Why isn't Sondland being arrested?

[joko104]

Sondland confessed under oath that HE tried to a a quid pro quo HIMSELF with the President of Ukraine. In his testimony, NO ONE - most notably the President - authorized or told him to do so. He did that on his own. He said that "later he came to believe" (opinion) he needed to do this so Ukraine gets the aid.

So this was SONDLAND'S criminal activity acting on his own, trying to make himself the point man ON HIS OWN DECISION. HE decided to be a criminal, maybe figuring he'd be a hero within the administration and get a promotion.

Once again, another witness has testified under oath that Trump did NOT say any "quid pro quo" or bribery. However, Sondland just confessed that he tried to so so himself personally ON HIS OWN DECISION based upon his "belief," not his being told by anyone do to so.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”
Sondland told members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that he “later came to believe” that the security assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations.
'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO

Arrest Sondland. Lock him up in GITMO. He committed a crime. He just confessed under sworn oath to doing so. He tried to make himself president in secret - unauthorized - communications with the leader of another country. SONDLAND tried to bribe the President of Ukraine for HIS benefit.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Did you mean to post this in https://www.debatepolitics.com/on-the-lighter-side/

?

 

[cabse5]

Sondland confessed under oath that HE tried to a a quid pro quo HIMSELF with the President of Ukraine. In his testimony, NO ONE - most notably the President - authorized or told him to do so. He did that on his own. He said that "later he came to believe" (opinion) he needed to do this so Ukraine gets the aid.

So this was SONDLAND'S criminal activity acting on his own, trying to make himself the point man ON HIS OWN DECISION. HE decided to be a criminal, maybe figuring he'd be a hero within the administration and get a promotion.

Once again, another witness has testified under oath that Trump did NOT say any "quid pro quo" or bribery. However, Sondland just confessed that he tried to so so himself personally ON HIS OWN DECISION based upon his "belief," not his being told by anyone do to so.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”
Sondland told members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that he “later came to believe” that the security assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations.
'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO

Arrest Sondland. Lock him up in GITMO. He committed a crime. He just confessed under sworn oath to doing so. He tried to make himself president in secret - unauthorized - communications with the leader of another country. SONDLAND tried to bribe the President of Ukraine for HIS benefit.

Dems will confuse negotiation with bribery to get Trump. Dems will confuse Sondland's quid pro quo with Trump's supposed quid pro quo to get Trump. Why do you suppose any dem will even communicate to you in this thread when it doesn't satisfy any of their talking points?...When dems don't accept reasonable doubt for Trump?...When dems think this impeachment proceedings investigation is another special counsel investigation al la Mueller where Trump has to prove his innocence?

 

[Digger]

Yeah. It was all Sondland. He held up the aid and denied a White House visit all on his own. Trump is just such an incompetent fool that he let it happen without knowing about it. Is that the line you're going with now?

 

[MrWonka]

You emboldened the wrong part of Sondland's quote. Let me fix it for you...

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.”
...

he “later came to believe” that the security assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations.

You see Sondland wasn't demanding that Ukraine do HIM a favor. He was demanding they do something that he knew Trump wanted. He was told by the administration to do that. At the time he didn't realize it was a personal favor. He found that out later. That's why nothing he himself did was illegal. He didn't do it for himself, and he wasn't aware of the leverage being used by Trump. He's just the messenger.

It would be like if you ordered Uber Eats to go get you a taco from Taco Bell. The Uber Driver goes to taco bell and tells them you want the taco, but doesn't really know whether you paid for the Taco legally or if you threatened to shoot the Taco Bell employees wife if he didn't hand over a taco. The Uber Eats guy did nothing wrong either way.

 

[Grand Mal]

Sondland confessed under oath that HE tried to a a quid pro quo HIMSELF with the President of Ukraine. In his testimony, NO ONE - most notably the President - authorized or told him to do so. He did that on his own. He said that "later he came to believe" (opinion) he needed to do this so Ukraine gets the aid.

So this was SONDLAND'S criminal activity acting on his own, trying to make himself the point man ON HIS OWN DECISION. HE decided to be a criminal, maybe figuring he'd be a hero within the administration and get a promotion.

