Voelker has changed his testimony, says there was money for investigation of Bidens

[JANFU]

If somebody is too willfully ignorant to watch testimony or read transcripts, that's their problem. Nobody has any duty to do your work for you. If you want to lie about things, you have to educate yourself as to the nature of the things you intend to lie about.

Besides, I know how it goes with you (and the rest): you just want me to waste time digging up something you could easily find so that you can possibly Annoy-A-Librul by saying something like.....





Uhuh.

And exactly how many people on DP are there to whom it matters that you would say such a thing? The software that puts up your post when you hit "submit reply" doesn't count.

:lol:




But you tried. Here's a ruble for the effort....

/tosses ruble in nearby sewer drain








Lemme guess: not only is that only 1 minute 44 seconds long (the tiniest fraction of his total testimony), it's from the wrong hearing? Not that the latter thing matters. Mycroft posting a 1:44 video = Mycroft borrowing someone else's cherrypicking.

Ratlicffe during questions to Morrison -makes allegation WB is Vindman

Uses phrase- WB Vindman ...........

Walks it back, but utter BS on his part.

They have been attacking Vindman all day

 

[Napoleon]

And most of the other witnesses are a complete disaster for Democrats. One by one they all testify that there was no bribery. Bribery is just in Democrat's heads.

Are we watching/reading the same testimony? And let’s not forget that the wider scandal has the rank and file of the GOP ensnared in bribery as well. For example, Rep. Pete Sessions who accepted a bribe of illegal campaign contributions sourced from a foreign national in exchange for writing a letter to Mike Pompeo to pressure him to fire Ambassador Yavonovitch.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I'm thinking the House Dems are wishing they didn't invite these two to the big show, either.

In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden. I saw them as very different — the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.

 

[independentusa]

Understandable that you eat the food the left throws at you. Can any witnesses actually be believed who change their testimony?

Well, Sondland started out defending Trump and all of you Trump defenders jumped on his bandwagon as he could be trusted to tell the truth. Then Sondland heard testimony from several sources that contradicted his testimony and fearing being charged with perjury, he changed his testimony to trump was guilty of Quid pro quo and now you jump off his bandwagon and say he can not be trusted. It is always interesting that if someone says something bad about your Trump, they can not be trusted, but if they say something good they can be. Do you ever wonder about that thought process and where it leads?

 

[Mr Person]

Ratlicffe during questions to Morrison -makes allegation WB is Vindman

Uses phrase- WB Vindman ...........

Walks it back, but utter BS on his part.

They have been attacking Vindman all day

Bolded: the moment the people who used to attack the left for not outright worshipping the military announce a purple heart veteran is yet another conspirator against them - even though they never ever had a complaint against that person until the moment he said something that reflects negatively on Trump - that's the moment I would ignore the attack, had I not already reached a firm but not absolutely solid conclusion.

Anyone, any law, any regulation, any policy......anything that turns up negative things about Trump.....any of those immediately becomes suspect. Even if I didn't know everything I know, that would be enough.

Innocent people don't need supporters to turn on things they never turned on before the moment those things lead to bad information about the innocent people.






Man, I'm ****ing tired. So ****ing tired. Fighting gaslighting is a 24/7 job. And if like me you're the type who would never bow, you might still want to ignore it. Still not fight back. Do that, though, and one message - the ****ing LIE - that message prevails.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, Sondland started out defending Trump and all of you Trump defenders jumped on his bandwagon as he could be trusted to tell the truth. Then Sondland heard testimony from several sources that contradicted his testimony and fearing being charged with perjury, he changed his testimony to trump was guilty of Quid pro quo and now you jump off his bandwagon and say he can not be trusted. It is always interesting that if someone says something bad about your Trump, they can not be trusted, but if they say something good they can be. Do you ever wonder about that thought process and where it leads?

Sondland has never said that Trump is "guilty of Quid pro quo".

If you believe he did, please provide a quote of him saying that.

 

[Cougarbear]

I am no longer calling this a quid pro quo because apparently trump and his followers may not understand what that means. I will call it what it really is, bribery, so Trump and all of his followers can understand. And now Voelker like Sondland befor him is changing his testimony and now saying that it was a military money for the investigation of the Biden's. I wonder how Sondland's testimony will now change as each person who testifies brings Voelker and Sondland closer to perjury charges if they continue to lie to protect Trump.

It wasn't for an investigation into the Biden's. Read the transcript of the phone call. It was a look into corruption prior to the 2016 election including energy companies. The only one mentioned was Burisma. It's the liberals extrapolating that out to more than what it was. And, no, there is no bribery. The witnesses today stated as all the other ones did, no bribery. So, why do the Trump haters keep spinning this as though there was bribery? There was no bribery but it is the duty of the President to find out if there was corruption and interference in the 2016 election. I thought you Demoncrats and liberals were all for finding out about corruption in the election? Apparently not. And, no one is closer to perjury either. This is not a court or a grand jury. What we do know is once again, pencil neck Schiff is simply trying to make Trump look bad for the 2020 election. So is Pelosi because they know they can't beat Trump without it. The funny thing is, Trump's poll numbers are up because of all this hoax stuff. A new poll just out also stated that they now believe impeachment is wrong. Keep going Demoncrats!!! You are doing a fine job campaigning for Trump and Republicans for the House and Senate in 2020.

 

[JANFU]

If somebody is too willfully ignorant to watch testimony or read transcripts, that's their problem. Nobody has any duty to do your work for you. If you want to lie about things, you have to educate yourself as to the nature of the things you intend to lie about.

Besides, I know how it goes with you (and the rest): you just want me to waste time digging up something you could easily find so that you can possibly Annoy-A-Librul by saying something like.....





Uhuh.

And exactly how many people on DP are there to whom it matters that you would say such a thing? The software that puts up your post when you hit "submit reply" doesn't count.

:lol:




But you tried. Here's a ruble for the effort....

/tosses ruble in nearby sewer drain








Lemme guess: not only is that only 1 minute 44 seconds long (the tiniest fraction of his total testimony), it's from the wrong hearing? Not that the latter thing matters. Mycroft posting a 1:44 video = Mycroft borrowing someone else's cherrypicking.

No Jacket, wears a tie using Morrison to label Vindman as a WB. Earlier statement from Morrison was others came to him and thought Vindman was a leaker

 

[azgreg]

Gordon Sondland changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - CNNPolitics

 

[Moot]

Sondland has never said that Trump is "guilty of Quid pro quo".

If you believe he did, please provide a quote of him saying that.

Sondland is testifying tomorrow...and I'm sure there will be plenty of quotes for you to dismiss after he does.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I am no longer calling this a quid pro quo because apparently trump and his followers may not understand what that means. I will call it what it really is, bribery, so Trump and all of his followers can understand. And now Voelker like Sondland befor him is changing his testimony and now saying that it was a military money for the investigation of the Biden's. I wonder how Sondland's testimony will now change as each person who testifies brings Voelker and Sondland closer to perjury charges if they continue to lie to protect Trump.

You are lying about Volker's testimony. Sure seem the democrat are working hard to convince todays witnesses that they, the democrats are right and that the witnesses should say it the way the democrats want to hear it.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Sounds like Voelker got threatened, or bought. Maybe an under-the-table promise of reward.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Sounds like Voelker got threatened, or bought. Maybe an under-the-table promise of reward.

Democrats are badgering their own witnesses when they don't get "their truth". You know the truth that the democrats are spewing and wanting to get confirmed from witnesses instead of getting to "the truth."

 

[Hamish Howl]

So...you have no quotes.

You are dismissed. (see my sig)

Mycroft is a hoot.

 

[Integrityrespec]

You know things are going badly for the democrats when they have to badger and attack their own witnesses that they called based on their "closed door" testimony. The are like attack dogs because they are not getting the story they want, the truth from the witnesses are not what the want to hear.

 

[joko104]

I am no longer calling this a quid pro quo because apparently trump and his followers may not understand what that means. I will call it what it really is, bribery, so Trump and all of his followers can understand. And now Voelker like Sondland befor him is changing his testimony and now saying that it was a military money for the investigation of the Biden's. I wonder how Sondland's testimony will now change as each person who testifies brings Voelker and Sondland closer to perjury charges if they continue to lie to protect Trump.

I will call the hearings what they are: The new Corporate-Fascist Party - formerly the Democratic Party - is pursuing their second Civil War - for which Democrats killed more Americans than any other war - and hoping Democratic Civil War trying to overthrow the government to protect their foreign slave-labor shops and their second Civil War on behalf of their demanding cheap slave-made products.

