US envoy says Giuliani was given role on Ukraine policy

Associated Press

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Thursday that President Donald Trump directed him and other envoys to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine policy and that he disagreed with the directive.

Gordon Sondland’s closed-door testimony to House impeachment investigators was aimed at distancing himself from Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Sondland said he was disappointed Trump instructed him to work with Giuliani, a directive that sidestepped the role of the State Department and the National Security Council. He also said he believed it was wrong to invite a foreign government to conduct investigations to influence American elections.

Huge news Thursday. First we get acknowledgment of a quid pro quo from the White House, and now we get news of testimony that Trump personally directed Giuliani's actions and asked the State Department employees to cooperate with him.

This is huge for the simple fact that Giuliani recently disclosed that he was on the payroll of foreign nationals, and not paid by the president. He received $500,000 from foreign nationals while he was getting direction from the US president to conduct shadow government operations into political opponents. Furthermore, the president directed those State employees to listen to a non-government personal attorney, who is paid by another government.

Sondland’s attempts to stand apart from Trump and Giuliani are notable since, unlike other career civil servants who have testified in the impeachment inquiry, he is a hand-picked political appointee of the president who contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. His appearance was especially anticipated since the text messages and other witness testimony place him at the center of a foreign policy dialogue with Ukraine that officials feared circumvented normal channels and that is now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry of Trump.

Is there an end to this rabbit hole?

rab·bit hole
noun

2. used to refer to a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself.

a reply to: Oraculi

How was that huge news?

Don’t believe the media look it up for yourself .

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all.
He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion. Some have been exceedingly formal; others completely informal. Many agents have borne commissions like those of Government officers, ensuring them diplomatic rights, dignities and immunities. Because of these circumstances many have mistakenly considered themselves officers. Others have had mere letters of introduction and have enjoyed no diplomatic privileges. Some have gone with no written credentials whatsoever, their errand described only verbally. Their functions have varied in importance from the trivial to the vital.

www.foreignaffairs.com...

originally posted by: Oraculi

Associated Press

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Thursday that President Donald Trump directed him and other envoys to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine policy and that he disagreed with the directive.

Gordon Sondland’s closed-door testimony to House impeachment investigators was aimed at distancing himself from Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Sondland said he was disappointed Trump instructed him to work with Giuliani, a directive that sidestepped the role of the State Department and the National Security Council. He also said he believed it was wrong to invite a foreign government to conduct investigations to influence American elections.

Huge news Thursday. First we get acknowledgment of a quid pro quo from the White House, and now we get news of testimony that Trump personally directed Giuliani's actions and asked the State Department employees to cooperate with him.

This is huge for the simple fact that Giuliani recently disclosed that he was on the payroll of foreign nationals, and not paid by the president. He received $500,000 from foreign nationals while he was getting direction from the US president to conduct shadow government operations into political opponents. Furthermore, the president directed those State employees to listen to a non-government personal attorney, who is paid by another government.

Sondland’s attempts to stand apart from Trump and Giuliani are notable since, unlike other career civil servants who have testified in the impeachment inquiry, he is a hand-picked political appointee of the president who contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. His appearance was especially anticipated since the text messages and other witness testimony place him at the center of a foreign policy dialogue with Ukraine that officials feared circumvented normal channels and that is now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry of Trump.

Is there an end to this rabbit hole?

rab·bit hole
noun

2. used to refer to a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself.

I read the transcript. Please show me where he said in any context, that the President or anyone in his administration actually did that.

Here, I'll do the work for you so that others reading your misrepresented spin tactics aren't confused:

Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong. Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong.

Those are his exact words. He never once suggested that the administration did that, he stated that it would be wrong.

Trump, for the N-teenth time, asked for an investigation into the already open corruption investigations that started before his presidency, into Burisma and how the Biden/Obama administration was involved in it.

Nice try.

~Namaste

Dbl

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Oraculi

How was that huge news?

Don’t believe the media look it up for yourself .

