Why isn't Sondland being arrested?

[joko104]

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

That message is 100% false and exactly opposite the testimony of every witness.

 

[joko104]

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.

RICO? That's just wacky. :roll:

 

[jnug]

RICO? That's just wacky. :roll:

No its not. Its not at all whacky. Of course, they can't turn it into an actual RICO case....YET. But they should treat it as they would a RICO case.

 

[ataraxia]

Actually, it looks like the argument of the OP is moot at this point.

” The US Ambassador to the European Union says he pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens at President Trump's "express direction."

Impeachment hearings live coverage: Gordon Sondland testimony - CNNPolitics

So will Trump supporters find a way to explain this away as well? I am sure there is, we just have to give them a little time. Their ingenuity is always impressive and amusing to watch.

But I’m sure they would still much rather talk about absolute outrages like Obama’s tan suit being worn to a press conference once.

 

[ataraxia]

That message is 100% false and exactly opposite the testimony of every witness.

Do you have any quotes from these witnesses? Sondland himself is now saying it too.

 

[joko104]

Sondland testified that President told him to do "no quid pro pro" and "no corruption." But Sondland decided to be a loose cannon on the deck instead on his "presumptions" based upon exactly nothing anyone said by his own testimony.

He knew the investigation would lead to him, so he ran to Schiff and the Democrats with a statement that he later nearly entirely recanted and contradicts - trying to push his guilt over on Trump. Instead, he just got tagged for HIS misconduct - not only the failed attempted bribery, but also that he secretly did EXACTLY the opposite what the President told him.

His testimony was not only ultimately the #1 defense witness for Trump, but also his own confession at the same time.

He is NOT a particularly smart man. But he was smart enough to punk Schiff, making his own personal defense based upon hatred of Schiff's corruption - testifying "I did it, not the President, and even though the president ordered me not to, I did it anyway because I presumed Trump would like it of I did." That was rather clever.

To put yourself into the Democrat protection mode - ie no Democrats can ever be prosecuted for anything - all he had to do is make a false opening statement - but also was smart enough to recant it before the end of his testimony when in the secret meeting in the middle he learned that Republicans on the committee had the goods on him - so he changed his story completely to the perfect defense for Trump and the perfect confession of guilt on his part.

Realizing how gullible Schiff is was clever by Sondland. :lamo

 

[jnug]

Sondland testified that President told to do no "no quid pro pro" and "no corruption."

Frankly that is not more than one piece of testimony. So what.

It is also one reason but not the only reason House Intel should handle this like a RICO case.

 

[ataraxia]

Sondland testified that President told to do no "no quid pro pro" and "no corruption."

No he didn’t. Where are you getting this information? It seems to be a bum source. You may want to start looking elsewhere for your news.

” US Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified Wednesday there was a quid pro quo for Ukraine to announce investigations into President Donald Trump's political opponents that came from the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani at the "express direction of the President."

What's more, Sondland provided House impeachment investigators with emails and texts showing it wasn't just him and Giuliani pushing for the investigations outside government channels — Trump's inner circle knew what was going on, too. He even said he raised concerns with Vice President Mike Pence that the freezing of $400 million in security aid to Ukraine was linked to the investigations.”

Sondland says '''It was no secret''' that quid pro quo came at '''express direction of the President''' - CNNPolitics

 

[CaughtInThe]

it must suck to be a supporter of people like Nixon and Trump.

 

[HumblePi]

No he didn’t. Where are you getting this information? It seems to be a bum source. You may want to start looking elsewhere for your news.

Wow, you can see already how far the right will go to twist facts, and we all saw it happening live right before our eyes.

 

[joko104]

Actually, it looks like the argument of the OP is moot at this point.



So will Trump supporters find a way to explain this away as well? I am sure there is, we just have to give them a little time. Their ingenuity is always impressive and amusing to watch.

But I’m sure they would still much rather talk about absolute outrages like Obama’s tan suit being worn to a press conference once.

You haven't heard the latest testimony by Sondland? Nothing could more have blown up this next Democratic Party hoax and corrupt attempt to erase the 2016 election than his 2nd act testimony.

You mean Sondland fully exonerating Trump and putting the guilt on himself? :lamo

 

[joko104]

No he didn’t. Where are you getting this information? It seems to be a bum source. You may want to start looking elsewhere for your news.

CNN editorial comment is outright lying.

In fact, Sondland even testified that CNN's claim is 100% false. Literally, he was asked if CNN's reporting was false - and Sondland answered with "yes." :lamo

I don't think Schiff anticipated that Sondland would testify that NO ONE - not directly nor indirectly - told him anything about bribery, extortion or quid pro quo. Rather, that he was told there was to be NO quid pro quo nor any corruption by Trump himself.

He explained that he defied this and acted on his own on his "presumption," literally exonerating Trump, everyone at the White House - and "everyone on earth" - as this was his own doing - adding the icing on the cake literally swearing under oath that CNN's story is 100% false.

Sondland literally swore that CNN is lying about his testimony! :lamo

 

[joko104]

Joe Biden explained that the Democratic Party will no longer accept facts about Trump - and we see that on this forum. Nearly every Democrat on this forum is NOT watching the hearing. They are watching CNN.

Sondland now has literally sworn under oath that CNN's reporting of his testimony is 100% false. He was outright asked if CNN's coverage of his testimony is untrue - and under oath Sondland answered "yes."

But what does that matter to people whose secular religion is to never accept or even hear facts - instead just to think and say what they are told to by CNN and the other MSM literally owned and controlled by the richest people on earth as their masters?

