• 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!

Amb. Sondland: Ukraine quid pro quo based on my own personal guess

D

dobieg

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2017
Messages
11,362
Reaction score
6,425
Location
In yo' grill
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
US&THEM said:
The President only gets the best! A successful hotel mogul isn’t smart enough to see when he is being used? This guy gave $1 million dollars to Trump’s campaign, it is obvious he is a bit dumb.
Click to expand...



Uh huh. Anyways back to the story of Sondland saying the Quid Pro Quo was based on his own personal guess.


That'll carry a lot of weight if you're part of the nickel head club.
 
Well, regardless of what he presumed, I think it's pretty obvious he was operating from the assumption there was a quid pro quo. Does anyone seriously think he did so on his own initiative?
 
dobieg said:
Uh huh. Anyways back to the story of Sondland saying the Quid Pro Quo was based on his own personal guess.
That'll carry a lot of weight if you're part of the nickel head club.
Click to expand...

By that stupid argument, all claims about reality are "guesses". Which is absurd.

In reality, we use reason, backed by observations of reality, to make claims about reality we believe to be true.
The certainty we usually consider on a spectrum...least likely, to certainty.

In criminal cases, all that is needed for an indictment is probable cause. That's what impeachment is, an indictment.

When are Republicans going to go back to telling the truth, and using reasonable arguments, to conduct their efforts to defend their political party?
Does it not disturb Republicans to realize they cannot defend their party with reality, that they have to lie and used unreasonable claims to defend it? Do they realize that once we allow this "anything goes" policy, law collapses, and thus government, and or nation?

We are a nation of laws, that require truth and reasoning to persist.
 
dobieg said:
Uh huh. Anyways back to the story of Sondland saying the Quid Pro Quo was based on his own personal guess.


That'll carry a lot of weight if you're part of the nickel head club.
Click to expand...

He stated the meeting was what he knew the quid pro quo was, but now understands Why the military aid was held TOO. What do you think about Rudy G being Trump’s point man? Thats on the up and up.

If this is so easy to prove wrong, why not allow everyone to testify and supply the emails etc?
 
Cordelier said:
Well, regardless of what he presumed, I think it's pretty obvious he was operating from the assumption there was a quid pro quo. Does anyone seriously think he did so on his own initiative?
Click to expand...


Not much of a quid pro quo if there was one.

SCHIFF: He had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

SONDLAND: [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.
Click to expand...

Sondland: Ukraine had to announce investigation, not conduct one | MSNBC
 
dobieg said:
Amb. Sondland: Ukraine quid pro quo based on 'my own personal guess'



And this is the apparent bombshell Schifty Schiff and the rest of the weenie brigade are going to use to bring articles of impeachment.


All over a 'guess'.


*rolling eyes*
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are making the only argument you can make. But it is a poor substitute for a real argument. At the end of these hearings there will be a through-line that knits all of this testimony together and all your efforts to pull at individual threads and make an argument out of pulling at individual threads will tumble before that though-line.
 
When Jordan cross examined him today Sondland ended up looking like a fool, and had no reply!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Logical1 said:
When Jordan cross examined him today Sondland ended up looking like a fool, and had no reply!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

When Jordan gives a witness a chance to make a reply wake me up. He screams speeches and gives up the mic at the end of them.
 
How dare someone put two and two together! Trump is innocent unless he TELLS you he's guilty.

:roll:

And in other threads they are trying to pretend the courtroom rule against hearsay applies to this purely political process....

No end to the dishonesty. It's particularly stupid here because Sondland also laid out everything he based his conclusion on. Are supposed to accept that if Sondland states the bases of a conclusion he drew as well as the conclusion, the fact that he also mentioned the conclusion prohibits a fact-finder from reaching the same conclusion based on those bases?

And where was this in-depth fake legal analysis during the 7+ hearings that were supposed to be about how Benghazi unfolded but were actually just about smearing her with email server slopiness (extra credit: Trump admin is way more sloppy w/ security and they don't care)?
 
Logical1 said:
When Jordan cross examined him today Sondland ended up looking like a fool, and had no reply!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

How desperate have you guys become? You’re bragging about a GOP Congressman ripping into a Republican Ambassador nominated by Trump. It would be funny if it wasn’t so embarrassing too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom