As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media

a reply to: Gryphon66

Good thing I have never said what Biden did was wrong, so there is no quandry for me.

a reply to: Deetermined

Prosecutors built a case that Manafort for years hid millions from U.S. tax authorities in overseas accounts, spending the money to maintain a lavish lifestyle and lying to banks to generate more cash.

The trial was the first public test of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, and while the special counsel was vindicated, the victory wasn't total.

www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good thing I have never said what Biden did was wrong, so there is no quandry for me.

That is good. However, that is the presumption of Trump supporters who claim that the President's justification for requesting in investigation into the Bidens is because Biden 1 or Biden 2 did do something wrong.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Sondland is under oath. He is doing his best to be scrupulous in terms of the truth.

I agree. I believe Sondland is telling the truth as he knows and understands it. But he was hearing lots of things from lots of people, and was confused about just what was being demanded/expected -- of him and Zelensky:

Sondland told Schiff that he asked Trump: “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?”

“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” Sondland continued.

That part seems clear enough, but I'm not real clear on the rest of Sondland's words:

“So I typed out a text to Ambassador Taylor and my reason for telling him this was not to defend what the president was saying, not to opine on whether the president was being truthful or untruthful, but simply to relay I’ve gone as far as I can go. This is the final word that I heard from the president of the United States.”

Rep Mike Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunks CNN Headline In Real Time

I don't think Sondland even understood what all was going on. I sure don't! There would seem to be some effort to muddy the waters so to speak though. The picture may have been muddied deliberately to provide Trump plausible deniability of any inappropriate quid pro quo... or it may have been muddied to cast suspicion of an inappropriate quid pro quo.

The President asked Sondland, Perry, etc. to work with Rudy Guiliani. It is certain that Rudy Guiliani was working on withholding aid until they got investigations from Ukraine.

That's definitely what Sondland believed and testified to, and that Rudy was acting on Trump's direct orders, but I'm not convinced that's the whole truth so much as Sondland's impression. I also think it's possible that Rudy was acting on his own druthers -- not Trump's. However, I'm not ruling out Trump's complicity, and this being Trump's way to maintain plausible deniability.

Are you saying that there was no effort on the part of the Trump Administration to withhold aid based on conditions? To deny them the Presidential visit and phone call?

I am saying that Sondland (and others) only testified that it is his presumption -- and I would consider it an informed opinion -- that there was a quid pro quo involved. Implied if not explicitly impressed.

My best guess is that in effect, Trump was withholding the foreign aid unless and until Zelensky demonstrated his commitment to fighting corruption in Ukraine. Whether that was explicitly expressed to Team Zelensky has not yet been proven. However, if it was not explicitly expressed, than it does not qualify as quid pro quo.

I'm really not trying to mince words here or play semantics. I'm just trying to make sense of the games these critters play.

ETA: Regarding Rudy, it's quite possible that Rudy is acting in his own best interests, specifically another (future) presidential run...

a reply to: Boadicea

Bo, I don't think you're playing games and the one thing I know about you is that you're always being as direct and truthful as you can.

To me, from Sondland's testimony, there is no doubt that there was a clear understanding on the part of all concerned that there were things Ukraine had to do to get the aid package/Javelin sale, the visit to the White House and the call to President Trump. Those things were to open investigations into the Bidens and Burisma and into the "CrowdStrike" server.

I honestly believe that is within the incredible range of powers given to the American President in the Constitution. There's no need to argue the particulars, because what Trump did is not illegal. Abuse of power? Maybe ...

But according to her own admission, The Speaker of the House has abused the power of impeachment because she doesn't think Americans are smart enough to make the "right decisions" at the polls.

That was the end of it for me. She's tainted and corrupted the whole process. It literally DOES NOT MATTER what Mr. Trump did or didn't do. The Senate will be quite justified in acquiting the President if this garbage even makes it out of committee to the House.

Also, Schiff looks like a dope fiend ... ANYONE would have been a better choice to lead this crap. He looks blitzed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good thing I have never said what Biden did was wrong, so there is no quandry for me.

That is good. However, that is the presumption of Trump supporters who claim that the President's justification for requesting in investigation into the Bidens is because Biden 1 or Biden 2 did do something wrong.

