Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower identified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    The change in Sondland's testimony has a much simpler and more credible explanation than a million dollar supporter of Trump being persuaded to make something up or change his mind about something that was vague or ill defined (Trump's purpose in the investigation). Fiona Hill described the conversation he 'remembered' in detail in her testimony. If that description were to validated by other witnesses, other sources, then Sondland would be guilty of perjury. And so, the most likely explanation is that he realized he'd better 'remember' the conversation before he could be proven to be hiding it.

    This goes to guilty knowledge. Why wouldn't Sondland just leave it alone if it was some nebulous, maybe true, maybe not true divination of Trump's motive? Because he knows it happened, he knows it took place, and he just can't take the chance other people or sources will back up Hill's testimony. The cost to him would be too great.

    And by his confirmation of her testimony, we have two witnesses to the conversation, one of whom was quite clearly a staunch Trump supporter. So we have clear evidence the money was conditioned on the investigation of the Bidens, and that that fact was made absolutely clear to Ukraine by Sondland.
    None of that changes the fact that Sondland's testimony is full of statements like "I presume" and "I came to understand" that any half-way competent attorney would home in on and destroy. I can just picture Jack McCoy (for you Law & Order fans) raising his bushy eyebrows and saying, "We're not here to discuss what you 'presume', Mr. Sondland, we're here to discuss the truth! And isn't it the truth that you were never told to offer a quid pro quo? And isn't the truth that you said in a text message at the time that the President was 'crystal clear' that there was to be no quid pro quo? Isn't that the truth, Mr. Sondland?"
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      None of that changes the fact that Sondland's testimony is full of statements like "I presume" and "I came to understand" that any half-way competent attorney would home in on and destroy. I can just picture Jack McCoy (for you Law & Order fans) raising his bushy eyebrows and saying, "We're not here to discuss what you 'presume', Mr. Sondland, we're here to discuss the truth! And isn't it the truth that you were never told to offer a quid pro quo? And isn't the truth that you said in a text message at the time that the President was 'crystal clear' that there was to be no quid pro quo? Isn't that the truth, Mr. Sondland?"
      Sondland says quite clearly that the statement announcing continuing investigations was the condition for getting the aid released. That IS quid pro quo. It doesn't matter if the president didnt chose to call it that.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Sondland says quite clearly that the statement announcing continuing investigations was the condition for getting the aid released.
        He said quite clearly that he presumed it. His exact words:

        "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement."

        It bears repeating: presumptions are not facts.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          He said quite clearly that he presumed it. His exact words:

          "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement."

          It bears repeating: presumptions are not facts.
          You're quoting some of his statements talking about a time earlier in the year before he was fully sure of the quid pro quo. He became surer later in the year after talking more with Trump, Giuliani etc.

          His statement explains how his level of certainty changed over time. Earlier in the year, he, hears of the suspension of aid and is confused as to why it has happened. Then later, as you say, he presumes, based on what he is hearing from Trump's people, that the reason for the aid suspension is the desire for some sort of anti-corruption statement to be issued by someone of importance in Ukraine. As Ambassador to to EU he feels certain enough about this presumption to pass it on to a senior adviser to the Ukrainian President. Then, a month later he learns from Trump's people that there are specific requirements about who give the statement before aid will be released.

          Also worth noting that there are multiple other witnesses. The impeachment investigation doesn't hang on this Trump mega-donor's testimony. He is, however, a perfect example of Trump appointing the swamp... he donated $1 million to Trump's campaign and got gifted with the position of Ambassador to the EU. Nice for some.
          Last edited by Starlight; 11-09-2019, 10:34 PM.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            None of that changes the fact that Sondland's testimony is full of statements like "I presume" and "I came to understand" that any half-way competent attorney would home in on and destroy. I can just picture Jack McCoy (for you Law & Order fans) raising his bushy eyebrows and saying, "We're not here to discuss what you 'presume', Mr. Sondland, we're here to discuss the truth! And isn't it the truth that you were never told to offer a quid pro quo? And isn't the truth that you said in a text message at the time that the President was 'crystal clear' that there was to be no quid pro quo? Isn't that the truth, Mr. Sondland?"
            And then the prosecution would cross examine an ask: but how did that "presumption" come to be, was it out of thin air, did you conjure the idea up in your own brain, did you take it upon yourself to extort a foriegn country without the authority of the President? I don't think that's what happened is it sir? You didn't just presume now did you, you were relaying a message to Ukrainian authorities that was by someone relayed to you. Because, if as you say, the president made it crystal clear that there was to be no quid pro quo, then why did you offer up a quid pro quo to Ukrainian authorities? So, who was it, sir? How did you "come to understand" that that was what the president wanted. Perhaps Giuliani told you this? Or was it Rick Perry? Or was it the president himself? You certainly didn't dream it up, set your own policy and go with it. Right? But you did "understand" that's what the president wanted, not what you wanted. Now all we need to know is how you came to know, or how you came to "presume," or how you came to "understand" that that was what the president wanted.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              He said quite clearly that he presumed it. His exact words:

              "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement."

              It bears repeating: presumptions are not facts.
              From Leona Hills testimony ... repeatedly across the day ... concerning what she heard Sondland say:

              Source: fiona hill

              “Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations,” Hill said of the July 10 meeting that Bolton broke up.

              © Copyright Original Source



              Now this is referring to a meeting BEFORE the July 25 call.

              Source: Sondland updated testimony

              "I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,”

              © Copyright Original Source



              That is what he told them - in a meeting well AFTER the July 25th call. That is quid pro quo. This was an ongoing situation that covered several months where Trump wanted that public commitment and was continually pushing for it and trying to manipulate Zelensky into giving it. Other testimony describes construction of a statement for Zelensky to read announcing said curruption investigations.

