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

Sondland admits quid pro quo

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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    So at best, Sondland gave contradictory answers.
    So Schiff can choose the answer he wants.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Nope. The questioning you refered to was a simplification which was pointed out later. The fact that you conclude based on simplifications and leave out the correction does nothing to change what was actually said.
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        So Schiff can choose the answer he wants.
        Yeah, that's not going to fly in the Senate.
        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 Chuckles View Post
          Nope. The questioning you refered to was a simplification which was pointed out later. The fact that you conclude based on simplifications and leave out the correction does nothing to change what was actually said.
          Correction... Contradiction... What's the difference?

          Which leaves the question of which version is true: the original answer, or the correction/contradiction? Defense attorneys love witnesses like this because they make it easy to create reasonable doubt.
          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 oxmixmudd View Post
            As a bit of comic relief, I saw this comment in a review of the Democratic debates and it just reminded me so much of our debates here:

            Source: CNN

            After spending all day watching Republican congressmen (and one Republican congresswoman) during the impeachment hearings mindlessly denying the Everest of evidence of Donald Trump's alleged criminality, the Democratic debate was like a wake-up call from the real world.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Now I have my problems with many of the positions of the Democratic candidates. But they at least seem to have the capacity to recognize reality as regards what has been testified to in these impeachment hearings.

            With the GOP in climate change denial mode, chasing after insane alternate reality stories tossed out there by Putin and engaged in smear campaigns against our decorated heros promoted to defend a draft dodger, liar, and all around bad person, one feels that the Republican party, my party, seems to have become the resting place for the ignorant and the foolish. Just hard to fathom.
            I had to check twice to make sure this wasn't posted by starlight.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • Originally posted by whag View Post
              Clearly the outcome he wanted...
              That wasn't RumTum's question. Look at it again:

              "What outcome did Trump ask for in the phone call to the Ukraine President?"
              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
                Correction... Contradiction... What's the difference?

                Which leaves the question of which version is true: the original answer, or the correction/contradiction? Defense attorneys love witnesses like this because they make it easy to create reasonable doubt.
                If you have still not noticed "the original answer" was based on a simplification. Let me repeat:

                Adam Schiff: 01:01:01 I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to want to point out a couple things Ambassador. In response to my colleagues, my colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president, that there is no evidence of bribery if he didn’t say Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this. That there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid.

                Adam Schiff: 01:01:35 But nonetheless Ambassador, you’ve given us a lot of evidence of precisely that conditionality of both the White House meeting and the military assistance. You’ve told us Ambassador, have you not, that you emailed the Secretary of State and said that if these investigations were announced, the new justice person was put in place, that the Ukrainians would be prepared to give the President what he wants.
                You seem to naively follow along the lines described in this part: "seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president, that there is no evidence of bribery if he didn’t say Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this. That there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid."
                "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  So at best, Sondland gave contradictory answers.

                  But the one point he has been consistent on is that the President told him with the utmost clarity that there was to be no quid pro quo.
                  Five hours after Sonland informed POTUS a respected diplomat was onto his shenanigans.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by whag View Post
                    Clearly the outcome he wanted was for Ukraine to announce an investigation publicly but not really do the investigation. Gee, I wonder why.
                    Give me the cite in the transcript of the phone call that that is what he wanted Whag. unless you have more then peoples feelings about the phone call you have nothing but opinion.

                    It’s not just about this phone call, though the call was relevant because it was revealed later he didn’t actually want an investigation.
                    Opinions, presumptions, third, fourth hand hearsay is not evidence and that is what all we have so far Whag. so no you haven not proved he did not want an investigation.

                    Next.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
                      If you have still not noticed "the original answer" was based on a simplification. Let me repeat:

                      Adam Schiff: 01:01:01 I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to want to point out a couple things Ambassador. In response to my colleagues, my colleagues seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president, that there is no evidence of bribery if he didn’t say Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this. That there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid.

                      Adam Schiff: 01:01:35 But nonetheless Ambassador, you’ve given us a lot of evidence of precisely that conditionality of both the White House meeting and the military assistance. You’ve told us Ambassador, have you not, that you emailed the Secretary of State and said that if these investigations were announced, the new justice person was put in place, that the Ukrainians would be prepared to give the President what he wants.