I don't think what they claim he did wrong was merely withhold the money. The arguments I tend to see is Biden had a conflict of interest due to his son, and after the prosecutor was fired the Burisma case went away quietly, which is the exact opposite of what Biden claimed he wanted yet he was very happy with the outcome.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I don’t mean to spoil anyone’s fun, but Pelosi has invalidated the WHOLE THING in a memo to her caucus in which she states that they have to impeach because they can’t trust the Electorate.

It doesn’t matter what Trump did or didn’t do. It doesn’t matter that the Senate will acquit him. The whole thing is tainted, corrupted, made of no potency.

She is an unmitigated, blundering, dishonest, traitorous woman, and she should be removed from her high Office.

The House will impeach. The Senate will acquit. Life will move on, and if Mr. Trump does get re-elected, he will basically have NO LIMITATIONS on his actions.

You can thank Nancy Pelosi for that.

Can you link the memo please?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

There is a theory going around certain right-wing publications that the DNC server is actually in Ukraine, because the owner of Crowdstrike is Russian, and thus, to some, it seems logical that the actual server is in Ukraine.

Thank you. I didn't know that, so it helps make a little more sense of it for me. Logical I suppose, but it's still little more than just an educated guess for now. (Not much better than a rumor)

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Yes it's terrible when everyone who is a firsthand witness says there was no quid pro quo and Trump told them he wanted nothing in return. Terrible.

Everyone needs to understand that there is ALWAYS contingencies when 100s of millions or billions are given to another country. ALWAYS...

Call them quid pro quo or something else they are there, who would even think of giving another country 400 million and say spend as you like, give us nothing...lol

When Trump says "no quid pro quo" he is very focused on the whole Biden part and that is what he is referring to as in none to attack a political rival and the white elephant in the room that the left wants to just ignore is the fact that while Biden was VP Burisma made his son a multi millionaire for just breathing and I agree with Trump when he said if corruption is there this would be horrible.

We are not talking about paying for a fake dossier that Hillary and DNC orchestrated followed by the Obama administration to weaponize it with FICA warrants all to get Trump out of the way during the election. What we are talking about is looking into corruption, and unfortunately the Biden's are right in that mix, but let the chips fall where they may. An investigation is just that, nothing more or less.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again, I can't speak to how other people see things, but ... here's what I know.

It was the foreign policy of the US in 2014-2016 to provide aid, assistance, weapons, etc. to the Ukraine as a thwart to Russian power in the region. For some godforsaken reason, NATO wants Ukraine as a member. In my mind, that's a really dumb thing for us to have our hands in, but, that's life.

Obama and Biden and many western nations (the EU) were trying to help Ukraine overcome their particular internal challenges. It was exceedingly DUMB for Hunter Biden to take a job with Burisma, and I would argue, that Biden should have then excused himself from any part of the decision-making process. But, he didn't. Dems are ... ill-equipped to make cogent decisions at times, apparently.

Burisma was dumb enough to pay Hunter Biden millions. Also, the owner of Burisma is a pretty obvious crook.

I don't believe that the whole effort by the US and EU 2014-2016 was to provide cover for Hunter Biden. It doesn't make logical sense.

President Trump is a conspriacy theory fan. Rudy Giuliani is a crook. Trump, in my opinion, is not a well person, and I think he made a really bad decision to cut Rudy loose, and Rudy has his own agenda in mind.

That's my read on it.

a reply to: Boadicea

No problem Ms. Bo, you're doing good work here.

Why Trump Asked Ukraine's President About CrowdStrike - AP

Is a decent summary article.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is good. However, that is the presumption of Trump supporters who claim that the President's justification for requesting in investigation into the Bidens is because Biden 1 or Biden 2 did do something wrong.

LOL! There's a huge difference. Trump is not requesting or squelching investigations because he's getting his own personal payday from Burisma. Even Joe made $900,000 off of lobbying fees from Burisma that came out in a previous press conference.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The theory is it was a laundering scheme to enrich themselves through Burisma. An investigation would uncover that. I make no statement on whether it is true or not. That's what I have gotten so far at least, I don't care about theories, I would welcome an investigation and then look at facts though.

a reply to: Deetermined

Biden got $900K while he was Vice President?