              From these and other testimomies we know that a key element, if not THE key element, was the investigation of the Bidens, but also the strongly rebuffed conspiracy theory (re Fiona Hill's testimony) that somehow Ukraine was involved in trying to interfere with the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Fiona Hill's testimony strongly rebukes those senators wasting time on this foolish contention telling them such baseless theories play into the hand of Russian intentions to detract from efforts to counteract and rebuff their own efforts to influence our elections.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-09-2019, 11:20 PM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • NPR has quite a good article in which they have the whole whistleblower complaint and have highlighted each part of it that has been confirmed by witness testimony with an explanation of what the witness said that was relevant.

                Essentially everything the whistleblower reported that they'd heard had happened, has now been confirmed to congressional committees by the people who witnessed it happening.

                It makes it easy to see why Schiff is right to say that the identity of the whistleblower is not relevant and that the whistleblower will not need to testify, as the whistleblower themselves was not a first-hand witness of most of these events, merely an accurate reporter of what others had told him happened.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                  Vindman has testified that the transcript is missing some key points, specifically the parts where they talk about Biden and Burisma. Vindman also explained that the transcript was compiled by note takers, as the call was not recorded, of which he was one.

                  So its alleged that the transcript is neither verbatim or complete. Whether this is true or made up would be something that a trial would determine.
                  Since early on, I have been of the understanding that the "transcript" is in some ways like the infamous FBI "302" forms: There is no actual "transcript," nor any recording, only the notes made by various parties listening to the call in real time, then cooperatively edited and compiled into a pseudo-transcript by those parties.

                  Teal has said that a stenographer makes an actual literal verbatim transcript, but I've not heard that anywhere else. (But I also don't do nearly as much research as she does.)

                  However, this is only one component to the claim. That Trump demanded the investigation for aid didn't start and end with this phone call and the whistleblowers report details dates and events that have been corroborated by multiple witness testimonies.

                  The main fact, not contested and central to this claim, is that the aid was held up under instructions from Trump who can't seem to remember why.

                  Any prosecutor would tell you that this is more than enough to warrant an investigation. 'Smoking gun' type of evidence is pretty rare, most crimes are established by linking one piece of circumstantial evidence to another, similar to how scientific experiments link together to support scientific theories, until theres only one reasonable explanation to account for everything. Before complaining about lack of evidence to convict remember that the investigation is the process to gather the evidence!
                  I would be disappointed if this, like virtually all foreign policy agreements, were NOT transactional, i.e. "quid pro quo." Mulvaney never should have backtracked from what he said in his press conference. The only thing that matters is whether it can be reasonably proven that Trump's *main* "quo" was *personal* benefit, as opposed to the legitimate "quo" of dealing with prior corruption, including in the 2016 election.
                  Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                  Beige Federalist.

                  Nationalist Christian.

                  "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                  Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                  Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                  Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                  Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                  Justice for Matthew Perna!

                  Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    The only thing that matters is whether it can be reasonably proven that Trump's *main* "quo" was *personal* benefit, as opposed to the legitimate "quo" of dealing with prior corruption, including in the 2016 election.
                    Well it can be “reasonably proven that Trump's *main* "quo" was *personal* benefit, as opposed to the legitimate "quo" of dealing with prior corruption”, because the ONLY corruption with which he was concerned was that which served his own personal benefit.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      From Leona Hills testimony ... repeatedly across the day ... concerning what she heard Sondland say:
                      Oh goody. More hearsay. The most credible form of evidence there is.

                      Who's next? The mailman who overheard him talking to his wife?

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Sondland changed his testimony only after hearing the contradictory testimony of honorable witnesses.
                        I thought the whole reason that the hearings are secret was so that witnesses couldn't hear the testimony of others. FWIU Sondland decided to alter his testimony so that it aligned with what the MSM (who also hasn't heard anyone testify) is reporting. Being so easily swayed is a sure sign that he's not a very credible witness. I mean, what's the next thing he'll change so that it now matches up with what he is currently hearing?

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          How Ironic. Guess you haven't seen the evidence coming from the testimony of those involved and who knew what was going on.
                          Testimony consisting of presumptions, speculation and opinions and short on facts and evidence.

                          What is it with the TDS crowd that they now think that the former somehow is the latter?

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Oh goody. More hearsay. The most credible form of evidence there is.

                            Who's next? The mailman who overheard him talking to his wife?
                            That is not hearsay, depending on how it is used. That is eyewitness testimoney as to what another person said. So it shows that Sondland was conveying the message to the Ukrainians that they would not get the call unless they promised investigations.

                            So we know this was the message from Sondland to the Ukraine.

                            So are you maintaining Sondland was conveying that message on his own without the president's approval?
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              That is not hearsay, depending on how it is used. That is eyewitness testimoney as to what another person said. So it shows that Sondland was conveying the message to the Ukrainians that they would not get the call unless they promised investigations.

                              So we know this was the message from Sondland to the Ukraine.

                              So are you maintaining Sondland was conveying that message on his own without the president's approval?




                              If I tell you about a conversation I heard that is hearsay
                              Last edited by rogue06; 11-10-2019, 08:06 AM.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                That is not hearsay, depending on how it is used. That is eyewitness testimoney as to what another person said. So it shows that Sondland was conveying the message to the Ukrainians that they would not get the call unless they promised investigations.

                                So we know this was the message from Sondland to the Ukraine.

                                So are you maintaining Sondland was conveying that message on his own without the president's approval?
                                And we know based on Sondland's own testimony that it was merely his presumption, and that he really can't say where he got the idea from. Even more curious is that his later recollection contradicts what was "crystal clear" to him at the time.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                137 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                363 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X