• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sondland testimony targets Trump, Pompeo and confirms deal with Ukraine

Athanasius68 said:
Doesn't matter. An AG has no authority that the president himself or herself does not possess.
Legally, such a situation is the president investigating the former president.
Click to expand...
I have no idea of the angle your getting at here. I'm not even talking about Obama, and have no idea why you are.
 
Nalu said:
Believe me when I say that there is no impeachment problem that Pelosi didn't think through.
Click to expand...

lmao
yes there is. that is even if she brings that articles.
there is a good chance she will call the entire things off.

even if she does bring articles. she will not have by partisan support and there
are even democratic rep's getting turned off by this side show witch trial.

which could mean she has less support than what she had to start it.
even if they pass the articles in a partisan way there is no way that the
senate is going to convict.

there are no votes for it. which means trump will be found innocent of the charges.

witness after witness has said there was no quid pro quo.
nor do they have any evidence of quid pro quo.

that is if you were paying attention but i doubt it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You and I are not debating some nebulous "other spending", we are debating the aid that the WH held...then released after Congress forced its released and started to investigate the hold.

Stop derailing with whatabaouts and stick to the point.
Click to expand...

The point is that Congress threatened to hold up Defense spending as a whole if the Ukranian funds were not released.
They were then released.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
A. So the call was about investigating Biden for illegal purposes. Excellent.
Click to expand...

Nope, it was about Ukrainian corruption, which happens to include Huner Biden.

B. You don't understand the word 'extortion', so I strongly suggest you stop using it since it's a criminal act and nothing Biden did, unlike twump, was criminal.
Click to expand...

Why don't you wow us with the definition, then? Is Extortion not gaining benefit through coercion?

C. Not interested in your whackadoodle conspiracy theories, thanks.
Click to expand...

Your hand waving in lieu of an actual argument is quite telling.

D. Try reality someday. It's worth it!
Click to expand...

I'm in it 24/7/365. Where are you?
 
Mr Person said:
Yeah, but what if later that night he tells his girlfriend that he did not rob any banks? He wouldn't say that if he actually robbed a bank earlier, would he? HAH!
#OwnTheLibturds
Click to expand...

It's so stupid I really have a hard time believing these posters really believe that if Trump...after hearing that his scheme has been uncovered, suddenly claims on a phone call "but I don't want a quid pro quo", after repeatedly insisting on a quid pro quo, that it means anything. It's hard to make my brain accept that a reasonable adult actually would say that. That's why I believe it's phony when people claim that...I suppose it's easier for me to believe they are just trolling because they hate themselves, than it is to believe they are really that dumb.
 
Conservative said:
I have seen no evidence to support the charges nor have you except for those you make up. You are doing a great job promoting posts which I guess is what you are supposed to d
Click to expand...

Sondland, in Act of Defiance, Says He Followed Trump’s Orders in Ukraine Pressure Scheme - The New York Times

Sondland testifies quid pro quo in Ukraine was real and widely known | TheHill

i know that you have a tenuous relationship with reality when it challenges your views, but there it is.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, you are correct either way, really. It is a brilliant system that is designed to only work when there is either substantial agreement between the parties in power, or the country has voted a single party into a super-majority.

The system is literally designed to prevent stunts like Schiff's circus from being successful.
Click to expand...
That's a fair enough statement, I think.
 
Nalu said:
I haven't seen that the emails are available to the public yet, but I know the Intelligence Committee and the WSJ have them.

Sondland Kept Trump Administration Officials Apprised of Ukraine Push - WSJ

So, yes, let's see the emails, but they're obviously going to corroborate what Sondland said. He's the one who provided the emails as corroboration of his testimony. But you're still going to dismiss them, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I want to see if Trump is on any of them.....but considering Sondland said that Trump wanted nothing from Zelensky, and Sondland said that no one told him anything was tied to the investigations.... let's just say it seems like 0/3 for witnesses so far....
 
Mach said:
A criminal claiming they didn't commit the crime, is not hard evidence they didn't commit the crime.
All evidence indicates Trump directed a solicitation of an official act (WH meeting and releaes of aid), in exchange for Ukraine announcing an investigation into Bidens/Crowdstrike.
no one disputes this. No significant evidence contradicts that overwhelming evidence.
Republicans have walked back the defense day after day.
The White House has obstructed every step of the way.

It's also SONDLAND, not Sundland.
Click to expand...

actually there is no evidence of anything in fact this is just another large nothing burger.
you really should stop listening to schiff.

you should have seen schiff's face when sondland told him no the president specifically said there would be no quid pro quo.
lmao.

you must have missed that part for some reason.
not paying attention again.

just like all the witnesses over the past 3 days none of them have evidence or can support evidence of quid pro quo.
volker and everyone else yesterday put this case to rest.
 
