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

  • #16
    Meanwhile, Volker flatly denies quid pro quo, says "no leverage implied".

    Republicans asked: "Did President Trump ever withhold a meeting with President Zelensky or delay a meeting with President Zelensky until the Ukrainians committed to investigate the allegations that you just described concerning the [2016] presidential election?”

    Volker's response: “The answer to the question is no …. there was no linkage like that."

    Follow-up question: "And in no way, shape, or form in either the readouts from the United States or Ukraine did you receive any indication whatsoever for anything that resembles a quid pro quo?”

    Volker: “Correct."

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...erage-implied/
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Yes that's the one
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
        Yes that's the one, noting especially where it says "Sondland's new testimony, which was included in the public release of his closed-door deposition transcript on Tuesday, adds to Democrats' evidence that the President connected the freezing of US security aid to Ukraine to investigations into Biden as well as the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's servers during the 2016 election, which cuts to the heart of their impeachment case against Trump". Namely where he acknowledges what everyone knows: "a quid pro quo with Ukraine".
        False. He presumed it and indicated that he was never directed by Trump or anybody else to make an offer resembling quid pro quo, which is consistent with the testimony of Volker and others who flatly reject the suggestion that quid pro quo was ever on the table.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Meanwhile, Volker flatly denies quid pro quo, says "no leverage implied".

          Republicans asked: "Did President Trump ever withhold a meeting with President Zelensky or delay a meeting with President Zelensky until the Ukrainians committed to investigate the allegations that you just described concerning the [2016] presidential election?”

          Volker's response: “The answer to the question is no …. there was no linkage like that."

          Follow-up question: "And in no way, shape, or form in either the readouts from the United States or Ukraine did you receive any indication whatsoever for anything that resembles a quid pro quo?”

          Volker: “Correct."

          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...erage-implied/
          Your reading way too much that. These were back channel (under the table) negotiations, it would not be expected everyone would be aware of them to their fullest extent. Volker did testify to his own efforts to push back against statements that might serve to involve ukraine in 2020, esp Wrt giuliani. Taken with taylor,vindman, and now sondland testimony there is nothing contradictory here. Volker just wasnt fully aware or didnt want to be fully aware of what was going on behind closed doors.
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            As usual, the picture you paint is wrong.

            The facts are that Trump was using US aid, almost 400 million of it, to buy dirt on a political rival.

            And yet you support and excuse it.

            What more needs to be said.
            If you were accused of a crime, and somebody's testimony against you was "I presumed he....", would you be a happy camper?

            Oh, and you're not allowed to face your accuser - their lawyer can simply state that's what this anonymous person claimed.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Your reading way too much that. These were back channel (under the table) negotiations, it would not be expected everyone would be aware of them to their fullest extent. Volker did testify to his own efforts to push back against statements that might serve to involve ukraine in 2020, esp Wrt giuliani. Taken with taylor,vindman, and now sondland testimony there is nothing contradictory here. Volker just wasnt fully aware or didnt want to be fully aware of what was going on behind closed doors.
              Your gift of spin remains as impressive as ever. I'm just quoting what was said during the hearing. If anybody is reading into this, it's you.

              And I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "back-channel diplomacy" and regular old diplomacy. 95% of diplomatic negotiations happen in private, and it's generally only after an agreement is reached that we learn of the particulars.
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Your gift of spin remains as impressive as ever. I'm just quoting what was said during the hearing. If anybody is reading into this, it's you.

                And I'm still trying to figure out the difference between "back-channel diplomacy" and regular old diplomacy. 95% of diplomatic negotiations happen in private, and it's generally only after an agreement is reached that we learn of the particulars.
                Spin refers to a distortion of the facts to achieve a goal or avoid an unflattering result - which is more your department MM.

                As for the issue of backchannel diplomacy. Ignorance is not really an excuse MM.

                "Backchannel Diplomacy Law and Legal Definition
                Backchannel diplomacy refers to secret lines of communication held open between two adversaries. It is often communicated through an informal intermediary or through a third party.

                Backchannel communication refers to a secondary conversation that takes place at the same time as a conference session, lecture, or instructor-led learning activity."

                In other words, what Giuliani was doing. You have one line of Diplomacy that was open and involved the usual players, and you have a secret, secondary line that in this case was undermining the first and which had other, secret, goals. In this case, not merely secret, but personal to Donald Trump and contrary to the best interests of the US.

                How to judge such a channel is not its existence, but its goals/purpose. So in the general case, you are correct, backchannel diplomacy happens all the time. But there are two critical elements - authority (which was violated when kushner tried to set up such a channel BEFORE Trump was President), and purpose.

                In this case, the purpose was illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine. And that is why it was bad.
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-06-2019, 09:16 AM.
                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Oh my. Ignorance is not really an excuse MM.

                  "Backchannel Diplomacy Law and Legal Definition
                  Backchannel diplomacy refers to secret lines of communication held open between two adversaries. It is often communicated through an informal intermediary or through a third party.

                  Backchannel communication refers to a secondary conversation that takes place at the same time as a conference session, lecture, or instructor-led learning activity."

                  In other words, what Giuliani was doing. You have one line of Diplomacy that was open and involved the usual players, and you have a secret, secondary line that in this case was undermining the first and which had other, secret, goals. In this case, not merely secret, but personal to Donald Trump and contrary to the best interests of the US.

                  How to judge such a channel is not its existence, but its goals/purpose. So the the archane case, you are correct, backchannel diplomacy happens all the time. But there are two critical elements - authority (which was violated when kushner tried to set up such a channel BEFORE Trump was President), and purpose.

