'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings

[Redwingfan9]

To be more accurate, the people who would have had those direct communications are being prevented from testifying by Donald. Seems like a weird strategy to keep the people who could clear this whole mess up from speaking out publicly, but I can't think of any other explanation.

Bolton and Rudy aren't under the control of the White House. I think it's Trump's position that this whole matter is a political witch hunt that he's not going to aid and abet in any way. I'm not sure this is the best strategy but it's clearly the one he's going with.

 

[JohnAshton]

Yes, requirements for a state visit and weapons in this case are impeachable. It is an assumption held in common by many as to what was desired.

What the President actually did does not eliminate his intent, which is impeachable.

Trump supporters do not get that 'intent' is actionable by impeachment and after office by indictment.

 

[KCfromNC]

Bolton and Rudy aren't under the control of the White House.

Rudy is Donald's personal attorney. And when people with actual positions in the government needed to figure out policy towards Ukraine, they were told to talk with him. If it is Donald's assertion that Rudy isn't under his control, that creates an entirely different set of legal problems for both of them.

I think it's Trump's position that this whole matter is a political witch hunt that he's not going to aid and abet in any way. I'm not sure this is the best strategy but it's clearly the one he's going with.

Until he changes his mind, or the courts step in and compel people to testify, we'll just have to go with the preponderance of the evidence presented against him so far.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it's not... it's one man's assumptions of what was desired, not what the President actually did in point of fact, and likely didn't even desire..

I've seen no evidence presented in the hearings that Donald didn't desire this, and lots that he did.

If Donald wants to testify differently, he's free to do so. Until then, though, the evidence showing otherwise is pretty substantial.

And given his somewhat casual relationship with the truth, even if he did testify he'd need to bring a lot of documentation to back up his claims.

 

[hislegacy]

I'm not sure why anyone who has seen the testimony over the past few days would take such an assertion seriously.

Because it is the truth

You must not know who they are to say such a thing. Both Williams and Vindman were ON THE CALL. Sondland was one of the people who worked with Guilani. ALL of them provided first-hand information under oath.

The media is doing a good job spinning this tale.

 

[hislegacy]

I've seen no evidence presented in the hearings that Donald didn't desire this, and lots that he did.
.

you mean besides the fact testimony of the Presidents own words?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Or realize that the Senate will not remove him from office no matter what the House does, and therefore this is just a political stunt and a distraction from real issues.

Seems like if it’s the Senate who will not act no matter what the evidence turns up, that it is they who are acting out of political interest. Not the House.

 

[iluvatar5150]

you mean besides the fact testimony of the Presidents own words?

Has he given an explanation for why he held up the aid? If so, what was it?

 

[GodLovesCats]

The media is doing a good job spinning this tale.

It is not the media saying anything. They said themselves, under oath, that they were on the July 25 call.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Rudy is Donald's personal attorney. And when people with actual positions in the government needed to figure out policy towards Ukraine, they were told to talk with him. If it is Donald's assertion that Rudy isn't under his control, that creates an entirely different set of legal problems for both of them.


Until he changes his mind, or the courts step in and compel people to testify, we'll just have to go with the preponderance of the evidence presented against him so far.

Rudy doesn't work in the White House and isn't subject to Trump's claims of executive privilege. I'm an attorney and the only thing that might prevent Rudy from testifying is attorney client privilege. In that, he would have to be protecting communications between him and Trump that relate to personal legal situations. I could see where a discussion about impeachment would be protected. However if Trump sent Rudy to Ukraine to obtain information about Biden, I struggle to see how attorney client privilege comes into play. Maybe it would depending on what exactly Rudy was advising Trump on.

The Courts aren't going to compel anyone to testify. If someone ignores a subpoena from Congress then the Congress can hold that person in contempt. However, to prosecute that person Congress needs the Justice Department to step in and prosecute the person in contempt. Because the justice department is controlled by Trump, there won't be a prosecution. A few years ago Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, the GOP couldn't get the Obama administration to prosecute him. The same would be true today, though with the party roles reversed.

 

[Kentonio]

you mean besides the fact testimony of the Presidents own words?

Setting aside for a second the hilariousness of that, you mean the words he refuses to give under oath?

 

[hislegacy]

Setting aside for a second the hilariousness of that, you mean the words he refuses to give under oath?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

View attachment 267004

What is it with this belief on the right that criminals are only guilty if they announce or state the crime they intend to commit?

I really don’t get how the actions taken then and still being taken now by the president and those closest to him aren’t enough to see there’s an obvious guilty party here.

 

[Kentonio]

Sorry but I'd rather smash my face repeatedly into a brick wall than listen to Jim Jordan scream like a scalded toddler. Could you give me a quick summary of what point you're trying to make?

 

[JohnAshton]

Because it is the truth

The media is doing a good job spinning this tale.

Yes, the media is sticking to the facts, and the Trump supporters are painting themselves into a corner.

 

[Kentonio]

Hilarious defence from the White House to Cooper's testimony..

"Cooper has no actual information that Ukraine knew about the hold on the aid.
...This is just an assumption based on Ukraine bringing up the aid. Simply discussing the aid in no way means they knew it was being withheld."

So they didn't know it was being withheld when they asked why their aid hadn't turned up? That's some impressive mental gymnastics!

 

[hislegacy]

Yes, the media is sticking to the facts, and the Trump supporters are painting themselves into a corner.

no, the media is sticking with “presumptions” and hearsay evidence and basically ignoring fact.

 

[JohnAshton]

JohnAshton said: ↑
Yes, the media is sticking to the facts, and the Trump supporters are painting themselves into a corner.

no, the media is sticking with “presumptions” and hearsay evidence and basically ignoring fact.

The evidence definitely underscores the fact that the President created a scenario that is impeachable and very probably criminal in nature.

 

[Kentonio]

no, the media is sticking with “presumptions” and hearsay evidence and basically ignoring fact.

You've had a host of white house appointees testifying and telling you that yes Trump held back aid until the Ukrainian president gave a press conference saying he was investigating 2016 and Burisma/Biden. These people have testified under oath that it was understood by everyone involved what was happening. They have testified under oath about instructions given by Sondland to others about these things, and Sondland has testified that Pence, Perry, Guilliani and Pompeo were all in the loop and knew about this, with Guilliani pushing the President's agenda.

These people have testified under oath knowing that if they are shown to be lying they could face federal prison. Trump and his associates meanwhile are refusing to testify under oath and are simply putting out a series of statements on Twitter and to the media that often change as new evidence proves them untrue.

If you want to believe the guys not willing to put their version to an oath and potentially legal jeopardy then you're welcome to do so of course. But don't be surprised when people think thats quite wildly trusting of you.

 

[Kentonio]

"Holmes is now on to military aid, which he describes as “crucial” in the Ukrainian defensive war against Russia.

Holmes said he traveled to US-run military training facilities in Ukraine with congress members including Republican Elise Stefanik who sits on the committee.

He was “shocked” by the announcement in 18 July of the hold on assistance, Holmes says. The order had come from the president, an OMB official said, and it was conveyed by Mulvaney."

And thats the ballgame folks.