                      You seem to naively follow along the lines described in this part: "seem to be under the impression that unless the president spoke the words Ambassador Sondland, I am bribing the Ukrainian president, that there is no evidence of bribery if he didn’t say Ambassador Sondland, I’m telling you I’m not going to give the aid unless they do this. That there's no evidence of a quid pro quo on military aid."
                      First of all, Schiff is offering an argument from silence. But secondly, Trump wasn't silent and in fact emphatically told Sondland that he did not want quid pro quo, so Schiff's argument doubly fails as a logical fallacy and on the basis of directly contradictory evidence.
                      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
                        That wasn't RumTum's question. Look at it again:

                        "What outcome did Trump ask for in the phone call to the Ukraine President?"
                        That is exactly what I was asking the rest of whags post is opinion about Trump and what he wanted that is not based on any factual evidenc. and he had to ignore the true question to answer a question he wants asked.
                        Last edited by RumTumTugger; 11-21-2019, 12:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          I had to check twice to make sure this wasn't posted by starlight.
                          Starlight can create good posts too ...
                          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 RumTumTugger View Post
                            What evidence Starlight. presumptions and opinions are not evidence that is all we've heard so far.
                            I guess you haven't been listening to the testimony. It has indeed been evidence, not merely presumptions and opinions.

                            It is a pity however that Trump continues to obstruct justice by blocking some of the key people from testifying (eg Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton) and refusing to allow some of those who are testifying (e.g. Sonderland) access to documents about the events that would improve the accuracy of their testimony. Trump continues to add to his own list of crimes by obstructing justice.

                            Nonetheless we've learned that Trump had his people wage a smear campaign against the existing ambassador to the Ukraine, then had her replaced with one of his mega-donors. Trump then had Giuliani and the mega-donor together doing very unusual things diplomatically in Ukraine which had all the relevant State department personal scratching their heads as to what was going on (they testified that in decades of work in the State department they had seen nothing like this before). The Trump administration then withheld aid to Ukraine, in violation of the constitution, because congress not the president has the constitutional power of the purse and determines where money goes and the President has no power to decide if money is spent or not spent. Quite a number of people throughout government then started panicking that aid wasn't flowing to Ukraine, and were emphatic in meetings that it needed to flow, but were told that it was being withheld at Trump's order. Those who dealt with Trump and Giuliani, and with Trump's appointees, learned and conveyed to Ukrainian officials that the order to withhold the aid had come from Trump, and that it flowing was conditional on the Ukrainians announcing an investigation into Biden's son's company. Trump's adviser John Bolton described this a 'drug deal' that he wanted no part of and stormed out of a meeting about it in disgust. Those who were most in the know testified that Trump didn't appear interested in whether such an investigation actually occurred, but only wanted the Ukrainian President to publicly announce on CNN that there was going to be such an investigation. Following all this, Trump had the infamous phone call with the Ukrainian President, in which Trump's White House's own transcript depicts Trump saying "I would like you to do us a favor though" of asking in the context of a discussion of military aid, the Ukrainians to investigate things related to Hillary and Biden. Several US officials who heard Trump on that phone-call immediately contacted lawyers or reported the call as they recognized something illegal seemed to be occurring. On at least one further occasion Trump discussed getting this political favor in exchange for giving Ukraine military aid in the hearing of one of the witness (this person is yet to testify). Eventually the fact that Trump was withholding the aid became public knowledge, and after congress launched their investigation into Trump for doing this, he released the military aid to Ukraine.

                            here's a question for Starlight and all the other Trump haters here on this board.

                            What outcome did Trump ask for in the phone call to the Ukraine President? oh and cite from the transcript where it is.
                            You don't get to simply choose to limit the evidence to only one of the pieces of evidence. That's not how the world works.

                            With regard to the phone call itself, the worst line in it is considered to be Trump saying "I would like you to do us a favor though", where in the context of giving military aid to Ukraine he asks for a favor that has to do with benefiting him personally against his own political opponents. Here is the longer segment:

                            Trump: I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing... the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

                            Zelenskyy: ...I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine... 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......
                            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. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...


                            However the evidence of Trump's wrongdoing goes far above and beyond what Trump said in one specific call. Trump's people at Trump's instruction had been pursuing an illegal and unconstitutional course of action with regard to Ukraine over the course of many months. Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and mega-donor Sonderland, illegally and unconstitutionally at Trump's orders coordinated a withholding of military aid from the Ukraine, which Trump was not allowed to do, until they had extorted political favors that benefited Trump from the Ukrainians. Trump's personal phonecall with the Ukrainian president, in which Trump reiterated this longstanding position, was simply one example of this illegal policy in action, but far from the only instance.
                            Last edited by Starlight; 11-21-2019, 12:42 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
                              In fact, a number of witnesses have testified under oath that there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, no extortion, and no witness has said that they had any concerns about the legality of Trump's negotiations with Ukraine even if they didn't agree with his approach to foreign policy.
                              right ... and that is why some of them consulted with lawyers ...

                              and the GOP spin fantasyland continues ...
                              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
                                right ... and that is why some of them consulted with lawyers ...
                                All we know based on sworn testimony is that when directly asked if they had any concerns or evidence that the President had engaged in illegal conduct with regards to his negotiations with Ukraine, every witness has clearly said no. You can spin it however you want, but the facts are the facts.

                                Unless you're going for Biden's "They have facts, but we have truth" routine.
                                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
                                123 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                323 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X