                  In this case, the purpose was illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine. And that is why it was bad.
                  Not to mention the best interest of Putin and too the finacial interests of Giuliani and his partners in crime.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    And it's official:

                    //https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/gordon-sondland-kurt-volker-transcripts-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

                    Source: cnn

                    US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland sent the committee a three-page addition to his testimony on Monday, saying he had remembered a September 1 conversation that occurred on the sidelines of a meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he told a top aide to Zelensky that the security aid and investigations were linked.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    No crap, sherlock. The anti-corruption investigations were linked to aid. That Biden happened to be involved in one of those is a side issue. As MM cited, "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement... "
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Oh my. Ignorance is not really an excuse MM.

                      "Backchannel Diplomacy Law and Legal Definition
                      Backchannel diplomacy refers to secret lines of communication held open between two adversaries. It is often communicated through an informal intermediary or through a third party.

                      Backchannel communication refers to a secondary conversation that takes place at the same time as a conference session, lecture, or instructor-led learning activity."
                      But that's just good old fashioned diplomacy. Calling it "back channel" is nothing but a game of semantics to make it sound sinister. As one historian said, "Back channels are a tool in the diplomatic tool box, and they can be a very effective tool. There’s a long tradition of it -- it goes back as long as diplomacy itself." So there is, in reality, no meaningful difference between diplomacy and "back channel" diplomacy. It's all the same thing in the end.

                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      In this case, the goals were illegal and contrary to the best interests of the US and the Ukraine.
                      This is not a fact but merely your opinion.

                      The fact is that Volker said there was no quid pro quo. Taylor threatened to quit because there wasn't a guarantee of quid pro quo saying, "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance." What Sondland "presumed" is irrelevant, and in fact, in a text message to Taylor, Sondland pushed back on Taylor's suggestion saying, "The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind." U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said there was no quid pro quo. Mulvaney said no quid pro quo.

                      Of course to fake news connoisseurs like you, this just proves that Trump is guilty.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        But that's just good old fashioned diplomacy. Calling it "back channel" is nothing but a game of semantics to make it sound sinister. As one historian said, "Back channels are a tool in the diplomatic tool box, and they can be a very effective tool. There’s a long tradition of it -- it goes back as long as diplomacy itself." So there is, in reality, no meaningful difference between diplomacy and "back channel" diplomacy. It's all the same thing in the end.


                        This is not a fact but merely your opinion.

                        The fact is that Volker said there was no quid pro quo. Taylor threatened to quit because there wasn't a guarantee of quid pro quo saying, "The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance." What Sondland "presumed" is irrelevant, and in fact, in a text message to Taylor, Sondland pushed back on Taylor's suggestion saying, "The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind." U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said there was no quid pro quo. Mulvaney said no quid pro quo.

                        Of course to fake news connoisseurs like you, this just proves that Trump is guilty.
                        If Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him. And Democrats would be justified in being critical of such a reckless ask. I know I would be.

                        At the very least, you could admit Trump shoots himself in the foot often. How hard would it have been for him to get what he wanted from Zelenskyy without mentioning Biden? He then gilds the lilly by insisting Zelenskyy announce the investigation of Biden publicly, which is just enormously idiotic for a host of reasons, the least of which being it makes Ukraine look partisan. Bill Taylor was eloquent about this.

                        You're not a senator who has to worry about being reelected, MM. You could at least show some dignity and admit Trump annoys you by constantly making you defend his seeming incompetence. Look how much energy and time it takes arguing about this crap needlessly when all he has to do is act *slightly* presidential on a simple phone call.

                        I must say, there was a time when Trump *almost* convinced me that he could be maverick, but multiple his multiple completely avoidable screw-ups soon dashed that hope.
                        Last edited by whag; 11-06-2019, 01:38 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by whag View Post
                          If Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him.
                          If McCain or Romney had pulled the same stunt Biden did by using their position as Vice President of the United States to extort a foreign government into quashing an investigation into their son's sketchy business activities then Obama would have been perfectly justified to call for an investigation.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            No crap, sherlock. The anti-corruption investigations were linked to aid. That Biden happened to be involved in one of those is a side issue. As MM cited, "I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement... "
                            He didn't just presume, sherlock. In the first place you don't just forget having such an important discussion with foreign leaders in the first place, like Sondland testified to doing his first go around. What happened was he lied to Congress and then realized he got caught after hearing the contradictory testimony of others and so came back for a do over to protect himself from a perjury charge. Ask yourself why, if no one told him of the quid pro quo, why on earth would he just presume it? And you really need get out of the bubble once in a while. Biden wasn't just a side issue, the Bidens and Burisma were the only issue, Trumps deal was that the investigation into the Bidens and Burisma was to be made public, nothing else, just the Bidens and Burisma.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by whag View Post
                              If Obama was recorded asking another leader to investigate, say, Mitt Romney or John McCain, you'd have been all over him.
                              Not if they were ON VIDEO admitting to malfeasance.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                                ...if no one told him of the quid pro quo, why on earth would he just presume it?
                                Sure, you can try and salvage his testimony by making certain unfounded assumptions that are favorable to your case, but any competent defense attorney would rip it apart.

                                For one thing, if he was told, then why wouldn't he just say that he was told? Instead, he said things like "I learned" and "I had come to understand" and "I presumed". He even says that he didn't know when the aid had been suspended, or by whom, or for what reason, or how he even came to know about it! If this is what Democrats have to base their case on then they're in big trouble.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X