Chomsky said:
If you worked in this administration, would you record the things that could put you behind bars?
Click to expand...

...plus, if the boss sees you taking notes.............
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You did not answer: Why didn't the GOP investigate Joe at the time if what he did was "extortion"?

A: Because the GOP leadership was in favor of getting Shokin out.
Click to expand...

You'd have to assume they were aware of Biden's threat to the Ukraine at the time. Who in the Republican Congress were aware of the threats being made by Biden? And who in Congress was even aware of Hunter Biden's connection to Burisma and Shokin?
 
Chomsky said:
Yep, I believe the bolded is accurate. A bribe occurs upon the offer. The quid pro quo need not be consummated.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's how the Democrats will argue it but that's weak soup.
There is no proof of a bribe being made.

John Ratcliffe
@RepRatcliffe
Sondland admits Trump told him “I want no quid pro quo.” Also admits his opinion that there was quid pro quo is based on a “presumption” – and is directly contradicted by Volker and Morrison. Reasonable people having different conclusions isn’t compelling evidence to impeach.

John Ratcliffe on Twitter: "Sondland admits Trump told him “I want no quid pro quo.” Also admits his opinion that there was quid pro quo is based on a “presumption” – and is directly contradicted by Volker and Morrison. Reasonable people having different conclusions isn’t compelling evidence to impeach.… https://t.co/ArChLEkyYm"
 
Rogue Valley said:
Quid Pro Quo means this for that in Latin. Trump himself was the first to use the QPQ term on September 22.

He was trying to draw a defensive line in the sand. But we all know now that there was an illegal expectation of this for that.

In legalese, Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

Bribery. Or Solicitation to Commit Bribery, is exactly what Trump and Giuliani were engaged in vis-a-vis Ukraine and Zelenskyy.

This ($410 million in defense funding/a D.C. meeting with Trump) for That (opening investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 DNC server).

The act of Bribery does not have to be successful for one to be charged and convicted.
Click to expand...

Where's the quo? Did Trump get it?
 
jmotivator said:
As they do currently
Click to expand...
No, the potus in the call did not want a prosecutor removed, the wanted Zelensky to open an investigation into Joe.

And no, he (Joe) was demanding a specific action by the Ukrainian government through the threat of withholding aide. Extortion.
Click to expand...
False, it was a provision in the legislation with GOP support.



So why would Joe Biden make a point of singling out a specific Ukrainian official as the only acceptable action under which he would consider progress being made by Ukraine..
Click to expand...
Because all of the EU, the WB, IMF GOP leaders.....were giving support to Ukraine and did not want funds going to oligarchs.

and how did it happen to be the Ukrainian official tasked with investigating Hunter Biden's employer? Hmmmmmmmm....
Click to expand...
I just explained it, HE, SHOKIN WAS NOT INVESTIGATING. The world wanted Shokin out.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope, it was about Ukrainian corruption, which happens to include Huner Biden.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, all evidence from all witnesses and records indicate it was about:
Burisma which they all have come to understand meant Biden
And Crowdstrike, i.e. the pro-Russian narrative that the U.S. was incorrect in blaming Russia for the DNC hack/dissemination, and it was really Ukraine with Democrats.
The request was specifically for those two things. That you believe other acts of corruption were worrisome to POTUS is unfounded, and irrelevant to the facts.

There was no other corruption discussed in any significance.
Trump was actively engaged in corruption.
Trump said wonderful things about the known corrupt former prosecutor...fresh out of jail for corruption no less...who was spreading fake news about Marie Y....which he walked back later.
Trump attacked the anti-corruption Marie Y., stellar reputation among non-corrupt Ukraine and the U.S. State dept.

He's deplorable, and you know it.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, you are correct either way, really. It is a brilliant system that is designed to only work when there is either substantial agreement between the parties in power, or the country has voted a single party into a super-majority.

The system is literally designed to prevent stunts like Schiff's circus from being successful.
Click to expand...

exactly but next you will be seeing schiff cry that it isn't fair.
 
Chomsky said:
One of the biggest fallacies being fostered upon us - is that there are "two sides" to every story, every fact, every perception.

The only way I ascribe to that, is to say:

"Damn straight there's two sides. The truth. And the lies."

I'm not sure what else there is to say ...
Click to expand...

*foisted*

I can’t help it........:2wave:
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Newp, it's not reality, no matter how much you impotently rage against that simple fact. The phone discussion was about investigating Biden and exorting a public declaration from the Ukranians about such an investigation.

It's sad and fun at the the same time that you have no idea, whatsoever, what you're trying to talk about.

