying the investigations were pulled from him right after Shokin was fired. Even the new Prosecutor General admits that he ended investigations as he stated that they were unwarranted.
But lets assume that Shokin and the other people involved are lying, and that the new Prosecutor General is simply mistaken... and everything "was" shut down.
And everything you are arguing is true....
Then the Bidens would have nothing to worry about... and investigations into Burisma could not "logically" be deemed to be about the Bidens.
So perhaps you could explain why Democrats want to "impeach" the President over possible Ukrainian investigations that would have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Bidens, and would only include things that happened when Hunter had nothing to do with the company...
If what you are arguing is true...
Then wouldn't the ENTIRE impeachment argument (that calling for Burisma investigations is election interference) be a lie or flat out wrong?
You cannot have it both ways...
It cannot both be "election interference"
and have nothing to do with the Bidens?
How do you reconcile the two, Reverend Hypocrite?
Can you explain why Democrats are so desperate to makes sure that the Burisma investigations stay buried if they don't affect the Bidens?
Explain it Reverend Hypocrite of the Church of Dishonesty!!!
Post a Comment