• 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

did bank accounts matter during Obama? did the debt? what happened to the Tea Party.

you done been had.

Bank accounts always matter, Obama lost the House in 10 and 12 and the Congress in 14-16. Obama had 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits, Trump hasn't had one YET and the Trump debt is coming off 7 interest rate hikes and mandatory increases in SS and Medicare neither of which he controls. Trump has been demonized for the past 3 years and in spite of that America is stronger and Americans better off than three years ago by every metric
 
If he is not convicted, it will expose the Republican senate as endorsing corruption, which will lead the Senate flipping in 2020. The House might even gain Dem seats.

McConnell is no idiot (I don't think he is anyway). He has to be able to do the math. Tossing Trump under the bus might give him a chance to save the senate.



They should have gone with that one in the first place. If they would say this was wrong, but let the electorate decide, they probably would have kept the polling for "impeach and remove" in check. But, the would wound poor Donnie's ego, that someone said he was bad.

In Nov 2020 once a Dem President Elect is in place, along with a Dem Senate, Justice Ginsburg can announce her retirement. A scenario which will bring tears to the Right.
 
I hope so too as they are watching the left make asses out of themselves. The results of the Trump policies are benefiting ALL Americans but there is a loyalty to liberalism that I will never understand. You claim corruption but no evidence supports that claim. The American people are better off today than three years ago as every metric shows

hey, any way you want to justify to yourself that you're voting for corruption is okay with me. it's not like you guys are gonna stop voting for corruption. Rush and Sean have you guys trained.
 
Bank accounts always matter, Obama lost the House in 10 and 12 and the Congress in 14-16. Obama had 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits, Trump hasn't had one YET and the Trump debt is coming off 7 interest rate hikes and mandatory increases in SS and Medicare neither of which he controls. Trump has been demonized for the past 3 years and in spite of that America is stronger and Americans better off than three years ago by every metric

so you're thinking that Trump is gonna decrease our deficit or something instead of exploding it like he did with his pen (while saving millions in tax savings personally)?

suckers.
 
It's in my siggy. Sondland got his marching orders directly from Trump


Yes, Sonlands question was "what do you want from Ukraine" and his answer was "I want nothing, I want nothing"
 
^^ Tfw you are so desperate for reality to not exist, you blatantly spread lies.

EJ0kwL3XYAU9vwQ


Other than my own presumption......

:lamo
 
And if you watched the rest you'd see that it was 100% debunked.

A cocker spaniel has more of an attention span....:roll:
The cocker spaniel isnt invested in seeing only what it wants to see. These people are. Its ****ing laughable that after 3 years of these people ****ting themselves over impeachment THIS is what they land on...and witness after witness after witness has ultimately had to admit that despite being pumped and primed by rat politicians, no...in fact there IS NO EVIDENCE of QPQ, bribery or extortion, nor have they EVER heard the president make a statement connecting them.
 
witness after witness after witness has ultimately had to admit that despite being pumped and primed by rat politicians, no...in fact there IS NO EVIDENCE of QPQ
EJ0kwL3XYAU9vwQ



Trump defenders are really bad at this. Is it because you don't know the facts or just don't care what they are?
 
Did anyone else see the Sharpie notes that our lying President had in his hand yesterday while he was trying to sputter his new talking points? I'd say I'm embarrassed for him, since it's now obvious he knows he's toast, but nobody deserves the panic and humiliation he is now experiencing more than Trump.

Trump'''s written quid pro quo memo has become a meme - Business Insider
 
EJ0kwL3XYAU9vwQ



Trump defenders are really bad at this. Is it because you don't know the facts or just don't care what they are?

Well, when you only focus on 30 seconds of the testimony, you tend to make mistakes like you did......

Why aren't you focusing on the 30 seconds of testimony where he says he presumed it was QPQ, or the 30 seconds that says he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, and the reply was nothing.... ?
 
So this whole notion of withholding aid (in whatever form it may be), and didn't even happen in this case, is normal foreign policy. Someone pointed out that every administration has done it; Bush did it to 35 countries, and not once did anyone say that was impeachable. IT BUSINESS AS USUAL. But I digress, Trump held back nothing. Zelensky got everything he asked for including the missiles and a meeting with Trump. Not a single witness in the hearings can dispute it. Only one person called to testify was on the call, he failed miserably to implicate Trump on anything. And then there's Sondland, when asked why he didn't put the now famous phone call with Trump in his opening remarks; said he couldn't fit them in. Any President that gives away my money without asking for something ought to be impeached.