Nope.

Of course you see it differently. In your world, Trump is always innocent and Obama is always guilty.

That is, however, non-factual.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

The theory is it was a laundering scheme to enrich themselves through Burisma. An investigation would uncover that. I make no statement on whether it is true or not. That's what I have gotten so far at least, I don't care about theories, I would welcome an investigation and then look at facts though.

The theory has zero evidence. Burisma paid Hunter Biden crazy money obviously because of his last name. Apparently, being associated with American politicians is a matter of great prestige in the Ukraine.

Sure, we're the United States of Investigation now ... what's one more.

originally posted by: Grambler

Time is by no means a right wing source

The fact even they admit that hunter Biden status on Burisma confines to help shield Zlochevsky is amazing

More evidence trump should be investigating Burisma and the Bidens

There are many other sources out there that see a connection with Ukraine and 2016 election to include dealing with the last administration and Hillary all the way back to 2012. The left wants it all to be pushed aside as "nothing to see here folks" but the facts are there even if they want to ignore them. Here is one of many articles by POLITICO, that I think most would say are non-partisan, that is a good read, and why the President just might want Ukraine to look into the 2016 meddling.

POLITICO

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Bo, I don't think you're playing games and the one thing I know about you is that you're always being as direct and truthful as you can.

Thank you! I appreciate that. I try hard to distinguish between what I know, what I don't know and what I cannot know... and, of course, what I believe.

To me, from Sondland's testimony, there is no doubt that there was a clear understanding on the part of all concerned that there were things Ukraine had to do to get the aid package/Javelin sale, the visit to the White House and the call to President Trump. Those things were to open investigations into the Bidens and Burisma and into the "CrowdStrike" server.

I honestly believe that is within the incredible range of powers given to the American President in the Constitution. There's no need to argue the particulars, because what Trump did is not illegal. Abuse of power? Maybe ...

That's how I'm seeing this as well -- on all counts.

But according to her own admission, The Speaker of the House has abused the power of impeachment because she doesn't think Americans are smart enough to make the "right decisions" at the polls.

That was the end of it for me. She's tainted and corrupted the whole process. It literally DOES NOT MATTER what Mr. Trump did or didn't do. The Senate will be quite justified in acquiting the President if this garbage even makes it out of committee to the House.

This is blowing my mind. Absolutely freaking crazy... and desperate. How could she think it's a good idea to tell the voters -- HER voters! -- that they cannot be trusted? I suppose she didn't think they would take it that way. But people know what's good for the goose is good for the gander and you can't claw that back. It might be in their "favor" this time, but the voters know that it will be used against them next time. (Thanks again for telling me about this.)

Also, Schiff looks like a dope fiend ... ANYONE would have been a better choice to lead this crap. He looks blitzed.

I sure wouldn't have picked him to be the face of this. He's one [url=https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/stanley-kubricks-the-shining-at-universals-halloween-horror-nights-2017.jpg?w=780]creepy[/ur l] looking dude, that's for sure!

ETA: I can't get the link to format correctly -- probably cause it's a pic, but I don't know how to post pics. Sorry!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

The theory is it was a laundering scheme to enrich themselves through Burisma. An investigation would uncover that. I make no statement on whether it is true or not. That's what I have gotten so far at least, I don't care about theories, I would welcome an investigation and then look at facts though.

The theory has zero evidence. Burisma paid Hunter Biden crazy money obviously because of his last name. Apparently, being associated with American politicians is a matter of great prestige in the Ukraine.

Sure, we're the United States of Investigation now ... what's one more.

Whether it is true or not is pointless. It was Ukraine that was to investigate, not the US. Biden claimed he wanted Burisma investigated. Burisma was not, and Biden was very happy with the results. That's odd.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Can't argue with any of that. I guess we will see.

I would offer a $2 bet that nothing will come out of any of this that punishes any of the elites on either "side."

Trump is not going to be removed from office. I'd bank on another 4 years of stalemate whatever the details are.

a reply to: Boadicea

Pelosi is [insert expletive screed here, in the most foul and politically incorrect terms].