And what Biden did wasn't extortion. If you need help understanding that word, just ask! Happy to help.
Click to expand...

Let's consider the substance of your defense of Trump. It appears to be that you and others believe that:

A) The impeachment is a liberal conspiracy
B) The whistle blower was in on it.
C) Sondland, and other embassy staff, were in on it
D) Biden was guilty of what Trump is being accused of but, unlike Trump, REALLY did it.
E) This whole thing is just liberals trying to undo the 2016 election.

If you're not ashamed, you should be. Have you heard of Occam's razor? The simplest explanation is not a vast liberal conspiracy that included Trump appointees and military intelligence officers. The simplest explanation is that Trump did something really stupid and reckless (like he's done before) and his followers are trying to validate a bad decision on their part when they elected the commander in chimp.

The Repubs, by maintaining a united defense of criminal, traitorous behavior, have undermined the foundation of the American justice system. They have declared that the truth is not what it obviously is. Their moral fluidity will have far-reaching implications in future elections and trials. If they don't do the right thing with this criminal, our nation may never be able to stop the next one.
 
Mach said:
It's so stupid I really have a hard time believing these posters really believe that if Trump...after hearing that his scheme has been uncovered, suddenly claims on a phone call "but I don't want a quid pro quo", after repeatedly insisting on a quid pro quo, that it means anything. It's hard to make my brain accept that a reasonable adult actually would say that. That's why I believe it's phony when people claim that...I suppose it's easier for me to believe they are just trolling because they hate themselves, than it is to believe they are really that dumb.
Click to expand...

I didn't catch it, but when was the phone call from Sondland and Trump ? The one where Sondland asked what do you want and Trump said, I want nothing etc...what date was that?
 
jmotivator said:
You'd have to assume they were aware of Biden's threat to the Ukraine at the time.
Click to expand...
They did know, Joe was constantly stating so in his speeches concerning Ukraine, and State had been working on this for years before Shokin was ousted by Ukraine.

Who in the Republican Congress were aware of the threats being made by Biden?
Click to expand...
Any of them who worked with the WH on funding Ukraine.

And who in Congress was even aware of Hunter Biden's connection to Burisma and Shokin?
Click to expand...
This goalpost moving has got to end.
 
jmotivator said:
Nope, it was about Ukrainian corruption, which happens to include Huner Biden.
Click to expand...

Fun to watch you continually bray that, and then NEVER be able to back it up with any of the evidence available, to say nothing of the fact that there is no evidence of any corruption on the part of Biden.
Why don't you wow us with the definition, then? Is Extortion not gaining benefit through coercion?
Click to expand...

What Biden did was completely legal, acting as an representative of the US gov't and not working for personal, illegal gain. Nothing he did was criminal.
Your hand waving in lieu of an actual argument is quite telling.
Click to expand...

LOL! You dishonesty is right on time and, as usual, boring. I've simply cited facts. You've done nothing but barf up talking points and conspiracy theories from your masters.
I'm in it 24/7/365. Where are you?
Click to expand...

LOL! Good luck with your magical thinking.
 
Mach said:
True. That's listed as a key rule of how to run propaganda. Attack the truth, its the biggest threat. "Two sides" is an attack on truth, disguised as some corrupted form of "fairness" or something.
I've seen some on this forum claim "it's all just opinion, we all have different ones", another deplorable effort to attack the truth.

When in reality, as you describe, for the purposes we are discussing propositions are either true, or false, and reasonable humans have the capacity to reasonably differentiate the two.
We can in fact, know the truth. <- That is very hard for some to agree to (and in disagreeing they agree!).
Click to expand...
This all became clear the day KellyAnne Conway, after being caught telling lies on MTP Daily, told Chuck Todd the lies were "alternative facts"!

Trump lied from day one, as long as we've known him. Why would anyone vote for a liar? How did they think it would end? Seriously?
 
ludin said:
actually there is no evidence of anything in fact this is just another large nothing burger.you really should stop listening to schiff.
Click to expand...
It's the testimony, written and spoke, along with the transcript, and other records (emails, texts).
Not Schiff.
you should have seen schiff's face when sondland told him no the president specifically said there would be no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...
Only a ****ing moron would claim that Trump..after the gig was up, claiming "I don't want a quid pro quo", was evidence that the fact that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo for personal benefit in exchange for using official powers, is relevant.
Why are you claiming it's relevant. Trump isn't a Jedi, this isn't a mind trick...is it? Did you get tricked?

just like all the witnesses over the past 3 days none of them have evidence or can support evidence of quid pro quo.
volker and everyone else yesterday put this case to rest.
Click to expand...
Sondland even admitted it was a quid pro quo, and here are you are denying it. Get a new hobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom