Trump Amb. to EU Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

That was nothing compared to the outright assault on the process that was executed by Russia as outlined in the Mueller report. I know, I know...

Yep I know

Only interference that hurt Hillary is wrong

No need to investigate foriegn interference if it helped her

Do you honestly not see your own hypocrisy?

Vindman, who was on the call,said there was no doubt what trump meant.
Cooperate or there won't be any visit to the white house.
That sounds like extortion AND abuse of power.

New transcripts release just this past hour.

a reply to: highvein

If realizing that his colleagues were not omitting relevant information that he himself had omitted is what you mean by coerced then yes he was coerced... by the threat of jail time for lying to congress.
There is no mystery as to why he adjusted his testimony.

a reply to: Grambler

You're setting up the hypocrisy in your own mind by taking both your argument and mine and playing it out.
Have fun with that but know it has no basis is actual reality.

I told you the Biden story is dead and that it falls apart without much digging.

You are committed to keeping it alive. Good for you.

Leave me out of it.

a reply to: Sillyolme
You people confuse me

Vindman, who was on the call,said there was no doubt what trump meant.

we can read the transcript of the call
we really don't need anyones english to english translation of such

cause you know it was you crowing about everyone reading the muller report and not trusting barrs interpretation of such?

make up your mind
should we read all of this or just the parts that are bad for trump according to you?

a reply to: shooterbrody

we can read the transcript of the call

No, we can't...
...
...
...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody

we can read the transcript of the call

No, we can't...
...
...
...

How do you propose getting what you feel is the full complete transcript before the committee then?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody

we can read the transcript of the call

No, we can't...
...
...
...

really?
well you may not be able to but I have
sorry for your issue

a reply to: carewemust

Far as I know we can't. Which is why those that were there for the call and testifying under oath are filling in the blanks.

funny that none of the opinions given by the people who only have opinion to give have not disputed the memorandum of the call that was released?
wonder why that was?

this isn't going to work
funny to watch them try tho

a reply to: shooterbrody

The only ones that could have work for the Whitehouse.

Are you outing yourself here?

a reply to: Grimpachi
even the "whistleblower" worked for the "whitehouse" right?

still no one saying the memorandum was incorrect? just their opinion about how to run foreign policy and nobody cares what they think really.
that is the potus' job, not some government worker

what would I be outing about?

a reply to: shooterbrody

The whistleblower was informed of what was going on and brought it to the proper authorities through proper channels.

As far as the memorandum there are people testifying under oath that it is incomplete.

Actually the fact that the Trump administration didn't notify congress of funds being withheld already broke the rules. Nothing was even filled. That already broke foreign policy. Congress approved the funds and Trump withheld them without cause.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody

The whistleblower was informed of what was going on and brought it to the proper authorities through proper channels.

As far as the memorandum there are people testifying under oath that it is incomplete.

Actually the fact that the Trump administration didn't notify congress of funds being withheld already broke the rules. Nothing was even filled. That already broke foreign policy. Congress approved the funds and Trump withheld them without cause.

The whistleblower was informed of what was going on and brought it to the proper authorities through proper channels.

after going through schiff
nice of you to leave that out
and still worked for the "whitehouse" as you alluded to
but was not actually on the call right, just made up bs about what someone else told him, right?

As far as the memorandum there are people testifying under oath that it is incomplete.

nice try again
incomplete is not inaccurate
NO ONE has testified it is inaccurate
lol

Actually the fact that the Trump administration didn't notify congress of funds being withheld already broke the rules.

perhaps you are new to this story? you should check on that, it was done.....
that and breaking the rules is not a constitutional reason for impeachment now is it?

That already broke foreign policy.

are you one of the confused who does not understand who gets to set that?

Congress approved the funds and Trump withheld them without cause.

lol
really
as if the potus can't review what goes on at the pentagon.......you understand he is the cic right?

a reply to: shooterbrody

NO ONE has testified it is inaccurate
lol

Another important detail from Vindman was his recollection about the detail in the phone call record in which Zelenskiy told Trump that prosecutor in the Ukrainian government "will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned."

What Vindman wrote in his notes was that Zelenskiy specified by name the gas company Burisma — the firm that paid Hunter Biden for a time when he had a position on its board.


That detail would confirm the accounts of others in the Ukraine affair, including the account by the intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint set the drama into motion, that Zelenskiy had been primed by other U.S. officials about the need to "play ball" with Trump when the two men spoke.

In short, even though Trump did not say "Burisma," Zelenskiy did — because he already knew what to expect about Trump's request, according to the testimony.

In the official account of the phone call released by the White House, Zelenskiy is described as using the phrase, "the company you mentioned" to Trump.

NPR

as if the company name were an issue

lol

mkay


you actually proved my point

thanks!

a reply to: shooterbrody

as if the company name were an issue

It is. Why would you think it isn't?

a reply to: Grimpachi
there was confusion over the company name?


ahahahahahaha
aaaaaahahahaha

aaaahahahahahah

sure there was pal

sure there was


wow

btw
have you heard of stretch armstrong?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok, whatever.

I already proved that has been testimony the memorandum is inaccurate.


Now you act like a child.

a reply to: Grimpachi
lol
ok
was it some other ukraine gas company that hunter biden was on the board of?
who is actually being childish?

whatever exactly