• 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!

Why isn't Sondland being arrested?

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?

Aid is held up for numerous reasons. You (and everyone else) needs to prove aid was held up because of any of the 'crimes' Trump has been accused of.
Besides, Trump didn't realize the political minefield this pause in military aid was going to cause him. Too bad Trump's not a politician like the ones who are trying to remove him from office? No?:lamo

EDIT: You try telling Trump not to do something because it doesn't look good. If you could, then you could accuse Trump of being a progressive, of being woke.:lamo
 
Last edited:
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.

What do you call it when an American ambassador presumes to do something of behalf of the president?
 
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.

You're wrong, for example, in that Trump didn't ask Zelensky (Giuliani didn't ask) for dirt on a political rival they asked for dirt on the previous administration of which Biden was Vice-President who just happens to be running for president in 2020.

Currently, there is an investigation into the investigation of the alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russians and the Trump campaign to distort the 2016 election.
Have you ever thought this impeachment process may be impeding progress of that investigation of the investigation?
 
Last edited:
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.

SIAP. Well, all you dems seem to know except Trump who, according to Sondland (and other witnesses in this impeachment proceedings), said, 'I want no quid pro quo. I don't want anything except for (Zelensky) to do the right thing'.:lamo
 
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?

Sondland's career, for one, is finished as ambassador while Trump is in office, IMO.
 
You are making the same mistake Rep Jordan and every GOP Rep on House Intel is making though I guess a poor defense is considered better than no defense at all.

When the actual testimony from witnesses is completed there well be a through-line from beginning to end and all these efforts to pull at individual threads of testimony or opinions about testimony will melt in front of that through-line.

For example, we have witnesses claiming they could not connect Burisma with Biden and therefore missed the political implications of Burisma and the Bidens. However, Fat Donald himself mentions the Bidens in the Memo of TelCon and while two witnesses have testified that the word Burisma was lacking Zalinskis text and the term "the company" inserted leading to Trump's Biden comments in the text. That was never a transcript and now you know why.

Morrison simply googled Burisma and found the link to the Bidens for example. So we are to believe that all of these smart people either did not know that Burisma meant Bidens and/or did not simply do what Morrison did if they did not know?

Then there are the events around Sept 9th and the subsequent release of the funds including the WB complaint being sent to House Intel clearly pointing to pressure from Congress and the WBer complaint being the elements that actually got the funds release no matter how much Rep Jordan blathers otherwise.

Again, at the end of this testimony the final act of House Intel before sending its material on to House Judiciary will be to establish a very clear and easy to read through-line from start to finish and all these little (and I do mean little) efforts to pull that single threads will melt away.

Also, House Intel and DOJ are not done with "Ambassador Sundland". His smug, sorryass is not out of the woods yet either. That said, the single most important outcome from the Sundland testimony is the understanding that Trump his WH and the entire political appointment part of the Administration is massively corrupt. EVERYBODY KNEW as Sundland testified.

First, you need some appreciation of what Burisma is, and who Zlochevsky is. Here's a brief summary from Simon Shuster:

"Burisma was founded in 2002 by oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, who was closely aligned to the now-exiled former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Zlochevsky served as the minister of ecology and natural resources from July 2010 until April 2012 and then as deputy secretary for economic and social security until February 2014 when the notoriously pro-Russian Yanukovych was forced to flee to Moscow.

Soon after, Zlochevsky himself absconded when Ukraine’s prosecutor general put him on the country’s watch list and opened numerous probes into his practices and multitude of businesses, flanked by allegations of money laundering and tax evasion. Moreover, questions have long swirled as to how he granted licenses for the development of mineral deposit extraction during his government post.

“[Zlochevsky] was suspected of violations while providing gas production licenses and permits to his own companies,” Paraschiy explained, emphasizing that even after Biden’s tenure on the board, he “doubted that the image has changed.”

