• 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 throws Trump and Guliani under the bus first!

Good god man, DIG DEEP for some remaining shred of integrity. I'll use your source.

Tom Steyer led the Democrats this quarter, raising $49.6 million total, of which 4.1 percent was raised from individual donors and 95.9 percent came from his own wallet. That total is $21.6 million more than Bernie Sanders, who came in second with $28.0 million.

$49.6 million plus $28 million IS NOT greater than $125 million.
Alright, don't kick me too hard when I'm down. I will concede I misread the graph. I assumed it represented Q3 numbers, not realizing those were annual numbers and I had to manually scroll over it for Q3. But again, these numbers do not include the DNC either.

However, if we scroll further down the article, we see the YTD funds for Trump is 97.8M, whereas the YTD funding for the aggregate Dem field is 435M. Now I will admit this last diagram does not aggregate the candidates with their national party, and the reference is for the YTD. But we're looking at over a 440% difference between Trump and the Dem candidates, here.

Now where this really gets dicey, is with outside money. In the same section I just quoted, the article claims the Dem fund outside fundraising site, ActBlue, raised 3B! It does not specify a corresponding GOP outside source, but it's clear the outside sources, at least from what we see with the Dems, dwarf's the candidates' funding.

But since we're playing this game, I think we need to examine the specific monies received by the parties & candidates. Are they large donations from few? Or small donations from many? There's a difference. The article touches on that aspect too, if we want to get into it.
 
No the DNC didn't. The official position of the United States government is that Russia was responsible for meddling in our elections and hacking the DNC server.

You using some weird logic that precludes the possibility of two countries attempting to meddle in our election?
 
Alright, don't kick me too hard when I'm down. I will concede I misread the graph. I assumed it represented Q3 numbers, ...

It does represent Q3#s. Might have to try and dig a little deeper.
 
On the one hand he got his swampy position as a result of giving $1M to Trump's campaign. Suck on that Hunter Biden.

On the other hand, his opening statement looks fairly credible and open.
I suppose when even a bought and paid for Trump supporters agrees its wrong, something may give:



Carefully worded, but there it is. Trump, and Rudy, and he was under the impression Rudy worked for Trump...which is the case. He's testifying to Congress, little reason not to believe he's credible and I'm sure they grilled him back and forth.

He also had good things to say about all the diplomats he worked with. The same Diplomats right wing media is now attacking and trying to "discredit" with nonsense and lies. What a sad time for America.



yeah, that would be wrong. thank goodness that so far there is absolutely no evidence Trump did that.
 
No he did not, he reported that is what trump said to him, and we all know from experience that if trump is speaking there is at least an 80% chance trump is lying.

Everyone that looks at this without cultist goggles on can clearly see what trump was doing and knows it was wrong...

an 80% chance Trump is lying is 100% BS as a fact to condemn him.

I am not wanting to live in a world where "well your honor , there was, by my estimated intuition, an 80% chance he was speeding..."

"good enough, CONVICTED!"
 
Last edited:
How did Sondland telling the "House impeachment investigators in an opening statement on Thursday that Trump indicated he was “skeptical” that Ukraine was serious about reform"? Seems to me that he reinforced Trump's concerns about Ukraine being serious about confronting corruption. He was disappointed that Trump allowed Giuliani to interfere in Ukraine but unlike you, I don't see where Sondland threw President Trump under the bus.

You did notice that the only "corruption" trump was interested in was that which might benefit him personally, right? He didn't mention the diamond prosecutors or any of the other shady **** that was going on over there.

Just the stuff that might vindicate Putin or damage biden.
 
You using some weird logic that precludes the possibility of two countries attempting to meddle in our election?

My scepticism over the veracity of pizzagate isn't scepticism over the existence of human trafficking in general. Do you have evidence Ukraine meddled in our election? So far all claims I've heard of have been labeled conspiracy theories by our intelligence communities, no more credible than pizzagate was.
 
I am skeptical, will Trump fit under a bus after all that KFC ?
 
Well ... yeah.
Cuz that's where the Ukraine corruption was.
The transcript showed that.
Done and done.

Sondland also confirmed that ...

"Ukraine Public Statement
First, I knew that a public embrace of anti-corruption reforms by Ukraine was one of the
pre-conditions for securing a White House meeting with President Zelensky. My view was, and
has always been, that such Western reforms are consistent with U.S. support for rule of law in
Ukraine going back decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Nothing
about that request raised any red flags for me, Ambassador Volker, or Ambassador Taylor."

"Former Vice President Biden/Hunter Biden
Third, given many inaccurate press reports, let me be clear about the following: I do not
recall that Mr. Giuliani discussed Former Vice President Biden or his son Hunter Biden with me.
Like many of you, I read the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call for the first time when it was
released publicly by the White House on September 25, 2019.
Although Mr. Giuliani did mention the name “Burisma” in August 2019, I understood
that Burisma was one of many examples of Ukrainian companies run by oligarchs
and lacking
the type of corporate governance structures found in Western companies. I did not know until
more recent press reports that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma."


"Withholding Security Assistance
Sixth, to the best of my recollection, I do not recall any discussions with the White House
on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with the President’s
2020 re-election campaign. I recall that, in late July 2019, Ambassadors Volker and Taylor and I
exchanged emails in which we all agreed that President Zelensky should have no involvement in
2020 U.S. Presidential election politics.
At the same time, we all believed strongly that U.S.
Security Assistance should not be withheld."