Gordon Sondland: (10:37)
Well, that email was not artfully written. I’m the first to admit what I was trying to convey to Ambassador Taylor after his frantic emails to me and to others about the security assistance, which by the way, I agreed with him. I thought it was a very bad idea to hold that money. I finally called the President, I believe it was on the 9th of September. I can’t find the records and they won’t provide them to me. But I believe I just asked him an open ended question. Mr. Chairman, “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different 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.
Adam Schiff: (12:16)
Well, Mr. Morrison testified that you relayed a conversation you had with the President, in which the president told you no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must go to a microphone and announce these investigations and that he should want to. Similarly, you told Ambassador Taylor that while the President said no quid pro quo, unless Zelensky announced these investigations, they would be at a stalemate. Presumably a stalemate over the military assistance. Do you have any reason to question those conversations that Mr. Morrison and Ambassador Taylor took notes about?
Gordon Sondland: (12:56)
Well, I think it’s tied to my text, Mr. Chairman, because in my text I think I said something to the effect that he wants Zelensky to do what he ran on I believe his transparency, et cetera, et cetera, which was my clumsy way of saying he wanted these announcements to be made.
Clumsy? It wasn't clumsy, he ****ing made it up in his own head. He was assuming a meaning. Zelensky had to go to a microphone and announce investigation (of some type). But Zelensky never did any such thing.

Adam Schiff: (16:02)
And you’ve also testified that your understanding, it became your clear understanding that the military assistance was also being withheld pending Zelensky announcing these investigations, correct?
Gordon Sondland: (16:14)
That was my presumption, my personal presumption based on the facts at the time, nothing was moving.
 
EJ0kwL3XYAU9vwQ



Trump defenders are really bad at this. Is it because you don't know the facts or just don't care what they are?

They don't care. They refuse to listen to the facts. To them all those career diplomats are lying. They are all "Never Trumpers"

Sean and the boys are the only ones who know the truth.
 
Trump Cherry-Picks Sondland Testimony - FactCheck.org

“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.”

Here we are again!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2019/11/20 › other-knife-gord...
21 hours ago - U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland said .... to do the right thing, to do what he ran on” — that is, address corruption.
Another source that says the same thing, only better. It was about corruption, not Biden. Sondland is an ass.

Impeachment hearings: Sondland’s most quietly damning testimony - Vox

President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations.
Here we go again PRESUMING! Presuming he merely wanted an announcement, which didn't happen. If so, when? But of course this is irrelevant anyway, since you can't impeach on this.
 
Last edited:


Other than my own presumption......

:lamo


Well, when you only focus on 30 seconds of the testimony, you tend to make mistakes like you did......

Why aren't you focusing on the 30 seconds of testimony where he says he presumed it was QPQ, or the 30 seconds that says he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, and the reply was nothing.... ?


I watched the first 3 minutes of your video and it 100% confirmed the graphics I posted.

Was it your intent to prove those statements right? Or do you have some other reason to have posted that video where the questioning Congressman is deliberately trying to confuse what Sondland said (White House visit) and what he didn't say (release of monetary aid)?
Blatant lying is literally all Trump defenders have left.
You post a 5 minute video where the first three minutes completely confirm what I posted, but sure, I'm the exhausting one.

Okay, so I went ahead and watched the rest of the video and I can now 100% confirm you are posting a lie and that your video confirms what Sondland said and what I said. As I said in my last post, the Congressman was dishonestly confusing what Sondland testified (White House visit) with what he didn't testify (release of financial aid). Sondland in his opening statement stated this:



Sondland openly admitted from the beginning he was never told why the aid was withheld and, in absence of any other explanation, he assumed why it was being withheld. But that is NOT what the graphics I posted dealt with. What I posted dealt with the solicitation of a bribe in a White House visit. You literally posted a video of a lie and are using that lie to make a dishonest argument. Or, in the alternative, you lack the necessary mental acuity to understand the difference between a White House visit and release of financial aid.



Again, Trump defenders are REALLY bad at this.
 
EJ0kwL3XYAU9vwQ



Trump defenders are really bad at this. Is it because you don't know the facts or just don't care what they are?
:lamo

Its comical watching you repeat the same **** only to have the actual facts placed right in your face by YOUR WITNESSES MOUTH and you say Trump supporters are bad at this.

:lamo


You can run that pile of **** all you want...its never going to be anything more than a pile of ****.
 