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens.

Thank you for posting that. This is what I was talking about as well.

The president did not employ Giuliani as Giuliani himself stated. He was in the employ of foreign nationals who are agents of another country.

This is a very important distinction.

If the president had actually hired Giuliani, made him a part of the government and had him do things legally and transparently, I'm sure we would be in a different situation.

Then again, had he done that, he would not have been able to run a shadow government behind the scenes.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I read the transcript. Please show me where he said in any context, that the President or anyone in his administration actually did that.

What specifically are you asking for?

I'm genuinely curious. That's the second time you've posted that same response in a thread and it didn't really make sense in the other one either.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne


I read the transcript.

No, you didn't.

What you read is a publicly released opening statement that has been prepared beforehand. What this new breaking news deals with is the actual closed-door testimony and what the people who have been privy to the goings-on have told the press. Hours of testimony are not the same as an opening statement, possibly written in the presence of you know who.

Those transcripts will get released once the investigation is over, as Chairman Schiff indicated. That may take months.

a reply to: Oraculi

You should probably read the link before you reply .

Their missions may be secret, no one whatever being informed of them. They may be open and accompanied by a blare of publicity. Neither their private character nor public attention affects the position of the representative.

Not to mention that you suddenly believe the lying corrupt evil Rudy Giuliani when you choose to . ( friendly sarcasm )

a reply to: Oraculi

Guess what. I will still be voting trump next election even if it's as a write in. I'm behind him 100%.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I read the transcript. Please show me where he said in any context, that the President or anyone in his administration actually did that.

What specifically are you asking for?

I'm genuinely curious. That's the second time you've posted that same response in a thread and it didn't really make sense in the other one either.

Just because you didn't receive or interpret what I said doesn't mean it doesn't make sense... it just doesn't make sense to you.

Try reading my post and looking at the section that is quoted and bolded, or you can resort to responding with nothing of substance... oh wait...

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I was asking because the OP is about closed door testimony from Sondland. Your reply is about the opening statement..

You do realize those aren't the same thing, right?

Lol

a reply to: underwerks

LOL for real.

Are you that blind to your ignorance and that of the OP?

If it's closed door testimony... how in the HELL could the OP or the article being sourced, know a DAMN thing about what was said in the testimony?????????

The entire article IS BASED ON SONDLAND'S OPENING STATEMENT. Did you bother to read the article? Or the transcript from the opening statement that is referenced repeatedly throughout the article?

Geez man, take off the blinders. This about fact finding, not about spin. When looking at the facts of the OP, the only piece that is referred to throughout the article is parts of Sondland's opening statement with related "other events" that have been previously reported, such as text messages that were shown by Volcker.

Dude... seriously?

~Namaste

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne


I read the transcript.

No, you didn't.

What you read is a publicly released opening statement that has been prepared beforehand. What this new breaking news deals with is the actual closed-door testimony and what the people who have been privy to the goings-on have told the press. Hours of testimony are not the same as an opening statement, possibly written in the presence of you know who.

Those transcripts will get released once the investigation is over, as Chairman Schiff indicated. That may take months.

As I already mentioned, the entire article is re-quoting Sondland's statement to Congress. Nothing there is leaked testimony from his appearance behind closed doors, and if it is, how and why was it leaked? That's the more important question to ask, as well as what specifically was leaked in those many many hours of testimony that could be fit into your short AP article.

~Namaste

originally posted by: Oraculi

Associated Press

The U.S. ambassador to the European Union said Thursday that President Donald Trump directed him and other envoys to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine policy and that he disagreed with the directive.

Gordon Sondland’s closed-door testimony to House impeachment investigators was aimed at distancing himself from Trump and Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Sondland said he was disappointed Trump instructed him to work with Giuliani, a directive that sidestepped the role of the State Department and the National Security Council. He also said he believed it was wrong to invite a foreign government to conduct investigations to influence American elections.