"Taking the issue seriously, and given the many versions of speculation that had been
circulating about the security aid, I called President Trump directly. I asked the President:
“What do you want from Ukraine?” The President responded, “Nothing. There is no quid pro
quo.” The President repeated: “no quid pro quo” multiple times. This was a very short call.
And I recall the President was in a bad mood."

...
"Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the
purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong. Withholding foreign aid in
order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would
not ever participate in such undertakings. In my opinion, security aid to Ukraine was in our vital
national interest and should not have been delayed for any reason."

Are you seriously on board with the DNC server being physically in the Ukraine, where Crowdstrike is based and its rich Ukrainian owner lives, as trump believes?

You do know that the physical servers were never in the Ukraine. That crowdstrike is an American firm in California and is owned by Americans, right? Because those are the simple, verifiable facts of the matter.
 
How would you know that? Or rather, how can you assume that when the topic was corruption?

Because the only "corruption" trump mentioned, and the parts he wanted specifically spelled out by zelenaki, was Crowdstrike and the DNC server and the bidens. None of the internal stuff that everybody else involved was concerned about.
 
I suspect you just made that up but feel free to show us the stratospherically lower disapproval rate for Obama and I suspect we can have a good laugh about your 2 or 3% stratosphere.
Despite my error in reading the graph in the other post, you might consider being a bit less disingenuous.

According to Gallop, Obama was at 43% disapproval the day before the 2012 election. According to 538 aggregate polling, Trump stands at 54% today. Call it what you want, trying to cloud the numbers with arcane arguments over rhetoric, but this is a huge difference. Even worse for Trump, his disapprovals are trending up since the impeachment process began.

(Gallop) Presidential Approval

(538) How unpopular is Donald Trump?
 
Yeah, like Trump said it had nothing to do with politics :roll:

I don't get people like you. It's not like Trump is paying you. It would be nice to be able to discuss things without people making and defending absurd claims.

At this point, we all know that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden for political purposes and was using the aid as leverage.

Ex-Pompeo Adviser: I Had to Quit After Trump’s Ukraine Call



Why can't we have honest discussions? You support Trump because you agree with his policies. His actions are wrong but you don't think it's wrong enough for him to be removed from office. That would be an honest position.

Such a tack worked for Clinton.

Only problem is it required an admission of guilt and an apology.

Do you see trump apologizing for anything, ever?
 
Because of Ukraine's very recent corruption that involved the USA before their new President was elected.

Don't you remember from the transcript it was Zelensky who brought it up ...

"Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that."

and later he called attention to his experience with US ambassador Yovanovitch ...

"On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine <sic> as far I as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

So ... clearly the topic was corruption.

Sounds like desperate ass kissing to me.

Which I'm sure someone told him was the way to trumps heart.
 
The new Ukraine President knew corruption is an issue. He brought it up. Corruption was the issue they were talking about. Period. I quoted from the transcript.
If what you want to believe wasn't in the words spoken then it's you who can't be helped.
You appear to be a very stubborn fellow in the face of the facts.

Sounded to me like zelenski was answering previously provided queries. Like you would do if you needed something from someone and you had heard they had concerns. (And loves being fluffed, hence the "swamp" reference.)
 
Well, we have Biden on tape bragging about having the Ukranian Prosecutor fired, we have that Ukranian prosecutor who says he was investigating Burisma and says he was told he was fired because he wouldnt drop the Burisma investigation. I suspect there are some Ukranian emails confirming all of this. But of course, Biden will still be a Democrat so all of this is irrelevant to them.


Wow where did you get that bull**** from?!?

There was no investigation going on at the time Biden carried out the us policy to remove the corrupt AG.

Cultists have just lost any credibility at all...
 
A Ukranian criminal investigation simply is not a thing "of value" in the context of campaign finance law. This isnt a crime. The DNC before the 2016 election solicited AND received information on Trump and Manafort from Ukraine. It wasnt a campaign contribution then and it isnt one now just because its a Republican this time.


Damn good thing your not trumps lawyer, because you could not possibly be more wrong.

Just his request for information on Biden is is illegal and by far a more impeachable offense than a blowjob...
 
an 80% chance Trump is lying is 100% BS as a fact to condemn him.

I am not wanting to live in a world where "well your honor , there was, by my estimated intuition, an 80% chance he was speeding..."

"good enough, CONVICTED!"

Well we don't have to live in that world, we have Trumps record...
 
My scepticism over the veracity of pizzagate isn't scepticism over the existence of human trafficking in general. Do you have evidence Ukraine meddled in our election? So far all claims I've heard of have been labeled conspiracy theories by our intelligence communities, no more credible than pizzagate was.

….....a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.
Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf? - CBS News

Lets see what you have from the intelligence agencies denying this.
 
Damn good thing your not trumps lawyer, because you could not possibly be more wrong.

Just his request for information on Biden is is illegal and by far a more impeachable offense than a blowjob...

Nonsense. Lets see ANY example in all the history of campaign finance law where information was considered a campaign contribution under campaign finance law.
 
Wow where did you get that bull**** from?!?

There was no investigation going on at the time Biden carried out the us policy to remove the corrupt AG.

From the Prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and then fired after Biden insisted.
 
Now you're playing games. Get back to me when you can argue in substantive terms.

That's funny coming from the master of BS. You can stop digging. None to be found.
 
From the Prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and then fired after Biden insisted.

You mean the prosecutor that everyone in the free world said was corrupt and whose removal was demanded by the EU, the US, the IMF, and a handful of Republican Senators?
 
Back
Top Bottom