The Democratic Party is the worst enemy and the most deadly enemy of the USA by far - and always has been. It is the party of war, death, destruction, racism, slavery and fascism that from day one has sought mass murder, war, and the destruction of the United States as designed in the US Constitution. Most progressive Democrats furiously demand elimination of the Bill Of Rights to be replaced with a federal secret police state run by the richest corporations and people on earth - for which elected government are all just their employees and thugs to terrorize Americans into submission.

 

[Mr Person]

Gordon Sondland changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - CNNPolitics

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said."


Gordon Sondland changes testimony and admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - CNNPolitics

"I only perjured a bit"





I think they should leave him alone until it's all over IF they do anything. Do not scare other people off who might have lied in Trump's favor. Then nail the c-word. Yeah, you knew and I knew that you it was a quid pro quo ("you" being Sondland).

I think he should be prosecuted but given great mercy, if prosecuted. "One day in prison, we recommend." We want people coming forward incentivized, no? Even if it means swallowing a coal or two.

 

[joko104]

You know things are going badly for the democrats when they have to badger and attack their own witnesses that they called based on their "closed door" testimony. The are like attack dogs because they are not getting the story they want, the truth from the witnesses are not what the want to hear.

Despite their ranting that President Trump was obligated to have Obama's staffers continue to run foreign policy on behalf of Putin and our adversaries, every witness so far has testified on Trump's behalf.

So far, every witness Schiff has called has testified they have no knowledge - direct or hearsay - of any quid pro quo by Trump - or sworn they heard Trump and Trump is telling the truth - and that Schiff and the Democratic Party are pathologically lying - those witnesses testifying under oath they heard Trump and swore on their direct personal knowledge there was no quid pro quo.

 

[ecofarm]

Bribery is typically corruptly offering a public official something for their own benefit. Here, these were funds slated for military aid to the Ukraine. It was not money going into Zelensky's own pocket in exchange for opening an investigation into Hunter Biden. This sounds more like extortion.

It was extortion. It was, "the people in your military will suffer increased death and casualty rates until you announce fake news".

It abandoned the mission, our principles, the change we wish to see in the world. For a moment, we were no better than a regime.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You know things are going badly for the democrats when they have to badger and attack their own witnesses ....

LOL!

Morrison and Volker were....wait for it.....GOP witnesses.

 

[Mr Person]

Bribery is typically corruptly offering a public official something for their own benefit. Here, these were funds slated for military aid to the Ukraine. It was not money going into Zelensky's own pocket in exchange for opening an investigation into Hunter Biden. This sounds more like extortion.

It was extortion. It was, "the people in your military will suffer increased death and casualty rates until you announce fake news".

It abandoned the mission, our principles, the change we wish to see in the world. For a moment, we were no better than a regime.

For the benefit of others: Read that, then consider more.

And I need to repeat one point that keeps getting lost: it would not matter even if Trump did not engage in an act that qualifies for every element of a crime in the U.S. code. It's helpful if he did because "he committed a crime" sounds better. But....

The president can be impeached for having a stupid face. It's a political process with a political solution (vote out the assholes in power, if they abused it). I do not say it's OK or advisable to indict a president for any old reason. But the founders - enough of them, at least - did intend "high crimes and misdemeanors" to refer to corrupt acts in the attaining or exercise of office. And contrary to what others insinuate, the rules of evidence governing criminal (or civil) trials do not apply.

Bottom line is...we don't need a name for what he did. We just need what he did and is it bad enough to let him stay on as president when another hard right dude is waiting in the wings (Pence)?



Aside 1: The GOP finds itself in an unsavory place. Do the right thing to reengage the middle, the remaining Trump supporters might punish them severely ("you turned back to the establishment!" etc). Do the wrong thing and you keep those people, but you lose the middle.

Are there not intelligent/knowledgeable posters here who used to be Republican who cannot stand the current crop of GOP turds? Yes, there are, (DiAnna, Tres Borrochos, and so many more).




Aside 2: I don't see that much danger for the GOP in the long run. This years-long cluster**** might hurt them in 2020, even 2022. But people aren't fundamentally changing their views based on the fact that a corrupt piece of **** was voted into office on their ticket. Dems better take advantage while they can (aka don't be Obama)

 

[DiAnna]

In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden. I saw them as very different — the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.

Exactly what Volker said. I watched all 12 hours, and thought all four witnesses, Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams in the morning, Ambassador Volker and Tim Morrison in the afternoon, came across as honest, truthful, non-defensive and non-hostile, and I found them all credible even though each had a differing perception of what the infamous phone call meant, depending on how much other information they had about the "scheme" at the time.