Once again, another witness has testified under oath that Trump did NOT say any "quid pro quo" or bribery. However, Sondland just confessed that he tried to so so himself personally ON HIS OWN DECISION based upon his "belief," not his being told by anyone do to so.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”
Sondland told members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that he “later came to believe” that the security assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations.
'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO

Arrest Sondland. Lock him up in GITMO. He committed a crime. He just confessed under sworn oath to doing so. He tried to make himself president in secret - unauthorized - communications with the leader of another country. SONDLAND tried to bribe the President of Ukraine for HIS benefit.

Your chin is wet.

 

[MrWonka]

Dems will confuse negotiation with bribery to get Trump. Dems will confuse Sondland's quid pro quo with Trump's

Ummmm...No. Sondland can't be guilty of a quid pro quo. The favor wasn't for himself, and he had no idea that there was any leverage when he asked for a favor to Trump. The only people who benefited from the favor and knew about the leverage was Trump and his high ranking officials. They committed the quid pro quo. Sonland was just the messenger who didn't even realize the full gravity of the message he was delivering.

 

[Moderate Right]

Ummmm...No. Sondland can't be guilty of a quid pro quo. The favor wasn't for himself, and he had no idea that there was any leverage when he asked for a favor to Trump. The only people who benefited from the favor and knew about the leverage was Trump and his high ranking officials. They committed the quid pro quo. Sonland was just the messenger who didn't even realize the full gravity of the message he was delivering.

So you're saying that if you try to extort someone for the benefit of someone else, even though that someone else doesn't know that you are trying to extort someone, then you are not guilty of anything?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Newsflash: Quid pro quo is not a crime. Withholding foreign aid that has been authorized by Congress in order to get a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political rival is abuse of power. That's the crime.

Every time you go to lunch in a restaurant, you exercise quid (something) pro quo (something else): a few bucks for being fed lunch.

Repeating the phrase is a familiar ploy. Trump used it in repeating "no collusion" until we were sick of hearing it. Collusion is not a crime, either. Not addressing an attack on our democratic election system by a hostile foreign power may not actually be a crime, either, but it certainly isn't what one would expect from the leader of a democracy.

 

[roughdraft274]

Sondland confessed under oath that HE tried to a a quid pro quo HIMSELF with the President of Ukraine. In his testimony, NO ONE - most notably the President - authorized or told him to do so. He did that on his own. He said that "later he came to believe" (opinion) he needed to do this so Ukraine gets the aid.

So this was SONDLAND'S criminal activity acting on his own, trying to make himself the point man ON HIS OWN DECISION. HE decided to be a criminal, maybe figuring he'd be a hero within the administration and get a promotion.

Once again, another witness has testified under oath that Trump did NOT say any "quid pro quo" or bribery. However, Sondland just confessed that he tried to so so himself personally ON HIS OWN DECISION based upon his "belief," not his being told by anyone do to so.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”
Sondland told members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that he “later came to believe” that the security assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations.
'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO

Arrest Sondland. Lock him up in GITMO. He committed a crime. He just confessed under sworn oath to doing so. He tried to make himself president in secret - unauthorized - communications with the leader of another country. SONDLAND tried to bribe the President of Ukraine for HIS benefit.

I think we all know very well that Trump was holding aid and a visit to try to get the public announcement of investigations.

If you pick up a prostitute off the street and hand her money "for her time" and then yall have sex, you're still going to get charged with a crime and the defense "Well, I never actually said the money was for sex!" doesn't cut it.

 

[humbolt]

No, what Sondland said was, "When I realized that congressional democrats were making a big deal of this I revised my testimony and came to believe that I thought I was doing what the president wanted, even though he never told me to do it."

If Schiff can do mind reading, so can I. The only difference is that mine has some basis in fact.

 

[Slavister]

From his opening statement:

I was acting in good faith. As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so.
...
Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into corruption issues. Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two topics of importance to the President.

 

[MrWonka]

So you're saying that if you try to extort someone for the benefit of someone else, even though that someone else doesn't know that you are trying to extort someone, then you are not guilty of anything?

False. Sondland very clearly stated that he did in fact report what he had said to senior Trump officials, and it was at their request that he make the demands in the first place. What Sondland didn't know is that Trump was using leverage to guarantee the request would be granted. He found that out later which is when he realized that Trump had used him to pass the message for the QPQ.

Trump and senior officials knew the whole time. Mulvaney even admitted it in front of the White House press corp.

 

[joko104]

Sondland has now testified that:
1. He has no knowledge of any bribery, extortion or quid pro quo by Trump or anyone else - literally that NO ONE ON EARTH told him anything about bribery, extortion or withholding funds to Ukraine.

2. That his statement was entirely upon his personal "presumption."

3. He did not make any attempt to confirm his presumption, and instead acted upon it himself on his own doing.

This is what his testimony finally came down to:

A middle level person in management "presumes" the CEO wants to engage in criminal fraud, extortion and blackmail - though no one told him that. He just presumed it.

To try to get to the top by gaining favor with the CEO, he unilaterally does the crime himself - or at least tries to - and fails. In a panic, to a grand jury he tries to put it on his CEO - but finally admits this was entirely his decision, entirely his action, and all solely on his "presumptions." He did the crime. The boss didn't - nor had he ever even spoken to the CEO - nor had anyone else told him to do so.

So, who is guilty? The boss who did absolutely nothing? Or the employee trying to climb the ladder by doing a crime he "presumes" the CEO wanted to do - but didn't nor ever mentioned?

Answer: The person who committed the crime. If you murder someone because you "presume" I want the person murdered, who is guilty is you, not I. In fact, even if I wanted the person killed, but didn't do anything about it, only you still are guilty of the crime.

While CNN and other networks are openly totally lying now at unprecedented levels - and most low brain cult zealot progressives will chant anything they are told with total indifference to the truth - Sondland just killed the Democrat's case. We know who the ONLY guilty person - if any of this a crime - is. Sondland just confessed it was only him on false presumptions he made. He tried to run ahead of everyone and make this all about him - and now it really is all about him and HIS misconduct/crime.

I wonder how many more people's careers bug-eyed Schiff is going to destroy?

 

[ataraxia]

Sondland has now testified that:
1. He has no knowledge of any bribery, extortion or quid pro quo by Trump or anyone else - literally that NO ONE ON EARTH told him anything about bribery, extortion or withholding funds to Ukraine.

2. That his statement was entirely upon his personal "presumption."

3. He did not make any attempt to confirm his presumption, and instead acted upon it himself on his own doing.

This is what his testimony finally came down to:

A middle level person in management "presumes" the CEO wants to engage in criminal fraud, extortion and blackmail - though no one told him that. He just presumed it.

To try to get to the top by gaining favor with the CEO, he unilaterally does the crime himself - or at least tries to - and fails. In a panic, to a grand jury he tries to put it on his CEO - but finally admits this was entirely his decision, entirely his action, and all solely on his "presumptions." He did the crime. The boss didn't - nor had he ever even spoken to the CEO - nor had anyone else told him to do so.

So, who is guilty? The boss who did absolutely nothing? Or the employee trying to climb the ladder by doing a crime he "presumes" the CEO wanted to do - but didn't nor ever mentioned?

Answer: The person who committed the crime. If you murder someone because you "presume" I want the person murdered, who is guilty is you, not I. In fact, even if I wanted the person killed, but didn't do anything about it, only you still are guilty of the crime.

While CNN and other networks are openly totally lying now at unprecedented levels - and most low brain cult zealot progressives will chant anything they are told with total indifference to the truth - Sondland just killed the Democrat's case. We know who the ONLY guilty person - if any of this a crime - is. Sondland just confessed it was only him on false presumptions he made. He tried to run ahead of everyone and make this all about him - and now it really is all about him and HIS misconduct/crime.

I wonder how many more people's careers bug-eyed Schiff is going to destroy?

There is no question all this was being driven by Trump. Every single witness has corroborated that.

Now if you are telling us that Sondland should be thrown in jail along with Trump, you will hear no arguments from me. They can keep the rest of the gang like Flynn, Manafort, etc... company there. It looks like Pence may very well end up there too, where he can teach them all about his Christian morality. It’ll be quite the party!