Huge news Thursday. First we get acknowledgment of a quid pro quo from the White House, and now we get news of testimony that Trump personally directed Giuliani's actions and asked the State Department employees to cooperate with him.

This is huge for the simple fact that Giuliani recently disclosed that he was on the payroll of foreign nationals, and not paid by the president. He received $500,000 from foreign nationals while he was getting direction from the US president to conduct shadow government operations into political opponents. Furthermore, the president directed those State employees to listen to a non-government personal attorney, who is paid by another government.

Sondland’s attempts to stand apart from Trump and Giuliani are notable since, unlike other career civil servants who have testified in the impeachment inquiry, he is a hand-picked political appointee of the president who contributed $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. His appearance was especially anticipated since the text messages and other witness testimony place him at the center of a foreign policy dialogue with Ukraine that officials feared circumvented normal channels and that is now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry of Trump.

Is there an end to this rabbit hole?

rab·bit hole
noun

2. used to refer to a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself.

Ya think there's any more to that story??? How about: It's been proven that the corrupt previous Ukraine administration was in cahoots with the DNC, FBI and the rest of the corrupt intel agencies trying to dig up and/or create false information against Trump in the 2016 election...Not to mention billions of U.S. dollars missing during that time...

They are now building a new administration with patriotic Ukrainians and like the U.S., they still have a lot of corruption embedded within their gov't...

Trump held up their requested financial aid until he had assurances that the corrupt entities within their gov't were removed or seriously reduced...They did not know Trump was holding up the payment so there definitely was no illegality going on...

When their new administration received the money it was then that they were told of Trump holding up the cash and for what reason...The new president assured Trump they were already cleaning out the Trash before Trump even showed concern...No Quid Pro Quo anywhere at any time...

We have known this for months now...All of a sudden it's big news to you guys now that you can put your own twist on it...

Y.A.L.A.T.
Short and Sweet .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Oraculi

How was that huge news?

Don’t believe the media look it up for yourself .

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all.
He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion. Some have been exceedingly formal; others completely informal. Many agents have borne commissions like those of Government officers, ensuring them diplomatic rights, dignities and immunities. Because of these circumstances many have mistakenly considered themselves officers. Others have had mere letters of introduction and have enjoyed no diplomatic privileges. Some have gone with no written credentials whatsoever, their errand described only verbally. Their functions have varied in importance from the trivial to the vital.

www.foreignaffairs.com...

Nobody seemed to care much that Jared Kushner was Trump's special envoy to the Middle East for a while.

But then, Jared wasn't exposing billion-dollar money-laundering schemes that implicated top Dems.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Rand Paul was a secret envoy to Iran for Trump.

He gave him the job on the golf course at Mar-a-Lago . Lol

All the important business happens on the golf course the Democrats just don’t understand .

I think Trump and Rudy are holding all this back to slam the door on the Democrats impeachment efforts . Rudy could’ve been getting dirty with them as a rat .

I keep thinking about that guy earlier it said Rudy said he wasn’t working for Trump . For the love of god he’s a lawyer. Lying is what lawyers do for a living . 😁

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Oraculi

How was that huge news?

Don’t believe the media look it up for yourself .

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens.

If the president had actually hired Giuliani, made him a part of the government and had him do things legally and transparently, I'm sure we would be in a different situation.

No, we wouldn't. You and the rest of the clan have shown up with a preplanned agenda and a goal to walk the line as close as you can. The intent is to bait others into doing the unhinged things rabid progressives do when they don't get their way.

So no matter what Trump did or does we're going to be right back in this situation. A small cabal of discarded leftist wastrels trying desperately to drag everybody else into the same fetid hole they've carved out for themselves.

a reply to: Iscool

You get it. Not sure why libs cannot understand this. I also suspect biden threw in his hat for candidacy in an attempt to avoid being investigated. He announced his run four days after zelensky won the election. My opinion holds about as much water as the opening post in this thread however.

a reply to: Oraculi

long enough to find another reason to have a non impeachment investigation