Volker in particular said that in hindsight he should have put together the relationship between Busima, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden earlier, but insisted that Joe Biden had not and would not have ever done anything wrong. Morrison, who was only in his job for a few weeks, barely long enough to find the restroom, saw nothing legally wrong with the phone call (although he's not a lawyer), but also came across as forthright, honest... if confused by a convoluted cast of characters into the midst of which he was thrown... and clearly was trying to relate his own perception of the incident(s) as honestly as possible.

So far, all witnesses have impressed me as professional, experienced and extremely knowledgeable (except for Morrison), forthright and honest with the committee, and none showed any obvious partisan bias for either side during their testimony.

 

[humbolt]

It's pretty much all three. Is that really all you've got? An argument that the Democrats have to correctly identify the exact accusation that will be proved before they investigate that accusation, and if they investigate only to find out that a different but similar accusation is proved, they have to go sit on a tack?

:lamo





And tell me you don't actually believe that the way investigations into corrupt or criminal activity have got to guess the exact charge that will be proved before they complete the investigation. If things worked that way few people would go to jail. It'd be literally as stupid as....

...."Gee, we were investigating whether Bob murdered Joe. But it turned out that Joe attacked Bob with fists and Joe shot him without necessarily having to, so we'd want to charge manslaughter. But we told ourselves we were investigating murder, so, Joe is innocent and it's all a witch hunt. Naughty us police!"






Well, that's a retarded lie. If the founders intended impeachment to only be over things in the federal code, they'd have said so. At the time of the founding "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant corrupt acts in the attaining or exercise of office.

And, see, the founders aren't as stupid as you think they were or as stupid as you think everyone else is. They knew that when they did not give any right of appeal to SCOTUS, for example, to a president convicted on articles of impeachment, the practical effect - the effect on reality as it is - was that a president could be impeached and removed for ANYTHING. For example, if the GOP had 70% in the house and 70% of the senate, they could have successfully removed him on the basis of wearing mom jeans. And he would be removed.

And not being as stupid as you need them and everyone else to be, the founders actually landed on the right note: impeachment is a purely political process, and if voters don't like impeachment, there is a political remedy. Namely, vote out the impeachers.

See? Simple.






Stop these stupid goal-post shifting lies, all of you. You know you're being dishonest so just stop. If you want to say that freezing aid, having admin staff communicate explicitly to Ukraine that Biden/Bursima investigation must be renewed or else not even a meeting, that Trump demanding that very same favor from Zelensky during a call is A-OK, then make that argument.

Make the argument about why it's OK to use official stuff like that to get a personal political favor, one having nothing to do with the country's business. Make it. Don't hide behind these cowardly, stupid, and bitingly dishonest games.





Or destroy Democracy so that you can tell yourself you owned a lib.

:shrug:

It's all I need. I'm sorry if I've resorted to juvenal humor, but given the juvenal nature of this show, I thought it appropriate.

Just because you don't like a president's - any president's -foreign policy, or the manner in which it's conducted, is not grounds for impeachment. You can express your displeasure with such things at the ballot box in about 350 days or so.

When you find something worthy of an impeachment proceeding, let me know. But as long as this little show goes on as it has thus far, don't expect me to not mock it. It's just way too silly to pass up.

 

[Mr Person]

Honestly, at this point I think the GOP would be better off voting to remove him. Then they can say "look, he sounded good but we didn't know about this. Then we stepped up. But then we stood up and canned him! We have morals!"

 

[yankintx]

If somebody is too willfully ignorant to watch testimony or read transcripts, that's their problem. Nobody has any duty to do your work for you. If you want to lie about things, you have to educate yourself as to the nature of the things you intend to lie about.

Besides, I know how it goes with you (and the rest): you just want me to waste time digging up something you could easily find so that you can possibly Annoy-A-Librul by saying something like.....





Uhuh.

And exactly how many people on DP are there to whom it matters that you would say such a thing? The software that puts up your post when you hit "submit reply" doesn't count.

:lol:




But you tried. Here's a ruble for the effort....

/tosses ruble in nearby sewer drain








Lemme guess: not only is that only 1 minute 44 seconds long (the tiniest fraction of his total testimony), it's from the wrong hearing? Not that the latter thing matters. Mycroft posting a 1:44 video = Mycroft borrowing someone else's cherrypicking.

Ouch !!

Smack down of the week !!