Sondland now has literally sworn under oath that CNN is lying in how they are reporting his testimony. But since most Democrats refuse to actually listen to the hearing and instead only to the millionaire talking heads saying what the billionaires who own CNN tell them to say.

I suspect some progressive Democrats on this forum have a prayer closet where they bow down 3 times a day to pictures of the richest people on earth and with the logos of their propaganda outlets they 100% own and control.

Trump threatens their foreign child labor sweatshops, threatened ending unlimited immigration to keep wages rock bottom, and just eliminated a trillion dollars in profits from a potential war in Syria. They will tell ANY lies to get rid of Trump because there are trillions of dollars in more profits for them to get their Democratic Party employees back into control.

 

[joko104]

Do you have any quotes from these witnesses? Sondland himself is now saying it too.

Sondland's testimony after the secret basement bunker meeting is almost exactly opposite from his opening statement. This isn't even online yet - you have to listen to the hearings to be current.

He was asked outright if CNN's reporting of his testimony is false - and he answered "yes" under oath. Yet Democrats on the forum are still quoting CNN about his testimony. :roll:

Probably CNN should have waited until Sondland's actual full testimony rather than writing their hate-on-Trump story before his testimony. The result is CNN was caught lying - big time. Sondland just trashed CNN under oath before a Congressional committee. :lamo

I can't actually recall a witness testifying before Congress that a news network was lying about the witness's testimony before. This is massive egg on CNN's face. CNN presumed what Sondland would testify to - then reported that as fact based on what CNN hoped he would testify to. In fact, his final testimony was 100% opposite.

I am confident that not one Democrat on this forum cares one iota that CNN outright lied - but instead will continue to recite CNN's editorial as proof - despite the witness himself saying CNN is lying about what he is saying.

 

[joko104]

Actually, it looks like the argument of the OP is moot at this point.



So will Trump supporters find a way to explain this away as well? I am sure there is, we just have to give them a little time. Their ingenuity is always impressive and amusing to watch.

But I’m sure they would still much rather talk about absolute outrages like Obama’s tan suit being worn to a press conference once.

Nope, his story changed after the secret basement meeting.

 

[less right]

No he didn’t. Where are you getting this information? It seems to be a bum source. You may want to start looking elsewhere for your news.

Don't confuse what Sondland said the president said with what Sondland said himself.

 

[Obscurity]

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?

Trump ordered the extortion through giuliani. Its undeniable.

 

[Dittohead not!]

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.

?? What does Hillary have to do with the post you quoted???

 

[CaughtInThe]

I think we're at the tip of the iceberg for Donald Trump and his family. Once the financial stuff starts coming out everything will then explode like no administration we've ever seen.

 

[ataraxia]

Sondland's testimony after the secret basement bunker meeting is almost exactly opposite from his opening statement. This isn't even online yet - you have to listen to the hearings to be current.

He was asked outright if CNN's reporting of his testimony is false - and he answered "yes" under oath. Yet Democrats on the forum are still quoting CNN about his testimony. :roll:

Probably CNN should have waited until Sondland's actual full testimony rather than writing their hate-on-Trump story before his testimony. The result is CNN was caught lying - big time. Sondland just trashed CNN under oath before a Congressional committee. :lamo

I can't actually recall a witness testifying before Congress that a news network was lying about the witness's testimony before. This is massive egg on CNN's face. CNN presumed what Sondland would testify to - then reported that as fact based on what CNN hoped he would testify to. In fact, his final testimony was 100% opposite.

I am confident that not one Democrat on this forum cares one iota that CNN outright lied - but instead will continue to recite CNN's editorial as proof - despite the witness himself saying CNN is lying about what he is saying.

You may be listening to what Trump says- The ultimate bum source for news and facts.
Trump, citing portion of Sondland's testimony, claims exoneration - Reuters

 

[humbolt]

View attachment 67268510

Yeah, but Barney is allowed to have one bullet. Schiff has none. He's the guy running around firing blanks into the sky. He doesn't have a single witness who can provide direct testimony, so they are of no probative value. He has not permitted any witnesses called by republicans, and has completely shredded anything approaching due process. In short, he has nothing, and he knows it. Schiff is so thoroughly despicable every mirror he encounters cracks, and the stench of rotten whale blubber follows him. Flowers curl up and die, and previously clean streams go muddy and spew acid on little children. The sun dims, and birds fall from the sky. And...well, you get the picture. I spit on his grandmother's shadow.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

Sondland's quid pro quo??
Holy trailer park, are you ****ing kidding?

Sondland's QPQ was his post!

 

[ataraxia]

You haven't heard the latest testimony by Sondland? Nothing could more have blown up this next Democratic Party hoax and corrupt attempt to erase the 2016 election than his 2nd act testimony.

You mean Sondland fully exonerating Trump and putting the guilt on himself? :lamo

Admittedly, I was not listening to Sondland’s testimony in real time. I was working. But I am looking for anyone reporting anything about him “fully exonerating Trump”. Do you have any links for this claim?

 

[jnug]

Yeah, but Barney is allowed to have one bullet. Schiff has none. He's the guy running around firing blanks into the sky. He doesn't have a single witness who can provide direct testimony, so they are of no probative value. He has not permitted any witnesses called by republicans, and has completely shredded anything approaching due process. In short, he has nothing, and he knows it. Schiff is so thoroughly despicable every mirror he encounters cracks, and the stench of rotten whale blubber follows him. Flowers curl up and die, and previously clean streams go muddy and spew acid on little children. The sun dims, and birds fall from the sky. And...well, you get the picture. I spit on his grandmother's shadow.

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.

 

[TomFitz]

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?

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.