Way to drain the swamp!:lamo

 

[Trump]

 

[Simpletruther]

Newsflash: Quid pro quo is not a crime. Withholding foreign aid that has been authorized by Congress in order to get a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political rival is abuse of power. That's the crime.

Every time you go to lunch in a restaurant, you exercise quid (something) pro quo (something else): a few bucks for being fed lunch.

Repeating the phrase is a familiar ploy. Trump used it in repeating "no collusion" until we were sick of hearing it. Collusion is not a crime, either. Not addressing an attack on our democratic election system by a hostile foreign power may not actually be a crime, either, but it certainly isn't what one would expect from the leader of a democracy.

But you have to evidence motive and intent. They were all too willing to say Hilary had no bad intent to do those bad things that the fbi said was negligent.

 

[trixare4kids]

View attachment 67268510

:lol::thumbs:

 

[jnug]

Sondland confessed under oath that HE tried to a a quid pro quo HIMSELF with the President of Ukraine. In his testimony, NO ONE - most notably the President - authorized or told him to do so. He did that on his own. He said that "later he came to believe" (opinion) he needed to do this so Ukraine gets the aid.

So this was SONDLAND'S criminal activity acting on his own, trying to make himself the point man ON HIS OWN DECISION. HE decided to be a criminal, maybe figuring he'd be a hero within the administration and get a promotion.

Once again, another witness has testified under oath that Trump did NOT say any "quid pro quo" or bribery. However, Sondland just confessed that he tried to so so himself personally ON HIS OWN DECISION based upon his "belief," not his being told by anyone do to so.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” Sondland said, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly communicated the quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland said. He specifically cited a July 19 email copied to acting Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “a lot of senior officials.” In that email, he reveals that he “just talked to Zelensky” and secured a commitment for a “fully transparent investigation.”
Sondland told members of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that he “later came to believe” that the security assistance — which had been frozen at Trump’s direction over the summer — would not be delivered to Ukraine unless the country publicly committed to pursuing Trump’s desired investigations.
'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO

Arrest Sondland. Lock him up in GITMO. He committed a crime. He just confessed under sworn oath to doing so. He tried to make himself president in secret - unauthorized - communications with the leader of another country. SONDLAND tried to bribe the President of Ukraine for HIS benefit.

Well I am not surprised at the OP on a number of scores:
1) The Right is always fast to eat its own....so the OP could be from that perspective
2) There are many countries (and I suspect some posters here live in them or come from them) for which there is no due process. Due process for them is "you opened your mouth so we put a gun in it and pulled the trigger". So it could be from that perspective.

Which is it? Interested parties may want to know.

 

[trixare4kids]

Sondland has now testified that:
1. He has no knowledge of any bribery, extortion or quid pro quo by Trump or anyone else - literally that NO ONE ON EARTH told him anything about bribery, extortion or withholding funds to Ukraine.

2. That his statement was entirely upon his personal "presumption."

3. He did not make any attempt to confirm his presumption, and instead acted upon it himself on his own doing.

This is what his testimony finally came down to:

A middle level person in management "presumes" the CEO wants to engage in criminal fraud, extortion and blackmail - though no one told him that. He just presumed it.

To try to get to the top by gaining favor with the CEO, he unilaterally does the crime himself - or at least tries to - and fails. In a panic, to a grand jury he tries to put it on his CEO - but finally admits this was entirely his decision, entirely his action, and all solely on his "presumptions." He did the crime. The boss didn't - nor had he ever even spoken to the CEO - nor had anyone else told him to do so.

So, who is guilty? The boss who did absolutely nothing? Or the employee trying to climb the ladder by doing a crime he "presumes" the CEO wanted to do - but didn't nor ever mentioned?

Answer: The person who committed the crime. If you murder someone because you "presume" I want the person murdered, who is guilty is you, not I. In fact, even if I wanted the person killed, but didn't do anything about it, only you still are guilty of the crime.

While CNN and other networks are openly totally lying now at unprecedented levels - and most low brain cult zealot progressives will chant anything they are told with total indifference to the truth - Sondland just killed the Democrat's case. We know who the ONLY guilty person - if any of this a crime - is. Sondland just confessed it was only him on false presumptions he made. He tried to run ahead of everyone and make this all about him - and now it really is all about him and HIS misconduct/crime.

I wonder how many more people's careers bug-eyed Schiff is going to destroy?

Reading the replies from the anti-Trumps on this forum, one can reasonably conclude that most are getting their fake information from CNN or MSNBC instead of simply writing down the facts taken from Sondland's testimony as you have. There was no smoking gun.

We shouldn't impeach a president because of personal bias or presumption but I doubt this will stop Schiffty and his lackeys.

Good summary.

 

[jnug]

Sondland has now testified that:
1. He has no knowledge of any bribery, extortion or quid pro quo by Trump or anyone else - literally that NO ONE ON EARTH told him anything about bribery, extortion or withholding funds to Ukraine.

2. That his statement was entirely upon his personal "presumption."

3. He did not make any attempt to confirm his presumption, and instead acted upon it himself on his own doing.

This is what his testimony finally came down to:

A middle level person in management "presumes" the CEO wants to engage in criminal fraud, extortion and blackmail - though no one told him that. He just presumed it.

To try to get to the top by gaining favor with the CEO, he unilaterally does the crime himself - or at least tries to - and fails. In a panic, to a grand jury he tries to put it on his CEO - but finally admits this was entirely his decision, entirely his action, and all solely on his "presumptions." He did the crime. The boss didn't - nor had he ever even spoken to the CEO - nor had anyone else told him to do so.

So, who is guilty? The boss who did absolutely nothing? Or the employee trying to climb the ladder by doing a crime he "presumes" the CEO wanted to do - but didn't nor ever mentioned?

Answer: The person who committed the crime. If you murder someone because you "presume" I want the person murdered, who is guilty is you, not I. In fact, even if I wanted the person killed, but didn't do anything about it, only you still are guilty of the crime.

While CNN and other networks are openly totally lying now at unprecedented levels - and most low brain cult zealot progressives will chant anything they are told with total indifference to the truth - Sondland just killed the Democrat's case. We know who the ONLY guilty person - if any of this a crime - is. Sondland just confessed it was only him on false presumptions he made. He tried to run ahead of everyone and make this all about him - and now it really is all about him and HIS misconduct/crime.

I wonder how many more people's careers bug-eyed Schiff is going to destroy?

Your analogy is crap. What else is new. That is the typical mob argument. "The Don is pure as the driven snow." The Dems should handle the rest of this Impeachment as if it is an Impeachment version of a RICO case and then your nonsense analogy falls apart as it should.

 

[ataraxia]

Reading the replies from the anti-Trumps on this forum, one can reasonably conclude that most are getting their fake information from CNN or MSNBC instead of simply writing down the facts taken from Sondland's testimony as you have. There was no smoking gun.

We shouldn't impeach a president because of personal bias or presumption but I doubt this will stop Schiffty and his lackeys.

Good summary.

So you just want to ignore all the other witnesses who say Trump was driving this whole thing?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think we all know very well that Trump was holding aid and a visit to try to get the public announcement of investigations.

If you pick up a prostitute off the street and hand her money "for her time" and then yall have sex, you're still going to get charged with a crime and the defense "Well, I never actually said the money was for sex!" doesn't cut it.

In fact, as a few "clever" people discovered, bringing a camcorder along with you and claiming it was just a porno shoot doesn't stand up in court either, unless you are actively engaged as an actual professional company and the "model" has signed a release form.

No, not me, Bob Gallagher, a deceased friend of Ron Jeremy's.

 

[joko104]

False. Sondland very clearly stated that he did in fact report what he had said to senior Trump officials, and it was at their request that he make the demands in the first place. What Sondland didn't know is that Trump was using leverage to guarantee the request would be granted. He found that out later which is when he realized that Trump had used him to pass the message for the QPQ.

Trump and senior officials knew the whole time. Mulvaney even admitted it in front of the White House press corp.

That is 100% false and exactly opposite from his 2nd act testimony.

 

[trixare4kids]

So you just want to ignore all the other witnesses who say Trump was driving this whole thing?

What don't you understand about what I wrote?