If you're going to set the stage for comment, it's best to start with a factual basis. Clearly, Zlochevsky was the Kremlin's man, and regardless of the Ukrainian prosecutorial personalities involved, Burisma was immersed in corruption allegations. Cyprus, Burisma's home, is a notorius funnel for money laundering. When you're digested that little bit of factual information, perhaps we can proceed to a more meaningful discussion.
 
What negotiation are you referring to?

There was no negotiation going on between the US and the Ukraine.

The American policy was set and widely understood.

But it takes a really deluded apologist to try and represent the activities of an Ambassadonor, Trump’s “personal attorney” and his two Russian elves as policy makers.

All of them were serving Moscow’s interest, even though only two of them were working for the Russians.

And, in this matter, Trump’s agenda was Moscow’s agenda.

What negotiation am I referring to? An example of negotiation would be: If the Ukraine is to get the military aid from the US, they'll have to prove they aren't as corrupt as they were, previously. Another example: If the Ukraine is to get the military aid, other countries will have to substantially contribute to Ukraine.

If Trump's agenda was serving Moscow's agenda, whose agenda was Obama serving since Obama sent very little military aid to The Ukraine in their hour of need when the Crimea was being invaded by Russia? Rhetoric, much?:lamo
 
Last edited:
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.

It is not worth answering your OP as it does not make sense. Sondland was in Ukraine representing the president and not for his own benefit. There is no quid-pro-quo when someone is negotiating for someone else. He was just following orders of his commander-in-chief. It is like saying that a soldier that follows the orders of his superior should be prosecuted for doing so.

It is a ridiculous thread

Thumbsdown2.webp
 
Aid is held up for numerous reasons. You (and everyone else) needs to prove aid was held up because of any of the 'crimes' Trump has been accused of.
Besides, Trump didn't realize the political minefield this pause in military aid was going to cause him. Too bad Trump's not a politician like the ones who are trying to remove him from office? No?:lamo

EDIT: You try telling Trump not to do something because it doesn't look good. If you could, then you could accuse Trump of being a progressive, of being woke.:lamo

Zelenski : "I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

Trump : "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it3. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

Zelenski : "Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation."

...

Trump : "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.4 The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
 
Last edited:
Zelenski : " I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

Trump : "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it3. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

Zelenski : "Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation."

...

Trump : "Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.4 The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
From what I've read of your reply it seems as if Trump is assisting the investigators with the investigation into the investigation of alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russia and the Trump campaign in the 2016 election...And so is Giuliani.
 
Last edited:
SIAP. Well, all you dems seem to know except Trump who, according to Sondland (and other witnesses in this impeachment proceedings), said, 'I want no quid pro quo. I don't want anything except for (Zelensky) to do the right thing'.:lamo

Yea, that doesn't matter. He said he didn't want a quid pro quo after he got busted. Congrats. We should just let everyone free if they are accused of something and they say they didn't do it. He held aid and the meetings for no good reason, he had numerous people communicating that these investigations were of top importance, he asked for them as a favor over the phone, he had his personal lawyer and ukrainian mobsters reaching out to Ukraine to get these investigations and even had US officials answering to his personal lawyer. To deny that all of this was an effort to pressure a foreign country to publicly announce an investigation in to a political rival for personal political gain is just beyond idiotic. That's why most of the people testifying are saying that this was wrong and that this was a quid pro quo.

If I hand a hitman 10k and say that a person is bothering me and he kills that person, I don't get to deny it by saying that I never actually said that he should kill that person. That's just beyond stupid.
 
Yea, that doesn't matter. He said he didn't want a quid pro quo after he got busted. Congrats. We should just let everyone free if they are accused of something and they say they didn't do it. He held aid and the meetings for no good reason, he had numerous people communicating that these investigations were of top importance, he asked for them as a favor over the phone, he had his personal lawyer and ukrainian mobsters reaching out to Ukraine to get these investigations and even had US officials answering to his personal lawyer. To deny that all of this was an effort to pressure a foreign country to publicly announce an investigation in to a political rival for personal political gain is just beyond idiotic. That's why most of the people testifying are saying that this was wrong and that this was a quid pro quo.