Again, Trump defenders are REALLY bad at this.

I guess if you mean bad as in taking all the testimony in and not hyperfocusing on a 30 second sound bite...


Tell me again, what this means,

"I asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, and he responded, nothing, I want nothing, no quid pro quo, I want Zelensky to do the right thing..."

So...if words matter, and we have to take Trump at his words....what do those words above mean?
 
They don't care. They refuse to listen to the facts. To them all those career diplomats are lying. They are all "Never Trumpers"

Sean and the boys are the only ones who know the truth.

Nope, I absolutely believe all those career diplomats are telling the truth....no doubt about it....

Here's your problem, their truth is their opinion....their belief....not evidence.

Case in point,

You are arrested because three people believed they saw you exiting a house that was just burglarized, they can't 100% ID you, but they are pretty sure they knew what happened, you willing to risk jail time because 3 people are pretty sure they think they knew what happened?
 
First off, if you are going to quote the transcript, quote the entire thing, Trump ended that off by saying....whatever you can do, think about that....he didn't demand a certain anything...he literally said, whatever you can do, what if the only thing they could do was......NOTHING ? Imagine that......we want you to do us a favor.....look into this...but whatever you can do is fine....

:lamo

Ukraine is asking us for military aid and we tell them "whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible" about Crowdstrike and about Bidens and in the meantime we hold up their aid...

Grasping at straws much?

Helluva smoking gun you got there...

Yep, all normal people do see it for what it really is.

As far as Sondland, he literally said that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET DIRECTED HIM TO ASK FOR ANYTHING FROM UKRAINE....or did you miss that part?

Nope did not miss that part. He testified that noone directly told him, just like you are saying Trump never directly told Zelenskyy that they will never get aid without announcing the investigations, but EVERYONE understood it and EVERYONE knew about it and EVERYONE was in the loop. Or did you miss that part?

Further, Sondland testified Trump directly told him that he and others HAD TO do what Giuliani said (despite noone wanting to work with Giuliani), and Giuliani directly told him that President wants the investigations as the most important thing. Or did you miss that part?
 
Last edited:
I guess if you mean bad as in taking all the testimony in and not hyperfocusing on a 30 second sound bite...


Tell me again, what this means,

"I asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, and he responded, nothing, I want nothing, no quid pro quo, I want Zelensky to do the right thing..."
:lamo:lamo:lamo


Wait, wait, wait, wait....wait.

Just so I understand your argument correctly...you're saying that, after a crime has been discovered, the person accused of the crime, who is on record regularly not telling the truth, claims they didn't do it and that's all you need to hear?

:lamo


Somehow I suspect that position is only deployed in certain situations when needed.
 
Did anyone else see the Sharpie notes that our lying President had in his hand yesterday while he was trying to sputter his new talking points? I'd say I'm embarrassed for him, since it's now obvious he knows he's toast, but nobody deserves the panic and humiliation he is now experiencing more than Trump.

Trump'''s written quid pro quo memo has become a meme - Business Insider

I mentioned that yesterday because no one else was commenting on it. This is more bizarre than words can express.
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo


Wait, wait, wait, wait....wait.

Just so I understand your argument correctly...you're saying that, after a crime has been discovered, the person accused of the crime, who is on record regularly not telling the truth, claims they didn't do it and that's all you need to hear?

:lamo


Somehow I suspect that position is only deployed in certain situations when needed.

Except, a crime hasn't been discovered, there isn't one shred of evidence of there being one....there's a helluva lot of guesswork and supposing.....but...I take it you are willing to go to jail on guesswork and supposing?
 
Trump Cherry-Picks Sondland Testimony - FactCheck.org



Here we are again!!!


Another source that says the same thing, only better. It was about corruption, not Biden. Sondland is an ass.

Impeachment hearings: Sondland’s most quietly damning testimony - Vox


Here we go again PRESUMING! Presuming he merely wanted an announcement, which didn't happen. If so, when? But of course this is irrelevant anyway, since you can't impeach on this.

The president can be impeached for trimming his fingernails too short. Why do you even post here?
 
Except, a crime hasn't been discovered
Witness after witness after witness have said what happened was improper. Numerous witnesses have now (and are even now saying) Trump only withheld aid and offered a White House visit for his personal benefit.

You are just deluding yourself.

there isn't one shred of evidence of there being one
Why was the aid withheld until the day Congress announced investigations?
 
Back
Top Bottom