If I hand a hitman 10k and say that a person is bothering me and he kills that person, I don't get to deny it by saying that I never actually said that he should kill that person. That's just beyond stupid.

IMO, Trump said 'I want no quid pro quo' because his lawyers told him to stay away from quid pro quos.
 
You're wrong, for example, in that Trump didn't ask Zelensky (Giuliani didn't ask) for dirt on a political rival they asked for dirt on the previous administration of which Biden was Vice-President who just happens to be running for president in 2020.

Currently, there is an investigation into the investigation of the alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russians and the Trump campaign to distort the 2016 election.
Have you ever thought this impeachment process may be impeding progress of that investigation of the investigation?

Hunter Biden was actually never a part of either administration. Trump is really reaching when he want to investigate Hunter and his cushy well paid job in the Ukraine.
 
Hunter Biden was actually never a part of either administration. Trump is really reaching when he want to investigate Hunter and his cushy well paid job in the Ukraine.

Not when $1 Billion US tax dollars and the vice president - and Biden also claiming the president - are involved.
 
Your opinion means nothing. :shrug:

So does yours. You have to admit, mine leaves some reasonable doubt. Oh, right, you're a dem and there is no reasonable doubt for Trump, right?
 
Hunter Biden was actually never a part of either administration. Trump is really reaching when he want to investigate Hunter and his cushy well paid job in the Ukraine.

But Joe Biden was a part of the BO administration and there may be an investigation of corruption that spans between the Ukraine and the Obama Administration...that ties into the investigation of the investigation of the alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russians and the Trump campaign in the 2016.
 
it must suck to be a supporter of people like Nixon and Trump.

They do it for purely psychological reasons. They think that they're supporting some sort of underdog. It's like rooting for Jason Voorhees instead of the camp counselors.
 
So does yours.

Nope. Mine actually does. It's based on facts and critical thinking. I didn't pull it out of my ass. So it does mean something. Unlike yours.
 
But Joe Biden was a part of the BO administration and there may be an investigation of corruption that spans between the Ukraine and the Obama Administration...that ties into the investigation of the investigation of the alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russians and the Trump campaign in the 2016.

Investigation of corruption? Investigated by who, the Trump administration?
Have you seen this?...

Donald Trump fined $2m for misusing charity for political ends | US news | The Guardian

Can you name a single other politician who would get away with that and not lose any support? Corruption doesn't matter anymore. It's all about getting away with it now and It's starting to look like it doesn't matter a bit what was or wasn't done. Fact is Trump will get away with it, just because of the partisan make-up of the Senate.
 
Not when $1 Billion US tax dollars and the vice president - and Biden also claiming the president - are involved.

I thought it was $400 million that the president withheld in order to get his "favor." Is it a billion now?

Not that the amount actually matters.
 
But Joe Biden was a part of the BO administration and there may be an investigation of corruption that spans between the Ukraine and the Obama Administration...that ties into the investigation of the investigation of the alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russians and the Trump campaign in the 2016.

There is no investigation of corruption of the Obama Administration over Ukraine. That's just a red herring that the Trump sycophants are claiming.
 
From what I've read of your reply it seems as if Trump is assisting the investigators with the investigation into the investigation of alleged collusion between, allegedly, Russia and the Trump campaign in the 2016 election...And so is Giuliani.

Trump isn't offering assistance. Zelenski asks for assistance, and Trump responds that he "would like you to do us a favor" You know, a thing for a thing. A quid pro quo.
 
Nope. Mine actually does. It's based on facts and critical thinking. I didn't pull it out of my ass. So it does mean something. Unlike yours.
Rhetoric doesn't prove anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom